Magnifisyncopathological

I'll be going there this weekend for some crazy German bier, bratwurst, and lederhosen action.

Posted by drizzten at 09:38 AM | Permalink

Finland, U.S. Most Competitive Economies-Report

Finland is the world's most competitive economy followed by the United States, Sweden, Denmark and Taiwan, according to a Global Competitiveness Report released on Thursday.

The annual report by the World Economic Forum ranks countries according to economic growth prospects, based on technological progress, the quality of public institutions and the macroeconomic environment, and separately on business efficiency.

Finland, home to mobile phone giant Nokia, remained in first place for the best growth prospects and replaced last year's leader, the United States, as a good place to do business.

The United States scored high on technology but its overall position was dragged down by the quality of its public institutions, particularly public finances, where it ranked 50th.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.

The top things the survey respondents said were the most problematic for business are:

1. Tex regulations
   
2. Inefficient bureaucracy
   
3. Restrictive labor regulations
   
4. Tax rates
   
5. Political instability
   
6. Inadequately educated workforce

The US is ranked 9th in property rights, a depressing result. Theoretically and philosophically, a top five ranking should be firmly in our grip. However, considering our slow slide into further statism, it doesn't surprise me.

Places where we ranked 1st:

Andrew Sullivan:

He is the sole guardian of truth; debate is pointless; all that is required is obedience;

Of course, the above quote can also be applied to the gawd Catholics worship as well. In fact, it applies perfectly and completely. You can't argue or debate with an entity you believe is omiscient; the act would be pointless. All that matters is obedience and faith in that entity's word.

And attributing that to an entity such as Gawd is a far more troubling and fundamental belief than attributing it to a human. It says humans can't (and therefore shouldn't) reason with the entity that matters the most...that Gawd is above reason and logic.

Posted by drizzten at 09:34 AM | Permalink

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Demosthenes, Arthur Silber, and Armed Liberal regarding Mr. Luskin's threatened legal action against Atrios for calling him a "stalker." In my opinion, this is a good example of tort abuse, over the most immature of reasons.

Posted by drizzten at 12:44 AM | Permalink

Schwarzenegger Visits D.C. Seeking Aid

"I came basically to Washington to establish relationships and to make sure we are getting more federal money for California as I promised in my campaign," Schwarzenegger told reporters following a meeting with House Republicans. "But of course the recent events, the huge disastrous fires have changed my mission a little bit. I'm now looking for federal money for the people, the victims of the fire."

Schwarzenegger used his first visit since his Oct. 7 election to plead for additional federal resources to fight what authorities are calling the worst fire emergency in the state in more than a decade.

The governor-elect began his day on Capitol Hill, meeting with Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There, on the advice of outgoing Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, he pressed for "one-stop" disaster relief centers where fire victims could receive needed services in a single location.

"I've asked today, FEMA, and they are establishing those this weekend. Most of the centers will be established," Schwarzenegger said.

"I don't think that the fire victims right now ... care about Democrats or Republicans," he said, adding they were eager for any and all helping hands.

But someone needing something does not necessitate need-relieving action from another. Humans helping other humans in times of disaster is one of this species' great traits and characteristics.

Don't stain this charity with resources gained through taxation. It isn't anyone's duty to sacrifice for another. If that person wishes to give then nothing should stand in his or her way. But if a person doesn't wish to give, then that should be the end of it. Don't allocate our property and wealth on the basis of need. Don't allocate it at all.

UPDATE(11/3/2003 12:55am)
Via the Mises Blog, I hear of this New York Times article by David Rosenbaum who says:

President Bush's declaration last week that the wildfires in Southern California were a "major disaster" was the 50th such declaration he has issued this year.

That is more than one disaster a week, double the average annual figure in the 1980's. At the rate he is going, Mr. Bush's total for the year could approach the record of 75 disasters declared by President Clinton in 1996, his re-election year.

When a president declares a region a disaster zone, like the four counties in California hit by fires, millions, even in a few cases billions, of federal dollars become available overnight. The residents can be eligible for assistance ranging from unemployment benefits to temporary housing to low-interest loans, and the communities receive grants to cover expenses like debris removal, repairs to damaged buildings and emergency public services.

[...]

Without question, the fires last week left a terrible trail of devastation, destroying more than 3,100 houses and other structures. But in a comprehensive analysis of disaster declarations over the years, two economists, Thomas A. Garrett of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Russell S. Sobel of West Virginia University, found this year that "nearly half of all disaster relief is motivated politically rather than by need."

But then there's this bit of ignorance-on-display:

Even the most ardent libertarians do not hold that the federal government should offer no help when communities are devastated -- by a big earthquake, say, or a powerful storm.

One of the most ardent libertarians of the last century, Murray Rothbard disagreed with the notion of, applications of, and existence of government natural disaster funding and financing, calling for the wholesale abolishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I agree.

Posted by drizzten at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Police plan safe Halloween party

No matter how good the chain saw looks with your Halloween costume, Austin police officers will permanently confiscate it if you bring it to this year's party.

No authentic, simulated or potential weapons, including baseball bats, hockey sticks or swords, will be allowed inside a barricaded area bordered by Brazos, Fifth and Seventh streets and the Interstate 35 frontage road. People will not be allowed to bring in alcohol or glass bottles. Hazardous materials and items such as flour, talcum powder or other powdery substances also are banned.

dangerous time of terrorism + buncha crazy drunk people milling around + costumes and masks and nighttime + typical Halloween pranksters and deviants out doing their thing = Imposition of Overwhelming Police Presence & New Rules for All.

Fine. I don't agree with the notion that anything outside the boundaries of private businesses in a city's heart is the realm of the public sphere and is therefore subject to the whims of the city's government and law enforcement authorities...but that's the way it is now and they have assumed the duty of keeping the peace as peaceful as possible. Dislodging this particular form of collectivism is well nigh impossible for the foreseeable long distance future.

But permanent confiscation within the confines of this map of any "potential weapons"?!?! That solidly fits my definition of an unreasonable seizure and deprivation of property without due process of law. Any takers?

Partygoers will not have to walk in a set direction during the event, said police spokesman Joe Munoz. The change, which was made about two years ago, will allow people to cross the street without having to walk several blocks out of their way, he said.

UPDATE(10/30/2003 12:55am)
View the APD press release here.

Posted by drizzten at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Hightower Lowdown: October 3, 2003

NATURE'S REALITY CONFRONTS BUSH

One of our more important environmental questions is this: How deeply can George W. stick his head into the thawing tundra before having to admit that, yes, global warming just might be a wee bit of a problem for us?

At issue is the thin layer of ozone that encapsulates our globe. This ozone is kind of important, since, without it, the sun -- how shall I put this? -- would burn us to a crisp, wiping out all life on Earth. Unfortunately, pollution from such things as our oil-guzzling cars is eating away this natural and essential sunscreen, causing everything from more cancer to global warming.

The Bushites, however, goaded by oil and chemical fat cats, are pretending that this isn't happening, so therefore there's no need to stop the pollution causing it. But nature has a way of rudely pricking political delusions with stark reality. Specifically, the frozen Arctic tundra is thawing due to global warming.

This is a problem for Bush -- not because it pokes an embarrassing hole in his "It's Not Happening" posture (after all, Bush has never let reality interfere with ideology). Rather, the thawing tundra is a political problem because it's interfering with the oil giants that are drilling in Alaska. Yes -- oh, cruel irony -- the very industry claiming that global warming doesn't exist is now stuck in it!

An Alaskan regulation allows heavy drilling equipment on the fragile tundra only when it is frozen solid a foot deep and covered by at least six inches of snow. Thirty years ago, these wintry conditions existed 200 days a year, but global warming has now shrunk this window of opportunity by half -- too short of a period for profitable oil drilling.

But the Bushites are remaining consistently delusional -- rather than facing up to the cause of the thawing, they want to allow the industry to drill even when the tundra is not frozen, thus producing more oil to cause more global warming.

THE BIOTECH INVASION OF WASHINGTON

A GMO is not a hot new muscle car marketed to young drivers -- it's a Genetically Modified Organism, and these GMOs are being secretly sold to us through our supermarkets.

Thousands of the food products you bring home -- especially those made with corn and soybeans -- contain these genetically altered organisms, put there not by farmers developing new and better hybrid crops, but by the likes of Monsanto and other profiteers that have scientists in their labs recklessly moving genes among species, including from animals to plants. They are messing with the very DNA of our food supply without even testing the long-term impact of this manipulation on human health or on our ecology. And they're doing it without even telling us that it's in our food.

How do you know these changes aren't done in order to improve current crops and create new ones? What does it matter if big business is doing this rather than smaller independent outfits as long as they are doing it voluntarily and not accepting government dis- or incentives?

Consumers concerned with their health and the impact of GMOs can take the initiative to find out if their food contains these organisms. If they company rejects their request, then they can decide whether or not to buy it's products. This isn't that difficult to comprehend, but I have a feeling Mr. Hightower believes people have a right to know and food companies have a duty to tell...and neither is the case.

In Europe, Japan, Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere, people have rejected these Frankenfoods, either banning them outright or at least requiring that they be clearly labeled. So why is our government allowing these corporations to use your family and mine as their genetic guinea pigs?

If a company decides to cover up or gloss over potential and actual health risks in the food it sells, then that company is engaging in fraudulent activity and should be prosecuted. In addition, once the truth comes out, that company is screwed commercially. It's reputation takes a hard hit and consumers will think twice about buying it's products. Natural market correction...a correction that doesn't require the wholesale banning of goods or their regulation.

But that would mean higher risk for consumers and, well, screw that, right? Such a scenario is unacceptable if you believe in the Nanny State.

Money, honey. The biotech industry knew that U.S. consumers, like those everywhere, would naturally recoil from such tampered foods, so over the last decade, it invaded Washington with its campaign funds and lobbyists. For example, just in the past five years, this industry poured $89 million into lobbying our Washington officials and put millions more into the campaign funds of the White House and Congress.

Monsanto alone, which now controls 70% of the global market for GMO seeds and has led the charge to prevent labeling of these food products, made $3 million in campaign contributions in this period. Eighty percent of that went to Republicans, and George W. dutifully named a Monsanto lobbyist to be the No. 2 official at the EPA.

The biotech giants haven't merely invaded Washington, they've captured it -- and that's why we're being kept in the dark by our own government.

But so far, and especially given the sheer prevalence of GMOs in our diets, there is no GMO-derived health crisis. Would I consider changing my eating habits if it was proven some or all GMOs were harmful? Sure, and I'd be joined by many more.

However, this potential for harm doesn't justify stepping in and requiring food companies to label their products. It's their property to dispose of as they wish and by imposing these regulations, property rights are diluted. The additional costs are no trivial matter, either. Not in our current economic climate.

In the end, my concern is having people believe they can safely trust in the government to know what's best for them...government that is at the whim of political and budgetary processes and pressures. My safety is my responsibilty because I own my life and my body. I have choice in what I eat and it's up to me what criteria I use to filter my selection down. Companies own their products just as surely as I own myself.

I say let everyone be free to choose among the greatest possible options, unfettered by precautionary principles and government handholding.

Posted by drizzten at 09:56 AM | Permalink

The Economist is calling for "a gradually rising gasoline tax" and Gregg Easterbrook musing out loud

Horsepower has never been regulated, but there's no God-given right to it. Fuel efficiency needs to go up. If the Bush analysis is correct, and weight reduction brings a safety risk, then how about horsepower reduction instead?

Posted by drizzten at 06:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Capitol Chronicle - The costs of ignorance: Our failure to support public education undermines democracy

Last spring, Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, made clear where she stood on such socialistic notions as public education. "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever?" she demanded in a legislative hearing. "It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell. And it's cleverly disguised as having a tender heart. It's not a tender heart. It's ripping the heart out of this country."

It's a shame that Riddle, who lists her occupation as "horse breeder," didn't study more broadly for her associate of arts degree at South Texas Junior College. Perhaps there or even in high school she might have run across that communist manifesto known as the Texas Constitution, in particular Article 7, Section 1: "A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools." I'm no expert on Texas history, but I'm fairly certain that the drafters of that document had spent little time in Moscow, and that indeed in political activism they preceded the Bolsheviks by a few decades.

The Texas founders clearly did understand, as our current political leadership has willfully forgotten, that a common public education (among many other shared community goods and burdens) is "essential" to a free republic not because it's compassionate, generous -- or even, God forbid, "tender-hearted" -- but because it is necessary to "the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people." General public ignorance might be considered tolerable in a society of lords and serfs -- or masters and slaves -- but to seriously attempt to maintain a republic of free citizens necessarily requires that those citizens have ready access to a common education and a common public culture.

