Magnifisyncopathological

Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase

Last year, the Travis County property tax rate was $0.4872. That rate raised $230,596,831, a portion of which was used to fund operations such as law enforcement officers, jails, emergency medical services, criminal and civil courts, felony and misdemeanor prosecutors, roads, parks, and social services. This year, Travis County is proposing a property tax rate of $0.4864. That rate would raise $240,357,442, which is $9,760,611 more than the taxes imposed last year. There will be two public hearings to consider that increase. The first public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 13 at 9:00 AM in the Commissioners Courtroom on the first floor in the Ned Granger Building at 314 West 11th Street, Austin, Texas. The second hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20 at 9:00 AM on the first floor in the Ned Granger Building at 314 West 11th Street, Austin, Texas. You have a right to attend the hearings and make comments. You are encouraged to attend and make comments if you wish.

Last Modified:
Monday, August 29, 2005 12:27 PM

...$0.4872 last year...

...$0.4864 this year...

...you can certainly "increase" $0.4872 to $0.4864 by adding -$0.0008 to it...

Granted, if the appraised value of the taxed property has increased, the county will certainly scare more in taxes out of the owner than last year. In that sense, yeah, it's a tax increase. But it isn't what is usually implied by the term.

Typo?

Posted by drizzten at 03:17 PM | Permalink

Given all the coverage of the hurricane, it was guaranteed some idiot would say the following (page 2):

But economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.

"Longer term, in the wake of a number of hurricanes there is actually an increase in measured output that even shows up at the national level, because there is a whole bunch of rebuilding activity," said Stephen P.A. Brown, director of energy economics at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Copyright © 2005 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved

This, I tell ya, is total bullshit. More than a hundred years ago, a Frenchman named Frédéric Bastiat kicked the legs out from it.

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the [broken window], and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

[...]

Now let us consider [the shopkeeper] himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Destruction always results in a net loss to the owner of the property destroyed, in other words. But what about the alleged trickle-down effects of that window repair to the rest of the economy?

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

That idiot Stephen P.A. Brown should be ashamed of himself. Not only is he ignoring a vital principle of economics (and he works for the fucking Federal Reserve!!), but he's also callously setting aside what the people affected by this are thinking now and will see when they return home: the destruction of things irreplaceable, the damage of things too expensive to fix, and the cumulative loss of property to the point of driving them away from the area permanently. All of those items are economic losses that cannot be addressed by Home Depot and Wal-mart enjoying a spurt of duct tape and hammer sales.

Morons were making the exact same dipshit arguments when 9/11 happened. (see: that fabled New York Times Op-Ed writer, Paul Krugman) Morons make the same arugments everytime a disaster occurs. Don't get taken in by them.

Link via the Mises Blog.

Posted by drizzten at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Austin-American Statesman: It's last call for smokers

At 12:01 a.m. Thursday, city's ban will embrace almost all establishments.

Across Austin this week - and just outside it - restaurants and bars, bowling alleys and pool halls are bracing for the impact of the smoking ban that voters narrowly approved in May. Ashtrays will go the way of spittoons. Nonprofits are bolstering their quit-smoking resources. And a handful of area joints that are exempt from the ban are opening their doors a little wider to draw in smokers.

Full text here, but the Amlegal.com website never consistently works, so either be patient if you want to read the details of this particular invasion of freedom or download the ordinance text here. The Health and Human Services Department has two PDFs to read: a FAQ and the results of a Q&A community meeting. The bloody details are in there.

Everything I've written relating to the Austin smoking bans, in reverse order:

1. Yeah, We'll Just All Talk It Over
   
2. The Additional Tyranny - The New Austin Smoking Ban Passes
   
3. Austin Smoking Ban Hits the News
   
4. "This is beginning to feel like persecution."
   
5. Fight the Austin Smoking Ban
   
6. Austin Smoking Ban in Effect Today
   
7. The People vs. The Tobacco Industry
   
8. Austin's Smoking Ban, Revisited
   
9. Austin Smoking Ban Update
   
10. Why Society Must Change First III
    
11. Individual Rights & Collective Rights: Smoking
    
12. Austin Smoking Ban Passes
    
13. Austin Smoking Ban Considered Today
    
14. Austin Smoking Ban Finale
    
15. Austin Smoking Ban Passes, Kinda
    
16. Chirac to Smoking Frogs: No More!
    
17. Austin Considers a Smoking Ban

These are your values, people. It's your duty to rank and weigh them against each other.

Each time I walk into Beerland, I acknowledge and understand I'm entering an enclosed environment with lots of smokers inside. But because I value the entertainment and culture inside more than the short-term exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, I choose to endure the drawbacks. This process is absolutely no different from:

• picking a route to drive to work (distance vs speed vs traffic vs food on the way vs etc.)
  
• choosing a car (fuel efficiency vs looks vs cost vs fun vs etc.)
  
• deciding on your investments (short-term gains vs long-term stability vs liquidity vs tax advantages vs etc.)

And if you're allergic to smoke, you might want to avoid City Hall. Some opponents of the ban - especially some bar owners who fret that the onus is on them, not smokers, to keep up a smoke-free atmosphere - are planning to light up on the steps and leave Mayor Will Wynn or City Manager Toby Futrell - "the proprietors" - facing a smoking complaint.

"We're not going to be patrolling the streets," [David Lurie, director of the Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department] said. The process will be "complaint-driven" by calls to the environmental and consumer health services line, 972-5600. He said people should not call 911 to report smoking violations.

"As we get complaints we'll be reviewing those," Lurie said. "If we have patterns of noncompliance, we'll take further action."

He said establishments and proprietors are more likely to be the subject of enforcement action than individual smokers.

Most studies point out little, if any, negative impact to business from smoking bans.

Focusing on their right to use their property as they see fit would have been the better choice. Explain that it is wrong to initiate force or to threaten it against those who have not aggressed against another. Point out the guiding philosophy of the ordinance: the government decides in which aspects you own yourself and you own your property.

About the only places left for smokers are bingo halls and fraternal organizations, which were left off the ballot, and a handful of restaurants whose permits were grandfathered in because of their special filtration systems.

The business with the grandfathered exemptions are:

• IHOP No. 1421, 707 E. Cesar Chavez St.
  
• Trudy's, 8820 Burnet Road
  
• Trudy's, 4141 Capital of Texas Highway (Loop 360)
  
• Bennigan's, 13995 U.S. 183 North
  
• Cool River, 4001 West Parmer Lane
  
• Hooters, 13701 U.S. 183 North
  
• Shoal Creek Saloon, 909 N. Lamar Blvd.
  
• Iron Cactus, 10001 Stonelake Blvd.

On Thursday, the mayor declared September to be Support Austin's Nightlife Month.

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

Motherfucker.

Posted by drizzten at 01:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

WorldNetDaily: A national emergency

Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska. His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees - health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons - onto taxpayers.

...businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees - health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons - onto taxpayers...

First, he might be saying these "social costs" shouldn't be paid by Americans when the costs are incurred by illegal immigrants. It's quite fitting with Mr. Buchanan's general nationalist stance to take this position. However, break it down to the fundamentals: why should Americans (determined by place of birth or process of naturalization) have a aggressive right to the products of my labor (taxation) but not Mexicans, Brazilians, or Hondurans? Other than for sheer fiscal pragmaticality, how can you say only Americans should benefit from the taxation in America? This is an assertion for a human right that is limited to only special humans. It doesn't make sense, nor would it be a legitimate right in the first place. Mr. Buchanan and other nationalists are wrong on this. It doesn't really matter who benefits from a fundamentally wrong practice.

The second implication is more interesting. Perhaps Mr. Buchanan really means businesses ought to be responsible for these "social costs"; maybe he means it should be part of one's employment benefit package (or something you can buy on the free market), services that are not financed through the immoral hand of government wealth confiscation. But by divorcing such taken-for-granted "essential basic services" that just about everyone on this planet believes ought to be provided by the state, he's nearly ripped out the heart of the consensus agreement for justifying the it.

Mr. Buchanan doesn't mention military defense and border security, leaving them to be the last obstructions on the tracks on this train to anarchy. However, there is a considerable pool of intellectual effort devoted to the theory of privately producing defense and security services. I won't go into this now, but if readers have questions, I'll respond in the comments below. Suffice to say, it is not impossible, impractical, or immoral to choose sources of security that are not created out of coerced collectivization. My own, slightly rushed contribution to this is my A Conceptual Analysis of Public Goods - The Case of Nationalized Defense.

Mr. Buchanan can't really hold that taxpayers ought to have these minimal-state obligations imposed upon them. Either it is right to tax someone to provide for the services of others (and, occasionally, for the taxpayer him- or herself), or it is wrong. If it's right, then we get stuck in that massive swamp of interest group warfare where everyone fights over a slice of each other's pie. If it's wrong to steal from one to give to another, then we proceed to the simple conclusion: everyone has an absolute right to the property they legitimately own and any violations of that right can be met with the only justified use of force: self-defense.

Such a free society, where all aggression is frowned upon and prohibited through voluntary agreements and associations, is leagues from the United States in both form and substance. It would be, strictly speaking, an anarchy.

Is Mr. Buchanan asking for such a society?

Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska. His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees - health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons - onto taxpayers.

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Footnote
Objectivists desire a government funded through voluntary donations, so that vision of government escapes the problems of involuntary taxation. However, despite that, the Objectivist conception of government can and should outlaw legal and defense systems that compete with the services the government provides. Given that those alternative systems can be provided and produced without engaging in aggression, I consider their outlawry to be an invasion of their owners' property rights. Therefore, even the best vision of government still threatens individual rights.

