On July 25, 2020, libertarian activist Garrett Foster stood his ground: With his wheelchair-bound wife nearby, and his rifle held at “low-ready” position, he told a driver who had run a red light and driven into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters in Austin Texas, to “move along.”

The driver, Daniel Perry, proceeded to shoot Foster three times with a pistol, killing him, then claimed “self-defense” and protection under the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Police apparently bought Perry’s “self-defense” claim, but a prosecutor didn’t, and neither did the 12 jurors who unanimously convicted Perry of the murder in  early April 2023.

Why? Perhaps it had to do with Perry’s prior social media messaging:

“I might have to kill a few people on my way to work …”

“I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

“Send [protesters] to Texas we will show them why we say you don’t mess with Texas.”

He even speculated, in a Facebook chat, that he could get away with it by, you guessed it, claiming “self-defense.”

Daniel Perry is no Kyle Rittenhouse, who made a poor decision to visit Kenosha, Wisconsin, but was rightly acquitted on charges of murder after defending himself from violent attackers.

Nor is Perry a Michael Drejka, imprisoned for manslaughter in Florida for defending himself from a violent attacker.

Perry’s just a cold-blooded killer who publicly fantasized about murdering protesters, pre-fabricated a bogus “self-defense” claim, went through with his scheme, and couldn’t sell his garbage defense to a jury.

Perry has yet to take any responsibility for his actions, or express remorse, or demonstrate the possibility that he might ever stop posing a clear and present danger to the public.

But, hey, it was a Black Lives Matter rally.

So, naturally, Texas governor Greg Abbott has indicated his intent to pardon the courageous killer of an “antifa terrorist,” decrying the killer’s purely political persecution by a “Soros-backed” prosecutor.

Is Abbott plotting a presidential run? Or jockeying for a cabinet position in a future Republican administration?

Those two possibilities — both instances of “owning the libs to please my base” — seem like the only plausible explanations for his plan to put a known, confessed, convicted killer back on the streets among a law-abiding public whose population that killer has already reduced by one.

If Abbott was a Democratic governor pulling these kind of shenanigans in the name of “criminal justice reform,” Republicans would rightly have his hide.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In early April, Twitter added a “State-Affiliated Media” tag to National Public Radio’s account on the social media platform, putting it in the same league as Russia’s RT, China’s Xinhua, and other government-funded “news” outlets.

Within a few days, under withering criticism from, among others, NPR CEO Jack Lansing (who came to NPR after running other US state-affiliated media such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe), Twitter backed off a bit and changed NPR’s label to “Government Funded.”

What’s the difference? There isn’t one.

As Twitter owner Elon Musk pointed out, it “seems accurate” to class NPR with other “outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.”

Oddly, French (France 24), Canadian (CBC) and British (BBC) state-affiliated media outlets don’t seem to have been caught up in Twitter’s labeling net. NPR makes the same claims to “editorial independence” as those outfits, but those claims are, in each and every case, risible.

NPR was established by an act of Congress. Its member stations all operate under license from the Federal Communications Commission, and receive special tax treatment as “non-profits.”

While NPR no longer receives the majority of its funding directly from government, it hews rigidly to a “mainstream” narrative as set forth by the American political class, and buckles every time its funding is threatened by politicians for coloring outside the lines set by the current ruling party.

He who pays the piper calls the tune, and NPR’s tune ranges from pro-US-regime heavy metal to elevator music versions of the same songs.

RT’s commentators will sometimes “criticize” the Kremlin’s policy line, but only in terms of urging the regime to do what it’s already doing only  faster and more vigorously. NPR reliably “criticizes” the US regime in the same way.

FDR once told a group lobbying him on behalf of a reform they wanted, “you’ve convinced me — now go out and bring pressure on me.”

The mission of state-affiliated media is to “bring pressure” on the US government to do what it’s already doing. Want to know what the American political establishment thinks — and wants you to support? Just tune in to the daily episodes of “Morning Edition” or “All Things Considered.”

If NPR doesn’t want to be state-affiliated media, it should give up that government funding and start exercising real editorial independence.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Now That Weed is Mostly Legal,” reads the headline to a piece by Aryn Baker at Time, “Hemp Should Be Booming. But It’s Not.”

Why?

Contra Baker’s claim that hemp is “a close cousin of marijuana,” and not as useful as advertised,  it IS marijuana — the same plant — and it’s incredibly useful for making everything from paper to rope to diesel fuel to beauty and nutrition products.

In point of fact, major reasons for making it illegal as a “drug”  included lobbying by Big Oil (Henry Ford designed an engine that ran on hemp-based fuel rather than gasoline) and newspaperman William Randolph Hearst, who just happened to own multiple wood-pulp paper mills (and who used his papers to inveigh in racially charged terms against “devil weed”).

Now that both “marijuana” and “industrial hemp” are legal in many places, why isn’t the latter taking off?

If you have to ask why, the answer is usually “money.”

According to Leaf Nation,  hemp fiber sells for $250-300 per ton, while the seeds sell for 60 to 65 cents per pound.

According to Green Growth, the wholesale price of “cannabis flower” — aka “marijuana” — runs in the range of $1,200 per pound.

And as a farmer, you probably have to choose one or the other.

Both plants are heavily regulated/licensed.

If you’re growing “hemp,” its level of THC (the main “getting high” cannabinoid) content can’t exceed 0.3%.

If you’re growing “marijuana,” you’re probably optimizing for higher levels of THC — as much as 25% or more.

Since they’re the same plant, growing the two within cross-pollination proximity will bring your hemp THC levels up, your “marijuana” THC levels down, and expose you to double the level of intrusive government permitting and inspection inconvenience.

Quick high school business math question:

Would you rather knock down $250-$300 per ton, or $1,200 per pound, for the same product?

Pick one.

The only way to unlock the commercial potential of “industrial hemp” is to COMPLETELY “free the weed.” Government needs to stop regulating the THC content of,  and do away with licensing requirements for the sale of, cannabis.

Does that mean some people will use plain old Mary Jane, instead of expensive  boutique strains, as medicine or to get high?

Yes.

Just like they already are, only at somewhat higher cost/risk.

The war on “marijuana” was always dumb and evil — and it’s still picking your pocket in the form of higher prices for lower-quality products of all kinds.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY