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.
Since I work at a desk all day and since I prefer listening to music while working, I bring my MP3 CDs with me to work and transfer them to my hard drive. Most of the time, I stick to specific genres and the Winamp playlists run between 200-400 songs.
A few days ago, I decided to go bigger and transferred almost my entire electronica collection over. The playlist stood at 1356 files and ran to over 158 hours. One of the albums I had ripped and encoded was The Orb's Orblivion. Track 7 is titled "S.A.L.T."
The song has an extended and edited sample from a 1993 movie written and directed by Mike Leigh called Naked.
Oh, do you ever get the feeling that you're being followed?Are you not familiar with the book of Revelations of St. John, the final book of the Bible prophesied the apocalypse?
He forced everyone to receive a mark on his right hand and on his forehead, so that no one shall be able to buy or sell unless he has the mark, which is the name of the beast and the number of his name and the number of the beast is 666.
What can such a specific prophesy mean?
What is the mark?
The mark is the barcode, the ubiquitous barcode, that you'll find on every bog roll and every packet of Johnnies and every poxy pork pie. Every barcode is divided into two parts by three markers, those three markers always represented by the number 6 6 6 6.
Now what does it say? No one shall be able to buy or sell without that mark. And now what they're planning to do in order to eradicate all credit card fraud, in order to precipitate a totally cashless society, what they're planning to do they've already tested on the American troops, they're going to subcutaneously laser tattoo a mark onto your right hand or onto your forehead. They're going to replace plastic with flesh. Fact!
In the same book of Revelations when the Seven Seals were broken open on the Day of Judgment, when the seven angels blow the trumpets and third angel blows up wormwood, wormwood will fall from the sky. Wormwood will poison the third part, and all the waters in the third part and all the land and many many many people will die. Now do you know what the Russian translation of wormwood is? Chernobyl. Fact!
On August the 18th, 1999 the planets of our solar system are going to line up into the shape of a cross.
They're going to line up in the fixed signs of Aquarius, Leo, Taurus and Scorpio. Which just happen to correspond to the four beasts of the Apocalypse as mentioned in the book of Daniel. Another fact!
Do you think that the amoeba ever dreamed it would evolve into the frog. And when that first frog shimmied out of the water and employed it's vocal cords in order to attract a mate onto the turn of gravity, did that frog ever imagine that the insignificant call would evolve into all the languages of the world into all the literature of the world? And just as that froggie could never have conceived of Shakespeare so we can not possibly imagine our destiny. Look, if you take the whole of time and represent it by one year, were only in the first few moments of the first of January. There's a long way to go. Only now were not going to spout extra limbs and wings and fins because evolution itself is evolving. When it comes, the apocalypse itself will be part of the process of that leap of evolution. By the very definition of apocalypse, mankind must cease to exist, at least in a material form. We'll evolve into something that transcends matter, into a species of pure thought. Are you with me?
The music compliments the above words nicely and mostly fits in with the doomy atmosphere. I'm not religious and have no problem reconciling coincidences with reality, so that isn't the spooky part.
What's spooky is I first listened to the song on Winamp's shuffle setting, so I didn't know what position it had in the list as a whole. It's position was - get this - 666th.
*blink*
So that was kinda nifty. Of course, that was yesterday. Today, I came in and did my normal routine, starting up Winamp along the way. It randomly choose a the last track from Paul Oakenfold's Essential Millenium 3 CD called "Fly Away" and originally written by The Source. The CD must have been scratched or something because there are several parts where the MP3 glitches out and becomes unlistenable.So I deleted it from the playlist, moving everything below it up on spot. The very next album in the list is Orblivion, meaning "S.A.L.T." is now in 665th place. So I guess I'm safe from Attack of the Numerological Satanists or whatever.
Interesting notes on the August date prophecy mentioned in the movie:
- Speaking of numerology...
- On 8/18/1999, the joint NASA/European Space Agency probe Cassini was supposed to fly by Earth on it's way to Saturn. It contained 72 pounds of Pu-238, an isotope of plutonium. There was worry this posed a worldwide carcinogenic threat.
- I plugged the date into this page that claims it can track the planetary alignment and it doesn't look very like the planets aligned to form a cross.
... the closest approximation an adult can have to being in the ninth grade.And he doesn't mean it nicely.
What's one of the biggest problems with a Constitution that spells out what rights we have? If written incoherentlynote, people will begin to believe that anything not explicitly prohibited is allowable and not explicitly enumerated as a right can be prohibited or restricted. The first isn't necessarily a problem, but the second is.
Case in point: Federal Court OKs Ban on Sale of Sex Toys
A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys in the state, ruling the Constitution doesn't include a right to sexual privacy.In a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state has a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.
The court may be correct in it's interpretation of the Constitution (I expect to see something on the The Volokh Conspiracy discussing that aspect, if you're interested). That doesn't matter to me.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented merchants and users who sued to overturn the law, asked the appeals court to rule that the Constitution included a right to sexual privacy that the ban on sex toy sales would violate. The court declined, indicating such a decision could lead down other paths.
Another bad symptom of a constitution is when interest groups think they can exert legal pressure to get "rights" recognized.
"If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court said."On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."
Attorney General Troy King said the court "has done its duty" in upholding the law.
The problem with explicit, enumerated rights ties in with two other things. One is the most fundamental problem with democracy: your life, property, and liberty are at the mercy of the majority. The other is a deep-seated fear of extremism in defense of principle. Billy Beck has said:
I don't care where it is: whenever I see a reference to "ideological purity", I look around to make sure that my pistol is within reach. In every single case that I can recall (although it's tough because I've seen a million of 'em), that thing is directly reducible to a complaint against fidelity to principles. It's a smear, just like complaints about "extremism". I could expound in this space, but it's not necessary because I already said everything there is to say about this subject here, over six years ago.
Whether or not you think "adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like" are beyond the pale is irrelevant. Thinking you have the authority to keep others from engaging in those acts is. Why? Because you own yourself and no other. We are not your slaves to dance at the whim of the Conventional unWisdom.
Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer who filed the lawsuit with seven other women and two men, called the decision "depressing.""I'm just very disappointed that courts feel Alabamians don't have the right to purchase adult toys. It's just ludicrous," said Williams, who lives in Florida and owns Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur. "I intend to pursue this."
I wish you victory, Ms. Williams because you are on the right side. In the same breath, however, I have to say the battle you'll wage will be on the grounds of their choosing and will necessarily be an uphill fight. By opposing them through the courts on Constitutional grounds, you grant them the first victory: the understanding that you have to petition the government to get the government off your back.
U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. of Huntsville has twice ruled against the state law, deciding in 2002 that the sex toy ban violated the constitutional right to privacy. The state appealed both times and won.
Shaky foundations beget inconsistent results.
The state law bans only the sale of sex toys, not their possession, the court said, and it doesn't regulate other items including condoms or virility drugs. "The Alabama statute proscribes a relatively narrow bandwidth of activity," U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote.
Judge Birch is saying
- A little theft is OK.
- A little aggression is fine.
- Getting locked up for a few hours is no big deal.
He has conceded that if you have ten children, the government can look you dead in the eye and take one of them because it's only a small part of your overall life.
Here's a question I'd like posed to this bastard and anyone who agrees with him:
- When you possess something, do you have the right to trade it for something else someone owns?
If I cannot trade my belongings to someone else voluntarily as I see fit, then the value of ownership gets Orwell's boot print tattooed all over it. The nature of the property is trivial and pointlessly diverts attention away from the principles at hand. You can make a "sex toy" out of any conceivable object; these things are just explicitly for those purposes in order to profit from people's natural desires.
Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett disagreed, saying the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that adults don't have a right to consensual sexual intimacy and that private acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Here's what the judges are missing.
You own yourself and your property. You are the king, emperor, judge, jury, and executioner on that property. If you want privacy, you should be left free to build up whatever means you think will contribute to that privacy. If you want to be public, then you can have a house with glass walls. The right isn't to privacy; it's to your property and what happens on it.
I understand a right to privacy is someone a lot of libertarians instinctively agree with, but it's an abstraction from the deeper concept that should be defended. Being private means being left along by others, including the state. That notion is utterly reasonable.
Law.com: 11th Circuit Nixes Sex Toys, Sex Rights
The split panel upheld an Alabama law -- nearly identical to one in Georgia -- that made the sale of sex toys a crime punishable by up to a year in prison.
The criminalization of people voluntarily pleasuring themselves is one of the ugliest ways the state intervenes in our lives. A year in jail for selling objects that individuals want to buy to make them and their partners happy. It's foul.
The decision extends an emerging division in the court over sexual rights, with Judges Stanley F. Birch Jr. and Rosemary Barkett leading opposing factions.
This is a proxy battle using wiffle bats.
Birch maintains that although the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy, the justices have not decided fully that sexual privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.Barkett claims that the court is refusing to apply the sodomy decision to laws that violate people's right "to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms."
Last week, the full 11th Circuit split 6-6 in denying reconsideration of a decision that upheld a Florida law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children. Birch wrote that while he thought the law was "misguided," since there was no "constitutional liberty interest in private sexual intimacy," the court must uphold Florida lawmakers' right to exclude gays and lesbians from adopting.
You see the problem here? These people are refusing to turn off a road because the warning sign they just passed didn't use the government-approved layout warning them of a cliff ahead. That's the folly of a written Bill of Rights.
Just after the law went into effect in 1998, a group of plaintiffs sued then-Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr., who is now an 11th Circuit judge. They claimed the new law violated a host of civil rights, including ones guaranteeing free expression, due process and safety from unreasonable government searches of homes.
You see the problem here? They aren't attacking this on the grounds of property rights. Of course, that's mostly because that quaint notion has been obliterated over the years by the government and any lawyer will laugh you out of their office if you assert an absolute legal right to your possessions.
Without a fundamental right at stake, Birch wrote, only the people of Alabama could decide "that a prohibition of sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly ... ."Copyright 2004 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved
Hopefully, Dear Reader, you'll understand the complete rage I feel towards this by now.
