ATTENTION: You are viewing my old blog archives, kept here for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To view the new archives, go here.
To find something on my new blog, search here.
What to do when a situation presents itself as a Good Thing...but one glaring issue is amiss? No, that title above isn't a typo.
From Sunday through Tuesday, I was busy attending a public school conference in the Austin Marriott sponsored by the Texas Association of School Boards. Being an employee in the TASB Member Services division, I was enlisted (as I was last year) to be the A/V guy and set up the projectors and laptops for the presenters. The conference itself went well, but I had an experience Monday night which I think needs to be related.
I am currently single, and though these conferences are not good grounds to go "hunting" in, being a single male means I never leave the mindset of someone with their eyes always open for a new partner. So when we broke for the evening on Monday and were bussed to Buffalo Billiards to wind down and socialize, I reinforced my mindset, put a brave face on, and went in to see what fun could be had.
My direct co-workers, the ones who actually work in my area, were playing pool so I joined them in a few rounds. I wasn't expecting to play doubles, though, and after one partner bailed I needed another. To her credit (or not...), my boss coralled a lady from San Felipe Del Rio CISD and deputized her to be on my team. I had never seen this female before, nor talked to her on the phone (which is how I meet most school officials), but she was undoubtably one of the most attractive women I at the convention who didn't work for the Risk Management Fund.
We hit it off fairly quickly, in a sort of playful-adversarial sense. It may sound immodest, but I think I played some brilliant pool. But when I failed -and I did often- she'd be quick to give me some jibbing for it. All in good fun, of course, since I'd do the same to her. We played pool on the same team for several hours, long after the "official" party ended. By that time, we and a few other hardy individuals (including a female friend she brought along) had moved downstairs to order more drinks and finish off the remaining pool bugs in our system.
At this point in the night, it was past 11pm and we had started getting "huggy," for lack of a better term. Anyone who's experienced drunk girls at bars and clubs knows how this works: a girl eventually gravitates towards a guy (and vice versa!) over an evening and once that connection has been established, enough alcohol consumed, and a certain level of familiarity created two people just get kinda huggy during moments of excitement (in any other situation, these moments would be trivial). You hug when you do bad and hug when you do good. I don't know about her or anyone else, but that kind of intimacy is frighteningly absent in my life and I warm to it quickly.
So, after I drank eight pints and two tequila shots, I knew I had reached my limit for the night. Others, who had more than I, agreed around the same time, so we paid our bills and began the multi-block trek back to the hotel. Once Tina and I found ourselves outside of a pool-and-booze establishment, we starting talking about other things.
I don't know how, why, or exactly when, but she made a comment in a discussion firmly placing her as a devout Christian. The implication that I recieved from the comment was, "And you are...?"
...pause...
Over the last few years, I have undergone a fairly radical philosohpical transformation. I went from a relatively apathetic pseudo-conservative (thanks to my father) to a very strong supporter of capitalism and individual freedom. At no time during my younger years did I ever have a strong faith in religion and it's myriad forms. The older I became, the less I believed and the more skeptical I found myself. The final genesis being my now-total atheism.
But I had always remained tolerant of the beliefs of others, providing they didn't interfere with mine. I have a way of being able to engage vastly different viewpoints in a mostly dispassionate manner until I decide the person is no longer worth talking to due to their irrationality or idiocy. However, I not once ever thought I could take the path I'd take once I realized how strongly Tina believed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and everything.
I was confronted with a choice I'd never had to face: do I try to spin the situation in order to make it as likely as possible for her and I to end up together at night...or do I remain truthful to my beliefs and see just how far hers go? Up until this point in time, it was entirely possible I may have had a very significant chance in "messing around" with this attractive and intelligent lady; yet the sheer passion she felt towards Christianity threw me off and frankly engaged the Cold Debator portion of my mind.
I decided to test her waters by repling that I was an atheist and considered the Bible a work of historical fiction. Well, after that, we didn't talk about anything BUT religion from then on. All the way back to the hotel we talked, each exchange digging our positions in further. By the time we had reached the hotel lobby and our group (which had dutifully seperated itself from us) sat down to rest, I felt a hard sinking feeling within that told me this lady was a lost cause.
I would ask a simple question and would get back a whole lotta mumbo-jumbo about not believing hard or openly enough, or how I failed to see the beauty of it all, or whatnot. She rarely addressed the substance of my points, which revolved around my opinion that basing your life off faith is a pointless exercise. Since all religion boils down to this very basic question, I wasn't going for an attack on Chrisitianity specifically, but spiritual belief as a whole. That probably didn't help things.
In the end, it was almost 1 in the morning and I had duties to attend to with the next day's activities, so I gave her a final, "I strongly doubt we'll ever come to terms on this" and attempted to leave. She wouldn't let me go, unless I allowed her to pray for my "eternal soul". It was very, very hard to remain polite at this point because I felt mildly insulted. I did consent in the end, though, mainly to experience the final confirmation of my inner fear. So, she did just that and prayed out loud for over eight minutes, tossing in every concievable Jesus cliché I could recall. She actually kneeled down in front of me while doing this, almost driving me to laughter. The display wasn't made any more digestible when I noticed the rest of our group had noticed and wasn't making any secret of it's disdain for her display.
I had been "prayed," to coin a term and useage. Caught off-guard by her staunch display of belief, she cornered me and prayed directly to her Gawd to save my soul. She was moved by my lack of faith to completely open the inner floodgates and pour forth every personal sermon and blessing she could summon.
Once she finished, we said our goodnights and I went to my room. Had I had enough time to think about it, I might have been angry with myself for passing up an opportunity to make out or more. But the regret I feel now is not strictly for the loss of sexual opportunity. I regret the state of her mind and ethical code far more. Near the end of her prayer I felt more pity for her than anything else. I simply could not understand someone who would accept religion and certainly not to the degree she had.
We ran into each other the next day. No animosity, no contraversy, and no comment about the events of the previous night. She knew and I knew what occured, but it was left unsaid. She invited me to eat lunch with her and her friend and I told her I would, but when I arrived a little late they were not to be found. Thus ends the story.
The impact is still there, but I do not regret the conclusion. I faced something that would have likely been very pleasing if I would have been willing to lie and lie dirty. I choose not to.
I wonder what she thinks of me now.
Previously, I wrote to Rep. Stick regarding HB 715 which is a proposed law that would reduce the criminal penalties for low-quantity marijuana possession. Though I support full legalization, I do believe this is a good step, albeit a small one.
Mr. Stick has responded to my letter and I reproduce his reply in whole:
Dear Mr. Hueter:Thank you for your recent letter regarding House Bill 715. I am glad you took the time to share your thoughts on marijuana possession with me and I value your input. I am currently sponsoring legislation that would reduce criminal penalties for possession of any drug that weighs less than one gram from a felony to a misdemeanor.
I will continue to work on behalf of my constituents for the benefit of the State of Texas. I appreciate hearing from you and I am glad you took the time to share your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
[an actual ink signature]
Jack Stick
Venomous Kate makes note of how Donald Rumsfeld has been expanding his power and influence into areas his job description doesn't talk about.
Nope, the truth is that nobody is allowed to oppose Rumsfeld if they want to keep their job. Welcome to All Rumsfeld, All The Time and damn the Constitution.
I can understand that from one point, the military does and should have a larger role in Iraq because it is the primary enforcement and enablement system for US policy in-country at the moment. I can also understand that since he's the point man for so much information and confirmation, news agencies and reporters have almost forced him into roles where he feels compelled to give his opinion on a myriad of subjects.
But it isn't Rummy's job to make proclaimations on foreign policy. He follows the policy set out by Bush and expressed by Powell. I very much doubt he would appreciate Powell musing on procurement, training, or base closures. Each secretary has defined spheres of focus and it does no one any favors when we get mixed messages from the executive government.
