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.
Only an anarchist would deny the need for national defense and a system of justice.
-Grover Starling in Managing the Public Sector, 6th edition, page 30
Only a doctorate of political science writing a book about public administration would ignore the considerable literature denying the need for governments to exist in the first place, let alone be the entities to provide for defensive and remedial action.I've been meaning to blog about this statement for some time. This was the book assigned to me in my Introduction to Public Administration class at St. Edward's University. The way the class was set up, we were to meet every other Thursday. For each class, we were to read three to five chapters from the book and prepare an article synthesis that utilized themes from those chapters and related them to a scholarly article from several recognized public administration journals.
Dr. Starling's statement is the very first sentence in the section titled "Why Public Administration at All?" Following this sentence are two subsections hooting about externalities and public goods. I don't have the time or interest to discuss those now.
I am an anarchist, in the sense that I want the government to disappear and only voluntary human interactions to replace it. Given that I dislike government and want it gone, it follows that the idea of "national defense" wouldn't make much sense to me, and it doesn't. When someone points to a nation, I see a geographically bound population of people with general and specific cultural commonalities. I don't see something that must exist as a unit and must be defended as a unit. If my birthstate of New Jersey was invaded by a 150,000-man strong rabid communist vigilante group with the intention of turning it into a Workers' Paradise, the impact I'd feel would be minimal. In fact, the extent of the impact I'd feel would be almost exclusively the result of the various American governments gearing up to repel the commie invaders. The fraction of my wealth already taken under threat of coercion would probably be increased to pay for the costs to stomping their guts out and kicking them into the sea. Should the invasion go well and spread, I have no doubt the various American governments would "take appropriate emergency measures" to crack down on my individual freedom in the name of fighting the invasion, inner rebellion, and treason. One needs only to be an amateur student of history to see the knee-jerk reaction governments have to foreign threat to understand what I'm talking about.
The national defense structure ostensibly exists to protect me from external threats in the form of armies, navies, air forces, guerillas, and the like. I never asked to have this defense provided nor do I ask for that defense now. Why? Because I have never considered my life, liberty, and property under serious threat of foreign attack. Given that I was born on June 26, 1980, I have lived through periods of US-Soviet tension. My father retired a full Colonel in the Army and was part of REFORGER. I am not ignorant of the real hostility anticapitalist nations face (I know - I live in one). However, had I held the same views I do now and been 24 years old back during the icy foreign policy days of the Reagan and Kennedy Administrations and in the heat of the highest US-Soviet tensions, I still wouldn't have demanded other people provide for my defense. Especially when those provisions are taken from others in the form of taxes.
I am responsible for my life's defense, my liberty's defense, and my property's defense. In my opinion, I face and worry about the much greater threats of common crime and slack-jawed moronics than Islamofascist wanna-be theocrat terrorist attacks. Should I decide one day that threat matrix is reversed, I'll change my behavior accordingly: moving to another area, lowering my profile, and working together with like-minded people are just a few of the options.
As for Dr. Starling's assertion that only anarchists would reject the need for a system of justice, I'll say again he hasn't studied serious anarchist thought, or is determined to avoid any useful controversy in his book. Anarchic systems of justice do exist because their authors recognized you don't need a government to administer justice. You just need the facts, the people, the circumstances, and an entity they both agree on to work towards an agreement. That's an extremely simplistic take and I'll readily admit this is one area of free market anarchism where my knowledge and theory is thin.
Allow me to quote another chunk of Dr. Starling's wisdom:
Efficiency is not, however, the only contributor to social welfare. Even where markets are efficient - producing a cornucopia of goods and services - the distribution of those goods, services, and rewards among the members of society may be deemed inequitable. What exactly constitutes an inequitable distribution? For our purposes, theoretical arguments can be set aside, and it can be asserted that a democratic society determines equitable distribution - speaking, of course, through its elected officials. 9 (page 31)
The note refers to the "outstanding modern contributions to this theoretical debate" written by John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971) and Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), neither of which I have read, so I can't comment on those angles.
What I will say is this: it does not take a group of people to define what is "equitable" and what is not. The meaning of equity in the context of wealth distribution is quite simple and doesn't necessitate a committee approach. The concept: it is generally wrong for there to be significant relative differences in the material wealth among different economic classes in a society. This can be as petty as bitching about the rich being able to afford quality cosmetic surgery, and as serious as the poor's inability to afford consistent health care coverage.
The concept boils down to, in many instances quite literally, "You have something I want. Give it to me or I'll set the flatfoots on ya."
What does "a democratic society...speaking, of course, through its elected officials" mean? It means that of the percentage of people who bother to vote (derived from the percentage of people who bother to register to vote), the group with the greatest numbers wins legitimacy and authority. They (now overwhelmingly likely to not be anywhere near an actual absolute majority of citizens) get to pick representatives to be the voice...for everyone in that political voting district. Those representatives, in turn, are assigned to Prime High Definition Duty and get to decide what constitutes "inequitable" or not.
I guess we are to take consolation in the tenuous reality that these representatives want to Do The Right Thing and will execute their duties with Honor, Truthfulness, and Integrity. I take as much comfort in that as I do with the general assertion that we need professionals doing this work rather than laymen and idiotes.
Track the power base.
Identify the stakeholders.
Despair.
For once you have people picked through far-removed-from-reality popularity contests, the definitions those representatives use will likely be just as corrupt.
The precise definition of systematic theft is unimportant once it gets going, in any case. Once the society has granted the premise that the fractional representatives have the right to decide who gets what from whom, the details don't really matter. My real estate agent told me today that my estimated 2004 property taxes on my new home are going to exceed $2,800. It is certainly possible for the voters to elect new fractional representatives to power and vote on propositions to lower the rates by which my wealth is subject to taxation, but is it possible those voters will take a principled stand and vote them away entirely?
Has a democratic system ever voted itself out of relevance?
Dr. Grover Starling's book was an infuriating read from beginning to end and these snippets were only the first of a series that twisted my eyes together. I might post on others in the future.
Associated Press via ABCNews: Court Declines to Hear Gay Marriage Case
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Which entity is pursuing the legalized initiation of force (tyranny) against other people:
It is YOU who want to use the power that comes from the barrel of a gun to forcibly alter the way people conduct their lives. For if clerks and officials decide to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, you would have them face criminal sanction. Granted, it isn't as if your opponents on this measure are much better, given that a whole lot of them want the state-stolen and state-monopolized benefits the empty blessing of an "official" marriage provides. I mean, we're talking about a license to get married, something that should inspire disgust and sound bells of warning in the mind of anyone who respects and upholds liberty.
But in this case, you and your "pro-family" and "pro-marriage" cohorts are the ones advocating the greater tyranny. And let's be clear about this: you often talk about the majorities of Americans who don't want gay people to get married, as if that is some mandate to impose their opinions on others. Where's your defense of freedom of association in the face of this open attempt to have a tyranny of the majority?
Then, of course, there is the curious fact that someone is arguing for the most powerful court in the country to decree the ruling of lesser court invalid...on the grounds that court decrees can be tyrannical and against the republican system of governance.
Statists can sure be confusing sometimes.
Sometime over the last 12 hours, Sitemeter recorded this blog's 200,000th hit.
I've no special words other than, again, thanks.
Blogging will be light over the next few days. I have much work to catch up on (most of it having been displaced by - you guessed it - regular posting from my job) and a paper due on Thursday. It's on the public administration of public school consolidation and I've procrastinated my way into a corner.
It is November 25, 2004 and I'm in New Braunfels with my family. In about an hour we drive down to San Antonio for the formal family dinner. I'll be heading back to Austin later this evening, but I won't be blogging until Monday. I spent the morning with my twin sisters Katie and Kelley and my father at the gun range. Man oh man, I really want me a Glock 21 with a ported slide and barrel. That baby shoots nice. I still love my Browning Hi-Power, but you can never have too many guns.
