A retired Massachusetts chemist had his home raided (without a warrant of course) and his property stolen by authorities. Why?
Experiments. That’s right. He was doing experiments.
Deeb is not accused of making methamphetamine or other illegal drugs. He’s not accused of aiding terrorists, synthesizing explosives, nor even of making illegal fireworks.
Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for Marlboro, stated, â€œI think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.â€
Wilderman thinks he has crossed a line…somewhere. Sounds like reason enough to me. I’m really scared by precedents like this when they go unchecked. It’s a threat not only to people who like to tinker with science as a hobby, but also to people who homeschool and people who may be developing new products or processes in their spare time.
One day it may be illegal to develop WordPress themes, and there won’t be any chemists to stand up for us.
Reader Greg Compton sent this via Twitter–“inspector is a former theatre major“.
At least Massachusetts residents don’t have to worry about getting their doors kicked in during charades night.
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth here, but it seems like the Left (correctly) despises the idea of one man, the President, and more specifically the current President having too much power to regulate. They see this as a dangerous proposition to individual liberty.
I tend to agree.
Why, then, do they seem at the same time to favor giving this same power to a few hundred folks, Congress and the courts? Don’t the same principle and potential abuses apply whether the power is given to one man, one body, or *gulp* one party?
Althouse: Chemerinsky’s idea of “Enhancing Government.”.
So the liberal idea of “Enhancing Government” is about expansive federal regulatory power combined with enthusiasm for regulating business and enforcing federal rights.
I’ll take any motherfucker’s money if they’re giving it away.”
One of the biggest arguments I read against allowing the market to solve problems like health care and fuel costs is that the market simply can’t do it. Why not?
The argument goes that these businesses, along with the pharmaceutical companies, are basically government supported monopolies. They’ve been allowed to run roughshod over the consumer, charging outrageous prices and raking in cash left and right while the average person suffers from their oppression. How did this happen?
The argument goes that politicians are bought and paid for by these companies. They have highly paid lobbyists who influence legislation that allows their industries to thrive, and they have friends in high places that are former board members and/or holders of large portions of their stocks.
According to the argument, the government, politicians, regulatory commissions, and entire bureaucracies are basically extensions of these powerful corporations and are nothing more than puppets held by Wall Street strings. It’s actually a pretty convincing argument, and from what I’ve seen recently seems pretty reasonable.
Now let me get this straight–the solutions to these problems lie in government? According to the argument, isn’t that the cause of the problem to begin with?