It's been over two weeks since I submitted my Concealed Handgun License application. The tracking website has been saying "Processing Application" the entire time. Not exactly detailed, eh?
UT-Austin has set up a website to keep the college community informed and updated.
I have argued for the past year that libertarians (with a small "L") have a more natural home in the modern Democratic Party than with the GOP.
At their core, libertarians distrust government and exult individual freedoms above all. Small government in both the social and economic realms....Democrats are social libertarians -- distrusting the heavy hand of the government in our private lives.
[...]
...things have changed [from the traditionally poor free market record of Democracts]. The Clinton Democratic Party balanced budgets and restrained spending -- both policies abandoned by the Borrow and Spend Bush Administration.
[...]
It's also obvious to me that Republicans have surrendered their claim to the monicker "Party of fiscal responsibility" or to notions of "smaller government".
But I don't agree with his idea. I think that honest libertarians (those that minimalize contradictions in their philosophy) should remain outside both parties and only side with one or the other when it comes down to specific issues. Aligning with another party shouldn't be done for political or pragmatic purposes. It should be the natural result of similiarities in philosophy. And when it comes to the personal liberties aspects of Democrats and the left, he needs to think deeper.
Economic liberty (ostensibly proposed by the GOP) and social liberty (ostensibly proposed by the Democrats) are merely offshoots of the same concept: individual liberty. Neither party supports individual liberty without contradiction. Conservatives wish to preserve tradition and a kind of social morality, often at the expense of liberty. Liberals wish to improve socio-economic conditions for the lower rungs of society and for the overlooked/disadvantaged/etc., regularly at the expense of personal liberty.
For the Democratic Party to be more palatable to libertarians, it would have to actually embrace capitalism as the correct economic system. This is the crucial "canary in the coal mine" for individual liberty; you can't have one without the other. Currently, the GOP is the only major party which attempts to do this, though more often than not they just give it lip service.
The left would have to accept privatized education, transportation, and health systems. They'd have understand, respect, and enforce the general libertarian anti-regulation philosophy, which makes the Republicans' pale in comparison. The Dems would also have to purge themselves of the victimization and class politics they so regularly employ. Basically, they'd have to drop the socialism inherent in their philosophy and show up the rightwing in economics issues. Otherwise, libertarians won't change sides en masse.
I very much doubt those things will happen. There are too many collectivists and statists in their side of the political spectrum. They'd end up shedding too much of their core and driving them to places like the Green Party. Though I'd openly and loudly applaud such moves, they are pipe dreams as things stand now and the forseeable future.
I do think Kos has a significant point to make about gun rights.
That leaves guns, and it's a deal-breaker with many libertarians. Which is why I say, fine. You win. The NRA wins. We'll work hard to enforce existing gun laws (which in all honesty would go a long way toward reducing the effect of guns on our society). The feds will stay out of the debate, and leave it up to the states (and cities) to set their own gun laws.That's why I like Dean and Clark -- both are avowed supporters of the 2nd Amendment, and both can go far in helping capture the significant libertarian bloc from the grasp of the GOP.
However, back to the central issue...
Democrats believe government has a strong role to play in improving the lives of people. Hence, Democrats have been strong proponents of social programs and the use of the tax code to help redistribute income from the haves to the have nots.[...]
Government can and should lend a helping hand.
[government] should also protect our individual freedoms from those (like Santorum) who would tear them away.
UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:13pm)
Whom to Vote For?
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:45pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
UPDATE 1/18/2005 9:40am
Kos continues to amaze me.
UPDATE 2/24/2005 3:05pm
This is just hilarious. Terry Michael thinks Democrats ought to "return to liberalism's Jeffersonian roots." I'm curious to see how he thinks the love of massive welfare spending, subsidy, and business regulation squares with the (often contradictory) Thomas Jefferson libertarian philosophy.
UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:30am
The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?, Daily Kos Wants It All, Fiscal Responsibility?, Meteor Blades Needs Economics, The Hypocrisy of Daily Kos, Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again
UPDATED 6/7/2006 6:05pm
The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat
I'm going to a UT Law School panel discussion titled, "How The Hip Hop Generation Views Civil Rights." It's today at 6 p.m. at Frances Auditorium, TNH 2.114. The description a friend sent me says, "A panel of UT faculty and students will address the impact of hip hop on American society."
It isn't listed on the school's news page though, so no link. From one search result, it's possible Professor S. Craig Watkins could be involved.
I'm likeing Senator Jeff Wentworth less and less these days. His Senate Bill 7 is an attempt to outlaw legally-recognized homosexual marriages and civil unions.
This is from the engrossed version of the bill, which passed the Senate and is now in the House.
I think there are two significant individual rights problems in the Republican Party and one of them is it's general stance on homosexuality. The other is it's stance on drugs. Until these two issues are addressed, the GOP has zero moral authority when preaching about "government intrusion."
UPDATE(2:20pm)
Though there are promising signs from some conservatives, such as Jonah Goldberg's comments here. Notice, though, that he can't quite let go of the drug issue.
I live in Austin, Texas and the overwhelming majority of the roads in the city are socialized and therefore "public." This means they are supported by taxpayer money in some way. I don't have any federal budget figures for the interregional highways and other national highways, but they are irrelevant to my rant.
Those roads don't need to have street signs on them.
Austin's budget for the Transportation, Planning, & Sustainability Department is $10 million. That's a lot of money. But, apparently, not enough to ensure Austin has clear, legible street signs at each intersection.
It's bad enough we have socialized roads, but when the city can't even effectively fulfuill even the most basic duties of an entity that owns a road (identify what the hell it is), it pisses me off. I can't count how many times I've encountered street intersections and one (or both!!!) streets are unmarked. These aren't all piddly-wink bullshit half roads, either. I've gone through intersections on roads with two lanes going each way (four in total) and sometimes there aren't any fucking signs on them. This is fivefold more grating at night when you strain your sight to make sure you aren't missing a sign.
But deep, deep down, you know that the damn thouroughfare isn't marked.
I'm aware people like to steal signs and I'm aware they sometimes need to be replaced due to wear and tear. But it isn't as if replacing or repairing a piece of metal with 'Tuscany Way' painted securely on it is some week-long marathon session of human output. Don't they have backups or extras? Is it impossible for a contractor to make one in less than two months? What the fuck?
I'm thinking of driving around Austin for a few weekends and note which intersections aren't identified. I'm curious how many I'll find. I wouldn't be surprised if the number is larger than thirty.
That is just the most egregious irritation. The other (and far more pervasive) jackassery comes from signs faded to a pale unreflective green which blends in with the rest of the green sign, vegetation so ungawdly overgrown the observer is unaware there's even dry land beyond the dark forbidding corner, signs or their supporting poles bent so only curious upward-gazing children at the base can read the words, and an otherwise perfectly servicable sign left in the inky vision-impairing blackness of night with no illumination, artificial or natural.
Not being able to read the shitty signs in this city is the primary reason I have a prescription for driving glasses, for fuck's sake!
Yeah, I think I'll examine parts of Austin and see what turns up. At the very least, I'll know what areas to avoid.
Senator Rick Santorum, April's Trent Lott
Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get.
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.[...]
...I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.[...]
And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.
The GOP as a whole needs to rethink what it's primary political prinicples are and apply them consistently. If Republicans are going to rant and wail (rightly) about government overreach, then they need to understand that their almost hysterical determination to keep the traditional family on a sacred pedestal by means of the power of the state, then they also need to recognize that they are hypocrites. Such power is such overreach, and in some cases worse than economic power.
UPDATE(4/25 6:15pm)
Well, Bush/Fleischer has seriously lost some of my respect now. Santorum is an "inclusive man"??? He's "doing a good job"? Bush "has confidence" in him? Lame, very lame.
