Magnifisyncopathological

Hopes are but the dreams of those who wake.

-Pindar

My mom's mother sent me a birthday card and, as she usually does, filled the whitespace with several paragraphs of questions, thoughts, and updates on the Canadian side of my family. In it, she mentioned something sobering. She gave birth to twins, my Aunt Debbie and my Uncle Don, my mother's siblings. They turned 50 this year. Two of my grandmother's granddaughters turned 21 this year (my twin sisters, Katie and Kelley). She has at least one great granddaughter and another great grandsomething on the way. She's in damn good health, she still drives herself around, she's lucid and funny, and she has just as much vitality as I remember her having back when my first memories of her were in 1984 and the birth of my sisters had temporarily stolen the show around my family.

Nana has charged along, despite all the infinite setbacks one might face when surviving more than 80 years on this planet. Knowing this, knowing that there are human success stories out there amongst the death, lies, and aggression...I can weather storms easier knowing this.

Posted by drizzten at 10:56 PM | Permalink

[Updates below]

Reuters: Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.

He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.

The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.

The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.

The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.

The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

The AP via The San Francisco Chronicle: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 23, 2005

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

©2005 Associated Press

Things are getting worse. This is merely the latest legal cover for those doing the crimes.

Government can steal your income through taxation. It can outlaw and regulate any human activity provided it has the possibility of being "interstate commerce." It can take your property away because it wants to give it to others who'll "expand the tax base."

America, a shining cesspool of statist bullshit, wins again.

UPDATED 2:35pm
Other reactions around the Internet:

Julian Sanchez:

Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?

[...]

...we're just seeing a particularly outrageous confirmation of what was already, in effect, the law. As the majority opinion says, quoting an earlier decision, the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Which is to say, they've rejected the notion that "public use" means anything more stringent than: "legislators want to do this."

Had I been Justice, I would have refused to overturn the state law--although I agree it is a taking for private use--because the federal Constitution primarily limits the feds and not the states, because the Fifth Amendment does not limit the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment--neither its Due Process clause nor its Privlieges or Immunities clause--meant to "incorporate" the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights. So the liberal majority got it right in its conclusion, but not its reasoning; and the conservative dissenters were right about the analysis of the Takings Clause itself but failed to recognize that it should not be applied to the states in the first place.

Doug Allen:

Today we find an unfortunate ruling by the Surpeme Court blessing personal property grabs.

This is a dreadful decision. If politicians have the right to take your private property and give it to somebody else just because the other guy claims that he can generate more taxes from it, then property rights have ceased to exist in the US.

Kevin Baker:

Bill Von Winkle now has three choices: Submit, go to jail, or die. His legal options are finished.

And still this isn't the straw that will break the camel's back.

But it ought to be.

Today, I am ashamed of my country, my government, and the legal system (we don’t have a justice system).

This was the worst Supreme Court term for the cause of liberty in a very long time.

It's hard to express how disappointing the last few months have been.

OUR STATIST SUPREME COURT STRIKES AGAIN: They've had quite a run lately.

Eugene Volokh:

Setting aside who's right, I thought the majority and the two dissents were really very well-crafted -- readable and persuasive arguments in favor of the positions they were defending.

Arguing with Signposts:

For this you can thank proto-fascists John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg. They just gave the keys to your home to any developer who can throw enough silly money at local city officials.

Hoyapaul at DailyKos:

As first glace, you may think that giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing. And it very well might be in many cases. However, if the Court had ruled differently and NOT allowed local governments to do this, it would have been a disaster for local governments to build for the community (including when the purpose is to help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.). It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types.

It is a perfect example of what I fear, anyway. And it is now the gold standard of acceptability the next time Wal-Mart decides it could bring in more tax revenue for my town than my silly little home that my kids are growing up in does. The precedent is there, and its as horrific a decision as any Supreme Court has ever handed down.

And people will notice. They will talk. They will be scared.

And it will be very easy to make them scared of liberals and go running back back to Karl and George for shelter, just like every other time they get scared. All we can do is, as loudly as possible, let them know how scared we are as well, and that we're not going to take this illiberal decision lying down either.

I'm sorry but this is corporate welfare at its most egregious. I mean it's one thing to give a corporation tax breaks, subsidies, and flat out giveaways, but to let them come into your community and kick normal Americans out of their homes? This sinks corporate government to a brand new low. It's a policy that's emblematic of the new merger of business and politics, producing a lack of civil liberties that is ironically reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Like the bankruptcy bill, it subordinates the rights of the people to the profit motive of the corporate class. Private property rights are paramount, remember that? Wasn't that a huge reason offered for the Cold War? And yet here we are, with corporations being given the right to dictate where citizens should be removed from their own homes.

The "moderate" wing of the Supreme Court has just perpetrated an act of fascism. And SCALIA of all people has dissented.

For reasons I have discussed previously, I believe this was a good decision.

Just another fine example of the new ownership society that President Bush's led America is all about. Corporate ownership I mean. Hell.. they need your house for that new parking lot. You're hurting America if you don't want to give it up. Traitors!

Supreme Court Says You Lose, Corporate America Wins; local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development. Take my home for a strip mall? Against my will? This is not a wise move.

This is truly an outrageous decision. Governments simply cannot take private property and give it to developers.

UPDATED 8/17/2005 10:40am
There's been some developments and I'm about to be all out of fucking gaskets to blow.

Via Hit & Run, the Fairfield County Weekly's Jonathan O'Connell has this article: A New (London) Low

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.

[...]

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

[...]

In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.

[...]

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo.

Copyright © 1995-2005 New Mass Media. All rights reserved.

McCracken on Eminent Domain

When Property Rights Advocates, Aren't

Posted by drizzten at 11:20 AM | Permalink

I won't be very active on the blog for this week, due primarily to preparations for my birthday on Saturday and the iron-clad demand that I help my girlfriend move in to her new house at the end of the week. There's a timing belt change I need to do with the TDI and I've spied Pogonomyrmex creeping around my house, so there's no shortage of things to do.

I'm also taking the time to see Alex Jones's film MARTIAL LAW: 9-11 and the Rise of the Police State at the Drafthouse South Lamar. It's sold out twice while I've tried to get tickets and this is my chance. Mingling with Central Texas' conspiracy, New World Order crowd on purpose, Drizz? Hey, I'm open to theories that don't conform to conventional wisdom.

Be back later.

UPDATED 1:19pm
In the meantime, be sure to say hi to Erik, now that the (not literal!) bastard has found his typing fingers again.

