Suicide Tourist

That's the name of the PBS Frontline program that I watched (you can watch it online) tonight.

You can probably figure out that it had something to do with suicide, but are somewhat baffled about the "tourist" part. Well, Switzerland has laws in effect that allow assisted suicide for non-Swiss residents. It isn't that simple, of course, but do-able without being overly difficult.

This particular program was about a man that was in the advanced stages of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease); he needed assistance even with breathing. Rather than wait for the disease to play out "naturally", he (after discussing it with his wife of 37 years) decided to end his life. It began shortly before he actually travelled to Switzerland, and ended shortly after his death. It does an exemplary job of presenting HIS views and reasons for making such a choice, and how it affected his wife and two grown kids.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the man opted to end his own life by taking the voluntary action of sucking an overdose of a prescription sleeping compound through a straw; it was not "dispensed" or "given" TO him. Great care was taken to ensure that HE was the one that took the actions that would end his life, and that he was free to change his mind at any point for any reason,

For a long time, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the subject of assisted suicide, with side arguments regarding the morals, ethics, and legality of the matter.

Myself, I'm of the opinion (and do my very best to live that way) that people should be free to do pretty much any damn thing they want, so long as they don't cause harm to those unwilling to accept it. That is, each of us has to make our own decisions for our own reasons, and accept the consequences of our choices -- and that we should be free of interference from those that disagree with our choices.

What this program did was to remind me of some of the questions that I've never heard properly addressed amid all the other discussion on suicide (assisted or otherwise).

• Why, exactly, are so many so ready to automatically and universally decide that suicide is absolutely wrong for everyone, all the time?
• What makes the above individuals think that they have the right/obligation to make such a decision for someone else?
• If a person's physical body isn't theirs as the most basic and fundamental example of "property rights", making them the ultimate arbiter of what to do with it, then who the hell DOES it belong to?
  

A point: he makes one

There has been a certain amount of turmoil about how quickly help has arrived for the victims of the Haiti earthquake. In the local newspaper (the Billings Gazette) this morning, there was an article that I thought was a damn fine explanation of the disparity between people's wants/expectations, and reality:

In the space of a single generation, ours has become a world of live video chats, one-click online ordering, overnight delivery, on-demand movies and instantaneous electronic fund transfers _ including sending aid to Haiti via your cell phone. It becomes only natural, in such a society, to bristle at any delays.

Trouble is, the physical world can't move as fast as the virtual one and, barring the invention of a "Star Trek"-style transporter, probably never will. Unlike medicine and food and water, information no longer has to travel via plane and boat and road and foot. News can arrive immediately. But doing something about it? That's another thing entirely.

Even pizza places want a half-hour to make a delivery, people. How long you think it's going to take to move thousands of tons of relief supplies? You think the Navy's hospital ship USNS Comfort moves at warp speed? Get real.

May you live in "interesting" times...

With GM on the verge of going tits-up, and the UAW taking part ownership of the company (and thus directly and immediately involved in operations), it's going to be "interesting" to see how the unions deal with a more immediate and direct connection of the consequences of their attitudes, demands, and actions.
Personally, I think the UAW has been more like a 10-pound tick on a 20-pound dog; now that all the perks, benefits, and salaries they've demanded over the years affect the company they've now got part ownership of, I think they're going to have to re-evaluate their positions on a whole raft of issues.

Comforting thoughts...

These could well be the "Good ol' Days" that a future generation wishes they could go back to.

Are newspapers dying?

Yeah, they are -- at least, that was the general consensus on the News Hour on PBS this evening, in response to the news that the Chicago Trib was in bankruptcy.

There was a bit of discussion on what the problem was, and I think all of the guests they had kind of missed the point -- particularly after one of them said "news is free".

Well, no, news isn't free; at least, not while it's still news. There are some silly expenses associated with collecting news: for starters, the salary of the person doing the collecting. Then there's the cost of maintaining the infrastructure (hardware, staff, communications, and that kind of silly shit).

From my perspective, "news" is a service, not a product, and I think that's where the newspapers are going off into the weeds. Sure, Back In The Day, they HAD to print newspapers -- the Interwebs simply didn't exist. But the newspapers simply haven't adapted (physically or mentally) to the technology. They've still got those same big-ass presses (that can crank out a couple hundred thousand copies of the same newspaper overnight) and think that they still have to use them.

