Freezerbox: Private Ryan, Amnesiac
Got this from the ACLU - I'm on their Action Alerts e-mail list:
Eminent domain is, at it's best, the government forcing you to sell your property for a fair price, because the land can be put to better use for everyone (like building a hiway through it). However, lots of states use eminent domain to take your land, pay you a pittance for it, then sell it to developers who turn it into a luxury hotel. This is wrong - I don't give a good god damn what the gomerals and imbeciles who call themselve state Supreme Court Justices say or think. Taking someone's land because someone else can build something that brings in more taxes is evil. Honest politicians tell you they're raising taxes and take their lumps - cowards and subhumans take your land and get their goons to make it legal.
That being said, it looks like the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court - I'm not sure if I'm happy or worried. The issue will be decided for a while (until something comes up to make the precedent useless), but the way the Supreme Court has been interpretting the Constitution of late, I'm not sure I want that pack of thieving illiterati telling me what the 5th Amendment means - they certainly don't know what the 1st, 2nd, 9th, or 10th mean...
BTW, if you live in Connecticut, I'd be thinking of selling and moving now, before the Governor comes to your house with a check for $100 and a bulldozer...
OregonLive.com: NewsFlash - Court takes on question of seizing land
I've been thinking a bit about diversity lately, and have come to the conclusion that diversity as it is enforced in our schools and companies is a farce. We're trying to make sure there is a diverse population that mirrors our American society, but doing it by surface values, not by the things that make us diverse in the first place.
We enforce diversity by looking at:
But not by looking at:
We pay lip service to diversity, but don't actually provide for diverse populations. The recent primary election in Washington should provide some backing for this.
In this election, for the first time in 70 years in Washington, people had to pick a party in the primary (former primaries were blanket primaries, meaning voters could vote for whoever they wanted to in any party - in other words, a baby general election). Results from this primary were fairly consistent - Republicans and Democrats got 98-99% of the vote, and Libertarians got the remaining 1-2%. These results were consistent whether it was a statewide race (governor, senator, etc) or local races (county reps and such), which helps to normalise the diverse population of the state and each individual political unit.
What does this show, you ask? Well, there's one more piece of background info - this is the first election in Washington that the Libertarian party had major party status (i.e. they were called out on the primary ballot as a party - there were no Greens, Socialists, or other parties on the ballot). For the first primary ever, Washingtonians had a third choice, a third way of looking at things, a third ideology to apply to the problems of the day. And the diverse Washington population still followed the sheep mentality of voting Republican or Democrat by a 98-99% margin. Even the fringe news stations in this area concentrated on R v. D races, not mentioning any Libertarian candidates or their races. Debates leading up to the primary, and planned debates leading to the November election, excluded Libertarian candidates.
In other words, while Washington has a very diverse population in terms of nation of origin, creed, race, sex, religion, and physical handicaps, we're still a homogeneous pack of sheep, listening to the media focus on the big two parties and not thinking for ourselves. In other words, where diversity really counts, we're not diverse - at least, we're not teaching people critical thinking, which helps lead to diverse ideas and ways of thinking.
One corollary to this - I heard last week that the head of the Aryan Nation passed away. He lived in northern Idaho, and his death was celebrated by many. My question is this: in a population committed to diversity (such as a university or a company), would his presence be welcome? He does represent a different ideology than other people, and therefore would help increase the diversity of that population? Your answer, of course, depends on whether you define diversity properly or politically correctly...
This is an interesting story, from both points of view.
I applaud the university for not dropping the hammer on Montgomery. Jennings needs to read some history, as does the professor Jones. He finds it's hard to untangle the Confederate flag from racial inequality, but I feel that is because Northern historians have worked so hard to make that connection that it's almost heresy to speak otherwise.
In short, the War Between the States had as much to do with slavery as WWI had to do with the killing of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Was it an issue? Sure. Was it a major issue? Doubtful. Was it the single most important cause of the war? No.
On a side note, Jennings and Jones need to look up the word "diversity" in one of their college library's dictionaries. A diverse population will have equal amounts of liberal blacks, Northern socialists, and Southern flag wavers. Their cause of ridding the world of the Confederate flag is no different than Hitler's cause of ridding the world of Jews - it's just a smaller scale, and politically correct to boot. Or should that be jackboot...?
