Are You Drunk or Just Illegal?

Mayor Moonbeam kinda gets this one right, reinstituting DUI roadblocks that were stopped because they were catching too many illegals without any kind of license or insurance.

If you are going to have these very intrusive DUI checkpoints, you do not stop them just because they net people breaking other laws you prefer not to enforce.

Comments

[TWC]

In California you may forfeit your vehicle for the crime of driving without insurance or without a license. You also may be arrested, fined, or serve jail time for driving without a license and/or insurance (and I don't mean driving with a license that was suspended or revoked by the DMV or a court).

That's a far cry from 30 years ago when driving without insurance or a valid license was a "fix-it" ticket.

[Don]

My wife was hit by a Mexican who was on meth and alcohol.

She's hispanic, and he tried to reason with her in Spanish as a fellow "Mexican" (she's actually from Hollywood, the child of Ecuadrorian parents, both of which are now American citizens).

When they realized the police were on the way, the men who were with the driver left the scene on foot.

When the police arrived, the policewoman asked him to recite his ABCs to test sobriety. The man tried to get out of it by claiming he couldn't speak English. So the policewoman asked him to recite them in Spanish . . .

Aside from that, I've encountered several Mexicans who were driving with a cold brew in the cup holder or their hand. It's legal in Mexico, but they do it one this side of the border as well.

[David]

Weren't these DUI roadblocks declared unconstitutional when they were trotted out in a number of states, including Illinois, Oklahoma and South Dakota?

[Jason Bourne]

TWC,

Unless you're a habitual offender, the cops are generally going to let you slide for either (not that you won't get a ticket, etc., and have to pay up the wazoo for it, but you generally aren't looking at jail time for a first or even second offense - I wouldn't push for a third though). However, the court will likely require - in exchange for its leniency - that you get a license (and that you present evidence of such to the court - often a faxed photocopy will do - all they have to do is look up the license number to see if its valid) and carry insurance for a few years after the incident; you also will likely have to get the insurance company to verify that on occassion over that period that you are maintaining your insurance.

[TWC]

Jason, yes, you are right, most cops are pretty reasonable, but they don't have to be. I know people who have skated, some who have been fined heavily, and others who have lost their cars. That leaves all of them at the mercy of the cop's goodwill.

On the one hand you want to say to them, what the hell is wrong with you? Just take care of business and you won't have these problems. But OTOH, it is reprehensible that some people, like a relative of mine (The Flooze), get mired in the endless system of hoops.

She was ordered by the court to buy car insurance. The fact that she didn't own a car didn't seem to be a factor (yes, it was forfeited). The judge also suspended her driver's license and ordered her not to drive.

I find it especially bizzare that one can actually by a car insurance policy that doesn't do anything except satisfy a court order. It's for non-driver's who don't own a car.

It is always the people at the margins who suffer from this crap. The rest of us generally don't, because we act like grown ups, and swallow the crap we have to because it is easier to swallow than it is to deal with consequences of ignoring government idiocy.

[Warren]

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Further proof that the SCOTUS is illiterate.

[Jason Bourne]

TWC,

Yes, its crap, I admit.

Don,

Your wife is hispanic? Don't tell Lonewacko that; he'll go KKK on your ass.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

You might want to listen to KFI 640 AM in L.A. at 6pm Pacific time today. (If you aren't in the area, you can stream it live here). Hosts John & Ken frequently talk about illegal immigration, and Jerry Brown will be their guest at that time.

[TWC]

A guy had owed me some money for a long time. One day he showed up at my house with a Suzuki 750 in the back of his truck and offered it in payment. I took it.

One boring Sunday, some months later, I messed around with it until I got the thing running, hopped on, took a spin around the neighborhood, and had the bad luck to run into a Deputy Sheriff taking a shortcut from the main drag to the substation.

He was very understanding while he was writing the ticket and assured me that although he COULD seize the bike he was not going to do that.

It cost me well over 300.00 for riding without a Class 4 motorcycle license and for riding a bike without current registration or insurance. On top of that, I was fined again at the DMV when I registered the bike.

In the old days that incident would have cost me a couple of hours at the DMV, a few minutes to track down a cop to sign off the ticket, and a stamp to mail the signed off ticket to the court.