They don't.

Instead, what I think the newspapers should be doing is getting leaner and more flexible: instead of offering everyone the same copy of the same big-ass newspaper (which most folks don't read half of), they should try customizing their news-delivery service. For example, I don't subscribe to the local rag (the Billings Gazette) simply because they want more than I'm willing to pay for what I'd get (but with a twist): as mentioned, for my half-dollar a day, I'd get the whole damn paper, which I don't want to deal with; I NEVER read the 'fashion' section, and rarely read the classifieds, for example. I'd almost certainly go for subscribing for a hardcopy of the sections that DID interest me, though: news, comics, and editorials. Hell, go fully customizable, and let me select what regular columnists to include (i.e. Dear Abby/Ann Landers, but no horoscope), and they could likely charge a little more for the 'trouble' (remember, they're doing damn near all this with computers).

Most of the online editions of the papers that I've seen have gone one of two ways: making ALL of their content online for free, or trying to charge for the "premium" features. Again, I think both of these examples have missed the point, and that the way to go would be to offer the (common) basics for free, but charging (much smaller prices, of course, since online costs should be so much lower) for the things that people want, when they want them: access to some classified ad sections, for example, with online payment (such as PayPal). Shucks, even for online classifieds, they could charge a little extra for more features: seller-provided digital photos of that house/car/boat for sale, for example).

The last part of the problem, as I see it, is that newspapers are lumped in with Main Stream Media and perceived (usually correctly) as being biased one way or another. They need to knock that crap off, and go back to reporting the NEWS without any bias or slanting: if an apple falls to the ground, don't report it as the big bad ol' Earth picking on a small defenseless apple, or as a renegade apple being brought to justice by the forces of Good Ol' Mother Earth -- just tell me the damn thing fell off a hundred-year-old tree in Farmer Jones field, okay? I got at least two brain cells to rub together, and I'm quite capable of deciding what I think about it without your "help".

Basically, I think that the newspapers would be doing fine IF they could make the transition to providing us the information we want, when we want it, in the way we want. As long as they're going to insist on thinking like dinosaurs and using dinosaur sales methods, they're going to continue losing out to those dinky little upstart mammals.

Catching up

Kind of had my hands full the last week, which is why I haven't posted anything. Not much of an excuse, I suppose, but there you go...

* Got more information on doing my own CNC system. My laser idea won't work for doing printed circuit boards -- not only is copper difficult to cut with a laser, anyway, but the way a laser cuts metal precludes using on a PCB. My emergency fallback position is to go ahead and build a 'regular' CNC that uses a rotating cutting bit to create my boards. An additional benefit is that I can also use it to drill the holes in the board, as well as engrave any panels and such that I might need.

* Watching McNeil/Lehrer last night, I saw a bunch of Congressweasels giving one of the big Financial weenies in Gummit a hard time -- seems the Congressweasels didn't understand that the $750B funding they voted for was not for bailing out people with bad mortgages, but simply to stabilize the financial system. The guy they were dishing shit to tried to explain to them (repeatedly) that there had been no mention of mortgage bailouts or anything else; that he (and others) had EXPLICITLY said that the money was for the financial system. Congressweasels simply couldn't get that concept to stick in their tiny little minds, and were all upset and offended that people were still losing their homes -- and wanted Something To Be Done about it, and right now. Morons. Pretty much all of the folks that have lost their homes did so because there was a "mismatch" between what they claimed their income was, and what they were really earning -- essentially, they lied to get themselves into a house they couldn't afford, and calmly proceeded to spend 101% of their income via MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and all the rest. My thought is: fuck 'em. Yeah, it's gonna hurt the economy for a while -- but when it's over, the financial system (and no, I don't mean just the banks and such) will be a hell of a lot more stable, and stronger.

* The U.S. automakers are now begging and grovelling for a handout, too, and there's no small controversy over whether or not they should get anything. On one side, if the automakers go tits-up, that throws a metric buttload (which is roughly 10% larger than a regular buttload) of people out of jobs, which seriously fucks economies all over the country. Opposing that is the fact that it's the automakers (and all the demands from the unions) dumbassery that got them to this point: there's no reason not to think that they'll just end up pissing the money away and cratering, anyway. Me, I don't think they should get anything until and unless the Autoworkers union is obliged to give up a goodly chunk of the assorted crap that they've demanded over the years, and the automakers trim a bunch out of their bloated administration and management (so they can respond to the market in a timely manner). Then give the bastards a ONE-TIME loan of about half what they're asking for before letting them sink or swim on their own.