Last week, on Tax Day, I took some money I recieved from a certificate of deposit I cashed in and got an amp and subwoofer installed in my 2002 VW Golf TDI.
The parts consisted of a 10" Polk dx10 component sub and a 100 watt US Acoustics USX-2100 amplifier. Both were purchased in the Scratch & Dent section of the Crutchfield website after several consulations with two of their sales reps. The ported box came from the local dealer who did the install, Alta Mere. The amp is a 2-channel unit bridged over to the sub and wired with the kit Crutchfield provided. My JVC KD-SH707 head unit powers the fronts and rears.
The sound is great, if a tad boomy. This is more likely due to the ported nature of the box than anything else; something I can fix with two socks if I want to. I'm loving the quality, the responsiveness, and the deep reach of the bass. To top it all off, the amp barely gets hot. Even after a three hour drive to Dallas from Austin with the music going loud the whole time, it hardly got above warm after I arrived at my destination. The install was done professionally and is clean and pleasant. I will have to do something about the box if I have space needs in the future for my trunk...
Adrian Heideman, an 18-year-old college student, wrote about hating his chemistry lab, his love of skateboarding and how he cost his Pi Kappa Phi pledge class "house chore points" for failing to take down a flag on time.It was a typical sort of entry on LiveJournal, a popular online diary and weblogging site. But Heideman, a student at California State University at Chico who posted the note on Sept. 19, 2000, had no idea it would be his last to the site
Two weeks later, he died in an apparent fraternity-related alcohol poisoning. He left behind a grieving family, a mournful college and an impromptu electronic memorial that has generated a deluge of comments from friends, classmates and total strangers.
Eulogies and random postings have continued to appear on the site in the years since Heideman died, and the journal has become a place for grieving and friendly banter among old colleagues.
[...]
Finding such weblogs is a challenge, since there's rarely any warning that entries are about to cease. Because idle and abandoned blogs are more the rule than the exception, it's impossible to tell if a site is simply being ignored or its creator has, in fact, died.
But deathblogs, to coin a term, do seem to offer comfort to those left behind, whether the sites are visited regularly or not.
Now, on to my definition. Feel free to add, subtract, modify, and disregard. :)
deathblog
n.
A blog (or section within a blog) whose sole author dies in an unexpected or sudden manner, leaving behind an inactive but accessible archive of posts for future visitors. New content comes from the bereaved.
I've been remiss in not posting about this more. May 3rd is election day and I've got nothing so far. Bad Drizz, bad...
The City of Austin elections page has the legal details. Here is the list of candidates for mayor:
News8Austin has a list of interviews up and coming and will post the mayoral candidate interviews in a few days.
UPDATE(4/25 6:40pm)
The Austin American Statesman has been posting candidate profiles. So far, Katz, Meltzer, and Nofziger have gotten the treatment. Wynn's is coming Saturday.
Bay Area politicos would fit comfortably under the rubric of European "social democrats," favoring a humane welfare state, multilateralism and a ban on offensive military force.[...]
Think of the advantages of having our own country. We wouldn't have to apologize to people of conscience for being Americans any more. We wouldn't go to war against Arab dictators (or anyone else).
[...]
Our greatest national myth remains the inevitable rightness of the Northern victory in the Civil War. We are taught again and again about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln, who held our nation together. Yet at what price? Lincoln freed the African American slaves, but they fell victim to "Jim Crow," the peculiar institution, to paraphrase historian Kenneth Stampp, that maintained racial separation in the South (and sanctioned violence against blacks) well into the 1960s. With the South in tow following the Civil War, the United States subdued the Native Americans in the West in the most brutal fashion, seized Cuba and the Philippines from Spain in 1898, thus ushering in an era of imperialism. American hegemony in the second half of the 20th century might have been impossible without a Northern victory in the Civil War.
Maybe Lincoln would have been an even greater president if he had let the South leave the Union in 1861. In the absence of Southern racists in Congress, the North would have become an industrial democracy of the European sort. American global power would have been moderated, humanized and democratized -- because urban voters in the industrial cities of Pittsburgh, Chicago and New York would have insisted on solidarity with workers of the world. Our roster of presidents would have included the populist William Jennings Bryan, the Socialist Eugene Debs and the one-worlder Henry Wallace. A more compact, social-democratic America would have still struggled mightily with the legacy of slavery and discrimination against African Americans, but a movement for racial equality would have begun decades earlier.
Might the liberation of the Bay Area unlock similar positive change? Think of the model social legislation that a Bay Nation could enact: bans on guns altogether, full legalization of same-sex unions, an expansion of public television and radio, complete decriminalization of marijuana, basic health care for all, environmental protections that would be the envy of North America.
[...]
By the same token, undocumented Americans (a.k.a. "illegal aliens") could gain immediate citizenship in the Bay Nation. Bye-bye INS, hello multicultural justice.
I support someone's right to declare themselves sovereign and independent from the nation they currently are citizens of, providing they don't steal the property and liberty of those who don't submit themselves to the seperation. The freedom of choice I support, not their underlying rationalizations. It's the same thing as saying I support someone's right to speak their mind regardless of the idiocy that mind may put forth.
Such idiocy includes the absurd declaration that a fully independent "Bay Area" nation-state would have a relatively productive and healthy economy after enacting a bargeload of growth-hampering and personal disincentivizing regulations and bringing about the kind of welfare state so beloved by responsibility-fearing Europeans and our more addle-minded neighbors to the north and south of us. It would be amusing to watch them choke themselves to death, moreso because the solutions they'd choose to fix the problems would only make them worse. Pulling the blade across the skin harder in order to stop the bleeding.
Via Andrew Sullivan.
In order to celebrate the glory of 420, I'm visiting some friends in Denton for the weekend. I'll be back late Sunday. I plan on posting a bit about the upcoming Austin elections and beginning a topic that is near and dear to me: ranting about how poorly-marked (if marked at all!) some of the road intersections are in Austin. I'm oh-so-sick of discovering an intersection without proper street signs.
So, praise be to the weed and the creator of the water pipe! I'll be back.
The "vital role" that the UN will be allowed in Iraq is limited to some humanitarian assistance and "suggestions" about the make-up of the interim governing mechanism. In other words, Iraq will not be a Cambodia or East Timor where experienced UN civilian staff were sheriffs and de facto rulers heading a transitional authority. Nation-building will be reserved for the Pentagon and its Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) this time. Iraq will be reshaped "the American way".This decision broaches crucial long-reaching implications. Kofi Annan has argued "above all the UN involvement [in Iraq] brings legitimacy which is necessary, necessary for the country, for the region and for the peoples around the world". The UN has expertise in successful interim administration, establishing rule of law, reconstruction, inter-ethnic reconciliation etc, but "above all", the UN is the voice of what we know as the international community, the will of all nations, the expression of humanity and not just of France. It is the collective and the whole of which France, Iraq and America are individual and equal parts. It is the epicenter of the post-World War II international regime and the overseer of international peace and security. What the Bush administration is basically doing is question each of these fundamental assertions.
But Chaulia doesn't go beyond mere assertions either.
When the strongest nation on Earth is thus determined to undermine the organization that the people of the world chartered to "prevent future generations from the scourge of war", it is a danger signal for the entire world. A world without the UN is inconceivable for the multiple millions of refugees, children, hunger-stricken, poor, conflict-devastated and marginalized humans whose needs are being met daily through its many organizations and specialized arms. But the UN is not merely a material aid and service delivery store, as the US government is reducing it into. Its original and most important purpose is to preserve world peace.Every morning, I walk to an office on 42nd Street in New York and glimpse the northwestern slice of the UN Secretariat, ironically nesting on land gifted by US corporate giants, the Rockefellers. Manhattan skyscrapers block the remaining visage. When this imperfect view becomes too disconcerting, I stroll down a few blocks to see the full UN edifice resting majestically in Turtle Bay. The United States needs likewise to take the effort and walk a few paces to see the full UN, if for no other reason than to conserve the international system that it dominates and which the UN symbolizes.
