Magnifisyncopathological

I'm no supporter of Howard Dean, but I generally know when a discussion or arguement has run off the bounds of reason and into the flashy, superficial, and absurd.

Matt Drudge posted a series of Howard Dean photos, all of them taken when Mr. Dean's expression was either angry or energetic. "DEAN 'PASSION' PHOTOS: RIGHTEOUS ANGER OR RAGE?" is Mr. Drudge's headline and it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do.

Below are three samples from what Mr. Drudge posted:

*yawn*

What I want to know is, what does Mr. Drudge think of these photos of President Bush?

Probably nothing remarkable.

Posted by drizzten at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I'm going to be in the Denton/Dallas area for the rest of the week to see my good buddy Tim, the Flamingo King open together with Soccer Mom for Dillinja & Lemon D @ Trees on the 27th.

Valve Tour 2003 w/ Dillinja & Lemon D - 11/27
Doors open @ 9:00...Squirt, Katalyst, Soccer Mom, Flamingo Kings, & Trek open the show...Dillinja & Lemon D collect their biggest records of the year onto one album 'The Killa-Hertz'. Bass double-act Dillinja & Lemon D are never far from the front of most DJs boxes. The prolific Valve producers have not let up this year, continuously pushing out big records such as 'Fast Car', 'This Is A Warning', 'Live Or Die', 'Twist Em Out', and 'Generation X' – all receive outings on this, their second joint album 'the Killa-Hertz'. The twelve finalised tracks are spread over quadruple vinyl, whilst the double CD contains an unmixed CD, a mixed CD, plus a bonus DVD containing interviews and the Valve soundsystem in action.

I won't be back until Sunday, but I'll try and keep an eye on blog comments to dump any spam.

And yes, I'll have my seatbelt buckled. Not because the seatbelt Nazis will be out in force, but because it's the right thing to do. "Click It or Ticket" is an offensive idea from top to bottom. I saw three cops each spaced 200 yards from each other on northbound 35 when I drove home for lunch. They all had their steely eyes set on drivers leaving Austin.

What a waste of time and effort.

Posted by drizzten at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My 2002 VW Golf TDI has a great OEM sound system. There were only two problems with it when I got the car: it only had a tape deck and the woofers reached low enough that I worried about damaging them at prolonged levels of volume. So I picked out a JVC MP3 CD player head unit and solved the tape deck problem (until someone stole it), leaving me with the question of bass.

When I upgraded to a subwoofer, I finally solved my bass problem. Now I could enjoy much greater low-end response without having to drive my main speakers hard and risk screwing them up. I don't like excessively loud music, even when it's live. I especially don't like it when I think I may be putting my property at risk of damage.

Of course, some people don't share those feelings.

How low can bass go?

When Bradley Bohac comes and goes from his house near Ramsey Park, his neighbors know. His Ford Mustang may look modest, but it packs a pair of 18-inch sub-woofers in the trunk, powered by a $2,000 amplifier to announce his arrival and departure in no uncertain terms. His windshield shimmers from a sonic overload that could blow out a match. "If you want to swang and bang with the big boys, you've gotta have the system," Bohac says, gently swerving his ride to the beat of a "screwed and chopped" CD from Houston's Devin the Dude. You've probably heard the stuff -- that rap music with the nuclear bass that flattens out and sustains, sounding more like a heavy appliance on the fritz than anything musical. You've heard it whether you wanted to or not.

Some people, in pursuit of their interests, have decided to spend serious money on car audio systems that can announce their presence from dozens of yards away, windows up or down. Since they have higher quality gear and are immersed in an enthusiast atmosphere, they don't worry as much as I do about the volume of their music. Indeed, blasting their music loudly is the entire point.

"Me and my boys sometimes like to drive through the ritzy neighborhoods, like over by Mount Bonnell," the 21-year-old says with a laugh. "We like to (tick) off the rich folks." Houston-based hip-hop, slowed and manipulated to sound like a phantasmic flashback, is the new punk rock. Noise annoys -- "and we don't ca-a-a-a-re!"

Over in East Austin, meanwhile, the slow and furious promenade rolls almost nonstop. When a couple of SUVs sidle up to each other at the intersection of East 12th and Chicon streets and crank up the music in impromptu competition, it sounds like Vietnam, 1968.

Anyone who lives in a city with more than a few thousand people know what it's like to pull up next to a thumper who's rattling their Caddy's license plate with bass. But not everyone knows what it's like to live among these people day in and day out.

A few houses away, longtime East Austin resident Scottie Ivory dials 311. "I hate to be a pest, but sometimes I call to complain about the noise 10 times a day," she says. "My walls are shaking so hard that I can't even watch TV. What am I supposed to do?"

But the booming SUVs are gone before the dispatcher gets an address. The thunder rolls down dark blocks, announcing to those inside their homes: "Here we come. We're bad! Can you deal with this?"

What those SUV owners did was probably illegal.

§ 10-5-3 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS.

A person may not:

(5) operate sound equipment in a vehicle audible or causing a vibration 30 feet from the equipment.

Does it deserve to be? Do the property rights of homeowners wishing for peace and quiet override the property rights of drivers blaring music? Does the nuisance of booming bass require the government to get involved?

I say "no" to all three questions.

I support making an activity a crime when that activity violates someone's rights. What are our rights? The most important and fundamental right is to one's own life. The corollaries to that right form the framework for the rest of the rights we have. Ownership of our property is one of those corollaries. Does blasting music loud violate the property rights of those around you, especially if the bass from said music is powerful enough to rattle windows a block away?

Does it act as an initiation of force, which would be such a violation? Certainly from a pure physics perspective it does. Subwoofers literally force liters of air outward at great pressures in order to create the bass effect. However, if you were to use this arguement, you'd have to address normal and everyday human-generated soundwaves, as they all operate on the same principles. All soundwaves impact the objects around them once generated and cease once they loose enough power.

Heh, it would be interesting to see someone use this kind of arguement to stump for speech regulation on the grounds that some people are exposed to unwanted air vibrations.

However, we treat assault differently depending on the magnitude of the attacker's force. It wouldn't be reasonable to sentence a man to 10 years of jail time for throwing a pillow at another and bending that other man's eyeglasses. Similarly, it wouldn't be reasonable to fine a man $25 for repeatedly bashing another man in the head with a brick. Punishment for a violation of rights should scale with the degree and nature of the violation.

So it would be reasonable to hold a driver financially responsible for damage his car audio system causes to another's property. If some jerk is blasting his music so loud something in my home vibrates off it's perch and breaks, that jerk is responsible for breaking that object and owes me compensation; more if the sonic force was intentionally made to break my property.

But what if no property is damaged and no injury is sustained to another's body? People fed up with being exposed to levels of music they find annoying have pushed for the passing of "nuisance laws" to punish people who act in irritating ways. Can this be classified under a right to the pursuit of happiness?

I don't believe so. First of all, various people find various things irritating. If we were to use this standard, there would be no end in sight to the myriad nuisance laws we'd have to endure and step lightly around. It would strangle freedom. Furthermore, it's a right to pursue happiness, not a right to enjoy it wherever you are. It's the freedom to do what makes you happy, provided you don't violate the rights of others in the process. That translates into not passing laws that punish people for pursuing their own happiness.

But having a big booming system can have a price beyond the thousands it may cost to install. In the first 10 months of 2003, Austin police have written 398 tickets for noise ordinance violations from vehicles. "If we can hear your music from 30 feet away, you're in violation," says assistant police chief Robert Bahlstrom. Fines range anywhere from $91 to $500. "Noise from cars is one of the biggest complaints we get in neighborhoods. I've been in community meetings where we're talking about noise problems and a car will come by with the bass so loud that the windows shake."

So in essence, I find the notion of fining bass-lovers wrong.

Where does this leave annoyed bystanders?

Some bass-terrorized residents have sought out architectural advice on how to better keep the sounds out of their bedrooms and living rooms. "The first thing I'd recommend is the use of landscaping, maybe putting up an outside wall, to refract sound waves," says architect Donovan Davis. "Much of the external sound comes in through the window panes, so thicker curtains could help soundproof. Use layers to create air spaces. Outside sound dies a little with each air space."

They respond in peaceful ways, as they should. Besides taking strategic steps like these to reduce low frequency volume levels, they can take tactical steps as well.

An example of these would be to form a neighborhood property association and make up a music volume policy. Have that policy posted at all entrances to the neighborhood clearly stating the consequences of violating that policy. As they are on private property, drivers of loud vehicles must respect the wishes of the owner(s), otherwise they are trespassing. This doesn't address the problem of loud vehicles outside the limits of the neighborhood but close enough to be heard, but beyond asking and posting signs, to take any legislative action to punish those drivers would be a violation of their rights.

In a free market, individuals who have similar interests can band together to use their collective property rights to isolate themselves from human behavior that annoys them. A free society should enourage this kind of response over using the blunt instrument of state force.

There are other considerations to keep in mind about these noise ordinances.

...Bahlstrom says violators are becoming more savvy about avoiding law enforcement; the number of tickets has dropped from a high of 798 citations for the first 10 months of 2001. "You can see them cut the sound or turn it down when they see a police car," Bahlstrom says. "Then, when we're gone, they crank it back up."

First is their impracticality, which should be obvious. To be guilty of a crime, there should be definitive and objective proof of that person's guilt. If, while pissed at someone for blasting music, you take down their license plate and make a note of the details of the incident, you still have to prove the driver was blasting music, which means either recording equipment or witnesses.

But [Ahneris LaPicca] says the police just use the noise ordinance as an excuse to pull over cars and search them for drugs. "They know the screwheads smoke weed," he says. "That's what they're really after." It's a claim Bahlstrom denies.

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

Then there's police harassment in order to bust drug users and dealers. Using one unjustified law in order to bust someone for another unjustifed law isn't something I support.

In my opinion, anyone who calls him- or herself a friend of freedom should support the abolishment of noise ordinances in all stripes and forms.

Posted by drizzten at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (85)

[Updates below.]

Will sales taxes one day replace property taxes? (link will rot)

State Rep. Suzanna Hupp told the Lampasas County Conservative Club last week that a significant number of Texas legislators would like to abolish property taxes. The same lawmakers would like to replace property taxes with a constitutionally capped sales tax, she said.

About one-third of her peers supports the switch to a sales tax, Mrs. Hupp said, and she counts herself in that group.
While she indicated such a proposal intrigues her, she said she does not believe there is broad enough support yet to pass such sweeping legislation.

"It would eliminate property taxes completely," she said.

Ah, now this is interesting! I could support this as a very useful reform.

At present, school districts in the state depend on property taxes to fund a large percentage of their budgets, though state funds comprise a major part of districts' budgets, too.

A departure from ad valorem, or property taxes, would represent a dramatic change in the way schools in the state are financed, Mrs. Hupp suggested. Consequently, "That's out of a lot of people's comfort zones," she said.

That's precisely one of the reasons to support the change. Switching to a capped sales tax would place a significant restriction on the growth of Texas government agencies. With property taxes, the state and local governments have a dependable and relatively consistent level of tax revenue to rely upon. With sales taxes, the revenue flucuates more as economic conditions cycle through their motions.

The idea has surfaced before, however.

During the Lampasas lawmaker's first session in the Texas Legislature, a similar proposal came up.

The more recent version would cap sales taxes at 11 percent, she said. Professionals such as doctors, attorneys and chiropractors would be taxed on their services.

It looks like the recent version tried to treat the sales of professional services the same as the sales of goods. Eh, if this law were to go into effect, I'd prefer leaving all service professions out of the tax scheme and just tax the sales of goods. Aim for the lowest level of taxation and then work from there.

Of course, an 11% sales tax is kinda harsh and would likely be the highest in the nation. Right now, here is what the Texas sales tax system breaks down to:

State - 6 1/4% tax imposed on all retail sales, leases and rentals of most goods, as well as taxable services.

City - Texas cities can impose an additional local sales tax ranging from 1/4% to 2% for a combined total of state and local taxes of 8 1/4% (.0825)

County - Texas counties can impose an additional local sales tax ranging from 1/2% to 1% for a combined total of state and local taxes of 8 1/4% (.0825).

MTA/CTD - Texas transit authorities can impose an additional local sales tax ranging from 1/4% to 1% for a combined total of state and local taxes of 8 1/4%(.0825).

Special Purpose Districts - Texas special purpose districts can impose an additional local sales tax from 1/8% to 1% for a combined total of state and local taxes of 8 1/4%(.0825).

Austin's current combined rate (in both Travis and Williamson counties) is 8.25% with a city and MTA tax of 1%.

One legislator has a "brilliant" idea on the table, she said.

If the legislature determined it requires $15,000 a year just for the basics in life, the state would send people a quarterly check -- from sales tax revenues -- to help residents of the state pay for the new levy.

Proponents contend that people with incomes of $100,000 to $150,000 a year, and upward, will spend more money, and increased sales tax revenues would compensate for the loss in property taxes, the Lampasas Republican said.

If that idea is "brilliant," then I want to know what "half-witted jackassery" is. If you are so afraid of putting the financial pinch on or looking cruel towards the poor, then don't tax them in the first place. Don't tax them and then set up a wealth redistribution scheme that WILL get gamed, that WILL be hilariously inefficient, that WILL no work in the long run, and that WON'T be enough for the political advocates of the poor.

During a question-and-answer session, Mrs. Hupp said an expanded statewide sales tax, in lieu of property taxes, probably would not include groceries or pharmaceutical drugs and that she is against an expansion of the state's franchise tax and would like to see it ended.

I get venty when I hear about bias in tax systems (aka "progressive taxation" where you pay differently according to your income), but it would be a much more elegant solution to the above.

How would it be done? *gritting my teeth and holding my breath*

If you wanted to qualify for the exemption, send in a statement from your employer where you both swear you make less than [insert arbitrary income level here]. The state would then send you a special driver's license or Texas ID card with a notice that you are exempt from the sales tax. The state would have the power to do a simple income audit to determine if you are lying. If you are unemployed, the average monthly income you earned over the last 18 months would be multiplied by 12 and if it fell below [insert arbitrary income level here], then you qualify.

Of course, the better idea would be to both kill the property tax and then impose a sales tax of 5% on all retail sales totalling $20 and up. I dig that idea of killing the franchise tax. Leave healthcare and grocery sales out of the tax's reach. Easy to compute, places a dramatic restraint on government spending, and doesn't impact the millions of small everyday sales people engage. Even though I have fundamental problems with taxation, such a scheme would be far, far preferable to what we have today.

Although she said she believes a complete changeover from ad valorem to sales taxes is unlikely to pass now, she would like to see a reduction in property taxes of at least 50 percent to 80 percent, she said.

One thing you hear over and over again with Republicans is how much they value traditional family structures. Private home ownership is integral to that. Property taxes are a constant burdent to homeowners and act as a disincentive to the wishful from trying. So I'm glad there is a growing number of GOPers who want to eliminate or reduce the property tax.

If ad valorem taxes not only for school districts but also for cities and counties are eliminated one day, she does not know how the various entities will make up for the revenue losses. But she said she believes a portion of sales taxes gathered could be sent back to the entities, such as is done with gasoline tax revenue.

On-line publication, Copyright 2001, The Lampasas Dispatch Record.

Sorry, Ma'am, but it would be time to amend the Texas Constitution and eliminate the self-imposed responsibility of the government to provide free K-12 education. Part and parcel of taking a chainsaw to state revenues is a parallel commitment to reduce the invasion of government into our lives. This means eliminating state agencies, regulations, and acts that have somehow been coded as crimes. With the reduction of these unnecesssary state expenses, state revenue be spent on it's more valid objectives of prosecuting the initiation of force .

It also means dumping the single biggest burden on the people of this state: paying for other people's education through taxation. It is a fool's game to try and provide for all when everyone has different needs and values and when the inevitable movement of progress changes the landscape. You can't "plan" for all these variables and remain unbiased and egalitarian and respective of individual rights.

There's more in the article, but it deals with other Republican efforts and ideas that I don't necessarily agree with.

UPDATE(12/5/2003 8:19pm)
More news here.