Posted by drizzten at 10:57 AM | Permalink

Check out Strike the Root for more.

Posted by drizzten at 12:16 AM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

In response to Eric Berger's question Will Crescent City's residents evacuate the next time?, I wrote the following:

The evacuation certainly should not have been mandatory. Threatening individuals with the law cannot be anything but an additional and unnecessary burden during a time when those individuals need to most carefully weight that which they value. Tell them the facts and explain what you know. They will make up their own minds and be responsible for their (in)actions.

Let's also be clear that the rains haven't stopped and the winds haven't receded. Super-saturated grounds will lead to flooded and rushing creeks and streams that feed into larger rivers. Those kinds of secondary effects haven't even begun.

However, I was taken in by the catastrophe hype...greatly due to the near-unanimous reporting, hypothesizing, and speculating by every "official" and "authority" who had a wide-eyed interviewer in front of them. Unless the locals get better info than the rest of us nationally, I probably would have bailed out early Saturday. Predictions of future paths simply take too long to wait out when facing something so powerful.

Charles, the libertarian in me agrees with you.

However, we've seen time and time again that people refuse to be responsible for their (in)actions. How many times have we seen cops and rescue crews put their lives at risk rescuing some knucklehead who insisted on staying in a flooding house? The guy could've walked out the door when there was a foot of water, but he ended up on his roof as the waters crept up, waiting for a dangerous and costly helicopter rescue.

Just think of the backlash if officials declined to rescue those folks, saying "hey, we told them how bad it was going to be; they're on their own."

How many times have we seen cops and rescue crews put their lives at risk rescuing some knucklehead who insisted on staying in a flooding house? The guy could've walked out the door when there was a foot of water, but he ended up on his roof as the waters crept up, waiting for a dangerous and costly helicopter rescue.

Mr. Bramanti, we see that all too often. I'd have it ended tomorrow if possible. I applaud those courageous folks who venture out there to help the stranded, the infirm, and the stupid.

But the stragglers made their choices and when the consequences of those choices scare reality back into them with a rainy 140MPH blast of wind, they try to make others physically and fiscally responsible for the consequences of those choices, squealing loudly for someone to help. Your argument amounts to emotional extortion and it is outrageous it gets ignored every time a disaster hits.

Regarding a backlash: so what? I think it's abhorrent that somewhere along the line Americans have just assumed government officials are the folks who should do their thinking for them.

You admit it right out in the open: they've rejected responsibility. So by what stretch of logic does it fall to another, let alone to be financed by wealth forced out of the hands of others?

Mr. Berger, if someone brought up that hypothetical argument when discussing a evacuation from a future hurricane, I'd point them to the fundamental dangers of remaining in NOLA when flooding is a real possibility. Reprinting a few of the "whew, the real nasty part missed us!" news articles should be reminder enough. But, again, if you can't convince them to leave after they've evaluated the situation, I say leave them to themselves and wish them safety.

UPDATED 8/30/2005 10:40pm
The discussion continues.

"Chris" replied to my previous comment:

The situation that is being revealed to us in Gulfport and Biloxi is exactly why mandatory evacuations are necessary.

While I agree with the argument that it would be appropriate for the government to warn us and then let us decide, in reality, very few folks would probably heed such a warning. And yes, my libertarian side would have them take care of themselves if they want to make a sorry decision.

But read about the newly orphaned children in Gulfport and Biloxi, and those badly injured. They probably didn't have the smarts or the guts to stand up to "ride-the-storm-out" dad. And truth be told, Dad probably thought that holding out in a cinder block building on a patch of high ground was a prudent, and reasonable decision. No matter what the so-called government experts told him. And if he'd been 60 miles to the east, or to the west, he would have made a good decision. He could have laughed at and mocked the big-government types who tried to interfere in his life.

But now dad and some other family members are dead. And since our country has (no matter what political persuasion you are) enough moral value left in it to take care of his orphaned children, his terribly injured relatives, and maybe a few of his (yes) idiot friends... they will. They (read: US) will work madly to put together a storm damaged emergency room, risk their lives getting them there, and maybe take care of his surviving family for a while.

Yes, it would be great if we could all make well informed decisions in times of extraordinary crisis, and then take total responsibility for our action. Trouble is: a lot of people who think they're smarter than everyone on the block --aren't, and more importantly: a lot of folks who say they will take that responsibility -- don't. Or when it's too late, absolutely can't. And city governments and emergency service workers, and law enforcement have to act to force us into taking that responsibility.

And before you remind me what idiots "the goverment" is, beleive me, I'm with you. Do they make bad calls? yep. Does the media love the hype and wading through water screaming, "please don't be here, don't do this," oh sure, they got soap to sell. Is it easy to armchair quarterback? sure. But there are some emergency service personnel trying to find a home for some kids, trying to treat some unbelievable injuries tonight under absurd conditions, all because folks acted irresponsibly. And we're going to pay for it. Sure it would have been expensive and inconvenient for a family to pack up and get out. Certainly in the hundreds of dollars. Now we'll pay tens of thousands for the ones that didn't.

So it is that we ask our government to take into account the kids, the elderly, the infirm, and yes, the idiots. 'Cause we're still a country that tries to care about our neighbors, even the stupid ones. I'd rather force them to act responsibly now, than be forced to pay for it later.

Chris, "we" wouldn't have to bear the price of taking care of these people if "we" stopped assuming "we" had the responsibility to do so. As I said previously, this is emotional extortion and I won't accept it.

Unfortunately, since we are under threat of fines, property seizure, and jail time if we don't "pay our share," my desire to avoid those punishments means I'm coerced into paying for the damages caused by a force with which I had utterly nothing to do and the reconstruction of lives that I had no hand in destroying. There is zero justice in this, it in fact being the opposite.

My sympathy and concern for a victim does not extend beyond the point where I demand other people sacrifice for their sake under penalty of law.

You cannot force people to act responsibly. Responsibility is irrevocably tied to being free to take that responsibility for actions done by your free will.

Posted by drizzten at 12:11 AM | Permalink

...and if I were a religious man, I'd be praying hard for any safety the people in that area can get.

ABCNews:

New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city Sunday morning, saying Katrina would be "an unprecedented event in the history of the city of New Orleans, and we want everybody to get out."

Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee was more blunt.

"You have an obligation to yourself and your family to haul ass and get out of here," he said, "and I'm telling you to get out now."

Scientists predicted Katrina could easily overtake that levee system, swamping the city under a 30-feet cesspool of toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins that could leave more than 1 million people homeless.

"All indications are that this is absolutely worst-case scenario," Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, said Sunday afternoon.

Because gasoline floats on water, "we could end up with some pretty severe and large -- area-wise -- fires."

"So, we're looking at a bowl full of highly contaminated water with contaminated air flowing around and, literally, very few places for anybody to go where they'll be safe."

[Ivor van Heerden] went further.

"So, imagine you're the poor person who decides not to evacuate: Your house will disintegrate around you. The best you'll be able to do is hang on to a light pole, and while you're hanging on, the fire ants from all the mounds -- of which there is two per yard on average -- will clamber up that same pole. And, eventually, the fire ants will win."

[...]

Rick Luettich, a professor at the University of North Carolina's Institute of Marine Sciences, compared Katrina's expected impact on areas far up the Mississippi to "grabbing the end of the bed cover and giving it a hard snap."

That snap will push "probably in excess of 10 feet" of floodwater up the river, he predicted. "It will propagate up the river like a wave," past Baton Rouge, more than 70 miles away, he said.

Posted by drizzten at 12:41 AM | Permalink

Zilker Botanical Garden
Austin, Texas

Saturday & Sunday, August 27-28, 2005
10 am - 6 pm - Free Admission

Details here. My girlfriend is part of the Austin Bujinkan Tanemaki Dojo and will be one of the ninjas on hand to slice and dice the threatening bamboo shoots.

When not watching that with glee, I'll be roaming around looking for info on landscaping, growing, and cultivating bamboo for my yard.

Posted by drizzten at 04:41 PM | Permalink

Oh yes, and we'll be tying up billions, perhaps as much as a trillion dollars in resources that could otherwise have been spent on, for example, defending the homeland, what the name "Department of Defense" implies in the first place.

-Radley Balko

$1 trillion is a wack-job, activist-inflating-the-inflated-statistics-from-other-activists number. That's 10% of the US economy. Our total military expenditures on everything are between 3-4% of GDP right now. You're positing more than a doubling of US forces & equipment. 25-30% of that number is closer to the mark, over a period of 10 years, which discounts back to a modest blip on the US economy, partially offset by lowered geopolitical risk on oil contracts, expanded oil supplies, and a surge in consumer confidence.

By LINDA BILMES Published: August 20, 2005

Cambridge, Mass.

THE human cost of the more than 2,000 American military personnel killed and 14,500 wounded so far in Iraq and Afghanistan is all too apparent. But the financial toll is still largely hidden from public view and, like the suffering of those who have lost loved ones, will persist long after the fighting is over.

...$250 billion already spent on military operations and reconstruction...running costs of the current conflicts are $6 billion a month...more than $2 billion a year in additional foreign aid to Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and others...repairing and replacing military hardware is $20 billion a year...[disability claims for Iraq and Afghanistan vets] are likely to run at $7 billion a year for the next 45 years...[extra interest payments on additional federal debt] will total $200 billion or more...

Linda Bilmes, an assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce from 1999 to 2001, teaches budgeting and public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

So, Ms. Asymmetrical Information, what's your prognosis now?