There is no real argument in this opinion piece. No reasoned logic to support the assertions. The UN is important...because it is the UN. It should not be ignored...because it was founded to preserve peace. We must grant it legitimacy...because it is the arbiter of legitimate action.
I disagree completely. The United Nations is not axiomatic. The UN has no moral high ground from which to preach and condemn. This is due to the overwhelming political nature of the body and the nations and people which make it up. The US will look out for it's interests, the Russians theirs, the Chinese theirs, and likewise down the chain. We end up with hypocrisy masquerading as principled foreign policy from all sides at one time or another.
The NRA needs to get up on this Eugene Volokh idea!
A while back I noticed that Pulp Fiction would make a great gun safety training film. After all, the scene in the car, which causes our anti-heroes so much trouble, helps illustrate two of the three basic rules of gun safety...another scene, where Travolta gets his comeuppance, illustrates a different safety rule...[a]nd, of course, the "miracle" scene illustrates a point that is indirectly a gun safety point, since after all the use of the gun there proved quite unsafe to the would-be defensive user.
"Which one is it?"
"It's the one with Bad Motherfucker written on it."
Politics prevails over probity
Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick cut deals and cast symbolic votes Wednesday to maintain party discipline and keep Democrats from making any major changes to a proposed $117 billion, two-year state budget.The political cost to Craddick and the House Republican leadership was a deal with rebel Republicans that neuters legislation to dismantle the Robin Hood public school finance system in 2005.
[...]
Faced with a $10 billion shortfall in state tax revenue this year and the next two years, House budget writers have made deep cuts in state services, particularly in education and human services. Republicans have vowed to balance the budget without a tax increase.
Craddick and the GOP leadership have repeatedly fended off Democratic efforts to obtain more money for services for the poor and health care for children and teachers.
But on Wednesday, about 20 rural and some urban House Republicans threatened to join Democrats in voting to spend $1.2 billion in contingency money to increase financing for retired teacher and active school employee health care systems.
Craddick and the House Republican leadership want to use that money to lure school districts into supporting a bill to put a sunset deadline of August 2005 on the current public school financing system.
This is a demonstration of why allowing the government to exercise the kinds of powers it has is wrong. Humans are self-interested beings and choose their development, growth, and happiness over the alternative. When that self-interest is given political power, however, it leads to the corruption and abuse of that power. There has yet to be a human agency that felt it's budget should be cut or kept static. Likewise, since Texas has subsidized education for so long, reforming the system affects a huge swath of Texans and primarily the politically-sensitive disadvantaged groups like children, minorities, the disabled, etc.
It becomes harder and harder to change the system when so many have a stake in it. This is one of the reasons for not allowing such a system to be birthed in the first place. It becomes rooted in inertia, grows it's own irrational defensive mechanisms, and does what it can to expand it's power. Even worse, those who propose to change the system or try something else are routinely slandered as being "anti-" something, usually one of those perennially pitiful groups as listed above.
It may be too early, but there are several stories which may be what USS Clueless is talking about.
Hmmm... keep your eyes on the news for reports that Australia has made an extremely big, and politically extremely complicated, drug bust. It's gonna be an interesting one, with major international ramifications.
A record seizure of 40kg of heroin in Victoria would help police crack an international drug ring, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said.Qwang Lee, 34, a Singaporean, Kiam-Fah Teng, 45, and Yau Kim Lam, 44, both Malaysians, have been charged over the seizure at Lorne on Victoria's south-west coast.
AFP general manager (southern) Graham Ashton said a ship carrying the heroin, which has a street value of about $60 million, was met by a dinghy close to Lorne and brought ashore early Wednesday.
Australian Federal Police have charged two men over the seizure of more than $2 million worth of heroin at Brisbane International Airport.Customs officers found the heroin on two men during a random inspection of passengers arriving into Brisbane this morning.
The men aged 24 and 34 are believed to be Malaysian.
All tests taken during an unannounced raid on Monday at Randwick racecourse in Australia returned negative for banned drugs."The results are very pleasing from an industry point of view," Chief Steward Ray Murrihy told the Australian Associated Press. "We can look forward to a level playing field over the Easter weekend races."
But those top two stories, beyond a superficial connection to Malaysia, don't appear to have any ground-shattering political consequences. We'll see how it goes and it may be too early for the story to have been published, though Mr. Den Beste did post the entry near midnight his time. Almost half a day has passed.
Convention backs Blair's plan for EU presidency
TONY BLAIR’s plans for a powerful new full-time president of Europe look set to become reality after the man charged with drafting a European Union constitution backed the project yesterday.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President who chairs the convention on Europe’s future, supported the EU’s biggest member states who argue that the Union needs a president if it is to punch its weight on the international stage.However, well-organised opposition from the EU’s small states, which have joined forces with the ten new entrants from Central and Eastern Europe, means that weeks of horsetrading lie ahead.
The smaller countries want to stick with the system under which each member state has six months as EU president.
But M Giscard made his views clear after protracted talks with leaders gathered in Athens to sign the treaty ushering in the ten new members. Asked how many countries opposed the idea of a president, he said: “When you assess these positions, one thing to take into account is the number of states. But we also have to take into account their populations, because we operate in a democratic way here. And the majority of the population is in favour of a somewhat more stable president.”
He also noted that two smaller states, Denmark and Sweden, had just swung behind the idea, which originated in London but was first publicly proposed by President Chirac of France. A new president would be elected by heads of government of EU members and would hold office for five years. The creation of such a post would help to settle the decades-old question posed by Henry Kissinger of whom to call in Europe in an emergency. It could also help to prevent a repetition of the bitter arguments that erupted over Iraq, which overshadowed proceedings yesterday.
Mr Blair has been linked to the new post, which, conveniently, is likely to come into being in 2006, a year or so after the next general election. Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, and José María Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, have also been suggested as prospective candidates.
I am grateful that Mr. Blair has stuck with the US for so long and so steadfastly. His behavior has been extremely heartening to me. But we can't forget that he is from the UK Labour Party, which prominently displays this:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Kinda like Bush...
No, you cannot find NATURAL BATH SEA SPONGE SUPPLIERS UK here.
Referrer links from Sitemeter are like a highlight of my day. Some of the weird shit people search for...
The weird terms we must use these days to denote such simple things. I feel like the first guy who pronounced the word 'finagle.' Hm.
However, Ray, at rlbtzero has some kind things to say about me, which I appreciate. I believe the Australian blog he's talking about is Ken's Otakus-R-Us. Ken and I go way back. Like, before 2001.
Anyway, I have a plethora of names to go by here, yes. There's Drizzten, Drizz, Sarcastomatic (an old e-mail name), or Charles. Any are fine with me. I am the sole editor, publisher, reporter, reviewer, and CEO. As I'm sure you've noticed, I tend to lean 85º or so degress to the right.
By the way, mano, I think you need to fix the link to my site on your roll. I enthusiastically endorse getting rolled and doubly so for the boldface you put the site name in...but the HTML just isn't there. :)
As compiled by my buddy Cameron from Google News.
N.Y. Committee OKs Medical-Marijuana Bill
4/16/2003
The New York Assembly Health Committee voted in favor of a bill that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
reported April 9.Under the measure, guidelines would be established to allow physicians and other healthcare professionals to prescribe marijuana to alleviate pain. Patients would obtain the drug from a registered nonprofit organization, regulated by a local health department or the state.
"We should not be embarrassed about taking drugs, even if they may be street drugs, and using them appropriately," said Assemblyman Joel Miller (R-Poughkeepsie), a co-sponsor of the bill. "If this is at all helpful to people, I don't see why we can't move forward."