Posted by drizzten at 08:54 AM | Permalink

News8Austin: Private donations restore Newsline

The Newsline service offers 180 newspapers and magazines for the blind and visually impaired read to them over the phone.
Shaffer was on a trip to Ohio, visiting relatives, when he couldn't get his news of the day.

"We regret to announce that due to the lack of funding, the newspaper portion of this service will not be available in Texas," the message said.

Nope.

[Tommy Craig of the National Federation of the Blind-Texas] said it came down to funding. State lawmakers failed to pass a bill that would secure money from the Universal Service Fund, a fee already tacked on to your phone bill.

"That provides funding for, at this time, four different projects. And, all our bill did was add Newsline as the fifth one. So, it wouldn't have cost anyone any extra money. And, we don't need a lot of money to run Newsline," said Craig.

Some 200 other Central Texans and another 1,300 people across the Lone Star State faced the same issue.

[...]

They need $40,000 to help them start back up again.

Memo to the National Federation of the Blind: Stop relying on taxes to fund your service.

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

The Austin-American Statesman: Perry signs life-without-parole bill into law

In a related development, Perry this morning also signed into law House Bill 93, which changes the wording on death certificates of executed inmates. Instead of "homicide,'' the cause of death will be listed as "judicially ordered execution."

Copyright 2001-2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 01:25 PM | Permalink

Seen on the rear bumper of a smoky old 300-series Mercedes sedan on my way home from work yesterday:

Read through a link on Jay Jardine's blog, the disclaimer from the TERMINATOR: 2029 AD website:

T2029AD, as a website, has lasted for many years now mainly because this website offers something that the other Terminator websites do not: a fresh look at one possible world of the Terminator, a view that is free from compromise. T:HK and by default, T2029AD, is an extrapolation of the original ideas presented by James Cameron, ideas that are taken in a totally creative and wholly new direction. It is a view of the darker side, the less popular side, and displays the true terror of a world where technology has gone wild. This website offers an in-depth examination of the wonderful death dealing technology presented in the two films as well as the two novels and subsequently theorizes what that technology might become, how it might evolve, how it might be used, and what it might look like. T2029AD is therefore a completely original interpretation of the concepts found in the Terminator series, concepts that have been freed from having to follow anything other than the original vision as presented by director James Cameron in 1984.

[...]

T2029AD makes its own history, its own units, and it explains these in a large amount of creative detail that not even the canon material can match for depth, consistency, or logic. T2029AD draws upon canon as well as factual information found in the two movies and the two novels and expands heavily upon that information.

[...]

T2029AD is a website that doesn't have to accept that everything that is officially endorsed has to be canon material or that such material automatically has to be included in the overall vision in order to somehow be correct. T2029AD can pick and choose, accept or reject, tear down or build upon anything it may desire. That is the overall prerogative of this website or to put it simply; the smart stuff that represents the original vision of Cameron gets included, and the ridiculous stuff will be thrown out with no excuses made.

[...]

The poor fan is left with having to make a decision. Either accept everything that has the Terminator logo on it as official and canon, or pick and choose what they like and what they don't like. There is also a third option, which takes its initiative from the old saying of "if you want something done right then you have to do it yourself."

[...]

As for T-850 205 [whom inspired the author to write this Disclaimer], I wish him well on his endeavor to create a canon, factual Terminator fansite and his desire to create perhaps the best canon, factual Terminator site on the Internet. When he brings it on line, if he ever does, then I'm sure that it will probably be a very nice site full of correct, factual information, but the content of the website won't be his information. None of the material found on his proposed site will be of his creation; it will all be someone else's information and hard work and he will merely be the caretaker, or curator if you will, of that online museum.

The distinction is valid and worth noting.

I'm a fan of the Terminator series (haven't seen #3, though) and have a nit-picking mentality when it comes to technology. After reading through Christopher T. Shields' fictionalized account of SKYNET and how it turned on the humans who controlled it, I was impressed. I love thinking about how to fill in the gaps and holes left by the creators of work I admire and Mr. Shields has come up with a credible and arresting version of events.

Best of luck to you both.

Posted by drizzten at 04:20 PM | Permalink

Just ran across this.

H. J. RES. 24

HJ 24 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Way back when I had no idea what I was talking about, I often thought term limits were a Good Thing, useful for keeping those evil career politicians out of power. Nowadays, I realize all it takes is one term to do irreparable damage.

Several of the resolution's sponsors are Democrats, so they can't be doing this out of love for President Bush. I wonder why? In his remarks introducing the measure, Hoyer said:

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office.

The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a

[Page: E303] GPO's PDF

supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.

Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be:

We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said:

I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching.

Posted by drizzten at 03:35 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

...yet they can't quite reach the final conclusion.

Do a text search for "libertarian" and see what pops up. Assuming you take the consequences of ideas seriously, hilarity does not ensue. A few quotes (all emphasis in original):

Sorry Markos, but "abortion" IS the whole ball of wax. It is, for those of you who've read their "Art of War" our "dying ground," it is one of the 'must defends' if we're going to survive. Why? Because far from some cute little women's issue deserving lip service and to be refiled under some more palatable heading, abortion is autonomy. We lose abortion, and we've lost the most basic ownership of our own bodies and lives, no matter what gender you happen to be.

Perhaps no one has ever concretely, and theoretically explained strategically, why abortion, and abortion providers, and women who have abortions must be stood beside and actively supported if you have any intention of living anywhere other than a fascist snitch culture of State-ist and vigilante control.

I can only add that autonomy is arguably the defining value of modern liberalism. You can't get more central than that. It is the value of autonomy that makes liberals anti-authoritarian. It is autonomy that makes them argue for the bottom-up social contract view, and "consent of the governed" as opposed to the old, theocratic "divine right of kings." It is autonomy that makes them argue for the separation of church and state. It is autonomy that makes them argue for limited (as opposed to absolute/absolutist) government, with separation of powers, due process, rights against self-incrimination and the like.

I could go on and on. Autonomy crops up again and again and again in liberal theory and practice. It's also at the core of the welfare state. After a couple of decades of laissez-faire, and the ghastly results chronicled by Dickens, liberals came to see that a good many people would never be able to attain autonomy on their own, and that "free markets," for whatever reasons, only made things worse, rather than better, for many of them. There had to be other mechanisms created to support the development and exercise of autonomy.

A quick note: monsterofNone seems to be attempting to calm the waters of the "Democrats value individual autonomy" nonsense. He surfaces in several places.

I don't think "autonomy" works as a fundamental right. It runs into the same problem as libertarianism does: we're not just individuals but are all in this together.