* The news media has caught wind of the fact that people that already own guns are buying more of them -- but can't seem to figure out why. Dumbshits.

* The Obamessiah is promising to dismantle a lot of the "protection" bullshit (i.e. warrantless wiretaps, anti-terrorism measures, etc) that the Bush administration hosed us with. That only makes me worry that he's going to try to do even worse shit.

Recreation

Went out with a couple of friends last night to a local microbrewery by the name of "Angry Hank's".

I'd never been in the place before, but after last night's experience, the only thing I can think of that might be making "Hank" angry is that so damn many people are drinking his most excellent beers.

I started the evening off with an obligatory trial of something they call "Dog Slobber" -- I mean, come on, doesn't that just BEG investigation? Well, it was pretty damn good beer: a brown (but not 'dark') ale, it had a nice flavor and a little more of a kick than I expected. When I looked at the big chalkboard that Hank's has on the wall, I saw that they were nice enough to indicate the alcohol content of their different brews (as part of the descriptions). The lowest alcohol level they serve is 4.5%; the highest is 6.5 -- that is, anywhere from half again to double the strength of regular 'commercial' brews such as Budweiser, Michelob, and the like.

After I finished my Dog Slobber, the next thing I sampled was their Griz Wizz (are you noting a 'theme' here?). Definitely a different flavor, it was more of a pilsner -- though still a trifle darker.

The last thing (by Montana law, brewpubs must limit customers to 3 beverages per evening; Hanks issues everyone a wristband that they put a mark on each time you make a purchase -- 3 strikes and you're 'out') was their seasonal beer "Oktoberfest": more of a red than brown, it was 6.5% and bloody fucking good. It kinda snuck up on me, though; it was good enough that I really didn't realize how fast I was drinking it until the alcohol started to kick in. I was feeling pretty good and mellow about that time...

Nice thing about Hank's is that they offer what are called 'growlers': a glass jug (with their logo on it) that can be filled for home consumption. Growlers appear to be half-gallon sized, and I'm told that they hold four pints. I don't know if there's any limit on how many growlers can be bought at a time, but I may well find out -- Hank's offers some damn fine brews!

Confuzion - I haz it.

In the process of watching the various news reports of the last few weeks, and reading the comments and letters to the editor of online and print media, I have to confess that I have no small measure of confusion about a few things:

Polygamy sect(s)
Could someone explain to me -- using something other than religious grounds -- just exactly WHAT is wrong with polygamy? I'm not talking about the 'marriages' of underage kids to adults (which should be illegal, anyway), but the practice as engaged in by adults. It's not anything I would have any interest in; I'm just curious to know what the basis is against it. For that matter, why is 'marriage' limited to a one-and-one definition, anyway? If the goal/purpose of marriage is to provide for children, stability in the relationship, and ensure that the family is suitably provided for, then I'd think that any kind of union that accomplished those goals would be acceptable. Besides, whose business is it what happens in a marriage except for those involved?
Considering all the different religions and cultures in the world, maybe it's time to stop thinking of 'marriage' as a religious construct, but rather a LEGAL one.

Gay Marriage
Again, I'm at a loss here. If two people want to join their lives together, what the hell should it matter to anyone else? Yes, I hear and read all the fussing (usually involving quotes or citations from the Bible), but none of that answers the question: what business is it of yours? If 'you' believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is immoral or sinful or whatever, then don't do it; regardless of what you may think or believe, you do NOT have any inherent 'right' to deny anyone else the freedom to live as they wish -- unless, of course, you're willing to subject yourself to someone else's beliefs, in turn?