UPDATE(4/28/2004 9:23am)
I've changed my mind. The proposed solutions for Texas school financing aren't any better.

Posted by drizzten at 10:39 AM | Permalink

His liberty has just been knocked down a notch.

Send him condolences. :)

Posted by drizzten at 11:16 PM | Permalink

Arthur Silber:

It is almost impossible to comprehend how completely and consistently destructive a single administration could be in less than three years -- and yet this is the signal achievement of the Bush Administration.

Reading his post fills me with a generalized dread. I suggest that anyone interested in freedom should read it.

Most worrying? Stick this under your pillow and sleep on it:

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

[...]

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

Posted by drizzten at 10:44 PM | Permalink

I commented recently over at Brainville, saying this about my beer > religion post:

Wait till I post the catalyst for me doing a search for the Ten Commandments of Beer.

Hoo-boy. And here I was wondering when religion and the state would get discussed on the employee newsgroup!

*sigh*

It's now time to give the whole ugly background.

Exactly one week ago, Susanna* posted the following message unsolicited in the Miscellaneous newsgroup, one of three newsgroups employees at TASB have to discuss things. One newsgroup is for technology questions only, one is a For Sale forum, and the third is Miscellaneous. It is where everything else goes, general discussion and things like that.

Samuel Thompson wrote:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.

I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. "But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome...

"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us just to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me..

The silent majority has been silent too long.. it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want.. it is time the majority rules!

It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly you are no longer going to take our rights away .. we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN! After all the God you have the right to denounce is on our side!

God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him...

God bless America, despite all her faults.. still the greatest nation of all.....

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God...

May 2003 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.

Keep looking up...... In God WE Trust

If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not, delete it!!

She posted this on the 18th and thus ignited the longest and most rambling thread I've seen in the newsgroup. I've copied the text and I've formatted the discussion in a nested style. Be aware that it's a LONG read...this debate went on for four straight days.

*I've removed everyone's last names out of respect for their privacy. My name is repeated in full. The thread follows below with the first comment.

UPDATE(10:17pm)
Cleaned up some stuff. All text formatting appears as it does in the original thread.

This is Wonderful

-Marilyn

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

That doesn't sound like a government founded on Christian principles. It sounds more secular in nature to me.

I don't know of any group of people, atheist or otherwise who say that any other group of people should not be allowed to pray when and where they want, but to have the U.S. government support any one religion over another, or religion in general over atheist IS unconstitutional.

Anyone can pray anywhere and anytime, however, public schools are meant for everyone, both Christian and non-Christian alike.

Should we therefore allow all religions to say their particular prayers, or pray in their own manner at that time?

You can pray all day long, without having to subject other people to your traditions.

Neither the U.S. government nor any other group of people has said at that a person can not pray or worship as you believe. You can do this, but it's not correct to subject/enforce this on people of other religions, or atheists/agnostics who do not pray, or believe as you do.

What makes this possible? The American governement is a secular government that allows all religions (ideally) to flourish, as well as atheists/agnostics - but at the same time shows no preference for one or another.

If anyone would like to debate this with me further in a more appropriate place, please come to my desk after 5:00 pm and I'd be happy to disucss politics and religion for hours on end.

Cheers

-Jeremy

Well I will pray for those who dont believe in Jesus Christ!

-Tammie

I will definitely pray for those who do not believe in GOD.

-Susanna

I'd like to point out that Jesus was a Jew.

-Michelle #1

As government entities that use tax money, public schools must follow rules that private entities do not. One of those rules, as Jeremy noted, outlaws government from either establishing or prohibiting religion. It is not unreasonable to argue that a public school's resources are being used to promote or discourage religion when that school endorses prayer on campus. That arguement is weakened if any religious folks can engage in prayer.

It is indeed thin-skinned and wrong to sue everyone who offends you in the public sphere. Tolerance of different opinions seems in short supply these days. But take the "establishment" arguements seriously: for a message is sent (whether one was intended or not) to the people of a town when City Hall puts up a Nativity Scene and doesn't do a similar thing for other religious beliefs. It is out of the question practically and financially to expect City Hall to put on a display for every religion's important days.

In my opinion, it is better to leave religious displays to the activities of private groups and individuals. There are more important things for the government to be doing with our money.

As long as people aren't coerced or bullied into praying with the [insert school activity group], then I see no problem with people choosing to pray before the activity. Opting out of religious displays is the proper thing to do for those who don't believe in them. But if the coach makes it obvious he or she expects you to participate in the prayer, then that's simply wrong.

-Charles Hueter

Isn't debate about deeply held personal convictions exhilarating? Do you mind if I stir the pot? This thread begs several interesting question. Here is one.

What should you do if you disagree with your employer?

This is a statement from the TASB web site.

One of TASB's primary purposes is to represent school boards when lawmakers make decisions affecting Texas school districts. The Association's Governmental Relations Division monitors legislative developments, keeps members up to date on activities, and promotes TASB's Advocacy Agenda face-to-face with state and federal lawmakers, the State Board of Education, and other agencies.

The following paragraph about the advocacy agenda explains part of the process.

The Advocacy Agenda of the Texas Association of School Boards is developed through a comprehensive Grassroots Process and adopted by the Association's Delegate Assembly. Cornerstone Principles have uniform support of school board members. Priorities are high-profile, high-commitment legislative objectives. Positions are stances guiding TASB's response to issues that might come before the Legislature or other governmental agencies, such as the State Board of Education.

In case you are curious, the two declarations that follow are both positions stated in the TASB Advocacy Agenda

TASB shall support the voluntary posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of every classroom.

TASB shall support allowing student-initiated and student-sponsored prayer at school events and efforts by districts to provide moments of silence at school events.

Just in case you forgot the question, here it is again. What should you do if you disagree with your employer?

-Chuck

Glad I work for a Great Company

-Marilyn

What should you do if you disagree with your employer?

Personally, I do not see a problem with TASB's support of voluntary posting of the 10 C's in every classroom, they are 'Rules' to live by for a civilized society, maybe it should be re-worded as
"10 Rules To Live By", therefore taking away any religious context that might offend some.

As for TASB's position of supporting student-initiated and student-sponsored prayer at school events and moments of silence;

Who would be offended by that? Don't Atheist find the need to take a moment of internal reflection before proceeding unto a difficult task? Don't WE all do this?

I think that as long as this prayer is not advertised as a 'Christian' prayer, and it is spontaneous, who's business is it if students want to pray before going into class or onto the football field before a game? It's their parent's business; if they taught their children to pray before eating, taking a test, or playing a game, then, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

I just don't see where religion belongs in a public school. It is run by a government; BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, not: BY THE (your religious affiliation), etc.

I feel that praying is a personal and deeply private affair, but, a moment of silence? Who would object to a group of students that want to participate in this before any activity? Would you rather see them not caring whether their team played well, not caring whether they pass a major test?

Religion belongs in our homes, churches, and our hearts. The school belongs to everyone, not just Christians.

One thing Christians understand is how to tolerate differences in others, also, to share their beliefs with others, but that does NOT mean forcing their beliefs on others!

America is a great melting pot, has been since it's beginning, and we should hope (and pray) it remains that way. The oppressed of the world need a shining light to come to.

Learn to accept other's differences and they will accept or respect yours.

America will not fall if YOUR religion does not rule over all.
It WILL fall if one religion, or, no religion, rules all.

We are destined to repeat the past if we do not learn from the past.

That's my 2 cents. (stepping off my soap box now)

-Natalie

The Ten Commandments cannot be transformed into "Ten Rules to Live By." The first commandment concerns having no strange gods before God. The second commandment, among other things, concerns making no graven images of anything on heaven or earth or underwater. The first commandment makes no sense when interpreted in secular fashion, and the second commandment would mean the end of art education in public schools.

In fact, when you get down to it, only 5 through 10 could reasonably be applicable in the secular world. 10, however, seems a trifle unrealistic, since if we never coveted the goods of our neighbors, the entire country (which depends on consumer spending) would grind to a halt.

However, I agree about having a moment of silence, which seems fair enough.

-Joseph

TASB is an advocate of those two issues only because its members voted that TASB should be.

Had the vote gone the other way, TASB would not be supporting them.

-David

America is the second nation to have the situation that we do and that is that our people worship Gods from all over. Negative by no means, its just something we as a people have to work through for the best of everyone involved.

Rome was the first goverment to operate very similar to our own. They conquered people who had their own religion (we are the melting pot) and those people bring their religion with them which spreads the influence. Certainly not a bad thing, thats just what happens when people intermingle.

Rome dealt with it by saying "all religions will respect all other religions" and everyone lived happily ever after until christianity came into Rome. They had the whole "thou shalt worship no God before me" thing and believed their God was the "one true God" and so they did not accept other religions which bred hatred and public ridicule. They became separated from both Rome and other religions as a result and well a whole lot of mess happened.

Anyway that doesnt make it a bad religion, the people of the time just weren't as accepting as they should have been. People like that exist today and whatever religion they happen to be under is where they will do their damage. For Rome their numbers were just too great under Christianity - it could have happened to Hindu or Budda just as easily except Christians try to help people so much that its really no surprise they had so many people like that. Fortunately they havent closed their doors as a result and they took a lot of hits for it, but they continue to help people today which shows a lot for Christians. They just cant be stickin the ten commandments in courthouses *laughing* (that cracked me up)

-Joshua

And, we Christians are still enduring and overcoming a lot to this very day. But if it were not for the strength of our Faith we would've surely fallen many years ago. We are definitely a "helping" and "compassionate" people.

We are indeed a "melting pot" for all peoples from all places...we will love each and every one of you that come to our country and help you in any way that we possibly can.

I, too am very glad to be working for a company that has a handle on what this great country of ours
was founded on...Christianity!

-Susanna

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the "Christians" that settled this country the very same one's that burned women & children at the stake? This country was not founded on Christianity-it was founded for freedom of religion.

-Patricia

The Christianty the Europeans brought with them to New England is one hardly anyone today would enjoy living under. Capital punishment for adultery & lying, expulsion and humiliation for not believing in their religious code, a determination to drive people towards ascetic lives, etc. They were called "Puritans" for a reason. :)

Not everyone believed and supported the same things back then...but they were, in general, intensely more strict and harsh than anything we've got today. I'm glad what evolved from them eventually became a nation where the government plays as little role as possible in religious affairs.

-Charles Hueter

best i can recollect the puritans disliked the church of england because they believe the king (forgot his name) corrupted it in some manner by marrying 50 wives or somethin, anyway they fled to the dutch and the dutch were afraid of england and so sent them back. they then came to america to create a "pure" church of england free from the corruption of the state and king. and of course you were not allowed to live in their little communities unless you were a puritan because you would corrupt the new church. a william penn thing... anyway as the communities evolved and began to realize the freedom they truly had in the new world they wandered from those original standings and quit drowning people as "tests of innocense" and became very good safehavens for anyone arriving in the new world.

Some argue that those puritans founded this country since they were the first here with any kind of organization beyond the penal colonies and so no, freedom of religion is quite opposite to our original foundings... in fact you had to be puritan or live outside the puritan communities (hence jamestown) but its very hard to pinpoint our founding... the first people over here were Europes criminals. Both us and Australia were penal colonies for Europe. America seemed to really take off though because it was closer to get to, better land, richer "riches", and what not than australia and unbeknowest England as well... So once we decided no representation without taxation we took off!!!

Most people consider our original foundings to be after the declaration because the declaration still has most of the idealologies Americans stand by today in it such as freedom of religion, public education, etc... Which for the most part we were not united until that point. We were still very "not united" as we detested a central government and wanted the states to have self representing power (which is something we might should have continued thru to today - ASHCROFT [not to name names...])

It all depends on when you consider America founded.

-Joshua

America needs to bless God (not God Bless America).

-Tammie

Some pretty good discussion going here.

My 2 cents:

Regardless of how you feel, there must be a separation of church and state in order for our government to have unbiased legislature. If we favor one religion/set of beliefs over another - it will affect how our laws govern society. As stated earlier - our nation IS a melting pot - we have all sorts of religions and belief systems. That's part of what makes us such a diverse nation. Part of the FREEDOM of living in the United States is having the freedom to choose what you believe. Along with that, I think that we must be tolerant of other belief systems, even if we do not agree with them. I believe we must approach everything with an open-mind; if we don't, how are we to learn anything?

I do not believe the Ten Commandments have any place in our court houses or capitol. Nor do I believe that prayer at football games or any other public school or government supported event. A moment of silence is perfectly fine - students may do what they wish - be it prayer, pondering something, whatever. It just is not fair to assume that everyone has the same belief system - or that everyone wants to partake in mass prayer.

-Kelli

I found this to be a very interesting article that really hits on this subject and how things are changing in our country:

*******************************************

Roy Moore Removed From Chief Justice Post

By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
November 13, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A judicial panel Thursday ruled that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore be removed from his position for disobeying a judge's orders to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state courthouse.

"In this case, the chief justice exhausted all of his legal remedies and was unsuccessful to stay the injunction issued by the federal district court. In defying that court order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Presiding Judge William Thompson.

In reaction to the ruling, Moore said he was removed from his job for acknowledging God. Moore pointed to Attorney General Bill Pryor's questions in his cross-examination of Moore.

Pryor asked Moore: "Your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?" Moore answered: "Yes."

Pryor then asked: "And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?" Moore replied: "That's right."

"No matter what any official says?" Pryor asked Moore.

"Absolutely," Moore answered. "Without - let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read."

"The only point I'm trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?" Pryor asked Moore.

"Well, I'll do the same thing this court did with starting a prayer; that's an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, 'So help me God,'" Moore answered.

"It's an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opened with: 'God save the State and this Honorable Court.' It's an acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source - a moral source of law. I think you must," Moore added.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State applauded the panel's decision to remove Moore from office.

"Moore flagrantly announced his intention to violate a federal court order, made a mockery of the legal system and created an unseemly media circus," said Americans United Executive Director Barry Lynn in a statement.

"Today, he learned the results of that defiance. The Court of the Judiciary has served the cause of justice," Lynn said.

Moore said he plans to discuss with his attorneys "what course to pursue in this action." He said he consulted with many state political and religious leaders and plans to make "an announcement next week which could alter the course of this country and the course of our state and our nation."

******** and one more article:

Here's another interesting "happening." When you read this one, take time to reflect on the direction this country is going.

This was read by the Principal at a recent High School football game in Tennessee:

Article-

"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem.

I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology."

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments.

Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.

However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and ask Him, in the name of Jesus, to bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet.

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer's Box!

The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America - the Seat of "Justice" in the "one nation, under God."

Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise God that His remnant remains!

Celebrate Jesus in 2003!

Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of Me before men, then I will be ashamed of you before My Father."

Yes, I do Love God. He is my source of existence and Savior. He keeps me functioning each and every day. Without Him, I will be nothing, but with Him, I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me.

Philippians 4:13 "

***************

I found that to be an interesting article as well. Obviously there are going to be ongoing disagreements/points of view/perceptions, or whatever else you want to call them.

Those of us who have been called by Christ, love Christ. And those that have not been called by Him cannot truly understand why we follow Him in fellowship. So, as in history, we are ridiculed, judged, held in contempt and sometimes ostracized for our beliefs by non-believers.

I have no doubt in my mind what our constitution was founded upon. But we can all see the direction our country is going. Anything goes, right?

So we begin to see.

-Gregory

The article you posted helps bring forth why this sort of issue can never be resolved, but also why there is such a thing as separation of church and state.

A religious believer reads the story about Judge Roy Moore and sees intolerance and persecution. The non-believer reads the story and sees a judge who is inappropriately mixing personal religion with state power. Perhaps, however, there is a way to explore the situation to help clarify it.

As a Christian, how would you feel about the state sponsorship of Paganism, complete with statues of Zeus and Aphrodite and Bacchus? Or suppose that, instead of acknowledging the Almighty that Tennesseans know and love, the judge had fought to get the court to recite a Zen koan at the beginning of each day?