Posted by drizzten at 04:37 PM | Permalink

Austin-American Statesman: City rallies around futuristic car

By Stephen Scheibal

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

It is something like a capitalist's dream: Citizens petitioning to buy a product, governments setting aside money to help them pay for it, business leaders talking about the economic benefits, environmentalists proclaiming the earth's gratitude for every purchase.

I'm at odds with a great deal of this article.

This lede is only correct if you assume a capitalist is someone who wants to take money stolen from other people to finance the capitalist's operations. Granted, today there are far too many businessmen like that, but that does not excuse this mischaracterization.

There was, perhaps, only one problem with the mass shopping spree that Austin officials imagined with great fanfare at City Hall on Monday: The product doesn't, per se, exist.

The invention is known as a plug-in hybrid vehicle. It is a car that runs largely off a battery, switching to gasoline as electricity runs low. DaimlerChrysler AG expects to deliver the first such vehicles to Austin and other cities next year.

The vehicles partially replace gas pumps with electrical sockets. Owners plug their cars into a wall outlet, recharging the battery with the energy that fuels their refrigerators and air conditioners. According to the city, 70 to 80 cents on a power bill would provide as much energy as a $2.50 gallon of gas.

Plug-in hybrids could go 35 miles or more without burning gasoline and potentially cut the nation's gasoline use by 70 percent, city officials said.

The city wants to promote both the supply and demand of plug-in hybrids. Mayor Will Wynn and other officials launched the campaign before more than 100 people Monday.

Wynn declared that Austin Energy, the city-owned electric utility, eventually plans to provide $1 million to help people and entities buy the vehicles. He also said Austin and other local governments will commit to adding plug-in hybrids to various auto fleets.

And area officials and community leaders contributed the first signatures to a petition encouraging automakers to produce more plug-in hybrids.

Wynn said the drive will only begin in Austin, saying he expects other cities to sign on as well. He said the technology promises to lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil, cut down on gasoline bills and improve air quality.

"The benefits are across the board," Wynn said. "What we need are a lot of partners."

Furthermore, do you know what a "partner" is? A partner is someone who willingly associates with you to collaboratively work towards some goal. It is hypocritical to preen on camera for partners and then go back to the office to push the rest of the city around.

The announcement came 10 days before Central Texas gets its most direct lesson ever about the importance of clean-burning vehicles. Beginning Sept. 1, cars and trucks in Travis and Williamson counties will have to pass an emissions test to earn inspection stickers, a change the region has accepted as part of a federally approved plan to improve air quality.

And I'll tell you what this "direct lesson" means: it means one more layer of control and threat over individuals and their property. It means getting bothered by the cops at their leisure to get inspected. It means dealing with the court system for a non-crime. It means potentially losing your vehicle, facing paycheck-crushing fines, and jail time. Ultimately, it means being ordered by the police at gunpoint to obey.

This is a "direct lesson" in nothing but the extent of authoritarianism in this country. Do you think this additional inspection hurdle will go away if the air clears? I have my doubts.

Environmentalists such as Brandi Clark, co-chairwoman of the Austin Sustainable Business Council, said the plug-in hybrids initiative could be a watershed effort to clean up Central Texas' air and a boon to consumers plagued by high gas prices.

You want to cut down on pollution created by cars dicking around at idle? Privatize the road system (PDF) and open it up to the pressures and incentives of a free market. Once individuals are exposed to the market costs of driving on roadways, they'll adjust their schedules and habits to make the best use of their resources. This is not the same as public roads paid for with a mixture of taxes and toll roads!

And regarding high gas prices, you want instant relief?

Lop off those fucking gasoline taxes! The American Petroleum Institute says in STATE MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAX RATES (PDF) that Texans are forced to pay 20 cents in taxes for gasoline and diesel taxes. They've been that high since at least 2002. According to Wikipedia research, the federal gas tax is more than 18 cents. That's $0.38 per gallon of price relief right there if they were eliminated. As of 10:15am today, that means a price drop from $2.59 - $2.37 per gallon down to $2.21 - $1.99 per gallon. The average price of a gallon in Austin is $2.494 and without those taxes it would drop to $2.114, bringing average prices back to where they were a month ago.

No, this wouldn't address the underlying forces screwing with oil, gasoline, and diesel prices. But it reveals the lie in all this "we can't do much about prices" bullshit.

Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce Chairman Kirk Watson said the launch was a "historic moment," reinforcing Austin's position as a center of environmentally friendly technology while allowing taxpayers and rate-payers — not overseas oil interests — to benefit from the area's transportation spending.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, said the vehicles could help the nation avoid oil-driven entanglements overseas.

"It's a national security issue," Doggett said of the initiative. "The only way that we will get change is by things like we're doing this morning."

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

The City of Austin's press release has more.

The appeal of plug-in vehicles is underscored by the fact that 78 percent of Americans live within 20 miles of their jobs. A battery pack sufficient to power a vehicle a distance of 35 miles on a charge would mean a majority of Americans would likely need to fill up with gasoline only once or twice a month.

In addition, an “electric” gallon of gas would cost 70 to 80 cents at prevailing electric rates. A plug-in hybrid that gets 30 miles on a gallon of $2.55-national-average gasoline could travel more than 100 miles on $2.55 worth of “electric” gallons of energy.

Zero. Move along. Puff-pieces and propaganda like this are not the place for criticism! This is the time for a positive vision of community involvement and accomplishment! This is the place for moving forward into the future! Your selfishness obscures our plans! It's for the gawddamn children, man!

*sigh*

You know what sucks about all this? I'd like to try a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) and give one a spin. I'd like to drive something that costs less to operate. I'd like a car that drives quieter and (probably) weighs less. I think it'd be awesome to see hundreds of little recharge stations pop up everywhere so individuals could offer their own electricity to others for a price. I don't like pollution. Despite my male hormones, I don't like burning hot and greasy maintenance jobs. I want the theocratic tyrants in the Middle East to stop profiting from our transportation habits. I don't endorse the current way things are done.

But as long as politicians, corrupted businessmen, and environmentalist nanny-staters keep pushing for the improper means to good ends, I'll take what we have now.

Posted by drizzten at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The AP via News8Austin: Perry orders TEA to implement school spending restrictions

Gov. Rick Perry is blaming the Texas Legislature for inaction during three failed special sessions on school finance reform.

So Perry today ordered the state education commissioner to restrict how much Texas schools can spend outside of direct classroom expenses.

Under the order, districts will be required to spend no more than 35 percent of their budgets on non-classroom expenses such as transportation, school lunches and administration.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press, All rights reserved.

Under his order, Shirley Neely, the state education commissioner, is expected to implement changes in financial reporting by school districts, adding a mandate that at least 65 percent of funds go to classroom instruction.

Proposals for such a directive have upset school officials fearful of being forced to shift resources from areas such as transportation, campus safety and food services.

[...]

Some 1,000-plus Texas school districts spent an average of 60 percent of funds on classroom instruction in 2002-03, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Austin-area districts fell short of the 65 percent mark that year.

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

Posted by drizzten at 08:57 AM | Permalink

What sounds more appetizing, more interesting, more fulfilling than wading into the Federal Register and reporting back on what you find?

Doing it on a weekly basis, that's what!

Rob at Strike the Root went asking for someone to continue the Federal Register Watch column and in a fit of detached reality, I offered my typing services. The result is the article below:

The Federal Register is the official daily publication for Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders and other Presidential Documents. This column attempts to summarize the highlights (or lowlights) of the Federal Register during the preceding week.

Monday, August 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 156)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

We start with 14 pages of detail encompassing the topic of defining seven new "Viticultural Areas" in California. What is a viticultural area, you ask? It is a defined area where wine grapes are grown, defined in order to help consumers "attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine" by the name of the viticultural area. Vinters use these designations to market their grapes and as a byproduct, the wines for which those grapes are used. Obviously, this is something no free market process could create!

As you might imagine, the wine industry has latched onto this process. Getting one of these areas entered as a viticultural area means only other wines from that region can wear that name. A wine must have at least 85% of it's grape content from that region to qualify for the label. You can view a list published by the Wine Institute here [http://www.iwineinstitute.com/ava/avabyname.asp]. Remember this the next time someone complains about Europe getting in the business of prohibiting businesses from using the names of geographic regions for food products! The federal government is certainly not afraid of a little protectionism and has done it for wine grapes since 1980.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16132.htm

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Does anyone find it at least mildly amusing that a Final Rule designed to "remove obsolete and redundant regulations" and "make many sections more concise, easier to understand and more performance oriented" takes 48 pages of Federal Register space to accomplish and the history of this particular rulemaking process began in April of 1997? Government isn't adept at much; it is good at dulling our sense of irony.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-14259.htm

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION

Lest anyone forget the power of quasi-corporate appointed officials, Vincent K. Snowbarger says giving the public notice and letting the public comment on a change to "interest assumptions for
valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans" is "impracticable and contrary to the public interest" because these assumptions need to reflect current market conditions. Thanks, Vincent!

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16097.htm

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 157)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service

Apparently, the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee needs money to cover those darn "reasonable and necessary" expenses incurred when it "locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of kiwifruit grown in California." This Proposed Rule proposes to change the imposed "assessment rate" from $0.002 per pound of fruit to "$0.045 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent." I didn't know you could spell "tax" with 14 letters...