Footnote
Some would believe a coherent Constitution is a contradiction. I disagree. If through unanimous consent a group of people decided to live under a pact to never aggress against one another, to respect an absolute individual right to their respective properties, and to allow those who've agreed to leave the agreement as they wish, then such a "legal document" would be consistent and moral.
Manchester Online: Sex scourge of Big Brother
BIG Brother's steamy scenes are encouraging young people to "play Russian Roulette" with sex, a top health boss said today.
In light of what the jackass says, "health boss" is not as appropriate as "official prude and professional health nanny-whining thug."
During last week's Big Brother, Stuart, a former pupil of King's School in Macclesfield and a psychology student at Leeds University, and Michelle, from Newcastle, crept into a makeshift tent under a table, where it was widely believed they had sex.
Something that happens thousands if not millions of times a day, right?
Prof Ashton said: "The impression is given that two people, who know little or nothing about each other's history, are having sex under a table."No consideration is given to the risks. There's no mention of safe sex or condoms and no obvious signs producers did anything to stop it or to counsel the couple on the dangers. Not only is this a new low in British television history, but it sends out a signal that casual sex with a comparative stranger, with no regard to the risks, is okay.
"If Michelle should become pregnant or if either one of the couple should pick up a sexually-transmitted infection, then the producers are culpable, in my view.
"They have put viewing figures above social responsibility and they deserve to be held to account for it.
"Programme makers, whether for film or television, need to be more responsible about how they portray sex."
© Copyright 2004 GMG Regional Digital.
If he wants to hold the people behind a TV show responsible for the actions taken and emotions felt by the show's viewers, then he should be held responsible for the searing disgust I feel towards him for saying it.
I don't care if a mini-series about the benefits of becoming a Satanist influences droves of people to take up the Dark Art. Those individuals made up their own minds with the information the integrated. They can uncritically accept what they see on TV and (as Professor Ashton just fucking assumes) believe what they see to be true and honest and good, or they can view what they see with skepticism and dig into the issues further.
I won't dispute the health benefits of being careful with sex nor the social and personal benefits of being respectful to your partners. I will dispute anyone who says implications, depictions, and hints towards sexual activity need to be plastered with disclaimers, warnings, cautions, and other things.
Drudge is up to his old tricks. Somehow, he found this page on the official John Kerry website which says:
Down on Bush PantyWare Party
WHEN: July 28 @ 7:00 PM
WHERE: Central Square567 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02139
The Enormous Room
HOST: Dillon Paul
INFO:
Join hosts Dillon Paul and Jennie Israel at the Enormous Room for the Down on Bush PantyWare Party, an evening of politics, panties, and performance! PantyWare Parties were founded by Axis of Eve (www.axisofeve.org), a coalition of brazen women on a mission to "expose and depose" President George W. Bush and his deceitful administration.The Down on Bush PantyWare Party will include art and performance from some of Boston's hottest artists, including the Ms. Dominica K, Frankie Cocktail, Sara Seinberg, Andi Sutton, Nicole Margaretten, Ben McCoy, Ingrid Schatz, and Catherine Musinsky. Win prizes by playing Bush Trivia and Protest Panty Bingo! Purchase "protest panties" by Axis of Eve and anti-Bush t-shirts and tanktops by Fresh Dill Designs (www.freshdill.com)! $10 donation supports the Youth Vote Coalition (www.youthvote.org)
I don't give a damn one way or the other whether this happens or not. Hell, most of the designs are sexy and clever.
I do have a problem, a deep moral and gastronomic problem, with one of them:
"my cherry for kerry"?
The idea of young attractive women throwing their virginity away on John F. Kerry is beyond rational comment. Not much less repulsive is the idea of pledging their innermost sexual core to this guy.
Made in jest or not, it just don't seem right.
News8Austin: Spaghetti Warehouse, county clerk named in lawsuit
Some disability groups demonstrated outside The Spaghetti Warehouse in Downtown Austin on Monday. They've filed lawsuits against 14 Texas businesses and government offices.That number corresponds to the 14th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Texas Civil Rights Project said it's suing companies to force them to live up to the law, which makes it mandatory to provide access for the disabled.
Let it not be said these people can't find symbolism in their legal frivolousness.
"We're here at Spaghetti Warehouse because even though they put a ramp in, this landing down there is unusable. People in wheelchairs get stuck. In fact, one person in a wheelchair fell out and was on the ground for 20 minutes before somebody helped her up," Jim Harrington, with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said.Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Keep cracking the whip, Mr. Harrington.
This is the slow strangulation death of property rights in this country and I see no end in sight. They don't care if this means business owners have more paperwork to complete, more regulations to comply with, and more legal fees to spend. They don't care the resources diverted to deal with those things mean fewer resources to conduct business. And they certainly don't care about being the master of your own land.
The advocates of this kind of law want you to bend to their will. Does that sound like something you want? Does it even sound right?
It's been well over a year since I started actively using online personals services to find a female for a relationship. My "success rate" isn't that great, but that'll be left for another post.
All of these services have the option of including a picture along with your text profile. Obviously, the way someone looks has little to do with how well you'll tolerate that person face to face during conversation. Furthermore, these pictures are rarely high-quality shots showing more than heads and shoulders. The best profiles have multiple pictures taken on different days in different clothing in different poses under different lighting. Even then, you can't be sure what someone will look like until you see him or her for the first time.
Given all that, having a picture has become my primary filtering mechanism behind a woman's location and age. I do this simply to save time. Digital cameras and scanning equipment are becoming more and more common and it seems most profiles lacking a picture do so either because they just signed up and need time to get an electronic photo or because the person wants people to take the first step and ask via a messaging service. Since picture less profiles are a minority, I don't bother contacting them unless I feel I've tried other potential women first.
However, there are always one or two ladies who have written a profile so unique and interesting that you can't resist trying to contact. One of the women registered with the Austin Chronicle Personals ads has such a profile and a photo. The image isn't of her face, though. It's the back of her head. All you see is her right ear and a delightful mass of brown curls aimed towards a desk.
I didn't bother contacting her the entire time I've been registered with Springstreet (they run AusChron's service) mainly on the grounds that I'd rather take my chances with known beauties. I can't recall what her profile contained back then, but I visited it last week for the first time in a while and just felt and urge to try.
So I did.
When I write an introductory message to a stranger through these services, I want it to be memorable. I try to integrate bits of their profile into sardonic personal observations and questions asking for more info. If someone has "Evil Warlord" as their occupation, they're likely to get something like this from me as my opening paragraph:
Now, let be clear about something. I see no inherent reason why gals can't be arrogant, bloodthirsty, power-mad leaders of warriors. Sounds like a bitchin' movie.But that's the problem. I can't recall any female evil warlords in the movies I've seen. Are you based off one? Do you own it? Can it see it?
If someone is going to offer something absurd or clever in his or her profile, I'm going to work off it. Another opening example, responding to a gal who said she had a "dreamy bed" in her bedroom:
...you'll have to help me out here. Is this a bed that is covered in pictures of rock and movie stars and you get all girly looking at it, or is this a bed that acts like a dream fountain, pumping out zany ideas while you're asleep?
A final example:
If you are "always on the move" and yet you are also "completely happy in my little apartment (with my kitty cat)" that can only mean you are getting the kitty ready for the Feline Olympics or something. Do you chase it around your living room for mutual exercise? :)
I like absurdist, lightly sarcastic twists on humor. Dry, tongue-in-cheek inquiries into some part of the person's profile are my favorite. My friends have been exposed to it for some time and know what to expect and it still catches them off guard if they can't make the connections fast enough to the joke and reality.
So when a gal
- has "Subtle subversion" as her occupation;
- lists "ostrich eggshells" as an item in her room;
- describes herself in part as someone who doesn't "believe in logic but will use it in long debates with you. If I prove you wrong I'll be grumpy until I prove myself wrong too";
- and describes the person she's looking for, in part with "I just need you to have something poking up from under the surface. I need it to fascinate and terrify and excite me. For now, if you can offer trust, conversation, and someplace with trees, that'll do just fine";
I get interested and gear up the Imagination Machine to see what I can come up with.
She responded to my first message and with a barely concealed wit and intelligence that offered a number of crazy ways to respond. I did. She fired back a message even greater than the first, including a request that I tell her a random story about myself. I'm waiting to hear back from her on my reply to that, but I gave her plenty of opportunities to step up and say something nutty.
I not once approached the subject of what she looks like, but during her last reply, she said she only has a photo of her rear cranium because a hyena breaks into her living room and mauls her once in a while. *grin*
So I'm mentally attracted to this lady. It feels odd because I know so little about her appearance. She says she's five feet tall and some people compare her eyes to those of a movie star "but everything else must be...unique" in her words. She apparently has semi-longish brown hair. And that's it. It's a departure for me to be attracted to someone when the bulk of what I have to go on are her words and sentence structure. This certainly isn't a bad thing, but it does feel odd.
Accurate, objective measurement of a feeling is impossible in my opinion, so I can't really compare mental attraction to physical attraction. It's still very early in a conversation that has ranged from massage table portability to drainage moats to chigger bites to France-based cello playing. Physical attractions can be had anywhere; just turn on the TV or take a walk in a shopping mall. Intellectual attraction is harder since my standards are tougher to meet. Plenty of women fit the essential body mold.
But the magnitude of the attraction is roughly equal to an above-average physical attraction. I'd really like to meet her in person to her hear speak and observe her mannerisms. Obviously, I want to see what she looks like. But the one on one context has been established and I'm curious to see the rest of that context.
Note to self: If you happen to be running a train pulling 100 cars loaded with coal and happen to see smoke arising from the middle of the pack, stopping to examine the nature and cause of the smoke is a Good Thing.
It is, however, a Bad Thing if you stop over a wooden bridge made with creosoted ties, bents, and trusses; especially when the cause of the smoke is a vastly overheated wheel bearing that fails, dropping the truck support down onto the rail itself. The results, courtesy of heat conduction, are evident.
More info here.