Your subject says "Autonomy: Ownership of your own LIFE". In the context of what you write, I've got no problem. But what happens when my autonomous decision is to pee in the water upstream of where you get your drinking water?

Autonomy covers both privacy and opportunity, which Kos had as two seperate values. It also covers internationalism, as it is common among liberals that it is more important that nations be given autonomy -- shy of situations like genocide -- than that they behave in manners we approve of (this certainly is a core value of the United Nations!).

Autonomy appeals greatly to privacy enthusiasts, individualists, and entreprenuers alike, not to mention those who support gay marriage and generally the rest of the liberal social agenda. And yet, unlike mere "individualism", it cannot be used as an excuse to be mad about paying taxes. Autonomy goes beyond mere economic freedom, and even addresses the core philosophical value of OBJECTIVITY, which is one of the clearest polar opposites to conservatism; objective liberals, basing their philosophy in the Age of Reason axiom that nobody can have a monopoly on Truth, are often criticized for not putting America's interests first (necessarily). But the thing is, we're going to support what's RIGHT regardless of whether it's good or bad for us personally.

Libertarians love to invoke Locke, but actually reading him is deadly to their belief system. The whole point of the social contract is to secure liberties which are always in danger in the state of nature.

The so-called "right to own guns" actually perpetuates the state of nature, continuing the condition of rights being insecure. The autonomy it provides is utterly illusory...

...if we can show libertarians that they have more in common with us non-conformist, autonomy-obsessed Democrats than they do with those goddamn snake-handler Republicans, we'll have knocked the stool out from under those corrupt bastards and 2006 will be a Blue Year.

But freedom is more than autonomy: taken too far autonomous freedom, untrammeled by any obligations to another, becomes the freedom to let the poor starve, the freedom for men to impregnate women without any financial or emotional support, the freedom to live by the law of the jungle, as long as one has enough money to buy one's own protection. That sort of freedom is slavery itself for the rest of us.

UPDATED 6/7/2006 6:07pm
The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat

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

He bashes the Los Angeles Times with such glee:

Make-up call: On Friday the L.A. Times ran a huge front-page (A-1) photo of an empty freeway--it had been closed for an hour after a shooting incident. Was the paper clumsily trying to make up for its embarrassing and emblematic failure to give any prominence to a far more dramatic and disruptive, nationally-covered freeway chase and four-hour closure two days before? You make the 'make-up call' call! ... P.S.: The photo's caption roped in the earlier incident, noting, "It was the second freeway closure this week. ..." This is classic LAT behavior. Don't report the news when it happens. Any newspaper can do that! But only magisterial, monopoly newspaper can ignore the news when it happens and then provide readers with an analysis of what the trend in the ignored news means a few days or weeks later! Coming soon: A Sunday thumbsucker on "Freeway Closures: What They Say About Southern California's Identity."

He may be a liberal nostalgic for the WPA, but he's got teeth in his commentary and he bites some worthy targets.

Posted by drizzten at 10:46 AM | Permalink

Over at The London Fog, things get worse.

Posted by drizzten at 11:05 PM | Permalink

You won't find me in Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp of supporters. You won't find me in Bill Clinton's camp of supporters. I would have supported the impeachment of President Clinton for entirely different reasons than if he got a blowjob on the job from his wife or from someone else. Good intentions or not, they and the people like them want to use the people in this country as a means to their ends.

However, this is ugly. Ed Klein better have evidence to support the parts of his book that say Clinton raped his wife and by doing that, got her pregnant with the child that eventually became their daughter, Chelsea. This kind of dirt hits me as particularly dirty because Drudge has been hyping The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President and we know his role in Clinton's presidency.

There are reasons I couldn't be a politician, but the public dissection of lives counts as a big one. Hopefully, the allegation is not true. For Chelsea's sake, because that would be excruciating to know and doubly so because everyone else does as well.

Ugh. Politics is filthy.

Posted by drizzten at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you’re okay.
Money, it’s a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I’ll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I’m all right jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it’s a hit.
Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.
I’m in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it’s a crime.
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it’s no surprise that they’re
Giving none away.

-Pink Floyd, "Money"

Guitarist Gilmour says, "Like most people I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the third world.

"Any squabbles Roger and the band have had in the past are so petty in this context, and if reforming for this concert will help focus attention then it's got to be worthwhile."

But the financial demands of the Live 8 organizers and supporters won't be quenched by the leaders at the summit.

What it's about

This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty.

The G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history. They will only have the will to do so if tens of thousands of people show them that enough is enough.

By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children.

LIVE 8 is part of a day of action across the world which kick-starts The Long Walk to Justice that calls on the leaders of the world’s richest countries to act when they meet in Gleneagles on 6th-9th July. On July 2nd in London, Edinburgh, Washington, Berlin, Paris and Rome millions will be coming together to call for complete debt cancellation, more and better aid and trade justice for the world’s poorest people.

Live Aid raised over $100 million. But 20 years on poverty, famine and disease is still a major problem in Africa. The public have shown how important this is to them now it is time to get governments to act.

Every single day, 30,000 children die, needlessly, of extreme poverty.

On July 6th, we finally have the opportunity to stop that shameful statistic.

8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and made the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.

But they'll only do it if enough people tell them to.

That's why we're staging Live 8. 5 concerts, 100 artists, a million spectators, 2 billion viewers, and 1 message... To get those 8 men, in that 1 room, to stop 30,000 children dying every single day of extreme poverty.

The Live 8 website cites the American The ONE Campaign as an affiliated "Global Call to Action Against Poverty" organization to speak with for more local information. TOC says

What is the goal of The ONE Campaign?
The ONE Campaign seeks to give Americans a voice, to ring church bells and cell phones, on campuses and in coffee shops, for an historic pact to fight the global AIDS emergency and end extreme poverty. We believe that allocating an additional ONE percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food, would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation of the poorest countries.

[...]

How does ONE link to international agreements to fight poverty?
ONE links directly to the international effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. 1% more of the US federal budget would help save millions of lives and be a major commitment towards achieving the internationally agreed upon United Nations Millennium Development Goals. If it is delivered, we would achieve 0.35% of national wealth going to Official Development Assistance - half way to the international commitment to achieve 0.7%. Longer term, so long as we can prove the money is working, the goal is for the US to continue to increase effective assistance until it meets the international commitment to give 0.7% of the national wealth. This is an appropriate goals for ten years time, or 2015, the deadline for achieving the Millennium Goals.