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16207.htm

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Remember when President Bush called for a renewed attack on AIDS in his 2003 State of the Union speech? Yeah, I kinda forgot about it as well. He promised to spend $15 billion in wealth scared out of us by the threat of force and, over the next five years, direct it towards needy nations in Africa and the Caribbean. In this eight-pager, not only does the CDC have the gall to call this wealth an "award" to those who get approved for the funding, but it also establishes an entangling series of regulations, requirements, and commands for the "awardees" to follow. Anyone care to guess the resources to be wasted on paperwork and administration? I won't.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16170.htm

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

You hear alot from so-called liberals about a "right to privacy," but how quickly do you think they'd drop their claim to that right if you asked them about requiring individuals to endure a public notice process whenever they apply to "acquire a bank or bank holding company"?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16147.htm

Thursday, August 18, 2005 ( Volume 70, Number 159)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Telephone Bank

On August 4 of this year, the Board of Directors for the RTB voted to "liquidate and dissolve" the Bank. This notice was published to "ensure that all interested parties are informed of the details of the resolutions approved by the Board." Because we all know how avidly rural folks read the Federal Register.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16338.htm

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management

Calling all free market anarchists with extra cash on hand! The feds are selling 86 parcels of federal public land in the Las Vegas Valley! More than three thousand acres available! Act now!

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16492.htm

Friday, August 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 160)

Presidential Memorandum of April 21, 2005

"The reporting functions of the President under sections 4026(a)(4)(A), 4026(c)(2), 7104(e)(4)(A), 7202(d), 7204(c)(1)-(2), and 7119(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638) (the "Act'') are hereby assigned to the Secretary of State."

Tough question: would you rather have all that responsibility on George W. Bush's shoulders...or Condoleezza Rice's?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-16628.htm

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

Posted by drizzten at 11:11 PM | Permalink

[Updates below.]

Just found out about this from The Apostate on MySpace.

For more information, see Drug Policy Alliance, Daily Kos, The Daily Herald, Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV.com, and KSL.com. The Utah County Sheriff's Department has a statement up here.

UTRave.org has plenty of discussion on the Spanish Fork Canyon SWAT raid.

Original post of Knick Evol Intent is quoted below, the basis of which seems to form the ravers' version of events. Read the news reports above and compare them to the accounts below from The Apostate:

Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.

So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool. It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site, the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...

At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the person I was with. I wasn't far off.

The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle. At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on . A few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started yelling that everyone "get the fuck out of here or go to jail". This is where it got really sticky.

No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1), and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of fucking TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene.

Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other accounts of the night. Now this isnt gossip I heard from some candy raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters mouth..

- One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.

- The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure to be more footage.

- The police were rounding up the staff of the party and the main promoter went up to them with the permit for the show and said "here, I have the permit." The police then said, "no you don't" and ripped the permit out of his hand. Then, they put an assault rifle to his forehead and said "get the fuck out of here right now."

Now.. let's get the facts straight here.

This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant. The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!!

Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE most conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a gross violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this party shut down, so they made it happen. Even though everything about this event was legal. The promoters spent over $ 20,000 on this show and did everything they had to to make it legit, only to have it taken away from them by a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.

This was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed in person. I can't even begin to describe how surreal it was. Helicopters, assault rifles, tear gas, camoflauge-wearing soldiers.... why? Was that really necessary?

This needs to be big news across the USofA. At least in our music scene (edm as a whole)... this could happen to any of us at any time. When we're losing the right to gather peacefully, we're also letting the police set a standard of what we can get away with. And I think that's BULLSHIT!

The system fucked up last night... They broke up a party that was 100% legal and they physically hurt a lot of people there at the same time. The promoters already have 6 lawsuits ready to file with their lawyers and the ACLU is already involved.

I'm sure some pictures (and hopefully some video) will surface soon. I'll make sure to post them up here on 404, so you can see the Police State of America at work.

p.s. - there are more stories of police brutality that i'll post up later. gotta hit the airport soon. can't wait to get the fuck out of this shit hole state.

The other accounts posted on MySpace:

First Hand Account From Syze...

Last night was one of the worst nights of my life. I am still incredibly shaken up by what happened ....enough to the point of where I'm still having problems talking about it. So I will tell you my side in a few words then link you to a more detailed version of how Knick explains it .

I was playing in Salt Lake City about 1 hour away at a massive outdoor event. 700 presold tickets, and by 11:20, there were 1400 kids there already.... all in all total expected... 3 - 4k. This was an all drum and bass event, held on private land, with an amazing view of the mountains surrounding us. This event was fully contracted with the city. They had all permits, a huge insurance policy and they were paying taxes. you have to know this is because of what happened next. And in NO MEANS is this story exaggerated. word for word this is what happened.

It was 1145... I had 30 min before my set, so I was running around looking at the mountains and the people dancing, laughing , the crazy visuals they even had projecting on the mountains. I will share photos once I can see them. All of the sudden a helicopter comes in with massive spot lights .. all on the people circling everyone ... and within minutes like out of some fuckin movie , soldiers with guns (fucking rifles )come in out of the grass, like some Vietnam shit. The police in full riot gear come in, big trucks ... next thing you know they are throwing tear gas at people, setting dogs on people, arresting kids. 4 big guys on one DNB fan kicking him down tying his hands .... making kids sit in the dirt with their hands tied all in a line, now you must remember in this whole time NO ONE was resisting arrest or making a big deal, everyone peaceful started to walk out... but yet they were throwing tear gas... it gets worst ... but what’s even more fucked up is hundreds of kids on drugs driving home on the freeway while they were just in major trauma.

I still cant even figure out what the hell happened, the promoter called me to make sure me knick and spor were ok and I broke down crying.. couldn’t breath, I was freaking out ..... why? Is this what our fuckin country has come to .... a point of someone making a fully legal show and STILL getting busted for WHAT?????? What did 3000 kids on private land in the mountains near NOTHING .. do to ANYONE?

The promoters have a massive lawsuit and they have so much evidence against the county that its not even funny, I will be present to testify against these fuckin pigs. And if you think this matter is a joke then all I have to say is . I didn’t believe it until I had gas thrown at me. I am going to make sure I keep you all posted on this, and let you know if there’s a way any of you can help.

FYI for all people who where involved last night. If you where arrested by any one in the national guards (if thay where there, and that is what i heard) please read this...

Click Here

It states that united states troops can only aid(support) in local law enforcement and can not make arrests or direct participation.

I hope this helps.

First Hand Account From Dylan Elder...

It's interesting to note how one-sided a conversation can quickly become upon having a fully automatic weapon waved in your face whilst attack hounds bark the vicious roar of bestial ferocity intended to strike fear deep into the heart. Evidently, by way of my actions that evening, I was a criminal who's acts were so heinous that suitable reprecussions included incarceration, or attacks with deadly force upon my person, all in the name of retaining order in a fit of domestic terrorism. I am a criminal, and was treated as such, all because I went to a large scale, state approved, and peacefull public gathering. Having no weapons, no illegal substances, no malicious intent, nor any kind of political agenda for the evening, in retrospect this gross display of militant force seemed excessive for such a circumstance, yet with my hands in clear sight, no yelling nor raise in my tone at all, I was a threat to myself, those around me, and to our proud and honorable men and women in uniform. Just a small recount of my experience last night.

Details of the show are trivial to the underlying theme of this article, but to list a few, the name of the show was Versus 2, featuring two artists I was quite excited to see, being DMC Champion turntablist Craze, and Knick from Evol Intent, amount others. The venue was just outside Spanish Fork, Ut., at what I believed to be some kind of construction site or quarry, it was hard to gather details in the dark. I arrived at approximatly 10:15 PM or so. Everything seemed to be very well run. Two security checkpoints searching cars, multiple people in the parking lot directing traffic to ensure dense and well structured parking, and lots of portable restrooms and trash cans spread about, both of which being key details to obtaining a mass gathering permit (amoung others). I just so happen to know that, as it was explained to me by a county sheriff last year, which makes for an interesting story in itself, but will be left untold for now. I got out of my car, and I was excited. The setup looked great, the moon was big and bright, the weather was ideal, and I was ready to hear some great music, see my friends, meet new people, and dance the night away. The venue was set up in such a fasion that when you walked down a path from the parking lot, you came to the secondary stage, and if you kept going on the path, you came to a larger clearing where the main stage was set up.

I made my way down to the second stage, said a quick hello to a few friends that were there, and started walking up towards the main stage. I was about half way up the path when I heard the music cut out from behind me. I could still hear the generator running, so I couldn't figure out why the music had stopped, but I just assumed they were having technical difficulties and thought nothing of it. I thought I'd probably head back down that way in a few minutes to see if there was anything I could do if they were having problems with the equipment, but I still wanted to go find a few people since I had just barely arrived. As I start walking back towards the main stage, I overheard a random person in the crowd yelling that the SWAT team had arrived and were shutting everything down.

I've been to a number of shows, and seen a fair share of them shut down, but I couldn't believe it was happening tonight. It was my understanding everything had been handled to ensure proper permits, legitimate private property with complete consent and understanding from all angles. I heard many people later explaining just how far the promoter of this show went to ensure everything went smoothly. I looked to my right and noticed police officers trudging through the bushes towards the main stage. Local enforcement was obvious, but I still couldn't believe that the SWAT team was there. I got to the main stage, saw a few more friends there, and just waited for a brief moment to see how it would pan out. What I had anticipated, as had happened before, would be music shut down, an officer barks a few orders on the microphone, kids with paraphernalia are searched and/or arrested, the furor dies down, and usually a suitable compromise is made. We turn the music down a bit, kids are asked to leave, but those who are truely there to have fun, to enjoy themselves, be there only for the music, get to stay and pan out the rest of their evening. That wasn't the case this time around.