Although the bill has been around since 1997, the committee's action marks the first time any legislative panel has voted on the measure.
Pot bongs legal
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 9, 2003In another sign of the state-federal split over drugs, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday that possession of marijuana pipes is legal in California, just six
weeks after bong-sellers around the nation were the targets of federal raids.The Court of Appeal panel in Riverside County said a 1975 California law "deliberately decriminalized the possession of a device for smoking marijuana. " The same law changed marijuana possession from a possible felony to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine.
But federal law, which overrides state laws, continues to classify marijuana among the most dangerous narcotics, in the same category as heroin. Federal
prosecutors have stepped up raids on medical marijuana suppliers in California and won convictions, though the state legalized medical marijuana in 1996.On Feb. 24, federal agents raided more than 100 homes and businesses throughout the nation that sell bongs and pipes favored by pot smokers. Fifty people, including six in Northern California, were charged with trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia.
Californians in that case won't be helped by Tuesday's ruling, which involved only a state-law charge of possessing drug paraphernalia.
Boy dreamer becomes pot activist
Phillip Mol founded medical marijuana dispensary in Hayward
By Michelle Meyers, STAFF WRITERHAYWARD -- When Phillip Mol was a boy, he dreamed of becoming a physicist or an astronomer, not an advocate for patients of medical marijuana.
"I never thought I would be the guy trying to change things," said Mol, who founded the Helping Hands Patients' Center, a downtown cannabis dispensary.
But after he overcame heroin addiction -- on top of severe manic-depression -- Mol's career goals took on a higher calling, he said.
Mol, 41, is a leader in the local effort to legalize Hayward's three downtown dispensaries under city code. His business, opened in October 2001, is aimed at
offering cannabis patients an efficient, comfortable setting, with some of the lowest prices in the Bay Area, he said."Some people do it just for the patients," said Jane Weirick, a Hayward resident and president of the Medical Cannabis Association. "Phil is a terrific example of this."
But Mol's broader mission, one he calls "Green and Sober," is to help spread the word about the use of pot to treat the addiction of harder drugs.
[...]
"In 14 years of 12-step attendance, I had two years of clean time," he said. "During eight years of Green and Sober living, I have had eight years of staying off hard drugs, IV drug use and alcohol abuse."
In addition to helping Mol with the addiction, the pot helped him keep down his regular pharmaceutical drugs used to treat his bipolar disorder.
"We, the Bloggers..."
I did indeed go see Mr. Sullivan give a lecture/speech at the University of Texas at Austin Texas Union building, third floor, room 202. He began around 7:05pm and continued until 8-ish, opening up the floor to questions and comments.
I wasn't aware this was part of a UT rhetoric/lecturing class, but Mr. Sullivan was the last in an apparent series of distinguished guests. The italicized quote is his, which got an approving rise out of the audience.
He was good-humored, openly self-critical at times, and had some interesting points to make in his discussion. The topic was blogging's rise, power, and demonstrated and likely impact in the world. Curiously enough, he said it was the first time he'd actually set out to talk specifically about blogging's unique strengths and force in the context of a socio-journalistic standpoint.
The crowd wasn't that large, say maybe 45-70 people. I sat in the back with a friend whom I invited to come along.
During the Q&A period, he covered the fall of Trent Lott, made mention (but didn't name names) of the Agonist plagarism debacle, and discussed how his blog makes him $65,000 a year. He spent the majority of his time talking about the vast potential and relative ease of use of the blogging approach. He used his site as an example regularly, but also referred to other bloggers several times as examples of success and integrity. When asked about the relative lack of female bloggers, he mentioned Asparagirl and IIRC, Natalie Solent. He talked about The Corner as an example of traditional media adapting to new demands and trends. A lot of bases were covered.
My impression of him was very good. To be honest, he didn't seem at all like he does on his website; not the decidedly emotional partisan he can come across as. He was in good spirits and talked easily to the crowd. He made references to some of his work discussing Iraq War doomsayers, his rebuttals to the New York Times, a direct reference to Paul Krugman and the attendees were with him the whole way, finding his asides funny and laughing openly with his "blog insider" jokes. I'm pretty sure 80% of the people in there were regular blog readers of some kind or another.
Not once did he even lightly insult anyone beyond calling the Iraq War doomsayers..."doomsayers." He remained professional and didn't refer to any of the personal mini-scandals/controversy blips he went through.
All in all, it was a great free lecture and though I may disagree with him in some aspects of political belief, I have to say my respect for him grew.
Looks like Andrew Sullivan will be in Austin for a speech at the Texas Union Ballroom at 7pm. I shall try to attend.
This year, I made about $26,700 in wages. My federal taxes come to about $1,800. I overpaid in withholdings by $550. Texas, thankfully, doesn't have an income tax.
Something like half of that tax is devoted to Social Security and Medicare, programs that I probably won't even use in my lifetime. A large chunk can be attributed to military spending, and the sheer inefficiency of the armed forces' budget is shocking. It all goes downhill from there as my tax money is taken for uses that have less and less connection to the principle roles of government.
It would be cool to find a website that could take the data from your federal taxes and split them up into the percentages that go to each major area of spending.
UPDATE(4/15/2004 3:00pm)
It's Income Tax Day, 2004. Read it and weep.
It makes me very happy to read stories like this
For most of Wal-Mart's 41 years, corporate America refused to acknowledge the retailer as one of its own. Wal-Mart was Podunk, U.S.A., Jed Clampett, Uncle Jesse's pickup--and worse yet, a discount store. This year its transfiguration is complete. Wal-Mart is FORTUNE's most admired company, marking the first time the world's biggest corporation--yes, it replaced Exxon Mobil atop the Fortune 500 last year--is also its most respected. You might say that Wal-Mart finally belongs in corporate America. More accurately, you could say corporate America belongs to Wal-Mart.To understand this astonishing development, you need to grasp the difference between a big company--what Wal-Mart was at the time of Sam Walton's death in 1992, when it was about one-fifth its present size--and a company that has created a whole new definition of bigness. If conventional metrics, like Wal-Mart's $240 billion-plus in sales or its 1.3 million "associates," don't do the trick, these may help:
Wal-Mart's sales on one day last fall--$1.42 billion--were larger than the GDPs of 36 countries.
It is the biggest employer in 21 states, with more people in uniform than the U.S. Army.
It plans to grow this year by the equivalent of--take your pick--one Dow Chemical, one PepsiCo, one Microsoft, or one Lockheed Martin.
If the estimated $2 billion it loses through theft each year were incorporated as a business, it would rank No. 694 on the FORTUNE 1,000. What this means for Wal-Mart's low-profile CEO, Lee Scott, is that he runs what is arguably the world's most powerful company. What it means for corporate America is a bit more bracing. It means, for one, that Wal-Mart is not just Disney's biggest customer but also Procter & Gamble's and Kraft's and Revlon's and Gillette's and Campbell Soup's and RJR's and on down the list of America's famous branded manufacturers. It means, further, that the nation's biggest seller of DVDs is also its biggest seller of groceries, toys, guns, diamonds, CDs, apparel, dog food, detergent, jewelry, sporting goods, videogames, socks, bedding, and toothpaste--not to mention its biggest film developer, optician, private truck-fleet operator, energy consumer, and real estate developer. It means, finally, that the real market clout in many industries no longer resides in Hollywood or Cincinnati or New York City, but in the hills of northwestern Arkansas.
[...]