This is the time of year where we're supposed to step back and give thanks for the things we have. I'll honor that tradition now.
I am thankful for being alive. Despite all the unhappy commentary that has flowed from this blog, I would rather be here, now, than buried there, in the past. I am thankful for my mind and my physical abilities, for without either, I'd be no better than an instinctual animal, lacking purpose, wandering from one place of rest to another.
I am thankful for the comfort my efforts have produced. Though I am not entirely severed from my parents' support (my father must have spent over $6,000 on me this year alone), I am for the most part fully in charge of where I go and what I do. My life would be nasty and brutish if I didn't have the shelter, clothing, food, and entertainment I possess.
I am thankful for my family and friends and coworkers. They endure my often confusing and annoying personality every day and always come back for more. I do my best to treat them with the respect they deserve and I'm occasionally unsuccessful. Without them, I'd suffer greatly.
I am most thankful for my freedom, without which none of the above would be even possible. I am very thankful for the fellow partisans of liberty who join my side. We may not agree on everything and we may vehemently disagree on much more, but we acknowledge the Important Thing: the direction and velocity of the societies we are a part of remain incorrect and dangerous. That will always be my motivation to continue.
Though I rail against them, call them ugly names, and often wish they'd simply disappear, I am honestly thankful for my philosophical and political opponents. They are the shadows that make everything good stand so brilliantly in contrast.
And I am thankful for the people who read Magnifisyncopathological regularly. This is not as easy as it can appear to be. I was once a blog lurker and I genuinely had little idea of the effort it can take to publish this material and communicate with the public. Even the people who Google something, find my site, and post angry responses to my words I am thankful for. You make this an experience unique and unknown every day I log on. Keep it up, guys. You keep me sharp.
I hope everyone has a safe, healthy, and happy Thanksgiving. I will do my best to have the same.
Adios.
From a Town Hall e-mail notice:
Dear Friends:The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of our 2004 annual Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom Awards.
But the news gets better yet, you are each invited to join with us and with His Excellency Martin Palous, Ambassador of the Czech Republic, at a reception at the Embassy of the Czech Republic December 1 to honor the recipients: The Honorable John M. Shimkus, Congressman from Illinois; Major General John Singlaub, U.S. Army (Ret.); and The Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Your presence would not only honor the awardees, it will support the important work of the Foundation. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a non-profit organization, was established by an Act of Congress to build a memorial in Washington, D.C. to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism; to pay tribute to those who helped win the Cold War; and to educate current and future generations about communism's crimes against humanity.
Even if you cannot attend, please consider making a donation. A generous donor has pledged to match your support dollar-for-dollar.
Tickets for this wonderful evening, which will feature food, wine, and beer from the formerly communist-ruled Czech Republic, musical entertainment, and a silent auction, are available now.
To purchase tickets, contribute, or to learn more details, please visit our website at http://www.victimsofcommunism.org or you may call Ms. Anne Meesman at (703)-525-4445.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lee Edwards, Chairman
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
However, the very essence of communism is the doctrine of collectivism, which elevates "the needs of society" over the "petty and selfish objections of the individual." You can see that fact buried within most socialist literature and argument. But anyone who pays attention can see that very same principle in action all over the world, 'round the clock, each and every year.
The differences are ones of degree, intent, and honesty. The victims remain.
Yesterday, I closed on the home I've had my eyes on for several weeks. I have the keys to my house, loans in my name, and a title that says I own this particular piece of property. It felt very anti-climactic and the work still ahead won't be cheap or easy. But the transition from renter to owner is one I welcome. Apartment life necessarily means you've got a whole contract of restrictions on what you can and cannot do. Freedom from that is also something to enjoy.
However, the reality is I don't actually own the place and I won't have complete freedom of ownership. The loan agreements make it clear I've got three decades to truly get to the point where I can say, "This house and this land are mine." More annoying than that wait, though, is the simple fact that I'm going to be taxed to own the house and the land underneath it. The government has assumed the right to declare I owe it some percentage of the value of the property. I'll be taxed in order to provide wealth and services for others. If I refuse, the tax lien on the property will be used against me. Delinquent taxes will be imposed as well as interest. If I don't comply, various forms of other property in my possession will be subject to seizure and a tax warrant will be issued so the police can drop by and take what is necessary to fulfill my liability. Refusal to cooperate would result in being forcibly restrained and likely arrested.
The Travis County Appraisal District currently has the property under the guns of the taxes imposed by the Austin Independent School District (1.6230 per $100), the City of Austin (0.4430 per $100), Travis County (0.4872 per $100), and Austin Community College (0.0900 per $100). I expect to be held liable for the recently imposed Travis County Hospital District, which is currently at 0.779 per $100 of value. I am ever so grateful that the City and the County decided to lower their tax rates to accommodate for the new hospital tax. So very grateful. I'm told the Travis County Tax Office will collect the taxes from least 82 other taxing jurisdictions around the county, so other homeowners get to deal with a variety of different tax situations.
I don't look forward to this part of homeownership at all. It will continually generate friction in my life as I see the money I'm coerced to hand over squandered, wasted, misplaced, forgotten about, given away, and spent on people and services I would never spend a dime towards had the threat of physical force played zero part in my decisions. The potential "revenue" the various political institutions I'll be located in will increase and unless I want to be beaten up, sent to jail, or even shot, they'll get their money.
Isn't this a wonderful system? This civil society thing I heard so much about in school really just hits ya home with its virtue.
But the bitching I foresee on this blog can wait for now. Back to the house itself and the happier subjects of improvements and recommendations.
This picture of the front of the house highlights the wide and long porch. For the moment, we'll keep the pale green trim color. The double size parking slab is a welcome feature. Both the small and the large exterior light fixtures have ambient light-sensitive eyes and come on automatically at night. This picture of the rear shows off another highlight: the tree-studded backyard. Lots of potential there.
The house was built by American Youthworks and was built under the auspices of Austin's S.M.A.R.T. Growth plan and Green Building Program. It was only available to first-time homebuyers. I'm aware that there were several city incentives wrapped into the building project. But since I promised this would be the happy section, I'll skip the politics and move on.
It's located in the center of the Martin Luther King Blvd., Airport Blvd., Highway 183 triangle and therefore slightly to the east of traditional east Austin. The area at first glance looks run down and poor, but the real estate trends indicate the area has bottomed out and is now rebounding with higher property values and more interest in renovations. The crime rate isn't significantly worse compared to where I live and only moderately worse compared to where my roommate currently lives. Not much shopping in the area, though. Commerce is limited mostly to small independent restaurants, gas stations, pawn shops, etc. I was shocked at the sheer number of religious establishments littered everywhere.
The house was built over 2003 and 2004, so I will be the first occupant. One of my best friends will live with me and help with half the monthly payment. Cameron will likely paint his room a dark shade of blue. He's getting the master bedroom since he has the larger bed. I'll get the two rear rooms: one for my bedroom things and one as my study. Since I'm utterly sick of the institutional white of apartment complexes and most homes, they will be painted in a dark forest green and dark maroon. The walls in my bedroom will be green and the trim will be red. The reverse will be true for the study/guest bedroom. I'll leave the standard beige carpet alone until the funds accumulate to pay for tearing it out and replacing it with something else.
Eventually, I plan on knocking down part of the wall separating the two rooms to open up the area some. It won't be a simple hole, though. I'm looking for the right doors to install to provide some level of privacy in case someone wants to use the room to sleep over. The rooms' only cable and telephone outlets are in that wall, so I plan on moving them to the floor to get them out of the way and to avoid cutting extra holes in drywall elsewhere.