After the main stage was shut down, the circling helicopter was getting closer to the ground, and that's when I saw the men in fatigues brandishing assult rifles. I had told a friend of mine to calm down, go with whatever happens, and we'll see how it works out. Thats when I spun around to see that innocent people on stage were recoiling in horror from having guns waved at them and orders barked. I can remember one officer in particular demanding that the record not just stop, but that everything had to be completely turned off, which people were scrambling to try comply with the demands, but that's not as easy to do when you're fearing for your life, I can only imagine. As people were rushing to try to collect their belongings, records, tents, audio equipment, the SWAT kept waiving their guns around and demanding microphone access after they had already had everything turned off and shut down. A man in uniform approached me and barked the order that I was to return to my car with no delay and leave. Even though previous experiences were less intense, I had been in that possition a time or two before, I feel a little veterened in handling such a situation. You win some, you lose some, I knew I was going home this time, but there's never any harm in a quick dialog between bystander and enforcement. In more words or less, I made it apparent that I was on my way out, I would passivly comply with whatever was needed to make this go easy, but I wanted to know under which grounds I was being evicted from my peacefull, private gathering. Usually when you show a voice of reason and zero threat of violence, you can at least talk with an officer for a bit. I was only able to ask my first question in a series that I had carefully planned, but the response I recieved was a curled lip, even more violent shouting, a gun pointed at me, and the threat that if I asked a single other question I would be detained or disabled my any means necessary. This is when I saw the dogs attacking people, and other kids being tackled by 3-4 of these "civil servents" at a time. I felt violated. I had done nothing to deserve that kind of treatment, but I felt I had to do what I could to try help other kids not get themselves in trouble. I told people to put there cameras away, I quelled a fair share of the anti-police sentiment amoungst the groups around me. Our small protest, albeit nonviolent, was better saved for another time.

I noticed in most of the shouting, many of the men in fatigues had trouble annunciating, indicating they were so full of adrenaline, who knows how itchy trigger fingers could have been. This full scale assult had obviously been carefully planned. I'm sure it took quite a bit of preperation to get this assult team properly geared up, get the helicopter ready, have probably every single bit of local enforcement that they could muster. There were even several reported sightings of morse code being blinked back and forth between opposite ends of the valley we were in. Many of these officers had also been recognized as being at parties previously, dating back as far as 2001 for shutting events down, and then being undercover at other shows later. Carefull planning indeed, but I am appalled. If you really felt you needed to, you could shut a show down with a handfull of cops and not a single gun comming unholstered. Although upset, there's no harm in being reasonable, there are so many other ways this could have been handled. I reprehend your execution on this one Utah County.

I suppose this is the result of a bored little army, but I feel dehumanized when treated like a terrorist when standing on the soil of a country I show patriotism for just as much as anyone. I've always been a big supporter of ending the war, support the troops, bring them home, yet suddenly a war of some nature is brought to me, and I am the enemy. Am I a criminal? Am I a terrorist? Verbage is freely open to interpretation, but there is no reprimand for such a severe punishment that was threatened upon me. Had I inadvertantly said the wrong thing, or quickly moved my hand, or something that seemed imposing to one of these fatigued men, what's to stop me from quickly becoming a casualty of a battle that had no reason to happen in the first place? This night will bear the example of the most unnecessary act of force that Utah has seen all in the name of the Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstacy Act. Tax dollars well spent to ensure my safety, and the safety of my future children.

-Dylan L Elder

Alisha's account...

This is my account of events that unfolded while attending an outdoor electronic music event. I arrived shortly before 9 pm sharp. My two friends and i set up camp and headed to the stage. All was well and peaceful enjoying the music to the full extent while dancing. Around 11:30pm or so i noticed a helicopter flying above the main stage of the event. At this point i am confused. The chopper began to come in closer to the stage with a search light focused on the crowd. I got nervous and still very confused and walked over to find my two friends I had arrived with earlier. Just as soon as i did that I looked over at my friend and asked "whats going on". That is when I was greeted by a man in full army attire, gas mask and all. He said to leave. I said what whats going on, at which point i was brutally attacked. Thrown to the ground and in the scuffle punched in the face by swat. That was not it either. I suppose i posed some a threat as another swat member rushed over to subdue me to the ground puting his knee in my back and arresting me. At that point I am screaming to a patron "whats going on?" He is just as confused as I am. At that point another swat member came over and kicked me in the leg. Let me tell you that I also only weigh 130 pounds. I had three grown men attack and beat me and throw me to ground for absolutely no reason at all. Not to mention being dragged to a van and violently being tossed in and taken to jail. Fined for resisting arrest and another outrageous charge. I do need to mention also that while this is all happening to me at the same time my two friends, a boy and girl were trying to reach out and stop them, at that point they were attacked and arrested as well.

That is my account. I have all the bruises to show. Our basic human rights were violated in a very bad way. We have to tell our story. Do all that you can and dont be afraid to speak up.

UPDATED 4:55pm
Sploid caught the news and adds a few more links to the batch, including another mirror of the "facism.mov / facsism.mov" file and a link to SYZE's first-hand experience quoted above.

UPDATED 8/23/2005 2:05pm
Matt Welch at Hit & Run has more linkage. See Technorati for a list of blogs commenting on Utah rave.

UPDATED 4:15pm
Here's SYZE's MySpace profile.

More local news:

• Daily Herald article: Witnesses say undue force used at rave
  
• KUTV: Stories Differ In Rave Raid; Court May Decide
  
• Deseret Morning News: Police heavy-handed, party organizers say
  
• KSL.com: Deputies Break Up Rave, Dispute Claims of Excessive Force
  
• ABC-4: Rave Bust In Utah County Has Party Goers Crying Foul

I spoke directly with Jay Stone who handles the Mass Gathering permits for the Utah County Health Department's Bureau of Environmental Health Services, and he stated unequivocably that the permit was applied for and granted by his department. He also agreed to write a letter to this effect upon request. The questions about whether or not the permit was issued should be answered and not up for dispute. I am currently attempting to reach the Utah County Board of Commissioners to resolve whether or not an additional permit would have been required by their office. Initial conversations with "Michelle" at their office seemed to indicate that this was not the case.

Posted by drizzten at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The AP via the Washington Post: Researchers Fuse Skin and Stem Cells

The Harvard researchers used laboratory grown human embryonic stem cells - such as the ones that President Bush has already approved for use by federally funded researchers - to essentially convert a skin cell into an embryonic stem cell itself.

If a number of hurdles can be overcome in subsequent research, the new technique "may circumvent some of the logistical and societal concerns" that have hampered much of the research in this country, Chad A. Cowan, Kevin Eggan and colleagues from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute report in the Science article.

Those social concerns are reflected in the Senate's looming debate over a House-passed bill to force taxpayers to fund stem cell research that would destroy human embryos, legislation President Bush has promised to veto.

Most of the time, you hear passive references to the coercion employed to get government agents the money they demand for their activities. Often it'll be described simply as "federally funded" or "state funded," leaving the readers to fill in the gaps themselves.

As an example, see this WaPo article: Skin Cells Converted to Stem Cells. I'll translate the relevant passages to make them more honest and accurate:

The technique uses laboratory-grown human embryonic stem cells -- such as the ones that President Bush has already approved for use by researchers paid out of money coerced out of national taxpayers and collected by the federal government -- to "reprogram" the genes in a person's skin cell, turning that skin cell into an embryonic stem cell itself.

[...]

More immediately, the new work could have an impact on the place where less than 500 Americans tell everyone else what to do, where a supposedly more respected and important sub-group of the former is poised to vote on legislation -- already passed by the bulk of those 500 (an insitution viewed as legitimate because it is closer to the state's collectivist-populist roots) -- that would loosen Bush's restrictions on human embryonic research on those tax-funded researchers.

Last month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (a representative of Tennessee imposed by 22% of the state's 5 million+ population on everyone else) surprised many of his colleagues by announcing he would break with the president and support forcing taxpayers to pay for stem cell research, which Bush has promised to veto.

Back to the original article:

Bush and many fellow conservatives believe it is immoral to create embryos only to destroy them, even in the name of scientific progress that could cure or treat diseases afflicting millions of people.

© 2005 The Associated Press

Posted by drizzten at 09:11 AM | Permalink

Currently on the rear of my VW TDI are four stickers. One is my outdated parking permit for St. Edward's University, but the others are idealogical in nature.

The lower left corner of my rear bumper:

The upper right corner of my rear windshield:

The lower right corner of my bumper:

Explanations available upon request! :)

Posted by drizzten at 06:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Surely, you've heard about the forced evacuation of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Got an opinion?

Walter Block, in "Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz" (pg 16-17):

How does the libertarian deal with stolen property? Obviously, it must be returned. It is that simple. But, suppose the theft took place a long time ago. Suppose that your great grandfather took a ring from my greatgrandfather. Through the succession of inheritance, you got the ring. You are, of course, not guilty of a crime. You didn’t steal anything. But, you are still the holder of stolen property. Justice surely consists of making you disgorge the ring and give it back to me, since I would have inherited it. Is there a statute of limitations? No. There is no statute of limitations on justice. Justice is the highest goal in the legal realm. When a law, such as a statute of limitations conflicts with one of our basic axioms, it must be jettisoned. So, if the theft took place three hundred years ago, and I can prove that you have my ring, it should be handed over from you to me.

[...]

While this aspect of libertarian theory sounds very radical, in practice it is less so. This is because the claimant always needs proof. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and to overcome the presumption that property is now in the hands of its rightful owners requires that an evidentiary burden be overcome. The further back in history was the initial act of aggression (not only because written evidence is less likely to be available), the less likely it is that there can be proof of it. So, certain thefts will have to escape the libertarian passion for justice, because time places a veil over these past events. But, the ideal is clear: If there is stolen property and it can be proved that it was stolen, it should be returned.