The man just won't quit. I had a problem with Instapundit regarding Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. Now, he goes and says:
I think this is a significant step forward.
Professor Reynolds is referring to this MSNBC article on space tourism which says in part:
Legislation that would make it easier for private space tourism to take flight is finally set to move forward after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, key players told MSNBC.com Thursday.The bill - known as the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, or H.R. 3752 - lays out the definition of a suborbital space passenger vehicle, solidifies the process for licensing such vehicles, and allows paying passengers to fly into space at their own risk.
This is not a step forward. This is several steps back.
We don't need Congress defining what a suborbital space passenger vehicle is. We don't need Congress to impose licensing restrictions on such vehicles. And - gawdDAMN it - people are already responsible for the actions they take.
You want to make private space flight easier? Stop fucking with private businesses and getting in their way. Don't impose regulations on their behavior and make them jump through hoops to earn a license to do something they already have the right to do. Leave the market to it's own designs.
Glenn Reynolds has claimed to be a libertarian in the past and yet he continues to desire more government control over our lives.
UPDATE 1/20/2005 12:25pm
Glenn Reynolds is NOT a Libertarian
Via Will Wilkinson comes an article from WebMD by Sid Kirchheimer: Sex Better Than Money for Happiness. Key quote:
Good news for folks whose bedrooms have more activity than their bank accounts: New research shows that sex is better for your happiness than money.That's not to say that being financially poor but sexually active is the secret to a happy life. But despite common theory, more money doesn't get you more sex, say "happiness economics" researchers.
After analyzing data on the self-reported levels of sexual activity and happiness of 16,000 people, Dartmouth College economist David Blachflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England report that sex "enters so strongly (and) positively in happiness equations" that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional $50,000 in income for the average American.
[...]
Overall, the happiest folks are those getting the most sex -- married people, who report 30% more between-the-sheets action than single folks. In fact, the economists calculate that a lasting marriage equates to happiness generated by getting an extra $100,000 each year. Divorce, meanwhile, translates to a happiness depletion of $66,000 annually.
© 2004 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
Hmm.
$50,000 extra a year or weekly good sex? Tough choice. I have to assume the $50k is after-tax income, since that's what we actually get to use once the government is done stealing from us. Otherwise, that additional income would be more like $39,000 for my tax bracket.
The extra income would translate into $4166.67 more per month. I already make about $1,500 a month, so that's more than double what I earn now. In less than a year, I could pay my parents for the balance on my car, obliterate my small-but-ever-present credit card balance, pay off my computer loan, and save and invest a much much greater portion of my income for future use.
Then there's the awesome fringe benefit of not having to hesitate walking into a record store or bookshop. From my closet's perspective, a suddenly affordable wardrobe overhaul would become feasible. I could get a second pair of prescription glasses to replace my daily-use pair. That way I could use the pair I have now for dirtier, grimier tasks like working out or jogging. I would be able to get new wheels and rims for my car and tinker with the engine to get more power. My home computer could be replaced with something better. Fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money for me and I wouldn't run out of spending ideas.
But then there's good sex every week. Since it's such a personal subject, I can't effectively articulate how important that would be to me, other than to contrast it with what I wrote above and assert the trade-off between the two choices is hard to quantify. I'm not a virgin but sexual intimacy is rare for me, approaching an average of once a year or so. I just turned 24 years old and I'm a male, so that speaks for itself.
Tough choice. Do you, Dear Reader, have an opinion?
MSNBC: Capitalism spoils trip to wine country
I’m no expert in oenology. But I do know this: I enjoy tasting a good glass of wine. So when I headed out to California wine country earlier this summer, I stopped by my favorite vineyards for a taste and a chat with the wine makers and experts (oenologists, as the fancy people call them).
And you know what they did to me for the privilege of tasting, and sometimes purchasing, their wine? They charged me! Five bucks! Five lousy bucks.
Hmm.
Capitalism has taken hold of California wine country, thanks to the mandatory $5 tasting fee. The green of cold hard cash now matches the brown of fertile soft soil. The almighty dollar is there to stay, unlike the pests and bugs that wine makers have been beaten back over the years.
Hyperbole has taken hold of Mr. Mortman. Will the fee be required everywhere for the duration of time? How does he know this?
Surely, many wineries have long charged a fee to sample their wines in tasting rooms. But not all. In previous trips to Sonoma, Napa, and other regions I’ve been able to pick and choose which wineries I tried based on whether there’s a “cover charge.” Taste had something to do with it, but so did frugality (re: free-loading). Now, no more. Everywhere I went on my most recent trip (Buena Vista, Ravenswood, Gundlach Bundschu), there it was that f$5 fee.
Aww. The self-described free-loader is mad because he can't free-load any longer. I can understand the feeling but not the direction of the emotion. Because:
The tendency to ascribe to the market economy the characteristics of being something other than the events caused by the choices and actions of individuals is incorrect. The market arises as a result of the willingness of individuals to interact. Every development in the market is the outcome of purposive actions on the part of individuals who are seeking to improve their own state of affairs.
- Thomas C. Taylor
You don't blame "pilots" in general when you're delayed at LAX, do you?
Presumably, the charge covers the cost of wine, wine servicing, and helps deter excessive and potentially dangerous drinking (for that matter, so does forcing someone under the influence to spell “Gewürztraminer”). On paper, I can understand the argument, if not embrace it. But as a true-blooded believer in free-market democratic capitalism unencumbered by government regulation and taxation, I have serious gripes over the grapes:
Stop.
The last sentence is a lie. If he was being truthful, he wouldn't be bitching about the voluntary actions of businessfolk doing what makes economic sense for their enterprises. It's also contradictory, because the moment you introduce democracy into free-market capitalism, it becomes encumbered by government regulation and taxation.
He then proceeds to lay out three reasons he feels justify his complaints, ending with:
Bottom line: Visitors pay a fee that benefits the winery, but get no discernible benefit in return.© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
You get to taste the wine. How's that for a benefit? You aren't entitled to it, ya know.
UPDATE(7/29/2004 12:55pm)
It's possible I've made a mistake regarding what Mr. Mortman may or may not be advocating. He's done some writing for Reason and for National Review, which might not make him a politically consistent defender of individual freedom but does shed a different light on his politics in general. I have never heard of him, so I took what he wrote at face value. If it was satirical or sarcastic, then I apologize right now.
It didn't seem like that when I read it, however.
- Reuters July 22, 2004: Ruthless Armstrong Wins 17th Stage
A ruthless Lance Armstrong refused to allow his rivals a consolation stage victory as he came from behind to outsprint German Andreas Kloeden in the last few meters of the 127-mile 17th stage of the Tour de France Thursday.
[...]
The U.S. Postal team leader, impressive in his time-trial at l'Alpe d'Huez Wednesday, could have been expected to let his rivals grab a consolation victory in the race's last mountain stage.
However, he refused to allow them the satisfaction and rode down Kloeden in the final meters to seal the 20th individual stage victory of his career, adding to two team time trial victories.
"No gifts this year for stage wins," said the American. "The Tour is too special for me. My condition is super and like everybody saw, the team was unbelievable today, they controlled everything. I had no problems," he added.
[...]
The only other rider left with a chance to shine Thursday was France's Richard Virenque, who took advantage of the five climbs to secure a record seventh King of the Mountains jersey.
The last climb, the Croix de Fry, looked like a lap of honor for the 2004 Tour, with the top-four riders overall -- Armstrong, Basso, Kloeden and Ullrich -- in front, with Armstrong's team mate Floyd Landis opening the way for them.
Armstrong obviously wanted Landis to win but they were taken off guard when Kloeden surged in the last 1,968 feet but Armstrong refused to allow the German the victory and mercilessly rode him down in the final few meters.
Copyright 2004 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.
My emphasis.
Just what the hell is Francois Thomazeau, the author of this article, trying to say with this terminology? This doesn't seem to be an isolated occurrence. Other instances of this usage of aggressive words:
- Reuters June 23, 2004: Armstrong Believes Dream of Sixth Win Can Come True
By conquering France every July since 1999, Lance Armstrong has adopted as his own the French maxim that "impossible is not French."
- Reuters July 16, 2004: Armstrong Throws Down the Gauntlet
Lance Armstrong grabbed the Tour de France by the scruff of the neck Friday, outlasting his main rivals and charging from sixth into second place overall.
- Reuters July 17, 2004: Armstrong Wins Tour Stage as Rivals Crack
Lance Armstrong's relentless pursuit of a record sixth Tour de France title gathered pace on Saturday as his main rivals cracked.
Armstrong produced a devastating surge up the final 15.9 km climb of stage 13 to snatch victory from Italian Ivan Basso -- a neat reversal of Friday's finish at La Mongie.
Basso, who has emerged as the U.S. Postal rider's main rival, was handed victory the previous day but this time the five-times winner was not in such a generous mood as he repeated his stage victory here in 2002.
- Reuters 20 July, 2004: Exhausted Mayo quits Tour
Mayo had beaten Armstrong to win the eight-day Dauphine Libere event in June but his Tour hopes took a major blow as early as the third stage when he was involved in a pile-up which cost him almost four minutes.
Armstrong, on course to win a record sixth Tour de France, then crushed him by a massive 37 minutes and 40 seconds when the American won the 13th stage.
- Reuters July 21, 2004: Armstrong Destroys Basso to Win Time Trial
Lance Armstrong seized complete control of the Tour de France on Wednesday with an awesome display of power cycling to win the 9.6-mile individual time trial.
The American, bidding for a record sixth overall Tour victory, blasted round the 21 hairpins on the twisting climb to the Alpine ski resort in 39 minutes 41.47 seconds to annihilate his nearest rival Ivan Basso.
- Reuters July 22, 2004: I Am Not the New Cannibal, Says Armstrong
For Lance Armstrong, the time for giving on the Tour de France is over.
[...]
Armstrong said another five times Tour champion, Bernard Hinault, had congratulated him for the lack of generosity shown to his rivals on the 127-mile 17th stage.
"When I went to the podium, Hinault met me at the top of the steps and said: 'Perfect. No gifts," Armstrong said.
