inCENSUSed

Got my 2010 Census form in today's mail. Thankfully for all concerned, it was the short form. Still, there were a few troubling things that I dealt with appropriately:

• They wanted my phone number: "We may call if we don't understand an answer". Tough shit; should've made the question clearer.
• Last and first names. Pbbbbbbbbbbbt! Don't need this to count me.
• My race. I'm not White (more of a pale tan), Black/African Am./Negro (um... aren't those all the same thing?), American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian (last time I checked, even the original inhabitants were imported. No?), Chinese, Korean, Guamanian or Chamorro, Filipino, Vietnamese, Other Pacific Islander (to be specified), Other Asian (to be specified), or some other race. Screw it - I'm Human.

Other than space for an additional 11 people the might be in the household, that was it.

Oh, and here's something amusing: the FIRST question was the number of people in the place; question TWO was if there were any additional people not included in question one. WTF?

PayPal - Stupid or Criminal?

I haven't been exactly overjoyed with PayPal, even from the time I first signed up with them. It hasn't been any one thing in particular, but more of a general we're-too-big-to-have-to-pay-attention-to-you attitude almost any really large organization eventually takes on.

Over the years, I've also heard (and read about) the stories of PayPal summarily and somewhat arbitrarily freezing accounts without ever providing any real explanation as to why, how it could be resolved, when it would be resolved, or other actual details. Recently, however, I ran across this story, and something about it just set my teeth on edge.

Since the only thing I really used PayPal for was buying stuff on eBay, and eBay has finally managed to aggravate me sufficiently enough to close my account with them, it seemed like as good a time (and reason) as any to close my PayPal account, too. A couple of days ago, I tried to do just that - only to be told by PayPal that there was some kind of activity still unfinished with my bank.

Fine, whatever. The last eBay purchase I made was on the 6th, and I've already received the item, so I figured PayPal would get caught up in the next couple of days. This evening, when I logged in and tried to close the account, I still got the same message. After carefully checking that all my transactions showed as "completed", I called PayPal support.

For the love of God, Cthulu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, or anything else you hold dear, don't ever do that. Their automated voice response system is seriously fucked up. After telling me that it couldn't understand me (despite my speaking carefully and clearly) after too-brief response periods, it insisted on trying to foist me off to departments that were completely irrelevant to what I wanted to discuss. Having no other alternative, I simply started pressing "O" until it concluded I wasn't playing nice and handed me off to the generic WTF line. Cindy, or Sue, or whatever the hell her name was kept saying "Bayble" for PayPal (among other language and accent defects), necessitating I ask for someone that actually spoke English.

The young fellow I ended up with was actually helpful, and tried to explain to me how, although PayPal was telling ME that everything was "completed", it really wasn't: that the requisite time (3 to 5 business days) hadn't passed between my last PayPal-based purchase, and the removal of funds from my bank. Strictly speaking, "completed" on MY end actually sometimes meant "still processing" on THEIR end. In response to that, I suggested that if that was the case, then either PayPal didn't know what it was doing by telling me that the transaction was complete, or it was deliberately lying to me - and asked which it was. He was unable to answer that question, and elected to explain the situation again. Just as he did when I asked additional questions that he didn't have answers for.

The bottom line is that I'm likely to have to wait until Saturday before their computer decides that it has received the $2.25 in question, and it's okay for me to close my account.

I would suggest that anyone with a PayPal account have a look at the things that PayPal has done, and decide if they really want to entrust their money with such an operation.

Oh, and just to make SURE everyone understands: PayPal is not a bank, it is a "payment processor". In other words, they are not subject to all those nifty banking regulations about access to your money, business practises, and the like. Caveat Emptor!

Ummmm... whoops?

Golly-gee willikers.

It seems that the school district accused of spying on students was just misunderstood.

Really.

Is true.

What actually happened is that the laptop was reported stolen. They haven't bothered to produce any documentation of that; we should just trust them, apparently. Besides that:

• They didn't do anything wrong,


• They only did it 42 times,


• And they aren't going to do it any more, anyway.

The image that brought this whole thing out? Whoever it was that told the webcam to take a picture managed to catch the kid while he was involved with the notorious gateway drug of... Mike and Ike candies.

This whole thing is looking more and more like the school district made an abysmal choice in installing the remote-monitoring software, shot themselves in the foot by trying to punish the kid for consuming what they thought (but didn't bother to verify) was illicit drugs, and are now doing a singularly bad job of trying to justify what they've done and put the best possible face on it -- instead of just standing up and admitting that they screwed the pooch all along the way.