Crime and Punishment
Lest anyone think that I'm a Liberal (with that capital 'L'), I'm not: conservatively, I think that we should have as few Laws (and as little Government) as we can manage; but that what laws we DO have should be enforced quickly and fully. I believe, for example, in the death penalty for a couple of reasons. First, that there are simply some crimes that are so vile and heinous that the death of the perpetrator is called for; second, that when the death penalty is enforced, it can serve as a deterrent to others committing the same crime. In this second case, I would call for a restoration of the policy of making such executions PUBLIC. Yes, watching someone die by hanging, electrocution, firing squad, or whatever is highly disturbing -- and that should be exactly the point: people should be able to see the consequences of committing a crime for which there is the death penalty. If someone is sentenced to the death penalty, don't give them an additional 20 years of life while they file appeal after appeal after appeal. Rather, have a team of independent judges and attorneys review the case in detail, fill in any missing details or options (i.e. a DNA test that wasn't inclued in the trial for a rape/murder), verify that all the details were properly tended to, and promptly proceed with the execution if everything matches up.
Similarly, I don't see any reason why prisons and jails should be so livable. Even though he may be going a bit overboard, I think Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the right idea. I don't think that criminal suspects and convicts should be denied legal representation or treated inhumanely, but I don't think that they should enjoy the same 'rights' as everyone else, either: they should be punished for filing frivolous types of lawsuits, they shouldn't have some inherent 'right' to cable TV, and so on. Instead, I would suggest that convicts receive only the barest minimum of treatment and care (and be worked to compensate their victims), and then earn the priveleges of (additional) TV, access to a library, recreational equipment, and so on. The money saved could be applied toward self-improvement programs (education, anger management, and the like) that would help keep them from being incarcerated again. Similarly, there should be room for DECREASING a prisoners options in the event they continue to misbehave in jail or prison: reducing the time they get to spend outside of their cells (and for what purposes), what they may have in their cells, exercise and entertainment options, and such. Basically, I'm advocating increased punishment for bad behavior, and rewarding good so that they learn (at the 'gut' level) how to behave.

Government
As mentioned before, I'm in favor of having as little Government and Law as we can manage. I don't see any point to passing laws that aren't routinely enforced. For example, here in Billings, we have a law against loud car stereos:

No driver or occupant of a motor vehicle on any public or private property shall operate or permit the operation of a sound amplification system from within a motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible (heard) at a distance of fifty (50) feet or more from the motor vehicle. Billings City Code- sec. 24-352. Exemptions: a. A system being operated to request assistance of an emergency nature or to warn of a hazardous situation; b. A system being operated on a vehicle of a gas, electric, communications or water utility company or governmental entity; c. A system permitted by the Billings City Council or the Billings Police Department; d. An authorized emergency vehicle; or e. Audio alarm systems installed in vehicles. BCA.sec.24-353

Good luck on filing a complaint, however: with my own two beady little eyes, I've seen 'boom cars' sitting at traffic lights right next to Billings PD vehicles. Yeah, it made someone feel warm and fuzzy inside to 'do something' about boom cars. I don't doubt that the law was passed with the best of intentions -- but since there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to enforce it, what's the point? All it seems to be for, now, is to give cops something else to add to whatever charges they might have against a driver; that, in turn, begs the question of how valid the charges are for whatever (s)he was stopped for in the first place. Here's a thought: how about if we go into the court records at the various levels of the court system, compare what charges were brought, and then eliminate any laws that haven't been used for X number of years (I'm thinking 10, but that's just a starting point) that they've been on the books? This would 'exempt' laws that haven't been in effect long enough to have much of an impact while still getting rid of the nonsense laws that have had little or NONE. Then repeat this every X years...
Next on the agenda is taxation. I don't have any problem with paying my share of the Governments operating expenses. What I do have issues is that there's virtually no way of telling whether or not what I'm paying is 'fair' -- which leaves us with the question of what we mean by 'fair'. Does fair mean that every adult pays the same flat amount (budget divided by adult population), or that everyone pays the same percentage of their income? If the former, then people making less than a certain amount are going to be hit with a tax bill they can't pay; if the latter, then those with higher incomes are shouldering more of the burden: 5% of a million dollars is a trifle more than 5% of fifty thousand. This is the kind of thing that causes the tax code to turn into a plate of spaghetti, as far as being legible is concerned. For example, the very first part of the tax code -- where it just defines who has to pay -- runs to 30,527 words on 61 pages, including all the notes, citations, and other Legal Noise. After that, things start getting seriously obtuse, what with all the sub-sub-sub-sub-clauses, cross references, exceptions, exemptions, specifications, and everything else. Just as an exercise, go to your local library, and find the shelves (there will probably be more than one) that hold all the Federal laws -- what are commonly called "Titles" (maybe some lawyer can explain the how/why of that). What you're after is the tax code, or Title 26. Pull that sucker down off the shelf, open it up anywhere, and have a look at it. Notice the size and density of the print. Have a try at reading it. THAT, friends and enemas, is what we're supposed to 'know' -- that old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bit. Could somebody please explain to me just exactly why we need that much literary diarrhea to tell us how much money we're supposed to give the Government? Why, in God's name, can't the tax code (in its entirety) be reduced to something that a mere mortal can read and understand? Something, say, the size of a paperback book? Something that says, simply and clearly, "The tax on gross individual income will be X%. The tax on gross business income will be Y%. The following types of organizations shall be exempt from business income taxes: This, and That, and The Other One. The following goods will be taxed at the rate indicated: Petroleum products and derivatives - A% per gallon or pound, as appropriate; Foodstuffs - B% per gallon or pound, as appropriate; imported ____ - C% per ___", and so on. Also note those little periods at the end of each sentence -- as in thud, complete stop, no 'except' or 'unless' or anything else. Hell, if the damn tax code was intelligible to anyone but a lawyer, we might be able to pay it as we go along, and not need to file income tax returns. Wouldn't that be nice?
Somewhat related to the problem with the tax code is the number of federal employees we have. I actually did the research (email me, and I'll be glad to send you the resulting file), graphed the results, and found out that since 1946, the ratio of federal employees (in the whole government) versus population has halved -- that is, we now have twice as many federal employees (for our population) as we did sixty years ago. In 1946, there were just over 51 people for each federal employee; as of 1999, there was a federal employee for ever 21 peeps:
(click on image to see it better). Does anyone out there seriously believe we're getting roughly 2 1/2 times more service? Or is that much more government is 'servicing' US, instead? You think maybe if we had a little (lot!) less Government, it might not need so much money to operate?