What I'm not for, however, is the use of a government's power to tax it's population in order to provide for others. Even if TOC is perfectly cool with reducing spending elsewhere in the federal budget to free up the $25 billion they say they want, I still wouldn't support it. There may be millions of Americans who are OK with being taxed to have some of that wealth redistributed to others. I am not and opting out of the tax system (i.e., just ignoring the IRS) means facing some nasty consequences. A fraction of my income is either taken without my permission or handed over under threat of violence; in these circumstances, I'm pretty pissed at anyone who wants more.

In this case, I'm even more unhappy with the message being fronted by Live 8. I quoted text from their website above. Now, I'll quote a few more sentences.

LIVE 8 is calling for people across the world to unite in one call – in 2005 it is your voice we are after, not your money.

[...]

LIVE 8 is about justice not charity.

[...]

We don't want your money - we want you!

Governments acquire their resources from the people they govern. Without non-governmental production, states wouldn't be anything like what they are now in power and scope. The Live 8 organizers aren't being honest with you. They do want your money; they just consider it to be the state's cash, available to hand over for a worthy purpose. The organizers are attempting to spin this as something we individually won't have to sacrifice for, when it is that very act of voluntary individual donation and effort that would make this more than charity.

I don't consider something justice when unjust means are used to obtain justice. Would any of the organizers or supporters condone stealing from their neighbor (the cranky guy next door who hates taxes) and then giving that money to pay for the economic harm inflicted by American cotton subsidies on poor farmers? Where is the justice in that? I say far from taking the proper steps to compensate legitimate victims, it creates new victims.

When I hear that a band whose music I really enjoy is bringing back the original lineup primarily to bring more attention and pressure on the "leaders" to cough up more of their budgets, I don't react with a compassionate "aww!" I react with a tired sigh, one of many in a long string exhaled each time some human jackals in benevolent clothing want "us" to be more generous.

I might be more generous, if I was allowed to keep more of my own fucking money and didn't have it squandered on the whole spectrum of pointless, counter-productive, and corrupt shit the United States does with our tax money. As it is, I'm raw enough from the automatic generosity conducted in my name and without my consent.

Posted by drizzten at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thought experiment:

Has the Supreme Court, through the 6-3 ruling in Gonzales v Raich subjected itself to Congressional authority?

1. The Supreme Court, by tearing down or upholding legislation, can have and has had a significant, substantial, and material affect on commerce in the United States.
   
2. This affect is felt on commerce that remains within state boundaries and commerce that crosses state boundaries.
   
3. The SCOTUS was established by the Constitution, the primary law of the land.
   
4. Congress and the President can pass whatever law they please and it cannot ultimately be abolished, torn down, dismantled or upheld, affirmed, protected until it reaches the SCOTUS. (I ignore civil disobedience.)
   
5. The SCOTUS just said it stands by the precedent that an act or an object that doesn't economically cross state lines can be ruled as interstate commerce.
   
6. Doesn't this mean SCOTUS rulings can be subject to the power of the Commerce Clause?
   
7. If so, doesn't that mean Congress and the President can pass a law that limits the power of the SCOTUS in certain cases, because that power can interfere with interstate commerce?

For a much lighter take on this joke of jurisprudence, see Fafblog's Fafnir and associated commenters, who manage to skewer this dumbass ruling in so many obvious and amusing ways I get even angrier thinking about it.

When you hold a ball in the air it has POTENTIAL commerce. When you let it go the potential commerce turns into KINETIC commerce, which makes it faaaaalllllll through the air! It is caught by Congress or gravity. Classroom Learning Challenge: Levy a tariff on the ball before it hits the ground!

Posted by drizzten at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The AP via The Japan Times: Ministry touts perks of growing prison system workforce

Need workers? Japan's penal system has the answer: prison labor.

The Justice Ministry began advertising its captive labor supply on its Web site this year in hopes of getting more company work orders as the prison population rises.

The advertisement, started in March, praises the benefits of labor in prison, outlines the types of products available and provides links and phone numbers for companies to call.

"Making prisoners have a regular work life helps them maintain their mental and physical health, nurture a labor spirit, and promote a disciplined lifestyle," the Web page says.

Eight-hour workdays are part of nearly all prisoners' sentences in Japan, and the country's largest prisons can have dozens of factories making shoes, wooden toys and other goods. But job orders are declining because of the weak economy and outsourcing of production abroad.

Between 1998 and 2004, orders dropped 40 percent to 7.2 billion yen. But the number of inmates sentenced to prison time plus labor has surged 50 percent over the same period, to 61,000 in 2004.

Shotaro Watanabe, an official at the ministry's Corrections Bureau, said prison factories were also having trouble because the inmate population is aging and workers are not as productive as they used to be.

(C) All rights reserved

Even if you subscribe to the idea put forth by some libertarians that supervised/forced labor under a system of private law(s) is not necessarily a bad thing, the labor mentioned above is not done under mutually arbitrated terms to provide restitution to the victims the incarcerated may or may not have harmed. Without that crucial feature, it is merely a form of economic slavery.

Posted by drizzten at 08:28 AM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Don't believe me? Read a sampling of the Establishment Press's own words.

The editorial board of The New York Times: The Court and Marijuana

We read the Supreme Court's decision on the medicinal use of marijuana with mixed emotions. We certainly wish that the Justice Department could be weaned from the gross misuse of the federal Controlled Substances Act that led to its campaign against the use of marijuana by terminally ill people in the 11 states where it is legal for doctors to prescribe it. But we take very seriously the court's concern about protecting the Commerce Clause, the vital constitutional principle that has allowed the federal government to thwart evils like child labor and segregation.

The dissenters in the 6-to-3 decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opened the door for conservatives who want to sharply reduce Congress's use of its power to regulate and protect interstate commerce. These conservatives want to turn the clock back to before the New Deal, when workers were exploited, factories polluted at will and the elderly faced insecure retirements.

[...]

We hope good sense prevails. And we hope that Justice Antonin Scalia, who seems to be campaigning for chief justice, remembers that he concurred with the majority this week the next time the court hears a federal-powers case on, say, air pollution.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow state laws to protect medical marijuana users from federal prosecution seemed to be tied up in a somewhat arcane debate over the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

But was it really? Hold the court's support of Congress' power to impose drug laws up against the same court's rejection of Congress' power to impose laws through the Gun-Free School Zones Act and Violence Against Women Act. The court majority views the local use of a locally grown herb as of more interstate interest than guns in schools or domestic violence.

©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

THE SUPREME COURT'S decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.

The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment. Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools. That made sense; without some outer bound of the commerce power, Congress would have authority over anything. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century.

The plaintiffs in Raich, patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled?