My take: If the settlers are the legitimate owners of the property they occupied, what the government is doing is flatly criminal. If the settlers' ownership is not legit, does that give the State of Israel the right to act as it has? I don't think so. The legitimate owners of the property in question ought to be the ones with the demand for the settlers' departure and the right to forcibly remove them from the land if they resist. I am pathetically ignorant of land ownership history in the area so I don't have an answer for anyone who asks me who really is the proper owner of the land in question. That's an empirical matter that factual investigation can solve.

Posted by drizzten at 02:33 PM | Permalink

News8Austin: Cat abuse case highlights a growing problem

Lee County Animal Control workers are dealing with what they call "an extreme case of animal cruelty."

They want to know who shot a young cat with a 2-foot arrow.

Lee County Sheriff's Department Investigator Charles Kothmann took the call from a woman who found the cat.

"She stated she had a cat in her driveway that had been shot with an arrow. I thought, 'That's interesting, how does she know it was an arrow?' She told me the arrow was still in the cat," Kothmann said.

Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

Now, I don't advocate that animals have the same rights as humans. I don't want government involvement in cases of animal abuse. I don't think the person(s) responsible for hitting the feline with an arrow should be locked up.

I do think whomever did this deliberately is a flat-out fucking monster and I wouldn't be opposed to that person getting a hearty kick in the head. I have a deep weakness for cats and I really, really hate to see them treated badly.

Posted by drizzten at 01:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

WARNING! QUASI-OBSESSIVE PEDANTRY AHEAD!

In the midst of this copyright-infringement lawsuit story, I came across the following:

In T2, Schwarzenegger played a kinder, gentler Terminator sent back in time to protect a teenage John Connor (Edward Furlong) from the newer, deadlier robot killer.

In The Terminator, Schwarzenegger played a cyborg programmed to relentlessly chase and kill his assigned prey. He was also programmed to damage or destroy anyone and anything that gets in his way, if necessary. He was programmed by Cyberdyne with an explicitly anti-human tilt.

In Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Schwarzenegger played a cyborg captured and subsequently reprogrammed by rebel forces to protect young Conner from the T1000. He retained his battle skills and the trademark Terminator ruthlessness, but the rebels added a higher directive than human slaughter: follow Conner's orders. As Schwarzenegger says, it is "one of my mission parameters."

Neither iteration of Schwarzeneggerian Terminator has lost it's basic code. Neither of them go out of their way to kill and hurt humans because their primary mission is more important. Tangential rampages aren't in their programming. The second Schwarzenegger isn't any less a killer, a fighter, or a brute and this is demonstrated in several places.

The opening bar/diner fight where he fights three men. One guys gets a crushed hand and a stay on a hot grill. A second is thrown bodily through a large window. A third is stabbed with his own knife.

The scene where Schwarzenegger explains what's going on to Conner.

TERMINATOR: You are targeted for termination. The T-1000
will not stop until it complete its mission. Ever.

JOHN: Where we going?

TERMINATOR: We have to leave the city, immediately. And avoid the authorities.

JOHN: Can I stop by my house?

TERMINATOR: Negative. The T-1000 will definitely try to reacquire you there.

JOHN: You sure?

TERMINATOR: I would.

JOHN: Jesus... you were gonna kill that guy!

TERMINATOR: Of course. I'm a terminator.

JOHN: Listen to me, very carefully, okay? You're not a terminator any more. Alright? You got that? You can't just go around killing people!

TERMINATOR: Why?

JOHN: Whattaya mean, why? 'Cause you can't!

TERMINATOR: Why?

JOHN: You just can't, okay? Trust me on this.

JOHN: Now remember, you're not gonna kill anyone, right?

TERMINATOR: Right.

JOHN: Swear.

TERMINATOR: What?

JOHN: Just say "I swear I won't kill anyone."

TERMINATOR: I swear I will not kill anyone.

Sarah Conner's first contact with Schwarzenegger. The facility orderlies get the raw end of the deal with they attempt to stop Schwarzenegger from grabbing Sarah. They don't get stomped, but he isn't nice with'em.

Escaping the facility. Schwarzenegger flings the driver of a security vehicle quite hard into a concrete support column in the parking garage.

Recuperating at the closed gas station.

TERMINATOR: I have detailed files on human anatomy.

SARAH: I'll bet. Makes you a more efficient killer, right?

TERMINATOR: Correct.

This new attention to humanity, however, doesn't stop him from plugging a number of SWAT guys in the leg with the .45 and from pulling off their gas masks, exposing them to thick CS gas during the escape from the Cyberdyne building. Certainly better than impaling them to death with a mimetic polyalloy spike that extends from your finger; certainly better than dying violently from a blizzard of automatic weapons fire; but still not very kind or gentle.

QUASI-OBSESSIVE PEDANTRY OVER!

Posted by drizzten at 01:51 PM | Permalink

People who want every discussion of current events to go back to first principles are tiresome and I find discussion with them is seldom profitable.

See my past posts for more: Instapundit's Fear of the Reality of Tennessee Public Education, Glenn Reynolds Comes Clean, Glenn Reynolds is NOT a Libertarian, and my other posts linked within them.

Posted by drizzten at 11:15 AM | Permalink

What interest does the government have in monopolizing mail delivery? I understand that the Constitution specifically assigns government this role, but why persist?

-asked on my Anarcho-Capitalism MySpace group

• The USPS employs thousands of federal workers. An instant constituency for the status quo.
• The USPS supposedly attempts to deliver mail to everyone equally, evenly, throughout the country. Another instant constituency: "How will the poor get their mail?!?"
• Chipping away at a massive federal monopoly is likely to raise questions regarding other state monopolies, even if that chipping is limited in extent to rhetorical questions aimed sarcastically at the proponents of privatization: "So after FedEx buys the Post Office, I bet you want Caterpillar to buy up our interstate highways!"
• Sheer, institutional laziness and apathy.
• The desire to maintain some control over some of the communications networks in the US.
• Because every other "modern, industrialized, civilized, western, advanced, cultured" nation does it.

Posted by drizzten at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The City of Austin:

State health authorities require that all school children must be vaccinated against certain childhood diseases before they are permitted to enter school.

§ 25.085. COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. (a) A child who is required to attend school under this section shall attend school each school day for the entire period the program of instruction is provided.
(b) Unless specifically exempted by Section 25.086, a child who is at least six years of age, or who is younger than six years of age and has previously been enrolled in first grade, and who has not yet reached the child's 18th birthday shall attend school.
(c) On enrollment in prekindergarten or kindergarten, a child shall attend school.
(e) A person who voluntarily enrolls in school or voluntarily attends school after the person's 18th birthday shall attend school each school day for the entire period the program of instruction is offered.

Posted by drizzten at 10:14 AM | Permalink

Austin-American Statesman: Eminent domain bill headed to Perry

A high-profile measure designed to prohibit governments from seizing private property for commercial development is on its way to Gov. Rick Perry, who will probably sign it.

[...]

The eminent domain measure, by Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, was triggered by a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed city officials in New London, Conn., to condemn and take a widow's home for a commercial development.

The case quickly became a hot-button issue across the country for property rights advocates, who insisted that eminent domain lawsuits should not be used for private development.

Under the bill, governmental entities would be prohibited from condemning private property for economic development projects. Exceptions were carefully written in for public-use projects such as roads, parks, libraries, auditoriums, ports and utility work.

Also exempt would be the construction of a new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington and an urban renewal project involving an empty downtown Dallas high-rise.

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

Yet this is fundamentally no different from what happens when a government "condemns" your land for some purpose. It simply does not matter if that purpose is for a government library, highway, sports stadiums, or high-rise apartment buildings. The act remains thoroughly illegitimate, wrong, and harmful. To endorse "public" uses over "private" uses is to actually take a step in a worse direction: it entrenches the common perception of the Collective as being more important than the Individual. Looking at history and the present day will reveal just how greatly our freedom has been violated by that premise.

Janek himself stated:

Sen. Janek's proposal would allow a unit of government to use eminent domain to take land for public use, but public use would not include economic development.

"I'm proud to stand with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor Scalia and Thomas in support of private property rights and against those who would take homesteads and family businesses under the guise of economic development," Janek said.

Posted by drizzten at 09:17 AM | Permalink

Continuing this irritating trend with the two previous posts, something is screwing up my comments on long-running comment threads. My two big MRSA-related posts are MSRA Staph Infection in Pasadena, TX (Google cache) and MRSA Staph Infection Update (Google cache). Please use this post to leave your stories, thoughts, suggestions, and news.

Posted by drizzten at 03:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Just as with the previous post, I don't know why my comment threads on VW malfunctions and lemons are getting cut off before they end. The two posts are Volkswagen Recall (Google cache) and More Bad News for VW's Recall. Please use this post to continue your comments.

Posted by drizzten at 02:57 PM | Permalink

For unknown reasons, the comment section in my post about Troy Kell was drastically truncated. I'm looking into the problem. The Google cache of the thread is here. I will try and get the rest of the comments posted here later today.

In the meantime, please continue the discussion here.

Posted by drizzten at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

The Associated Press via the Boston Globe: Lutherans move toward key vote on gays

Delegates to a national meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted Friday to remain unified despite their differences over homosexuality, and prepared to take up contentious proposals on the role of partnered gays in their denomination.

The unity resolution was approved by an 851-127 vote following a short debate and was the first of three measures before the churchwide assembly Friday.

"Our job is not to judge one another, our job is to love one another," said Patrick Monroe of the Central/Southern Illinois Synod, speaking in favor of unity.

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

From the Biblical perspective (and I am not a "faith-based" person!), even though the argument starts from false premises, there are good rationalizations for Christian judgment of others' actions. The question of the soul is supposedly left to gawd.