Today is primary election day in Washington state. Despite some of my preivous posts and rants, I voted today, for a few reasons:
That last point needs some explaining. The application of game theory here deals with actions and outcomes. There are two possible actions: voting and not voting. There are (simplistically) two outcomes: a wasted vote or a vote that counts. By applying game theory, I see that if I don't vote, I have a 100% chance of wasting my vote, and a 0% chance of making it count. If I vote, I have a 50% chance of wasting my vote, and a 50% chance of making it count. These percentages can be argued, but the important point is there is a non-zero probability for either outcome if I vote, and a zero probability of having a vote count if I don't. Simple game theory - if I want my vote to count, I need to vote.
That said, I also support Initiative 318, Instant Runoff Voting, currently being circulated. I feel this makes a much better alternative to a primary or caucus system and saves money - how much better can it get?
Put aside the fact this is an 18 year old child, Christian, and conservative, and just look at the words here.
Then take into account the youth and culture this child has, and read it again.
Is there any excuse here? I think not.
What I got from this essay was: state's rights are a farce, a strong federal government is necessary, and government should use that strength to enforce morality. Of course, the idiocy of legislating morality, from Congress, the Constitution, or the bench, seems to slip past this boy. He also ignores the fact that the federal government has grown stronger under his conservative Republican administrations, while simply paying lip service to the idea of decentralization of power.
This boy needs a dose of reality, and some real history lessons.
I'll have more comments on this later, but for now, vote your conscience, not what the media thinks. Remember there is always another choice, and until the NOTA meme is more popular, your vote is never wasted on a third party candidate.
Picking Neither of Two Evils by Bob Murphy
This election, in Washington (as I expect in most communities), there are a host a bond measures and tax increases for things like fire coverage, libraries, and other items. The big ones for me this year is a fire department property tax increase and a library bond renewal measure.
Before you go ahead and vote yes for these (I like fire services, and love libraries), ask yourself: Is there a better way to pay for these services? Property tax increases affect everyone, even if you don't own a home (if you rent, the owner will pass on the tax increase to you, his customer). Bonds need to paid off sometime, and that requires more taxes as well.
As I said, I enjoy fire services and libraries, but I'll be voting no to each measure. Simply put, I'd rather pay for the service directly than indirectly. I'd have no problem contracting with a local fire department for service, or paying for the service after the fact if I was not contracted. I'd also rather pay for my library card directly (I don't think $25-50 a year is exorbitant) than make everyone in my community pay for the library.
Vote no on these measures, and make people come up with alternate, more libertarian, funding measures. Your neighbors will thank you when their taxes decrease.
Good reading for those of you interested in how we started as a republic and ended up a socialist state.
Reason numer 237 (yes, I have 236 other reason) never EVER to live in California. Like they say:
WHEN SILLY STRING IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE SILLY STRING
ENN News Story - Silly string ban a serious matter in Los Angeles
FT.com / Home UK - Rival prescriptions for health costs
And on the other side of the Republicrat fence (you do know Republicans and Democrats are just two factions of the same politcal party, right?), John Kerry thinks people who make over $200K a year are "super-rich". I guess that includes congressmen and public officials, right? Covenient number, since rank and file Congressmen make about $150K a year in salary (not counting benefits). Majority and Minority leaders in both houses make a little more at $175K (how does being voted captain of the team warrant an extra $25K a year?), while the Speaker of the House make over $200K a year.
How much would he make as President? Over $400K, plus free room and board, free security, free travel anywhere, with an extra $50K for expenses. The VP gets a little over $200K a year. Both are eligible for a $150K a year pension with an extra $150K for an office and staff for that office.
Like I said, $200K is a convenient number, and while it appears "super-rich" to people on welfare, it should strike people like Kerry and Edwards and simply being a pay raise for winning a popularity vote.
Of course, as members of government, neither Kerry not Edwards (nor Bush nor Cheney) need worry about public health care - they have a government benefits plan that covers them very well indeed, as well as a retirement program they donate into, just like I do at my place of business. The difference here is that my company makes it's money by inventing, manufacturing, and selling things - Kerry's employer makes it's money by holding guns to people's heads and taking a third of what they earn.
FT.com / Home UK - Bush's speech to focus on owners' society
Why do I get the feeling that, while Bush talks a good game about people owning things, he's really after fictional entities owning things, like the RIAA, MPAA, and so on. This sounds like lip service to libertarian ideals as a way of beefing up the Justice Department to crack down on file sharers - in other words, another neocon holy war to centralize and enhance power in the capitol.