By systematically wresting "pricing power" from the manufacturer and handing it to the consumer, Wal-Mart has begun to generate an economy-wide Wal-Mart Effect. Economists now credit the company's Everyday Low Prices with contributing to Everyday Low Inflation, meaning that all Americans--even members of Whirl-Mart, a "ritual resistance" group that silently pushes empty carts through superstores--unknowingly benefit from the retailer's clout. A 2002 McKinsey study, moreover, found that more than one-eighth of U.S. productivity growth between 1995 and 1999 could be explained "by only two syllables: Wal-Mart." "You add it all up," says Warren Buffett, "and they have contributed to the financial well-being of the American public more than any institution I can think of." His own back-of-the-envelope calculation: $10 billion a year.
I think one of the greatest tragedies of human history is that during most of it capitalism was supressed and ostracized and demonized and punished.
UPDATE(4/6/2004 1:03pm)
Wal-Mart is attempting to use a city-wide vote to get itself exempted from a large parcel of development in Inglewood. Rock on, Wal-Mart. Use the system against itself.
The Alamo Area Council of Governments has a Alamo Area Regional Law Enforcement Academy and my father graduated from it last Friday. He passed the Peace Officer exam and can now be employed as a policeman. The course took 11 months and cost over a thousand dollars. He didn't get the marksmanship or academic awards (I heard he came damn close) but he did get one of only two perfect attendance awards. He is the oldest guy to successfully pass in over five years and led a physical training (PT) team and left many guys half his age panting in his dust.
Good job, Dad.
Went AWOL and refused to deploy to Iraq
Fort Hood soldier Ralph Padula returned to the post near Killeen on Wednesday morning after being absent without leave for nearly three weeks and seeking sanctuary in a Round Rock Catholic church.Padula, 34, a specialist with a military police unit, said officials denied his request to be discharged as a conscientious objector. He fled the post on March 27.
His unit, the 720th Military Police Battalion, was deployed to Iraq last month, and Padula had said his commanding officers were planning to send him, too, despite his insistence that he was mentally unstable.
Fort Hood officials said Padula's case was being reviewed Wednesday.
"His claims of conscientious objector status are being evaluated," spokesman Dan Hassett said. "There is no decision as to whether he will face charges at any time."
Adding aggravation to insult, his unit is a military police unit, one of the most needed forces in Iraq now that the major fighting has ended. Someone should ask him how he feels shortening the manpower of his battalion helps Iraq, when that battalion is one of the forces most likely to do the most immediate good in-country.
New fears form over Robin Hood's elimination
The Robin Hood system, introduced in 1993, takes a portion of funds from property-rich districts and distributes them to schools in less wealthy districts. According to the Texas Education Agency, 90 percent of the students in the state benefit from the current system.As well as scrapping the system by 2005, Grusendorf's bill hands out about $300 per student to all school districts for the 2004-05 biennium.
Sandra Reed, superintendent at Sharyland ISD, said she was extremely concerned about the state ditching the principle of equalized funding.
"Scrapping Robin Hood would be devastating to the Valley districts," Reed said.
"Sharyland, for example, is a growing district; we grew by 600 students, or 10 percent last year and we expect the same this year. We?re opening a new school. How do I buy library books, computers and hire a full staff if the formulas are not there?"
Why do people continue to believe we can rely on the state to fund the vast majority of K-12 education in this country? Why do they believe that the government has the right to determine what's "adequate" or "sufficient" for a school district to operate on? Why do they think they can get away with trying to steal their cake and eat it too?
UPDATE(4/9/2004 12:52pm)
Oppose all state income tax plans!
UPDATE(4/28/2004 9:26am)
The proposed solutions for Texas school financing aren't any better.
I've read many comments which either imply, suggest, or outright claim the US is ignoring the problems in Afghanistan and allowing that country to fall into ruin and disorder. I think these people either need to explicitly define what they want done, or choose a different and more honest whip to use against the Bush administration.
Does this look like the US is "ignoring" Afghanistan? How about this? Perhaps we aren't as engaged as these commentators want us to be, but saying we're ignoring the problem over there is flatly false.
Now that the Statue has Fallen and the military is either scattered, destroyed, or gathered in Tikrit, the remaining coalition duties are mopping up the irregular resistence, providing basic police duties, and clearing the way for civilian administration and aid workers. They may be doing some searching for weapons of mass destruction, but the war is essentially finished. Of course, we'll continue to search for Saddam Hussein, but he becomes more and more of a useful intelligence capture and propaganda device than anything else.
So this leaves us at the crucial juncture of a temporary military/civilian government imposed by the US. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Jay Garner appears to most likely be the "interim transitional civil administrator." I was wrong when I believed Tommy Franks would be the guy in day-to-day charge.
I wish I could see what the Bush blueprint is. I can say that having him make it and implement it makes me feel somewhat better than the other major Presidential contenders from three years ago. He'll put much more emphasis on a limited government and keep the UN out of the political rebuilding process. But Bush and his administration are far from ideal, their many lapses into collectivism and government intervention demonstrating this clearly.
I trust Bush to help create a country that may turn out to be as "free" as Israel and indeed achieving that level of success (relative to the other nations in the area), would be highly admirable. However, as I hear the news about this effort, I can help but wonder what compromises are being made, what deals are being cut to immoral Iraqis to keep them in power, and just how watered down individual rights will be in the country.
The ideal would be a state that exceeds the level of liberty Americans enjoy. The more likely, I believe, is something like on the order of the UK's, Canada's, or Australia's government: very much free when compared to 70% of the world, but certainly not free from philosophical contradictions and statism.
But the truely tragic thing would be if we focused too much on "democracy" and allowed the people of Iraq to vote their rights away.
Q: Is the United States willing to accept anything other than a Western style democracy and a capitalistic economy for Iraq?Senior Defense Official: I think what the United States is willing to accept -- this me talking now -- is any government that expresses the -- any elected government that expresses the will of the people.
Q: That would include an Islamic-based government?
Senior Defense Official: Well, it's an Islamic country, right.
The Looters have taken control of the most important buildings. I see Mr. Thompson and Wesley Mouch in all these people.
House Endorses Drilling in Alaska Refuge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Thursday night endorsed oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, setting up a likely confrontation with the Senate as Congress struggles to produce a comprehensive energy policy.An attempt to strip a House energy bill of a provision that would allow development of the refuge's oil was rejected 228-197. Drilling opponents argued more oil could be saved with higher auto fuel economy requirements than the refuge could produce.
Earlier, the House turned back a proposal to require a 5 percent reduction in fuel used by motor vehicles, including SUVs and pickup trucks, within seven years. Opponents to the measure said it would force automakers to make small cars.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., sponsor of the anti-drilling amendment, criticized "going to a pristine area in the Arctic and drilling'' and then putting the oil "into SUVs that get 10 to 13 miles a gallon." If lawmakers are unwilling to improve auto fuel economy "we have no right to jeopardize a pristine wilderness that should be preserved for the next generation,'' he said.
But Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said those who argue against developing the refuge's oil don't have the facts. Most of them, he complained, haven't visited the area on Alaska's North Slope, just east of the oil-rich Prudhoe Bay fields.
But the "liberals" and Democrats' case has the most transparently pathetic point. If we choose to allow a shadow of a real free market continue to operate in the automobile manufacturing industry, "...we have no right to jeopardize a pristine wilderness that should be preserved for the next generation." And the next one, and the next one...because this place is so damn important that we'll ban oil operations, it would take one dire emergency to break our obligation to the next generation. They can argue this over and over, for the question is designed like that.
Of course, the "limited government" side of the political spectrum, the Republicans, has utterly failed in it's declared mission and it has enacted and allowed to pass some truley dreadful legislation in recent years.
I can't imagine living in a country with less freedom, and yet I find what we have so fragile and easy to destroy and so hard to replace.
UPDATE(1:05am 4/11)
And then there's shit like this If there was any supernaturally-enforced justice in this world, the Palo Alto council members who support this facial expression ban would be suffer a fate such that Sisyphus would cry out in horror.