Frenchman Hinault, another merciless boss of the bunch, won 28 stages on the Tour.
"I've given gifts in the Tour before and I've never been paid back. The Tour is too special to me. It means more than any other race," Armstrong said.
- Independent Online July 21 2004: L'Alpe d'Huez time trial not safe - Armstrong
The storming American dealt a potentially decisive blow to his rivals as he won the 15.5km time trial in 39 minutes 41.45 seconds - more than a minute quicker than the next fastest rider Jan Ullrich.
All bolding is mine.
Perhaps Mr. Thomazeau just likes describing tough cycling in this way, cycling so obviously authoritative. I won't discount that out of hand as it's entirely possible. I haven't checked to see what he writes in regards to other Tours de France or other sporting events he may have covered.
That first article just jumped out at me, though. Especially the parts about letting Mr. Armstrong's rivals get in a feel-good win. Of course he shouldn't do it. Success is something to attain, to earn, and to cherish. Not to give away.
UPDATE(7/28/2004 5:02pm)
Slate has a round-up of a few of the things the international press has been saying about Mr. Armstrong: Tour De Lance - The international press snipes at America's superhero
Andrew D is upset over at the Burnt Orange Report: Feds Cut Off Funds for Migrant Workers' Kids
This is a program which is successful at keeping poor kids in school so they can pull themselves out of staggering poverty. It provides necessary services to people who couldn't otherwise afford it. It serves only to help people who are among the poorest yet also most important workers in our society. And they want to get rid of it.
"They" are the Bush Administration and Republicans in general. "It" is the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Youth Program. It's purpose:
Youth Program was designed to meet the needs of at-risk and out-of-school farmworker youth through the provision of comprehensive services that will enhance basic education, occupational and life skills. Today the program includes youths ranging from 14 to 21 year-old farmworkers and children of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker parents, as defined in Section 167 of The Workforce Investment Act. As of 2003, there are 12 organizations who have received grants ranging from $200,000 to $2 million, for a total of $10 million.The activities and services include self and interpersonal skills development, community service projects, basic skills, drop-out prevention, study skills training and tutoring, and work readiness or occupational skills, as needed. Additional services include individual employment plans, community service projects, on-the-job training, entrepreneurial training and adult mentoring, just to name a few.
In addition, support services are provided to ensure that youth are able to participate in activities. These include transportation, medical assistance, daycare for their children, clothing and nutritional needs.
It has a list of success stories for the curious reader.
Andrew obviously believes government exists to help those in need and any reduction in government that negatively impacts the ability of the state to help those in need is wrong. I obviously disagree.
I just want to know why he thinks the needy are entitled to these services and why people should have to pay taxes to support them.
"I'm disappointed he feels that way because I think that somebody that did 20 years in the Army ought to be able to recognize that there's a greater good than the individual...I wish we didn't have a situation that required us to have this level of sacrifice, but we do."
-Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker
My emphasis.I cannot think of a single political issue, contemporary or not, that does not revolve around the two basic choices we have to make. Either you stand for the individual sacrificing himself, his property, and his values to a collective or you don't. This is a binary, black and white choice. It cannot be avoided.
The collectivist spectrum is vast and allows them to infinitely dance and shift among "nuanced" positions; positions different only in degree from their neighbors, unfortunately leading so many to believe there are substantial variations in the philosophies of Socialists, Greens, Progressive Democrats, Moderates, Conservative Republicans, and Limited-Government Constitutionalists. There aren't. The differences consist of disagreements over what parts of society to run and how hard to run them into the ground.
The elevation of the collective above the individual remains the greatest poison to liberty and General Schoomaker and his type are the malignancy's peddlers.
I'd much rather see Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket. She's better on the war, and seems to have much more backbone in general. No Carter, she.
Beyond the obvious reasons to hate terrorists, their methods, and their philosophy is what they do to influence our ability to think clearly. Instapundit's desire to see the war on terrorism executed well has driven him to endorse Hillary fucking Clinton as the Democrat for President.
Good gawd.
UPDATE(7/23/2004 4:36pm)
*sigh*
UPDATE(7/27/2004 1:15pm)
Now Anthony Gregory gets into it:
I saw Carter speaking on PBS last night. I certainly didn't agree with all that he said (such as the necessity of invading Afghanistan) but he does seem a much less reprehensible and dishonest a man than most presidents I remember.Why do so many neolibertarians have this visceral contempt for Carter? I doubt it has to do with policy. Or character. Is it because he believes, at least in some sense, in peace? Why do they bash him so?
Whatever it is, I think he should be the Democratic nominee. If he represented the Dems, at least there would be some choice on some issues.
And this is from the Lew Rockwell blog!
Christ.
UPDATE(7/28/2004 9:52am)
Now, it's Andrew Sullivan:
Domestically, Obama's appeal is even stronger. He framed his belief in government with a defense of self-reliance and conservative values. It's a Clintonite formula, delivered with Blairite sincerity.[...]
Conservative values, Democratic compassion. In the constant churn and dialectic of American politics, this is a new fusion - and the Dems have found a young, racially diverse, eloquent voice. Can you think of any current Republican with that kind of fresh appeal and smart politics? Only Arnold comes close. The Republicans would love to have someone of Obama's caliber - but they have failed to attract them. That is their tragedy, and it is only deepened in a party that gave rise to Trent Lott and Tom DeLAy. Obama is the Democrats' hope. Heck, he is the hope for all of us.
My emphasis.
Here are some of the positions Barack Obama has taken that Mr. Sullivan apparently thinks we need:
- Continued support for public education in the form of more spending, further government regulation of student loans, and bigger pre-school and Head Start programs.
- Increased government intervention in the energy industry (not surprising, given Mr. Sullivan's advocacy of a higher gas tax).
- Health care as a right for everyone.
- Closing tax loopholes, subsidizing "Made in America" businesses, etc.
Why do people get so caught up in the message these politicians convey when what they want to do is what matters more?
UPDATE 1/20/2005 12:25pm
Glenn Reynolds is NOT a Libertarian
The Texas Department of Transportation sent me a letter a few days ago. In it, the state agency informed me my vehicle registration will expire in August of 2004. To get another windshield sticker, I have to fill out a form and hand over $72.30 ($73.30 if mailed). What's left unsaid is this part: TRANSPORTATION CODE, CHAPTER 502. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES
§ 502.002. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE.
(a) The owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for:
- (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and
- (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year.
[...]§ 502.401. GENERAL PENALTY.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person violates a provision of this chapter and no other penalty is prescribed for the violation.
(b) This section does not apply to a violation of Section 502.003, 502.101, 502.109, 502.112, 502.113, 502.114, 502.152, 502.164, or 502.282.
(c) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200.§ 502.402. OPERATION OF UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle that has not been registered as required by law. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200.
[...]
§ 502.404. OPERATION OF VEHICLE WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE OR REGISTRATION INSIGNIA. (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway during a registration period a passenger car or commercial motor vehicle that does not display two license plates, at the front and rear of the vehicle, that have been:
- (1) assigned by the department for the period; or
- (2) validated by a registration insignia issued by the department that establishes that the vehicle is registered for the period.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway during a registration period a passenger car or commercial motor vehicle, other than a vehicle assigned license plates for the registration period, that does not properly display the registration insignia issued by the department that establishes that the license plates have been validated for the period.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person operates on a public highway during a registration period a road tractor, motorcycle, trailer, or semitrailer that does not display a license plate, attached to the rear of the vehicle, that has been:
- (1) assigned by the department for the period; or
- (2) validated by a registration insignia issued by the department that establishes that the vehicle is registered for the period.
(d) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a dealer operating a vehicle as provided by law.
(e) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200.
So you basically can't drive a car on a Texas public road unless you've paid a
But so what? If I wanted to thumb my nose at the state, why not just stop registering and complying with these small misdemeanors and take the fines? Well, we have PENAL CODE, CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS
§ 12.43. PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENDERS.
(a) If it is shown on the trial of a Class A misdemeanor that the defendant has been before convicted of a Class A misdemeanor or any degree of felony, on conviction he shall be punished by:
- (1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
- (2) confinement in jail for any term of not more than one year or less than 90 days; or
- (3) both such fine and confinement.
(b) If it is shown on the trial of a Class B misdemeanor that the defendant has been before convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or any degree of felony, on conviction he shall be punished by:
- (1) a fine not to exceed $2,000;
- (2) confinement in jail for any term of not more than 180 days or less than 30 days; or
- (3) both such fine and confinement.
(c) If it is shown on the trial of an offense punishable as a Class C misdemeanor under Section 42.01 or 49.02 that the defendant has been before convicted under either of those sections three times or three times for any combination of those offenses and each prior offense was committed in the 24 months preceding the date of commission of the instant offense, the defendant shall be punished by:
- (1) a fine not to exceed $2,000;
- (2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days; or
- (3) both such fine and confinement.
(d) If the punishment scheme for an offense contains a specific enhancement provision increasing punishment for a defendant who has previously been convicted of the offense, the specific enhancement provision controls over this section.
You get tossed in jail and the fines add up. I'd assume that after a point, the state will just charge you with felony offenses and continue bumping up the punishment.
Is this a great system we have or what?
When I grew up, my dad was fond of a saying I'm certain many of you have heard before:
Driving is a privilege and not a right.
He never bothered explaining how he come to such a conclusion, especially since he once modded and hot-rodded cars in the 50's and 60's. You'd think the individualism and rebellion implicit in those activities would incubate a greater level of anti-authoritarianism. But I think I know why he thinks that way.You come to that conclusion due to explicit acceptance of state road ownership. Since the state owns the roads, it gets to set the rules for them. Since the state owns most roads, the phrase above is de facto true. A right is something you don't have to ask permission to do. The legal code quoted above is essentially that process of asking permission.
Which leads to private property. You don't really own something if you have to ask permission to use it. Even if that permission is limited to a series of yearly form-filling chores and money wasted on bureaucracies. Part of the problem with arguing against this notion is that you start off on the wrong foot. Driving itself isn't a right; it's an extension of more fundamental rights such as property and freedom. I don't have the right to drive over your rose bushes or on your driveway without your permission.