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. The result is a six-justice majority that stands strongly against a revolutionary approach to commerce clause jurisprudence. While questions remain, the importance of this cross-ideological statement is enormous -- even if it means the Justice Department can continue harassing sick people.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

This week, in the most important federalism decision of the year, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to ban the local cultivation and use of medical marijuana. Although the federal policy at issue may be open to question--we think Congress should reconsider its ban on the attempt by California and ten other states to allow medical marijuana in limited circumstances--the Supreme Court's deference to Congress's broad power to regulate the economy is an occasion to celebrate. Had the Court ruled otherwise, as a group of libertarian judicial activists urged, it would have encouraged a radical assault on Congress's power to regulate a host of issues, including crime and workplace safety. But the news was not all good: An unusual coalition of three justices--Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas--dissented from the ruling, suggesting that anti-regulatory forces on the Court remain strong.

The 6-3 majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich by Justice John Paul Stevens was an uncontroversial application of Supreme Court decisions that have been settled since the New Deal. In 1942, the Court upheld Congress's power to regulate wheat grown for personal consumption, on the theory that locally consumed wheat might reduce demand for wheat that crossed state lines. By the same logic, Stevens held for the majority, Congress could prohibit the use of marijuana grown for personal medical use, since it, too, might have a substantial effect on the national market for recreational pot.

In a welcome development, the majority included Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, two leaders of the so-called federalism revolution on the Rehnquist Court. In other cases, which this magazine has criticized, Scalia and Kennedy have voted to strike down congressional regulation of guns in schools and violence against women.

Unfortunately, three other champions of states' rights--O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas--endorsed a reckless judicial activism. In her dissenting opinion, O'Connor's contempt for Congress converged with her devotion to states' rights...

[...]

In his dissent, Thomas said that courts should take it upon themselves to decide whether congressional regulations are "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to executing powers explicitly listed in Constitution. Thomas's logic would uproot more than a century of Supreme Court cases, including the 1942 wheat case, and could paralyze the government's effort to enforce myriad regulations, including environmental and labor laws. As Stevens pointed out, Thomas's reasoning would also call into question Congress's power to regulate the possession and use of pot for recreational purposes, an activity that all states now prohibit.

Happily, the Constitution in Exile movement has had a rocky few weeks before the Supreme Court. On May 23, in Lingle v. Chevron, O'Connor, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected the libertarian claim that a Hawaii commercial rent-control law violated the Fifth Amendment's protections for private property. But the fact that O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas remain committed to aggressive judicial oversight of Congress's power to regulate the economy suggests that conservative judicial activism is not defeated; it still has powerful allies. Which is why the views of Supreme Court nominees about the Constitution in Exile should be a central question in the confirmation battles to come.

Copyright 2005, The New Republic

Before you get indignant at the Supreme Court, however, think about how you might have reacted in the reverse situation. Suppose Congress did as we asked and enacted a federal law allowing compassionate use of marijuana. And suppose that California continued to arrest doctors and patients under its own drug laws, which had no such exception. Would you have said: "Well, that's federalism for you?" Or would you have found the arguments of the majority in this case, Gonzales vs. Raich, strangely compelling?

The commerce clause authorizes the federal government to regulate trade within the U.S. and abroad. For decades, during and after the New Deal, this clause became the all-purpose authority for anything the federal government wanted to do, or to prevent individual states from doing. Sometimes this was a stretch. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, for instance, was justified constitutionally by the need to regulate interstate commerce.

Federalism and the commerce clause bring out the hypocrite in all of us. If you're against some government policy, you tend to believe that the problem would be better handled at the state level. If you're for it, you believe that it is one of the nation's core functions and must be addressed nationally. There are enough contradictory Supreme Court declarations to allow either case to be made.

In the tired arguments of the last century about the courts and the Constitution, it has usually been liberals with ambitious national agendas favoring a strong commerce clause that clears away the underbrush of state laws in their path. Meanwhile, conservatives have defended the sanctity of "states' rights." When the issue is the medical use of marijuana, the siren song of states' rights tempts liberals and libertarians, while more mainstream conservatives are happy — on this occasion — to see the jackboots of Washington come stomping on the prerogatives of Sacramento. Thus Gonzales vs. Raich is an excellent litmus test of intellectual integrity.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas pass the test. They dissented from Monday's ruling on the grounds that the federal government has no right to force its drug policy on the state of California. We want to pass the test too. Given how many policies this page has happily urged the federal government to impose on … well, Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, if not California, that clearly means supporting the court's decision.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

But, there it is, people. As clear as any mainstream American statist could have put it. Without the Commerce Clause (or the insane degree to which it has been stretched to fit the statists' goals), the "modern regulatory state" would have no Constitutional justification. A significant amount of the federal intervention in our lives would probably not exist and whatever did would not be nearly as aggressive and extensive as it is now.

This is one of those scenarios where I almost wish I was a vocal activist who campaigned and tried to influence agents of the state to change it's policy and laws and interpretations. Had Raich gone the other way, it would have delivered a very important and necessary blow to the federal government's powers. Of course, I'm not one of those people because I think reform, in the long run, is nearly impossible and a certain drain on our short-term interests.

I feel roughly the same for the upcoming Kelo vs. New London case regarding eminent domain. Hope, because I want the state to get a solid kick in the nuts. Resignation, because I'm convinced it won't do much because the state always finds a way to expand.

On the other hand, if I were a true limited government activist, these losses would hurt even more. It must be infuriating to Constitutionalists and the like to see the offspring of their beloved Founding Fathers do such blatantly wrong things. I wonder if they understand that it is the very nature of such an entity and the people that populate it to laugh in the face of voluntary restraint.

NYT link from Radley Balko.

UPDATED 6/10/2005 3:15pm
The Supreme Court Rules Itself Subject to Congress

Posted by drizzten at 04:58 PM | Permalink

Forbes: How To Duck Cell Phone Taxes

Cell phones have not been proven to cause cancer, so why exactly are they taxed like they do?

Steve Largent, head of the main cell phone lobbying group, recently complained to Congress that the average 16.8% in combined federal, state and local taxes his customers pay has traditionally been levied on products like cigarettes. Americans pay an average of just 6.9% for typical non-carcinogenic goods and services.

Exorbitant cell phone taxes may seem like one of life's annoyances you just can't do anything about. In fact, as I recently discovered, you can.

So far, cities and towns have gotten away with treating the country's 182 million cell phone subscribers as easy marks. Cell phones taxes increased nine times faster than taxes on other goods and services between January 2003 and April 2004, according to one industry study. In a particularly egregious case, Baltimore just hit its residents with a new $3.50 per month tax.