The living room, kitchen, and hallway connecting the bedrooms to them is all floored in vinyl tile, so rug shopping will be a big part of our future. All the windows in the house slide open to the side, so standard curtains might not work. We do want something and it won't be the blinds we've grown tired of seeing.
Setting aside the bedroom changes, our first major project will be the installation of a privacy fence along most of the property line, from the front face of the house around to the backyard, enclosing about 2/3 of the 50' x 150' plot we're on. I want it to be at least six feet tall. We're also toying with the idea of planting bamboo along the inside of the fence to add a dramatic touch to the property. Much still needs to be discussed and learned about that before we seriously consider it.
Cameron has been talking about putting a Koi pond in the backyard. Nothing extravagant, it would be narrow in the middle and kidney-shaped so we can lay a rock slab across it for a bridge. We think it should have a small fountain at one end and a bamboo shishi odoshi ("deer scarer" or "deer chaser") gently filling with water and tipping over to *tonk* from the other. We're not sure about the wheelchair ramp connecting to the rear door. It doesn't prevent us from putting in a decent deck, but it would get in the way. Personally, I'd like having a ramp to wheel things in the house through the kitchen.
Our incomes aren't gigantic, but we will be paying less per month than we pay now for our apartments. Hopefully, pooling our costs and splitting them will allow us to save up for these and other changes.
I've secured homeowner's insurance through Natalie Morgan at Liberty Mutual, who also provides my car insurance. My real estate agent, Joann Odenwelder, helped me from beginning to end. Though I am only the second closing on her list, she just got started this year and I trusted her in all aspects. She pointed me to Wanda Stevens (thanks for the bottle of champaign at closing!) at Mortgage Acceptance Corporation and I brought her on as the loan officer/broker. I already mentioned Joann's excellent referral regarding the home inspection I had done with Joey Biddle from Quality Home Inspections. I recommend each of these people to home shoppers in the Austin area.
If you need a Texas Hill Country real estate agent or an Austin real estate agent, give Joann a call. I can vouch for her honesty, reliability, and effectiveness. For more than one property I was interested in buying, she and I had trouble getting quick and accurate information regarding the houses. Both seller's agents and builders were often hard to get a hold of and nail down. Joann relentlessly kept pressure on them to remind them of their obligations and my time limits. If she hadn't been so persistent (both on them and on me to decide exactly what I wanted), I wouldn't have the house keys on my keychain. If she has a drawback, it is her inexperience with the minutiae of real estate transactions. But not once did that turn around to bite me in the ass because she always tracked down the correct answer.
I've heard differing accounts whether Clarence Darrow, James Otis, or Sir Edmond Coke coined the famous phrase, "a man's home is his castle." It is heavy with meaning. Hopefully, I will see the day when that statement and it's implications will come to pass.
Now, on to Home Depot.
The weather's been nutty in Austin lately. We've had several days of rain and one night of a near-torrential downpour. Now we're blanketed by the heaviest fog I can remember seeing in Central Texas.
Where's my clear cold winter?!
LATER
Ah, there we go. Sunny, clear, and cool. Close enough.
The Associated Press: Senate OKs $800B Debt Limit Hike
Republican senators did not join in the debate, underscoring how politically uncomfortable the measure is for them. That discomfort was highlighted when they refused to bring the bill to a vote before the elections.Administration officials urged lawmakers to act quickly. The government reached its $7.38 trillion borrowing cap last month, and since then the Treasury Department has paid federal bills by taking cash from a civil service retirement account, which it plans to repay.
"We are nearing the end of our rope, and it is critical that Congress act," said Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All right reserved.
Via the Mises blog, I hear about John Underwood's LIVE-SHOT, a system that says "you can control a pan/tilt/zoom camera and a firearm to shoot at real targets in real time." The animals available to hunt are:
Texas officials are not quite sure what to make of Underwood's Web site, but may tweak existing laws to make sure Internet hunting does not get out of hand."This is the first one I've seen," said Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wildlife director Mike Berger. "The current state statutes don't cover this sort of thing."
Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.The idea came last year while viewing another Web site on which cameras posted in the wild are used to snap photos of animals.
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Capitalism Magazine: America the Insufficiently Angry
Mind you, it's not that people are trying to say that North Korea, Iran and Iraq are not evil; it's the very idea of calling anyone evil which bothers them. Critics of the "axis of evil" concept advanced by President Bush hide behind the charge of "simplistic," saying it's simplistic to call any nation all good or all bad - even one like Iran, some of whose leaders have already openly declared nuclear war against us as soon as they can acquire the means. If ever there were to be a case of all bad, it would seem to be a nation like Iran.Copyright 2004-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
Capitalism Magazine: Defending the Separation of Church and State: A Call to Liberals
At an emotional level, there are many liberals who would bristle at the claim that the separation of Church and State is but an empty slogan -- yet unless one rejects the Archbishop's root premise, there is no argument against his conclusion. The premise is that majority rules, or as the Archbishop puts it: "Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process."In fact, this nation was founded on the opposite idea: that each individual is sovereign, and that no tyranny, whether it be by king or democratic mob, can breach his sovereignty nor impose its beliefs on him.
Very soon after the Treaty of Peace, by which the Independence of the United States was recognized by the Government from which they had effected their separation, the want of a general superintending power over commerce, with the correlative power of taxation, was almost universally felt, and very generally deplored by the inhabitants of all the States, though not to the same extent in all.It was easier to see the defect, and to feel the evils which flowed from it, than to provide the remedy. Intelligent citizens, however, soon busied themselves in devising the means of forming a Union, which should possess the requisite authority, and become the foundation of certain and durable prosperity.
And just what did those masses think would necessarily occur when that "superintending power over commerce" would be imposed? Were they concerned with an individual's right to engage in business transactions provided they were peaceful and honest? I'm sure they felt as equally sanguine about the "power of taxation."
What about George Washington's letter to the public?
In Convention, September 17, 1787
SIR:
We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most desirable.The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectively vested in the General Government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.
That Constitution contained:
To ensure the individual's sovereignty, the Founding Fathers established a constitutional republic whose governing principle was the protection of individual rights. And though its representatives were elected democratically, democracy in its root sense was not a characteristic of this form of government. Rather its essence was the strict limits imposed by the principle of individual rights on the purview of the government and its elected officials.[...]
Moreover they understood that individual rights are absolutes; you either have them in their entirety (regardless of anyone's vote), or you don't have them at all (e.g. if they can be forfeit to the "democratic" impulses of the mob at any time).
Copyright 2004-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
This doesn't even get into the very serious and very important problem of unanimous consent raised by Lysander Spoonder:
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living [more than two hundred] years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
The Associated Press via ABCNews: Judge Gives Drug, Weapons Convict 55 Years
A judge who condemned federal sentencing laws as "unjust, cruel and irrational" said he had little choice Tuesday but to sentence a first-time drug offender caught with a handgun to 55 years and one day in prison.
U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell gave record producer Weldon Angelos the minimum 55 years for carrying the gun and one day for dealing marijuana and money laundering while in possession of the weapon.
Cassell said Angelos, 25, will serve more time than rapists, murderers or airline hijackers and won't be eligible for release until he's 70.
Before trial Angelos was offered a plea bargain with a 16-year sentence, but he strongly denied carrying a gun outside his home during alleged drug transactions. That testimony came from an informant "of some disreputable background," Mooney said.A jury exonerated Angelos of two other gun charges but convicted him of twice wearing a gun in an ankle holster and once carrying it in a briefcase.
Prosecutor Robert Lunt said Angelos has been suspected of drug trafficking and money laundering for years and got what he deserved.Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Via Arawak City:
The Destruction Of Societyby: Heretic
I write on fire inside
Stupid words, stupid words
A wish to move beyound words
Engulf this society in fire
CRUMBLE!