Is he saying without any hint of irony or sarcasm that a system based upon force and theft is in place to preserve our liberties and rights? Mr. King is choosing the Type M argument over the Type C argument with that lords & serfs and slaves & masters bit. Those words can be disposed of without consequence.

I find it remarkable Mr. King makes the implicit assertion that without public schools, we'd be unable to access and interact with a "common public culture." That level of ignorance is amazing. The only way to avoid that is if you make the choice to. Otherwise, humans being the creatures that we are, we will seek out relationships with others for many different reasons.

The Red Tide

These are principles once too obvious to reiterate, but the Legislature's continued determination to evade its constitutional obligation makes it clear that either, like Riddle, they find such bedrock American notions preposterously alien, or more simply, they no longer care to pick up the tab.

What is true at the level of public schools is increasingly also true for higher education. Whatever else "tuition deregulation" may mean, it confirms the national trend of the last two decades to squeeze the financial life out of public institutions of all sorts in the name of that entitlement program for the rich known as "privatization."

Again with a Type M argument, this time utter crap on it's face. How is removing public funds from public institutions (and therefore requiring those who wish to use those services to pay for them somehow) an "entitlement" to anyone? Certainly not those who would pay for them; even Mr. King should be able to acknowledge that. Certainly not for those who would offer them; no one would be forced to use these services. But I doubt that kind of reasoning doesn't affect him that much.

The most striking statistic offered by UT administrators in defense of their current move to raise tuition, this year and next, is the diminishing level of state support. In the 1970s, more than 80% of UT's academic budget was underwritten by the state budget; currently, that percentage is less than 35% and sinking. UT, which will be raising its tuition roughly 26% over the next two semesters, is not alone. The University of Houston made a similar increase, A&M somewhat lower, and other schools right down to community colleges are following suit.

Socialism for the Rich

If UT students have snapped to the larger implications of these fundamental changes in the American social contract, their slack attendance at the two public forums to discuss the tuition increases didn't reflect it. A few dozen students asked politely if the committee had considered various alternatives and what might happen to those students who can't afford the new costs, and the committee responded that indeed it had considered all available alternatives and that in any case, 28 cents of every new dollar would be set aside to partially defray the increase for low- and middle-income families. That is, of course, one more dreary consequence of privatization: Those of us who were once citizens of a democratic society with equal access to public institutions are now increasingly expected to pay disproportionately from our resources, and then line up to be supplicants to the magnanimity of our betters.

And get a good look at his disdain for charity...even as he wishes for a greater amount of forced charity to take place. The option to choose lends the former system such a greater deal of moral weight that it would be silly to compare it to the latter.

One faculty member noted sourly that perhaps UT students should be at least as concerned about the school's financial condition and academic ranking as they undoubtedly are about the record of its football team.

Copyright © 1995-2003 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights reserved.

Some other posts I've written on this topic:

What Happens When You Invest in Government
Keeping the Government Outta Schools Has It's Benefits
Who Said Government-Backed Racism Is Dead?
The Solution is Obvious

Posted by drizzten at 02:12 AM | Permalink

Oct. 23 is 20th anniversary of Beirut bombing

Survivors are remembering a forgotten day in U.S. history.

Oct. 23 marks the 20th anniversary of Middle Eastern terrorist attacks on American and French troops in Beirut, Lebanon.

The only Austin Marine who made it out of Lebanon alive was Sgt. Armando Ybarra.

Ybarra of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines was one of hundreds of international soldiers in Lebanon on a U.S. peacekeeping mission in 1983.

On that morning, a truck full of non-Lebanese suicide bombers, packed with explosives, destroyed the Marine's barracks.

The truck had become a familiar sight at the airport and didn't raise any alarm, but the resulting explosion and the building's collapse killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers.

Copyright ©2003TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

Posted by drizzten at 01:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

...if you are either wary or unwilling to enforce them?

Colleague's indictment shakes Austin police

The leader of the Austin police union on Tuesday asked patrol sergeants to start each shift by reading aloud a copy of the indictment charging a fellow officer with the shooting death of a man in June.

Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association, said he wants officers to understand that working outside policy guidelines can lead to a criminal charge if their actions lead to serious injury or death.

[...]

Sheffield's request came a day after officer Scott Glasgow was indicted on a charge of criminally negligent homicide for fatally shooting a man June 14 in East Austin.

[...]

Sheffield and others said the indictment will probably cause them to follow department policy strictly, which could lead to fewer criminals being caught and possibly endangering officers.

"Officers do what it takes to serve the public," Sheffield said. "But they also want to have a job and not be sitting under an indictment at the end of the day. . . . This is going to have a chilling effect."

[...]

The indictment said Glasgow's failure to follow police procedures constituted negligence. Glasgow, 29, has said he shot Owens after becoming trapped in the door of the car as Owens began driving away.

Sheffield and others said officers sometimes feel forced to depart from policies to prevent suspects from fleeing and to protect possible victims. Policies allow for such deviations, saying: "No rigid set of guidelines work for every stop. Developing knowledge in understanding the differences you have with unknown risk, increased risk and high risk stops aid an officer in his survival."

But if the procedures are too rigid, if not following closely means the difference between life and death, and if not following them close enough means you are criminally liable for your actions, then those guidelines need to be changed to reflect a more realistic approach. Otherwise, those policies should be less binding and each action judged and reacted to in their own individual circumstances.

The officers said they often develop their own approaches to certain situations based on what is effective and makes them feel safe.

According to the indictment, nearly every action by Glasgow during the incident led to criminal negligence.

However, officers across the county take those same or similar steps every day, Sheffield and others said.

They said the allegations in the indictment might not amount to departmental policy violations, much less merit a criminal trial.

Their biggest concern centered on the charge that Glasgow was criminally negligent by not waiting for backup to arrive at the intersection of East 17th and Tillery streets in East Austin. Sheffield said officers routinely make stops without backup and that the department would have to add at least 200 officers to create two-person units.

"This says to officers, 'No matter the circumstances, you will wait until your backup gets there,' " he said. "That's an unrealistic standard they set there."

I agree. This is a very unrealistic standard to apply to such rapidly evolving situations.

Ann del Llano, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's police accountability project, said she was surprised that officers would knowingly work outside department guidelines.

"It sounds like we have a lot of sloppy police work going on," she said. "Why should the public be OK with that? That really just necessitates a stronger police oversight system."

Copyright 2001-2003 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

An early news report can be read here.

Posted by drizzten at 01:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Time to get anal.

"Liberal" in the true meaning of the term: that which relates to or describes freedom.

Says Bush:

We know that Islam is fully compatible with liberty and tolerance and progress, because we see the proof in your country and in our own.

1. Allah created everything and must be surrendered to.
   
2. Allah will end the world and judge everyone, sending them to either eternity in Paradise or Hell.
   
3. Giving usually 2.5% of your income after expenses to the needy.
   
4. Proselytizing others to Islam.
   
5. "Struggling in Allah's cause," otherwise known as jihad. Not necessarily Holy War.
   
6. Alcohol, pork, and gambling are all prohibited.

To be sure, there are Muslims in the world that are peaceful, tolerant, and want to live and let live. And Bush is right in saying

Terrorists who claim Islam as their inspiration defile one of the world's great faiths. Murder has no place in any religious tradition, must find no home in Indonesia.

Posted by drizzten at 10:54 AM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

I jumped on Glenn Reynolds before on his self-declared libertarianism in regards to public servivces and education. Now, I'm jumping on him in regards to media consolidation. I don't find this at all consistent with libertarian philosophy.

The Instapundit seems to think that once an ownership company has the power to start firing writers from disparate parts of it's media empire, that company has too much power. Specifically:

If people who write for one outlet have to think about pleasing not just one boss, but a plethora of them, then people will write a lot fewer criticisms. And if most outlets are controlled by a small number of conglomerates, we’ll read fewer criticisms, as a result.

Yeah, Gregg Easterbrook's kick in the pants from ESPN and subsequent historical article cleansing were bad moves from a PR, business, and customer service standpoint. But ESPN and it's parent company(ies) have every right to fire and hire whomever they want, to their detriment or benefit. Mr. Reynolds approvingly quotes Stanford law professor Larry Lessig:

If ESPN fired Easterbrook because it overreacted to his comment, then that’s an injustice to Easterbrook, and a slight to society. But it it fired Easterbrook because Easterbrook criticized the owner, that’s an offense to society, whatever the injustice to Easterbrook - at least when fewer and fewer control access to media. No doubt, anti-semitism has done infinitely greater harm than misused media mogul power. But if firing your critics becomes the norm in American media, then there will be much more than insensitivity to anti-semitism to worry about in the future.

I feel it is far more offensive to impose blanket media ownership limits on businesses (and, by direct extension, their Free Speech and property rights) than this case.

UPDATE 1/20/2005 12:25pm
Glenn Reynolds is NOT a Libertarian

UPDATED 9/26/2005 2:38pm
He hasn't been paying attention to An Intellectually and Morally Serious Antiwar Movement.

Posted by drizzten at 07:34 AM | Permalink

There's such a huge disconnect at work here.

Poll: Public Supports Health Care for All

The public's growing unease with the current health care system has built support for a new approach that would mean care for all Americans and changes in laws governing prescription drugs, a poll suggests.

A sizable majority, 70 percent, said it should be legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs outside the United States, according to the ABC News-Washington Post poll. One in eight respondents said they or someone in their home has done just that. Such purchases can save money but they violate the law.

By almost a 2-1 margin in this poll, 62 percent to 32 percent, Americans said they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.

That support drops significantly, however, if universal coverage would mean a limited choice of doctors or longer waits for nonemergency treatment.

Eight in 10 in the poll said it is more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans even if it means higher taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

UPDATE(10/21/2003 1:27pm)
I get the Benefit News e-mail newsletter and today's editon has additional poll stats to pass along:

Americans' desire for comprehensive health coverage is at a fever pitch these days, as consumers appear willing to sacrifice pay raises, higher-paying jobs and their tax dollars to get it, recent surveys find.

One survey, conducted by Stony Brook University?s Center for Survey Research, finds 71% of employees would take a lower-paying job with health benefits, while less than one-fourth (24%) would take a higher-paying job with no health coverage. Even when asked to rate the issues independently, just 37% say a higher salary is very important, versus 73% who rated health benefits as very important.

Adequate coverage is so important, in fact, that 56% of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive poll say they would forego a pay raise in order to keep their current health benefits. Some workers are willing to give up pay altogether, as 90,000 grocery workers and 2,000 transit mechanics in California are striking to maintain affordable health coverage.

And as costs continue to rise and more Americans go without health insurance (43.6 million, according to up-to-date census data), consumers believe the federal government should step in. A Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals eight in 10 who believe it is more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans even if it means higher taxes. In addition, 62% say they would prefer a universal health care system.

(c) 2003 Thomson Media

Posted by drizzten at 11:57 PM | Permalink

Via Radley Balko, a most interesting take on Robin Hood:

...liberals prefer to see themselves as moral descendents of Robin Hood, rather than intellectual heirs of Hooverism. Democrats are frequently heard making the Robin Hood analogy in reverse, claiming that the Bush administration’s budget, including tax cuts and social spending restraint, would take from the poor and give to the rich. Leaving aside the detail that a tax cut allowing someone to keep more of his earnings is not "giving" him anything that is not already his, the adoption of Robin Hood as the patron saint of liberalism cries out for correction. To the contrary, it is conservatives who should extol Mr. Hood as one of their own.

[...]

Robin Hood’s claim to fame was not that he took from the rich to give to the poor, but that he took from the tax collector and gave back to the people their own money. The central issue was overtaxation, and Robin Hood was most emphatically not on the side of the bureaucracy.

So what do we make of Robin Hood, properly interpreted? A supporter of low taxes, a government limited by strict constitutional construction and natural law, and offensive military expeditions against the Saddam Husseins of his time.

Of course, Mr. Busch bases this opinion on the Disney film and not historical literature, so there may be some factual slack involved, but the Disney film is the more popular work, so it's conception of Robin Hood is important.

Posted by drizzten at 12:48 AM | Permalink

What does the final Texas redistricting map (PLAN01374C, in PDF form) look like?

...an attempt to diagram an oil spill using Legos.

That's John Ratliff in the Washington Post. Hard to disagree with him. He also proposes the term "Perrymandering": wildly unpopular redistricting-by-proxy. Others (Molly Ivins and Ginger Stampley, for example) and have been using the term for some time, but mostly as a political pejorative.