But ever-higher cell phone taxes are likely to have another effect: More people will go to the effort of dodging them.

That's what I did. A year after moving to Los Angeles from New York, I was reading my Verizon Wireless bill and noticed I was still paying New York taxes. New York, as it happens, has the highest state and local taxes in the country: 16.2% (if you add federal charges, it's 22.2%). I estimated I was giving my former city and state about $75 per year they didn't deserve.

He's got some info that could be useful. I'll let you read it to find out. He does have a few questions, though.

I also felt a bit guilty. I had established that is was practical to dodge high cell phone taxes. But was it legal? And was it ethical?

© 2005 Forbes.com Inc.™ All Rights Reserved

Second answer: Yes. Anyone who says you have a moral duty to pay taxes is an apologist for government theft. You don't have an obligation to pay taxes any more than you have an obligation to pay a burglar to leave your home theater system alone when he arrives to take the jewelry. It is your money and you are right to want to keep that scarce resource under your control and in your hands as you see fit.

Link via Sploid.

Posted by drizzten at 10:48 AM | Permalink

"The current chaotic state of affairs where small to medium scale enterprises operated outside the regulatory framework and in undesignated and crime-ridden areas could not be countenanced much longer," he said.

• New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
• Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany
• SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson
• President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
• Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley
• Executive President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe

What I find most interesting about the statement is its broad applicability. It really could come from any government agent. It certainly would not be stretch of imagination to picture a state representative from France, Russia, or Egypt saying it. In the United States, there are countless state agents who, if they said that, it would go without comment because that's the reputation they've earned. However, this statement's context (as you'll eventually see) is more immediate, violent, and worrisome than your typical appointee complaining about a few sole proprietorships ignoring the minutiae of OHSA, IRS, or ADA requirements.

Should a modern society begin to break down, I'd expect nearly every bureaucrat to sing the same song. Should there be a strike along the lines of Atlas Shrugged where individuals increasingly refuse to submit themselves to government rule and micromanagement, I'd expect to hear comments along the same lines.

The person who said that was Robert Mugabe. Apparently, there are quite a few people in Zimbabwe who aren't following his orders.

Posted by drizzten at 10:18 AM | Permalink

On the evening of May 26, 2005, I drove the car my parents bought me to the streets behind the Wendy's sandwiched between Sixth and 7th Streets on the northbound side of IH-35. I was headed downtown for a live music show and, not wanting to pay $5 to park under the interstate, I turned left off 7th St. to look for an empty spot along the curb. There were openings on the right side, but I wanted to park and get moving, not spend a minute parallel parking into the available spaces. The left side faced into oncoming traffic on this two-way street and had more space to use. I took advantage of it. There were no "no parking" signs in the area I picked.

Without hitting, hurting, molesting, destroying, or in any way negatively impacting a single human or any individual's property, I drove straight over to the open space along the left hand curb and parked my car on the south-facing side of Brushy Street.

I came back later that night and found a Parking Violation Notice under a windshield wiper. My evening's happy momentum ended and I stared at the paper for a minute before touching it. Officer Watkins had issued me Notice #2355727 at 9:35pm. I was in violation of something: Left Wheel to Curb (00422). I was given until June 8th "to contest this citation before a Hearing Officer." Written elsewhere on the ticket:

To Vehicle Owner or Driver: Failure to pay fine or appear at the Municipal Court on or before the scheduled civil hearing date is an admission of liability of the parking violation charge and will result in fines and costs an [sic] may result n [sic] this vehicle being booted/towed.

By sitting on my ass these last two weeks, I am doing the same thing I would have done if I took the time out of my workday to drive downtown and tell some city agent I was "guilty," "liable," or whatever. Does that make sense? It's like some asshole bureaucrat, after gorging himself on social contract theory, thought up the perfect way to fine citizens for breaking those important for-the-orderly-operation-of-society laws that are broken hundreds of times a day, every day.

(BureauBot): "If the people just ignore us, we need some way to ensure compliance, short of sending a cop to every offender's house. Heh. Shit, well obviously, if they avoid showing up to face justice, they're freaking guilty. I'd show up in court if I was charged with something, because that's how these things ought to be decided."

(BureauBot 2): "If you think about it, the decision has already been made."

(BureauBot): "How's that?"

(BureauBot 2): Well, they've chosen to stay here within the jurisdiction of the law. That means they've accepted it's power, legitimacy, and employment. If they didn't, they'd leave. Therefore, they've long since decided to subject themselves to the laws of this government. If they refuse to show up, they're not only guilty of their crime, but they're also evading the law."

(BureauBot): "Quick! Let's set the fines!"

The City of Austin wants me to pay $20 for my transgression, the "Early Fine." If I wait past the Scheduled Civil Hearing Date, the "Standard Fine" of $40 applies. Also in this $20/$40 category are:

• Over 18" From Curb (00423)
  
• Loading Zone (00424)
  
• Within 20" of Crosswalk (00429)
  
• On Sidewalk Area (41233)
  
• No Parking Area (0433)
  
• Blocking Crosswalk (00435)
  
• Blocking Alley (00437)
  
• Blocking Driveway (00438)
  
• Extend Time Beyond Legal Limit (00436)
  
• Parking Within an Intersection (00415)
  
• Comm. Service Zone - No Markings (41240)
  
• Comm. Service Zone - Over 30 Minutes (41241)
  
• Parked Facing Traffic (41213)
  
• Over Stall Line or Yellow "x" (41212)
  
• Parking in a Front or Side Yard (41234)
  
• Other (00439)

Anyway, today is technically the deadline for my early fine payment. The citation does not mention what happens if you simply act like the notice never crossed your eyes. I assume that given their eagerness to jump to conclusions about people who don't do what they want, they'll probably multiply the fines over time. At some point, months later, I assume a warrant will be issued for my arrest for gross avoidance of parking fines. I doubt Austin police drive around and call in license plate numbers as they see them, hunting for "bad guys." I'm pretty certain plate checks happen mostly when the cop is pulling you over for some moving violation. I do know warrants get mailed to your last known address, and my driver's license points to my house. This is almost what happened to a good friend of mine. He was able to take care of the warrant (for expired registration/inspection) before getting arrested, but he got the warrant notice in the mail, castrating his automotive utility until he pacified the administrators.

Here is what I think is the relevant portion of the city's law:

§ 12-5-60 FAILURE TO ANSWER A PARKING CITATION OR APPEAR AT A HEARING.

