The Forced Purchase Canard

With discussions ongoing on net-neutrality or as I like to call it, congress taking Al Gore’s invention and ruining it with nonsensical burdensome regulations that what will ultimately lead to higher costs for less access, what needs more understanding ultimately is exactly what is meant by privacy on the interwebs. After all, privacy and equal access (whatever that means) are the stated goals of high-minded control schemes such as net neutrality.

An informative article in the Wall Street Journal online this morning makes an attempt at identifying ten internet privacy myths and then debunking them, most interesting to me is the following:

10) Targeted advertising leads people to buy stuff they don't want or need. This belief is inconsistent with the basis of a market economy. A market economy exists because buyers and sellers both benefit from voluntary transactions. If this were not true, then a planned economy would be more efficient—and we have all seen how that works.

This myth is oft repeated and typically put forth by democrat politicians as a protection for “the people” against the unscrupulous “big business”. In reality it is a misunderstanding of a market based economy by liberal politicians that apparently believe that “the people” are incapable of being responsible for their own behavior.

I know people that every time they have a dollar coming in have already spent two and the reason why they never drown in their debt is because of bailouts and “protective” mechanisms that keep them afloat. These people have no one to blame but themselves and should instead declare bankruptcy so that they no longer can get credit to buy things that they cannot afford. This instructional moment should serve as a moment of introspection and a learning experience. These types of people are too often deemed victims by power hungry legislators and “protective” actions invariably become ways for some to defer responsibility. While billed as compassionate, “protective” legislation is often anything but.

Much of the content on the web is offered at no cost to the consumer, paid for by directed advertisements. Without these advertisements there could not be any no-cost to the consumer services. These advertisements do not force the consumer to do anything. And when they direct the user to a product or service the consumer still does not have to do anything, it requires a conscious decision by a person to make a purchase. There is no coercion here and stating otherwise is a lie.

A Call to Action or Shoving off Responsibility?

Recently populating the radio waves are calls to action imploring citizens of Albuquerque to tattle on other citizens. The first concerns spills at auto salvage yards and the second concerns suspected intoxicated drivers.

Both of these initiatives are flawed in that they require people who may not have the proper grasp of the subject to make judgments that can adversely affect a business or an individual. This is an undue responsibility to non-experts and only invites false alarms reported by busy bodies.

No one advocates for the spilling of hazardous materials anywhere and it is difficult to believe, as the commercial implies, that auto salvage yards refuse to participate in monitoring activities. With a myriad of federal and local regulations there surely must be some way for authorities to verify compliance. A person unfamiliar with the chemicals in use and the conditions that lead to spills should not be left to make this determination. What also must be considered are property rights, the commercial almost goes to the point to encourage people to spy on private companies which could unnecessarily hinder legal action because of due process.

The program that the city of Albuquerque has in place for people to report suspected drunk drivers is even more troubling. Imagine the following scenario; a relationship goes sour and one party follows the other to a bar and after the followed leaves the follower immediately calls the reporting number and gives details about the first party’s path home. The first party may or may not be intoxicated and there is a fuzzy line concerning what constitutes intoxication. In this scenario the first party is right at that line where it is at the officer’s discretion to determine if a person is impaired. This person is not driving erratically and by subjective means may not be considered drunk by the casual observer but may be by an overly cautious or aggressive officer. Without this “tip” this person never would have been stopped. However it is now possible because of an act motivated by malevolence they will now be stopped and may be arrested for being impaired which could seriously damage this person’s immediate future.

This state does have a problem concerning drunk driving and everything must be done to counter it however a dedicated hotline will only cause more problems than it solves. Any thinking person recognizing a dangerous driver, no matter the underlying circumstance, can and should report that person through existing means. Having a dedicated line will only encourage misuse which will add strain to existing resources and has the potential to harm innocents.

Secondary as a concern is the question of the effectiveness of current regulations and their enforcement. Citizens pay a large amount of their incomes in order to support these activities and it is disparaging to citizens listening to these types of ads because it lowers confidence in those entrusted with enforcement when they must implore those who pay for services to perform them as well.