And had these dramatic changes and onerous penalties actually accomplished anything in terms of highway safety, insurance compliance, and making sure that everyone on the road had a real driver license, I might not think it so asinine.

[Ken Shultz]

"In California you may forfeit your vehicle for the crime of driving without insurance or without a license. You also may be arrested, fined, or serve jail time for driving without a license and/or insurance (and I don't mean driving with a license that was suspended or revoked by the DMV or a court)."

That's a far cry from 30 years ago when driving without insurance or a valid license was a "fix-it" ticket.

30 years ago, drivers in California weren't required by law to carry insurance.

Although people should be held responsible if they unjustly deprive you of your property, they should not be forced to insure themselves against your potential losses. When you buy insurance, you're protecting yourself. There isn't a law anywhere on the books preventing you from buying a policy to protect yourself in case you're hit by someone who doesn't have insurance. If you want such coverage, buy it; don't expect other people to buy it for you.

[Ken Shultz]

"Your wife is hispanic? Don't tell Lonewacko that; he'll go KKK on your ass."

Ha!

[Dan]

Although people should be held responsible if they unjustly deprive you of your property

The problem is that there is no way of forcing people to pay you for the damages they have inflicted on you; they can always weasel out of it through bankruptcy.

they should not be forced to insure themselves against your potential losses

They should be forced to prove that they can be responsible for potential liability. Driving means endangering the lives and property of others. It is entirely reasonable to force any and all people who wish to drive cars to prove that they are financially capable of paying for harm to the health or property of others. Should they be forced to buy insurance? Perhaps not; perhaps they should be allowed to put up a $100,000 bond against future liability, instead.

There isn't a law anywhere on the books preventing you from buying a policy to protect yourself in case you're hit by someone who doesn't have insurance

I should not have to pay an insurer in order to be guaranteed my rights; it is the job of the state to protect those rights.

[Ken Shultz]

If you're concerned about someone damaging your property and hiding behind bankruptcy laws, then you should insure your property.

California drivers are required to carry liability insurance sufficient to cover $30,000 in injuries and $5,000 in property damage. If you want to drive around in a car with a value of over $5,000, do it on your own dime.

Insuring your personal property against damage isn't the job of the state. If someone damages your property and can't pay to fix or replace it, by all means, seek justice in court.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Jason Bourne: Your wife is hispanic? Don't tell Lonewacko that; he'll go KKK on your ass.

I must have missed this earlier. That's a cute comment coming from someone using an obvious fake name. Do you have a site or a name? Or, are you only able to smear when using a fake name?

[Andy D]

"They should be forced to prove that they can be responsible for potential liability."

Dan, no. What's so special about cars except they tend to cause more damage than other potentially damaging activities? I could be walking down the street some day not watching where I'm going... and bump into some old lady who breaks her hip when she falls down... what if there's no way I could pay those kind of medical bills? Should the state make us all get walking insurance too? Or if I carelessly throw a cigarette butt and it starts a fire... maybe I should be prosecuted for such recklessness, but I don't think mandatory smoking insurance is a good idea.

Driving is a risky endeavor... insure yourself.

[Dan]

Dan, no. What's so special about cars except they tend to cause more damage than other potentially damaging activities

That is what's so special about them.

I could be walking down the street some day not watching where I'm going...

Yeah, whatever. That's like arguing that if people are allowed to have guns they should logically be allowed to own their own nuclear weapons too. The magnitude of the potential damage matters, and so do the odds of causing damage.

Insuring your personal property against damage isn't the job of the state.

Correct; it's the job of people who are endangering my property -- other drivers. It is obvious that I should only be responsible for damage that *I* cause, not damage caused by others.

If someone damages your property and can't pay to fix or replace it, by all means, seek justice in court.

There is no justice in court; bankruptcy law prevents it. I tell you what, though -- I'll support the repeal of mandatory insurance laws if they're replaced with mandatory indentured servitude for debtors.

[eponymous]

Dan's right, driving a car is much more akin to exercising the privilege of toting a loaded assault rifle than to smoking a cigarette

in our present day of collective risk-spreading, some responsibilities require government enforcement

we libertarians need to focus on preserving the very existence of anything like the american way in the face of democratic pressures to socialize our economy, instead of harping on some token anachronisms like the right to let your horse shit in the gutter, ride helmetless or flee the scene of an accident

[eponymous]

and i'll shoot the next horse i witness fleeing the scene of an accident

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Addendum: I've noticed that the person or persons using the names "Ken Shultz," "Jason Bourne," and "thoreau" seem to have a bit of an obsession with me. I frequently comment here, and they likewise frequently attempt to smear me even on threads that I haven't yet commented on. An example is provided by "Jason Bourne" above.