FALL!
BURN!
These fires
Outward fires
Of a molotov spittin'
Kerosein soaked rage
Rage at your commodified death
Rage at your human shooting "justified" by a badge
Forest felling cause it is good for the economy
Civil society
News8Austin: County Commissioners opposed to racetrack
Jody Brockhausen and the owners of the Manor Downs Racetrack met at a Travis County Commissioners Court meeting Tuesday.Together they hope to make sure a racetrack proposed by the owners of the Retama Racetrack in San Antonio never comes to Pflugerville.
"A racetrack just doesn't fit in a community of children," Brockhausen said.
The Pflugerville Pfamiles Pfirst anti-racetrack group didn't have to try very hard to win over Travis County Commissioners.Commissioner Karen Sonleitner, whose precinct includes Pflugerville, is already against it, but for different reasons.
"They have not addressed the issue of the roadway and the traffic," Sonleitner said.
The opposition from Commissioner Ron Davis falls more in line with the Manor Downs. Manor is in his precinct."I don't think economically speaking it's a wise thing to do to have two competing racetracks in such close proximity," Davis said.
"It will take about $3.5 million to take care of the social problems of just 1 percent of the people being addicted pathologically or problem addiction to gambling. That's just 1 percent," Mike Northen of the First Baptist Church in Pflugerville.Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Austin-American Statesman: Travis County to oppose proposed horse track (link will rot)
The tone at Tuesday's commissioners meeting was decidedly matter-of-fact. Unlike the recent council meeting, there was little of the impassioned talk about gambling, prostitution and organized crime."I would rather not make calls based on morals," Commissioner Gerald Daugherty said.
Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
Allow the racetrack to be built.
From the Austin Chronicle's Postmarks Online for 11/11/2004:
Date Received: Tue., Nov. 9, 3:27PM
BOYCOTTING EXERCISES REAL POWER
Dear Editor,
Your government is dead. Corporation has become your real leader. Boycott! Voting is dead. Protest is dead. Political redress is dead. Boycott! Striking is dead. Rallying, demonstration, and appeal are dead. The airwaves are dead. Exercise your real power. Organize and boycott!
Stanley Gilbert
Date Received: Mon., Nov. 8, 2:29PM
WE WILL BURY YOU - A BEAUTIFUL AMERICAN THOUGHT
Dear Editor,
I may be swimming upstream here but I have never been more proud of the American people as I was after this election. For two years we read articles from professors, who can't get real jobs, claiming to know how to fight a war and run an economy. We were lectured by rock stars and actors, who know more about drugs than politics. We got to see the merger of the so-called mainstream media and the DNC in an effort to bring down our president. And of course we were reminded daily how the cowards on the European continent felt about us and our president. The American people responded to these pressures in typical American fashion. We gave them the middle finger and the Bronx cheer. That is precisely why we are unique and the greatest country the world has ever known.As for my suicidal liberal brethren, please keep cozying up to people like Michael Moore and Eminem. Keep on trying to legalize drugs and pornography. Don't stop making fun of religion and attacking institutions like marriage. Continue with your stupid "die-ins" and loony MoveOn.org Web sites. Because you know what? You are not the majority! And the majority hates this kind of shit. You think this election was an aberration? Go look up how long the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress. Continue to label us stupid and unsophisticated and we will bury you. Then you really will know darkness and winter.
Greg Solcher
Now imagine there are millions of people like this living in the same country, same states, and same cities. Some are even in the same households.
Just some supporting anecdotes for Billy Beck's bleak vision.
The Associated Press via The Washington Post: High Court Turns Down Cockfighting Appeal
Under the Oklahoma law, participants in cockfights and raising birds for fighting could face up to 10 years in jail and $25,000 fines. Spectators can be charged with misdemeanors.Sherry Todd, an assistant attorney general in Oklahoma, told justices: "The right to conduct cockfights is not a fundamental right. In fact, the federal government and 48 states have enacted some form of law prohibiting cockfighting."
© 2004 The Associated Press
The right to use your property as you see fit provided you do not initiate force or fraud against a non-aggressor. It was this recognition that set the United States apart from all other nations, even though only in degree. It is the degradation of this recognition that is killing our freedom, even though it happens inch by inch.
This law negates the right of chicken owners to do what they want with their property. It negates the right of land owners to use their property to host cockfights. It negates the right of people with money to exchange that money in a system of betting to wage their wealth on which rooster will win the fight. It negates the right of people to voluntarily observe the fights provided they are there with the consent of the landowner. This law, no matter how frivolous the stakes may seem to you, is a direct attack on the peaceful use of private property.
The very people who are supposed to be protecting our rights are the ones punching holes in them.
One of the more annoying things about the form and structure of my blogging habit is that I repeatedly forget to follow up on posts I've made on the past and often neglect to continue a theme or series I've started. I'm just too haphazard about it. The perfect example is my "Hightower Retort" (See: Hightower Needs Some Perspective, The Hightower Retort 11/8/2002, Bringing Back The Hightower Retort, Hightower Retort - 9/26/2003, and Hightower Retort - 10/3/2003). Once I move in to my house and get set up with broadband Net access, I emphatically plan to make that a regular feature.
But more importantly, I want to take the time to face The Austin Chronicle. I've always known it to be the largest single voice for lefty collectivist (and now and then accurately "liberal") issues in the central Texas area. Surprise wasn't on the list of emotions I felt while reading the paper's endorsements and the commentary of its individual writers regarding current events; like most ideologues, these are predictable people. But after reading the current issue, I was so jarred by the outright contradictions in the political writing that my mind has been changed. I will not let this elephant in Travis County's living room go without remark.
I love the Chronicle for its superb coverage of the local arts, music, and community scenes. The advertising within is a directory of the most interesting businesses in the city. But the politics the paper's editors either endorse or advocate are at least as ugly as the other politics I discuss occurring on a national scale.
I'm scheduled to close my house deal next Friday and it would be absurd to think I'll be blogging from home 24, 120, or 240 hours later. However, I think it is time I extended my opposition to the local clearinghouse of the kind of politics I despise.
The Washington Times: Blue states buzz over secession
The idea [of "blue states" seceeding from the US] isn't just a joke; one top Democrat says, "The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government.""Some would say, 'Oh, poor Alabama. It's cut off from the wealth infusion that it gets from New York and California,' " said Lawrence O'Donnell, a veteran Democratic insider and now senior political analyst at MSNBC. "But the more this political condition goes on at the presidential level of the red and blue states, the more you're testing the inclination of the blue states to say, 'So what?' "
Mr. O'Donnell raised the subject of secession on "The McLaughlin Group" during the weekend. "Ninety percent of the red states are welfare-client states of the federal government," said Mr. O'Donnell, who was an aide to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat.
In a telephone interview, Mr. O'Donnell said the red states that went to Mr. Bush "collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut — the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from ... Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing."
Copyright 2004 News World Communications, Inc.
What a great way to end the work week. I'm laughing at these welfare statists who cannot understand the irony of their complaint. When did they start getting huffy about wealth redistribution?
Via The Last Ditch
Though I haven't purchased the services of any other inspectors during my life and have zero experience with anyone else, working with Quality Home Inspections was easy and pleasant.
My real estate agent, Joann Odenwelder, suggested I try the Biddle brothers at this company when the time came to have the home I'm willing to buy inspected. I hooked up with Joey Biddle and he proved to be as professional as he was fun. He explained everything he noted and went the extra distance to make sure I knew the importance of each item that needed correction. I'm not stupid and have worked with builders and minor construction before, but he pointed out problems that I would have never guessed needed attention.