Tax Dollars to Send Baseball Player to Prison...

It was when I was 8 or 9 years old on a trip to the flea market at the New Mexico fairgrounds my parents bought me my first set of baseball cards. It was the 1987 Revco drugs all star pack featuring a couple dozen cards of standout players. Roger Clemens was one of the included players in that set and from that pack on I have considered myself a fan of Clemens. I have never been a fan specifically of any of his four teams and I think the theme of that pack of cards likely laid the road to the way that I am; more a fan of players in Major League Baseball as opposed to any single team.

Today, Roger Clemens finds himself under indictment for lying under oath to Congress before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stating that he did not use steroids while a former trainer and a teammate asserted that he had. The charges under the indictment include “obstruction of Congress”, making false statements and perjury and are based on a grand jury investigation into Clemens that began hearing testimony more than 18 months ago.

The Congress show trials on the scourge of steroids in baseball, of course in the name of the children, all those years ago was unnecessary and wasteful and this indictment only furthers the valid point that the Congress spends too much time on things that just don’t matter and outside of their responsibilities. In this trial it is asserted that in the face of his denials Clemens knew exactly that he had used steroids in the past based on the testimony of others.

Based on others grilled by the Congressional panel who changed statements, if Clemens had later contradicted himself and apologized he would not have faced any further scrutiny while actually perjuring himself. According to sources he could face up to thirty years in prison on the charges. While it would be unlikely that he would be found guilty on all counts and there is much leeway in regard to sentencing guidelines the possibility of 30 years incarceration is completely over the top even if he is guilty.

No doubt detractors of Clemens, such as ESPN’s Sport’s Guy Bill Simmons, may view this news as a reason to celebrate, a reaction completely tied to emotion. Clemens, like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, to cite recent examples, are being trotted out for public ridicule and faces losing his freedom as he approaches his fifties (and could be into his eighties!) because Congress cannot help itself to wade into issues that it has no business in and then taking out convenient targets on politically motivated charges.

This is not justice; instead it is more proof that the US government is too big, disorganized and preoccupied to serve the citizens of this country. Here’s to Clemens beating this wrap and embarrassing Congress at the same time. And, here’s to more Obstruction of Congress, something that I think everyone can get behind. They need to be stopped.

The Cell Phone Ban is not the Answer

The Albuquerque city council is considering strengthening the city’s ban on cell phone usage while driving. Distracted driving is a serious thing and there must be laws on the book that discourage such behavior. The cell phone ban is inadequate to stop distracted driving and should be replaced with widely applicable, simplified legislation that is easy to understand and enforce.

The reason why city council has to add to the law is because the way it is currently written, a person who is stopped at a light or a stop sign and using their phone is technically not in violation. It leads one to wonder what will be next. After the latest spackling of a hole found by a defense lawyer where will the next one be found?

The most troubling aspect of this law is that it only applies to cell phones and not anything else that leads to distracted driving. It is confounding if considered in the context that distracted driving is really just another form of reckless driving – “driving with a willful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”.

Instead of making new laws, offenses that are applicable within the framework of existing laws should be punishable under existing law. Whenever new laws are considered they are more often than not lengthy and the longer they get the more holes exist. It better serves the public to simplify legislation.

The cell phone ban should be wiped from the books and in its place reckless driving statutes should specify the act of distracted driving defined as the operation of a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property because of any distraction.

The simpler the better and if the legal terms must be better defined, fine. Let the city attorney determine what is appropriate but remember to give them a strict word count limit and a list of words they can use so that drivers can comprehend the result.

Assumptions of Groupthink

Earlier this week the majority leader of the US Senate, democrat Harry Reid of Nevada made a statement about how he could not understand how any Hispanic could be Republican. After being questioned further on the subject Reid’s office sent out a statement clarifying that he meant he couldn’t understand why anyone would ever vote Republican because they are against Teachers, Police, Firemen, Bigfoot, Tinkerbell, Sunshine, Rainbows, etc.