A better way to counter the "privilege, not a right" idea is to change the terms of the debate. Don't argue individuals have a right to drive. Argue they have a right to use their property as they wish provided they don't harm others'. Argue they also have a right to move freely provided they don't trespass on others' property. Skip the superficial derivative of a right to drive and protect the more fundamental rights. Safeguard them and arguments over other issues will be easier and you'll contradict yourself less.
UPDATE 1/28/2005 11:51am
Hypocrisy or Consistency?
I'll be in the Denton/Dallas area over the weekend. Hopefully my recent anti-spam measures will keep the crap to a minimum.
In the meantime, here are some worthwhile links to read.
Internecine minarchist-anarchist warfare
Catallarchy:
Two-Four:
Social nannyism
The Agitator:
Stepping off the blog gas pedal
Somewhere over the Rainbough:
Concrete stupidity
The Freeway to Serfdom:
Useful comparisons
Club for Growth:
Musical shape
Marginal Revolution:
The Herald via AllAfrica: Corporate World Must Be Strictly Supervised
Some readers who read my article on socialism and the nationalisation of land have referred to me as a "Marxist fossil", the intention being to dismiss my views as old and "fossilised."My kinder foes praised me for my "solid facts" and "cogent logic", before noting superciliously: "Great idea, but it will never work in practice."
So am I a "Marxist fossil"?
No, sorry, comrades, I am not. I am merely not ashamed to admit that I am a socialist and have been one since I read books at university by writers like Hegel, Karl Marx, Albert Camus (ironically - The Rebel), Steve Biko and many others. Just as some people become born-again Christians, I became a socialist. After all, was Jesus Christ not the first true socialist?
From my perspective, this is akin to saying, I am merely not ashamed to admit that I am an advocate of institutionalized theft and the deliberate application of force against those people who show individuality and initiative.
Jesus wasn't the first socialist, but he certainly was one of the more famous.
I may be a socialist, but that does not mean I am opposed to wealth creation and rewarding hard work and entrepreneurial endeavour. Far from it. I am not only a property owner (the first requirement for being a capitalist), but I am also an investor both in the economy in general and on the stock exchange in particular.Some of my friends have told me being a socialist is inconsistent with investing on the speculative stock exchange. I beg to differ. One can be rich and still be a socialist. It is all about your state of mind and your attitude to humanity.
So Ayn Rand could have been a socialist as long as she had some special "state of mind" and a particular "attitude" towards humanity? What about Ludwig von Mises? This is just bullshit and it will be revealed in the very next things Mr. Maruma says.
I am very suspicious of and am sometimes repelled by the system of capitalism. That is because it is a system fed and driven by individualism, egotism, excess and greed.Thus, my beef is not about ideology. It is about human experience, our inalienable right to live a dignified life, showing respect for the Creator's creatures.
My beef is about integrity in corporate governance; it is about transparency, good governance; and, most of all, it is about social justice.
So here's his state of mind:
- screw the individual, it's the collective that matters
- screw your inner desires and wants, you must sacrifice yourself to others
- screw what you have, I say you've already got too much
- screw what you think you want, everyone else thinks you have enough
That's some pretty profound attitude there.
How can you have justice and a dignified life when you reject individualism? What kind of respect can you show for humans when you apparently hate the thing that motivates them: self-interest?
However, corporations do not use personal or family money to expand and grow. They use other people's money. Which is where I have my beef with them.
*pause*
A socialist is complaining about someone using other people's money.
This is probably the worst hypocrisy I've read so far this year.
This guy wants slaves for his beloved statist machine to devour. Stay away from him.
After an aborted attempt in the past to kill comment spam, I believe I've gotten Jay Allen's MT-Blacklist installed.
Let's see if it puts a dent in the bastards' practices.
The environment is the most important, the most fundamental, civil-rights issue.Right off the bat in a Working for Change interview, we get a pantsload of crap. It doesn't get any nicer as we move along.
The environmental movement is a struggle over the control of the commons -- the publicly owned resources, the things that cannot be reduced to private property -- the air, the water, the wandering animals, the public land, the wildlife, the fisheries. The things that from the beginning of time have always been part of the public trust.These things can't be "reduced" to private property? I disagree. Want to know why it can be hard to do so these days? Because asshat collectivists keep nationalizing the damn things! They, through the political process, stake a claim on the environment as if THEY owned it, in direct contradiction to their assertion "the people" own such things.
Environmentalism didn't begin on Earth Day. It's been recognized for thousands of years as a basic human right.So was slavery. So what?
If you were a citizen of Rome, you had an absolute right to cross a beach to catch a fish. The emperor himself couldn't stop you.That's better than it is these days, when the emperors themselves don't allow us to cross any beach we want to fish. Of course, the better plan is to allow private property to flourish along the beaches so the owners can decide for themselves who can fish off their land and who can't.
In England, in the 13th century, they had a clean air act. It was illegal to burn coal in London. It was a capital crime and people were executed for it.Probably warms the hearts of ecoterrorists everywhere. With awful laws like that on the books, its no wonder it took so long for people to accomplish any economic progress.
When Roman law broke down in Europe during the Dark Ages, a lot of the feudal kings began reasserting control over the public-trust resources. For example, in England, King John began selling monopolies to the fisheries and he said the deer belonged to nobility. The public rose up and confronted him at the Battle of Runnymede and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which of course was the beginning of constitutional government. In addition to having virtually all of our Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta has two other chapters on free access to fisheries in navigable waters. And those rights descended to the people in the States when we had the revolution. And virtually every state constitution says the people of the state own the waters and the fisheries, the wildlife, the air. They're not owned by the governor, the legislature, the corporations. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.[...]
Really all environmental injury is an assault on democracy, because the most important measure of how a democracy is functioning is how it distributes the goods of the land, the commons. Democracy must ensure that the public-trust assets stay within the hands of the people.
I simply cannot understand the thinking behind this. Assuming I'm one of "the people" and assuming Mr. Kennedy really means "the people own" some aspect of nature (say, a stretch of beach), then why is it illegal to camp on that beach when I want? Ownership implies the right to use the property as one sees fit. I'm apparently an owner of:
- 507 million acres of United States surface land
- 476 dams and 348 reservoirs
- 1.76 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf
- 3,300 recreational sites
I've never claimed these resources and I've barely been near perhaps 0.0000000001% of them. I certianly haven't bought these things from anyone. Yet, according to enviros, I'm a joint owner in them...along with 300 million other Americans who also can't exercise ownership over them. Well, that's not entirely true. Because Mr. Kennedy is lying in the above quote. The government owns the resources and who is the government? The mayor/governor/president, city council/state legislature/Congress, and the various executive agencies. "The people" are not the government. It has final say over what happens with these resources and it simply doesn't matter that we can elect the people who either run these things or who pick the bureaucrats who do. The day-to-day control is in their hands, not ours.
It's the political system that allows corporations to have so much influence in the political process. We've got to get the money out of politics. It's overwhelming the Democratic process. Campaign finance reform is hands-down the most important environmental bill.
There is only one way to consistently satisfy what he wants: publicly-funded elections. Anything less represents private money financing political candidates in order to influence electoral outcomes. You can't do this without the state getting the money to pay for the campaigns...and where exactly would that come from? Then there's the problem of who the money is spent on: the media. If they charge prices higher than the campaigns can afford, then what? Do we force the media to offer free coverage or impose price caps on ad prices for political campaigns? Naw. We'll probably just restrict all political advertising to NPR.
Here is the crowning hypocrisy:
Grist: So is the culprit free-market capitalism?Kennedy: No! The best thing that could happen to the environment is free-market capitalism. In a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. In a true free-market economy, you get efficiencies and efficiency means the elimination of waste. Waste is pollution. So in true free-market capitalism, you eliminate pollution and you properly value our natural resources so you won't cut them down. What polluters do is escape the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy -- a fat cat who's using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market.
Ye gods, he's almost sounding rational...
Grist: So you're saying free-market economies have to be controlled by regulations and strong central government?Laissez-faire capitalism does not work, particularly in the commons. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest will devour the commons very quickly. That's the economic law -- the tragedy of the commons. You have to force companies to internalize costs. All of the federal environmental laws are designed to restore free-market capitalism in America in this regard.
[...]
I don't even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I'm a free-marketeer. I go out into the marketplace and I catch the polluters who are cheating the free market and I say, "We are going to force you to internalize your costs the same way you are internalizing your profit." That's what the federal environmental laws allow us to do: restore real property rights in America.
(c) 2004, grist magazine
I give up. The man has no idea what he's talking about. Read the rest if you can handle it.
Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin: Capitalism makes lives better (Wednesday, July 7, 2004):
A Guest Viewpoint column by George Haeseler claims we should be clamping down on "corporate power and greed (which) lie at the root of most of today's injustices." He believes that unions should be strengthened and that we should vote out of office politicians who "do the bidding of corporations."In the last hundred years it has been demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that capitalist countries, particularly those where government interference in the free enterprise system is least, have provided the highest standards of living in history for their people.
With this kind of history to guide us it is not at all clear to me why we would want to charge down the path of another half-baked socialist scheme, almost all of which have proven in the past to be economic disasters.
ROBERT A. STREVELL
ENDICOTT
© 2004 Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
Capitalism isn't all good (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)
The letter "Capitalism makes lives better" expresses some naive viewpoints. To view the history of capitalism as a loving, blissful stroll through history is to ignore over 100 years of oppression and resistance. To forget the sweatshops and terrible factories of this country's history is sad, but to ignore the slave labor and oppressive conditions involved in today's Third World factories is worse.The benefits of capitalism are easy to laud when you are a middle-class American, but millions of us don't have health care and struggle in abject poverty. Despite living in the land of plenty, it gets harder and harder for the poor in this country.