All in all, I think all of us would be a lot better off if we were willing to assume more responsibility for ourselves and our choices, and demonstrate less interest in claiming (and trying to exercise) authority over other individuals.

But, hey, that's just me.

Your Papers, please!

There's a story on Slashdot about a young man that was arrested as a result of his refusal to allow a Circuit City "Loss Prevention" person to inspect his bag on the way out of the store.

Due to the event happening in Brooklyn, Ohio, there are some aspects of the situation that put it in a rather 'unique' context (scroll down to the bit on Ohio's laws on personal identification).

There are those that might argue that Circuit City (and its parking lot) are private property, and thus subject to whatever rules or policies that CC wishes to implement. Others might say that he's a 'troublemaker' for refusing to comply with the request when doing so would be so easy and simple, and would have saved him all the trouble he now faces.

Personally, I think he should be applauded for what he did and the stand he's taking. From my own reading and experience, this type of 'intervention' by Circuit City, Best Buy, and even the "greeters" at Wal*Mart (that want to 'check your recipt' on the way out), is not intended so much to stop shoplifting as to impede someone from bringing an item to the register and having the cashier ring it up as something else (or for a lower price). In effect, these stores are using all of their customers as a tool against employee theft.

My position is that if Circuit City, Best Buy, Wal*Mart, or any other retailer wants to reduce or eliminate employee theft, then they need to take the matter up with the employees - NOT ME. Further, if one of these stores "thinks" that I maybe, might have shoplifted something, then they should be obliged to make the charge/accusation outright, rather than pretending they're not accusing me of anything by 'checking' me on the way out. That way, when their accusations are shown to be incorrect, they can be held accountable for their actions.

I'm also supportive of the kids position on refusing to cough up his drivers license - he wasn't operating a vehicle, he responded truthfully to the questions the police officer asked (whether the cop knew WHAT to ask for is should be HIS problem), and was the one that requested the police in the first place - because of the actions of two CC employees that followed him out of the store and physically prevented him (or his family) from leaving. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the kid was right about how he was obliged (under Ohio law) to identify himself - whether the cop(s) or anybody else likes it, or not.

It's my position that too many individuals have been turned into sheeple, ready to waive their freedom, rights, dignity, and liberty at the slightest provocation. Folks bitch and moan about cops and other officials abusing their power - but aren't willing to stand up and fight those abuses, and defend themselves. This young man IS ready to do so, and I think he deserves every bit of support we can give him.