These statements come from the leader of the United States Senate. Ostensively the US Senate is an august body comprised of noble and respected leaders. With a majority leader like Reid the Senate has become even more of a joke than low opinion poll ratings suggest.

On the original statement there have been some liberal commentators agreeing with the sentiment and there have been some conservative and Hispanic commentators refuting the comment and the senator. What is woefully missing from both sides is an ability to allow for the idea that Hispanics are free thinking people and as such, depending on many things come to political stances for many reasons. It is condescending for anyone, even with egocentric good intentions, to assign groupthink to any person or group because of ancestral origin.

Based on similar statements that I have heard throughout my lifetime it seems as though democrats are playing to an audience of certain groups that they assume buy in to this kind of talk. I happen to be Hispanic but my opinion amounts to almost nothing to democrats because I do not share their views on governance. It doesn’t matter how angry that these kind of comments make me because they don’t have my vote anyway. Because of this it appears that this statement was a calculated attempt at strengthening the assumptions of like minded voters. That the assumption is false is of no consequence.

In the clarification statement Reid peddles the tired liberal characterization of the Republican platform. An illustration of this came this week as congress was called back into session to vote on a 26 billion dollar funding of certain public sector jobs. Teachers were to benefit the most but the bill has a poison pill wherein the funds must be spent on expanded spending and on not recovering deficits in state budgets. The funding for the bill came from the roll back in expansion of food stamps to occur from 2013-1015. Democrats like Reid point to initiatives like this to prove that Republicans are against teachers but that just isn’t true. The funding for the food stamps program doesn’t exist yet, it is assumed savings. The gargantuan stimulus bill (targeted and short term) passed early last year still has not been fully spent and the democrat controlled congress would not allow the Republican suggestion to use unused stimulus funds. The Republican stance here was not to spend money that we simply do not have on programs that may not be necessary. It seems that to democrats; every teacher, police and fire fighter jobs must be funded no matter the state of the budget and without proper accounting. Worse yet these three hallowed positions are always used to cover other, less palatable political spending on public sector employment.

Friendly Gestures

More than once I have been told by female friends that they have few, if any, female friends for various reasons most of which seem to be stereotypical. A couple events recently relayed to me by my wife had me shaking my head and rethinking these stereotypes. Maybe there’s more truth than assumptions there.

One of my wife’s friends recently got married to her long time boyfriend and from what I could determine was every bit the bridezilla type.

In one instance the bride to be gave a list of instructions to the bridesmaids detailing every second of the wedding day. At face this was no big deal, who wouldn’t want to be more organized? Reading the actual instructions I was struck by the detail and the way it was written. It was incredibly insulting; this woman was treating her friends like infants. I thought about what would happen if a dude distributed this note to his friends. He would have no more friends.

This same bride prided herself on planning every detail and inviting every guest to her groom’s bachelor party. This poor dude already had a problem getting enough groomsmen evidenced by two of them questioning their presence throughout the wedding and before that he couldn’t even be trusted to enjoy himself at a party for himself by his friends. Thankfully I was not invited so I didn’t have to turn down the invitation. The bride remained in constant contact with the groom throughout the night, ignoring her friends at the bachelorette party and further emasculating him. I could just imagine a group of dudes only tangentially knowing the groom sitting in a room afraid of the bride. Yes, that’s correct they stayed home, probably playing pin the juevos on the whipped dude.

Another instance involves a friend of my wife who is looking into buying a new car. She was talking to a life-long, best friend of hers specifically about the friend's new-ish car that she had bought earlier this year. This best-friend of my wife’s friend proceeded to tell her that her car cost eight thousand dollars more than it did. My wife was astounded by the fake price of the car and asked me about it. I went to Edmunds.com to check it out and learned that at the trim level of the car there were no options so the base price of just over 17 thousand dollars was the final price. It was a strange lie. First because it was so easily found out and second because lying about the price of the car had no benefit. This is not a sought after car, there is no premium added by the dealer and no one would be jealous of someone who paid eight grand over sticker for a subcompact. It appears as though the best friend was trying to discourage my wife’s friend from buying the same car.