Damn fine way to set an example, folks...

Dear MPAA:

If you want to start making more money from movie sales, fix this (click = bigger):

HINT: The answer is a whole lot closer to the first choice than the second; and no, trying to make customers buy more copies of the movie isn't the answer, either. Kthnxbai.

Via the Presurfer

Like movies at home? You're screwed!

Oh, here's a goodie, courtesy of the entertainment industry. It seems that at the end of this year, entertainment gear (TVs, receivers, Blu-ray players, etc.) will no longer be allowed to make products that output HD signals unless those outputs meet the AACS (Advanced Access Content System) -- which amounts to the ability to limit them to the "old" low-res analog TV quality if the folks that put the movie out choose to do so. No high-definition for you unless your player complies with their desire to control how their movies are viewed. The movie studios want to be able to charge you for every single way you want to watch the movies you buy.

Yes, this applies to current HD-capable devices such as Blu-ray players.

No, you may NOT take the one disk you BOUGHT and PAID FOR and use it whenever and wherever the hell you want. Nor may you make a backup copy in case the dog chews the store-bought one.

Watch it at home? That's one copy.
Want to watch it on a portable while on the road? That's another copy.
Want to watch it on your computer? There's copy #3.
Watch it on something else, or a different place? Guess what...

In other words, the movie industry is finally at the point where they can (try to) enforce their wish to control how you watch the movies YOU bought, using the players that YOU paid for.

As a Linux user, I don't doubt that somebody is going to figure a way around this, since Linux doesn't spread it's legs for the MPAA/RIAA the way Microsoft does. You Windows users... well, you're pretty much screwed.

Okay, THIS isn't good...

BoingBoing is reporting that a Merion, PA school district has been remotely monitoring school-issued laptops -- even in the child's home. From the fine article:

According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. [emphasis added]

For further scary details, have a look at the class-action suit being brought against the school district.

If you're not inclined to go through the comments to find it, a PBS "Digital Nation" piece showed it being done inside a Bronx school (at about 4:39 in).

Me, I can see something like that being done in the classroom during school hours -- but anywhere else, not so much. Here's hoping the sub-geniuses that came up with this idea (and the morons that didn't object, and the asshats that actually implemented it) all find themselves doing serious time and being sued for everything but their underwear...

Shades of X-Files!

If it had been the Weekly World News or some similar source, I'd have treated the story like a Bigfoot sighting. But since it's on CNN, I'm willing to give it some credence.

A lot of states -- at the bequest of the federal government -- are doing involuntary DNA testing on newborn babies:

Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

Okay, that's bad enough; but to further aggravate the situation, that DNA data (with the names attached) is being kept for extended periods of time and dispensed to third parties:

Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.

Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state. (To find out how long your baby's DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list).

Now, I'm not one of those folks that think The Gummit is out to get me, or that I have to worry about black helicopters coming for me in the middle of the night. I do, however, have a mistrust of ANY governments ability to restrain itself. I worry that sooner or later, somewhere, somebody is going to say something along the lines of "Well, we've already got ______. Why don't we start doing _______ with it?"

Yes, the good that comes from DNA testing (that it's mandatory concerns me) is significant. But I can easily envision a raft of bad uses that would far, far worse.

Of, By, and For the people my ass!

Back on December 25th (yes, Christmas; I don't have family to spend holidays with so it's pretty much just another day for me) I fired off an email to the HMFIC of the GIS (Geographic Information Systems) for the city of Billings, inquiring about the availability of GIS data. I've gotten interested in what's possible with GIS, and was hoping to get a set of "real world" data that I could have a look at in different ways.

Well, a month later, I got an initial response back:

David,
I'm sorry for not responding sooner. The City's GIS data is not available for direct download, and at this time we do not have a publicly accessible web mapping service. Yellowstone County provides a public map service that makes available information about property, streets, administrative boundaries, and other layers, as well as imagery, topo maps, etc. The State of Montana also has a public state-wide map service which provides some of the same information as does the Yellowstone County map service. Both sites can be found using Google.

Yellowstone County: http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/mapping/webgis.asp
State of Montana: http://gis.mt.gov/

I will be glad to answer any questions.

[name, rank, and serial number removed to protect the guilty]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Merriman [mailto:dkmerriman@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 2:31 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: City GIS data

Is the GIS data for the city available for download or otherwise available to the public? If so, how might I get a copy?