This seems even clearer to me when you consider the function of priests, clergy, preachers, and the like. What do they do? They help people with problems with faith and morality. They attempt to provide a truthful answer to those asking questions. In other words, they evaluate a given situation and attempt to decide if it violates what gawd says ought to be done. Spiritual faculty are supposed to and do judge others and their actions. When the laity ask for facts (ignoring the trouble one can encounter when using faith to find fact), the clergy are supposed to, at the least, act as a proxy for gawd's word. And gawd does a lot of judging.

So I find it simply astounding that a profession widely recognized to be a source of judgment can have people who renounce it on principle. But that isn't the most annoying part of Mr. Monroe's announcement. Here it is again:

Our job is not to judge one another, our job is to love one another.

What does it mean to love someone? What differentiates the thoughts I have for someone I love, someone I hate, and someone I'm indifferent towards? What separates those whom I think positively of and those of whom I think negatively?

My judgment! I compare the hierarchy of values of that person to the hierarchy of values I hold, I discriminate amongst good and bad choices and motivations. I think.

Furthermore, the very act of loving someone is itself a judgment. Even if you accept the "unconditional love" stuff and think everyone deserves the emotion (or will obey gawd's command that they do), you still have to summon the emotion, make choices, and act as if you love the person. Love is not the emotion of default. It requires judgment as well, for when you see a child-raping serial killer, you have to overcome your revulsion at the deed in order to love him. It is not an instantaneous process; there are steps involved.

By renouncing judgement, you renounce the process and purpose of judging others. Since both of those are tied intimately with the human mind, I consider calls to forego judging to be calls to stop thinking.

Posted by drizzten at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

[Updates below.]

Warp Records has released more info on the upcoming BoC album:

We are extremely proud to announce that Boards of Canada have finished and mastered their new album, to be released in October - their first release since 2002's Geogaddi! The album is very much classic Boards, building on themes and sounds that can can be heard in their intervening remix work for Beck, cLOUDDEAD and Boom Bip.

Boards of Canada Site

UPDATED 8/15/2005 4:05pm
The full track list:

1. Into the Rainbow Vein
   
2. Chromakey Dreamcoat
   
3. Satellite Anthem Icarus
   
4. Peacock Tail
   
5. Dayvan Cowboy
   
6. A Moment of Clarity
   
7. '84 Pontiac Dream
   
8. Sherbet Head
   
9. Oscar See Through Red Eye
   
10. Ataronchronon
    
11. Hey Saturday Sun
    
12. Constants Are Changing
    
13. Slow This Bird Down
    
14. Tears From the Compound Eye
    
15. Farewell Fire

Posted by drizzten at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Austin-American Statesman: City owed almost $700,000 in hotel taxes

Three hotels make up almost half of the nearly $700,000 in delinquent occupancy taxes owed to Austin, according to a city auditor's report.

[...]

About half of the 37 delinquent accounts owed less than $5,000.

The hotel occupancy tax generates about $27 million annually, which goes to cultural arts, tourism promotion, the convention center and some capital projects.

Austin levies a 9 percent tax on the cost of a room in hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and other businesses that provide short-term lodging.

This isn't a huge amount to individually bear. I'm certain most people just move right on past it without pausing. They don't have to deal with the administration of the tax: that falls to the business owner. That ambivalence is another reason to hate the system, as it becomes easier to justify the theft and increase it when most folks aren't complaining.

Though the city has collected about 99 percent of the money it is owed, the number of hotels that owe the city money has increased over the past three years.

The auditor's report said lax enforcement contributed to the decline.

The city has not filed a lawsuit to collect back taxes since 1997.

"Not fully pursuing delinquent hotels contributes to a worsening trend of noncompliance, negatively impacts participating funds and creates a greater risk of uncollectible accounts in the future," City Auditor Stephen Morgan wrote in the report, released Tuesday.

The city plans to begin cracking down on delinquent hotels with new enforcement measures, including filing lawsuits to collect the taxes owed, now that a process has been created to refer the cases to the law department, according to the report.

"It sends a message that we're paying attention to this revenue stream," Morgan said.

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

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

News8Austin: More problems erupt at Mount Bonnell

Up the long trail of stairs is a special place for the city of Austin -- the top of Mount Bonnell.

[...]

This weekend, visitors saw something no one wants to see -- graffiti. The city hired an outside contractor to clean up the mess on Monday.

"I'm glad it was actually cleaned up by the time we got here because I don't think I would have enjoyed it otherwise," Plano resident Liesa Richardson said.

The graffiti may be gone but there are still some problems. The park has no lights and people often come to the park after it closes at 10 p.m.

Visitors are also complaining about an increase in trash.

Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

I think the bulk of the issue resolves down to one word: ownership.

Since "the people of Austin" are allegedly the owners of Mt. Bonnell, we are taxed in order for the city government to have the resources to operate and maintain the grounds. Since "the people of Austin" are allegedly the owners of the mountain, the city government that is supposed to represent has been tasked with policing the grounds to keep them safe and clean. A relationship among the individuals who use the park, the individuals who "own" the park, and the individuals who take operating responsibility for the park has been established.

This relationship has many problems, however. Can anyone point them out?

If the land was under private ownership, the relationship would appear to be the same, just the entities are different. But when the nature of the entities is changed, the relationship also changes. Switching out the collectivization of government and aggressive force with private individuals and free exchange makes all the difference.

I don't think there are rational arguments that can coherently establish and ground the assertion that some kinds of land (usually scenic, undeveloped, and unique) automatically belong to "the people of insert political subdivision." Once that red herring is dispensed with, we move forward and actually make progress.

Posted by drizzten at 09:09 AM | Permalink

News8Austin: Alamo Drafthouse named No. 1

Entertainment Weekly remembered the Alamo.

The magazine named the Austin chain the top theater in the United States for "Doing It Right."

Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

How fucking sweet is that? Austin has:

• a local theater chain that sells good food at reasonable prices;
  
• has a regular schedule of special events that usually draw artist(s) involved with the material showcased;
  
• multiple locations that feature either current-release movies, indie flicks, or special screening events;
  
• that, most importantly, will sell beer and wine to the moviegoer.

I salute you, Tim and Karrie League. When I think "movie" and "austin," I think first of the Alamo Drafthouse.

Posted by drizzten at 08:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Christian Science Monitor: Canada inches toward private medicine:

"There is no political support for American-style healthcare," says Michael McBane, coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition, a healthcare advocacy group. He says he hopes provinces will toughen laws to prevent private insurers from entering the market.

Allowing people to buy private health insurance violates fundamental rights, McBane says, because not everyone will be able to afford it.

Posted by drizzten at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

onelittlebrother asked me the following:

I consider myself an agnostic but I wonder if I'm an atheist. Does my being unconvinced of 'God's or gods' existence logically default me to agnosticism or atheism. I guess what I'm saying is...Is there a distinction between saying 'I don't believe in God/god' versus 'I believe there is no God/god.' I've always seen atheism as a claim holding a burden of proof but does it?

I consider someone to be agnostic when they straddle the line. They think it is possible for a gawd to exist but view the current state of evidence as being seriously tilted against the deist position. I was in this category for a long time until I read about the Objectivist-based argument I summarized above (more can be found here). However, the more common definition of agnostic is one who suspends judgment either way.

I do think there is a distinction between the two questions. One implicitly accepts the concept of the divine ("I don't believe in...") and one rejects it ("I believe there is no..."). Unfortunately, given that so many people don't pause to consider the words they use when speaking, lots of atheists say the former when they probably mean the latter.

One way I look at it is the same way I look at the state. A state is not something that exists independent of man; it must be created. Therefore, it is the defenders and advocates of the state that have the burden of proof in the anarchist-statist arguments. This is the "burden of proof principle." Similarly, deists have the burden of proof by their assertion, "gawd exists." Atheists, on the other hand, do not. I don't posit something...because I deny their assertion. Properly speaking, I reject the divine concept as absurd. Atheists like me aren't claiming anything, per se.

But, should even that notion be decried as flatly false, the atheist's case isn't weakened because the atheist has an advantage: it is logically impossible to prove the negative existence of something.

Posted by drizzten at 10:26 AM | Permalink

Allow Don Watkins to explain.

Posted by drizzten at 10:17 PM | Permalink

Apparently, Round Rock ISD has shattered the age-old economic concept that there are no such things as free...school supplies and immunizations.

A round of applause for the fleeced wealth of taxpayers, absent from the discussion, as usual.

Posted by drizzten at 12:44 PM | Permalink

News8Austin: Owner can take down historic home

A homeowner won a victory over his neighborhood.

Bill Walters has been fighting to tear down his home and build anew in Austin's historic Pemberton Heights. Pemberton Heights was one of Austin's original suburbs.

Walters' neighbors opposed the demolition saying the home should be rezoned as historic by virtue of its architecture and its ownership. Two other people who have owned the home have made contributions to Austin's history.

But council members didn't believe there was enough proof to warrant rezoning.

Congratulations are in order, Mr. Walters. You've overcome the-

The city's planning commission will advise him along the way.

Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin

Posted by drizzten at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Slate: Meth Madness at Newsweek

In 1965, the federal government tried to reduce the flow of legal amphetamines into the black market by passing the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments, but the law had an unintended effect. At the time, the legal amphetamines wholesaled for as little as 14 tablets a penny, writes Edward M. Brecher in his landmark 1972 study, Licit and Illicit Drugs. "Kitchen chemists" had been producing amphetamines in clandestine labs since the early 1950s, but they couldn't compete with the licit producers on price. When the government restricted the legal supply, the street price for the diverted amphetamines logically went up. This opened the door "for profitable illicit manufacture on a far larger scale" for the first time, notes Brecher.