Now, why would they do that?

The answer is quite clear: I post information that they know they disagree with, but they have no opposing argument. So, they resort to smears. Since I oppose the Open Borders ideas that some at Reason float, you get smears like the one above.

Apparently, they object to things like my evisceration of the Open Borders plan presented here. (See the third comment).

Or, perhaps they object to links like Al-Qaida recruiting local U.S. gang ties. Or, maybe it's Time Magazine's cover story Who Left the Door Open? Maybe pointing out racist L.A. Times editorials like "Pouty White People" is what does it.

Whatever it is, perhaps they could find someone to make an argument for them rather than continuing to discredit the names they use.

[Andy D]

"It is obvious that I should only be responsible for damage that *I* cause, not damage caused by others."

While that's a nice idea, it's just not realistic. People have the potential to cause much more damage than they'll ever be capable of paying for.

And who wants an indentured servant, especially one who's caused you harm?

But it's not like I think that paying for the damage to yourself caused by others is the first best option. Best would be for them to have insurance, next would be for them to pay with their own money, then for you to have your insurance pay for it... and last to eat the cost yourself.

As for matters of scale of potential damage... yes, that matters with things like nuclear bombs. But what needs to be weighed here is the personal cost of insuring your own property and health, vs. having the government trying to force all drivers to buy insurance. I don't think that the scale here justifies such an intrusion into the free market, with all the pitfalls that entails.

And since you brought guns into it... hell, guns can cause a hell of a lot of damage too... so... required gun insurance?

[Russ D]

eponymous, collective risk-spreading IS socializing the economy.

[Ken Shultz]

Suggesting that Jason Bourne, thoreau and I are the same person is entirely preposterous; the suggestion that thoreau would unduly attack anyone is even more ridiculous still. thoreau is as conscientious as anyone who posts on this board; if he went after you at some point in the past, then it must have been for some reason other than to simply discredit his name.

But again with the credibility, huh? It's always about credibility with you, isn't it? Here's what I posted in response to your credibility blurb last time:

"You should listen to Lone Wacko, "readers", because I may, in fact, be insane, which, of course, would mean that I don't have any credibility. As evidence of my insanity, please note that credibility, relatively speaking, isn't all that important to me; I'm much more interested in facts and errors. That is to say, I'm not as concerned with whether or not the information I get is from a source I can trust as much as I'm concerned with whether the information I get is true or false. Most of my sources have a technique they use, and I tend to get really caught up in it; the technique is called questions and answers...

...and speaking of questions and answers, I couldn't help but notice that Lone Wolf still hasn't answered some pretty big questions. There were three easy ways for Lone Wolf to make a fool of me. First, he could have written a statement to the effect that Adolf Hitler should be universally despised, specifically, for having murdered more than five million Jews. Secondly, he could have written a statement to the effect that he has no personal affinity, whatsoever, for the separation of different races. Thirdly, he could have denied being one of the few people who want all of the "illegals" rounded up...

...but, apparently, Lone Wacko just couldn't bring himself to do any of that.

There's an even simpler question I've asked Lone Wolf in the past; like the others, he's chosen to leave it unanswered. I don't know why. Can a lack of credibility affect the validity of a question? I don't think that's possible; but even if it is, I'm going to ask that simple question once again...

Lone Wacko, are you a neo-Nazi?

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/09/bandow_bashes_b.shtml

I can't speak for Jason Bourne or thoreau, but I'll be happy to tell you why I keep asking the same questions over and over.

You seem to have local knowledge of the area around Fallbrook, CA. Fallbrook is a well known haven for neo-Nazis and neo-Nazi propaganda, and, to my eye, the policies you espouse are virtually indistinguishable from the "Third Position" of neo-Nazis in Fallbrook. The name LoneWacko, furthermore, is remarkably similar to the term "Lone Wolf", which is a well known tactic espoused by the leader of the neo-Nazi movement in Fallbrook.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Metzger.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=7

(Those of you who click the link to the Anti-Defamation Leauge above, please note the "Lone Wolf Theory" heading.)