My thoughts on the Texas redistricting battle are linked in this post.

Posted by drizzten at 12:50 PM | Permalink

Poor arguments riddle this David Frum piece in the Wall Street Journal, but there's a section at the end that deserves mention and comment.

The Marriage Buffet

Many American advocates for homosexual marriage understand all this, and for that reason oppose "civil pacts" and "domestic partnerships" and "common law marriages" just as fiercely as any social conservative does. They want to restore the bright line too--only with same-sex relationships on the farther side of it. But if that has not happened even in Sweden or France, where organized religion is powerless, it certainly will not happen in the U.S.

The much more likely outcome in this country would be the spread of a crazy-quilt of differing systems of "marriage-lite" across the country...

And then there would be the question of federal rights: immigration, Social Security, federal tax law, and so on, just to make the whole problem more complicated.

[...]

The result of a national trend toward same-sex marriage would be that the young people of the country would be presented with 50 different buffets, each of them offering two or more varieties of quasi-marital relationships. In such a world, the very concept of marriage would vanish.

Replace all the references to "marriage" with gun laws (or free speech, or business regulation, or any number of commonly-accepted "federalized" laws) and see what happens. Very little. His "point" remains unchanged: the utility and practicality of such a diverse variation of laws would erode the nature of the act we are attempting to regulate. Mr. Frum's contemporaries may have different arguements regarding the social impact legalized gay marriage may have on the US, but his central point is the difficulty, gosh darn it, in retaining control over the process and the people involved in it. As his essay's subtitle says, "When it comes to commitment, a lot of options is not a good thing."

I find that attitude utterly contemptible. This is no man who respects freedom.

It would become impossible to tell young people "Don't have children outside of marriage," because they would not even know--until it was too late--whether they were "inside" a marriage or not.

The solution is to get the government out of marriage and stop treating married couples any differently than other people.

UPDATE(11/24/2003 12:39am)
On the other hand, we have the much better comments of David Brooks making the conservative case FOR gay marriage in the New York Times:

...even in this time of [marital] crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say.

[...]

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Posted by drizzten at 12:15 PM | Permalink

You'll never know when the government will change and suddenly throw all your plans into the shitter.

Parents don't want to lose investment of prepaid tuition

While the University of Texas considers tuition hikes, the state has suspended its Texas Tomorrow Fund Guaranteed Tuition Program.

The investment program allows parents to lock in college tuition at current rates.

It was also suspended in June when the legislature passed tuition deregulation.

"This was in response to the legislature's actions deregulating tuition for public universities in the state," Andy Ruth, the Comptroller's Office Special Programs Director said.

Parents are hoping their investment hasn't put their children's education on the line.

Now public universities such as UT can control their own tuition rates. UT might ask for a $722 tuition increase next year.

I don't have the time to look into this further, but there is some hope about the Texas Tomorrow Fund:

Tomorrow's College Investment Plan accounts are not insured by the State of Texas. Principal contributions to a Tomorrow's College Investment Plan are not guaranteed by the State of Texas. No investment return on any Tomorrow's College Investment Plan account is guaranteed by the State of Texas.

But the Texas Guaranteed Tuition Plan is:

Will tuition deregulation at Texas public universities affect my prepaid tuition benefits?

No. Texas Guaranteed Tuition Plan benefits are secure, guaranteed, and will not be changed in any way. Plan benefits are backed by the full faith and credit of the State of Texas.

Posted by drizzten at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I went to the last Kid Koala show in Austin and loved it. Tuesday, October 28th is coming up, and I have a decision to make.

Go to one of the two shows Eric San will be playing at The Mercury or to the second meeting of the Austin Austrian Economics Society at Thai Tara Restaurant.

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

UPDATE(10/23/2003 2:30am)
Added a link to the Mises Blog for Erich Schwarz's announcement.

Posted by drizzten at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Hesiod wants to know what's up with an Associated Press photo of Bush that looks like it was deliberately taken to give him a halo effect.

THE HALO EFFECT: What the hell is up with this Associated Press photo?!?

And why the hell is CNN running it at all?

Or rather, photographers with intentional or unintentional senses of humor. Get a fucking grip, dude.

Posted by drizzten at 06:50 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Pardon me, 'Olga Hastings,' but there are better ways to advertise your products and services than sending out e-mail spam with the subject line, "We'll put a boot right in your heart."

No thanks. I like my heart bootless.

UPDATED 7/23/2008 10:25am
More spammy-ness here.

Posted by drizzten at 11:45 PM | Permalink

And I liked it. Great action and bad-ass soundtrack.

My biggest problems with the movie were it's lack of trademark Tarantino back-and-forth dialogue (he's the king of this, with only Guy Richtie getting close), the superfluous catty repartee between Vernita Green/Copperhead and The Bride/Black Mamba, and the slightly disappointing final fight scene with O-Ren Ishii/Cottonmouth. That fight opened gorgeously but ended too quickly.

For the most part, I agree with what's said in these reviews:

Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune
Jeffrey M. Anderson, San Francisco Examiner
Colin Covert, Star Tribune

It's really hard to grade the flick since it's cut in half. I am eager to see what'll finish the plot off, as there isn't much of anything to go on in Volume One.

Posted by drizzten at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via Calpundit, I was awakened to the existence of the Texas GOP website (never been there before) and it's stated principles and platform.

Here is the platform's language. My comments will be interspersed in bold.

1. We respect and cherish the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Founders' intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people. We believe internal self-government is the best government, balanced by limited civil government, which provides for the people those things which cannot be achieved individually.
   Sounds good. That last part should be cover language for police, courts, national and civil defense, etc.

2. We believe that human life is sacred because each person is created in the image of God, that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the point of natural death, and that all innocent human life must be protected.
   Problem. That's great YOU believe life begins at conception and must therefore be protected (from abortion), but I'm with Leonard Peikoff on this one, in a broad sense. A woman's fundamental property right to her body overrides any sentimentality placed on an embryo she carries.

3. We believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized. We believe that, while equal opportunity is a right and a privilege, equal outcome is not. We insist that no one's rights are negotiable and that individual freedom demands personal responsibility.
   Lovely to hear a party say equality of opportunity trumps equality of outcome. I wish they'd apply the "ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility" bit to abortion, illegal drugs, and intimate relationships. Oh, and for fuck's sake: purge the racists from your ranks. Stop lending the heavy-handed charges of bigotry any additional ammunition.

4. We believe that government spending is out of control and needs to be reduced. We support fundamental, immediate tax reform that is simple, fair, and fully disclosed.
   I'd like something clearer. Texas has no income tax, so the Texas GOP can't rant about wanting to get rid of one. The property tax and local sales taxes are the big targets. But before you can go after them, you've got to go after spending first.

5. We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a man and a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.
   Problem. You aren't applying #3 to this. Personal relationships belong in the realm of the private and soviergn individuals who are involved in them. Don't force your moral code upon others: allow people to live their lives and choose with whom to spend their time in pleasure. Privatize marriage. The government has no business telling me who I'm allowed to marry or if it's Official or not. And damn it, how about abolishing the government bias towards married people by eliminating their tax breaks and subsidies? I do like the last sentence. It should be applied more fundamentally to all aspects of society.

6. We believe that a well-educated population is fundamental to the continued success of our Republic; and that parents have the right, as well as the duty, to direct their children's education and to have the choice among public, private, and religious schools. Competition improves education, with no child being left behind.
   I'd rather have the state entirely removed from education (as per the last sentence in #5 above taken to it's proper conclusion), but this is a decent step. The problem with it is we'd still be paying for other people's educations; they'd just have the opportunity to shop around with that money rather than have their kid rot in a shitty system.

7. We believe that the future of our country depends upon a strong and vibrant private sector unencumbered by excessive government regulation.
   Define "excessive" as anything beyond what should be in place to punish theft and fraud and I'll be with you on this. Certainly a damn sight better than your ideological competitors.

8. We believe that a strong America ensures a free America. While we recognize that our nation is a major participant in the global community, we must also vigilantly protect the sovereignty of the United States. Freedom is never free, and we honor all those who have served our nation to protect our liberty.
   Language for Big Defense Spending and Get Us Out of the UN. National security is incredibly important, but the direction it's in now needs changing. Pork-barrel local politicians are screwing up the market and need to be stopped. On the other hand, I see little point in remaining with an institution that is so hostile to our fundamental national character. Stop funding the United Nations.

9. We believe all Americans have the right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities. We support enforcement of the laws through the Courts imposing swift and sure justice with stiff penalties, truth in sentencing, and respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
   No one can really argue with this. Unfortunately, some of the laws the GOP wants to enforce (the drug laws in particular) are wrong. Such "swift" and "stiff" justice is punishing millions who do not deserve it.

10. We believe that personal and public integrity is the cornerstone of a stable and lasting society and it is the key to preserving the freedoms for which our founders pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."
    You've got a LONG way to go to get close to this point. When I think of Republicans, I think of compromise, lack of willpower, and political pandering. Rarely do I think of integrity. That is, however, a natural outcome of our current political system. And the Democrats are much worse.

But no, it doesn't change my opinion one way or the other. In each political race I am eligible to vote for, I'll pick the person who best represents my beliefs. Regardless of that person's electibility. If, by change, there is a race where a substantially statist candidate was neck-and-neck with a traditional Republican and that Republican didn't stand for anything particularly odious, I may vote GOP. It all depends.

Posted by drizzten at 10:16 PM | Permalink

I'm slowly becoming a greater part of the online networking community with my participation in the Austin Chronicle Personals, Yahoo Personals (under the name and title of Sarcastomatic and "Music Has a Right to Children"), Friendster, and shortly I'll be joining MySpace at the urging of a few folks on Friendster.

The pull of such communities is the content created by the people within them. Without that, there is nothing. So I guess that's why those companies value this content so highly they include this language in their license agreements, Terms and Conditions, and policies.

Spring Street Networks TOS

You alone are responsible for any materials you post or make available on or through the SSN Sites or any Partner Personals Areas, including but not limited to message board posts, chat participation, homepages, personal profiles and member profiles. Additionally, you alone are responsible for the consequences of any content you post or otherwise make available on or through the SSN Sites or any Partner Personals Areas. By submitting or otherwise making available materials on or through the SSN Sites or any Partner Personals Areas, you are representing that you are the owner of such materials, or are submitting the materials with the express consent of the owner.

[...]

By submitting or otherwise making available materials to public areas of any SSN Site or any Partner Personals Area, you agree that SSN and each Partner (including their respective agents, affiliates, licensors and service providers (collectively, “Third Party Providers”) will at all times maintain a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, assignable right and license to reproduce, repurpose, use, store, modify, edit, distribute or make available any portion or portions of such materials as they see fit in any medium, now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, subject only to the terms set forth in these Terms of Service. While not limiting the rights under foregoing sentence, SSN and the Partners each reserve the right to excerpt, store, use or distribute, in whole or in part, any content, text, or images contained in your personal profiles or posted by you on any public areas maintained within the SSN Sites and/or the Partner Personals Areas, along with your screen name or any Personals nickname you select, and feature them in ads, supplements and content pages in any print publications owned, controlled or otherwise maintained by SSN or any Partner.

You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Yahoo!, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available via the Service. Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.

[...]

You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content.

[...]

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable...[more legalese]

You are solely responsible for the Content that you publish or display (hereinafter, "post") on the Service, or transmit to other Members.

By posting Content to any public area of Friendster, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Friendster an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

You are solely responsible for the Content that you publish or display (hereinafter, "post") on the Service or any material or information that you transmit to other Members. c. By posting Content on any public area of MySpace.com, you automatically grant as well as represent and warrant that you have the right to grant to MySpace.com, an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such information and content to MySpace.com and that MySpace.com has the right to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

An obvious legitimate reason for terms such as these is for the legal rebroadcast of reprinting of your comments elsewhere on the computer system so others can read them. But an "irrevocable," "non-exclusive," and "world-wide" license to "any portion or portions of such materials" "for any purpose whatsoever"?

It's a little humbling to read terms like these and then consider the vast troves of content a company like Friendster legally owns and can do almost whatever it wants with. Of course, these companies distance themselves as far as they can from the negative implications from free-esque market discussion with the talk about the content producers being solely responsible for their content.

People, read your TOSs, licenses, and agreements. It doesn't take as long as you may think and sometimes you learn some pretty surprising things.

Posted by drizzten at 03:06 AM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

I have posted often (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) about the City of Austin's decision to impose a revised and increased ban (PDF) on smoking in this city. Short version: I think the idea and the premises behind it are bogus.