You might respond that this would never happen, because America is essentially Christian. I disagree, but let's accept the premise for a moment: America is a Christian nation. Even if we accept this premise, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case in the future. The main reason that Christianity spread far and wide was because of Emperor Constantine's conversion, which effectively spelled the end of Paganism. Thus a minority became the majority. Or look at the situation in Iraq, in which a minority of Sunnis ruled over a Shiite majority, until very recently. For now, the Shiites and Sunnis cooperate in a joint effort aimed at the American occupation, but if that ever ends, they will have to find a way to forge a cooperative rule — one that will likely end the years of Sunni power.

Political winds change. Once the doors are opened to state-sponsored religion, there is the possibility that at some future occasion "America's religion" may not be Christianity. Christians should be prepared for this possibility. Separation of church and state is a defense not only for the unbelievers, but for the believers as well.

Additionally, church rule has occurred in the past, and the results have not been encouraging. Christianity has been used to excuse conquest during the Crusades, torture during the Inquisition, slavery in the American south, and was cited by Spanish Anabaptists who baptized Indian infants before killing them, so that they would immediately ascend into Heaven. Anyone who is familiar with the rise of National Catholicism under Franco Spain will have misgivings about religion and state intermingling.

The situation as it stands now in America may strike Christians as an evil. That's what has been, in the past, the great thing about America; we are free to disagree as we choose. We are not free to impose our will, or to enforce a moral code based on a 2000-year-old book which is not itself internally consistent.

-Joseph

You prove my point that as a non-believer you cannot understand why I follow Christ. As a non-believer, you don't look to the "2000 year old book," as you put it, for God's word, because you choose not to believe in God. Instead, you look for flaws in it to disprove God.

So why are non-believers so threatened by Christians saying a prayer or having the Ten Commandments displayed? Or maybe I should preface that question with "Why all of a sudden." After all, God's name has always been used in many of our public systems and still is today, (as in the opening of the Alabama court hearing). Is that considered imposing free will or enforcing moral code on anyone. Do you feel violated when you pick up currency that says "IN GOD WE TRUST" If so, you can pass all your currency to me, I'll put it to good use for you friend. We're not exactly dragging you to Church with us on Sunday. That is your free will brother.

We definitely agree that this issue will never be resolved. It will ongoing as it is written. Yet we can still be friends. That's a gift from God in my perception.

-Gregory

The fact that, in the past, state and church have intermingled before (as in the example of "In God We Trust") is in no way an argument for or against their separation. If separation of church and state is the best thing for the republic, then pointing to our currency is just to call attention to past mistakes. One could just as likely argue that, because there are Rosicrucian and/or Freemasonry symbols on our currency, we should continue to promote these symbols in public institutions. If, however, separation of church and state is an evil, then arguments should be marshaled to that end. The prior pro-separation arguments, as given by Jeremy and others, remain unmoved.

Saying that one reads the Bible in order to look for flaws is putting the cart before the horse. People do not typically choose to become atheists ex nihilo. What happens is that a serious critical study of the Bible, irrespective of whether one looks for flaws or not, tends to reveal that the book is not always 100% coherent. There are good historical reasons for this, of course, but that's another topic.

-Joseph

You're assuming that Joseph is a non believer. I don't think he said that in his post. I believe in God, but I also question things that are not addressed in The Bible (which is my right), and Biblical scholars admit that not every word has been translated correctly. After all, the Dead Sea Scrolls were just discovered in the 20th Century. (If you've ever played the game Telephone, where you sit around in a group and someone whispers something to the person next to him or her, who whispers what he or she heard to his or her neighbor, and so forth, you know that how the whisper ends up is never how it began, so why is it hard to believe that not everything in The Bible was handed down correctly word for word before Gutenburg printed the first copy?)

I'm not threatened by people praying, but in a sense of fairness to people who are perfectly justified in believing in some other higher power, I think a moment of prayer should be a moment of silence.

-Michelle #1

Targeting two sub-topics with one stone, might I add something else:

Chuck asked what we should do if we disagree with our employer. Well, as a fundamentalist libertarian, I don't support the public funding of education. I enjoy the work and the people here and I enjoy helping our members, but obviously this is antithetical to just about everything TASB stands for.

One of the reasons why I believe this is because education is such a personal and important choice. The article Greg posted about the Tennessee principal's speech (which actually happened, by the way) illustrates why. People who want a religious tone to their children's education have the right to seek out those institutions that are willing to do that. People who want their children to receive a more secular education have the right to do that as well.

However, when you have public educational instutions, you get the clashing of diverging sets of desires. Any child can attend a public school, and by doing so, they bring their family's culture and their beliefs with them. In the long run, since schools are supported with tax money, everyone in the community ends up paying for this constant balancing act of one set of desires (usually the majority's) verses the other. Desires isn't the best word; values would be more appropriate. The values in contest, if they are important enough, shouldn't have to be watered down to incorporate new people into the system. But given the nature of our government and public schools, they have to be in order for the system to remain non-discriminatory. The result is a slow long-term muddying of the whole system, bringing it to a common denominator status averaged over the community, squeezing out the individual and minority value systems.

My larger point is that the best way to solve the problem is to stop attempting to mix water and oil like determined scientists staying up all hours of the night, fraying our nerves, ignoring logic during moments of strong emotion, and offending scores of bystanders in the process. It would be better to stop asking and expecting the government and it's agents to promote your philosophy, whatever it may be.

-Charles Hueter

Good point made by Charles.

I think the schoolchildren would be better served by their parents, teachers, principals, school board members, judges, politicians, and everyone else involved with THEIR education, if everyone would focus on EDUCATING these children in mathematics, reading/writing, the sciences, history, and social studies, and stop wasting time and OUR money on political discussions about prayer in school!

I think every parent will agree that their children's religious teaching should be taught at home and their church. No one (I assume) wants another person's religious beliefs taught to their children, without the parent's consent.

-Natalie

The Bible was written by about thirty-nine persons over a period dating from about 1700 B.C. to about 100 A.D. (DO THE MATH!!!!)
KNOWING THIS FIRST, THAT NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. FOR THE PROPHECY CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST-2 Pe 1:20,21. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS-2 Tim 3:16. BUT I CERTIFY YOU, BRETHREN, THAT THE GOSPEL WHICH WAS PREACHED OF ME IS NOT AFTER MAN. FOR I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST-Gal 1:11,12.
Beware, for there are people that may TROUBLE YOU, AND WOULD PERVERT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST-Gal 1:7. Beware, that you do not turn aside UNTO ANOTHER GOSPEL-Gal 1:6, for Paul tells us, FOR DO I NOW PERSUADE MEN, OR GOD? OR DO I SEEK TO PLEASE MEN? FOR IF I YET PLEASED MEN, I SHOULD NOT BE THE SERVANT OF CHRIST-Gal 1:10.
BUT THOUGH WE, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU (other) THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU, LET HIM BE ACCURSED (or condemned)-Gal 1:8.
Know, that a little false doctrine can cause great harm, as it is written, A LITTLE LEAVEN LEAVENETH THE WHOLE LUMP-Gal 5:9.

We are told it is the Word of God approximately 2,500 times.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

People have said the end was near many times in the past—true. But did you know the Bible shows us no prophecy of the latter days meant anything until Israel was reborn into a nation? Did you know God’s Word indicates to us a generation would not pass from Israel’s rebirth, till all be fulfilled (which includes the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Jesus Christ’s return)? A Jewish generation can be figured from the age of 20. We are in that time period now. We are not setting any dates, but are giving you a warning sign to watch and be ready.

Many people have been preaching about the latter days of the end times in churches, on radio, TV, and through books. Even people who do not know the Bible can sense something is about to happen. To them that understand the Bible, no explanation is needed. To them that are prideful, self-centered, that love this world, that despise God’s correction, that are contentious and seeking the praise of men rather than of God, no explanation is possible-ref Dan 12:4,10; Mt 24:37, 39.

A dying declaration is considered proof in a court of law. Why is this? When you are dying, it is the one time you don’t lie. Christ’s words as He was dying on the cross for your sins are evidence. Jesus said, FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO-Lk 23:34. Just before being hung on the cross, He said He was the Son of God-ref Mt 27:43; Mk 14:62.

It has been said that it is virtually impossible for anyone to make 11 straight predictions, 2000 years into the future. There is only one chance in 8 x 10 to the 63rd power, or 80 with 63 zeros after it that such a thing could be done. If such a set of predictions existed, it would have to be the Word of God.

-Tammie

I really dont want to upset anyone when I say the bible was historically not written by God. The bible was an undertaking of the newly founded Church as a PR stunt to get new members. They commissioned hundreds of journalists to go around asking people, preferably old disciples for accuracy, about whats goin on. Those journalists then came back to the Church and sold their findings and a group of old men that headed the church went through the books deciding on what sounded "Godly" and what didn't. There were actually HUNDREDS of books to the bible... just the ones in it today is all that made the "cut" and of course the Church destroyed the rest (least in theory) That is also why there is no consistancy between the books, none of these journalists worked together as they went in all sorts of directions and countries for their information. The bible is also very indicitive of the time in which it was written, very anti-female, very "know your place in life," and certainly does not promote free thinking from outside Church doctrine. In fact it talks about cursing you, killing you, and all kinds of things if you "mess up."

To compound the problem with the bible is that it was originally written in a dialect of ancient greek (i forgot the actual language name but it was a mix of another language) Anyway after King James forced his scholars to translate it into english most of the bible was lost. For example there is no way to say "I go to the store" in greek. There is no "I" in that sense, there is no "go", there is no "the", but there is a store though. It would come out something akin to "accomplish (I) place of goods (store) traverse (go)" The scholors did not even know the greek language existed much less how to translate it....and so it most likely became a tool for the English church.

But to comment on believers and non-believers arguing religion.... In order to fully understand an argument one must know all the basics and foundations of that argument. There is no religion with any factual value. That is why non-believers of "X" religion find it so easy to defeat the believers. That is also why believers are only able to use shaky (at best) arguments about their religion. Its based on a belief structure and those who believe can argue their own because they assume certain assumptions... have you ever tried to convince a Muslim that a man named Jesus walked on water?

But religion does not encompass everyone, hence there are many religions and it should stay out of government. It is a device of personal achievement, spiritual enrichment, and perhaps a code to live by for the betterment of everyone around not a tool for control and forced agreement. But by the same token not all tools within a religion are for the best either... the individual must decide on what he/she needs in order to fullfill that need. Really kinda makes religion quite beautiful actually.

-Joshua

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread of conversation. There are obviously some very smart and enlightened people working here at TASB.

I personally enjoy that all of us can express our different viewpoints and theories without the threat of repercussion. That is what our society is all about. America is one of the only places in the world whose people can say whatever they want whenever they want and not have to worry about being murdered for their beliefs. The saddest part of it is that there are the few who don't want America to be that way, they want America to change and they are involved in efforts to do that very thing one step at a time. First they sue because they don't want prayer in school, then they sue because they don't want their kids to say "one nation under God" then they sue again because God is mentioned on the cash in their wallet. It must be nice to have so much free time that you can manipulate the entire world and convince them that the mention of God is going to pollute our government and destroy our children. Believer or not, Christian or atheist, Muslim or Jehovah's witness we all have to understand that just because the money says God, or the allegiance is one nation under God or because some children want to pray in school it's not going to ruin the very foundation upon which America or her people stand on and it's not what's supporting it either. The people are what support America, our vastly different beliefs and associations keep the heart of America pumping and if we were all the same, this would be a very boring place.

With all the good also comes the bad and over the past 50 years or so this country has become one of great crimes and violations. Our president has been assassinated, our children killed in wars that the government made them fight and our corporations polluting the earth and the people. People are tired, we are either unemployed, under-employed, homeless, struggling to survive or just eeking out a life worth living. We watch the TV and the entertainment business and see people who are making too much money, live in too big houses and who justice never seems to touch. We see our employers laying off hundreds of employees, but the CEO still gets his million dollar bonus. In this day and age we need something or someone to believe in, something that doesn't make us feel so small and worthless, some reason to get out of bed every morning. For some people that is God, for others it is themselves and for others they still haven't found anything and just sleep walk through life. All of this is okay though because we live in a society where we are not forced to chew up and swallow the beliefs of others, but instead can stand independent and voice what we believe in. The horror comes in that there are those few who think that everyone should believe what they believe and they go to a courthouse and file a frivolous lawsuit and claim their state and church (which they don't go to and don't believe in) should be separated. If you don't believe in God then why do you fight so hard? Laugh about it, let it go, don't force all the people who do believe in God to have to erase His name from every public place where it has stood for more years than you have been alive.

This debate is not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. We can all attain these things without killing each other, without putting each other down and without suing everyone in creation. Now let's take a moment of silence and ponder all the good points that have been made over the past few days. If this moment of silence offends you, then please, go do something else.

-Michelle #2

nice speech Michelle.

What will really IRK people is that the Eye of Osiris is on the back of the one dollar bill... you know the same one that says in God we Trust... that was once a satanic symbol of a group of watchers that use to watch their followers and kill them when they did such things as speak out. Means "We are Watching"

Makes sense though, the Egyptian God Osiris was a god of life, fertility, and the Nile. He also had powers over death when the nile receded.

-Joshua

Please do your research before you post something like that....see below what the eye REALLY means and stands for on the dollar bill...and by the way, Osiris was an Egyptian god of the underworld and vegetation!

Great Seal Mottoes
Annuit Coeptis

Providence Has Favored Our Undertakings

In the zenith of an unfinished pyramid on the reverse side of the Great Seal is "an Eye in a triangle, surrounded with a glory... Over the Eye these words 'Annuit Coeptis'."

The Latin phrase annuit coeptis has been traced to Virgil, the renowned Roman poet who lived in the first century B.C. His epic masterpiece, the Aeneid, contains the phrase: Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue coeptis. (All-powerful Jupiter, favor [my] daring undertakings.)

Also, in Virgil's Georgics are the words: Da facilem cursum, atque audacibus annue coeptis. (Give [me] an easy course, and favor [my] daring undertakings.)

Charles Thomson changed the first person imperative annue to the third person annuit. In the motto Annuit Coeptis, the subject of the verb must be supplied, and the translator must also choose the tense. Thomson explained:

"The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: the Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."

The Eye is therefore the missing subject.
According to the U.S. State Department, the translation is:

"It [the eye of providence] has favored our undertakings"

Variations include:
Providence is favorable to our undertakings.
God has favored our undertakings.
He favors our undertakings.

NOTE: Annuit does not mean "to announce" (annuntio).

The Great Seal
Symbolic Elements | Latin Mottoes
Preliminary Design Committees

©2003 GreatSeal.com

-Susanna

I was simply stating one instance, that was another. Yet another is the Unseeing Eye referenced in both egyptian mythology and The lord of the Rings as the Eye of Sauron. I was just trying to keep it in american history. The mongols believed it to be a cursed eye from the east (probably china) Either way its always evil.

One must remember there are always many truths that make up the single truth.

-Joshua

"You're the Voice"
-------John Farnham

We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we wanna write
We gotta make ends meet before we get much older

We're all someone's daughter,
We're all someone's son
Yet we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun

You're the voice try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
We're not gonna sit in silence,
We're not gonna live with fear

In this time, we know we often stand together
We give power to the powerful
Even we can make it better

We're all someone's daughter,
We're all someone's son
yet we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun

You're the voice try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
We're not gonna sit in silence,
We're not gonna live with fear

-Michelle #2

Can't pass this one up. I don't quote song or verse, but I don't bash religion either. But I've read enough of both in this thread, even though it began with the topic of separation of church and state. These are dubious terms to me. I prefer more precise language, like "secular goverment". Using terms like "church and state" leads to squabbles over generic prayer, which supposedly doesn't espouse a particular brand of faith.

If we consider TASB to be a miniature model of the nation, then I direct your attention to the areas where religious discussion is appropriate: in meeting rooms where clubs gather on break to conduct matters that aren't endorsed or mandated by TASB; in the misc newsgroup.

This discussion is not appropriate in all common areas and in All Users email broadcasts. TASB policy specifies against such behavior. This is wise because the topic of religion is one that is rarely treated with respect or rationality. So it best to speak of these things in safe company, family, friends, community members, and counsel givers. Otherwise, you don't know who will overhear your opinion and challenge you, sometimes in an embarassing way for one or both parties. And it is just these emotional issues that cause us to say things that sometimes are difficult to undo.