David Merriman

To that, I responded with

You said that it is not available for direct download; if I were to
provide the media (cds/dvds), would it be possible to get a copy that
way?

DM

Either I'm on somebody's Watch List, the dingleberry doesn't want to be bothered, or he's so low on the food chain that he doesn't have the horsepower to make a decision. The following is his reply to my second email request, and MY response:

> David,
> Per your request for the City's GIS data: in that the City's GIS data
> are considered public records, in order for us to fulfill your
> request a Request For Public Records must first be filled out,
> specifying what data is being requested.

I must confess that I find this requirement to be somewhat at odds with
the policies in place for the State and Yellowstone county; both readily
offer GIS data for download (links to follow).

> The GIS data in its
> entirety could fill dozens of DVDs, and may be better copied to an
> external hard drive, to be provided by the requestor. In addition,
> the City will charge for whatever time is required to fulfill the
> request. The City of Billings GIS data is stored in multiple
> databases, and in literally hundreds or thousands of individual
> files. A request such as this could take many hours or days to
> fulfill, unless a more specific set of data is requested.

This seems rather farfetched, to me. The basic Yellowstone County
datasets offered by the county and state would each fit comfortably onto a single 700MB CD (see http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/mapping/webgis.asp
and http://nris.mt.gov/gis/gisdatalib/gisDataList.aspx). Still, if the
City GIS Coordinator isn't sure of how much GIS data the City has
actually accumulated, an external drive could be provided.

I do have a problem with your statement that fulfilling a request such as
mine could take "many hours or days"; even the free GIS software for my
Linux system will cheerfully export GIS data and maps _in toto_. Surely,
the City finds it worthwhile to regularly review the GIS maps that are
available - why would it take "hours" to simply copy a map layer to an
external hard drive? As regards the "multiple databases" and "hundreds
or thousands of files", isn't that the whole POINT of having GIS
software, so that all those files can be accessed quickly and easily?

>
> Furthermore, certain data may be considered a matter of public safety
> under Montana Code Annotated, and pending an analysis by City staff
> may not be available to the general public.

I would certainly expect public safety data to be excluded from my
request. Still, absent any information from the City regarding what data
is available, I would have to phrase any request for GIS data as
broadly as possible. Even so, I would hope that the various datasets
(water supplies, sewage, storm drainage, etc) would be on individual GIS
map layers so as to allow City employees (or other users) to view only
those areas of interest.

>
> The Request For Public Records can be found on the City's website
> under the Clerk and Recorders page:
> http://ci.billings.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=104.

As an FYI, the Request form is now located at the URL:

http://ci.billings.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=962

While the City may not explicitly make the GIS data available via a web
site (or even page), I find it troubling that there doesn't seem to have
been any thought given to the idea that a mere citizen might want access
to the data that has already been paid for.

I would have HOPED that my initial request about the GIS data would have drawn a response along the lines of "Sure, we've got Water, Sewage,
Electric Distribution, Storm Drainage, Rights of Way, Property
Ownership, Physical Addresses, [further list of subjects]. We can't
release ______ and _____ for public safety reasons, but you're welcome to any of the others. Each dataset takes up ABOUT ________ bytes, and you'll have to bring your own storage medium for us to copy it to. Make an appointment, and we can copy it over for you in about _____ minutes, tops. This isn't any big deal, since we keep a copy of the files handy, so there won't be any charge."

Instead, what I got was an initial attempt to shuttle me off to something
completely different from what I inquired about. A followup got me the
message that I've responded to in this email.

Taking this (your second) response at face value, I am left with the
distinct impression that either you don't want to be bothered by an
actual Billings resident and threw out a bunch of word salad to try
and discourage me; or you actually don't have any idea of how much GIS
data the City has or what that data consists of.

Mr. XXXXX, I made an honest and polite request for assistance and
information. I would think that an open and honest governmental body -
one with an interest in actually serving the public - would have
responded much differently than you have. If you plan to continue with
the attitude that you have demonstrated to me thus far, I would suggest
that you get your job title changed from "GIS Coordinator" to "GIS
Obfuscator".

Since you have seen fit to CC your email to the City Attorney, Assistant
City Manager and City Manager (but, curiously, not the Director or
Assistant Directors of Public Works), I have taken the liberty of CCing
my response to my City Council members.

David Merriman

Yes, the shithead actually CCed his email to me to the individuals mentioned, and yes, I actually included my City Council reps in MY reply, which I sent after business hours.