New stuff has come to light:

Smoking task force report

The Austin City Council received a report Oct. 9, 2003, from the City of Austin Air Quality Task Force that looked at how the City's smoking in public places ordinance affects business interests as well as health concerns.
A briefing was conducted Oct. 9. Amendments to the smoking ordinance -- based on the Task Force recommendations -- are tentatively set for consideration at the Oct. 30 Council meeting.

The Council meets at the Lower Colorado River Authority, Hancock Building, 3700 Lake Austin Blvd.

The undersigned are grateful to the City Council for allowing us the opportunity to participate in a reasonable process to explore the circumstances surrounding the issue of smoking in public; and to make recommendations to the Council for how to reconcile the various points of view. We believe that if most communities had the patience and wisdom of our City Council they would have crafted solutions much more responsive to the needs of ALL of their citizens.

What we have accomplished in the last three months is a better understanding of the different points of view about Second Hand Smoke and the various roles of society to reduce risk.

In brief there seems to be two basic points of view about the problem and respective solutions. One group believes that one molecule of Second hand smoke causes illness and should be eliminated in all forms. Our group believes, after being educated by city staff, that second hand smoke may affect health depending on the intensity and length of exposure. We also believe that the adult citizens of Austin have the intelligence, ability, and overwhelming desire, to make an informed choice about their own health, their own levels of risk, and ultimately, their own levels of exposure to second hand smoke.

We have explored the "Science" on which smoking bans have been promulgated and found striking controversies and rebuttals on this topic. These rebuttals have been reported in prominent medical journals. Litigation in Federal Court has found the data concerning the harm of second hand smoke to be inconclusive. For example some cancers once associated with smoking are being quietly removed from the official list such as Stomach and Cervical cancer which is caused by previously undetected viruses. A more complete and organized discussion of the Science is attached.

We do not dispute that exposure to smoke has health consequences, but we have come to believe that these consequences have been overstated in an overzealous, and over simplified, effort to mobilize the general public through the use of fear tactics and exaggerations. Statistical data supplied by city staff shows that this is a non-issue to the average citizen in Austin. According to a recent survey in New York, only 28% of the people in that State like the new smoking ban and 62% want to see it repealed completely. We have concluded that, the average Austinite wants the right to choose his or her own level of risk on this issue and not have it dictated by a small but vocal minority.

Now, I don't agree with some of the Task Force's recommendations, but as a whole, it is a far better deal than what was put into law. There is a lengthy Pro vs Con debate that's definitely worth reading, though my stancy of individual liberty doesn't need scientific data demonstrating second hand smoke to be harmful to invalidate it. Also embedded in the report are articles that examine the science behind the claims of SHS's negative impact on health, as well as the potential tax revenue impact a smoking laws can have on a city.

Adding satisfaction to sensibility, we get this cartoon at the end:

UPDATE(3/2/2004 5:07pm)
More here.

UPDATE(4/21/2004 4:21pm)
The ban, initially scheduled to take affect on May 1st, has been posponed:

The city of Austin's new smoking ordinance will likely be postponed a month until June 1. The main reason is to give restaurants more time to show they've improved their air quality.

Dan McClusky's owner Steve Batlin lucked out. His restaurant has always had a separate room for non-smokers and smokers.

"I really don't think it's necessary. I'm a non-smoker myself. I think it's coming," Batlin said.

The new smoking ordinance is coming, but now it may be one month later. Before they get a smoking permit, restaurants must show they have dual ventilation systems. Lots of business owners installed them to meet the previous ordinance, but the city didn't keep a list.

Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

UPDATE(6/1/2004 11:06am)
Austin Smoking Ban in Effect Today

UPDATED 5/9/2005 9:06am
The Additional Tyranny - The New Austin Smoking Ban Passes

UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:51pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance

Posted by drizzten at 02:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Nonprofits subject to auditor scrutiny

Travis County and city of Austin taxpayers are helping pay for almost 60 nonprofit organizations in Austin. Travis County auditor Susan Spataro believes tax money isn't getting spent the right way.

Nonprofits feel like they're in the crossfire of city and county financial friction.

"Our mission is to support the elderly to live independently in the community," Eleanor Crenshaw, with Family Elder Care, said.

Crenshaw is working late to make sure the elderly who need help will get it.

Family Elder Care Executive Director Karen Langley would rather worry about her clients than her budget.

"When conversations get diverted to improper invoices and trying to summarize and discount the good work that is done in this community by very hard working nonprofits, it is discouraging," Langley said.

Copyright ©2003TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

What actually matters are two things: 1) the nonprofit appetite for taxpayer money and 2) what is done with that money. I consider it a character flaw for this entitlement mentality to develop. It's bad enough nonprofits get taxpayer money; its absolutely insulting for you to question those who want you to spend it effectively.

It only makes sense to not waste money. For those entities who want to devote so much of their resources as to be considered "nonprofit," it is even more imperative to keep costs low, revenue high, and waste minimized. Of course, the article doesn't say what Ms. Spataro's actual allegations are, so she may have points that aren't relevant to what I've mentioned. But my disgust with your quote remains.

Posted by drizzten at 01:26 AM | Permalink

Previously, I posted about a survey being conducted by Envision Central Texas. I posted the survey's contents, but not my answers. Here are my answers:

1. What's better economically: recycling land in current use or aquiring previously unused land and developing it? I'm ignorant of (and too time-squeezed to search for) any statistical surveys that lean one way or the other. I pick A and weigh it "low" due to the nature of the possible answers (why can't we keep lots of both kinds of land available for development?) My reason is keeping the largest amount of land available for economic work is better than restricting it, and this option allows the greatest amount of land development, even over the more mixed options.
2. Agriculture is a prime example of a sector of the economy that has benefited dramatically from the efficiences of a free(ish) market economy. We need far less land these days to feed ourselves and produce enough to sell elsewhere. Therefore, setting aside large tracts of land for agricultural use (ignoring the economic problems with government doing that in the first place...) is deliberately wasteful. Of course, there are people who can create much with land like this and having no restrictions at all is the best choice. I picked A and "low" once again.
3. Again, I must plead ignorance and laziness, so I can't really make an informed decision. However, a good portion of the land this survey concerns itself with falls under the Contributing and Recharge Zones. Therefore, the primary concern as I see it in regards to development over the Aquifer is how to keep the two Zones loaded with clean water. But I don't want the State to get involved though large land buyups, seizures, or use regulations. So, I choose A and weighed it "low." The fewer restrictions on private property, the better. This way informed individuals can make up their own minds and decide how best to weigh development and native water supply. If their actions cause problems, issue groups can go public with data that demonstrates the short- and long-term danger of those actions. I pick B weighted as "high."
4. I'm even more ignorant about this question. How should Central Texas divide up it's transportation needs between automobiles and all other forms of transit and what best suits those needs? How the hell should I know? I have my own needs that I am well aquainted with. I know some of my friends' needs fairly well. A few co-workers even less. I can't just say I have an idea about how to best addess the area's needs because I'm not the area. I'm not going to collectively think for them. However, I am in favor of a mobile and free-flowing society, one that has the liberty to move, visit, and work where it wants. So I picked A on the basis of it's highest hours per year on average a person might travel on weekdays. "low" rating once again.
5. The previous question and this one are the most direct central-planning questions yet, going far beyond mere economics and deep into personal behavior. What is the best mix of single family homes and a combination of multi-family complexes? Personally, I think having more people living in their own homes on their own property is the best solution. Doing so means the family has a much greater stake in it's property, has a higher level of privacy, and certainly a greater level of freedom. Apartments, condos, and townhomes may be more convienent in an aggregate sense, but their landowner restrictions and close proximity to both others and the reach of city officials turns me off. So it's A and "low" again, as I choose the option closest to the status quo because none of the others offer an increase in single family home percentage.
6. This is a toughie because ECT didn't seperate public and private infrastructure investment from each other. Obviously, I'm against using other people's tax money to fun public works projects. I want private money and individuals making these investment decisions. Since none of the documents on the survey page indicate what the ratio of private to public investment money is at stake, I pick B and weigh it "high." This may be the most uninformed survey answer I'll offer.
7. This question is just a summary of the previous six, asking which of the four answers would provide for the best overall quality of life in the area. Well, examining the answers makes it pretty obvious that A is deeply pro-growth along the lines of what happens now and the closer you get to D, the deeper the anti-growth tendencies become. On a sliding scale, A is more open and free for people to work in while D is more centralized and compact. I pick A.
8. How would the quality of life be affected if the population doubles in 20 to 40 years? Kinda large timeframe there, huh? Can't they narrow it down? I pick 2, because with growth comes problems like higher traffic, pollution, and crime that can start to offset the better economic benefits such growth provides.
9. What should be the focus of transportation investment? This question is firmly rooted in the current system where the government controls this activity, so it's almost pointless to make a choice because I'd be against that further involvement. However, from a practical standpoint, if our roads could be upgraded and some much-needed traffic relief (SH 130 for example) could be done quicker, I'd be less inclined to be against it. So, I pick 1.
10. This is just a creepy question. How best to fit 1.25 million more people in Central Texas? Shit, let them choose where to live! I'll pick what I think is the current level of overall decision-making among people living here, 4.
11. Again, I don't want to force new employers and their companies anywhere they don't want to go. So, I pick 3.
12. How important are social equity issues? I say these issues sort themselves out if people are free to contract with one another and trade with one another. I don't want equality of results or outcomes. I picked 4 because these issues are important, but not worth government intrusion.
13. How concerned am I about affordability? Only as concerned as I am towards how able I can afford things. I choose 2.
14. How concerned am I that water supply paces development? Very concerned, but not enough to demand the state get involved. I pick 2.
15. Retaining the character of rural communities? I don't care, so I picked 4.
16. Retaining the character of existing urban neighborhoods? I don't care, so I picked 4.
17. Safely accessing retail businesses from neighboorhoods by foot or bike? A question engineered for the anti-Walmart crowd. It's sure nice to have businesses close by and safe to get to, but the distances I'm willing to walk or bike to get to them are too short for it to be practical in most situations. I pick 4.
18. The three issues more important to me (at least, as offered from that list) are cost of living, housing choices, and jobs.

UPDATE(12/9/2003 1:40am)
The results have been released.

Posted by drizzten at 01:12 PM | Permalink

Either Juliana Liu and her Reuters editors need to go back to school or they are in perhaps one of the very few situations where I would recommend sensitivity training.

China Counts Down to Great Leap Forward in Space

More than 40 years ago, Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin blasted into orbit inside what was described as a tin can on top of a bomb, becoming the first out of the block in the Cold War space race with the United States.

China is due on Wednesday to become only the third nation to send a manned vehicle into space, the climax of a program launched by Mao Zedong in the 1950s.

That, in turn, led to the Cultural Revolution (directed by Mao to purge his party and his country of threats to his rule as a result of his cataclysmic GLP plan) which killed, looted, defamed, assaulted, jailed, and tortured countless additional millions. Untold thousands of ancient buildings were destroyed. The special targeting intellectuals and places of learning recieved utterly ruined China's system of learning. Forced labor camps enslaved millions of the Party's "enemies" for their "bourgeois" and "imperialistic" attitudes. Mao's Red Guard had almost total freedom to target and attack those it choose. Wikipedia says "up to 100 million were killed." By all accounts, Orwell's 1984 would have been a shining, glorious paradise in comparison to Mao's China.

This wanton slaughter of life, liberty, property, and dignity at the altar of Mao and his communism may forever go unmatched.

And Ms. Liu and her editors not only have the balls to include the name of this plan in the title of the piece, but limit themselves to this passing mention of that plan:

Moscow took the lead with the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the first artificial satellite ever launched. A year later, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower sent a bill to Congress to create NASA -- the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Three years later, Gagarin orbited the Earth and impoverished China, exhausted by its disastrous Great Leap Forward campaign of industrial expansion, could only look on with awe.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that "China Counts Down to Great Leap Forward in Space" is the title to this article. If I were one of the survivors of that multi-decade nightmare, reading that title would enrage me. The implications of the title has layers of sick irony that should be obvious to anyone with an education. It's an insult to the dead and the living who remember that period of Chinese history.

The rest of the piece I'm not concerned with. I'm happy another people is trying to escape Earth's orbit and make it off our planet. I do wish it was a private venture. But damn did that flippant mentioning of the GLF (and no mention of the CR, though it did occur after the timeframe of the Gagarin launch) set me off.

Posted by drizzten at 01:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

And it isn't one of those overdone "who are you?" things.