JESSE HARASTA
JOHNSON CITY
© 2004 Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
Mr. Harasta, in an effort to fight oppression, wants more oppression. In wanting to fight slave labor, he wants to enslave people to the state. In order to see more Americans prosper, he wants the government to continue stealing from our wealth and make more economic choices for us.
He shouldn't be angry towards what he believes is capitalism.
He should be angry with the slobs and morons who educated him.
UPDATED 5/22/2006 1:15pm
Mr. Harasta contacted me last week expressing his desire to respond to this post. Since I've closed comments and since my time is presently occupied with collegiate matters, I'll link to the reply he posted to his Upstate Anarchist blog here for the moment and compose a reply of my own in the next few days.
This could get interesting.
UPDATED 5/25/2006 11:22am
Part II
Paraphrasal of a woman at the Poodledog Lounge who was arguing with her friends over a game of pool:
"What is it with you people? Doesn't anyone give a damn about honesty and integrity anymore? If you're going to accuse me of something, at least have the guts to give your full story and not just dismiss me when I respond, just because I've had a few drinks. Calling me a liar and a cheat is something that demands a response. Don't ignore this!"
Previously, I wrote that I was applying to get admitted to St. Edward's University under their New College Program for a BA in Public Safety Management.
During lunch, I received my confirmation. I'm in!
I'm meeting on Monday with an advisor to begin registering for classes and get some details arranged. I've got a lot of hours to take even considering the AP credit and CLEP tests I took when I went to UT-Austin.
I'm very happy I got in. I've been taking aim at public education since the beginning of this blog and I was uneasy about attending UT once more.
Time to be a student once again. :)
UPDATE 9/17/2004 9:30am
I'm going to post my progress down here.
My first writing assignment for A-NCCI 3330 Introduction to Critical Inquiry (Rene Eakins, instructor) was a belief paper on education privatization and it earned a 100. I didn't post it, but my second paper for the class was an article summary of "Is the Earth Round or Flat?" by Alan Lightman. I summarized with a bit too much detail, but still earned a 95. During my third class visit on Wednesday, I turned in paper number 3, an argument analysis of "Juvenile Justice is Delinquent" by Rita Kramer.
My first writing assignment for P-PADM 2320 Introduction to Public Administration (Rich Parsells, instructor) was due at our second class meeting, held last night. Each time we meet, a 2-3 page paper is due that "synthesizes" an article on public administration from a scholarly journal. This synthesis must consist of summarizing the content, connecting the content to the text we are assigned to read, and addressing any opinions found within. I choose "'Publics' Administration and the Ethics of Particularity" by F. Neil Brady.
UPDATE 9/29/2004 4:40pm
My argument analysis netted me another 95 in my Intro to Critical Inquiry. I turn in my position paper rough draft on the minimum wage tonight.
UPDATE 1/25/2005 8:31am
The fall semester has ended and I earned A's in both classes, so I have a 4.0 GPA at the moment. The spring semester has begun and I registered for P-PADM 3330 Public Finance (anther class taught by Parsells) and A-RELS 3304 History of World Religions taught by William Jaap. My first meeting of the former was yesterday and the first meeting of the latter is tomorrow. I'll make a new post to keep updated after that class.
A friend of mine won a call-in radio contest for preview tickets to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy at Waterloo Park last night. The Alamo Drafthouse was holding one of it's Movies in the Park Thursday night events, but my friend couldn't make it, so she gave her two tickets to her boyfriend and myself.
It wasn't too bad. The opening band was kinda lame. I might have been disappointed if I'd paid money to see the movie, but there were a few funny parts. Lots of cameos near the end added some fun to the film. We missed some of the dialogue because the sound cut out in the middle of the film for about 45 seconds.
Spoilers Below
The best parts:
- The News Team Brawl in the alleyway. Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, and Tim Robbins all have their own news crews. Vaughn's is in second place in city ratings; Wilson's is in third; Robbins is part of the local public TV station; and Stiller leads the Spanish channel crew. It quickly gets silly as they all suddenly whip out various gangland weapons and lay out one rule at the beginning: leave the face and hair alone.
- The opening and ending segments. The opening is shot as though the camera was running before Burgundy's newscast begins. He's stretching, drinking Scotch, hitting on female co-workers, and deliberately pronouncing words to loosen up. The ending consists of outtakes and redos, most of which are obviously takes that might have gone into the film but weren't preferred over what was screened.
- The sex scene between Will Ferrell and Christina Applegate. Very imaginative and visual. PG-rated but suggestive.
Scattered throughout are some decent jokes, but unfortunately a good deal of the movie is spent on what film buffs would recognize as flogging a very dead Saturday Night Live skit.
The basic plot has the setting in either the late 70's or early 80's San Diego. Ferrell is the lead anchor in a deeply misogynistic newsroom. I hadn't seen one advertisement explaining plot points, so I came into the film with an open mind. The bulk of the jokes either had something to do with the blunt stupidity of the news crew (Paul Rudd, Steven Carell, and David Koechner being the other members) or strongly un-PC sexist jokes and gestures.
Part of my weird feeling towards this movie is based on those jokes. There are a few scenes of outright sexual harassment that are only saved from being big eye-openers if it weren't for the steely determination of Applegate's character, Veronica Corningstone. She takes it all and dishes it back, hoping to be treated equally and promoted on merit. The sound was turned up damn loud, but I bet if I was able to hear the crowd clearer, there would have been some gasps. In one scene, Koecher's character, Champ Kind, walks up to Corningstone's desk and reaches for a pencil. As he does this, he quite blatantly gropes her breasts with his free hand. She nails him in the balls in response, but it's a culture shock to see this behavior, even in a comedy.
One of the better cameos was Jack Black's. He plays an unnamed biker who gets a burrito of Burgundy's in the face on the highway, losing control of his motorcycle and wiping out. He doesn't display any of the traditional hyper Jack Black acting quirks, even when he angrily drop kicks Burgundy's dog off the edge of a bridge.
The movie also drifts off far past Suspension of Disbelief Land. One example I already mentioned is the Burgundy-Corningstone sex scene. Other examples are when Burgundy talks to his dog and his dog talks back. We get to see what he says at the end...when the dog peacefully negotiates with a disturbed grizzly bear about to tear apart Burgundy and Corningstone. The fight scene among the various San Diego news teams was awesome, but didn't feel cohesive. Most of the bizarre scenes were like that; they felt modular and lumped in to lengthen the film and get quick laughs.
Overall, I'd rate Anchorman a B-. It's a renter rather than a buyer that occasionally rises above the standards set by other SNL cast-derived movies.
FOXNews: Oregon Ponders New Pot Law
An Oregon ballot measure expected to qualify this week would make it legal for medical marijuana users to possess one pound of pot, create state dispensaries and allow nurse practitioners and naturopaths to prescribe it.If passed, a patient could possess six pounds of marijuana legally - spread out, it would be enough to fill two grocery carts. The medical marijuana law on the books there now limits legal possession to three ounces.
Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
Via Hit & Run.
The Oregon Leviathan's info page is here. The OMMA 2 (Oregon Medical Marijuana Act) initiative itself can be found here.
Media Awareness Project: OREGON TO VOTE ON EASING MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE
Initiative supporters turned in 28,500 signatures on Friday. The ballot measure drew 95,690 signatures submitted in May, but after some were thrown out, supporters canvassed again to ensure they reached the required threshold of 75,630 valid voter signatures.About 9,000 Oregonians have medical cards allowing them to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes. Currently, a patient has to grow his own marijuana or have a caregiver grow it.
"Most of these ill people cannot grow their own under the current restrictions," which regulates the number of plants and sets other conditions. The initiative would clarify the caregivers' role by letting them grow pot for as many as 10 medical users.
It's a nice initiative, but it still represents begging for what's ours. Pot should be fully legalized and then we should be fully left alone to do what we want with it.
Dancing around the issue with medical weed as the central focus isn't the proper course to take. Property rights, individual freedom, and tolerance should take precedence.
News8Austin: Local DJ arrested for hoax
The Austin Police Department arrested a local radio disc jockey for pulling a stunt that got him charged with making a terroristic threat.Dan Chappell, a DJ for KISS 96.7 FM radio, known on the air as Lunchbox, wore a stocking cap over his head when he walked into the Everytime Food Mart at 2105 South Congress.
As part of the hoax, he bought a pack of gum and left the store.
The employee at the food mart called the police, not knowing that the stocking cap stunt was a hoax for the radio station.
KISS FM has suspended Chappell and another DJ for the stunt.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
KXAN: DJ Arrested After Stunt
A local radio disc jockey is out of jail Wednesday night after being arrested for a radio stunt gone bad.Twenty-two-year-old Daniel Chappell, also known as Lunch Box on the 96.7 KISS FM morning show, is charged with making a terroristic threat.
Around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, police say Chappell walked into a South Congress convenience store with panty hose over his head.
The clerk says he felt threatened and thought the man was going to rob him so he set off a silent alarm.
Police responded and later found out it was all a radio stunt for the KISS FM Bobby Bones Show. The purpose, according to Chappell, was to capture how people would react to being robbed.
The reactions would be played on the air as entertainment, but police say that's not entertainment, that's a crime.
"Especially when we've had an increase of robberies this year. We take this very seriously. We've had robberies previously that match this type of method -- individuals robbing with stockings on their head," Austin Police Department Spokesman Kevin Buchman said.
Chappell did not verbally threaten the clerk. He bought a pack of gum and left. Police say because the clerk felt threatened and thought his life was in danger, they have charged Chappell with a terroristic threat. That's a Class B misdemeanor.
Chappell and Bobby Bones have been suspended indefinitely from the show pending an internal review by the radio station.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KXAN. All Rights Reserved.
The relevant law is in Chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code, Assaultive Offenses:
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
- (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
- (3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
- (4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
- (5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
- (6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that an offense under Subdivision (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed against a member of the person's family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence or if the offense is committed against a public servant. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4), (5), or (6) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in which event the offense is a state jail felony. An offense under Subdivision (4), (5), or (6) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Family" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.003, Family Code.
- (2) "Family violence" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.004, Family Code.