In a way, TASB's policy of separating religion from work is a solution similar to the national policy. We can see how opinion-venting can quickly lead to foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to this topic (at least by the examples of those who oppose our own opinions, but some of us sense our own folly).

But imagine, an alternate world where this great country is ruled by theocrats. Congress members debate over exacting trade tariffs on textiles that blend cotton and linen because these things are forbidden in Leviticus. A convicted murderer appeals his sentence to the Supreme Court because, despite his affront to society, it did not turn the other cheek. A president bases his desire to drill oil in Alaska on God's mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"; according to his personal interpretation, any human cultivation of natural resources is a righteous cause. How long do you thing this country would remain great?

-Cesar

To be fair, we should clarify what's the issue here and who is supporting what. There's a lot of reducto ad absurdum being thrown around here and it's clouding the topic.

I really doubt anyone on the (for lack of a better term) "pro-prayer" side wants a theocracy in America with a rotating Council of Clergy writing our laws. They want to be allowed to practice their faith in places where it is no longer assumed to be safe and alright to do so.

And I also doubt just as much that the (for lack of a better term) "anti-prayer" side wants this nation to completely wipe religion from daily life, with all signs of spiritual worship restricted to your home and your church. We want a government that doesn't favor, in any way, one religion over another.

So do Christians have rights? Absolutely. Everyone does. Do those rights extend to having a public school sponsor a prayer during [insert event here] or having local/state/federal governments perform some sort of supporting function for [insert religion here]? I don't believe so, because if we are to have government performing some service, it should do so without bias...even if that bias is merely the tip of a hat towards the majority's religious views. That hat tip may not be Public Law 777, "An Act That Requires Attendence In Church," but it is a step towards endorsing one view over another. Such an endorsement isn't part of the government's job description. The government works on behalf of us all

A right is something that can't be taken away; something, as some folks far older than I wrote a while back, that is inalienable. Christians have the right to practice their religion because that falls under the inalienable right to live their life in pursuit of their interests. So if they want to go to events and institutions that honor their value system, they should be free to do so. But using the government and it's agents as a way to promote their views isn't a right, it's a service, and one that is more appropriate for private agencies to engage in.

If I went to a private football game in Israel, I wouldn't be surprised to hear elements of Judaism around me. I wouldn't be offended.

If I went to a private soccer game in Iran, I wouldn't be surprised to hear elements of Islam around me. I wouldn't raise a stink.

But if I go to a basketball game being held in facilities paid through tax money, used by public school coaches and players, and benefitting the people in a government subdivision invoke the name of Qui-Gon Jinn during ceremonies, I would be unhappy. It's a small and relatively unimportant eddy in the giant river of things to complain about in life, but it does exist. There are bigger things to get angry with.

Like stupid license plate laws. ;)

-Charles Hueter

Yea, off the subject...but speaking of license plate laws...can everyone who has a license plate cover that they can't use anymore please mail them to the Capitol???

-Michelle #2

I have no idea, i just took mine off and threw it away. I wasn't aware we could send them somewhere. But I bet your on to something, they usually have a place to send them when they pass laws like that. (I'm thinking about the not letting car oil leak onto the ground - they have disposal places - maybe something similar for this)

-Joshua

I suggested mailing them to the capitol to make a point, not for recycling or because the "government" asked us to. heehee...

Imagine it....a grand influx of mail at the capitol....tons of license plate holders coming in envelopes, boxes and inter-office mail...it would be a riot! It would be on the news and everything....they pass these silly laws and we just sit around and say, "darn, that's stupid"...well??? DO something about it...If a police officer can't tell a Texas license plate (which has the Texas emblem in the middle of it) from another states, then they have more problems than they admit to.

Speaking of news and the capitol...did you see on Channel 36 news where they videotaped a Sherriff who is "guarding" the capitol watching DVDs in her car? My tax dollars at work...I feel so safe.

-Michelle #2

*LAUGHING*
did you read about the Homeland Security guy that was fishing for like days while on duty instead of doin whatever those people were enacted to do?

-Joshua

I'd mail them to the person responsible for writing the law...Senator Jon Lindsay.

-Charles Hueter

ooooooo that is such a good idea. its like mailing back all those advertisements the bank and credit card people send you when they send you your bill.....

-Joshua

Now that you have cleared that up, then the focus is really what political framework accommodates our pluralistic society. To that end, what about a government that administers its functions without favoring a religious standard or using religious tones/symbols/language? This won't make us an atheistic society--it will protect every individual's right to pursue a religious life on his or her own terms. This will also comfort communities of all creeds and improve relations between them.

Cesar

Well I think we are all adults here and no one has become offensive or derogatory. In fact everyone has quite beautifully demonstrated our American Freedoms by laying their points and beliefs and discussing them with much civility. We do not live in this nation to huddle in secret corners of our homes and talk about issues. We are here to create a society where everyone can live peacefully together and to accomplish that we need to know what each other think.

TASB is a huge organization designed around the public education of Texas children and what kind of example would we be if we ourselves hide to discuss real issues. Now of course if we started beating each other over the head....well then the powers that be may put us all in D-Hall *laughing* but i am in agreement with everyones comments about being able to even talk about this in such a manner and hope we never have to hide in corners to talk about anything.

Plus the great thing about the cooler is that if you do not want to be a part of the discussion then you don't open the posting and viola! no one is offended!

I really do love this country :)

-Joshua

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Taking a look at the First Amendment once more, I would like to point out that the words "separation", "church" and "state" do not appear in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. The widely held belief that the First Amendment keeps the institutions of government and religion completely apart is false. The First Amendment serves to protect religion from the State, not the State from religion. Where did this myth that the Constitution places a complete "wall of separation between church and state" originate? That commonly referenced phrase is taken out of a letter by Thomas Jefferson written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. As time has progressed that phrase, removed from the larger context of that letter, has been grossly misinterpreted. Jefferson, despite his own personal feelings on religion, would NEVER have advocated a policy stripping American society of its Christian values, the freedom to express those values, or praised a Constitutional amendment that did so...especially not in a letter to a religious organization. Jefferson's "wall" is one directional only, and was understood to be so by the recipients of his letter.

The body of Jefferson's letter says the following:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

It is clear to me that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers had the Church of England in mind when the topic of religious freedom arose. The Founding Fathers feared a government that would dictate to individuals how they worshiped, where they worshiped, and whom the worshiped. The Church of England, a creature of the State, had robbed Englishmen of their freedom of religion by requiring mandatory attendance, banning the formation of churches, and prohibiting private worship in homes. Failure to abide by the rules of the Church of England would result in imprisonment, torture, and often death. It is from this religious persecution that the Pilgrims, and many groups like them, fled to North America where their religious beliefs and practices would not be attacked.

To conclude, the Constitution is VERY pro-religion. The Founding Fathers understood the valuable contribution religion makes to the overall well-being of a society, and sought to protect religion from any interference by secular government. The First Amendment is indeed a wall...a porous wall allowing religion to seep out to society, but preventing State from choking religion on the other side.

-Ian

*whew*

Coding this shit sucked hard rear end, mano.

So, as I read through the thread as it got sort of shrill near the middle, I searched for something sardonic and slightly blasphemous to post in case things got entirely out of hand and I wanted to get a few funny words in before an administrator came in and locked things down. Thus, my beer is better than religion post.

Posted by drizzten at 07:11 PM | Permalink

Czech warns Europe of 'dream world' woes

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Europeans are living in a "dream world" of welfare and long vacations and have yet to realize "they are not moving toward some sort of nirvana."

The Czech Republic is a candidate for European Union membership, but Mr. Klaus, who was elected president in February, made clear in an interview his distaste for the organization.

[...]

The biggest challenge for the Czech Republic, Mr. Klaus said, is to avoid falling into the trap of "a new form of collectivism." Asked whether he meant a new form of neo-Marxism, he said, "Absolutely not, but I see other sectors endangering free societies.

"The enemies of free societies today are those who want to burden us down again with layer upon layer of regulations," Mr. Klaus said.

"We had that in communist times. But now if you look at all the new rules and regulations of EU membership, layered bureaucracy is staging a comeback."

The European Union's 30,000 bureaucrats have produced some 80,000 pages of regulations that the Czech Republic and the other applicants for EU membership will have to adopt.

All site contents copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc.

Good to hear some leaders in Europe haven't completely lost their marbles on this issue and are honest enough to speak freely about it. But I think Mr. Klaus is being politically correct in his statement that this isn't a form of neo-Marxism. It is.

Last week, the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg released a 400-page report that found "systematic problems, over-estimations, faulty transactions, significant errors and other shortcomings" in the EU budget.

EU auditors could vouch for only 10 percent of the $120 billion the bloc spent in 2002. It was the ninth successive year the auditors were unable to certify the budget as a whole.

Central planning is grossly inefficient and dishonest about itself. This has been known for decades. It's a testament to the collectivists' single-minded belief in the good of the state that they continue down this path.

I fear for Britain. Veto that EU constitution, brothers. Make it your stand against the rising tide of government involvement in your lives. Reject that document and then turn a firm and unflinching eye to the horrifying expansion of domestic government into your lives.

Keep alive the Anglo-American tradition of respecting freedom.

Posted by drizzten at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Homeowner shoots burglar dead

Hays County authorities say a break in may have prompted a deadly shooting Sunday night. A North Carolina man is the person who was shot and killed during a home invasion in Hays County.

[...]

According to The Hays County Sheriff's Office, two deputies were trying to subdue the suspect when the homeowner fired one shot, hitting the suspect, who then ran from officers.

Labasa escaped and officers were able to recapture him. He later died from the gunshot wound. The two deputies received minor injuries.

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

Defending myself from someone breaking into my home is the primary reason why I own a firearm.

I don't know why the homeowner fired at a person being subdued by two cops. That seems both dangerous and reckless, but I'm working off limited information.

In any event, burglary is no small crime in my eyes. It however remains to be proven if Mr. Labasa entered the homeowner's habitation "with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault."

UPDATE(11/25/2003 10:52pm)
Tonight's 9pm FOX7 news report mentioned the homeowner went for his firearm after it became known Mr. Labasa (who allegedly hadn't taken his medication for a mental illness) tried to grab an officer's sidearm. Something to consider.

Posted by drizzten at 11:39 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

In this Catallarchy post, Jonathan Wilde made mention of my broadside against a libertarian Dean vote. Just recently, a Logan Ferree left a comment on that Catallarchy post that addresses some of the things I said in a comment I left in that same post. His words are in italics below, responding to my normal-faced words:

>I remember when the first rumbles of a "single payer" nationalized healthcare system started coming out of the Democrats' presidential camp. Egads am I repelled by that notion. I simply will not vote for *anyone* who endorses such an idea.

Well good, because Dean doesn't support a single payer nationalized health care system.

>Ditto for protectionism,

Wonderful, Dean isn't a protectionist like Gephardt, Kucinich, or Bush.

>affirmative action,

Well, I guess this is one issue where we feel that it's better to have a president that support affirmative action than one that supports a Big Brother warfare state managed by Ashcroft and Rummy.

On Mr. Ferree's first point, I think my initial post is quite clear on Mr. Dean's stance towards a nationalized healthcare system, but I'll add some supporting documentation to make it clearer.

Promoting American Health

In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.

There you have his justification for his programs. It's pretty straightforward: if you can't afford healthcare, you shouldn't have to go without it. He then goes on to promote the high percentages of people in Vermont who have coverage, implying he wants such an outcome for the nation as a whole.

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.

Not very ambiguous there.

Health Care for America

The plan is built on four components:

Start by covering children The plan calls for extending current programs to every child and young adult under 25 up to three times the poverty level. It will also require employer health plans to extend coverage to dependents up to age 25.

Expand to Families For those at lower income levels, extend current programs for children to include parents up to 185 percent of the poverty level. For those above that level, allow them to buy into a health plan similar to the plan for government employees, while providing tax credits to keep insurance affordable.

Support Small Businesses Help small businesses afford coverage by letting them buy into the federal employee look-alike program at reasonable rates.

Send a Message to Large Companies Without any mandates, the government can still send a strong signal to larger businesses that could afford to but don’t provide coverage by limiting their tax deductions and their government contracts.

The Dean plan is ambitious, but realistic, targeted, and affordable. To extend affordable insurance to all Americans, it takes a consensus-based approach that builds on existing systems and that can pass Congress.

So, perhaps attibuting a "single payer nationalized healthcare system" to Dean isn't entirely correct. His plan falls short of that...unless you count this:

Universal Health Benefits Program (UHBP)

Governor Dean’s health insurance plan will establish a new Universal Health Benefits Program (UHBP), open to all Americans (except those eligible for FCHIP, Medicaid or Medicare), providing coverage identical to what members of Congress and federal employees get through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

[...]

Under the Dean plan, any insurance company that offers a plan to federal workers through the FEHBP will be required to offer an identical plan open to other Americans. All people eligible for the new Universal Health Benefits Program will have a guaranteed right to have that insurance coverage issued to them, at affordable rates.

To ensure that premiums under the UHBP plan actually are affordable, a federally funded reinsurance trust will be available to keep premiums at the levels that would be expected if a broadly representative sample of the public participates in the plan.

[...]

Insurance Enrollment Through Tax Returns

Governor Dean’s plan will automatically enroll uninsured taxpayers in Medicaid, FCHIP, or UHBP insurance plans through their tax returns. For uninsured taxpayers who fail to make a choice, the default result would be their enrollment in the appropriate plan, although they later would again have the option to drop the coverage before paying any premium.

Making enrollment automatic on a tax return would greatly increase the rate at which people participate in insurance plans for which they are eligible. By contrast, currently, about one-quarter of all uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled.

Satisfied? The governor wants to go in a direction that is against everything libertarians should stand for. The outcome (higher rates of healthcare coverage) isn't the problem, it's his means that are horrifying.

For more on his goals, read this:

...it was precisely because the health of my patients was my “first consideration” that I decided to enter public service. And that’s why I persevered as Governor of Vermont to get as close to universal health insurance for the people of my state as I could.

Dean isn't the candidate for anyone who adheres to libertarian principles in terms of heathcare coverage.

For Mr. Ferree's second point, that Mr. Dean isn't a protectionist, I again think my first post is proof enough, but here are more of his positions to solidify my stance against him:

Trade That Benefits All

Having traveled the country and seen the impact first-hand, I am very worried about the effects these job losses are having on communities all across the US. We should be acting to protect jobs here at home and labor and environmental rights abroad with the same enthusiasm that we apply to protecting intellectual property rights, capital, and the interests of investors.

He wants to protect jobs. Cut-and-dried protectionism.

The Crisis of Manufacturing Job Loss

Governor Dean believes that we must acknowledge these [job] losses and take action to help the workers and the families who are feeling the impact the hardest.

[...]

Ensuring tough and effective enforcement of US unfair trade laws against foreign countries and foreign companies that dump and subsidize exports to the US begins with adequate funding for the Commerce Department.

He doesn't come outright in these passages, but the implication is clear. He wants to use the power of the federal government to help domestic industry, wielding the classic "dumping" arguement other protectionists use.

Stemming these job losses also means vigorously opposing legislation that encourages corporations to move overseas.

This is unintentionally ironic. All legislation that imposes costs on businesses makes moving overseas more and more attractive. Legislation that Dean supports.

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.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Not very consistent there, is he? It's probably his healthcare background; when saving someone is your primary goal, costs are irrelevant.

World Trade Organization

Governor Dean believes that we must also carefully examine the efforts to deregulate trade in services to make sure Americans who work in health, education, commercial and technology services do not suffer a competitive disadvantage.

More protectionism, this time cloaked in the rhetoric of a free trader, which he certainly is not. As a side note, he opposes the Free Trade Area of the Americas on the grounds that it "fails to include...tough labor and environmental provisions."