Envision Central Texas survey

What if a million more people lived in Central Texas?

Envision Central Texas, a non-profit organization of concerned citizens from Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties, wants your answer to this question and others that will guide this region toward a common vision.

Considering that this area's population may double within the next 20 to 40 years, Central Texans must make some tough decisions to ensure that future growth occurs sensibly.

Envision Central Texas wants to know your opinion on issues like land development, housing, jobs and the environment.

Just 15 minutes of your time can help shape this region's future.

Please take a few minutes to review the Envision Central Texas Web site and complete the Regional Vision Survey at http://www.envisioncentraltexas.org/publicfeedback.php.

IH35 would turn into the world's largest and most well-traveled rut. Geez.

The survey askes 18 questions and requests you weigh your answers to the first six questions on a scale of High>Medium>Low. Here are the questions and offered answers:

1. Which scenario do you think would provide the best potential use of land for Central Texas' future?
   [New land developed versus land redeveloped]
   In 2000: 1,157 sq. miles of developed land existed.
   
   1. 1 sq. mile redeveloped
      732 sq. miles new land
      
   2. 9 sq. miles redeveloped
      301 sq. miles new land
      
   3. 12 sq. miles redeveloped
      267 sq. miles new land
      
   4. 16 sq. miles redeveloped
      132 sq. miles new land
   
   
2. Which scenario do you like best regarding the future use of agricultural and range land?
   (Agricultural and range land converted to development)
   In 2000: 2,646 sq. miles of agricultural and range land existed.
   
   1. 546 sq. miles
      
   2. 239 sq. miles
      
   3. 212 sq. miles
      
   4. 109 sq. miles
   
   
3. Which scenario do you like best regarding future development over the Edwards Aquifer?
   (Land developed over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone)
   The total Edwards Aquifer recharge zone is 226 sq. miles.
   
   1. 56.7 sq. miles
      
   2. 30.2 sq. miles
      
   3. 0.1 sq. miles
      
   4. 0.6 sq. miles
   
   
4. Which scenario do you think would best serve our future transportation needs?
   [Percentage of trips by auto versus other types (bus, rail, bike, walk), and average hour/year per person spent traveling on weekdays]
   In 1997: 93% auto, 7% other, 244 hours/year
   
   1. 92% auto...8% other...295 hrs/yr
      
   2. 91% auto...9% other...279 hrs/yr
      
   3. 88% auto...12% other...263 hrs/yr
      
   4. 85% auto...15% other...248 hrs/yr
   
   
5. Which scenario do you think would provide the best future housing options?
   (Single-family houses versus townhouses, apartments and condos)
   In 2000: 64% single family, 36% other
   
   1. 63% Single family...37% Townhomes, apartments, & condos
      
   2. 63% Single family...37% Townhomes, apartments, & condos [note: this is not a typo]
      
   3. 59% Single family...41% Townhomes, apartments, & condos
      
   4. 48% Single family...52% Townhomes, apartments, & condos
   
   
6. What level of investment would you prefer for new development?
   (Infrastructure costs for new development on previously undeveloped land)
   See "Infrastructure Costs" on page 2 of Summay.PDF.
   
   1. $10.6 billion
      
   2. $5.5 billion
      
   3. $4.9 billion
      
   4. $3.0 billion
   
   
7. Which scenario do you think would provide the best overall quality of life for Central Texas' future?
   
   1. Scenario a
      
   2. Scenario b
      
   3. Scenario c
      
   4. Scenario d
      
   5. I do not like any of these scenarios.
   
   
8. How do you think the quality of life in Central Texas would be affected if the population doubles to 2.5 million people over the next 20 to 40 years?
   
   • Much better o o o o o Much worse
   
   
9. What do you think should be the focus of transportation investment?
   
   1. Mostly roads
      
   2. Mix of roads and transit
      
   3. Mostly transit
   
   
10. What would be the best way to fit 1.25 million more people in Central Texas?
    
    • Put people in already developed areas o o o o o Put people in undeveloped areas
    
    
11. In what areas do you think new jobs should be located in the future?
    
    • Where jobs are now o o o o o Spread throughout the whole region
    
    
12. How important is it to consider social equity issues on an equal basis with other growth issues when planning for Central Texas' future?
    (See page 2 of Summary.PDF)
    
    • Very important o o o o o Not at all important
    
    
13. How concerned are you with maintaining affordability in Central Texas?
    
    • Very concerned o o o o o Not at all concerned
    
    
14. How concerned are you that the water supply keeps pace with development in Central Texas?
    
    • Very concerned o o o o o Not at all concerned
    
    
15. How important is retaining the character of rural communities in Central Texas?
    
    • Very important o o o o o Not at all important
    
    
16. How important is retaining the character of existing urban neighborhoods?
    
    • Very important o o o o o Not at all important
    
    
17. How important is it that shopping and jobs are safely accessible by walking/biking from neighborhoods?
    
    • Very important o o o o o Not at all important
    
    
18. Please select the THREE issues in the list below that you think are most important for the future of Central Texas:

    Air quality
    Cost of living
    Farm land preservation
    Health care
    Housing choices
    Jobs
    Land use
    Parks/Open space
    Public education
    Public safety
    Racial issues
    Social equity
    Transportation/Congestion
    Water availability
    Water quality

It's quite obvious this entire survey is seriously bent towards central economic planning of some degree. As such, it's hard to answer the questions seriously, as it wouldn't make much of a difference in the end. Effective economic calculation under central planning (aka, "socialism") is impossible and irrational.

However, I'll answer the questions from my standpoint of unrestrained, unleashed, predatory, exploitive, demeaning, hurtful, and glorious capitalism.

Just not right now. :)

UPDATE(10/14/2003 1:13pm)
My answers are here.

UPDATE(12/9/2003 1:40am)
The results have been released.

Posted by drizzten at 12:08 AM | Permalink

I've been following this story for months (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13) and have grown more weary and apathetic towards the entire enterprise over time. It seems something of a breakthrough has occured in the Senate:

The Senate voted 17-14 Sunday on a Republican-backed plan to redraw the map for the state's congressional districts.

The vote, delayed since Friday while the House debated an unrelated bill, ends the legislative fight on redistricting that has been waged for six months. Democrats blocked redistricting three times, including a boycott from the House and a boycott from the Senate.

In the third special session called on the subject, Republicans found themselves fighting each other. Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, won his battle to create a district that could be won by someone from his hometown. That effort was opposed by other West Texas lawmakers, including Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock.

Creating the district Craddick wanted, however, caused a ripple effect through other districts and dire opposition from as many as four Senate Republicans on Friday. With that opposition, Senate Republican leaders began debate on the final map one vote shy of the 16 votes needed to pass it.

In the end, Sens. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, and Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, voted for the map.

Republicans are not shy in saying that the map they bring to the Legislature today targets white Democrats in Congress.

But Travis County, represented by white Democrat Lloyd Doggett, also was doomed to sweeping changes by attempts to improve the election odds of a Latino Republican, the creation of a new Latino-dominated district and a lack of defenders in the room.

In the end, Central Texas was a victim of geography, and Austinites might struggle to send one of their own to Congress next year.

"My goal was to defeat as many Democratic incumbents as possible in order to give us five or six additional seats," said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, the House's chief mapmaker. "I would suspect that (any Democrat) who is not in a minority district would have a very competitive race."

Doggett, D-Austin, is among those. He moves from a district representing Austin and eastern Travis County to a district that takes in northeastern Travis, northern Bastrop and all or parts of six counties that lead to Houston. The new district takes in many more Republicans, according to past elections.

Copyright 2001-2003 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

The districts that look the most ridiculous are 19 (like a freakin' crossword puzzle), 28 & 15 (huge north-south columns), and 20 & 29 (in San Antonio and Houston respectively; weird bulbous semi-circles). The map in power now has smiliar problems, don't get me wrong. Districts 15 and 28 are only less north-south elongated, 4 looks like a huge reverse 'J', and just about all of Houston's eastern districts look hackneyed.

The Austin-American Statesman as a historical recap up for those who need a backgrounder.

And no, the Democrats haven't given up their vow to challenge the map in court.

Democrats, whose 17-15 majority on the 32-member Texas delegation in the U.S. House would be eliminated, have vowed to fight in court any redistricting measure that's eventually signed into law.

[...]

"There's not a snowball's chance in hell that (the plan) is legal," [U.S. Rep. Martin] Frost said.

He said the map, if allowed to stand, would disenfranchise the votes of as many as 3.6 million African Americans and Hispanics.

Although the plan is yet to be voted on or signed into law, Democrats have begun preparing their federal court case challenging the map as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Portions © 2003 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. All rights reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 09:13 PM | Permalink

So many laws to enforce, so little time

Could there be such a thing a 'Legal Laffer Curve'? What I mean is, a point where there are so many laws that the State cannot possibly enforce them and their agents start to wilt under the pressure of trying to do so. From then on the whole thing starts to go downhill and the lawlessness begins to grow uncontrollably.

Has that point been reached?

The Laffer Curve essentially states that a there is a point where tax revenue can be maximized when the tax rate is set somewhere between 0% and 100%. The theory is based on the idea that at 0%, there is obviously no tax revenue to speak of, but similarly, at 100% people will simply stop doing the activities that generate tax revenue because the all fruits of their labor are taken from them. So there must exist a balancing point where tax revenue can be optimized.

Now, I don't believe the maximization of tax revenue should be a goal for any government, but the idea does demonstrate the dangers of believing the primary solution to tax revenue problems is to increase the tax rate (or by extension, a tax's reach), being that the people under the taxation yoke will choose to do things that do not result in their product being taken from them.

The Curve also has some interesting potential social applications.

Regarding the increasing proliferation of laws the police must enforce, I think this is an obvious point to make. Unless we are willing to put up with an larger police state where the cops-to-noncops ratio approaches 1:1 closer than ever before (and I'm not), the solution is to scale back the law so it only proscribes the fundamentals such as murder, theft, and fraud. Not only would this bring our legal code into a more moral light, but it would also make more resources available to fight these crimes.

Posted by drizzten at 03:58 PM | Permalink

I mentioned a few days ago the 5th anniversary of the American Liberty Dollar by NORFED. I bought a copy of The Liberty Dollar: Solution to the Federal Reserve, edited by Bernard von NotHaus (whom I had sign it). I've been slowly picking my way through the book since then and have a few quotes to share.

This book is about the Liberty Dollar, as a concept and as a specific. The book is full of ideas on Liberty, and it is full of the nuts and bolts of the Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Dollar is not the only private money being offered to the public at this time. There are others. The advantages of the Liberty Dollar are spelled out in this book, among them being independently audited, redeemable in silver, and an already large network of users. But if the Liberty Dollar were to fail because some other form of currency serves the public better, so be it. The justification of liberty is not to be measured in money or success or any other outcome, although we know that outcomes are much better with liberty. The justification of liberty is in living as a free person, respecting, and enjoying the respect of other free persons. It is the very process of choosing.

I choose, therefore I am free.
-Dr. Clifford F. Thies, Introduuuction, page 16

The history of money has been the history of the common man's quest to be free.
-Chaper 2 "Nature of Money," paaage 33

Anything that develops spontaneously in markets must be humanely useful because spontaneity implies mutual benefits to both buyers and sellers.

-Dr. Richard H. Timberlake, Chapter 3 "Constitutional Currency," page 45

We must be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that we can or must conjure up all the details of an ironclad private monetary system at this moment. We can no more foresee all of the innovations that creative capitalism might employ to expedite the transactions of goods and services than we can imagine what those goods and services might be. All we need to know is that freedom is there, that individuals are free to choose - can accept or reject without question whatever markets have to offer. By this means, we would have money of the best quality.

-Dr. Richard H. Timberlake, Chapter 3 "Constitutional Currency," pages 49-50

Money made Greece great, and in so doing, Greece expressed its greatness in the arts and architecture.
-Chapter 4 "The Marketplace," pppage 52

The government of the United States has never violated anyone's constitutional rights. Did you know that? The government of the United States will never violate anyone [sic] constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone's constitutional rights. The reason for that is: the government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of it's constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a "legal fiction." I give you the famous case, Norton v. Shelby County, when they were thinking straight about these issues: 1886. The Court said: "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it may never have been passed." And that applies to any governmental action outside of the Constitution.