1. (A) If a vehicle owner or operator answers a parking violation charge on or before the 20th calendar day after the date of issuance of the parking citation or appears at the scheduled hearing, a reduced fine shall be assessed in accordance with Section 12-5-89 (Civil Fines, Costs, and Fees).
   
2. (B) A person charged with a parking violation is liable for the parking violation and the civil fines, costs, and fees assessed by the hearing officer if the person:
   
   1. (1) fails to answer the charge on or before the 20th calendar day after the date the parking citation is issued; or
      
   2. (2) fails to attend a scheduled hearing, including a hearing on appeal, when the person is required to appear.

Source: 1992 Code Section 16-5-79; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11.

§ 12-5-61 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.

1. If a person is liable for parking violations and has not paid when due the fines, costs, and fees assessed for the violations, the fines, costs, and fees assessed for the violations may be enforced by:
2. (1) impounding the vehicle that is the subject of the order if the person charged has accumulated three or more unpaid parking violations in a calendar year;
3. (2) placing a device that prohibits movement of a motor vehicle on the vehicle that is subject to the order filed if the person charged has accumulated three or more unpaid parking violations;
4. (3) imposing an additional fine to the civil fine not paid within the designated period; or
5. (4) refusing the registration of a vehicle that is the subject of the unpaid violations as provided by Section 502.185 (Refusal to Register Vehicle in Certain Counties) of the Texas Transportation Code.

Source: 1992 Code Section 16-5-80; Ord. 031204-13; Ord. 031211-11.

So, assuming I just ignored these people and went on with my life, I could expect my next encounter with the cops to be unpleasant. I could just write the check and hand it over. It would be a de facto ransoming of my future liberty for a portion of my current wealth, a payment made in order to keep them from immobilizing the Golf.

Of course, they see it much differently than I do. I've committed a crime against the city, not against anyone in particular. I owe the city compensation for my act and should accept it as a punishment for wrongdoing. Without this regulation, there would be idiots parking on the wrong side of roads all over the city. That simply cannot be allowed. People might get into accidents, get hurt.

Never mind that I, myself, personally, have inflicted harm on no one by parking with my left tire to the curb. I have done no actual, demonstrable harm. I might have temporarily confused a few drivers as they cruised by, wondering why the white VW Golf was pointed in a direction opposite of the other cars on that side of the road. One might have even crashed, he was so distracted with my abnormality. However, wouldn't that be his fault? Prosecuting those who talk on cell phones while driving is a political reality and it sends the opposite message to the public: individuals are directly responsible for their actions. Of course, this is true, but by punishing anyone talking on a phone, you impose costs both material and illiberal on those who have done nothing to deserve it.

It may seem contradictory or strange to some of you that I wouldn't be so unhappy about this state of things if a private individual owned that part of the road and made it known to people who park there that if they don't have permission, they should expect to get a bill in the mail. That, I could respect because there is a direct connection between me using another's property without the owner's permission. I don't think governments are legitimate property owners, so that removes any remaining justification along the lines of collective ownership and administration. But the $20/$40/+ for my situation? It goes into the revenue of the City. it doesn't compensate anyone for harm inflicted. It doesn't provide restitution for a rights violation. It doesn't serve as effective retribution for an immoral or intentionally harmful act. And beyond a person's ability to pay and present him- or herself, the kind of annoyance I feel right now, and the prospect of an extended run-in with the cops, any punishment I experience will be quite marginal and won't serve to "teach me a lesson."

This involves no justice, only revenue generation, a slap to the faces of people who have better things to worry about than the alignment of their cars when parked.

I already know what I'm going to do in response to this. I'm curious what you, reader, would do in this situation.

1. Pay the fine and continue on in life?
2. Contest the fine, paying it if you lose?
3. Ignore the fine and continue on in life?
4. Write a polite note explaining your refusal to comply and mail it back in the provided envelope?
5. The same as #4, but without the politeness?

Posted by drizzten at 02:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

When questioned about the cost of a seriously libertarian President in power that actually gets serious libertarian proposals enacted:

I'd say at the cost of dozens of thousands of parasitic government jobs and laws that directly infringe upon our liberty; at the cost of an epochal earthquake in the Establishment and how it does business; at the cost of many, many individuals who have relied on the stolen wealth of others to live; at the cost of state institutions that have systematically ruined generations of Americans and incentivized laziness, mediocrity, and dependence; at the cost of untold thousands of innocent foreign lives and countless billions of dollars in war; etc. These are "costs" only to those who have fed off the system.

Posted by drizzten at 01:58 PM | Permalink

Dallas Observer: Rent a Cop...Or else

The message from Dallas City Hall is that it can't really fight crime. The message is that you need to do it yourself. Or else. And, man, does that message ever come across.

From my "extremist" political perspective, this is not surprising at all, a logical consequence of imposing a government in order to secure social order and a logical consequence of using the state to fix the problems the state itself creates by it's existence. Normal human motives are utterly corrupted and are inadvertently turned against us, leading to absurdities like a city government suing you because you didn't try hard enough to stop crime on your property and then subtly suggesting you hire off-duty cops to reduce your crime liability.

So give it a read and reconsider the point of a monopolized, centralized police force under the control of politicians, a class of human no sane moral would trust to baby sit their children, let alone a city of millions.

Link via Billy Beck.

Posted by drizzten at 01:24 PM | Permalink

From his seperate dissent (PDF):

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Posted by drizzten at 03:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I'll be in Dallas from this afternoon until late Sunday night to visit some friends and walk around the exhibition booths of this year's A-Kon anime convention at the Adam's Mark Hotel.

Posted by drizzten at 08:50 AM | Permalink

The AP via CNN: Pennsylvania school privatization effort collapses

Pennsylvania's first major experiment in school privatization is coming to an ugly end in this poverty-stricken city of abandoned buildings, vacant lots and closed-down shipyards on the outskirts of Philadelphia.

Edison Schools, a for-profit company hired four years ago to run eight of the city's nine schools, is pulling out in June, partly because it has not gotten paid about $4 million in fees.

[...]

Edison at the mercy of local officials when it came to control over the district's finances and getting the information it needed to do its job.

[...]

Edison also found itself in a perpetual three-way power struggle with the board and the central administration. The contract did not allow Edison to hire or fire teachers. The company also did not control the district's finances and had limited ability to shift resources to places that needed them. It was not involved in generating the faulty information that hid the system's budget deficit.

Edison's Tucker said the company struggled just to get accurate information from the district on student enrollment.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 04:04 PM | Permalink

For Lisa, at the London Fog:

Number of Books I Own: This is the first time I've sat down to count them. As best as I can determine, I have 142 books, the vast majority being paperback.