We'll see what kind of response(s) I get tomorrow...

PISSED!

Now that the assclowns in the Senate have passed the so-called healthcare "reform" bill, I am so totally, thoroughly, unspeakably pissed at my local shitbird that I've called his office (Senator Jon Tester, Billings 252-0550) to try and let them know that I am MOST DEFINITELY upset.

The entire state of fucking NEBRASKA getting out of having to pay anything because their scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, asswipe Senator went for a fucking power-play in exchange for his vote? This doesn't stand any kind of test, never mind "smell".

It is my sincere and fond hope that every microcephalic, misanthropic, pusillanimous pinhead that voted for this offence against the very IDEA of "democracy" should be smitten with suppurating pustules, have the fleas of a thousand camels infest their crotches, be flogged repeatedly and have the wounds rubbed with salt -- and then be seriously abused.

Wal*Mart spreads H1N1

Really.

"... employees of the Arkansas-based retail giant -- even its food handlers -- feel they have no choice but to work when they're sick. That's because the company gives workers demerits and deducts pay for staying home when they're sick or caring for sick children."

I think it might be a good idea to do your shopping in Real Stores for a while, folks...

What he said...

I'm with Good Sir Jimbo on this one.

Selectively picking the taxpayers pocket

Those ass-munches in Congress (both House and Senate) have decided that the way to pay for some "health" program or other is to dramatically raise taxes on tobacco -- to over $25/pound.

There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which include:

• The greatest percentage of smokers are poor -- the very same folks that are most likely to need the SCHIP services the new tax is meant to fund.
• Another tax on tobacco is going to reduce the number of smokers -- and thus the source of the money they're after.
• Taxing ONE "bad" product is eminently unfair -- why not go after other unhealthy products, too, like fast food, soft drinks, junk food, and the like?

I've already contacted my (*spit!*) Congressweasels, and told them (via their "contact me" web pages):

I realise that smokers make a nice, convenient target every time you assclowns need to raise taxes for some "health" issue -- but enough is enough!

Next time Congress needs to bleed a bunch of taxpayers for money for some targeted medical issue, how about you go after an even bigger source of income, like the fast-food establishments, soft drinks, junk food purveyors, and the like? Have you somehow missed the "crisis" of overweight/obese people in this country? Has it somehow escaped your attention that there are a WHOLE lot more lardasses than there are smokers?

Or is the idea of better distributing the additional burden too much for your teeny little brains to comprehend?

Yes, that's really what I wrote -- and that was "restrained", considering what I really wanted to say.

Dickheads.

AGAIN wit' da Gummit

*sigh*

In today's mail, I got another one of the goofy-ass "American Community Survey" thingies from the U.S. Census - despite the fact that I have tried to let them know that I didn't have any interest in providing them with anything, which didn't work particularly well.

Carefully reading the "We're from the Government, we're here to help" bullshit accompanying the survey, and doing a little checking, I find that there are, in fact, penalties for not participating:

From 13 USC {that's Title 13 of the United States Code, for those of you that might be less than familiar with lawyer-speak), courtesy of Cornell University Law :

§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Loverly, innit?

I certainly don't want to break the law by refusing to comply mit Das Direktive (I gave them my name, the date, my phone #, and that it's just me, just like they asked on the very front of it), and I'd never dream of outright lying to them. I guess the only option they leave open to me is to respectfully decline to provide anything, in accordance to (c).

If they think I'm bullshitting, they're certainly welcome to PROVE it -- if they can.

Gee, so sorry...

Me vs. U.S. Census

In yesterdays mail, I got a personal letter from the dipshit that has been trying to get me to answer his goofy-ass Census Bureau questions -- this despite the fact that every time the twit turned up at my door, I was rude to him, and refused to respond to any of his other messages. You'd think that a reasonable person would get the hint; but this gonzo has apparently taken dedication to his job FAR beyond what any rational person would.

So, this afternoon, I contacted the people that are supposed to be supervising him (the Denver Regional Office!!), and let them know -- in no uncertain terms -- that I didn't want to hear from him ever again. I also informed them that if I WAS contacted by him in any size, way, shape, or form, I would file a stalking complaint with the police.

Naturally enough, the dingbats in Denver wanted to know all my particulars; I advised them that if I wanted to pass that information out, I would have answered his questions in the first place -- and, further, that I already had more Government than I needed (or wanted!). As the coup de grace, I suggested that if they REALLY wanted to know anything about me, what I was doing, and so on, that they see if they could get it from one of the government agencies that's involved in monitoring U.S. citizens communications.