Another nail in the coffin of the Lincoln myth. Point of fact - Lincoln was not a great man. He was a tyrant who's main purpose in waging war against the Confederacy from 1861-1865 had nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with consolidating supreme federal power in Washington D.C. Don't believe me? After reading the article below, read DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln" listed at the bottom of the essay.
Lincolnâ??s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice by Thomas DiLorenzo
This is a very interesting editorial. The writing smacks of a college junior or senior in journalism, but the issues are good and so is the information. I've got some argument points with the author on certain things, like where power flows from and to (he alludes that it flows from the federal down to the states, when in fact it wasn't that way until Tyrant Lincoln made it so) and he puts a lot of faith in the 9th and 10th Amendments, but other than that, I like this author.
Snitch: The rights stuff: What to do
In today's Onion:
| WASHINGTON, DCâ??The nation's garroting survivors demonstrated outside the Capitol Monday, raising a hoarse but plaintive cry for a nationwide ban on potentially lethal wire. "Every year, dozens of people are severely injured or even killed by garroting," croaked Gerald Michaels, who still bears a necklace of scars from a 1997 telephone-cord-assisted mugging that nearly claimed his life. "This legacy of shame will continue until we eliminate the lethal wires that run through our homes, above our streets, and through our very way of life." Michaels recently accepted a $2 million grant from a coalition of sponsors that included Bluetooth and Cingular Wireless. |
Dr. Paul Hein has a great essay on LewRockwell.com about why voting does no good. I agree with him, but there is one small flaw in his argument - while not voting make sense from the point of view of the non-voter, it tells the person up for election absolutely nothing. There is nothing that differentiates the indifferent, apathetic non-voter from the principled non-voter. Thus, someone who gets 75% of the vote (with a 25% voter turnout, this means 2 of every 10 Americans) claims a mandate for their particular views.
How to resolve this situation? We need a way to separate lazy people from principled people who don't like thei system or their choices. One way to do this is an idea I stole from L. Neil Smith, author and libertarian. The idea comes from one of his books (either The Probability Broach or The American Zone, I've forgotten which one - doesn't matter, buy them both and read them). The idea is rather simple, and can be ramped up from a grass-roots write-in campaign to deliver a message to true democratic reform.
For every election where there is a person running for an office (i.e. not referendums or initiatives), one additional selection will be added to the list of people running for that office. That entry will be titled "None of the above are acceptable." That's it - nothing could be simpler.
If NOTAAA wins a majority of the vote, then the second place finisher gets the office, knowing he failed to appeal to a majority of the voters and, more importantly, having any "mandate" he may have felt taken forcibly away from him. It also gives local, state, and federal officials a good idea of how many people came out to vote and didn't like their choices, as well as an historical record of
Here's where the ramp-up comes in - at a later point in time, this can be expanded to where, if NOTAAA wins, the office remains unfilled (I like this option, as it cuts down on the size of government). There are problems here - unfilled seats on the state or federal level may have to be filled by appointment or other method that sidesteps the voting issue, and it does nothing to address the huge pyramid of civil servants who are never elected to office but do all the work.
So, there you have it - the reason why not to vote, and one reason why I would consider voting again. It's too late for this election to put NOTAAA on the ballots, but by 2008, I'd like to see this taking off in local elections in my home state, wherever that is at the time.
A recent essay called Kumiai by Mike Rogers on lewrockwell.com highlights one of first-level derivatives of my own philosophy of personal responsiblity. Simply put, I believe I am responsible for my own actions. My actions can be injurious or beneficial - I try to correct the injury if I can and share the benefits with my neighbors if I can. Deriving from this is the concept of community, where people working together in local efforts of their own free will can have a larger beneficial effect on the locality as a whole. Mike's explanation of the Japanese idea of kumiai illustrates this beautifully. I believe this loss of community in the large urban and suburban centers of America have had a deliterious effect of our national sense of liberty and the wish/need for central government to our rescue.
There's an interesting story on the Minnesota Public Radio site that details efforts to get a concealed carry law passed in Minnesota. Problem is they tacked the conceal carry bill onto another bill - dealing with a Department of Natural Resources technical bill. In other words, the two bills in one package are completely and totally unrelated, which seems to run counter to a clause in the Minnesota state Constitution which prohibits it (Article IV, Section 17 states "LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.").