-Dr. Edwin Vieria, Jr., Esq., Chapter 6 "Trashing the Constitution," page 66

Let me give you an example, the key example in the monetary field. Basic question: "What is a dollar?" Interesting question: "What is a dollar?" That's the unit of our currency. What is it? Well, if you ask most people, some of them would pull one out [sic] of these things, a little Sacagawea coin. "This is a dollar." Or more likely they would pull out one of these, a George Washington Federal Reserve Note, and say, "This is a dollar." And if yuo asked that person, "Well, why is that a dollar?" he or she would probably say, "Well, it's because Congress says so," or "the Treasury says so," or "the Federal Reserve says so," or "the Supreme Court says so" - begging the question of whether Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or the Supreme Court has the authority to do so. Is this simply a matter of raw power?

Let's have a reality check. I have some learning aids here. Here's a card that says, "One cow." Is this a cow? Next step: here's a card that says, "By order of Congress: one cow." Is this a cow? You're getting the picture, aren't you? Here we go, the next step: "By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow." And then the final absurdity: "By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow. This is legal tender for all debts public and private." You don't have to be a farmer to understand the meaning of this little demonstration...[T]his is kindergarden material.

-Dr. Edwin Vieria, Jr., Esq., Chapter 6 "Trashing the Constitution," page 68

One after another, the delegates [that gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to rewrite the Articles of Confederation] demanded that the phrase "and emit bills of credit" [contained within one of the Articles] be deleted, and denounced un-backed "paper currency." Colonel George Mason of Virginia, for whom the university is named, told the delegates he had a "mortal hatred" for un-backed "paper money" because is was "founded upon fraud and knavery." Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, later the third Chieft Justice of the Supreme Court, said that un-backed "paper money" had "excited the disgust of all the respectable parts of America." George Read of Delaware said that language alowing the new government to print un-backed "paper money" would be as alarming as "the mark of the beast in Revelation." And John Langdon of New Hampshire said that if the new government were granted the power to print un-backed "paper money," he would "rather reject the whole plan."

The motion to strike out the offensive "bills of credit" language was carried. Thank God! The states were also forbidden to print "paper money" by Article I, Section 10. So, the Constitution forbids any level of government in this country to issue "paper money" and to force people to take them. Only the people, holding hte sovereign powers, could legally issue "paper money" and, of course, they have no power to force anyone to take it. This legislative principle was so set in concrete that the US government issued no "paper money" for over 80 years.

-Chapter 7 "Inflation in America and Its Evil Twin - Deflation," pages 80-81

Posted by drizzten at 01:25 PM | Permalink

The Hightower Lowdown

YOU CAN'T KEEP THE EARL OF SANDWICH DOWN

Time to take another peek into the "Lifestyles of the Rich ... and Cranky."

There's so much attention these days on the "new rich" -- those hotshots who became overnight millionaires -- that we too often overlook the "old rich," who live generation after generation on some fortune amassed in the distant, foggy past by Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather Greed. How're they doing?

Not so well, according to the Earl of Sandwich, scion of one of Britain's most upper-crust families, in a recent New York Times interview. "There's no real security in being from an old family anymore," says the Earl ruefully. What with the skyrocketing costs of maintaining mansions, keeping servants, and whatnot, even some of the landed gentry find it hard to make ends meet. I know you can feel their pain.

I quote:

"Trading on one's family name is not derogatory anymore, at least not in my view," Lord Sandwich, 60, said in an interview in the House of Lords.

[...]

Since [the 4th Earl ate the meat between the bread at a gambling session], Sandwiches have always been inextricably linked with sandwiches. The earl's grandfather, for instance, was known (to his chagrin) as Lord Snack.

"We had a small joke that if one had a small percentage of every sandwich sold around the world, it would give us enough for a few years," Lord Sandwich said.

[...]

"If you're asking me, my preference is to have a sauce that doesn't fall out of the sandwich," said Lord Sandwich, who is tall and sharp-eyed, with the look of a large wading bird.

In 2001, the Earl of Sandwich (the company) began delivering upscale sandwiches, made with fresh ingredients from small British producers, to businesses across London. The company also sells sandwiches to Waitrose supermarkets; the packages bear the family crest.

The idea for the company was born in 1992 when Lord Sandwich's second son, Orlando Montagu - he has the right to call himself "honorable" but has no title - stumbled upon a snack bar in Milan that called itself the Earl of Sandwich and used the family as its theme (weirdly for him, it even served "Orlando" sandwiches).

"I said, 'Like it or not, the connection between our family and the food product has turned from being a story to a brand,'" said Montagu, who manages the business's day-to-day operations.

Early on, when Montagu was seeking financing, he wrote to the founder of the Hard Rock Cafe and of Planet Hollywood, who is named, coincidentally, Robert Earl.

"His first crazy notes to me about eight years ago were infringing on the crackpot," recalled Earl. "'Dear Mr. Earl, my father is an earl and you're an Earl; I'm an Orlando and you live in Orlando - let's go into business.' They were very posh, very stylized, with a beautiful signature and calligraphy, and they went right into the bin."

Nevertheless, Earl ended up investing several million dollars - he would not say exactly how much - in the venture.

Similarly, when Montagu, now 32, raised the sandwich-selling issue at home, he met resistance. "I should think I was a bit hesitant to begin with, as I have no personal experience of going into business," Lord Sandwich said.

What I take from this piece is an olde tyme family who has had the government rug pulled out from under it over the years (rightfully) and is now trying to cope in ways it has never had to in the past.

And Mr. Hightower studiously avoided mention of this:

This autumn, the company is to embark on its biggest venture yet, when it opens its first café, at Disney World in Florida. The plan is to offer an unusual array of hot and cold sandwiches, fillings and accouterments that will be made on the spot amid decor that mimics that of the earl's home in England. Profits from certain sandwiches will go to charity. Other profits will go to the earl and his wife, Countess Sandwich, who together run a large country estate in Dorset, which they also support partly by charging a fee to visitors.

As for the quote he does mention, here it is in full:

With the government trying to devise a way to eject the rest of the hereditaries from the House of Lords, Lord Sandwich knows his days there are numbered. He tries to relish it while he can, while also moving forward.

"There's no real security in simply being from an old family anymore," he said. "Today people recognize that you're wasting your life if you're not making the best use of all the advantages you've been given."

Copyright © 2003 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved

But you can't eat history and, alas, today's Sandwich family needs to make a living. So, in an entrepreneurial burst, the 11th Earl recently decided -- eureka -- we'll start a sandwich business! He notes that he has long been bothered by the poor quality of British sandwiches (the food, not the family), and who better than he to set a proper standard? Hence, a new line of fresh, packaged sandwiches (upscale, of course) bearing the family name and crest on the package. He's even planning an Earl of Sandwich Cafe in Disney World. How appropriate.

DONNING THE MASK OF CORPORATE REFORM

Oh, joy -- the sweet song of democracy will emanate from the closed boardrooms of Corporate America for the first time!

Or so the headlines led us to believe when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently proposed new rules to change the way that members of corporate boards are chosen. Change certainly is long overdue, for these private fiefdoms that rule our land are more secretive, autocratic, and ruthless than the Mafia. Despite slogans like "shareholder democracy," no democracy is tolerated within these iron-fisted hierarchies.

Meaning, if you want to get rid of "corporate rule" and "corporate welfare" then the only effective solution that doesn't wholly trample on individual freedom (i.e., the Freedoms of Speech and Assembly) is to deregulate those markets and remove the government from involvement.

Yes, the boards of directors technically are elected by shareholders -- but these "elections" are Kremlin-style, with shareholders getting only one slate of candidates hand-picked by the CEO. Even if a majority of shareholders vote against these chosen ones, the shareholders are simply ignored, and the incumbents stay on the board.

In the wake of Enron and other corporate calamities, however, the public demanded reform, and now George W.'s SEC is responding with rules to allow shareholder opponents of imperious corporate management to put their own board candidates on the ballot and vote the incumbents out. Sounds good -- vote-'em-out is the essence of democracy!

But we've learned that a Bush "reform" almost always is an imposter wearing the mask of reform. The powerhouse CEOs who finance and essentially run the Bushites' government are not about to let the SEC mess with their power, so they made sure that these so-called reforms are nothing but silky shams to protect the status quo.

For example, only very large, long-term shareholders will be allowed to nominate an opposing candidate, and even this would only happen under extraordinary circumstances. But the real klunker is that outsiders will be allowed to elect no more than one or two members of the board -- even if more actually win. The controlling majority will still be hand-picked by the CEO.

This isn't reform, much less democracy -- it's a fraud.

But the job of the executives of a company is to run the company and they deserve broad discretion in the hiring and firing of it's employees.

Posted by drizzten at 11:59 AM | Permalink

Whomever you are, you now have the honor of being the first person to get IP banned from Magnifisyncopathological. You are also the first person to have their comments deleted. I'd give you an award, but it'd be in the form of my foot up your ass.

This is due to your egregious spamming of my comments with your porn site advertisements. What's funny is that your technique failed utterly. Had you paid closer attention to one small thing, it might have actually gotten past the annoying and into the potentially effective. I would never hire someone so incompetent to get the word out for my business.

The IPs banned are:

209.210.176.20
209.210.176.21
209.210.176.22
209.210.176.33

The e-mail address used for these comments is vasyas@yahoo.com.

Don't fuck with my website. Wanna to advertise with me? Ask me first and get permission. I will expect compensation.

Posted by drizzten at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

[Updates below.]

Libertarians are increasingly isolated in the GOP. Will they bolt in 2004?

While some libertarians like Clark's chances against Bush, only Howard Dean -- with an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association and a vocal throat against the recent Iraq War -- has a shot at broad libertarian support, many in the movement say.

[...]

But holding on to libertarian true believers until the fall of 2004 (if Dean makes it that far) could be tough for the former governor's campaign. Healy, for example, was feeling fairly warm and fuzzy about the doctor -- until Dean came out in favor of sending American troops to Liberia.

Other issues -- extending health insurance or privatizing Social Security, for example -- could derail a potential alliance with Dean as well, especially if he keeps up the left-wing boilerplate he's been spilling on some of his Democratic primary audiences.

Sadly, President Bush and his House Republican colleagues have consistently tried to block or de-fund measures that would help rural Americans. They slashed funding for value added grants for small farmers, they attempted to block mandatory country-of-origin labeling, they attempted to deny funding for conservation measures, like the CSP, that reward farmers who work to protect the environment, and they have consistently sided with the large corporate farms, meatpackers and processors by providing them with unfair advantages over independent family farmers.

In addition to restoring those measures that Bush has tried to undo, I believe we can foster an economic revival in rural America.

We can start by ensuring that rural entrepreneurs have access to equity capital. Rural entrepreneurs have good ideas, but too often they don?t have access to the capital they need to turn their ideas into job-creating businesses.

We must also address the cycle of out-migration that has decimated many of our rural communities, which we can do through government matched savings accounts and tax credits to help create businesses with fewer than five employees.

Universal health care will help rural America a great deal as well; small businesses will be able to afford insurance for their employees, and no family will worry about finding money to go to a doctor.

We must also address the digital divide in rural America by making a dramatic investment in broadband technology that will reach every American.

As President, I will work tirelessly to promote these principles:

• I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity.

The economic policies of the Bush Administration are misguided, unfair, and unsuccessful.

They fail to meet the basic standard of economic justice: decent, well-paying jobs for all who want them. They are policies that have created a legacy of debt for future generations. Huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy are starving essential government services like education and homeland security and forcing states and local governments to increase sales, income, and property taxes. While America?s wealthiest individuals -- those in the top 2 percent of income brackets -- receive the bulk of the tax cuts, America?s middle class is left behind.

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:

• Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
• Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
• Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
• Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.

The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality. [...] For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. [...] My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.

As President I will invest in early childhood initiatives, which set up American children to thrive in school and in life, while providing more options for parents.

[...]

As President, I will also work to strengthen our schools with improved student health centers, a focus on parental involvement, recruiting and retaining outstanding teachers and administrators, and resources to fund key mandates. We must fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, increase funding for elementary and secondary education improvement, and oppose efforts to gut vocational education programs.

Global warming threatens cataclysmic effects on our environment, our economy, and our way of life. Air pollution damages the lungs of our children if they play downwind of the wrong facility. And our cities and suburbs continue to sprawl, eating up farmland and forests.

We can make a half-hearted effort, we can continue to bide our time. We can pretend that there is no crisis, or that if there is one, it is easy to fix. We can pretend the air is not thick with ozone on hot summer days. We can pretend the climate is not changing. We can call for more studies, take symbolic actions, and hold more outdoor photo ops. Or we can act.

[...]

Environmental policy cannot be separated from other issues such as energy, trade, or economic policy. This is one reason that I will ask Congress to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet status immediately, and not drag the process out with contentious debates about restructuring.