As for Mr. Ferree's final point about affirmative action, he's presenting a false alternative. He suggests that to not vote for Dean is to vote for President Bush. I can excuse him if he hasn't read the reasons why I won't vote for Bush, but I did mention in my blog post:

Though I have dumped Bush for his domestic policies, it did that because I want to vote for someone who represents my views closer...NOT for someone who represents them worse. That's the whole point of deciding not to vote for someone: that person won't do (or disdains or is ignorant of) the things you want him or her to do.

Additionally, I also said how Michael Badnarik looked appealing as a real libertarian candidate. I would hope my comments don't imply I want President Bush in office or want someone like him; anything but the sort. The criticisms I level against Mr. Dean should make that obvious.

Then there's Ted Rall's Dean endorsement. Yuck.

In any case, I hope this helps further prove why I dislike Howard Dean on these issues.

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 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Great joke I found while searching for the 10 Commandments of Beer:

Top 10 Reasons Why Beer Is Better Than Religion
by Steve Berry of the Texas A&M University Agnistic and Atheist Student Group

10. No one will kill you for not drinking Beer.
9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
8. Beer has never caused a major war.
7. They don't force Beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
6. When you have Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over their brand of Beer.
4. You don't have to wait more than 2,000 years for a second Beer.
3. There are laws saying that Beer labels can't lie to you.
2. You can prove you have a Beer.
1. If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.

Posted by drizzten at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The weather is quite good outside, currently in the mid 70's, 57% humidity, and some gusty wind. Friends and I will be at Zilker Park for the rest of the day.

Be back later.

Until then, read about Georgian revolution, anti-Schwarzenegger bias at Reuters, creeping socialism at the US House, and sheer idiocy on the part of the Pulitzer Prize Board.

Got to get outside and get away from the bad news.

Posted by drizzten at 12:53 PM | Permalink

Real Bush 'At Odds with Media Caricature'

US President George Bush is 'totally at odds' with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.

Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.

He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.

"He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.

"He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks."

Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was 'totally at odds' with his media image, went on: "I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate."

©2003 Scotsman.com

I've been bothered in the past about the hypersensitivity to criticism surrounding the Bush Administration. Given the hysterical, the unjustified, and the idiotic range of comments aimed at him, I can kinda understand.

In any event, it's nice to hear someone actually base their personal opinions of President Bush on the firmer ground of meeting him face-to-face and discussing the issues.

Posted by drizzten at 09:15 AM | Permalink

Why drug advertisers seem to flock to my blog comments is beyond me. I don't recall soliciting them to advertise on my website.

So from now on, I'll delete any advertising comment and ban the commenter from posting again. Unless you have my permission to promote your good or service, don't waste my resources and encroach on my property.

Posted by drizzten at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Previously, I posted my thoughts on the notion of the City of Austin capping the number of licenses they grant for taxi cab operators in the city. Now, we've got some more news (links rot after some time).

Debate on cab permit cap flares up

Only five months ago, city leaders placed what amounted to a moratorium on new taxicab permits at the behest of drivers complaining of too much competition and dwindling fares.

On Thursday, the City Council is expected to consider reversing that decision by changing the law to allow for a fourth taxi company and as many as 50 new cabs on Austin's roads.

Damn it, I never hear about these things until they've either happened or are 24 hours away. There's nothing up on the Council website regarding the meeting and nothing on the major Austin news media websites mentions the outcome of the meeting. But kudos to the Council for at least considering a reversal.

At stake is the fate of the startup Lone Star Cab Co., a cooperative formed by a group of disgruntled drivers looking to become the first new taxi franchise to enter the Austin market in 20 years.

The number of cab companies has shrunk from six in the mid-1980s to three today.

Since at least 1995, Roy's Taxi, American Yellow Checker Cab Co. and Austin Cab Co. have operated without additional com- petition [sic].

And they certainly don't want any new rivals now.

All three have vocally opposed Lone Star's plan, arguing that there isn't room for another company in the current economic climate.

Classic, cut-and-dried protectionism of a local flavor. The "big three" should be ashamed of themselves for petitioning the government to lock out competitors. You don't have a right to a perfect operating environment.

Currently, the city regulates cab fares and the number of permits, which cost $400. But Austin does not regulate the fees the cab companies charge the drivers to use those permits, which can range from $10,000 to $27,000 a year.

"They have to pay that fee whether the economy's up or down, whether ridership's up or down," said Mike Blizzard, who is representing Lone Star as a lobbyist.

Lone Star is set up differently. The employees would have a stake in the company and share profits.

It's innovation and the other cab companies are afraid of it.

"I have nothing particularly against the ability for other franchisees to get started, but the idea of having more cabs on the street right now . . . makes me sick," said Hannah Riddering, who drives for American Yellow Checker. "There's not enough business to go around for the cabs there already are."

[...]

"We have an ordinance; the ordinance is working," he said. "These people think they can just come in and the city's going to give them 100 permits from the sky. They're not out there. We got 50 more (cabs) than what we need on the streets right now."

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

Ooo! Hold it...I'm receiving something...it may be profound...

ZANG!!! SUDDEN INSPIRATION!!!

Cut your fucking payrolls.

Where the hell did these people get their educations? Did they study at the FDR School of Business? The government doesn't exist in order to protect your job, man.

Posted by drizzten at 01:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Texas Man Chokes to Death on Marijuana

A man changing a flat tire choked to death on a bag of marijuana he had stuffed down his throat in an apparent attempt to hide it from police who stopped to help him, authorities said.

Nickolas Sandoval, 24, died Wednesday.

Officers were unaware at first Sandoval had drugs when they spotted him on the highway in Corinth, about 45 miles northeast of Fort Worth, said Corinth police Cpl. Frank Lott.

"Officers went from 'Oh, hey, here is someone with a flat tire' to 'Hey, this guy is choking,'" Lott told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Sandoval, of Ponder, was pronounced dead at a hospital. Cause of death: "asphyxiation due to aspiration of plastic bag," according to a spokeswoman for the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office.

Sandoval was convicted at least three times of marijuana possession, and pleaded guilty two years ago to a drunken-driving charge.

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

It really is sad. Mr. Sandoval accidentally killed himself in an effort to avoid getting busted for possession.

I know the approximate sizes baggies of pot come in. A quater ounce could be enough to choke on. Qualtities of more than three ounces would probably discourage anyone from trying to swallow. So by my rough estimate, Mr. Sandoval died in order to escape being charged with either a Class A or B misdemeanor. Theoretically, the police could have also charged him with delivery of marihuana, something that would have tacked on an additional Class B misdemeanor or a state jail felony.

The misdemeanors in question range in punishment.

§ 12.21 Class A Misdemeanor

1. a fine not to exceed $4,000;
   
2. confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
   
3. both such fine and confinement.

§ 12.22 Class B Misdemeanor

1. a fine not to exceed $2,000;
   
2. confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days; or
   
3. both such fine and confinement.

The state jail felony is much harsher.

§ 12.35 State Jail Felony Punishment

1. Except as provided by Subsection (c), an individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished by confinement in a state jail for any term of not more than two years or less than 180 days.
   
2. In addition to confinement, an individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Then there's the additional burden of being a repeat offender.

§ 12.43 Penalties for Repeat and Habitual Misdemeanor Offenders

1. If it is shown on the trial of a Class A misdemeanor that the defendant has been before convicted of a Class A misdemeanor or any degree of felony, on conviction he shall be punished by:
   
   1. a fine not to exceed $4,000;
      
   2. confinement in jail for any term of not more than one year or less than 90 days; or
      
   3. both such fine and confinement.
   
   
2. If it is shown on the trial of a Class B misdemeanor that the defendant has been before convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or any degree of felony, on conviction he shall be punished by:
   
   1. a fine not to exceed $2,000;
      
   2. confinement in jail for any term of not more than 180 days or less than 30 days; or
      
   3. both such fine and confinement.

All this for possessing of a substance voluntarily in order to consume for one's own pleasure. A man frantically trying to avoid fines and jail time for an action that deserves neither, chokes to death in the process. I don't blame the cops since they stopped to help with his tire.

Sandoval was stupid for trying to conceal his weed this way. But the Texas Legislature is outright immoral and wrong for passing the marijuana laws to begin with.

UPDATE(4:02pm)
Looks like Drudge has found the story. It doens't have anything new to report.

Posted by drizzten at 01:05 PM | Permalink

Bonfire of the Absurdities
Post-Reductio America
Reductio Creep

I know Slippery Slope arguements are logically invalid. But the slow grind of nanny statism continues unabated in slippery slope fashion with only hiccups getting in it's way. I can't argue along consistently logical lines with reasoning that includes some form of slippery slope ("If you ban or regulate this, then you'll just move right along to this), but it becomes clearer and clearer each day that there are people out there (many of them in various seats of power) who cannot really see an end in sight for their expansion of the government into our lives. And the single most branded-about justification for this is...it's for your own good.

There's an unpleasant thought as I go to bed.

UPDATED 5/27/2005 9:31am
Banning Knives and Slippery Slopes

Posted by drizzten at 01:09 AM | Permalink

The city where taxes officially trump death.

In 2001, a city inspector cited Robert Seckula for a broken television antenna leaning against the side of his Talbrook Road home.

He was sent a registered letter telling him to appear before the city's code enforcement board and, when he didn't show up, he was fined $25 a day until he fixed the problem. The fines -- totaling $17,941.50 over two years -- were never paid, and the city placed a lien on his property.

But city officials didn't know Seckula had a good reason for ignoring them.

He had been dead since 1997.

Now an old buddy wants to protect the dead man's sister from having to pay off the debt.

A cold stare indeed, Mr. Beck. Abso-fuckin-lutely insane.

Posted by drizzten at 12:57 AM | Permalink

LIBERTARIANS AND GAY MARRIAGE [Jonah Goldberg]

TCS has an interesting take on the relative silence of the libertarians on the issue. by James Miller. He argues that libertarian opposition to sodomy laws made sense because a limited state shouldn't criminalize private activity. But state endorsement of gay marriage is a different question because it means the state will actively take a side in the culture war rather than stay neutral. And, from a libertarian perspective, taking sides is a no-no. Rather than face this reality, the libertarians are ducking the fight.

Pfft.

One, two, three, four, five, and six. A broad blog perspective on this libertarian's position on homosexual marriage.

Assuming Mr. Miller is objectively correct in saying libertarians have been avoiding the issue of gay marriage, so what? Might it just be that most libertarians have looked at the issue and come to the same conclusions: deciding the State has no business telling up which marriages are valid and which aren't...and deciding gay marriage opposers to be so utterly unreasonable and insane (see this for an example) as to not merit debate any longer?

In any case, Mr. Goldberg, you and he are wrong on one point.

But state endorsement of gay marriage is a different question because it means the state will actively take a side in the culture war rather than stay neutral. And, from a libertarian perspective, taking sides is a no-no.

The state doesn't belong on the marriage approval business. It has no legitimate role doing this at all. Additionally, the state shouldn't grant advantages to married couples. It has no business distorting the economy this way and putting single people at a disadvantage. The Goldberg/Miller theme presents false alternatives because, in my opinion, an honest libertarian doesn't want the state to recognize ANY marriages.

But I don't fault you and other pundits for not reading my website.

UPDATE(8:22am)
Pet peeve time.

Conservative Groups Rally to Gay Marriage Issue

Conservative religious and pro-family groups rallied on Wednesday against a Massachusetts ruling backing gay marriage, promising to make it the first shot in a cultural battle likely to extend into the 2004 campaign.

[...]

Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, said it had energized conservative activists to a degree not seen since the 1973 Roe v. Wade court decision legalizing abortion.

"This is probably the best thing that could have happened," Wildmon said. "Every major pro-family group in the country is cooperating with each other now."

My emphasis.

Can anyone politely and logically explain to me how deliberately throwing up roadblocks to people who want to get married and start families...is pro-family?

Posted by drizzten at 12:53 AM | Permalink

Got aiming problems?

Egads, man. I have extra firing range targets if ya need to use them. :)

Posted by drizzten at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'd like to applaud Owen Courrèges and his excellent commenting in this thread about a stunt the Young Conservatives of Texas pulled at Southern Methodist University. They sold cookies at a table...but at certain prices depending on your race and sex. A way to demonstrate the inequities of affirmative action. Mr. Courrèges tangled with "Alan" in the thread.

You know you're winning an intellectual battle when your opponent begins complaining about "absolutist" arguements. :)

Posted by drizzten at 11:19 PM | Permalink

So, some folks aren't happy the University of Texas system will be raising tuition fees for studends.

Cry me a few rivers.

I've written about UT tuition deregulation before and my opinions haven't changed much. If anything, they've solidified.

Quoting the Burnt Orange Report's Jim D:

There are few things that truly rile me. But the (probably inevitable) $720 proposed tuition increased really gets me. Or to be specific, the total and complete lack of leadership at virtually every level of government on this issue.

The two biggest howlers have come in the last few days. First, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is now playing dumb, expressing "concern" over UT's plan to raise tuition without indicating sorrow, remorse, or even comprehension of the fact that this rate hike is the byproduct of the Legislature's neglectful attitude toward higher education in general and the Republican-backed tuition deregulation bill specifically.

I checked the category archives for an explanation as to exactly why this riles him so much but couldn't find anything subtantial going back to July. I have a feeling it has something to do with cheap, widespread, and public access to higher education. At the expense of others.

To add injury to insult, UT student government honcho Brian Haley is caving to the UT Regents:

University of Texas Student Body President Brian Haley has a reminder on his wall that the students he represents don't want a tuition hike. But faced with the alternative, Haley says he and many students now support the plan the university system is expected to vote on Tuesday. "At the time we were against the university setting its own rate," said Haley. "But what we've discovered is that the state is not going to be giving the adequate funding we need to the university."

I like Brian -- I voted for him -- but there are somethings you must always oppose on principle (even if it means going down with the ship). And this is one of them.

ALL things should be opposed or supported on principle. I can't conceive of any other rational way to take a stand on an issue.

The principles I use to oppose public funding of education are simple to understand. I oppose theft and I oppose coercion. I consider it coercive theft for the government to take money from anyone in order to pay for the services and resources of others. It's theft if the money is taken without consent and it's coercive if you face incarceration and fines if you refuse to comply.

The "need" of someone for a service does not absolve them or the people acting on their behalf of the immorality of their actions. Nor does the popularity of the action being taken matter in regards to it's rightness or wrongness. Someone who wishes to be a student should find a way to pay for his or her education without getting the government to act as collector and enforcer.

It's fine to be pissed at the wobbly, wussy nature of Mr. Dewhurst and his statements.

But the owner(s) who run a system (be it a business, household, or private individual life) know better than anyone else the needs that system has and how to fulfill them. Centralized government control of a business, especially over something as crucial as general revenue, leads to irrational economic calculation. And yes, education should be a business, through and through.

Giving the UT system more control over it's resources is a good thing. It would be an even better thing if it were sold off and privatized. Free markets provide for the needs of consumers better.

And other people would stop being forced to pay for the services of others.

Posted by drizzten at 11:01 PM | Permalink

Fraternity censured for Iraq-motif party

The Interfraternity Council Judicial Board will begin to investigate next week as to whether an Iraq war-themed Zeta Psi party violated the code of conduct of the IFC Constitution.

The fraternity has come under fire for a "Bombs Over Baghdad" themed party held Saturday. Party-goers dressed in camouflage, and the house was decorated with sandbags, model airplanes and a "landing strip" painted on plywood, said Zeta Psi Vice President Gabriel de la Garza.

I watched a FOX7 news broadcast after today's new 24 episode about this. The frat says the party was held in order to celebrate and honor the GIs in Iraq.

Flyers for the party distributed on campus showed photographs of a crying child spattered in blood, a man clutching a child's lifeless body and a mutilated dead man. The caption read, "Come party, and celebrate what we stand for."

De la Garza, a biology senior, said the fraternity had nothing to do with the flyers. He said a student came to the fraternity house claiming he created the flyers and distributed them after seeing a billboard in the fraternity house's front yard advertising the party. The student was not available for comment Monday.

"In my opinion, it was mostly an anti-war flyer," said Zeta Psi President Thomas Madaelil. "They made it, because they thought the intent of the party theme was to promote innocent people dying, which was not our intent at all."