These things have led me to suspect that you might be; indeed, these things have led me to ask you a series of questions that, unless I'm mistaken, you have, so far, chosen to ignore. Rather than being obsessed with discrediting myself, I keep asking you the same questions because I want to know the answers. So I'm begging--it's really easy to make a fool of me here--just answer the following questions:

Do you have any affinity, whatsoever, for the separation of different races? Will you make a statement to the effect that Adof Hitler should be universally despised for having murdered more than five million Jews? Are you a neo-Nazi?

[aaa]

aaa

[Ken Shultz]

In some ways, driving around in an $80,000 car and expecting everyone else to insure is like having a child and expecting everyone else to support it.

[Guy]

I don't think mandatory smoking insurance is a good idea.

Great job dude. When the anti-tobacco lobby trots this out in 6 months we'll know who to thank..

so... required gun insurance?

Aaaah. Duuude, shut up!

[rst]

Now, why would they do that?

It's called Hit and Run, bitch. Grow some skin.

[TWC]

Ken, Fallbrook is more well known for its acres and acres of avocados (lots more avocados than nazis), its lovely climate, and quiet rural lifestyle than the fact that one well known neo-nazi set up shop there for a while.

In So Cal there are only twelve people who don't hate illegals and that is often interpreted as racism (or, choose your term, but you know what I mean). Often it is racism, but just as often it just means that people tend to believe John & Ken on KFI and blame all the social ills in Ca on illegal immigration (if they'd just keep the illegals out there would be more freeways).

While the thrust of your remark about mandatory insurance is correct, ie, there was some point in the distant past when insurance wasn't mandatory in Californicate, 30 years ago it was, indeed, mandatory.

Oh, and I think that's an idiotic and worthless law, particularly since at any given time a significant number of drivers are uninsured (and without licenses).

[TWC]

Andy, I don't think it is unrealistic to expect people to take responsibility for the damages they cause. That is a pretty basic libertarian postiion.

OTOH, in the real world some people can't or won't take reponsibilty for their actions, which is why, in the case of vehicles, we buy 'uninsured motorist' insurance to protect us from the flakes.

The huge costs of enforcement in terms of police, court, and administrative resources and the ongoing lack of compliance is further evidence that mandatory insurance doesn't work.

In the end, those who would buy insurance anyway comply with the law and the rest of the populace ignores it, which does nothing to protect you or I.

[Stupendousman!]

Um... isn't the real issue the fact that some people are upset that illegal aliens are being held to the same standard as citizens?

The people in question:

Are here illegally

Are driving without a license

Are driving without insurance

And some one is defending them!?!

[Ken Shultz]

I'm fairly familiar with the Fallbrook area, and, in spite of all the avocados and in spite of the fact that most of the good people of Fallbrook aren't neo-Nazis, I'll stay tuned for Lone Wolf's response to my questions...

...no sarcasm intended.

As I recall, the law requiring California residents to carry liability insurance took effect shortly after I moved to North County in the mid-'80s.

In regards to your last comment, I too think it's irresponsible for people to drive around without liability insurance. But, and I suspect you'll agree, just because something is irresponsible doesn't mean it should be against the law. Adultery, for instance, is downright irresponsible, and marketing tobacco isn't the most noble profession I can think of; but that doesn't mean that these things should be against the law.

...and in the case of auto insurance, you can buy coverage for non-insured motorists if you want it. In fact, and I haven't looked closely at my insurance bill lately, I think it's by far the smallest portion of my payment behind comprehensive coverage...

...but like I said, regardless, other people shouldn't be forced to pay to insure your property any more than you should be forced to pay to support other people's children.

[eponymous]

no doubt Russ D, and certain commons must be lived with for the time being

to minimize the tragedies attendant thereto, responsiblilities must be mandated

you can lament federally regulated airport security (and traffic control for that matter) all you want, but for now it makes sense to enforce compliance by all who want to use the system

same for the low standard of nut who seems to have the economic means and chutzpa to drive in this country

[The Lonewacko Blog]

What's Ken Shultz' problem?

On 8/30/04 12:42pm I posted this:

You might want to check out (WARNING: link to Telegraph UK ahead) Islam is not an exotic addition to the English country garden. That describes Shariah-friendly banking in the UK, and how Wahhabis are involved with HSBC.