[...]

In an act of diplomatic and environmental petulance, President Bush gave the back of his hand to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, he squandered much of America?s moral authority. On issues such as global warming, population growth, and overfishing, we have missed opportunities to demonstrate America?s ability to lead. Pollution doesn?t stop at the borders and neither should environmental policy.

[...]

Too many cities have smog so thick that some days children have to go indoors for a breath of fresh air. To help clear the air, as President, I would direct that adoption of health-based standards for air toxins be accelerated. Further, I would immediately crack down on those companies that violate New Source Review requirements rather than broaden the loophole that allows them to spew pollution as President Bush has done as a favor to his big campaign contributors in the energy industry. And I will ask Congress to close the loophole entirely.

[...]

America is capable of making incredible gains in efficiency and renewable energy technologies. That?s why I will set ambitious goals for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fuel economy standards. I call on American automakers to embrace change, to see the new opportunities ahead, rather than waste time and energy resisting progress. [...] I believe that American automakers should not only catch up, they should become efficiency leaders and market leaders. Under a Dean Administration, they will get the support they would need to make this a reality.

As President, I would vigorously enforce worker protections in federal law. I would appoint a Secretary of Labor who is a real friend of workers. I would appoint men and women to the National Labor Relations Board and the federal judiciary who will interpret federal labor laws broadly to protect the rights of workers.

...we need a tough ergonomics standard...

Good jobs are the result of sound fiscal policies, progressive tax practices, and practical, necessary investments in our communities. To this end, I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts. I will work to eliminate tax policies that provide incentives for American firms to move manufacturing jobs offshore. And I will propose new ways to help small businesses access the capital they need for growth, job retention, and plant modernization so that they can compete successfully in the global economy. I will also support increased funding for workforce training.

Creating and keeping good jobs for Americans also requires the rigorous enforcement of fair trade policies. I would not negotiate trade agreements that do not include meaningful labor, environmental, and human rights protections. I would not pursue trade policies that undermine important U.S. laws and regulations, especially those that protect American workers. I will vigorously enforce anti-dumping laws.

My essential problem with Howard Dean are his domestic policies. His stated objectives and wishes run counter to much of the libertarian running within me. I refuse to believe libertarians seem to support a Dean presidency. Have their anti-war and anti-big budget tendencies overwritten their other beliefs?

I don't consider being more pro-gun than most Democrats, pragmatic, in favor of civil unions, and somewhat federalistic to overcome the parts I've quoted above. Those are HUGE intrusions into individual rights and the economy. I won't vote for a left-leaning statist in order to replace a right-leaning statist.

I'll vote for whomever best represents my principles.

UPDATE(10/15/2003 12:25am)
Further discussion from Julian Sanchez and Jesse Walker. Says Mr. Sanchez:

I don't much care whether it's Terry McAuliffe or Ed Gillespie throwing the bigger celebratory shindig come November 2004. I don't even really care whether George W. Bush is, in his heart of hearts, a convinced Rothbardian while Howard Dean sleeps with the Communist Manifesto under his pillow. Because libertarians shouldn't be distracted by what policies the president, deep down, really wants. They should care about what he can get.

As Cato Institute economist William Niskanen observes, government tends to grow more slowly during periods when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties. The mono-party regime of George W. Bush, who delivered a touching encomium to Milton Friedman mere weeks before signing new steel tariffs and a bloated farm bill into law, has increased domestic spending faster than conservative bete noire Bill Clinton. Bush has even beaten the "big government" Clinton's record when it comes to the growth of the regulatory state.

Howard Dean, like Bill Clinton, may say he wants to dramatically increase government's role in health care. But with fewer vulnerable candidates than in the 2002 midterm elections, it's Republicans who are likely to have the final say on how and whether that happens. And while they've shown they'll happily roll over for Bush, who seems hell bent on delivering a prescription drug benefit, they'll be just as happy to deny President Dean a talking point when he goes stumping at AARP meetings in 2008.

In short Dean (or another Democratic nominee) has vices which are unlikely to translate into real policy.

His virtues?opposition to an imperial foreign policy, greater support for gay rights, and even a qualified federalism, evidenced by his stance on gun rights?are more likely to be points on which bipartisan coalition building is possible.

Of course, it might be objected that the natural candidate for a libertarian to support is, well, the Libertarian. And if one is voting largely for personal satisfaction, that may make a certain amount of sense. Yet people's actual voting behavior indicates that our actual motives in the ballot box are more complex. If you were really going to vote on pure principle, you probably wouldn't vote for any party's candidate, since those candidates are always represent some amount of compromise. Instead, you'd just write in the name of the person you'd most like to see hold the office.

And from this perspective, Dean fails utterly.

Mr. Walker says:

Comrade Sanchez makes the libertarian case for Dean on the Reason site today. More exactly, he makes the case that a Democratic president restrained by a Republican Congress is better than a Republican president enabled by a Republican Congress. His argument is both controversial and essentially true, and I have just a few additions to make to it.

If a divided government is more restrained than a regime in which the same party controls both the legislature and the executive, it's also true that the combination of donkey president with elephant House seems preferable to the combination of elephant president with donkey House. I certainly preferred living under Clinton plus a Republican Congress to living under Bush Sr. plus a Democratic Congress.

Needless to say, the fact that I could cheer for a Democrat does not mean I would actually vote for him. The chances of one ballot making a difference in a national election are almost impossibly small, and if the outcome ever did come down to my one vote you can be sure the results would be decided in court instead of the polls. So with nothing riding on my ballot, I'd rather not throw it away on a man who's sure to upset me once he's in office. Better to back a third party, to write in a cartoon character, or not to cast a vote at all.

UPDATE(11/19/2003 12:30pm)
Want more reasons? How about Dean's desire to re-regulate whole industries?

After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "re-regulation" of U.S. businesses.

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law.

"In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation," Dean said. "Right now, workers are getting screwed."

[...]

Earlier in the campaign, Dean reversed his prior support for Clinton's free-trade agreements with Mexico, Canada and China.

[...]

"I certainly would reverse media deregulation," Dean said. "I would go back to the limitations on how many stations you can own in a given market."

[...]

As governor of Vermont, Dean advocated deregulation, angering some environmentalists. But the events of the past two years have convinced him deregulation is to blame for many of the nation's problems.
"California is proving it does not work," he said. "I think the reason the grid failed is because of utility deregulation."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

UPDATE(11/24/2003 12:30am)
More here. A commenter on another blog takes issue with some of my characterizations and I respond.

UPDATE(12/5/2003 8:20pm)
Oh yeah, by the way, Howard Dean is no fiscal conservative.

UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:30pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information

Posted by drizzten at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Animenation's news service passed along this in their e-mail newsletter:

According to Ain't It Cool News, director Ronny Yu (Freddy vs. Jason) is now writing a script for a big budget American live action adaptation of the anime movie Blood: The Last Vampire.

Why this guy? Blood is a dark story; it doesn't seem fitting to have someone with this kind of body of work directing it. I've seen most of Bride of Chucky and it was terrible. I've also read the Blood: The Last Vampire graphic novel and it's way dark. Super dark. Makes the movie look tame.

No, I haven't seen anything else by Mr. Yu, but someone like Alex Proyas would be much better.

Posted by drizzten at 08:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

[Updates below.]

Jim Henley says this:

This ["And here I thought the salient threat to liberty in America today was, y'know, terrorism."] is a basic and important error. No, the salient threat to your liberty is not terrorism. Terrorism is a threat to our lives, not our liberties. Osama bin Laden and his ilk can not take away a single freedom - we can only do that ourselves. Say you believe that al Qaeda really does want to impose the Caliphate on the United States. Well, they can't. A free and mighty people simply can't be imposed on that way. Simply decide you would rather die free than live enslaved and no ragamuffin "army" of religious malcontents can dictate our political and cultural destiny.

It occurs to me that this is yet another problem with accepting the idea of a tradeoff between liberty and security. Every time Bush and Ashcroft evoke fear to justify new domestic security legislation, every time Bush and Rumsfeld conjure some new bogyman from a two-bit thug with a palace, they weaken the country's anti-tyranny immune system by insinuating that life is more important than liberty. Get people to believe that hard enough and you have established the preconditions for the Caliphate, the Soviet or the Bund.

For a long time, I equated terrorism with loss of liberty and therefore something to be actively fought. If pressed on my stance, I'd argue that getting killed is the ultimate loss of liberty. But Mr. Henley's statements have driven me to re-evaluate my position.

Combined with Arthur Silber's long foreign policy essay (which I am still reading), I think I may be experiencing a change of mind towards Bush's foreign policy and it's implementation, long the one thing besides a few narrow things that I could point to and support in an otherwise bad administration. I'm already sick of the shit he's supervised on his watch (lest I forget, he also signed McCain-Feingold) as well as his fiscal ineptitude in regards to his alleged smaller government principles. Then there are his social policies on marijuana and religion.

I can no longer vote for him in good conscience in 2004. The question now is how quickly I'll accelerate away from his platform and towards another's.

UPDATE(11/25/2003 11:07pm)
Add Chinese textile quotas and tariffs on Chinese TVs to the ever-growing list of economic reasons why I won't vote for George Bush. Absolutely pathetic.

UPDATE(11/30/2003 11:15pm)
Looks like Bush will be dropping the steel tariffs sometime this week. Good move, but too bad it had to be made at all.

The Bush administration has decided to repeal its 20-month-old tariffs on imported steel to head off a trade war that would have included foreign retaliation against products from politically crucial states, administration and industry sources said yesterday.

The officials would not say when President Bush will announce the decision but said it is likely to be this week. The officials said they had to allow for the possibility that he would make some change in the plan, but a source close to the White House said it was "all but set in stone."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:05pm)
Whom to Vote For?

UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:50pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information

Posted by drizzten at 01:33 AM | Permalink

A RESOLUTION encouraging the purchase and vigorous use of the USS Louisville 688 VLS Class submarine.

WHEREAS, in the past few years the scourge of the casino riverboat has been an increasingly significant presence on the Ohio River; and

WHEREAS, the Ohio River borders the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and

WHEREAS, the siren song of payola issuing from the discordant calliopes of these gambling vessels has led thousands of Kentucky citizens to vast disappointment and woe; and

WHEREAS, no good can come to the citizens of Kentucky hypnotized from the siren song issuing from these casino riverboats, the engines of which are fired by the hard-earned dollars lost from Kentucky citizens...

By the way, this should NOT be confused with HB 256 from Representative Brent Yonts (D) and Representative Sheldon Baugh (R):

AN ACT designating Muhlenberg County as the birthplace of thumb picking as a style of guitar playing.

Designate Muhlenberg County as the birthplace of thumb picking guitar playing.

Via Catallarchy.

Posted by drizzten at 01:25 AM | Permalink

Ugh. It's been a while since Billy Graham had said anything so remarkably stupid and relevant (to important policies of mine), but thankfully, he'll never stop, and I'll never run out of reasons to hate him

Posted by drizzten at 12:40 AM | Permalink

Owners, parents protest bus sweep

Owners of private school buses grounded for lacking proper insurance and parents of the students that ride them gathered Saturday to decry a state sweep as unfair to working-class people.

[...]

Private buses are commonly used by children of parents who live within two miles of public schools, such as in the Houston Independent School District, which doesn't provide transportation to those areas. Parents in those neighborhoods, often Hispanic and black working class, contract with private bus companies to take their children to and from school.

Association leaders at the rally said most bus owners charge parents from $6 to $20 a week per student, depending on the distance to school. They said they would have to raise their rates to $30 to $50 a week if they comply with state insurance regulations. They said the insurance fee would cost owners of large buses $3,500 to $5,000 a year per bus.

"Parents are calling us saying, 'Is it true your rates are going to go to double or triple?' " said Gloria Lozano, a translator for the Texas Association of Private School Bus Owners. "They say, 'What are we going to do? We can't afford that.' "

About 200 people attended the rally, including state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston; Johnny Mata, spokesman for the Houston chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens; and lawyers who plan to seek an injunction in district court Monday to stop the Texas Department of Public Safety from further enforcement of the law.

DPS cracked down on illegally operated private buses in the Houston area Thursday and Friday, snagging at least 20 vehicles and one bus driver. DPS Capt. Steve Sullivan said his investigation following a citizen's complaint found that 168 private bus companies don't have proper insurance and other credentials necessary to drive on city streets.