- (3) "Household" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.005, Family Code.
(c) The amount of pecuniary loss under Subsection (b) is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room, place, or conveyance.
The code doesn't clearly explain why there are two (b) and (c) sections other than to mention the times the statute was amended.
Here are my problems.
According to what I know (I also saw a local TV news spot on this last night), Mr. Chappell didn't actually threaten the clerk when in the store. If he had concretely threatened the clerk, the law might make more sense. Wearing pantyhose over your head, walking into a store to buy gum, and leaving injures no one's rights or property. It certainly would make many people uncomfortable, particularly those who work in retail. That, however, shouldn't be against the law. Mr. Chappell now faces a fine no greater than $2,000 as well as jail time no greater than 180 days for breaking no rights and for damaging no property.
He certainly did a mean thing to the clerk. He was on the news last night and was quite adamant about the danger he felt. He said he pictured his family and wondered if he'd see them again. Pranks aren't always funny for everyone involved. It's certainly uncivilized, I agree, but why outlaw frightening someone with violence, especially violence that doesn't occur and is later revealed to be a hoax?
This law allows the cops to lock up and fine someone for scaring someone else on the assumption that appearing as a threat constitutes an actual threat. The legal language hurdle ("threaten to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with...intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury") is fairly steep, but still represents a fundamental break with causality. A threat is not violence or aggression and those are the only things that should be illegal. It could be described as coercion and I'm willing to have that angle open for discussion.
If I walk up to someone and tell them I'm about to kill them, and then walk off, I may have shaken the person to their bones but nothing was done. The person can continue on, unharmed. To claim what I did was morally wrong would imply that people have a right not to be deeply upset. I can't agree with that, given my absolutist stance on freedom of expression. The initial cracks in the 1st Amendment, I am convinced, came from bending principles such as this.
John Kerry will focus on the mediocre performance of the economy, particularly the job market, in the first part of the Bush Administration. Bush will tout the performance of the economy over the last year or so as long as the job numbers continue to be rosy through the fall. Implicit in this discussion are two strange assumptions. The first is that the President "runs" the economy. The President hardly even runs the government. He certainly cannot direct the fortunes and failures of millions of workers, managers, investors and entrepreneurs. The second implicit assumption is that the success or failure of the President depends on his ability to "stimulate" the economy, as if the economy were an engine that simply needed a different setting for its carburetor or as if it were a lazy steer that needs prodding to speed its way on a cattle drive.
Save us! Protect me! Stop them! Restrain him! Enrich us! Steal from them!
Those are what people demand of Presidents these days. Rarely do they demand "leave us alone to succeed and fail as necessary."
I once heard a story that helps explain the problem with these views of the economy. Imagine coming across a young boy who is standing at the edge of the shallow end of a swimming pool. He holds a bucket in his hands and he looks crestfallen. What's wrong, you ask. Well, he explains, I'm doing a science experiment and it's not working. What's wrong? For the last hour I've been emptying water into this pool with this bucket. But the water level hasn't changed a bit. The pool hasn't gotten any deeper. It's a big pool, you explain. A few bucketfuls of water aren't going to have much of a visible effect. The boy redoubles and retriples his efforts. A week goes by. You come back to the pool and he looks no happier than he did before. What's wrong now, you ask. I've been doing the same thing eight hours a day for a week and I still don't see any change. Is there a leak in the pool, you wonder. No, he says, no leak. I checked that out.The boy shrugs his shoulders and gets back to work. You watch as the boy goes to the deep end of the pool, scoops up a bucket of water, walks the length of the pool and empties it into the shallow end.
What would you tell that boy? It would seem fairly straightforward to explain that taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right pocket doesn't make you any richer. So it is with water in the pool. The total amount is unchanged. But if it rained each night of the boy's efforts, he might actually come to believe that moving water from the deep end to the shallow end actually leads to making the water deeper. You might find it difficult to make your case.
*zing!*
Anyone want to dispute Professor Roberts here? Wealth isn't created by stealing from one and giving to another and certainly not when that wealth is partially wasted on bureaucracy in the process. It also isn't created when the naturally arising incentives and disincentives resulting from free market prices and choices are perverted by political will. What does he say Presidents can do?
A President can no more stimulate the economy in the short run than you can make a child grow a foot in a week. Genuine growth takes time. The most a President can do is to help create an environment for that growth to take place by unleashing the creativity inherent in a nation's people and those they trade with in other countries.Copyright ©: 2004, Liberty Fund, Inc.
And that environment is best constituted when the government gets the hell out of freedom's way.
Via Tony Woodlief, I discover this Scotsman article by John Blundell. It's a good read, though it contains nothing spectacularly new to anyone who follows libertarianish thought. He writes well and has a few choice quotes worth repeating:
Now corporate virtue is measured in the dread word "compliance". Obedience, not experimentation, has become the great civic business virtue.[...]
Who wants to know how a company is trading? We pretend the primary interest is "the public interest", which is a diplomatic way of describing the regulators. The real interest is that of the owners - the shareholders. They seek plain and truthful interpretations of what are surprisingly subjective matters.
[...]
One measure of the sheer inhuman complexity is the recent lawyer's request that juries of ordinary mortals should no longer sit on fraud cases - only those with forensic auditing skills should be called. It is easy to see the argument, but why is everything so tied up that 12 ordinary citizens can no longer understand the narrative of a case?
Obedience, not experimentation, has become the great civic business virtue.
That's a good one to remember. Hell, it shouldn't be limited to business: it is expected of everyone now. Obey your betters, people from all sides of the political spectrum demand. Don't push the envelope. Don't upset the apple cart.
Mr. Blundell is responsible for Blundell's Law, which states "all new regulations achieve the opposite of their intended effect." He wrote this piece because a Professor David Myddleton has published "Unshackling Accountants," an essay about the destructive effects of accounting regulation and an essay that proposes competition in regulatory levels. A quick search turned up this note that offer a PDF version of the essay. It's 208 pages long, so I can't get into it now.
I will say a competitive market in accounting regulations would be a waste of time. Who controls the regulations and implements them? The government and it's employees. Are they going to voluntarily reduce their influence over the economy and thereby threaten their jobs and positions of power? Are their supposed masters - The People - going to demand actual, objective reductions in government involvement in the economy?
Yeah, I'm real optimistic about that.
The moral issue of controlling other people's lives and livelihoods may even be completely left out of the discussion and if so, that would be a real disappointment. Coming at this issue from a practical standpoint opens you up to "Well if regulation worked, then what's the problem? We just need to get it to work" responses from the collectivists. That's why principles are more important than pragmatism.
It's all for you, buddy. Via Catallarchy...a teacher you can really get into.
She's cute.
I echo my comments I left on Micha's post. If a relationship is consenual, then it shouldn't be illegal. Reading the report is an example of the disgusting ability and determination of the law to rip into every detail of our lives.
For some election year fun, read the comments in this News8Austin poll. I'm the second from the bottom, wondering why Michael Badnarik wasn't placed on the options list. Some gems:
I would sooner vote for Mickey & Goofy than cast a vote for a Bush Sr /Bush Jr /Cheney ticket.
In 2004, I will vote a straight Democratic ticket as I will in 2008, 2012, and as long as the good Lord allows me to stay on this Earth.
Of course Austin is going to vote more Democratic. Austin has a higher percentage of college graduates and is the Texas leader in book sales. The more educated the populace is the more likely to vote for the smart candidate.
GWB is the worst President ever. Thats what I have decided. Anyways, I will never vote for a Republican. They are good for nothing right wing radicals who want nothing to do more than step on peoples rights. If it is not what they want, then it is not the right way. Whatever happen to freedon. All Republicans do is take it away. And people say Democrats are the bad ones, Please..., at least I get choices with a democratic administration. The Bush Administration Sucks VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!
I'd vote for a Voldemort-Vader ticket before I'd cast a ballot for George W. & Dick GFY. Voting them out isn't enough; handing down indictments isn't enough; throwing them in prison wouldn't be enough. Tar, feathers, and a ride out of DC on a rail -- that'd be enough. Shrub, Dick GFY, Rummy, Condi, Wolfie, Ashkook, all of 'em.
We have a President that has guts and the wherefore to stand up for the people today. It's a shame that people looking for a handout would even look at anyother candidate. Remenber, this President took action for those murdered on 9/11 and didn't back down like others before him. Now is time to support. Not abort our nation.
Don't like Kerry, won't waste vote on Nader. My options are so slim, they suck. Someone said that they were tired of Dems trying to make this country Communist/Socialist. With another 4 years of Bush, you will be stuck with martial law and trying to rationalize why it is the right thing.
Why is it that the conservatives are the most demonstrative... it can't be because they're right. The conservative platform makes sense on a superficial level, but when you dig deeper it is about negative racial branding and voracious greed. Republican is a brand name, created by scoundrels, to get the ignorant to vote for them despite an aganda that steals money from the children of the Republic
I am looking out the window of my brand new home that I just bought (first home!) and glancing down at the brand new minivan in the driveway..my kids are fed and healthy..we work hard and we are doing great. What's so bad about the economy? Has no one noticed that it's getting better?? Wake up and stop watching the liberal one sided news and blink the democratic eye gook away. It's the land of opportunity still. If you doubt it, go visit a less fortunate nation and see how it is.
I will vote for the man who blesses Israel and believes that the Bible is the Word of God.
Voting for Bush only to keep the more socialist Democrats on hold a little longer. Still, the President is pretty powerless. Until we get the socialists out of the Senate and House the individual will continue to lose what he earns in order to promote the communisocialist programs that are currently in place and growing by the minute. Give me all of my money and I'll decide how to help the TRULY needy. Worried about the future of the children? Better get rid of these crooks quickly!!
For those people who want to peacefully educate the masses to get them to see the light, you have a long job ahead of you.
Thought it was great, better than the first. I'll skip over writing a whole review (Jim Henley's got the goods on that one) and just pause to note one thing I haven't seen in a long time.