When I was in my last semester of college I almost bought the same car as one of my best friends and he went with me to the test drive. A dude would talk up his car and then brag about fleecing the dealer. By the way, the car I bought last fall, I bought for almost 5 grand under sticker. It’s wicked fast and looks awesome.

So what’s the deal? As with anything involving the female world I’m clueless but with more stories like the above I start to understand my female friends a little more when they complain about their female friends.

Taxing the Wealthy?

One interesting aspect of politics is that it is completely fungible. Depending on one’s perspective a political stance can basically mean anything and it doesn’t seem to be something that is always consistent with an accepted line of thinking.

In a recent with a conversation with a friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative we talked about an issues that is in the forefront in regard to this fall’s election, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush in 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire next year.

In the context of this conversation I learned that my friend, who I thought was mostly conservative, is an advocate of tax increases and more specifically an advocate of raising taxes on “the wealthy”. I was appalled because that position is something that I will never support. Every time that I hear politicians rant against “the rich” not paying their “fair share” I am instantly turned off. I am not wealthy and if anyone commits tax fraud I believe that they are certainly not paying their fair share by literal definition.

My friend’s position is that because there are so many obligations of government, benefits and services, taxes must go up and that because “the wealthy” make so much they would not miss it so they should be taxed more. And with that my friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative changed to my friend who apparently is an advocate of big government.

Assuredly there is some validity in the first part of that argument, as government grows it costs more and as a result the money to pay for it must come from the taxpayer. That is how government makes money. Personally I disagree with that because I do not believe that every “benefit” of government is necessary and that the solution lies in a drastic reduction in spending. See, fungible, depending on one’s viewpoint.

The second part of the statement was the one that I found the most appalling. Anyone who honestly believes that “the wealthy” don’t pay their fair share is in acute need of study. In this country we have something called a “progressive” tax code that is comprised of six tax brackets. Using the brackets the higher a person’s income, the more taxes are paid on each ascending level. At the top of the bracket the earner pays each bracket on each slice of income and from the top up to the rest of their income is assigned the highest percentage.

An analysis of tax receipts shows that the top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of taxes collected while earning 22.8% of income on an average income of about $410k. The top 10% of income earners on average make $113k making 48.05% of income and pay 71.22% of taxes.

10% of income earners is a minority of citizens in our country and because they are earners are not likely to get any “benefits” from the government outside of paved roads, sidewalks and the common defense, what the government should be providing. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 3% of taxes and along with the people who do not pay any taxes basically have a majority voting block on the other 97% of tax revenue, voting themselves “benefits”.

This condition is a form of tyranny. On emotion alone it can be argued that this view is cruel or reflexively anti poor. This argument and how it is arrived to is the problem. Too many people make decisions made on emotion alone and doing so discounts reality leading to the countless problems that come from big government picking winners and losers and making too many citizens into dependents. It robs the freedom of people and it has an ill effect on many communities where too many people never have a chance because they are conditioned to believe that the role of government is to provide everything and when the government provides everything it only provides just enough and there can be no success.

There should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens and there must be accountability from those citizens to hold government to that promise. The low wage earner should strive to earn more as they gain experience and not be jealous of those that earn more and not making claims on the earnings of others. The pursuit of happiness is a core founding principle of our country. Over taxation and pitting us citizens against each other on the basis of income robs us of that pursuit.

This week...

It was a strange week and a busy week. There was a lot of news and most of it requires more waiting which I find especially frustrating because of my current work situation, which involves lots of waiting.

Brett Favre is back in the news. One day this week he was retiring. And the next he was going to play if he was physically able to. So, effectively nothing happened. But it was covered nearly breathlessly by the sports media for several days. Continue to stand by.

A judge in California strikes down the state’s Prop 8, defining state sanctioned marriage as between one male and one female or denying the right to marriage to gay couples depending on one’s viewpoint, because the traditional definition was no longer valid and of 80 “fact” findings of the judge, all agreed with his viewpoint. How convenient. This was a state judge so it now heads to the federal appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. Continue to stand by. The most sense I have read on this came from David Harsanyi:

isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?...Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

In the end though it’s all about government “benefits”. “Benefits” that I never seem to be eligible for and every day it becomes clear is simply a code word for the ability of the government to take from some and give to others for “the greater good”.