On 8/31/04 1:05AM on the same thread, Ken Shultz says this about my comment:

I'm not the one who suggested, completely out of context, that Semitic peoples are infiltrating the international banking system.

Huh? Anyone who reads my comment or the link can see that Ken Shultz' reply is crazy talk. Clearly, something is quite wrong with Ken Shultz. What exactly could that be?

Please speculate below.

[Ken Shultz]

Non-denial denial...Something's wrong with Ken..blah blah blah...

[Don]

Ken, Fallbrook is more well known for its acres and acres of avocados (lots more avocados than nazis), its lovely climate, and quiet rural lifestyle than the fact that one well known neo-nazi set up shop there for a while.

In fact, my hispanic wife broke down on I-15 North near Fallbrook. It took me at least an hour and a half to drive to her aid, after she called me. We then took her VW Fox to a Fallbrook gas station where they did a good, honest job (they could have ripped us off). We didn't encounter any neo-Nazis or KKK.

Wasn't Metzger (or whatever he was called) KKK? I realize they have ties to neo-Nazis, but I don't think they are quite the same thing.

[Ken Shultz]

Don,

The link from the Anti-Defamation League that I posted above spells it all out in detail.

Duke and Metzger, according to the link, were rivals. I had thought WAR was now mostly involved in propaganda, etc., but, unfortunately, it looks like there's more to it than that. Check out the link; it's a fun read.

I've been looking this particular monster in the face for a long time. Where I grew up in Maryland, I didn't know we had KKK either. Then one day a black family moved into our neighborhood. Within a few days, there was a cross burning in the those poor people's front yard. They'd worked their whole lives to get out of the ghetto and they had finally made it. The man of the house couldn't talk his wife into staying after the cross burning; they had to give up the house. My family knew those people; they went to our church.

When I got out of prep school in Virginia, and I came out to SoCal, early to mid-80's, I was into Punk Rock in a big way. Punk was fragmenting at the time; people were either goin' thrash or skinhead. The skinheads had just started showing up in the neighborhood, and that's when I started to hear about WAR. Back then, when I was still a kid, my friends and I, we could get kind of rowdy, and these kinds of confrontations with racist Skins, etc. weren't just an interesting argument on a message board. It was mostly kid stuff, bullies meeting bullies, etc., but sometimes it could get...exciting.

Even apart from the kids, though, North County was ripe with this kind of thing. I remember, it must have been 1986 or so, there was this girl who supposedly got raped by a bunch of Mexicans. The cops in Ramona arrested every single male Mexican on the street. When pressed, the girl who had supposedly been raped confessed that she had made the whole thing up because she didn't want to tell her father that her boyfriend had gotten her pregnant.

Sounds like "To Kill a Mockingbird", doesn't it?

The last time I was in North Country I heard some old people talking about the Skinheads in Fallbrook; way back when, old people didn't even know what a skinhead was. My old friends tell me that things have gotten better since we were kids. I've certainly grown up since then. But I get the itch to argue when I see someone who appears to be from that area working so hard to put an anti-immigrant spin on everything they see. When I see what looks like, hear what sounds like, and smell what stinks like the same old shit, I've just gotta ask.

Silence is interpreted as condoning this kind of thing...

...and who can blame me for asking? I have to wonder why can't I get an answer. I've even offered to apologize for asking if I could just get an answer, but...nothing.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Ken Shultz, sounding a bit like Joe McCarthy with a BAC of .2%: Nor am I the one who, on the 27th [of August --LW], wrote that the government of Mexico is conspiring to help Mexican nationals sue us over the use of paint balls.

Yes, indeed I did. In fact, while Ken Shultz has a knack for getting everything wrong, he seems to have passed this attempt at reading comprehension. See the San Diego Union-Tribune report Mexico may sue U.S. over pepper-ball projectiles which starts with the following: Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said Tuesday his government will consider helping migrants sue U.S. officials for improper use of so-called "pepper ball" non-lethal projectiles...

So, any psychiatrists out there have any theories?

[Ken Shultz]

In regards to my reading comprehension problem, please note that I wasn't quoting the article you linked; I was quoting you.