Under the state transportation code, a bus designed to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, but fewer than 26 passengers, must have a minimum of $500,000 in insurance coverage. A bus used to transport 26 passengers or more, not including the driver, must have a minimum of $5 million in coverage. Most of the buses DPS stopped Thursday and Friday were larger buses requiring the greater coverage.

So what does this mandate do to the market? The distortions that first come to mind:

I'll be spending Saturday and Sunday in Lubbock attending the game. One of my sisters goes to school at Texas Tech and she just moved into a new apartment, so it'll be a family visit as well as a way to root for the Aggies' downfall.

The Red Raiders and the Aggies will square off in a matchup that has been debated between both sides as a rivalry, and offensive lineman E.J. Whitley said he is ready to face the Aggies and is tired of having to prove Tech's worthiness.

"There's nothing like going on the field knowing you're about to play A&M," he said. "I can't really explain it. I think it's the fact that we've beat them six out of the last eight years, and they continue to think they're better than us."

Whether it's a rivalry or not will not matter after kickoff at 9 p.m. at Jones SBC Stadium because the Raiders have one thing on their minds - a win.

© 2003 University Daily

UPDATE(10/6/2003 1:15am)
HA! Eat it, Aggies!

Texas Tech laid waste to Texas A&M 59-28 before 51,772 fans at Jones SBC Stadium, kicking its rival for four quarters as [B.J.] Symons set a Big 12 Conference record with eight touchdown passes in the league opener for both teams.

[...]

Texas A&M allowed the most points in school history, also the most points scored against a Franchione-coached team (over 21 seasons).

Tech's 669 total yards were the most allowed by A&M, smashing the previous record of 603 set by Texas in 1970. The Aggies also hadn't lost a game by such a wide margin in four years (37-0 at Nebraska in 1999).

The Aggies haven't won in Lubbock since 1993, or since the current freshmen were in elementary school.

"There's some type of black magic (in Lubbock)," Aggies senior offensive lineman Alan Reuber said. "There's some type of mystique out here that I can't explain. We come in here and these boys are ready to play us every time. It's a weird deal."

Portions © 2003 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. All rights reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 02:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've discussed Jim Hightower twice on this blog (here and here) and I feel I've been neglecting "America's #1 Populist," particularly because he's from Texas and I dislike the notion of not commenting on someone who advocates the views he does.

My second post on him was called The Hightower Retort because at the time, the Austin Chronicle titled it's columns from him The Hightower Report. Those columns are now called the The Hightower Lowdown, but I'll keep the name the same in future posts. Unless I feel his words are sufficient to command a temporary change to The Hightower Lowbrow.

Hot damn, am I clever or what?

To plug things back in, here is a section from September 19's AusChron:

PACKAGED LIES

It's time for another trip into the Far, Far, Far-out Frontiers of Free Enterprise.

Today, Spaceship Hightower takes you into the dark hole of corporate claims about the virtues of their packaged food products. Our guide is Consumer Reports magazine, which probes the crassness of commercialism every month.

Here's a pick to get us started: "Dairy Fresh." If you like fresh cream in your coffee, you might reach for this -- unless you happen to see the fine print confessing that "Ultra-pasteurized Dairy Fresh" never saw the inside of a cow barn. It's nondairy creamer.

Then there's the big summer sausage that the Hillshire Farm proudly labels "Yard-o-Beef." Now that's a hunk of sausage -- but it's not a yardlong hunk by any stretch of the imagination. More like a foot-and-a-half, only not quite. But "161/4-inches-o-Beef" just wouldn't have the same zing, so what the hell -- call it a yard.

Let's give credit for truth in packaging, though, to the Dole company. Its bag of Peeled Mini Carrots has this reassuring disclosure right on the front: "Contains Carrots."

If you think it's absurd that Dole would feel it necessary to tell us that its bag of carrots contains carrots, you've not tried the Brie and Peppercorn Gourmet Spread. Flip the box over to read the list of "gourmet" ingredients, and the only cheese it mentions is cheddar. Keep flipping the box and you'll finally solve the mystery when you find this bit of small type: "Brie-Type Flavor." Apparently, though, we can rest assured that the peppercorns are real pepper, not pepper-type flavor.

Second, I'm fairly ignorant of any cheese beyond the typical stuff you can find in grocery stores, so I can't address his implication that cheddar doesn't qualify as "brie." This is likely his biggest point. He scorns the practice of justifying a food's name through artificial flavoring. I have, on the other hand, come to terms with today's mass-market food system and it's reliance on flavoring over authentic ingredients to provide the taste of most things. It does make "home cooked" food better by comparison. Moms rejoice!

The consumer who's most disappointed with product packaging, however, has to be the fellow who eagerly cracked open his fortune cookie and found not a message of hope, mystery, insight, humor, or good luck, but this crass pitch: "Promote literacy. Buy a box of fortune cookies today."

That's clear grounds for a deceptive-packaging lawsuit ... or at least another cookie.

Posted by drizzten at 01:56 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Wal-Mart abandons building plans

Wal-Mart has abandoned plans to build a store over the Edwards Aquifer in southwest Austin.

In its decision, the worldwide retail company cited environmental concerns for deciding not to build on the northeast corner of Slaughter Lane and MoPac.

Wal-Mart is downplaying widespread opposition that dogged the plans all summer.

A 197,000-square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter is proposed for Slaughter Lane and South MoPac (called Deer Park at Maple Run).

Neighbors claim to support smart growth, but insist the Wal-Mart project isn't such a good idea.

Residents of the Sendera neighborhood claim the store will increase traffic and pollute the sensitive Edwards Aquifer.

"Twenty-thousand vehicles per day will be using this neighborhood to get to and from a 24-hour a day business," said Ron Urias, President of Sendera Homeowners Association.

Sendera resident Amanda Lewis said she's worried she won't be able to cross the busy street if and when the store is completed.

"There's going to be a lot of traffic and I won't really cross the streets whenever I go bike riding," she said.

[...]

"I think that this is really dumb because I think that we already have enough Wal-Marts and enough stores that we can get stuff at," Sendera resident Amanda Wilson said.

Copyright ©2003TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

I took some issue with the citizen problems Walgreens was having through it's desire to develop a new building on South Lamar. As I said then, it is "extremely bad business to build in an area where you are not wanted."

However, make note of Ms. Wilson's comment. In her opinion, there are enough Walmarts in the city, so therefore another one shouldn't be built. That's her opinion, which she is entitled to, but she ignores an obvious point: other people may feel a Walmart in that location would be a good thing, bringing a landslide of cheaper goods and services and greater convenience. Walmart is too smart to not study the issue enough to decide if the demand of an area meets the economic standards it holds for new development.

I fear this may be a case of a sound business decision getting torn up over a vocal minority. And again, if the locals are against a business's activities, they have the right to bring that issue to the greater public's attention so everyone can be informed. That doesn't mean the business must comply with collective demands, but a successful business must take into account the wishes of it's customers and audience.

UPDATE(12/5/2003 8:17pm)
Austin has now banned big box development over the Aquifer.

UPDATE(12/12/2003 2:28pm)
City approves site for Wal-Mart, Lowe'sThe city of Austin has given two retail giants the green light.

The Austin City Council approved the site at Ben White and Interstate 35 for a new Wal-Mart Supercenter.

The retailer promises that the new store will meet "the values and standards of the community" and follow strict environmental guidelines.

[...]

Lowe's has offered to meet some of the city's environmental building demands for a price.

Under the agreement, the city will receive $1 million in mitigation money.

Lowe's also will have to follow guidelines for its lighting and keep its arsenic-treated wood covered.

Copyright ©2003TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
With the government whip not-so-subtlely kept in view, the two parties reach an agreement.

UPDATE(8/30/2004 9:57am)
Brewster McCracken's Jihad

Posted by drizzten at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just don't look for it on the sticker

Sticker Price Scrapped for Universal CDs

Less than a month after Universal Music Group said it would try to lure music buyers back to stores by placing $12.98 stickers on most of its compact discs, the company acknowledged yesterday that it would not specify a price, bowing to pressure from major retailers such as Best Buy.

Instead, Universal Music -- the largest of the music industry's five big companies and home to acts such as Nelly and U2 -- will put stickers on CDs saying they are priced lower without stating a price, though Universal Music believes that retailers will price them near $13.

Retailers generally have applauded the move to lower CD prices but are concerned that profit margins would be excessively squeezed if they sell CDs for $12.98, even though Universal Music also is lowering its wholesale price to retailers.

Shortly after the Sept. 3 announcement, Universal Music sent a letter to its retailers, saying it would place the $12.98 sticker on most of its new CDs beginning around Oct. 1. In addition, the world's largest music company, which accounts for about 30 percent of all music sales, would lower its wholesale price to $9.09 per CD, from $12.02.

To get the lower wholesale prices, however, retailers had to commit to certain conditions by Sept. 19, such as giving the lower-price Universal Music CDs 27 percent of total store space or 33 percent of the space occupied by CDs from major labels.

Most retailers opposed the $12.98 sticker for a number of reasons. One was that if retailers put a higher sticker price on a CD that already has a $12.98 MSRP on it, the retailer could suffer from customer enmity. Other less-obvious objections were raised, said Universal sources, such as retailers saying they might be able to price such CDs for less than $12.98.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Geffen Records
Interscope Geffen A&M
Island Def Jam Music Group
Lost Highway Records
MCA Nashville
Mercury Nashville
Motown Records
Universal Classics
Universal Records
Universal Music Enterprises
Universal Music Latino
Universal South
Verve Music Group

An international list of labels can be found here, but the price changes don't affect the international market. The press release is here. A few quotes:

Universal Music Group (UMG) announced today an aggressive plan to significantly reduce the cost consumers pay for CDs by decreasing its wholesale prices and by instituting a $12.98 Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) on virtually all top line CDs in the U.S..

UMG will introduce a new pricing policy with the aim of bringing music fans back into retail stores and driving music sales. The program, which will begin in the fourth quarter of 2003, will eliminate $16.98, $17.98 and $18.98 equivalent MSRPs. UMG believes retailers will begin offering the lower priced CDs to consumers as soon as October 1, 2003.

As part of this new policy, UMG’s labels plan to significantly increase their direct-to-consumer advertising to raise music fans’ awareness of the artists and their music.

Concurrently, UMG will also reduce its wholesale price on cassettes so its MSRP for top line releases will be $8.98.

UMG’s roster includes such renowned artists as Ashanti, Mary J. Blige, blink-182, Bon Jovi, Mariah Carey, Sheryl Crow, Dr. Dre, Eminem, 50 Cent, Enrique Iglesias, India.Arie, Elton John, Diana Krall, Nelly, No Doubt, Puddle of Mudd, Reba McEntire, Stevie Wonder, Sting, t.A.T.u., Texas, Shania Twain and U2. The new pricing policy will also apply to UMG’s historic catalog of recordings which includes artists such as ABBA, Louis Armstrong, James Brown, Eric Clapton, Patsy Cline, John Coltrane, Ella Fitzgerald, Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holiday, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Bob Marley, Nirvana, The Police, Rod Stewart, The Who, Hank Williams and the Motown catalog, which includes The Four Tops, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes and The Jackson Five.

Interscope (Beck, Chris Cornell, Days of the New, Garbage, Nine Inch Nails, Primus, Weezer...)
Def Jam Group includes -among other labels- Island Records (Portishead), Def Jam Recordings (all things mainstream hip-hop), American Recordings (Johnny Cash, Danzig, Slayer, System of a Down...), and Roadrunner Records (Fear Factory, Jerry Cantrell, Machine Head, Obituary, Sepultura, Slipknot, Type O Negative...).

This is excellent news. A LOT of artists I enjoy will have their CDs priced less. Just the thought of all the cheaper Coltrane is making me happy. Unfortunately, the price cuts won't include box sets or Latin recordings.

Universal's current wholesale price for a CD album is $12.02, with a manufacturer suggested retail price of $18.98. Under the new pricing structure, the wholesale price would be $9.09.

The wholesale price for CDs by a handful of performers, including Eminem and Shania Twain, would be about a dollar more, said Jim Urie, president of Universal Music & Video Distribution.

The company also said it would cut wholesale prices on cassettes and change the suggested retail price to $8.98. Latin recordings and multiple disk packages or CD box sets would not be included in the pricing change.

Copyright © 2003 The Island Packet

Posted by drizzten at 01:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Good buddy Hiigaran has a Livejournal blog. He posted a quick thingie about how he believed bad parenting and a lack of firearm respect lead to the shooting death of a young girl by her 4 year-old brother. Debate ensues, with Erik participating.

My position is quite clear.

Posted by drizzten at 12:33 AM | Permalink