The party was meant to support the troops, not to promote killing innocent people, said Madaelil, an electrical engineering senior.

The TV report I watched corroborates this. The flyers displayed graphic photos of war casualties. The frat is not responsible for the flyers.

The flyer itself illustrates how the theme could be interpreted in a negative way, said IFC Adviser Brian Perry.

Perry contacted Madaelil with concerns about the party's theme after receiving complaints about the flyer and the billboard, which said "Bombs Over Baghdad" and showed Saddam Hussein on an ace of diamonds playing card.

"I definitely thought it was completely inappropriate and insensitive, considering things are still going on in Iraq," Perry said.

Madaelil removed the billboard, but the fraternity went ahead with the party Saturday.

The idea of a frat party theme of US servicemen and women in Iraq and the Iraq war in general certainly can be taken offensively, especially at UT-Austin. The city and the university have a strong left lean in their politics.

"I agree that party's theme was insensitive and done in poor taste," Madaelil said. "I can't argue with [the judicial board] saying that our theme was insensitive."

The IFC Judicial Board will investigate next week whether Zeta Psi violated the IFC code of conduct by intentionally engaging in a form of harassment. The board will also consider whether Zeta Psi's actions will reflect poorly on the Greek community, Perry said.

How the HELL is this harassment? The flyers aren't theirs and they say the party was done in the theme of soldiering in order to support the US's armed forces. Offending some people is now considered harassment by others. Ridiculous.

Posted by drizzten at 10:28 PM | Permalink

He's the current mayor of London. Incidentally, he's also a socialist.

3 entries found for exaggeration

v. ex·ag·ger·at·ed, ex·ag·ger·at·ing, ex·ag·ger·ates

v. tr.

1. To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate: exaggerate the size of the enemy force; exaggerated his own role in the episode.
   
2. To enlarge or increase to an abnormal degree: thick lenses that exaggerated the size of her eyes.

v. intr.

To make overstatements.

14 entries found for exaggeration

aggrandizement, amplification, baloney, boasting, BS, caricature, cheese, coloring, crap, crock, elaboration, embroidery, emphasis, enlargement, exaltation, excess, extravagance, fabrication, falsehood, fancy, fantasy, fish story, gas, hogwash, hyperbole, inflation, jazz, line, magnification, misjudgment, misrepresentation, overemphasis, overestimation, pretension, pretentiousness, rant, romance, stretch, stretching, tall story, untruth, whopper, yarn

Why have I bothered to copy that text from Dictionary.com?

Because Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".

His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush's arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to re-admit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.

Although he made his many differences with the Government on a range of issues clear, he reserved his strongest comments for the American President in an interview with The Ecologist magazine.

[...]

Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called "the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years". He said: "Some US journalist came up to me and said: 'How can you say this about President Bush?' Well, I think what I said then was quite mild. I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction."

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

This is tinfoil hat territory. This is raving moonbat idiocy. This is talk that no one should take seriously it's so far out in Loony Land.

I'm no fan of Bush and many of his policies. I didn't say the above with the mindset of a flag-waving Christian conservative who believes war was justified against Iraq. I say it as someone who abhors people who are disconnected with reality and then attempt to translate that unreality to political effect. And anyone who believes President Bush presides over the most racist administration in 80 years and is dooming humans to extinction through his policies is doing one or more of these things:

1. Deliberately lying through gross and immoral fabrication. This is extravagant dogshit posing as stout and principled opposition.
   
2. Revealing his or her immense intellectual deficiency or blind political bias. This is merely to be expected with today's politicians.

Right now, I'd say it's a 65/35 mix of #1 and #2. I doubt Mr. Livingstone is stupid or really so ignorant.

Because he knows who all the Usual Suspects are who fit his words so much more snugly than Bush. The President is indeed a threat to peace in the absolute sense of the peace of nations that are suspected of sponsoring, have sponsored, or continue to sponsor terrorists. He is guilty of bringing war against a nation (Iraq) that I now believe posed no significant threat to the United States.

But a bigger threat to the planet than any of the nuclear-armed Cold War leaders? Than any of the WWI-, WWII-, and Vietnam era maniacs? An administration that poses a bigger threat to the lives of millions than the people running North Korea? Hell, let's go back further: what about the days of the Roman Empire or of the Mongols?

Yeah, the hints that the Bush Administration wants to take on other nations with Iraq as a stepping stone is deeply disturbing. But it doesn't translate into the invective Mr. Livingstone is spewing.

As for the racist thing, I'll need some convincing. Big time. Nothing I've seen over the last three years has indicated that Bush and his crew are racist; not in the common sense of the term. Wanting to roll back the government's involvement in our lives isn't racist. Wanting people to be admitted to college on the basis of their academic credentials isn't racist. Wanting people to stop using drugs isn't racist. Wanting good border security isn't racist.

It is possible there are people within the Administration who advocate these and other policies in order to deliberately hurt members of one race. But unless I can be pointed to definitive statements made by this Administration demonstrating their belief that their race is superior to others and they intend to hurt other races, then I can't accept the assertion of racism at face value.

As for corruption, I'm much more in agreement. The stench of crony capitalism is gettin' kinda rank around here. Then again, any government that has the power to invade and distort the economic lives of it's citizens is going to have corruption.

I hope Bush comes back safe from his trip to England. In the face of delusional opposition like this, I'd be rethinking the entire notion.

Posted by drizzten at 11:36 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Dude, think you're hardcore? Turn down your angsty rap-rock, spin your baseball hat around the right way, and read this:

Man Armed With Knife Kills Hungry Bear

John Hirsch went toe-to-claw with a black bear and won.

Hirsch had only a 3 1/2-inch knife blade when he came across the bear in his backyard in Williams Lake, about 190 miles northeast of Vancouver.

"He came out of nowhere," said Hirsch, 61, an avid hunter and outdoorsman.

"I can remember thinking that he's not stopping he's coming," said Hirsch. "I just didn't feel I had any place to go."

The Ursus americanus has:

1. Thick nonretractable claws, curved and numbering 20. The fronts are often 1.25" long.
   
2. 42 teeth designed for tearing and chewing meat attached to a mouth elevated more than 2 feet above the ground.
   
3. Many dozens of pounds of muscle devoted more to strength and attacking prey.

The Homo sapiens has:

1. Puny, flexible, and thin fingernails that break under a few pounds of tension.
   
2. 32 teeth for mixed application, none suited for (in my opinion) offensive use or effective defense.
   
3. Dozens of pounds of muscle for mixed application; devoted more to dexterity and speed.

Giving a man a small pocketnknife doesn't really even this out. Gimme something more substantial, like a Browning Hi-Power or a good rifle. And hollowpoints. Nasty ones.

As the bear began to circle him, Hirsch faced it like a wrestler in a ring.

"It was like a knife fight that you'd see in an old-time Western," he said. The bear swatted out at him, but each time it lunged, he managed to stab it.

"I couldn't tell you if the fight lasted three seconds or three minutes," Hirsch said.

Three stabs to the bear's chest and one to its neck finally did the bruin in.

It stood about 5 foot 7 inches to Hirsch's 5 feet 9 inches and weighed 200 pounds, according to conservation officers who inspected it.

"I can say it sure looked smaller the next morning than it did during the fight," said Hirsch.

Good lord. I'm not sure if my heart would be able to hold up under that kind of stress. I'm roughly 6 feet tall and weigh about 160 pounds. Not a matchup I'd ask for. I'd prefer fighting an unarmed human than a large hungry mammal.

It's that very kind of utterly unreasonable and unknown intelligence that scares me the most. You know the bear wants something and it wants it badly enough to take the risk of confronting something it'd just as rather leave alone. You know the stories, stereotypes, and horrors of bear attacks and you wonder what you've heard is bullshit, true, and unreported.

And you know you can't not do something. Not when the bear initiates and presses the hostilities.

The bear was in poor shape, suffering from a severed tongue and broken jaw, the conservation officer said. Its stomach was empty and the bear had little fat on it.

It literally fought to the death because it couldn't think of any other way to feed itself. I'm not certain this was that much of an advantage to Mr. Hirsch. On one hand, it's unhealthy and weakened. On the other, it's desperate. Any fighter can tell you a desperate opponent takes risky chances and becomes consumed with it's goal rather than it's well-being.

Hirsch, a retired electrical foreman at B.C. Hydro, suffered a scratch to the top of his head and scratches to his back and a shredded T-shirt.

As for the battle itself, Hirsch said it never occurred to him that he would lose to the bear.

"I just felt that however long this took, I was going to come out OK," he said. "I always felt that I was at least his equal."

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I salute you, Sir. Cutting and running is an instinct I'd be fighting almost as hard as the 200 pound mass of hungry black bear facing off against me.

UPDATE 10/8/2004 10:01am
Here's a guy who wasn't so good at defending himself: Mauled Hunter to Avoid Grizzly Country:

Weston Scott crept through the dense forest looking to flush out an elk. He got excited when he heard rustling about 10 feet ahead, in some bushes.

What Scott saw in those first seconds last Sunday was a bear's head coming right at him. He drew up his rifle but managed only to get a shot off from about his hip before the 600-pound grizzly was on top of him.

"I think it went right over his head," Scott said Wednesday from his hospital room in Idaho Falls, Idaho, about 175 miles from Bridger-Teton National Forest, where the attack occurred. "That was all I had time to do. He was on me after that."

As Scott, 32, fell to the ground, the bear bit him in the face. It took out four teeth on Scott's lower jaw and a 1-inch portion of jawbone.

[...]

Tammy Scott said after the bear bit her husband's face, it continued to knock him around.

"He's got surface wounds kind of everywhere" on his knees, side and back, she said. "Looking at him, you know he got rolled around by a bear."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 09:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I'm reading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, a book I asked for and recieved as a Christmas present last year. I'm only just getting into the fifth chapter of Volume I, but it's proving to be a good read. I offer a quote I enjoyed, found on pages 59-60, as Tocqueville discusses the political consequences of America's social nature:

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion extends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social conditions is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not their chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol.

A "depraved taste of equality." That's a great phrase. Such would describe the bent of those people who are determined to equalize outcomes over the objections of individual liberty.

Posted by drizzten at 06:54 PM | Permalink

I was having the same MySQL and perl errors as so many others had over the last few days. The problem seems to be on the server's side with Moveable Type installs on systems with Cpanel as the main user interface; something to do with moving files around. Problem is apparently fixed (I'm posting again, aren't I?), but I won't be back to my normal schedule until later on tonight.

I will say this.

Foleyvision RAWKS.

A group of friends and I went to go see Foleyvision: SANTO VS. THE MARTIAN INVASION at the Alamo Lake Creek Drafthouse. Good stuff. All the audio is done live: dialogue, music, and FX. These guys (previously known as Buzz Moran's Kung Fu Masterpiece Theater) put on a very funny and well-executed show.

The movie itself is not only classic 60's Sci-Fi schlock...but it's Mexican 60's Sci-Fi schlock. Santo is a famous Lucha Libre who wears a silver mask, upholds justice, and tosses bad guys around with an indefatigable energy. And these bad guys are Martians, consumed with saving Earth from it's stupid destructive people. Done in black and white and with some of the worst acting I've seen since, well...ever.

But the Foleyvision treatment whipped this otherwise dismissable flick into a fun evening. Money well spent. The Drafthouse credited moviegoers $3 if they wore Lucha Libre wrestling masks, but only a few in the crowd had one on. My girlfriend and Cameron did, and I bought one at a booth before we entered.

Woot!

Posted by drizzten at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

...or two. I've got a business trip that requires my presence in Huntsville for a training seminar. Travel begins at noon today and I won't return until late Thursday. Don't let the world implode without me!

In the meantime, here are some quickies:

Anti-Smoking Programs Underfunded, Group Says

States that cashed in on a landmark $246 billion settlement with tobacco companies five years ago are spending little on programs to curb smoking, an anti-smoking group charged on Wednesday.

With budgets stretched thin, most of the 46 states that joined the 1998 tobacco settlement are using only a fraction of the funding that health officials recommend for anti-tobacco efforts, according to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

"The states' funding of tobacco prevention and cessation is woefully inadequate given the magnitude of the tobacco problem," the organization said in findings to be presented to a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Copyright 2003 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.

What's woefully inadequate these days is the recognition that it isn't the duty of any government to attempt to reorganize the way individuals make choices.

Arafat Affirms Israeli Right to Live in Security

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat extended an olive branch to Israel on Wednesday as his parliament met to vote on a new cabinet considered crucial to reviving U.S.-backed peace moves.

Arafat, who has been shunned by Israel, reaffirmed the Jewish state's right to live in security alongside a future Palestinian state and called for an end to the spiral of Middle East fighting.

"We do not deny the right of the Israeli people to live in security side-by-side with the Palestinian people that is also living in their own independent state," Arafat told lawmakers convened in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Copyright 2003 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.

There is something profoundly wrong with a culture that needs to say these things in order to clear the air. Arafat must go beyond these words and eliminate the terrorist groups to whom they are addressed. And that isn't going to happen.

Aquifer overpumping concerns regulators

Regulators are reviewing increased pumping from the underground water reservoir that feeds Texas' largest springs.

The situation is raising concerns from some downstream cities and suppliers.
The Edwards Aquifer Authority will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules tomorrow in San Antonio. The authority, which regulates pumping from the Central Texas aquifer, is taking public comment through Dec. 8.

Directors could adopt the plan Dec. 16, with the rules taking effect just before year's end.

The Legislature restricted pumping because of a lawsuit to protect endangered species supported by the aquifer.

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

What do I feel is the simpest, most effective way to regulate the water supply? Let a market price to establish itself and let the price of the water impact the economic decisions of the people who purchase it. Low supplies mean price rises which mean a weaker demand; higher supplies mean lower prices which mean a stronger demand. All this is generally speaking, of course, but the economics are fairly straightforward. Especially once the government intervention is removed.

Russian choir makes American debut

The Saint Petersburg Choir is a historic institution and famous around the world. This is the group's first U.S. tour in its long history -- the chance of a lifetime for Austinites to see them perform.

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

I know, and I want to go see it. The event, however, falls right during the time I'd be returning to Austin, so as much as I'd love to see the St. Petersburg Academic Capella Choir, I'll have to miss it.

Posted by drizzten at 09:40 AM | Permalink

Local eatery serving longhorn burgers

Hut's Hamburgers has a new patty: Longhorn beef. They can't flip them out fast enough, but before they hit the plates at Hut's, they're at Don and Debbie Davis's longhorn ranch.

Don said the cattle are a cinch to raise because they're adaptable.

"I've heard people claim they'll eat rocks. I'm sure they don't, but I've been in extremely marginally country where these cattle will raise a calf every year," Don said.

One difference between these longhorn cattle and other cows is they eat grass their entire lives. Don said that makes a difference on your plate.

"When you grass-finish rather than grain-finish a product, you have a much healthier beef profile. Lower fat, lower cholesterol," Don said.

Mmm, longhorn burgers. I gotta try one of those.

The rest of the article (namely, the beginning) is a demonstration of stupidity.

If you've ever wondered how many calories are in an enchilada from your favorite restaurant, Congress may have an answer for you. A new bill could require fast food and restaurant chains to list nutrition information on menus.

It's an effort to fight obesity. Two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Chains like McDonald's and Wendy's already give nutrition facts. the bill would only apply to those chains with at least 20 locations.

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

The Nanny State is unrelenting in it's progress to consume individual responsibility and digest property rights. Perhaps when enough people begin to recognize, understand, and get enraged with the grotesquely obese state of the State, the polis will bring about some much-needed fiscal dieting.

Please let my offspring's offspring know when that day arrives. I want them to celebrate around my tombstone.

Posted by drizzten at 11:05 PM | Permalink

Starbucks at the airport? How about Lone Star Bucks?

The Starbucks folks could implement several design changes to make a coffee shop out at the Austin airport appear local.

They could invite neighborhood associations to come out, sit around and crab. It doesn't get much more Austin than that.

See, the City Council is balking at letting the Seattle-based coffee chain put one of its omnipresent maisons de mocha at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport because the council wants local businesses there.