You wrote, "Mexico is already threatening to help its citizens sue us over our use of non-lethal paintball weapons." (emphasis added)

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/smiles_we_dont.shtml

...and as long as we're on the topic, you mischaracterized my statement on On 8/31/04 1:05AM. Those of you who are sick enough to follow this, please note that the Hit & Run server went down around the date in question, and when the server came back up, the time sequences on many of the comments were out of order. For instance, my post dated August 30, at 10:46 AM, if not the very first post in the thread, was very near the top. When they brought the server back up, however, that comment was sitting much farther down in the thread.

http://reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/french_resolve.shtml

With this in mind, let's proceed. In my comment dated August 31 at 1:05 AM, I wrote, "But I'm not the one who suggested, completely out of context, that Semitic peoples are infiltrating the international banking system."

I don't completely understand your objection regarding this comment, so I'll offer an answer to what I think it might be.

This is a reaction to your comment, which I think was actually your first post in the thread, currently stamped August 30 at 12:42 PM, in which you wrote, "You might want to check out...Islam is not an exotic addition to the English country garden. That describes Shariah-friendly banking in the UK, and how Wahhabis are involved with HSBC."

Your comment being out of synch with the time stamp is demonstrated by joe's subsequent reply which is currently dated before your comment; joe's reply is stamped August 30 at 2:48 AM and reads in part, "When I want interpretations of the Koran... What, Wacko, is the connection between that article and my point?"

I'd cite joe's response as evidence that your comment was completely out of context, but I'd rather just point out that the subject of the thread was terrorists demanding that the French change their policy regarding the wearing of head scarves in school. So in regards to my contention that your comment was out of context, I have to confess, I still don't see what HSBC making Sharia friendly banking available to Muslims has to do with anything in the thread.

I would point out that the term Semitic covers Arabs as well as Jews, but I doubt you're pretending not to know that, so I won't even respond to it as a possible objection. You did see the word suggest in my original statement, didn't you?

As long as we're quoting each other, I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out that in another thread, you wrote,

"But, none of this matters, but I've just invented a wonderful way to solve all this bickering about outsourcing, mass immigration, and the like. We simply hold people - and their descendents - responsible for their actions. For instance, maybe reparations aren't such a bad idea after all. What if the North had said to the South, "OK, you can have your slavery. However, all you plantation owners - and anyone else who supports or profits directly from slavery - shall be held responsible for your actions. And, that will apply to your descendents as well. In fact, we're going to implant you with RFID chips so we can make sure to find you when the shiat hits the fan." And, best of all, it would have been a market solution."

I've seen you use the word "swiftian" to describe this statement. I'm a big fan of Swift; hell I'm all but a disciple of Swift, and I've gotta tell you, I don't see it. In fact, to my ear, there isn't a satirical note in your whole song. It looks to me as though, if you can't have it your way, it's something you might not mind settling for.

[Ken Shultz]

The link for that "swiftian" quote of yours was:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/employeedriven.shtml

[Ken Shultz]

By the way, I don't think the McCarthy comparison sticks. Unlike in the McCarthy hearings, I'm not a Senator, you're not under subpoena and the result of confessing is almost entirely insignificant.

So are you a neo-Nazi or something?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Dear Reader:

Unfortunately, someone using the name "Ken Shultz" is following me from thread to thread at Reason, attempting to misinterpret and twist my comments to make me look bad. If I say one thing, and someone pretends that I said something else, I'm relying on the reader to be able to see who's telling the truth and who isn't. Most people, when they realize they have been shown to have no credibility, would stop, but not Ken Shultz. The goal here seems to be an attempt to prevent me from commenting here or besmirch my name. The first, as can be seen, isn't working, and the second won't work as long as the reader is able to recognize Ken Shultz' rantings for what they are.

Unfortunately, many of the Reason archives had their URLs changed and at the same times some of the comments have been rearranged in some posts.

This thread might prove enlightening. The order of the comments seems to be correct.

In the first comment, I say the following:

Mexico is already threatening to help its citizens sue us over our use of non-lethal paintball weapons. That follows anti-Border Patrol remarks made by Presidential Nephew George P. Bush in Mexico about those non-lethal, rarely-used weapons. So, now we're going to put up signs encouraging people to complain? ...Those of you able to control your knees long enough to do some research will probably end up agreeing with Showalter's comments.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable comment to me. If anyone has a problem with that comment other than Ken Shultz, please let me know. The first link is to a Michelle Malkin piece; in the comment I had a bad link, but it should have been easy enough to figure out.