Last week the pricing for the Chevy Volt and the government “benefit” of $7500 towards that price was announced. The President hailed the vehicle as a beacon to our future. Others made fun of a car that costs more than twice as much as its gas powered equivalent that can only go 40 miles on a charge while others derided both sides and deemed themselves correct, in the middle. Whatever that is.

The First Lady, Mrs. Obama, took to Spain on vacation. Renting dozens of hotel rooms with dozens of friends. Some of it was on their dime. Much on ours, including Air Force 2 and the salaries and travel costs of up to 60 secret service agents. Interesting how the news isn’t reporting on this trip as much as President Bush was hammered for vacations at his own ranch.

It was the President’s 49th birthday this week and he celebrated by going home to Chicago and meeting with Unions and throwing fundraisers for democrat candidates. In continuing to blame President Bush for today’s economic circumstances the current President is actually calling out the former President, by name. How presidential. It makes one wonder when this president will actually be president, when exactly does history begin for President Obama?

And unfortunately, Denver Broncos linebacker and sack specialist Elvis Dumervil has torn a pec muscle. It is likely that he will miss the season. A bad sign for an inconsistent defense.

Criminalizing "Finders Keepers"...

From the “Would this even stand up in court file”:

Under the new Tac Plan, officers leave a backpack with items worth more than $2,500 at Gold and Fourth. If passersby take the backpack without reporting it to police, they are arrested and charged with felony counts of larceny.

The story linked is about how this plan, hatched by the Albuquerque Police Department, is on hold but I’m left wondering how it was ever approved. Surely APD has their plans reviewed by the district attorney and apparently this plan was, as the story states. As a matter of fact, the reason why this plan is being put on hold is not because it is clearly entrapment but because it was approved by someone who no longer works in the district attorney’s office.

It seems that APD is really reaching with this tactic because as far as I can tell, “finders keepers” is not nor has have ever been a crime. In the story the details of a bust are shared in which a man was arrested after officers followed him for more than an hour after he found the bag. So, on top of entrapment, APD is wasting officer’s time by having them follow people for holding on to something that they have found.

Is it genial to find a backpack with $2500 worth of items in it and not report it to anyone? Of course not but it isn’t a crime either. And what do the people that find the backpack and then return it to the officers standing nearby get, a cookie?

I get it, it’s rough if you leave anything of value somewhere and then after going back it’s gone and there’s no lost and found and no one has called to let you know they have it. But, you only have yourself to blame. I have lost things in multiple places and often I’m lucky and it’s either right where I left it or someone someplace found it and kept it in a safe place. Other times, it’s gone. And I only have myself to blame in that situation.

Another problem with this kind of plan is that it does not appear that after being caught, could the person arrested even be successfully prosecuted? Imagine the lack of laws in regard to “finders keepers” legislation that a competent attorney could drive a car through in court. Imagine a situation where the person arrested attests that they kept it for safekeeping until they got home in order to contact the owner in some way and because the officers arrested them before they could do that that they did not get to complete their plan. A lot of the charge has to be intent and it seems impossible to tell in this kind of situation. You know, contrived.

The purpose of the plan as stated is to stop thefts of personal bags in the downtown Albuquerque area. Tricking people who would not otherwise actually rob anyone by leaving a bag stuffed with valuables is dirty and can only distract officers from protecting ordinary citizens from actual criminals. This plan should never be awaken from its current slumber.

Take out WikiLeaks

In a column titled “WikiLeaks must be stopped”, the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen writes on a subject that I have often thought about recently as a result of the WikiLeaks website publishing of more than seventy five thousand US Military classified documents:

WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies. These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism. The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents -- and its leadership brought to justice.

Thiessen continues by outlining his reasoning for shutting down WikiLeaks, arresting the operators and the methods that are available to the United States government to do both. This article is more than overdue. It is hard to understand why the recently commissioned U.S. Cyber Command and/or the National Security Agency seemingly do not have the initiative and authority to remove WikiLeaks from cyberspace.