I tend to agree here. State and federal legistatures do this often, group unrelated bills and add riders to other bills in order to get things done, i.e. create more laws. I'm glad the Minnestoa State Constitution prohibits this, but am disturbed that it continues to happen in the face of a clearly written law. The article even says that the Minnesota state legislature passes hundreds of bills a year - that's hundreds, if not thousands of new laws for you to deal with. And the bills aren't particularly useful, IMHO - a bill regulating circusses (wonder if that applies to the state legislature)?
In any case, opponents of the conceal carry law may be doing Minnesota a favor by challenging it in the state's Supreme Court. While their motives are suspect, their cause may be a good one, getting a ruling that bills need to cover a single subject, as the Minnesota State Constitution says. It could mean more bills (splitting multi-subject bills into multiple bills), which can mean less of them getting to the legislature and getting passed. Of course, it could also mean a longer legislative session, more legislators, and more tax dollars to make sure Minnesotan's are protected from circusses and their garbage is properly disposed of.
"A defendant has a right to offer a defense no matter how outlandish, silly or unbelievable one might think it will be," [Judge Robert L.] Holzberg said.
The emphasis was mine, but remember that line if you're ever called denied your day in court.
ABC13.com: Woman claims she's innocent because she was performing oral sex
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Well, this is my soap box. I've tried the ballot box, but the 2000 election conviced me that it doesn't really matter. Judges have already, through the voir dire jury selection process, nullified the jury box. What does leave us?
The story also didn't go into depth on the real crime, one Rodney Fee who seems to have embezzled $60K from the company, leaving the customer's involved hanging. It seems that whether you're buying off the Internet or at a brick and mortar retail store, this kind of crime can hamper business and customer satisfaction.
Anyway, I'll have more to say about this later...
MSNBC - EBay, PayPal and the Fufu's furniture fiasco
One of the many things I used to admire about the high-tech industry was its disinterest in seeking special favors from Washington, other than to be left alone to turn out truly amazing stuff.
That was what I loved about high tech as well. Nowadays, the politicization of my industry (yes, I work in high tech), has become a reason for my considering a major career change.
Now that's changed. Tech execs and lobbyists are lined up out the door these days, whining and pleading and warning of the demise of the American economy if government doesn't grant a special waiver of the immigration law, hand over large chunks of the radio spectrum, lower estate and capital gains taxes, contort accounting rules on stock options, make permanent the R&D tax credit, exempt them completely from either state or federal regulation (which one depends on the issue), and trample the Constitution to expand and protect their patent rights. Oh, and did I mention giving them new tax breaks for shipping jobs off to Asia?
If the government did not control these facets of the economy (as I think they shouldn't), then lobbyists wouldn't be necessary, would they? Not in the high tech or any other industry. His and my arguments are not specific to high tech, but apply equally to biotech, automotive, eneregy, and other industries. It's a mesasure of how intrusive government regulations have become, as well as the maturing of the industry. High tech industry has long been populated by libertarian minded folk, who are now realizing the world they want to change won't let them.
Topping the list is the long-running industry campaign to exempt the Internet from taxation. There is, first, the proposal to renew the federal ban on any state taxes on Internet access. The industry would have you believe this involves merely the monthly fee you pay to America Online or Comcast or Verizon to access the Web. But read the fine print, and you discover it appears to extend the tax ban to other services that might be 'bundled' with Internet access -- you know, little things like cable service, movies on demand and all your telephone calls.
I don't believe in taxation to begin with, but I'll address his more specific points below.
The justification for this extraordinary intrusion into state prerogatives is that any tax will stifle development of a miraculous and transforming new technology while widening the gap between the technology haves and have-nots. Somehow lost in all the lobbying hyperbole is the fact that Internet use is exploding (more than 60 percent of households already have it, along with virtually every library and school), while access fees are falling like a stone (AOL unveils its new $9.95-a-month Internet access service this week).
Does he realize he's just made the argument for the abolition of taxation across the board? No taxation on Internet access has allowed service to improve and costs to drop through pure capitalism, not through government intervention. Argument #1 for taxation shot to hell...
Nor is it clear why the federal government, in the name of cloclosing the "digital divide," should deny states a couple of billion dollars each year that might be used to close the much more troubling "divides" between those who have quality medical care and public schools and those who don't.
As I mentioned above, he just said that the lack of taxation and government intervention was closing the digital divide on it's own - why should added taxes close the other divides he quotes? Answer: They won't. Period.