Both he and the administrative staff in his office were able to schedule my inspection and re-inspection promptly. Due to the seller not quite having his shit together, I had to repeatedly put off the re-inspection over a period of two weeks and Quality Home Inspections happily accommodated my needs.
A good bunch over the phone and a good guy in person. Two thumbs up.
The Washington Post: Lawyer Facing Terror Charge Cites Need for Violence
A New York lawyer facing charges of supporting terrorism told a federal jury that she viewed violence as essential to dismantling institutions that perpetuate "sexism and racism."As a federal prosecutor questioned her statements and support for a "people's revolution," Lynne Stewart, 65, testified that her lifelong philosophy included fighting "entrenched ferocious capitalism that is in this country today."
"I believe that entrenched institutions will not be changed except by violence," Stewart said. "I believe in the politics that lead to violence being exerted by people on their own behalf to effectuate change."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Would it be wrong to say the inherently violent institution known as government has been attempting to dismantle social pathologies like sexism and racism for decades though the use of violence, direct and implied? I wonder if Ms. Stewart would support the dismantlement of the reverse racism of affirmative action.
From South African Apartheid to North American Fascism
When I was studying in Germany, most of my professors, Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and Ernst Bloch, told us how they had fled from Nazi Europe, yet I did not exactly grasp the real fear that faced all these "enemies" of the Third Reich. I did not understand the "war of ideas" against them.When I read the diatribal speeches of Hitler, Goering and Goebbels, and saw documentaries of the yelling, brain-washed masses, of the stacked-up piles of the Jewish victims in Dachau and Auschwitz, their gold teeth extracted, then, I remembered the transatlantic slave trade, the quartering of African slaves, the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the millions of starved exploited Russians, in Siberia, in Workuta, in the "gulags". Then I understood what is capitalism.
Yes, as long as capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and corporatism are alive, it can again happen anywhere, anytime.
Now, please, do not label me as a "Marxist", "communist" or "terrorist"!
If [Mike Thompson] wants to leave the good ol' US of A, he can agitate all he wants. There should be a place where racist, xenophobic, bigoted, crazies can congregate and create a 13th century utopia, where such things as Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to live one's life absent government interference need not apply.My emphasis.
*eyes narrow*
This man supported Howard Dean during the primaries and then supported John Kerry during the election. Both of these Democrats endorsed and desired government interference (often at an increased level) in our lives in the form of:
But most importantly, any endorsement of government - in whatever form - is an endorsement of removing some of the "freedom to live one's life absent government interference." The sphere of power a state operates in is a sphere of limited liberty. At it's most very basic, even the minarchist ideal "night watchman state" must have a monopoly on the initiation of force in order to impose its laws, its court system, and its national defense apparatus. The form of that state and how it earns its legitimacy are also irrelevant. Democracy is a synonym for the outcome and process of Billy Beck's ethics test
Let's say that you woke up one morning and, looking out your front window, you observed a crowd of people at the end of your driveway. Let's say that you went out there to say "hi" and find out what's going on. On your arrival, you discover that this crowd of individuals was getting ready to hold a referendum on whether they should enter your house and take your things, to be put to their use.
And don't think I consider the other side of the aisle to be much better. It isn't. But don't think you can just spout off nonsense about wanting to be free from government interference when the entire reason so many people know who you are and visit your websites is because you want more of that interference.
UPDATE 11/16/2004 8:40am
Welcome, Catallarchy visitors!
I forgot to add something. A while back, this supposed fighter for freedom had this to say:
I prefer to look beyond November. To be blunt, I want what the Republicans have -- the trifecta. I want the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. I want as many state houses and legislatures as we can get. I want complete dominance.
UPDATE 1/18/2005 9:40am
Kos continues to amaze me.
UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:24am
The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?, Fiscal Responsibility?, Meteor Blades Needs Economics, Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again
UPDATED 6/7/2006 6:08pm
The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat
...when the Texas legislature is in session.
From the Austin-American Statesman, Lawmakers' plate filling with bills from school finance to marriage
The Texas legislative preseason kicked off Monday with proposals to revamp school finance, send children to private schools with public money and stop lawmakers from leaving the state.
Many of the proposals that are seeing playing time now, however, will be distant memories by the time the real season wraps up next year.And many appear to be red meat that lawmakers from each party are throwing to their political base.
Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
HJR 6 by Representative Warren Chisum
A JOINT RESOLUTION
proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
- Sec. 32. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
- SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman."
HB 12 by Representative Frank Corte
AN ACT
relating to creation of a public education voucher pilot program for certain children.
HB 12 by Representative Dan Branch
AN ACTAnd where will that >55% come from? It better not be through a state income tax.
relating to the legislature's obligation to provide state funding
for the public education system.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Section 42.001, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsections (c) and (d) to read as follows:
- (c) The legislature shall provide state funding in an amount that constitutes at least 55 percent of the cost of maintaining and operating the public school system.
- (d) The legislature may not recapture more than 35 percent of a school district's revenue from ad valorem taxes for the maintenance of public schools in the district. In this subsection, "recapture" means a system under which a school district is required to use a portion of the district's local ad valorem tax revenue for the benefit of public schools in this state other than those in the district, including:
- (1) the remittance of revenue to a state officer or agency for redistribution to other school districts;
- (2) the remittance of revenue to another school district for use by that district; and
- (3) the use of revenue to administer and operate a shared services program between the school district raising the revenue and one or more other school districts.
Rep. Corte is also the author of HB 13:
AN ACTThe relevant law being amended:
relating to punishment for the sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Section 106.03, Alcoholic Beverage Code, is amended by amending Subsection (c) and adding Subsection (d) to read as follows:
- (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an [
An] offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.- (d) If a person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or Section 101.63, an offense under this section is a state jail felony.
§ 106.02. PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR....because we need more minors getting tangled up in the state jail system, dealing a huge blow to their lives and their families!
- (a) A minor commits an offense if the minor purchases an alcoholic beverage. A minor does not commit an offense if the minor purchases an alcoholic beverage under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code.
[...]
§ 106.025. ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL BY A MINOR.
- (a) A minor commits an offense if, with specific intent to commit an offense under Section 106.02 of this code, the minor does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended.
This Corte guy is responsible for several bills.
Representative Fred Brown wrote HB 21
AN ACTThe involvement of the state in the backseats of our vehicles continues.
relating to use of safety belts and child passenger safety seat systems.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Section 545.412(a), Transportation Code, as amended by Chapters 618 and 910, Acts of the 77th Legislature, Regular Session, 2001, is reenacted and amended to read as follows:
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a passenger vehicle, transports a child who is younger than six [
four] years of age or less than 36 inches in height, and does not keep the child secured during the operation of the vehicle in a child passenger safety seat system according to the instructions of the manufacturer of the safety seat system.- SECTION 2. Section 545.413(b), Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:
- (b) A person commits an offense if the person:
- (1) operates a passenger vehicle that is equipped with safety belts; and
- (2) allows a child who is at least six [
five] years of age but younger than 17 years of age [or who is younger than five years of age] and who is at least 36 inches in height to ride in the vehicle without requiring the child to be secured by a safety belt, provided the child is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt.
HB 30 by Representative Rob Eissler
AN ACTOver 2,000 words defining, specifying, and micromanaging what is properly a matter among the landlords, the tenants, and their insurance agencies.
relating to carbon monoxide detectors in certain residential dwellings; providing civil penalties.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Subtitle A, Title 9, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Chapter 766 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 766. CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
- Sec. 766.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
- (1) "Carbon monoxide detector" means a device that:
- (A) detects and sounds an alarm to indicate the presence of a harmful level of carbon monoxide gas; and
- (B) complies with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Standard 2034.
- (2) "Commission" means the Health and Human Services Commission.