Via Brainville/Disposable Dixie Cup Drinkin'
UPDATE(1:43am 4/15)
Fixed link to Erik's site. Blogger sucks, mano.
In response to learning about House Billl 715, I wrote this letter.
April 10, 2003The Honorable Jack Stick
Texas House of Representatives
PO Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768Dear Representative Stick:
I am a constituent in your House district and I write you today regarding House Bill 715, authored by Rep. Harold V. Dutton. It is legislation that would reduce some penalties for possessing marihuana in small amounts. As of this writing, it is pending in the Criminal Jurisprudence committee.
I do not know how you stand on the possession and consumption of marihuana, but I urge you to support this bill. Simple possession of marihuana is the very hallmark of a victimless crime. Numerous studies have shown that our prison systems are bulging with inmates partly due to the presence of persons convicted of possession and I?m sure you are aware of the growing fiscal and human costs of maintaining our prisons. Furthermore, the bill would amend current law that states Texas can suspend your driver?s license for possession of up to one ounce of marihuana. This alone is motive enough to support the bill, for it is wholly unreasonable to punish someone so severely when they make the choice to possess a plant for their own enjoyment or transport it for others to enjoy.
As an advocate of individual freedom and personal responsibility, I believe marihuana should be decriminalized. However, I feel legislation such as this is a step in the right direction. Please let me know how you feel about this bill and how you think you might vote on it. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Charles Hueter
UPDATE(4/29 5:40pm)
He has replied in favor of reduced penalties, even stating he's sponsoring a similar bill.
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:49pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
First suspected case in Central Texas
Austin/Travis County health officials have confirmed the first suspected case of SARS in Central Texas.This would be the fifth in the state.
The man's name is being kept confidential. They say he traveled to Asia and he has SARS' symptoms.
Doctors are monitoring him on a daily basis. They say he was hospitalized for a brief period of time and is now home and doing well.
UPDATE(6/9/2003 8:30pm)
A development
The first probable case of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Texas has been reported in a Travis County man who traveled to Toronto in mid-May and became ill later that month after returning home.The man was not hospitalized and is in isolation at home where he is recovering well, state and local health officials said.
"He doesn't have any fever and he doesn't have any cough left," said Bob Flocke, a spokesman for Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department. "He's got to stay home 10 days after the symptoms go away" to prevent infecting others.
Flocke said the man is 38, but declined to release any other identifying information.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classified the case as probable Friday evening, Flocke said.
Eight other possible SARS cases in Texas during the past three months have been classified as "suspect," including a Travis County man who traveled to China. The key difference between a suspect case and probable case is that probable cases also develop pneumonia and are believed to be more likely to have SARS.
The eight "suspects" have recovered, state health officials said.
I applied for my Concealed Handgun License several weeks ago. Last Friday, I got a letter in the mail from the Texas Department of Public Safety informing me that they had (finally) recieved my application. Not only that, but I could track my application's status as they work on it.
Of course, it's still in the "processing" phase. According to DPS, it will "make every effort to issue your license within 60 days" providing it's a valid application and you are eligible. And then I'll have one more Official Plastic Identification Thingy in my wallet.
I already have a Browning Hi Power, but it's too large to carry concealed effectively. The next challenge, assuming the DPS and FBI don't find anything worrisome in my past or application, is finding something powerful enough to bother carrying and something small enough to conceal. Not to mention something that I can shoot with accurately. *grin*
UPDATE(6/2/2003 5:17pm)
I've finally been granted the CHL.
Oh man, if there was ever a time to get in contact with your Texas representatives, it's NOW.
House Bill 715 text here. Fiscal summary:
The bill would amend the Health and Safety Code by making the possession of one ounce or less of marihuana punishable as a Class C misdemeanor. Under current law the possession of marihuana is punishable as a Class B misdemeanor if the amount of marihuana possessed is two ounces or less. The bill would also state that a person?s driver?s license may not be suspended and is not automatically suspended on final conviction of an offense for which the amount of marihuana possess is one ounce or less.
[...]
A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. A Class B misdemeanor is punishable by confinement in county jail for a term not to exceed 180 days, a fine not to exceed $2,000, or both fine and confinement.
Current law shows a possession charge of 2 ounces or less nets you up to 180 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000. For 2 to 4 ounces, it's up to one year and $4,000. The provision to not punish us with the suspension of our driver's licenses is bold, because it threatens the flow of some federal highway money.
In 1990, the federal government adopted 23 USC 159, regarding the revocation or suspension of a driver license of individuals convicted of drug offenses. The law requires states to implement a suspension of 180 days for drug offenses.[...]
The federal provisions allow for the withholding of federal highway funds for states that do not implement driver license suspensions in connection with drug offenses. As of 1996, the statute allows for 10% of certain funds apportioned under the Transportation Equity Act to be withheld. The state must provide a certification that it is enforcing the provisions of this statute. According to information received from the Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Texas received approximately $2.2 billion dollars in federal highway funds this year. If passed, TxDOT estimates that Texas could lose approximately $164 million dollars in future highway funds.
UPDATE(4/29 5:35pm)
The minutes have been posted.
The chair laid out HB 715.The chair recognized Representative Dutton to explain the measure.
Representative Keel offered a complete committee substitute.
Testimony was taken. (See attached witness list.)
The chair recognized Representative Dutton to close on the measure.
The committee substitute was withdrawn without objection.
The bill was left pending without objection.
HB 715
For:
Shultz, Dr. Landon T. (Self)
Stepnoski, Mark (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)
Woolridge, Howard J. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)
The official website is rather lame. There are some basic survival tips that can be found on the Net anywhere, some links to places where you can volunteer your time, and an overview of the color-coded national alert system.
Anemic doesn't quite describe it.
A lean $58.6 billion state budget bill that includes cuts from education to health care was passed early Monday by the House Appropriations Committee.The 19-2 vote sent the two-year spending plan to the full House, which is expected to begin days' of debate on the 2004-05 budget next week.
House budget writers had been constrained by $9.9 billion shortfall and promises of no new taxes from the state's new Republican leadership, meaning deep cuts were contemplated across state government.
The $58.6 billion in state money appropriated in the bill is 3.4 percent less than the $62 billion in state money spent in the current budget.
When federal and other funds are added, the 2004-05 budget recommendation totals $117.7 billion, just about even with how the current all-funds spending plan will total when the fiscal year ends Aug. 31.
[...]
Most of the funds — $48.8 billion, or 41.5 percent — were allocated to public schools, colleges and universities.
But there still was slashing to education, including textbook purchases, the Texas Grant scholarship program and cuts to retired and active teachers' health insurance.
In the $40.9 billion health and human services area, 56,000 frail and elderly Texans will lose home-care services, 17,000 low-income pregnant women will lose Medicaid and programs such as the Children's Health Insurance Program were scaled back, leaving hundreds of thousands of youngsters without coverage.
In my mind, if there really is such a thing as a "compassionate conservative," that conservative shouldn't be watering down his or her philosophy with half-measures that keep these institutions in place. Such a person would look to long-term ways of reducing the size and reach of the state but put their creativity into ways of easing the affected populations into their new responsibility. It would be an exit strategy for unnecessary state agencies, not a way of preserving them over time in a slightly diluted manner. It's an active attack on non-limited government, not an acceptance of the status quo.
The Legislative Budget Board website for 2004-2005 has the detailed data on the budget estimates and proposals.

U.S. Army Stf. Sgt. Chad Touchett, center, relaxes with comrades from
A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, following a search in
one of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s palaces damaged after a
bombing, in Baghdad Monday, April 7, 2003. (AP Photo/John Moore)
Keep kicking ass, guys.
I was checking out my web stats and last month I almost reached 1,500 visits. Many thanks to those who stopped by. The vast bulk continues to be from Google searches.