Then there is the proposal extending the ban on states imposing sales tax on Internet transactions. The high-tech types say this is a matter of simple justice -- after all, the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot require catalogue and 800-number merchants to collect taxes on out-of-state sales, so why should the tax law discriminate against Internet sales? But their dedication to a fair and "technology neutral" tax code rings rather hollow when you remember that traditional bricks-and-mortar retailers are at a significant competitive disadvantage, because they still have to collect state sales taxes. Ask the techies about this injustice, and you generally get a lecture about how sales taxes are outdated anyway.
Welcome to a capitalist society, Steven. The person with the best value items (lowest price for the most service) wins. Even bricks-and-mortar businesses fight to keep overhead down to help keep prices down, while maintaining a high level of service. If a new supermall offers lower store-front rents, shops move there, and the Internet has very low rents for store fronts. He's arguing that we should impose taxes to defeat the laws of supply and demand, which is a typical socialist argument - level playing fields for all, so no one goes without. Unfortunately, this only means that everyone goes without.
Perhaps we should increase taxes on people who use busses, because busses compete unfairly with auto makers and petroleum producers, keeping people from buying and using these products? We already tax autos and gas highly to help protect the environment from harmful emissions - turnabout is fair-play, after all. How about increased taxes on people who write letters rather than use the phone, because it's cheaper to write than to call? Or should it be the other way around, to help maintain the U.S. Postal Service? I guess it all depends on which industry or cause you want to artificially prop up to parade in front of the masses, eh?
Finally, there's the issue of how to regulate and tax telephone calls carried over the Internet. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell has already parroted the industry line that government should keep its hands off so this revolutionary, cost-saving technology can develop on its own. But if the Internet telephone is the wave of the future, as everyone seems to believe, then someone (that would be Powell) ought to be giving some serious thought to how to replace a set of telecom taxes that raise big money for state and federal coffers while subsidizing universal phone access.
Subsidize is a fancy word for entitling people to services they can't afford on their own. Why can't they afford them? Because their taxed so much on everything else, basic subsistance becomes the priority. I don't remember reading the Declaration of Independence and seeing everyone guaranteed "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, cheap health care, housing, and universal communication access". Even the First Amendment can't be twisted to guarantee that (although the current Supreme Court may think it does), although the Socialist Party certainly does think universal health care and housing should be guaranteed..
To be fair, the tech industry has one valid argument in this debate: It simply no longer makes sense to have 50 states, along with countless cities and counties, empowered to regulate and tax services that are clearly national, if not global, in character. This is why God created a federal government.
Excuse the fuck our of me? Who created a federal government? God? Think again, Steven - the federal government was created by man, specifically a group of men meeting to fix the Articles of Confederation who then ran rough-shod over their less totalitarian brothers to institute our Constitution. God (in any of its many forms) had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As much as you may want to deify our government, it is a man made institution - and what man has created, man can destroy and recreate as necessary. Bringing God into the equation is not only an offense to non-Christians (shame on you - you may lose your Democratic Party membership if you're not careful), it prominently highlights your position that the government is something that shouldn't be questioned, merely accepted, obeyed, and glorified. And that's more offensive than any religious overtones you may have made.
And rather than retreating into mindless deregulation or buying into the silly notion that to tax the Internet is to destroy it, Washington ought to come up with a reasonable federal tax regime that is truly technology-neutral and shares revenue with the states.
Why is deregulation mindless, or abolishing taxation silly? You made the point above that the lack of taxation and regulation has benefitted the users and proponents of high tech, yet now you call it silly. Personally, I think you're a socialist, but that doesn't mean anything, does it? Perhaps if I called you a traitor, it would be more to the point, but still no less an ad hominem than using mindless and silly in a summation you haven't yet supported.
In short, the federal government has no place regulating or taxing any business just as a means of raising revenue. Providing services and entitlements for my neighbors with my money is not my idea of a capitalist society - it's nothing more than Robin Hood in modern America, and he was nothing more than a common thief. The only difference between taxation and theft is when the gun is drawn on you - at least muggers have the decency to show their weapons before they ask you for your wallet, while the government waits until after you don't cough up the dough to draw the guns and jail you.
(Editorial)I think this guy is a complete moron, a traitorous socialist who can't wait to get his hands on other people's money to do what he feels needs to be done in this country. He's no better than Fagan from Dickens' "Oliver", a man who convinces others to steal for him to promote some form of common good. The problem here is that the common good, like the Moral Majority, is neither common nor good. How someone as patently illogical as Steven Pearlstein can hold a job as a columnist for a major American newspaper is beyond me - must be a conspiracy...
RSS or