- (3) "Dwelling" means a house, manufactured home, condominium unit, duplex unit, apartment unit, or other structure or portion of a structure that is constructed as a residence for an individual.
- Sec. 766.002. CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS REQUIRED.
- (a) Each dwelling the construction of which commences on or after January 1, 2006, must be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with commission rules.
- (b) Each dwelling that is not described by Subsection (a) must be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with commission rules before the owner of the dwelling may sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the dwelling to another person.
- Sec. 766.003. RULES.
- (a) The commission shall adopt rules requiring:
- (1) each dwelling the construction of which commences on or after January 1, 2006, to be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors; and
- (2) each dwelling the ownership of which is sold or transferred on or after January 1, 2006, to be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors.
- (b) The rules adopted under Subsection (a) must prescribe requirements relating to the placement, installation, maintenance, and number of carbon monoxide detectors required in a dwelling.
- Sec. 766.004. POLITICAL SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE. A political subdivision of this state:
- (1) shall require all dwellings in the political subdivision to be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors in a manner that complies with the rules adopted under Section 766.003; and
- (2) may require all dwellings in the political subdivision to be equipped with carbon monoxide detectors in a manner that is more stringent than a manner that complies with the rules adopted under Section 766.003.
Rep. Eissler is also responsible for, among many other things, HB 36
AN ACTWhat. The. Fuck. I swear there are some loony anti-alcohol nuts in Texas.
relating to the sale or service of an alcoholic beverage to a person on the person's 21st birthday; providing a penalty.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code, is amended by adding Section 106.031 to read as follows:
- Sec. 106.031. SALE OR SERVICE OF ALCOHOL TO PERSON ON
PERSON'S 21ST BIRTHDAY.
- (a) The holder of a license or permit that allows the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption commits an offense if, on the licensed or permitted premises, the license or permit holder with criminal negligence sells, serves, dispenses, or delivers an alcoholic beverage to a person on the date of the person's 21st birthday before:
- (1) 7 a.m. if the person's birthday occurs on a day other than Sunday; or
- (2) noon if the person's birthday occurs on Sunday.
- (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
That's halfway through the House list. Now for the Senate list.
SB 25 by Senator Judith Zaffirini
AN ACT
relating to the authority of certain law enforcement agencies to establish a checkpoint on a highway or street to determine whether persons are driving while intoxicated.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Title 1, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Chapter 65 to read as follows:
- CHAPTER 65. SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
- Art. 65.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
- (1) "Highway or street" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.302, Transportation Code.
- (2) "Law enforcement agency" means:
- (A) the Department of Public Safety;
- (B) the sheriff's department of a county; or
- (C) the police department of a municipality.
- Art. 65.02. AUTHORIZATION FOR SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS. A law enforcement agency may operate a temporary checkpoint as provided by this chapter on a highway or street to determine whether persons operating motor vehicles on the highway or street are intoxicated and in violation of Section 49.04, Penal Code."
Sen. Zaffirini is quite concerned about alcohol; she's got
AN ACTPersonally, I think meth labs should be left alone and the users should be allowed to kill themselves as they wish.
relating to the establishment of certain programs and initiatives designed to prevent the manufacture and use of methamphetamine.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Section 461, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 461.019, to read as follows:
- Sec. 461.019. PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES TO PREVENT MANUFACTURE AND USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE.
- (a) The Department of State Health Services shall establish programs and initiatives to prevent the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. The programs and initiatives shall:
- (1) educate retailers on the problem of methamphetamine manufacturing and use in Texas;
- (2) educate retailers on product management practices that deter suspicious purchases and theft of products used to manufacture methamphetamine;
- (3) educate the public on the role the theft of anhydrous ammonia plays in methamphetamine manufacturing;
- (4) educate the public on equipment and practices that deter theft; and
- (5) educate the public on the dangers of methamphetamine manufacturing and the increased hazards to children exposed to chemicals and products inappropriately diverted to manufacture methamphetamine.
- (b) The Department shall ensure its substance abuse efforts concerning controlled substances address:
- (1) student use and abuse of methamphetamine;
- (2) how to identify methamphetamine use in students; and
- (3) how to identify student exposure to methamphetamine manufacturing.
Sen. Nelson, another prolific bill author (17 out of the 46), also has SB 54 which attempts to protect the display of the US flag in the face of homeowner's association rules.
AN ACT
relating to the teaching of foreign languages in public schools.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
- SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 21, Education Code, is amended by adding Sections 21.0451 and 21.0485 to read as follows:
- Sec. 21.0451. GRANTS FOR CERTIFICATION IN BILINGUAL
EDUCATION, DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION, OR ENGLISH AS A SECOND
LANGUAGE. (a) From funds appropriated for that purpose, the commissioner shall make grants to educator preparation programs offered by public senior colleges or universities, as defined by Section 61.003, to allow the programs to:
- (1) exempt from the payment of tuition and fees a student seeking certification as a bilingual education, dual language instruction, or English as a second language teacher; and
- (2) reimburse a student described by Subdivision (1) for the cost of textbooks required for the educator preparation program.
If interested, you can view what's being filed right now, right here.
The session has barely begun and there are already reasons to despair.
Houston Chronicle: China's social safety net in tatters
Kneeling in shame on a sidewalk, he appeared as infinitesimal as any man could: a rail-thin, shirtless beggar with no arms.
Around him, Shanghai glittered. Businessmen and tourists strode past. Some flipped coins or small bills into his tattered satchel.
Li Zheng Bing was alone on the city's most impressive street. The grand columned bank buildings of the colonial Bund district stood behind him. The futuristic skyline of the Pudong commercial center loomed before him, across the harbor.
Who cares for a man with no arms in China, a country where the wealthy live in splendor, and the poor, even those with healthy, undamaged bodies, often struggle to survive?China has lost its social safety net. With so many immense problems to solve, stemming from overpopulation and its decades-long effort to replace communism with capitalism, it is easy for a man like Li to be ignored.
"And it's outta here!"
Once, when this was a closed communist country without mobility, there was a system in place in most communities to acknowledge the underprivileged. But there are no more of the typical work units or communes. People can move from the city in search of work. Hospitals charge money. Disability pensions are pitiful or non-existent.
The sheer greedy capitalist greed of the greed-driven egoist tyranny is on display for all to witness! Can you not see it? People have to pay for health care! People shouldn't have to go anywhere for a job - it should come to them! These...these, abominations must end!
*blink*
Michael A. Lev of the Chicago Tribune wrote this and I cannot take anything he says seriously from this point on.
So Li Zheng Bing must beg."This is my job," he said. "It's the only thing I can do."
He said he is 25 and lives alone in a tiny rented room that he enters by grasping the doorknob in his mouth. He buys rice dishes at small restaurants and plants his face in his plate when other people are not looking. He uses his feet as hands to dress and clean himself.
[...]
He said he was born in a poor county in far southern Guizhou province. At age 4, he touched a high-voltage wire that rendered his arms dangling and dead. He received no medical care, and his arms eventually shriveled and disappeared.
He does not want to be a beggar, he insisted. If the government could provide him with a place to live and enough to eat he would stop. "But I don't think that's going to happen," he said.
He wears clean tan pants with an elastic belt that he washes himself. He slips his satchel around his neck and moves around the city to avoid becoming a spectacle."If I stay in one place I would sometimes see the same people, and I wouldn't want them to feel they have to keep giving me money. I'd feel guilty about that," he said.
Not once in this entire article did Mr. Lev attempt to prove that China's "shift toward capitalism" is leaving behind the needy (nor would he be able to do so effectively, as far as I'm concerned). To me, the purpose of this piece is to guilt-trip us into rethinking our vile capitalist ways. To hold up a sorry bastard and say "Look at this retch! His pain is your fault! Only your sacrifice can save him!"