Whatever the Council wants, the Council gets. Or, if that bothers you: Whatever the people who elect the Council want, the people who elect the Council get. Regardless of the formulation, the nature of the beast remains the same. It's authoritarian to pick and choose what business gets to conduct business where and how.

The big question, however, is what constitutes local around these parts. Of the 13 companies that have contracts to run food or retail stores at the airport, seven have headquarters outside of Central Texas. The company that runs the airport's Salt Lick barbecue is from Buffalo, N.Y. Say along with me now: Get a rope.

Meanwhile, the City Council has put off until Nov. 20 a decision on whether to let a Starbucks open at Austin-Bergstrom.

[...]

Instead of calling it Starbucks, why not change the name to Lone Star Bucks? And while you're at it, can the biscotti and put in biscuits and gravy.

Another thing Starbucks could do to seem a little more Austinesque is hire a bunch of overbearing, know-it-all hippies to work behind the counter, worry about your cholesterol level and tell you what you should consume.

"Give me cream and sugar." "No sugar, man. It's not free range, man."

[...]

Change the name to Amy's.

Put a taco cart in front of the entrance and introduce the latte/chalupa combo.

Emphasize the Austin environmental thing. Put up a disclaimer that says, "No animals were harmed in the making of this espresso." Or hang a sign that says, "Our Beans Are Grown in the Recharge Zone."

Hire a pass-the-hat musician who sings the blues out of tune, waits tables at Mother's and lives in his mother's garage.

Hang a picture of Stevie Ray Vaughan. If that doesn't fool 'em, nothing will.

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

You're a funny guy, John Kelso. I liked those last ones.

It isn't funny at all that business have to work at the mercy of city councils.

UPDATE(12/12/2003 2:25pm)
City approves site for Wal-Mart, Lowe's

The 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.

Posted by drizzten at 10:55 PM | Permalink

Edwards slams Dean again for Confederate remark

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called rival Howard Dean's Confederate flag remark elitist, and Edwards, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Kerry criticized Dean's decision to opt out of public campaign financing.

[...]

Dean, who has since apologized for the remark, said he was trying to state his intention to make the party more inclusive and bring poor Southern whites back from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

But Democratic rivals, like Edwards, seized on the comment as condescending and even accepting of people who are racists. He said he has talked personally to Dean about his concerns.

On "Meet the Press," Edwards said the flag is a "very divisive symbol" and it is wrong to stereotype Southerners.

"It's like saying to any group of voters ... you don't know what's best for you. We know what's best for you," Edwards said. "There's an elitism and condescension associated with that attitude that's enormously dangerous to us" and that voters want to be "treated with respect."

Emphasis mine.

Alright, Mr. Edwards. Explain how your views and platform AREN'T saying you know what's best for the voters and they don't know what's best for them.

I challenge any Edwards supporter (or anyone with the free time) to do so.

Just to warm things up, allow me to begin:

Instead of giving tax breaks to companies that move their headquarters overseas, we should offer tax incentives for companies to manufacture here in America. We should be exporting American products, not American jobs.

The economy (and by extension, the workers and managers participating in it) include a good portion of voters. You'd distort the tax system in order to provide advantages to companies to domestically manufacture their products. Hey, doesn't that mean you think you know what's best for the people who run those companies?

One more:

It is wrong that 12 million children are without health insurance. My plan will, for the first time in history, cover each and every one.

An overwhelming percentage (somewhere around 100%) of children don't vote. But their parents do and they are responsible for their kids. It seems to be Mr. Edwards believes those parents who voluntarily decide to not buy health coverage for their kids don't know what's best for them.

Don't get me wrong: the vast majority of presidential candidates (Bush, Dean, Gephardt, Clark, etc.) have platforms and proposed policies that engage in the very elitism and authoritarianism Mr. Edwards decried above. I'm just slamming Mr. Edwards because he put his position so plainly and clearly.

Posted by drizzten at 11:27 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

State's dependence on property tax has to go

Among the many presenters at the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus hearing on public school finances last week in Arlington, El Paso state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh deserved an A-plus for guts and clarity.

A MALC panelist teased that his presentation was a filibuster. On the contrary, his talk was a clearing of cobwebby thinking and empty political promises.

With his parade of statistics and graphs, Shapleigh had the nerve to state repeatedly -- as he had at other MALC hearings -- that the fairest and soundest way to fund Texas schools was to provide property tax relief through a state income tax.

Die, Die, Die!

If Texas passes an income tax, I may just move to New Hampshire.

I want to question Senator Shapleigh in front of live news cameras:

Sir, is it your contention that an income tax is the most fair way to fund Texas schools?

Yes, that is my contention.

Sir, would an acceptable definition of "fair" be equal treatment for all?

Sounds fine to me.

Equally treating all...like how you filed a bill to treat all Texas public junior college students equally in regards to the tutition they owe?

Excuse me?

SB 201, which you authored. It attempted, essentially, to give "governing board[s] of junior college district[s]" located "in count[ies] that border the United Mexican States" the authority to "waive" the tutition fees for residents of "United Mexican States" who "register for lower division courses" and whom "demonstrate" a financial need after the financial resources of the foreign student and the student's family are considered." In place of the standard foreign tutition rates, the bill said the student "shall pay tuition at the rate charged Texas residents who reside outside the junior college district."

To provide an example of the difference between these two rates, Austin Community College charges $408 for 12 credit hours if you live "in district," $1,068 if you live "out of district," and a whopping $2,112 if you are an "out of state" or "international student." El Paso Community College - certainly a more pertinent example, don't you think, Senator? - charges $589 for 12 credit hours for "residents" and $800 for "non-residents." These are serious sums of money for incoming students. Your bill would have given some students cheaper access to these educational resources than other students.

That's equal treatment, correct, Sir?

Now look here...

Because it would certainly be equal treatment to give some students a cheaper ride through junior college and only through junior colleges that are on the Texas-Mexico border. That's fair, right?

Excuse me, but that bill was intended to help the needy, to aid immigrants from other countries in getting an education!

And thereby treating them differently from the rest of the student body, correct?

Well...

Not to mention only junior colleges along the Mexican border get to take part in this fair treatment.

You fucker. Don't talk to me about fair treatment in regards to educational financing. Not when you're prancing about trying to grant tutition breaks to Mexican residents.

Anyway, back to the Star-Telegram article:

A woman in the audience of about 100 shouted "no," but many others nodded. It is time for Texans to own up to their responsibility to pay their fair share instead of relying on regressive local property and state sales taxes.

I bet that woman had a memory spasm of the days (long past) when people provided for their own lives from the fruits of their own labor. Before the State of Texas took more and more control over the lives of it's enablers.

Before idiot commenters like Richard Gonzales spouted bullshit about there being some "duty" that requires me to pay for someone else's education and someone to pay mine. Mr. Gonzales, you've made the assertion so you have to prove it. On what moral and philosophical grounds do you base this "duty" of mine? You lose ten points if you lamely point to the Texas Constitution because it engages in as much arbitrary assertion as you have done, as well as contradiction, for it is antithetical to liberty to require people to provide for the desires of others.

According to Shapleigh's statistics, Texans earning less than $19,500 pay 5.2 percent of their income on property tax; those who earn more than $90,150 pay 1.7 percent. Those groups pay 5.9 percent and 1.5 percent of their income on sales taxes, respectively.

Hey, I'm all for cutting back and getting rid of more taxes. Not on these grounds, of course, but they do add weight to the arguement if your interests lean towards altruism...

According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, the current tax system has failed to grow with the economy and the need for public services such as education. The sales tax that generates more than half of the state's tax revenue has not kept pace with the volume of actual sales.

Even though Texas has one of the highest levels of property and sales taxes in the country, these taxes don't generate sufficient revenue.

Somewhere, fiscal conservatives and libertarians are screaming, "CUT SPENDING MORE YOU PROLIFIC ASSHOLES!"

But no one seems to hear them. Ignore the superficial cuts made last session. They didn't come close to what's necessary to bring the Texas state government in line with some semblance of reality.

Currently, the state-local tax support ratio for public school education is 38:62, according to Grand Prairie Superintendent David Barbosa. Fort Worth Superintendent Thomas Tocco said the ratio should be 60:40.

Mr. Tocco, you seem eager to spend other people's money. I'm sure such a mentality comes naturally to a public school superintendent. Perhaps, given your enthusiasm for reforming the public education system and for other people to have more say in how much disposable income we should have, I propose this:

You should give up, uhmmm...$184,000 of your $285,000 base salary and give it directly to, uhmmm...Terlingua CSD! It's enrollment in 2000 was a paltry 184 children. That's $1,000 per kid! Or, on the other hand, since there are only about 20 teachers, that's a raise of $9,200 for each of them! Now we're talking! Sacrifice your unnecessary wages...give up your disposable income...do it because I said you have a duty to do it!

It's fun playing with other people's money. I'll address your family's collective wealth next time when someone brings up the inheritance tax. :)

The courts, through the Edgewood verdict or Robin Hood, tried to provide equity in public school funding. However, funding gaps between rich and poor districts still remain.

Via a series of graphs, Arlington Superintendent Mac Bernd demonstrated that his district has a low operating expenditure per student and low administrative expenditures when compared to those of richer school districts.

He said that Arlington provides a good education on the cheap. However, if that district could spend at the same level as the richer districts, it could expend additionally between $18.7 million and $109.6 million each year.

Here's one of the real travesties: A good, early education is important for anyone wanting to get anywhere with their life. And this important service is being bogged down, hashed up, and pulled this way and that entirely due to one thing: the politicians have control over it. It's wrong and it's got to stop.

According to Shapleigh, nine out of 10 Texas students benefit from Robin Hood. The plan recaptures money from 134 wealthy districts and distributes it to not-so-wealthy districts.

Bernd said, "It's not the Robin Hood plan that I'm worried about -- it's the Sheriff of Nottingham," in a sly reference to legislators willing to play politics with school finances rather than act courageously.

Pot, kettle, black.

For many politicians (including Gov. Rick Perry) who have promised voters not to raise taxes, Shapleigh's arguments expose the hollowness of their words. Unless the governor and other no-new-taxers have geese that lay golden eggs, the money needed to raise Texas from dead last among the 50 states in per capita general expenditures will need to come from taxes.

The solution is obvious: Charge for tutition. People don't have a right to an education; it's a service. It's an important service, but that doesn't change it's nature. It's no fundamentally different than an Internet service provider or a pizza delivery company.

If Texas is to raise the average per-pupil expenditure from $6,850 to the national average of $7,463, more greenbacks are needed.

There were over 4 million students (PDF) in Texas public schools in 2001. Gonzales and his side want an increase of $2,495,523,000 ($30,381,873,000 - $27,886,350,000) in state spending on education. And they want it from YOUR pockets.

It's sure easy to spend other people's money.

UPDATE(4/9/2004 12:55pm)
Oppose all state income tax plans!

UPDATE(4/15/2004 2:57pm)
It's Income Tax Day. Read it and weep.

Posted by drizzten at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Mondays can sure bring mixed news.

Sherbert
Craziest orange cat my family's ever had
1994-2003

Apparently he got hit by a car over the weekend. He wasn't technically "my cat" as I have one I picked out, but he was the most enigmatic of the famliy felines I can remember. I'll miss him.

Not an hour later, my division has it's Monday meeting. Our boss wanted a conference call with everyone...including out on-the-road consultants. This had never been done before; not the whole group together for an official meeting. By doing so our boss wanted everyone to hear the news first. As of Feburary 1st, Joann Odenwelder would retire from the Texas Association of School Boards and move on with her life.

Member Services wishes you the best, Joann. You have been the best manager I've ever had.

UPDATE(11/11/2003 1:30am)
Damn it.

Once again, I bid Arthur Silber a Fare Well. It truely sucks your economic condition brought you to using public transportation and the LA transit strike added the final straws to your back.

I can only wish you return with a smile and a good recovery story. Soon.

Posted by drizzten at 11:42 AM | Permalink

Howard Dean to Skip Public Financing

In a historic move, Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Saturday he will skip public financing and the spending limits that come with it, hoping his money-raising power can help win the nomination and unseat President Bush.
"We have supported public financing but the unabashed actions of this president to undercut our Democratic process with floods of special interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system," Dean said at a news conference.

The 2004 race is the first time that candidates from both major parties will forgo the Watergate-era public financing system. Bush also is opting out, as he did in the 2000 Republican primaries and raised a record $100-plus million.

Dean made his decision based on a high-tech tally of 600,000 supporters, whom he asked to vote by e-mail, Internet, telephone or regular mail through Friday.

The former Vermont governor said 85 percent of those who weighed in 105,000, according to campaign officials urged him to opt out. He becomes the first candidate in Democratic Party history to take such a step.

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Good for him. John Samples from CATO agrees:

Liberal Democrats don't usually declare a government program dead. Yet Howard Dean may be doing just that, and Americans owe him a vote of thanks.

Dean is asking his supporters to approve, by an e-mail vote, his plan to forgo public financing of his primary campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. A "yes" vote would make him the first Democrat to run without the help of taxpayers since public campaign financing was established in 1976. And that could sound the death knell for a useless system.

Dean has concluded that accepting public money for the primaries would leave him with few resources after he got the nomination. He has decided he must be free of the restraints that come with taxpayer financing of his primary campaign to go up against President Bush's ample war chest.

[...]

The presidential program has not fulfilled its goals. Consider corruption and citizen distrust of government. Since public financing began, the National Election Study's trust-in-government index has twice (1980 and 1994) been lower than it was in the Watergate year of 1974. More Americans also believed that "quite a few" government officials were crooked after the elections of 1984, 1988 and 1992, according to another NES survey.

The presidential funding program has not increased electoral competition compared with the system of private financing it replaced. We have seen fewer candidates in the party presidential primaries since 1976 than in elections before that time. The two most successful independent candidates for the presidency of the last 50 years - George Wallace in 1968 and H. Ross Perot in 1992 - both ran without public backing. On the other side, taxpayers have had to give millions of dollars to political extremists like Lyndon LaRouche and Lenora Fulani.

Finally, and most important, surveys indicate that Americans simply do not like public financing of campaigns in general and the presidential program in particular. Participation in the tax form check-off has dropped precipitously since 1982. Currently, just a shade over 10% of Americans fill in the box. American taxpayers have spent $2 billion on presidential public funding since 1976. They have received little for their money.

All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

Cato link via Hit & Run.

I don't adhere to the mostly utilitarian and empiricist criticism Mr. Samples levels against the program, but he's not incorrect on those points. The program doesn't work.

If I were to level my most serious charges against a system of public campaign funding, they would be violations of property rights and freedom of association.

Property rights are violated when property (in this case, money) is used or taken from an individual without that person's voluntary consent. It's wrong to steal from others. Tax money supporting political campaigns is a violation of property rights just as all government-levied taxes are. Try to avoid them and look out.

That's bad, but it's even worse when that property is used to further the means and promote the ends of someone with whom you don't agree. The taxpayer has been supporting the agendas of the major parties for 30 years. Those agendas have included all manner of ideas and proposals that would have infringed upon individual rights and liberty. Why must my property go towards helping these people? My freedom of association is thus dramatically eroded because I am in effect saying and doing somethings I'd otherwise never consider. I find it abhorrent the resources of individuals are aiding the campaigns of candidates they don't agree with, would not vote for, and oppose.

Having political speech regulated is also bad.

Now, admittedly, how the Public Funding Program is financed is not as I criticized above. It uses a voluntary donation through our federal income tax forms. If we so choose, we can donate $1 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. In this sense, it doesn't violate property rights and doesn't create freedom of association problems nearly as bad as general revenue funding.

On the official Dean website, the press release says in part:

In a ceremony here today, Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., announced that, following an overwhelming vote by supporters over the last two days, Dean for America would not accept public matching funds.

"Today by a 85-15 margin the people who made this campaign have voted to decline public financing. We support public financing, but the unabashed actions of this president to thwart our democratic processes with a flood of special interests money have us forced to abandon a broken system," Governor Dean said.