The owner of WikiLeaks is an Australian who travels through friendly countries in Europe and brags that his web site is impenetrable which surely can’t be true. There must be some government agency, specifically the two listed above that could have taken this threat and wiped it from the web. This gross criminal act, if another country did this it would be rightly considered an act of war, is not the first time that this site has posted classified U.S. documents and they even allowed U.S. and European newspapers to look at the current batch before they were posted online. There was plenty of warning and time for some government agency to take positive action to protect this information.

And in the absence of government action, why are there no patriotic hackers able to attack the web site as an act in service of their country? Certainly there are hackers in this country capable to taking out WikiLeaks and covering their tracks so that they cannot be found. It would be a source of national pride that some individual or group with the capability to do so would.

The opinion exists that much of the documentation is old and therefore not all that important. This opinion completely misses the point. The point is that a criminal has taken it on their own to illegally obtain and share secrets of our country. It does not matter that the harm done is less than if the documents were more current. That argument requires blind luck and the next time that WikiLeaks posts U.S. classified information that luck may not be there.

It is frustrating and pathetic that our government either can’t or will not confront the criminals that comprise WikiLeaks. It cannot be soon enough that the decision is made to take this criminal organization out and a visit to their website leads to a site not found error and the operators themselves are in jail.

Albuquerque takes a step towards limiting HOAs

Several years ago, shortly after moving into my first home, I found trouble with the homeowner’s association (HOA). It was my original preference to find a neighborhood that did not have an HOA because even though I had never lived within one everything I heard or read about them was negative. The whole concept to me seemed akin to signing up to be bullied by neighbors. My trouble was in regard to dead lawn in my front yard that was that way when I moved in; eventually everything was cleared up but not without much hassle.

Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton will be presenting a proposal so that homeowners can xeriscape their yards even if a HOA covenant requires a certain amount of the homeowner’s front yard be grass. An attorney representing the Tanoan Community Association derides the proposal as government interjecting itself into “private” rights.

Let me be clear, there is no such thing as “private” rights in connection with a homeowner’s association. The only purpose served by an HOA is to allow power hungry control freaks to lord over their neighbors and dictate actual private rights. By sanctioning such burdensome organizations, our local governments have made it almost mandatory for the individual to cede many rights to these control freaks as a requirement of homeownership.

Take for example the story of a HOA in Texas that repossessed and auctioned a 300,000 dollar home for 3,500 dollars on account of 800 dollars owed in dues. This is tyranny. While letters were sent to the homeowner no one ever visited or called the homeowners to verify in person. These were these people’s neighbors, who wouldn’t have had to walk even a quarter mile to talk to them, taking their house over a negligible amount and selling it for a joke of a price. There was no court date, in Texas HOAs can take property without going to court. They can take property without due process. This is an abomination.

While this story is ending favorably for the original homeowners, it never should have happened. HOAs do serve the purpose of ensuring that people take care of their homes so that they do not have a negative effect on the property values of neighbor’s. If that is all that they did there would be no problem but as time has gone by HOA covenants have become epic tomes that would make the US House of Representatives envious by account of page count and doubletalk. All of this nitpicking results in the complete micromanaging of one’s homes, trampling rights and prizing conformity.

Adding to my personal insult, when I moved into my home it was accepted that some of the 206 dollars in yearly dues would be used toward common area maintenance. Since, I have learned that those common areas are very limited as I am charged with maintaining to their standard the common sidewalk areas immediately in front of my home. Additionally, while the HOA excels at sending threatening letters they have no teeth as evidenced by poor upkeep at homes within several hundred yards of my own.

So, what exactly do I pay 206 dollars a year for? For the pleasure of being harassed by self-important control freaks, that’s what. The proposal in front of city council is a good start and hopefully it will pass. The next step that must be pursued is legislation that limits what and what not HOAs can force on peaceful residents, ensuring that covenants are clear and of a reasonable length and that a responsible homeowner has some way of defending themselves within the law against these tyrants.