I oppose welfare assistance for the ultra-needy and emergency disaster assistance for the same reason: there is no rationale whatsoever that justifies the theft of my property and the coercion of my will when I have committed no injustice.
TheKCRAChannel.com: Woman Drops Sunflower Seed, Pays $185 Fine
An Oklahoma City woman was still angry Thursday after she received a hefty fine for discarding a sunflower seed.Police cited Tricia Morgan for littering after she dropped the seed at an intersection about five months ago. The Oklahoma City Municipal Court upheld the fine after she challenged it.
© 2004, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
Via Hit & Run.
So there I was last Saturday morning. I had spent the night at a friend's house and woke up around the unholy hour of 9am to the sound of his girlfriend's cell phone alarm going off every five minutes. I hadn't had enough beer the night prior to get really ornery about it, but getting up that early with the sun that bright in my eyes wasn't one of my goals for the day. After blowing two hours at a few halfhearted games of solitaire, I decided I should just go home and do something productive. Something that I could point to and say, "Look! I did something useful before getting hammered all over again half a day later."
Distressingly, cleaning Reeses's litter box, taking care of his food and water dish, tidying up my computer desk area, looking for a lost ganja tin, taking a shower, and eating lunch didn't qualify. I needed something more.
So I went to the Half Price Books off Research Boulevard with said friend. I intended on going though their used CD section and picking out a few things and perhaps poking through their political and historical books for any goodies. My plan was instantly derailed when I saw the super discounted racks outside the front door on the sidewalk. Nearly everything was marked at a single dollar. O, heavens.
In short order, I picked up
That's $12 for at least three thousand pages of reading material. I also picked up three Rurouni Kenshin DVDs at $13 each to keep my collection of the Kyoto Arc going. In addition, I finally addressed a gaping hole in my music collection: The Best of the Doors 2CD set was mine for $14.
This should be some very enlightening literature. My knowledge of near-modern Chinese and Japanese history is thin. I intend to start with At Dawn..., move on to Hirohito..., and proceed to Reform and Revolution....
Of course, this will make finishing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago perilous. I've juggled Big Important Books before, but these two are reputably in classes of their own. Other works yet to be completed and in various stages of bookmarkedness:
All over the Web, I hear and see something that needs to stop: open invitations for libertarians and democrats to join political forces in the future. I explained why I thought this idea was pointless in The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?
Economic liberty (ostensibly proposed by the GOP) and social liberty (ostensibly proposed by the Democrats) are merely offshoots of the same concept: individual liberty. Neither party supports individual liberty without contradiction. Conservatives wish to preserve tradition and a kind of social morality, often at the expense of liberty. Liberals wish to improve socio-economic conditions for the lower rungs of society and for the overlooked/disadvantaged/etc., regularly at the expense of personal liberty.For the Democratic Party to be more palatable to libertarians, it would have to actually embrace capitalism as the correct economic system. This is the crucial "canary in the coal mine" for individual liberty; you can't have one without the other.
Via the Mises blog, I hear about Professor Stephen Bainbridge's Law and Morality in America, which states in part:
In 11 states, proposals to ban same sex marriage were on the ballot. Voters passed all 11, most by substantial margins. In contrast, the Libertarian Party "would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."The American people want their laws to reflect their morals and values. Conservatives get that; libertarians don't.
I would agree with Prof. Bainbridge's point that most Americans disagree with libertarians over the issue of morality. However, this is not because libertarians, in general, hold an alternative set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Instead, what separates libertarians is their understanding of the nature and function of a government. By granting extensive powers to a government we happen to agree with to enforce a given moral code, we also give these powers to a government in the future that we may not like.
While I don't claim to be a "Big-L Libertarian" in the sense that I'm a member of the Libertarian Party and want Libertarian candidates elected to office, I will say the Party's central principle is a profoundly powerful statement of morality:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
In other words, Other People Are Not Your Property. In other words, We Stand Against Slavery, Both Interpersonal and Economic. How's THAT for a fucking morality, you ass? How about NOT endorsing the ritual theft, murder, and coercion of the American population? Where does he get off thinking he has the high ground in an argument on morality when what he wants is contradictory to basic morality itself?
Stuff him and this idea that government must legislate and enforce morality for us. I find it perfectly absurd on its face to think a government is needed to define, support, and advance morality.
National Review Online: Capitalism Beats Socialism, Once Again
When Jackie Gleason played the character of Joe the Bartender, one of his famous lines was, "Mmmmmmm, how sweet it is!" For Republicans, the outcome of the 2004 national election couldn't be any sweeter. Same for investors. The bull market in stocks is now likely to resume, and it should sustain for some time to come.Why? Once again, capitalism triumphed over socialism.
The confirmation that the 2004 election was a victory for capitalism was reflected in the unexpected victories of Republicans running for the Senate. The split will now be 55 Republican, 44 Democrat, 1 independent. The defeat of obstructionist Democrat Tom Daschle, minority leader in the Senate, signals a "fresh new start" for the Senate minority party. President Bush's ability to get more from a Republican-dominated Senate should not be underestimated - especially by investors.
In contrast [to President Clinton's fiscal approach], today we have a confirmed capitalist as our president and a capitalist majority in the Congress. By the middle of 2005, the Iraq war should be winding down, oil prices should be moderating, lower tax rates will be in effect, and global prosperity will be on the rise. The stock market should be moving higher and eclipsing the record highs of the year 2000 as a result of these changes.Finally, President Bush will be in a position to nominate a number of Supreme Court justices during the next four years, an important factor in keeping capitalism the driving force in America. Ironically, even the beaten socialists will benefit from the capitalist system they detest.
*puke*
Thomas E. Nugent wrote this article and I want to strangle him for it. President Bush is a "confirmed capitalist"?! We have a "capitalist majority" in Congress?! Where the fuck as Mr. Nugent been over the last four years? President Bush and the portions of government that agree with him are against the free trade of:How fucking sad is it that the superficial differences between the whiny Democrat statism offered this election and the abusive Republican statism that won this election are so beyond being taken for granted that columnists have to resort to baldfaced stupidity to feel good about winning an election.
UPDATE 11/12/2004 3:50pm
Anthony Gregory has some related things to say, as well as a rather convoluted free market anarchist argument for George W. Bush.
UPDATE 11/17/2004 10:28am
Buzzflash contributor Marc McDonald also gets it, even though I have suspicions that if pressed, he wouldn't be as ardent a defender of capitalism as he comes off in this article. Notice how not a word is spent on economic regulation.
News8Austin: Dealing with downtown homeless
The Austin City Council is considering proposals to ban panhandling in downtown Austin.The council is also mulling over tightening "public order laws" such as sleeping on sidewalks and roadside soliciting.
"If we just push them harder in this direction..."
The Austin Resource Center for the Homeless, or ARCH, recently opened downtown. Critics say the ARCH is the reason for the surge of that type of activity.
Front Steps, based on the belief that all people deserve the dignity of a safe place to call home, seeks to end homelessness by providing shelter, affordable housing and community education.
Back to the article:
"What their approach is, is to address a symptom and not address the core issue. And the core issue facing homeless people are affordable housing, health care and livable incomes, which specifically in terms of our people, equates to a living wage, paying a fair wage for a fair day's work," Richard Troxell of House the Homeless said.Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
I guess advocating the removal of the collective yoke off the backs of businesses and individuals is not going to fly with these guys.
Austin-American Statesman: Suggested changes on marriage being eyed before final vote
A State Board of Education member stalled a vote to approve middle school health textbooks Thursday by saying the books should condemn homosexuality and make clear that marriage exists only between men and women.Board member Terri Leo, R-Spring, called for about 30 changes to teachers' and students' editions of proposed health books in grades six through eight.