Last Book I Purchased: I don't tend to buy singly. The last batch I bought consisted of

• The Bold and Magnificent Dream: America's Founding Years, 1492-1815, by Bruce Catton and William B. Catton (1978, hardback)
  
• The Complete Sherlock Holmes, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, preface by Christopher Morley (1992, hardback)
  
• a collection of quotations crammed into a tiny book that I think was published by Merriam-Webster sometime around 1995-1996. I can't find it now.

Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me: Oh, gawd.

1. Just about any Calvin and Hobbes publication by Bill Watterson.
   I grew up reading his cartoon and have remained a fan ever since. I would have a very different personality if I wasn't exposed to Calvin's cynicism and Hobbes' optimism. Something worth noting: In October of this year, a massive 1440-page Compete set will be available for $95. I've got six of the compilations, but this is already making me salivate.
   
2. The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy.
   I cannot emphasize how much of an impact Clancy's writing and stories had. It was around 1990 and I was living in Fort Shafter, Hawaii. At the time, my dad had his books shelved in the living room and I remember the well-worn spine of the paperback standing out among the others. I was only 10, but I picked it up out of boredom one day and started reading. A few hundred pages later, I was hooked on the "techno-thriller" genre and over the years read the Jack Ryan plot arc steadily until the mid-1990's, when my interest fell off. My appetite for technical detail and my attention to the small things that make a large impact later stems almost entirely from this book. And yes, I liked the movie.
   
3. The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand.
   This was the first written work of hers that I read from beginning to end. I've got the mammoth 35th anniversary hardback edition of Atlas Shrugged, but even though that novel covered greater philosophical acreage in more detail, I prefer the prose of the earlier book. I by no means was well-read politically or philosophically when I started The Fountainhead (I was 22), but the head-on contrarianism that infused the writing woke me up. I was already teetering on the edge of open libertarianism and this helped complete the transformation. Howard Roark remains an inspiration to this day.
   
4. The Dark Elf Trilogy, by R. A. Salvatore.
   It isn't hard to find someone who'll sling mud in the direction of Dungeons & Dragons and the novels the game spawned. I think the Drizzt Do'Urden books stand as a sharp rebuke to those folks. I have taken a modified form of Drizzt's name as my standard Internet identity for many years. I still have not finished the full story arc that he's involved with, but the essential Drizzt remains with me. Quiet, but fierce when provoked, always holding himself to a higher standard, an outsider who has trouble engaging with others, someone who is keenly aware of the dangers others can present; the ideals espoused in this character and the hideous ideologies he combats are concepts I keep in mind every day.
   
5. Yahoo! Unplugged: Your Discovery Guide to the Web by David Filo and Jerry Yang.
   Folks, this 516 page monster was published in 1995 and includes a CD-ROM containing version 1.01 of Quaterdeck Mosaic, the README.txt of which states, "now includes support for additional HTML extensions, including Backgrounds, font color and borders." There was no Google. Most people used 14.4k modems to get online. The concept of "chatroom" was just beginning to take form. When I got this book for my 15th birthday, Microsoft hadn't even released it's first version of Internet Explorer to the public. This book attempted to provide a comprehensive catalogue of the better websites in the Yahoo! directory (at the time said to number more than 100,000). It fueled my fascination with computers and technology and helped me get a head start online.

Tag Five More People:
I already know what Billy Beck might say. Jim Henley qualified himself. Kevin Carson has done his share. Jesse Walker Reasoned in. Jay Jardine posted from the Great White North. Mapmaster at The London Fog tossed in a post in addtition to Lisa's. So...

1. John T. Kennedy
   
2. Jonathan Wilde
   
3. jomama
   
4. Roderick T. Long
   
5. Gil Milbauer

Posted by drizzten at 09:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

My girlfriend took me to the B.B. King show at The Backyard last Sunday as an early birthday present.

What an excellent show!

The venue is located at somewhat of a scenic hilltop. There is no roof - it's an amphitheater - and the backdrop is the surrounding countryside, giving the stage some serious depth. I've never been there before, so it was a pleasant change from the Sixth Street club scene to get out in the open like that. Even better was the weather...and it is because of the massive thunderstorm!

King got at least an hour into his set and the entire time he, his band, and the scaffolding were illuminated and framed by very busy thunderheads blasting out lightning 180º from the audience's perspective. The wind would pick up and ruffle hair while thunder would rumble beneath the blues. Throughout the opening act, it looked like the clouds would pass us by on the east, providing the crowd with a very pleasant solar display. However, the rain did eventually begin to patter down and King refused to stop playing. In fact, it had long been raining hard enough for the drummer's cymbals to energetically thrust accumulated rain outwards in a fine mist when struck, when roadies began packing things up and King's "handlers" approached him with the request to shut it down.

This was about ten minutes after he said, "I'll be here as long as you're here" and got a very enthusiastic response from the soaked crowd. I'd say about 50% of the audience stayed until the end, clapping and hooting all the way through. He remained buoyant and wry the entire time, joking about his age and weight and telling stories.

His band performed (to my ears) flawlessly and I had no idea he used so much brass accompaniment. He only got an hour and he didn't play his guitar as much I had hoped, but it was enough to convince me it's time to buy his recorded work.

Posted by drizzten at 02:57 PM | Permalink

The next time I hear someone talk about NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, and all the other "FTA" possibilities out there, I'd like to present them with the following questions:

1. Would I be allowed to move anywhere within the agreement's boundaries to find employment without any hindrance from any of the various governments?
   
2. Would I be allowed to open a marijuana growing, curing, and packaging facility in one country in order to distribute, advertise, and sell my catalogue of pot products to anyone for any purpose within those other countries party to the agreement?
   
3. Would I be allowed to place a phone call from one country to someone else in another and have zero taxes, tariffs, and other government fees imposed on anyone in the chain of connection?
   
4. Would I be allowed to import any livestock and any plant across national borders without dealing with taxes, licensing, registration, quarantine, or other state intervention?
   
5. Would I be allowed to buy a motorized vehicle from any producer in one of the signed countries and have it imported to my country for my use without running afoul of anystate-mandated environmental, safety, or performance standards?
   
6. To be perfectly clear: would the various governments engaged in this agreement remove all barriers thrown up in the inter-trade-area and get 100% the hell out of my way and let me conduct any peaceful economic exchange I wanted? In short, is this an actual "free trade" area or just a weakening of state controls?

I suppose questioning their commitment to reality is something they'd frown upon.

Posted by drizzten at 01:39 PM | Permalink