The first time Spiderman and Dr. Otto Octavius have a serious fight, it is in the lobby of a bank. Peter Parker was with his grandmother, helping her apply for a loan. Doc Ock storms in and attempts to rob the bank vault to pay for the laboratory facility he wants to build to recreate his "room temperature fusion" energy experiment. Parker runs off to change clothes and tries to stop Doc Ock.
Doc Ock is grabbing bags of money and sees Spiderman on the wall behind him. He pauses slightly, and then begins to bombard Spiderman with the bags. It becomes quite obvious what's in the bags when they impact their targets: gold coins.
I haven't seen a movie use gold coin in years. Even though it's obviously not the primary medium of exchange in the Spiderman world (there are scenes with paper dollars), it was nice seeing a bank actually hold reserves of gold. Austrians should be happy.
Fireworks, BBQ, liberty bells, and lots of red, white, and blue. That's what I remember the 4th of July being about when I was young. A celebration for the birth of a nation and the formal declaration of independence from a monarchy: that's what I was about in high school. What does it mean now?
My political opinions have changed so dramatically over the last few years. I used to think that while occasionally responsible for stupid things and waste, there was a place for government in our lives. It had to be involved, because otherwise how would we educate our children, how would we have a system or roads, how would the unfortunate survive? I dismiss these questions nowadays because I know better.
This gradual rejection of common wisdom and the things most Americans take for granted often clashes with that is expected of us during certain times. I'm an atheist, so I don't follow the religious side of the American experience. I'm a free-market laissez-faire capitalist, so I don't follow the minutiae of politics as life or death. I'm grossly skeptical of any person saying I have to sacrifice for the sake of others, so I don't follow the folks who mouth the line as if it were sacred.
I see people preparing for the festivities for 7/4/2004 and I wonder what they are really celebrating. What events, people, and ideas are they affirming? Would they have the intellectual courage to examine those ideas and apply them consistently to their lives? I have enough trouble doing this for myself; but at least I have a good grasp of what's at stake.
I think about the words within the Declaration of Independence:
- When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
- Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
- But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...
Aside from the enormous jumble of contradictory concepts in that famous document, it still has power. It's the singular announcement that people have the right, perhaps even the duty, to tell the government imposed on them to fuck off and die.
Courage like that doesn't exist in substantial quantities these days. Those who do, who at least stand up to the cacophony of statist nonsense blaring at us day in and out, occupy a large portion of my blogroll: Erik at Brainville, Billy Beck at Two-Four, Arthur Silber at The Light of Reason, Radley Balko at The AgitatorKevin Carson at Mutualist.org, Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings, the folks at No Treason and Catallarchy and the Mises Institute and Somewhere Over the Rainbough and at Reason's Hit and Run and Libertarian Samizdata. Among us there are differences both cosmetic and fundamental, but we all agree the current vectors of our societies are in the wrong direction.
I'll be out with friends tomorrow, on Sunday. We'll be using the 4th as an excuse to throw a party and stay out late and to have a three-day weekend. We may engage in some political discussion (it's almost inevitable with my friends).
At the end of it, I'll come back home and ask myself if Americans understand their government is betraying the ideas it was established upon and why they blankly cheer for this annual holiday. For while this is still the best country to live in on this planet, this distinction is a difference of degrees that grows narrower with each year.
Perhaps the 4th of July should be a wake, rather than a rally.
Charles Maund Volkswagen called me up the other day to make me an offer. I own a 2002 VW Golf TDI GL with less than 63,000 miles on it with an impeccable maintenance record. They are hurtin' for used cars and are doubly hurting for turbo diesels. So they called to offer me a deal: I come in and check out the new 2004 Volkswagen models and they'll appraise my TDI and deduct that amount from the price of a new car. In addition, they'll knock off $1,000 more for being a loyal VW customer.
Realistically, the only cars within my financial reach (and it would be a real stretch) are the '04 Jettas and '04 Golfs. As much as I'd dig a GLI or a R32, I'd have to keep my choices limited to the lower tiers. Regardless of what I'd love to own, what I'd want to own is another diesel. An lo and behold, the TDI engine for 2004 has been upgraded to 100 horsepower (up from 90HP) and 177 foot-pounds of torque (up from 155ft-lbs). Both engines have 1.9 liters of displacement, but the '04 is what's called a Pumpe-Düse. From the VW press release announcing the new 2004 Passat:
Developed in cooperation with Bosch, these unit injectors are located at each cylinder to deliver the fuel for combustion. Because of exacting electronic control, the new Pumpe Düse technology creates a very high fuel pressure and better atomizes and precisely meters the fuel injection into the cylinders. This results in increased engine efficiency and power, with the desired benefits of quieter engine operation, and highly optimized fuel economy.
As always, the best resource for TDI owners, drivers, and modifiers is TDIClub.com. I'm registered there as, no surprised, "Drizzten." One of the elder members, GoFaster, had this to say about the changes to the engine:
It is not so much a "change", it's more like an entirely different engine that coincidentally happens to have the same bore and stroke and a few minor bits and pieces coincidentally happen to be the same. The P-D fuel injection system forces many, many other things to be different. Everything in the fuel injection system, head, cam, pistons, rods, everything involved in the timing belt and accessory drives since there is no longer a separate injector pump, etc.
He also had this to say regarding other differences:
The North American 100hp P-D has different emissions equipment. It's different enough that I strongly suspect that not only are the ECU's different, but that they are incompatible.The North American 100hp engine has servo-operated EGR (the others are the old vacuum operated design), servo-operated "anti-shudder" valve (instead of solenoid/vacuum), a sensor on the turbo VNT mechanism, and a sensor (we think it's O2 sensor) at the catalyst.
Some basic info on the PD system from Bosch:
Each engine cylinder is allocated a Unit Injector (UI) which is installed directly in the cylinder head and driven directly through a tappet or indirectly via a rocker from the overhead camshaft. The ECU with map-based control triggers the high-speed injector in the UI. Fuel is injected as long as the solenoid valve is closed. This means that the valve's closing point defines the start of injection, and the length of time it is closed defines the injected fuel quantity.
What tha Hell does that mean? Well:
Across the complete engine control map, Unit Injector Systems permit precise fuel injection with variable duration of injection. The resulting rate-of-discharge curve and the high injection pressure result in efficient combustion. In other words, high power outputs, better fuel economy, and lower exhaust-gas and noise emissions.
My test drive bears most of this out. Thankfully, the dealer rep I was talking with let me take a 2004 Jetta 5-speed manual out by myself. :)
Idle and acceleration "diesel clatter" noise is markedly reduced on the PD engine when compared to mine. Vibration is noticeably weaker overall. The power band was wider, allowing for greater acceleration across more RPMs. Peak power is available 100 RPM sooner. For the most part, TDIs just don't smoke that much unless you fiercely stomp on the Go Pedal or mod it for power, such as with a chip or bigger injectors. I noticed zero smoke during my test run...and this was on a car sitting on the lot for who knows how long under moderate to hard acceleration for most of it's run. Essentially, unless someone knows what "TDI" stands for or can smell the exhaust, your passengers aren't going to know you're burning diesel towards your destination. The test drive was very pleasant.
You get standard an AM/FM, tape, CD player in-dash receiver as opposed to the 2002's standard AM/FM tape deck.
Those are the highlights. This new engine and model year isn't without some things that bother me.
One drawback is the fuel economy has dropped from a stellar advertised range of 42mpg (city) and 49mpg (highway) to 38mpg (city) and 46mpg (highway). These are EPA figures, so take them with a few bags of salt. I don't measure my mileage, but I normally get 520-540 miles per tank (almost all moderate to hard driving in a 50% city/highway mix) and the tank holds 14.5 gallons. You figure filling up at 12.5 once the fuel idiot light beams up, and you've got 41.6 to 43.2 miles per gallon. On longer road trips, I've gotten more like 580-610 miles to the gallon, resulting in 46.4 to 48.8 mpg. These numbers are with no performance mods or tire/suspension changes. You can get better mileage. WAY better mileage.
Another beef I've got is VW isn't offering the TDI in a 2-door version. Lame, very lame. I like the slicker, simpler look of the 2-door over the 4-door. It also makes it an event for my friends to ride with me. :)
The new HVAC vents don't adjust up and down as easily as the older ones.
The dealer offered to take my 2002 for $8000. On top of the grand they're offering for my VW loyalty, the total cost for a 2004 4-door, white, 5-speed manual Golf TDI that'll take 6 weeks to get here is $8,775.
Not interested, but thanks for the test drive!
News8Austin: Senator, religious leaders support income tax for school finance
Texas Impact and other religious groups organized "Funding the Future of Texas."Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, shared his message with Texans. The First United Methodist Church in downtown Austin is one of 40 stops the senator has made in the past year.
[...]
Education is the number one industry in Texas. It employs more people and requires more money than any other industry, so Shapleigh said it should have its own pool of taxpayer money.
"You lower the property tax very significantly, down to from about $1.50 to $.15, and you go to a flat tax, an income tax dedicated to one thing, which is education," he said.
Because paying for your own education out of your own pocket is something completely unacceptable, right? Because it's better to coerce and steal money from a bunch of people, right? Bastards.
But the session ended with no replacement for the current Robin Hood system that takes property tax money from wealthier school districts and gives it to poorer ones.Education experts at the forum support a personal income tax; Texas is one of nine states without one.
And it damn sure better not get one! Thinking you have Gawd on your side doesn't mean a whit to me, either.
"That limits us to being able to only tax property and tax consumption, and when the economy constricts and values go down and people don't have money to spend buying things, then revenues fall even though the needs in the state do not decline," Louis Malfaro of Education Austin said.Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
You are a thug, Mr. Malfaro. It isn't enough that the state taxes away wealth from us for merely owning land and home and for buying certain goods and services. It isn't enough for you and the organization you belong to. "Putting education first" is it's slogan, eh? You are certainly living up to it: by putting it first, you put our freedom to associate and freedom to accumulate wealth behind it. Why don't you demonstrate your commitment to your cause and give away everything you own?
I'll say it once more. Oppose all state income tax plans!