The board skipped a preliminary vote on the books after a representative for the books' publisher, Holt Rinehart and Winston, said the company would consider Leo's changes and report back before today's final vote. The board also delayed a vote on high school health textbooks that emphasize abstinence as virtually the only way to prevent pregnancy and disease.
This is why the government shouldn't run schools, even on a local level. Imposing a single standard on the entire state opens up the textbook as a vile political tool to program the youth.
Leo said that three of the 10 middle school books up for approval would not conform to a state law banning the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. She said they endorse same-sex marriage by referring to the heads of families as couples or adults instead of husbands and wives or fathers and mothers."We're considered a state agency, and we need public acts and records recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman," she said.
Some of her suggestions, however, go beyond the marriage issue.
One passage in a teachers' edition says that "surveys indicate that 3 to 10 percent of the population is gay. No one knows for sure why some people are straight, some are bisexual and others are gay."
Leo wanted to replace those sentences with: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide."
Copyright 2001-2004 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
I paraphrase:
People don't want to be told how to vote and live their lives by people like Michael Moore.
-Cliff May, today on News from CNN
What about the people who don't want anyone to tell them how to live and then bring the threat of government force against them if they fail to comply?
Business Report & Independent Online: Ryanair lays bare anarchy of individualist capitalism
The notion that Nationwide Airlines would charge a wheelchair-bound passenger for assistance in accessing the plane represents individualist capitalism taken to its brutal and logical extreme.At this extreme, the cost of everything is deconstructed and allocated to individual consumers and you either pay or don't get access to the service or product.
I'll give Ms. Crotty a nod of appreciation for recognizing that this is a logical extension of capitalist rhetoric.
The most famous proponent of this extremism is Michael O' Leary in his management of Ryanair, one of the most successful budget airlines in the world.In a bid to offer the cheapest flights on any route, Ryanair has identified a cost structure in which a price is attributed to every aspect of a plane trip.
One of the airline's near-term goals is to discourage passengers from using luggage that needs to be put in the hold as Ryanair knows precisely how much this costs.
Encouragement will be done in the free market manner, which is to charge passengers for any luggage they want stored in the hold.
The traditional frills that have been done away with include free refreshments, free newspapers, allocated seats and free transport of golf bags.
This is remarkably efficient and ensures that passengers who don't play golf are not subsidising golf-playing passengers.
This cost deconstruction does, however, have its limitations as it only includes costs identified by management.To be absolutely pure, the airline should also be charged for the externalities it generates, such as damage to the environment. This additional cost could then be allocated to each traveler.
Why are passengers charged to "consume" a seat on a plane? Because they want the privilege of using that airline's property for a defined period of time and they don't own the seat or the plane. Since the airline must pay for the costs it incurs for running the company, the best way to recoup those costs is through airfares its customers must pay. At the heart of this economic exchange are two things: the voluntary choices each side makes and the private property each side possesses that the other wants to have.
So what about the externality of pollution? Well, look back to the above. Who owns the "environment"? Assuming we are talking about your typical nation, we might expect to hear that "the people" own the environment. But that isn't true. In reality, the government claims and exercises actual ownership of the environment. Unfortunately, the notion of "public property" is thoroughly contradictory, as I mentioned in that post. Ownership of the environment only makes sense when individuals are the owners.
So, in that case, the damage done by the airline's operations is determined by each property owner that is physically impacted by those operations. Therefore, only the land owners who have a legitimate claim should ask for remuneration for damages. Though it is entirely possible the landowners would band together to increase their bargaining power with the airline, it is similarly possible several landowners would negotiate by themselves. Throughout this process, something crucial is achieved: the very subjective value of the cost of the damage done to the surrounding property is defined by the stakeholders of that property. Expecting a government agency or some commission to magically set a price of pollution per square foot per fifty yards of distance from the airline's path of operations may sound reasonable, but it neglects the fact that each landowner values different parts of his or her property differently. Thus, the just value of the damage is much closer to what the owner wants.
Furthermore, it isn't the traveler who creates these external costs. The airline is responsible for them, so the traveler shouldn't be forced to pay them. Of course, since the airline must earn the money to pay for any legitimate costs, the traveler will end up paying for at least part of them anyway. For a more technical analysis of externalities, see Why Externalities Are Not a Case of Market Failure (PDF).
Anyway, Ryanair believed that wheelchairs also represented a frill. Until a year ago, the airline charged passengers for wheelchairs.
At the end of last year, a London court ruled that Ryanair had acted unlawfully by not providing a wheelchair free of charge after the British Disability Rights Commission brought an action on behalf of Bob Ross, who suffered from cerebral palsy and arthritis.While travelling from Stansted airport to France in 2002, Ross was charged £18 (R205) for the use of a wheelchair to take him from the check-in desk to the plane and the same fee on his return trip.
This represented a substantial addition to Ryanair's one-way fare of £10.
Ryanair said the airport's owners, British Airports Authority (BAA), should pay for wheelchairs. "We fly to 86 airports and at 80 of them wheelchairs are provided free of charge," said a Ryanair spokesperson at the time.BAA replied that it did provide them free up to the check-in, but the cost of the airside movement had to be met by the relevant airline. It said all other carriers complied with this policy.
Lawyers acting for Ross told the court that Ryanair had tried to categorise the use of a wheelchair as a frill. In the year to March 2002, Ryanair carried 6.6 million passengers, of whom 7,296 had requested wheelchairs. If the costs of the wheelchairs had been shared by all passengers, it would have added 2p to each fare.In response to the ruling, Ryanair said it would charge a e0.73 (R5.80) levy on all passengers to meet the costs of providing wheelchairs at Dublin, Shannon, Stansted and Gatwick airports.
Although the principle appears to be the same, the situation at Nationwide is a little different. Passengers who need a wheelchair to access the plane have to pay R650 for each one-way flight to cover the cost of the passenger aid unit that Nationwide has to borrow from another airline.Apparently, the other airlines do not charge for this facility as they own aid units and presumably don't charge for depreciation and replacement costs.
Ryanair's wheelchair policy and its response to the ruling have been enthusiastically endorsed by free market extremists who reckon it throws open an important issue."Interest groups often press for special treatment at the expense of others. People often agree to give it because they think the group is deserving and because they have not thought through how the service is to be paid for," writes one fundamentalist.
"By making the charging transparent, as Ryanair has done, people will be forced to think about whether the interest group really is deserving, and if they decide that it is, face up to supporting that view with their own money."
Searching around, it appears Geoffrey E. Wood wrote that in the abstract to his article "Who Pays for Wheelchairs?" in the June 2004 issue of Economic Affairs. I say Mr. Wood has it right. People all to blithely demand others should sacrifice for the needy without seriously considering just what is being sacrificed and who is doing the sacrificing. For example, imagine the gut-churning horror politicians would experience if everyone had to pay their taxes on election day...all at once and in full. The electorate would face the stark reality of what their government demands of them in response to their demands of government. I see nothing wrong with this. It is certainly the most open and honest way of conducting things. Hiding costs through withholdings and paycheck deductions obscures the real transactions going on.
Essentially, this view suggests we should query deserving claims and in satisfying ourselves that each claim is or isn't deserving, ignore any human sensitivities.How completely sad is that idea? As though most of us don't enjoy a better life through an accident of birth rather than any appropriate recompense for personally honed attributes.
Again, being crippled or ill or disabled does not entitle you to some special realm of rights that others cannot have. The concept of rights doesn't bend that way.
It is great that Ryanair's cheap flights have enabled a lot of people to travel, but by encouraging consumers to take an individualised view of life, the airline has highlighted the destructive anarchy of individualist capitalism.©2004 Business Report & Independent Online (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved.