"Our campaign has not been talk of campaign finance reform, it has been actual reform. Over 200,000 people have given an average of $77 to bring us here and they have now overwhelmingly refused to be intimidated by George Bush and his cronies," Dean added.

In 2000, then-Governor Bush opted out of the public financing system, raising and spending more than $100 million in the primaries. This election, he has decided to opt out of the system again and is widely expected to raise $200 million for a primary where he has no opponent.

Today, Dean-joined onstage at the University of Vermont by seven grassroots leaders from across the country-announced the decision and then proceeded to sign a declaration of independence announcing that the campaign would be "free and independent of special interests."

He's making the rational choice. But I almost have to sneer at that last bit. No "special interests" huh? Any candidate who proposes anything that gives one group of people an advantage over another is guilty of pandering to the special interests that drive that choice. Dean's political philosophy is rife with special interests. Just like every other major candidate in this race.

Posted by drizzten at 01:27 PM | Permalink

I gave Whack-a-Pol a spin and didn't discover the answer to my presidential election vote. Not that I expected to. Some of those people support some truely vile ideas.

UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:48pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information

Posted by drizzten at 01:33 PM | Permalink

I have a question about something dear Ludwig wrote in Liberalism: The Classical Tradition. I am referring to this edition translated by Ralph Raico and released in 1996 by the Foundation for Economic Education.

In Chapter 3, "Liberal Foreign Policy," there is a section devoted to and titled The Right of Self-Determination. Quoting from page 109:

The Right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

There is also a section within this chapter titled The League of Nations. On pages 147-148 von Mises writes:

Just as, in the eyes of the liberal, the state is not the highest ideal, so it is also not the best apparatus of compulsion. The metaphysical theory of the state declares - approaching, in this respect, the vanity and presumption of the absolute monarchs - that each individual state is sovereign, i.e., that it represents that last and highest court of appeals. But, for the liberal, the world does not end at the borders of the state. In his eyes, whatever significance boundaries have is only incidental and subordinate. His political thinking encompasses the whole of mankind. The starting-point of his entire political philosophy is the conviction that the divison of labor is international and not merely national. He realizes from the very first that it is not sufficient to establish peace within each country, that it is much more important that nations live at peace with one another. The liberal therefore demands that the political organization of society be extended until it reaches its culmination in a world state that unites all nations on an equal basis. For this reason he sees the law of each nation as subordinate to international law, and that is why he demands supranational tribunals and administrative authorities to assure peace among nations in the same way that the judicial and executive organs of each country are charged with the maintenance of peace within its own territory.

He then goes on to state his grievences with the League of Nations as it was constituted, formed, and charged. The context for the latter quote can be read here and the context for the former can be found here.

My question is, how can Mises reconcile the first quote with the second?

He obviously believes people should be free to persue political associations as they please, and yet he also seems to believe everyone should eventually be under the coverage of a world state's reach. Granted, he also says of this world government on pages 150-151:

...the problem involved is not at all a matter of organization or of the technique of international government, but the greatest ideological question mankind has ever faced. It is a question of whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind without which all agreements for the preservation of peace and all the proceedings of courts of arbitration will remain, at the crucial moment, only worthless scraps of paper. This frame of mind can be nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions, if the prerequisites of peace are to be created and the causes of war eliminated. As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, immigration barriers, compulsory education, interventionism, and etatism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.

The sort of worldwide government he envisions is a distant and unrecognizable entity that most advocates of a worldwide state wish. He disavows socialism whereas they do not.

However, this still conflicts with the right to self-determination. What happens when sections of the world hold out from this advancing Leviathan and refuse to join? What happens if a section of Pax Libertas decides to secede? Mises doesn't explicitly come out and say such rogue entities should be forced to become part of the international union, but I'll repeat his words: "The liberal therefore demands that the political organization of society be extended until it reaches its culmination in a world state that unites all nations on an equal basis."

That sounds rather ominously akin to imperialism, something to which he is emphatically opposed. No doubt he'd argue that the extention of Pax Libertas should be accomplished solely through, as he puts it elsewhere in the book, "the weapons of the intellect, which liberalism views as the only ones permissible in" political contests. But his "demand" is just a little too forceful for me to completely disregard as something benign.

I'll leave my comments on his desire to see a world state to just this: I think it's a bad idea. It caught me by surprise that an Austrian (no less the fount of modern Austrian School economics) would advocate something like this.

Can anyone comment on this? Did he write anything else after this clarifying this issue? The only Mises I've read is this (and I'm not finished yet) and Socialism (ditto). These are some of his earlier major works, so it's entirely possible I haven't come across futher elucidation of the concepts here.

Posted by drizzten at 07:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

From the 33º new items list:

Cunningham, Chris "Works of" DVD. Chris Cunningham's career as a music video director began in 1995 when, aged twenty-five and passionate about music, Cunningham hooked up with the techno band Autechre and persuaded them to let him direct their promo. He joined Black Dog Films. Runtime: 200 minutes. Videos for Autechre, Bjork, Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Portishead, Leftfield, and more. (Palm)

Anyone who has seen his "All is Full of Love" video for Björk knows how beautiful Cunningham's imagery can be; his direction for Aphex Twin's "Come to Daddy" is one of the most haunting and utterly disturbing videos I've ever seen.

This DVD will be a must-buy.

Posted by drizzten at 12:56 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Arthur Silber speaks for me when he says of possible plans to reinstate the draft:

...I have explained why I consider the reinstitution of a draft and censorship to be the two single greatest dangers to the United States today. Both represent the most fundamental violation of individual rights that can be imagined.

[...]

My life is mine, not anyone else's. It does not belong to the Democrats, nor to the Republicans, nor to anyone else. Ever. I don't give a damn what "crisis" people may drum up which convinces them that they have the "right" to dispose of other human beings as if they were cattle.

A military recruiter would probably consider me a perfect candidate:

1. 23 years old
   
2. No criminal history
   
3. Physically fit
   
4. Some college experience, good high school grades
   
5. Father's a retired Army Colonel

If the draft was to be reactivated and if I were called upon to serve in the military through the lottery, I'd refuse. I was at one time willing to join, but that time has passed and I want nothing to do with serving in a military that I now consider inappropriately staged overseas. Reading this would deeply pain my father, but I cannot in good conscience allow myself to be forced into duty.

UPDATE 9/23/2004 12:48pm
Nelson, British Columbia, plans a memorial for draft dodgers.

Posted by drizzten at 02:02 AM | Permalink

Gawddamn lame water and sewage systems. Specifically, the system that my apartment complex has stuck me with. This issue alone is driving me away from where I live now to someplace better, nicer, and more sane.

I've bitched to some people about this before (my apologies, Cameron), but I can't seem to vent properly each time. To anyone without ten minutes to spare, click onward. This may take a bit.

*deep breath*

FIRSTLY, THE GREMLINS CAME FOR MY COLD WATER:

I move in and all is well. In a flash of insight, I decide one day to un-concentrate some concentrated frozen juice I bought the day before. Cuz living in Central Texas means you're always thirsty. So I proceeded to make my juice and give it a hearty slug after sitting down to read a book.

"Sir, what would you like with your juice?"

"Umm...I'll take minerals with that. Everything ya got."

F-u-c-k-e-n nasty. Why I hadn't noticed this before is a flaw on my character and I promise to drink a pint of warm Schlitz (the one with the bull on the can) in one sitting to atone for my stupidity. The entire pitcher was ruined and every subsequent one after that. My cold water had become, literally under my nose, a thing to fear and loathe.

Now, unless I'm flushing the toliet (more on THAT later...), the only water used in my apartment is hot water. Calling the landowners resulted in an official *shrug* and the admittance that they had no control over the quality of the water being piped in. Curses! Curses on you and your damn idiot water supplier!

SECONDARILY, THE GREMLINS CAME FOR MY UNBLEMISHED PORCELIN SURFACES:

None of what follows applies to the kitchen. Of course, even though that should make me happy, the irrationality of it just pisses me off even further.

Since I now had a "hard water problem," I discovered the side benefits of having copious quantities of lime, calcium, and other things in my plumbing. The most obvious to any observer: the ugly rings and deposits left behind when water dried in the toliet and bathtub.

I figure, "Hey, it's just some lame mineral crap. I'm a strapping, healthy, robust human male. It'll take me, some chemicals, a dollop of elbow grease, and five minutes to erase these abominations!"

I gave up on the bathtub after getting post traumatic stress syndrome from the nightmares of never, ever being able to get rid of the splotches, after doing the best I could for two hours and then noticing how unpleasant the shower curtain looked on the inner side, and after lifting the shower mat to reveal something out of the Toxic Avenger. Fuck the tub; that's a losing battle.

I've had more success with the toilet, but only because I lowered my standards to redefine "Job Finished!" as "I give up because I'm too tired to give a damn about The Ring That Wouldn't Die." Soaking the bowl in undiluted Pinesol for eight hours and then coming home from work to scrub gets enough the gunk erased to let me sleep soundly at night.

TERTIARILY, THE GREMLINS CAME FOR MY WATER PRESSURE:

It took me a few months to come to grips with my cold water problem, but seeing as I rarely use the water in my place to begin with (I'm getting better at showering, I promise!), I found myself not minding so much.

Until the day I suddenly became impatient with the time it took for me to fill up a pot in order to boil some water to make rice. Or when showering felt more like standing in a light rain than under a fountain of cleansing H2O. Or when I fell asleep filling an icetray with water one night.

"Cricket Hollow apartments, how may I help you?"

"Your water system sucks worse than Sam's mom. Fix this shit or I'm outta here."

So they come over and do something magical and fix the problem. Of course, what they did to the shower wasn't so magical, as the three or four POUNDS OF MINERAL DEPOSITS they scoured from the inside of the piping were generously left splattered up and down my bathtub for me to inspect. I guess they wanted me to know they did something useful. Thanks, guys. Really. The hour I spent cleaning that shit up certainly wouldn't have been better wasted on getting wasted, reading about the evils of socialism, or watching porn!

FINALLY, THE GREMLINS CAME FOR MY HUMAN EXCRETORY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:

So, I've made up my mind to leave this place and find somewhere betta. In fact, I've got the apartment calling cards, floor plans, and advertisements I collected last week scattered about my floor at this very moment. I figured I'd go get some groceries, come home, eat a sammich, and tackle the fabulous deals the real estate hounds threw at my feet.

Before I left to get groceries, I make a pit stop in the bathroom. It was one of those pit stops where you realize you drank a bit too much water during the day and relax as you think about what to do next.

Get done. Stretch. Flush toliet. Walk away from the john, but only to turn back to look at it as it dangerously fills up to the top of the bowl. Widen eyes as you realize how lame that would be. Stand perched to act at a moment's notice (not that I'd really know what to do if it blew it's top) like some action star in a hall of mirrors. Time passes. Realize something is screwed with your toliet but that it's draining by itself and things'll be fine if you leave it be.

Damn it. I'm no toliet technician, but I know how they work. So I tinker with it when I get back home and see if the problem is anything Obvious Boy can solve. He can't, so He gives up and drinks a beer and makes a post about how gawddamn lame water and sewage systems burn His ass.

Posted by drizzten at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Austin lands music convention

Austin struck a chord with the International Music Products Association, making a musical connection that helped land a three-year trade show gig, the city's biggest convention booking ever.

The nonprofit Carlsbad, Calif.-based association announced Monday that it will rotate its summer trade shows among different cities, bringing it to the Austin Convention Center in July 2006. The event is the nation's second-largest trade show for musical instruments and products -- a $16 billion industry worldwide.

NAMM has as it's members over 7,700 retailers and manufacturers of musical products. The trade show, assuming it'll be open to the public, should be quite interesting to tour through.

With more than 20,000 attendees and nearly 550 exhibitors, the show has outgrown facilities in Nashville, which has hosted the event for the past 11 years.

Nashville, which decided not to expand its convention center, will host next year's event but will lose the $21.8 million show after that.

Association officials said they like Austin for several reasons: a spacious convention center, Austin's "fun, vibrant downtown" and its "passion and dedication to live music."

"Your city truly values live music and people who play live music, so our values are very similar," association spokesman Scott Robertson said.

The booking is more evidence that Austin's $110 million investment to expand the convention center is paying off.

It's too bad the Austin Convention Center isn't privately owned and independently operated. I'd rather support entrepreneurs trying to make a profit than another branch of the city government using resources that are better left in the hands of the private sector.

The bigger center already has helped attract several major conventions. They include the National Council of La Raza, which brought 5,000 attendees in July and $6.3 million to the local economy, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which is expected to bring 6,000 people and $6.5 million next year. In 2006, the World Congress on Information Technology, a biennial meeting of tech and government leaders, is expected to pump about $20 million into the local economy.

The Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau has bids on 40 to 50 conventions that would bring 5,000 to 6,000 attendees each and generate as much as $250 million for the local economy between 2004 and 2010, said Cynthia Maddox, a spokeswoman for the visitors bureau.

And that's wonderful. But it'd be even better if the tens of millions of dollars (PDF, page 458) the ACC recieves was left in the hands of taxpayers. More than half (51%) of the Austin Convention Center Department's budget comes from the "Bed Tax" (PDF page 474) of nine cents per dollar hotels charge for room occupancy. This sucks more than $26 million out of the economy.

It is a nice convention center, though.

Posted by drizzten at 08:57 AM | Permalink

RIAA sues local students

The RIAA has sued students at Texas State University and The University of Texas for violating copyright laws. Recently, the trade association has filed hundreds of lawsuits against people who share large volumes of MP3 music files. The organization says the music business loses about $300 million a year in record sales because of online file-sharing.

[...]

"I always thought they're never gonna' sue me, they're never gonna' find me, but this time it hits close to home," said Rosie Lozano, a sophomore at UT.

The recording industry's president responded:
"Nobody likes resorting to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said Cary Sherman.

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

I support intellectual property rights because I believe a person's intellectual output is their property as much as their own bodies are. I have read some very interesting anarcho-capitalist criticisms of IP and should say they have shaken my beliefs enough that I need to think about them further. But until such time, I support content creators if they use peaceful and reasonable means to protect their property rights.

These UT and SWT/TSU students should understand that their desire to experience art, the possibility of that art being out of their reach due to cost or scarcity, and the seductive ease of digital copying does not mean they should do what they've done. Even if, in the end, I change my mind about IP, the entitlement mentality this feeds and encourages isn't a good thing.

Posted by drizzten at 11:22 PM | Permalink

Lawmakers look to fix school finance

Education is under the microscope at the Capitol. State lawmakers continue to look for ways to improve the state's much-criticized school finance method. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to stay positive, but the task ahead is daunting.

Gov. Rick Perry is expected to call a special session to address school finance next spring. The idea is to improve Texas schools and reduce property taxes, but how to do that remains a question.

I advocate taking the state out of the education system altogether. Who's with me!

chirp...chirp...chirp

I'd like to pose the question of a completely privatized education system to the Texas legislators and see what the reaction would be. Probably a mix of laughter, red-faced outrage, and dumbfounded silence.

Do we need to come up with a consensus? Do we need to come up with a plan as opposed to just calling a session and then seeing what happens? Yes, I think it's wise and that's why this legislature is working hard and these select committees are working hard," Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, said.

[...]

"Public education is one of those issues that forms uncommon allies. It's one of those issues that causes Republicans and Democrats to break from traditional alliances and find common ground on the issues. This is the most important issue we can be working on," Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, said.

All this talk about trying to find a better way to centrally plan makes me head spin. The talk about "uncommon allies" makes me nauseous because the invalid "legitimacy" that comes from a majority decision is part of the problem. Inevitably, we'll see some plan that'll trumpet a consensus - an agreement - an understanding - as a key reason it's a good plan.

Some Republicans think public education funding should be paid for by increasing the state sales tax, while many Democrats continue to push for an income tax proposal.

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

Hm.

"Screw a majority of people" verses "Screw just about everyone who isn't poor or connected to a neato special interest group."

I'll take neither.

Posted by drizzten at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It sure is great having a girlfriend to spend the weekends with.

I'll divulge the details later since I'm blogging from work, but the relationship has been active for over three weeks and things are moving along nicely. Met her over one of the personals I signed up with.

She's silly. :)

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