My previous post remains the most searched-for on my blog, so I googled around to see what other people believe the definition is.
Here are my distillations of what I found.
The American Dream is about getting married, having kids, and building the perfect two-story house with a white picket fence and a large backyard. The growth of a child into the upper-middle class.
Furthering the benevolent reach of God.
Love is the definition of the American dream. It isn't about money or a cool cars or a nice house...it's about finding that one person and spending the rest of your life with him or her in happiness.
Health and wealth are the two fundamentals of the American Dream. Achieving them frees you to persue other goals.
Regardless of what it might have meant in the past, The American Dream can today be boiled down to simple consumerism and the persuit of wealth and comfort. 'More is better.' Crass materialism that fails to take into account the dangers such unchecked consumption pose to the world we live in.
Living at a standard at least equal to but hopefully better than your parents is the real American Dream. Making them proud of you in the process, you continue family traditions and the name.
My American Dream? All those damn illegal immigrants packing their bags and getting the hell out of my country. Their presence corrupts the American Dream.
I still like mine.
The American Dream, as the phrase is usually tossed around, is about specific, subjective things unique to each person who dreams it. However, the bedrock underneath those dreams is the fundamental right to one's life and to decide how to live it. When people dream about saving lives through medicine, becoming President, making themselves rich, or quietly living with those you love, what they are really dreaming about is the freedom to do so. Without freedom, the dream remains just that: a dream.
Imagine you and I at a negotiating table. We are attempting to solve a border crisis between our countries. It doesn't matter which side did what. Drizzistan wants a particular outcome and Randomstan wants a particular outcome. The basis for diplomacy is compromise and concession, meaning that in order for diplomatic solutions to actually be effective, each side must benefit or there must at least be the appearance of benefit. Regardless of Randomstan's actions, your country refuses to budge on the critical central issue. It's out of the question to negotiate that away and it is Randomstan's right to take such a stance.
However, resolving that issue is critical because Drizzistan views it as crucial to it's interests. Drizzistan cannot accept Randomstan's refusal to budge on the matter. So negotiations continue on, chipping away at the edges of the debate and scoring cosmetic and political points for both sides...but the primary issue can't be resolved because neither side can accept a defeat on it. So what happens from there? There are many legitimate reasons and things to not negotiate away in the face of diplomacy...but sometimes that diplomacy cannot function without those concessions.
Eventually, things will get to the point where diplomacy breaks down and if the issue is important enough, peaceful means of solving the problem are replaced the forceful means. This isn't a commentary on pro-war/anti-war. This is a deeper point: successful diplomacy requires you and others to sell out your principles in order to achieve peaceful conflict resolution. And when one side sees an issue as non-negotiable and the other side sees it as a vital compromise...what then?
Peaceful means are the most desirable in all circumstances. But given human nature, people are born and grow up with differing levels of tolerance towards voluntary peaceful discussion and have different attitudes, different goals, and different philosophies. This is reality and the only way to change it would be a global eugenics/re-education campaign that is completely unfeasible, immoral, and would inevitably lead to active opposition. Since humans will always be plagued by tyrants, murderers, and thieves and since these kinds of people show the most apathy towards peaceful conflict resolution, there comes a time when force must be used. We are well aware of the breadth of people who refuse to listen to reason. If you can't get someone to cut a deal with you and you can't convince them of the stupidty of their stance and choices...if the issue is serious enough, there is no other option but force.
Updating my previous post...
HB 2465 has jumped from wallowing in committee to "reported favorably as substituted" by the Public Education Committee.
To the uninitiated:
The bill would create a scholarship program for public school students to attend private schools. It defines eligibility of students to include only a subset of students in certain large school districts that have more than 40,000 students enrolled and have a majority of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. To be eligible, the students must be from a family with income no more than 200% of the level that qualifies for the free or reduced lunch program, resides in an eligible district, and attended a public school in the preceding full semester.The scholarship amount is the total state and local funding for maintenance and operations per student in the preceding school year from all sources excepting the available school fund, federal funds and the special education allotment. The Comptroller is charged with establishing rules for distribution of payments for both public and private schools. The Comptroller issues a scholarship certificate to the parents of an eligible child, which may only be redeemed by a participating private school. The Comptroller is charged with distributing the per capita allocation to the district of residence, 10% of the scholarship amount to the district of residence, and 90% of the scholarship (or a lesser amount) to the private school.
Private schools must test students annually either with the TAKS test or a norm-referenced instrument, and must publish the aggregate results. School districts must provide eligible children transportation to the public school they would have attended. Students attending private schools on scholarship must be counted in the attendance of the district of residence.
Beginning in 2006, any school district may opt into the program.
My previous post on the subject of Kimberly Marciniak and her boycott of Texas' TAKS test has gathered some comments since I posted it.
Meanwhile, I found a Washington Post article that has some more background info on the gal.
Marciniak, a 15-year-old "A" student with a spotless record, said she doesn't aspire to change education policy by refusing to take the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Instead, the freshman at San Antonio's North East School of Arts simply wants to stand by her beliefs about the faults of high-stakes testing.[...]
Meanwhile, the teen's refusal to test won't get her completely off the hook. She is asking her school administrators to create an alternative -- and more difficult -- assessment for her to take while her classmates fill in bubbles.
"I'm trying to get an assignment that would not encourage copycats who do not have as strong beliefs as I do," she said. "I don't want somebody to do this who's just trying to follow the crowd."
UPDATE(4/4/2003 11:15pm)
Kim Marciniak herself has posted comments and e-mailed me. Interesting stuff!
New legislation to be worried about if you give a damn about freedom. The author is Rep. Carlos Uresti.
House Bill 342 would:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:SECTION 1. The heading to Section 161.082, Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 161.082. SALE OF CIGARETTES OR TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO
PERSONS YOUNGER THAN 21 [18] YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED; PROOF OF AGE REQUIRED.SECTION 2. Sections 161.082(a) and (e), Health and Safety Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person, with criminal
negligence:(1) sells, gives, or causes to be sold or given a cigarette or tobacco product to someone who is younger than 21 [
18] years of age; or(2) sells, gives, or causes to be sold or given a cigarette or tobacco product to another person who intends to deliver it to someone who is younger than 21 [
18] years of age.(e) A proof of identification satisfies the requirements of Subsection (d) if it contains a physical description and photograph consistent with the person's appearance, purports to establish that the person is 21 [
18] years of age or older, and was issued by a governmental agency.[...]
SECTION 4. Section 161.085(a), Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Each retailer shall notify each individual employed by that retailer who is to be engaged in retail sales of cigarettes or tobacco products that state law:
(1) prohibits the sale or distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products to any person who is younger than 21 [
18] years of age as provided by Section 161.082 and that a violation of that section is a Class C misdemeanor
There are also a depressing number of bills aiming to increase the tax on cigarettes to pay for various state programs, such as House Bill 53 (Rep. Steven Wolens), House Bill 267 (Rep. Elliott Naishtat), House Bill 1603 (Rep. Bob E. Griggs), House Bill 3192 (Rep. Carlos Uresti), and Senate Bill 1153 (Sen. Eliot Shapleigh).
Austin needs to stage a smoke-in and protest this shit.
UPDATED 8/30/2005 2:00pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance
I dunno who keeps searching for "iraqwar.ru," but I'd advise you to look at www1.irakwar.ru instead of here. It's English-language version can be found here.
I am waging a Holy War against my sedentary lifestyle. Lifting weights, jogging, and attempting to pay more attention to what I eat are all playing a part.
The results after a few months? Better muscle tone and power, increased stamina, and a body fat ratio of about 8%. The sole holdout, the one area which has seen little to no improvement?
My gawddamn stomach. The muscle is visible and I've been able to do more sit-ups and crunches, but the damn thing continues to protrude out when I'm standing relaxed.