Nevertheless, in the following comments, Ken Shultz goes off the deep end. He doesn't respond to the comments I made, he responds to something else. Perhaps he responded to the voices in his head or perhaps he's just projecting, I don't know. But, as can be seen clearly, Ken Shultz is not responding to what I wrote. Instead, he starts engaging in cheap smears.

Here's the older text:

I'm not the one who suggested, completely out of context, that Semitic peoples are infiltrating the international banking system.

Hi everybody else! It appears to me that Ken has gone off the deep end, so I'm going to address the rest of you instead. In the above quote, Ken seems to be responding to the voices in his head, as that's not what I wrote nor is it what the article I linked above (to the Telegraph UK) says.

I've noted this problem Ken has before. I'll say something, and then Ken will respond as if I said something entirely different in what appears to be a rather pathetic attempt to make me look bad. For example, as we see here, Ken described an offshoring project. In order to make a point, I asked him what technologies were involved. For one reason or another, he not only refused to answer the question, he seems to have, well, responded in what I would consider a crazy manner.

Nor am I the one who, on the 27th, wrote that the government of Mexico is conspiring to help Mexican nationals sue us over the use of paint balls.

Dear Ken's minders: The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a report entitled Mexico may sue U.S. over pepper-ball projectiles which starts with the following: Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said Tuesday his government will consider helping migrants sue U.S. officials for improper use of so-called "pepper ball" non-lethal projectiles...

Nor am I the one who, on the 24th, suggested that the decedents of Southerners should have been held responsible for supporting the decedents of the slaves they imported as a deterrent to importing slaves. (http://reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/employeedriven.shtml )

I realize, unfortunately, that a few of Reason's readers aren't exactly Mensa candidates. However, as I suggested at that link, if you read my comment through a few times it might help you understand it. As I said, this was a "Swiftian thing" intended to make the point that people in power frequently make choices that affect large groups of people negatively and are able to isolate themselves from those negative affects. If people in power knew they would be held responsible for their choices, they would no doubt make better choices. Does anyone else see a problem with an argument of this nature? That is, making such an argument in and of itself?

I believe the reader will see that Ken - at the least - has no credibility. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether he's in fact sane or not.

[Ken Shultz]

You should listen to Lone Wacko, "readers", because I may, in fact, be insane, which, of course, would mean that I don't have any credibility. As evidence of my insanity, please note that credibility, relatively speaking, isn't all that important to me; I'm much more interested in facts and errors. That is to say, I'm not as concerned with whether or not the information I get is from a source I can trust as much as I'm concerned with whether the information I get is true ...

...Wait a second...I've already written that once! In fact, I copied it from the last time I wrote it in another thread and pasted it above, earlier in this very thread!

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? By my eye, you seem to be propagating xenophobia. That is to say, it seems to me, that even if you aren't a neo-Nazi on some kind of self-appointed, Lone Wolf, propaganda mission, what you write, to my eye, often appears to be exactly what a self-appointed, neo-Nazi, Lone Wolf on a propaganda mission would write. Whenever I see someone propagating xenophobia, I denounce it. I've been doing it for years and I'm going to keep doing it until the day I die regardless of whether it's coming from you or someone else--don't flatter yourself.

That doesn't mean I won't try to reason with someone first, but my reasoning with you only elicited a dismissal of my arguments, not based on their merits, but based on my supposed lack of intelligence, sanity and credibility.

Considering that you exhibit, what appears to be, an outright fascination with immigration issues, an interest in the banking practices of HSBC and considering the apparent ease with which you make flippant suggestions about issues of slavery, considering your call name is remarkably similar to the term "Lone Wolf", the name for a tactic advocated by a neo-Nazi propagandist who hails from an area of the country you seem to be somewhat familiar with, considering all this, I find myself curious about the answers to a couple of questions.

Are you a neo-Nazi? If you aren't, are you willing to write something to the effect that Adolf Hitler should be universally despised, specifically, for having murdered more than five million Jews, or will you, at least, disavow yourself of any affinity for the separation of different races?

P.S. I still don't think a lack of credibility can affect the validity of a question.