By cutting the legal supply to a trickle, the government signaled to drug dealers—and would-be drug dealers—that they could collect substantial profits from an established clientele if they started manufacturing amphetamines. So, as pharmaceutical-grade stuff left the market illicitly, synthesized drugs of dubious purity and potency replaced them (Gresham's Law applied to drugs), making the drug-taking experience more dangerous. The shift to clandestinely made amphetamines also resulted in toxic-waste nightmares when chemists abandoned their labs.

In 1988, the federal government attempted to curtail the production of illicit methamphetamine by severely restricting access to the P2P precursor compound. Some chemists switched to ephedrine, which could be found in cold remedies, and when the government suppressed ephedrine, some moved on to pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in Sudafed and other decongestants. Now, the government strictly limits even the sale of over-the-counter preparations containing pseudoephedrine. According to Newsweek (which I should be reluctant to present as a reliable source), the precursor clampdown helped drive half of all U.S. methamphetamine production to Mexico, where there are few controls.

In the mid-1960s, just before the government declared war on amphetamines, the average user swallowed his pills, which were of medicinal purity and potency. Snorting and smoking stimulants was almost unheard of, and very few users injected intravenously.

Today, 40 years later, snorting, smoking, and injecting methamphetamines of unpredictable potency and dubious purity has become the norm—with all the dreadful health consequences.

©2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

For example, Texas has a new law getting all up in our shit over fucking cold medicine, just because, well, you know, some idiots are making nasty things with it, so everyone's gotta toe the line: New Law Moves Cold Medicine Behind Counter

If you take over-the-counter cold, flu or allergy medications you're probably discovering they're harder to find now that a new Texas law went into effect on Monday.

[...]

Gorena said that she had been searching several drug store shelves for her over-the-counter allergy medication.

The problem is – her medication is being taken off the shelves because one of its ingredients, called pseudoephedrine, is now a banned substance in Texas.

[...]

The new law calls for all products that contain pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in more than 100 medications, such as Sudafed, to be pulled off store shelves and kept locked behind pharmacy counters.

Those wanting to buy it must also be 18 years old, show a photo ID and sign a log to get the medicine.

© Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KGBT. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by drizzten at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

It is shit like this that makes Drizz want to choke a bitch.

To: National Desk, Education and Political reporter

Contact: Josh Earnest of the Democratic National Committee Staff, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a fact sheet released today by the Democratic National Committee:

The White House this weekend announced that President Bush received good news during his annual physical. Doctors pronounced the President to be in "superior" physical condition, which media reports attributed to his rigorous, six day a week exercise routine. While President Bush has made physical fitness a personal priority, his cuts to education funding have forced schools to roll back physical education classes and his Administration's efforts to undermine Title IX sports programs have threatened thousands of women's college sports programs.

"President Bush's has dropped the ball when it comes to fully funding physical education in public schools and women's athletic programs at the college level," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Josh Earnest. "His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games for him. Don't our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit? President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness programs."

It's the jerk of a knee without a mind attached. It is reactionary in the purest, most vile sense.

Posted by drizzten at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

He - or she - will let nothing get in the way of their wars!

Case in point: the Constitution.

Via Hit & Run, I hear of U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour speech in the courtroom during the sentencing of wanna-be Millenium Bomber Ahmed Ressam. The juicy part:

"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.

"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."

THE TERRORISTS' LITTLE HELPER...Reckless judicial arrogance... a Reagan appointee who is an embarrassment to conservatives and an impediment to winning the War on Terror...nitwit...The man is a fool and a threat.

-Michelle Malkin

Judge Coughenour: Your arrogance is exceeded only by your contempt for the lives of your fellow citizens...Whatever the message the judge hoped to send, the one he in fact did send was to Islamicists all around the globe: Come to America. Try and kill us. Either you succeed and get to your version of heaven, or you'll get a second chance 22 years later after spending a couple of decades setting up networks that can help you with round 2...The arrogance of this renegade judge's lecture is simply beyond belief. Congress should summon the judge to testify as to his inane remarks, but precede and follow his appearnce with panels comprised of vitims of terror and the families of military killed in the war...a judge who seemed more intent on lecturing Americans than protecting them...a blusterer from way back, the perfect example of what life-time tenure does to the ego...Coughenour is obviously a product of cronyism, and cronyism gets you this sort of decision-making...My guess is, though, that most terrorists attempting to cross into America will be reworking their travel plans on the chance that, if arrested, they get hauled before Judge C.¹

...if you are feeling the need to make a symbolic statement concerning the judge's absurd decision and even worse reasoning, send an umbrella, the universal symbol of appeasment, to Judge Coughenour...his self-serving sentencing statement and found it the sort of timorous sophistry that encourages more attacks rather than sending any sort of message of resoluteness to the terrorists.²

-Hugh Hewitt (1 and 2)

this travesty of a sentence... to add insult to injury, Judge Coughenour took the opportunity of his sentencing statement to lecture us... I see this insanely brief sentence and judges like John Coughenour as precisely the reasons that we need military tribunals and detention centers like Gitmo...the part that really got me thinking about impeachment (alas, not possible)...I rest my case for military tribunals: at least if they were secret, we wouldn't have to listen to boneheaded lectures by buffoons in black!¹

I endorse everything Dafydd said...this case got highlighted by the Kerry campaign during last year's election as the model for handling terrorists, as opposed to the wartime approach favored by the Bush administration. This shows that our first instincts were correct, and that the only advantage of using civilian courts to fight international terrorists will be to highlight the damage that Presidents can do when they pick idiots to sit on the federal bench... I will point out something that Judge Coughenour seems to have forgotten in his zeal to hold himself up as a Constitutional protector...It's all well and good to sit on one's high horse (or bench, in this case) and proclaim one's devotion to the Constitution. It's quite another to understand the proper application of law in wartime and the nature of the enemies arrayed against us. It comes as no surprise that Judge Coughenour displays his expertise at the first and his absolute incompetence at the second, especially given the laughably light sentence²

-1 Dafydd and 2 Captain Ed

... this isn't resolve -- it's stupidity...It is absurd to think we can or should offer 'constitutional protections' to enemy combatants in matters of national security...winning a war has nothing to do with obtaining justice.

-Brain Droppings

Disgusting beyond words...we have a JUDGE lecturing about American WAR POLICY...How dare he. HOW DARE HE? American citizens would have been slaughtered if not for the sharp eyes of a border guard and this FUCKING TERRORIST APOLOGIST is sitting in a POSITION OF TRUST and he is more interested in scoring POLITICAL points than in protecting the CITIZENS of the United States.

If ever a person needs to be impeached, this ASSHOLE, does.

When the TERRORIST gets out in about a dozen years and attempts to MURDER again, it'll be too bad that Coughenour won't be hauled before the bar as an accomplice.

-Darleen's Place

The Runaway Jurist...Coughenour’s tirade...it seems to me that Judge Coughenour got a little caught up in crafting his Solomonesque judicial masterpiece...his lifetime sinecure as he metes out his fairy tale version of justice...Much as the there was a public outcry following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo, there must be an even more sustained outrage in the wake of this milestone in the growing history of judicial incompetence...we can’t allow our strength to be undermined by such unscrupulous men...Might it be time that we start considering laws limiting federal judges to ten or fifteen year terms?

-Josh Britton

Ressam's sentence was unbelievably short and he'll be out in less than 20 years to bomb again. What an ignorant judge! Oh, he may be brilliant. He may have been summa cum laude (or not), but this ruling was blantantly ignorant...this errant judge...the leftist judge

-Isn't It Rich

Reckless judicial arrogance...

-Mudville Gazette

Activist Liberal Judge States Agenda From Bench...What the hell is this ?...Just another Liberal Activist Judge taking the moment in the spotlight to spew Liberal anti-Bush B.S. and allowing terrorist to go free.

-Jonathan and Wanda Rantings

...Judge Coughenour's appalling decision to give the Millenium bomber a measly 22 years. The Judge decided to pontificate in dicta about how constitutionally pure he is...the arrogance of this Judge

-Sue Bob's Diary

Leftist judge...Typical condescending arrogant leftwing jackassery...What scintillating brilliance, and all utterly irrelevant to the case he was adjudicating. I guess its too much to ask that judges simply do their job, and save the arrogant moralizing for personal time?

-Obviously Right

When a judge uses a conviction to send a political message about national security to the President of the United States - no one was served justice...impeach the idiot for using our laws to send political messages...why do these opinionated jerks always see things as ‘either-or’...old rogue Judge Coughenour...this fool...Impeach him for being just plain dumb!

-The Strata Sphere

Judges are not to engage in political activity, period. For a federal judge in his judicial capacity to render irrelevant editorial criticism of the president's conduct as commander in chief is an extraordinary abuse of office.

[...]

It is almost beside the point -- almost, but not entirely -- that the judge's comments were stupidly ignorant of the most basic legal distinctions. Given the judge's poor use of his own powers in sentencing a man who sought to kill thousands of Americans, the judge should worry less about the president's use of his constitutional powers and more about his own. And he should leave the editorials to the folks with egos equally as large as his in the fourth branch.

-Scott Johnson

All italices and bolded portions are in the original posts.

Posted by drizzten at 02:30 PM | Permalink

It'll be gone in a day or two, but I wanted to point out something on the News8Austin news frontpage:

AUSTIN
Perry signs renewable energy bill
Gov. Rick Perry signed a new bill into law that will increase the production of clean energy.
FULL STORY >> 8/1/2005 5:18 PM

Posted by drizzten at 09:30 AM | Permalink