Big Brother is watching

Okay, so now we're pretty much screwed, methinks.

The 114-page wiretapping bill looks like it's going to be passed -- and when it is, private communications will be at the mercy of whatever twit happens to be in the Whitehouse:

1. There doesn't seem to have been any kind of 'compromise' between the Whitehouse (and by extension, Republicans) and Dems; Dubya is getting pretty much anything and everything he wanted -- if not more.
2. The bill doesn't add anything to the capabilities of the National Security Agency, CIA, or any of the other similar or related organizations. The NSA has always been able/willing to keep an eye on any communications that 'exited' the United States; all that's really changed is that now they can use a bigger vacuum cleaner to suck up all the data.
3. Now the telecoms are given an advance blanket protection against being sued by the customers they're betraying -- all they have to do is tell a FISA court "The President said it was okay!", and they're off the hook.
4. No guarantee (or even vague promise) that this law is the One True Way of dealing with the issue of surveillance, wiretapping, and the like -- after all, the FISA system was supposed to be the One True Way, until Dubya decided he didn't like it and went on to violate it (and, incidentally, the Constitution). So the next "We know what's best for you" government we get could scrap this abomination in favor of something even MORE intrusive.
5. The law isn't even clear about who's supposed to be doing what, or what the limits are. One report on it declares
   

   To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

I've just got one question about all this.

Why are we allowing our own government to do to us the very same things that we used to slam the former Soviet Union used to do?

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.

Poly Ticks

Even though many (if not most) of our national-level elected officials are tolerably decent peeps individually, I think I've noticed a change in the political parties as a whole.

Seems to me that in my Early Years, the two main political parties were each barely on opposite sides of a line that represented the middle ground: when something came up, each side pointed toward a solution that was only slightly to the left or right.

More and more, however, the Republicans and Democrats seem to be moving farther and farther apart -- one side or the other will produce a 'personality' that draws public attention, and their counterparts will cast around for someone to counteract the other side. This (of course) only results in the first side coming up with a counter-counter-personality, who must be topped. Back and forth they go, each sides Loud Voice moving the group a miniscule bit farther away from the other -- until, finally, we reach the point where any proposal by either side is immediately perceived as unacceptable for the simple reason that it came from the 'opposition'.

I know I'm not the first person to think of this -- the simple fact that there have been repeated attempts to establish and grow a third, fourth, or other 'alternative' party suggests that there are a lot of people out there that agree: neither the Democrats NOR Republicans have a hammerlock on Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Personally, I think (and hope) that it isn't going to be too much longer before the separation between the two parties is great enough that there will be room for a third -- and further, that once that 3rd party survives an election year, it will quickly grow to overwhelm either of the other two. I think this will happen for a very few simple, basic reasons:

• Our government has simply become too big, bloated, and inefficient.
• Our government is nowhere NEAR responsive to the wishes of the American people as a whole.
  
• Our government has become too intrusive and demanding on the very people it is supposed to be serving.

I can only hope that the necessary changes can be implemented peaceably; otherwise, we may be looking at a second American Revolution.

Bits o' Fluff

I mentioned in my previous post that I'm anti-China, and why. As part of that don't-support-the-shitbirds policy, I do a fair amount of my non-food shopping at Target versus Wal*Mart: my experience thus far has been that Target offers more not-Made-in-China items that Wally World. For example, today I purchased a couple of items for home - a bookshelf kit and a set of cookware to replace the worn out mishmash of things I've been pretending to cook with until now.

The shelves were Target-branded, and identified on the box as being made in Malaysia. The cookware was a little tougher: even the Wearever brand had a tiny little "Made in China" tucked away on the box; there was, however, a Bialetti set (mine is black, not red) that was made (you guessed it) in Italy. The quality of the Bialetti set more than made up for the marginally higher price compared to the Chinese-made stuff.

On a totally unrelated note, I know that posting has been a bit on the 'thin' side here of late; all I can say is that I've been having Adventures in Real Life. Things have settled down, however, and I fully expect to being more involved here and on other blogs more Real Soon Now(tm). Also, I'm considering re-activating my previous blog, A Different Lemming. If anyone reading this has any opinion on the matter, don't be shy about expressing it - I'm certainly open to feedback, and can understand that updating blog linkage could be considered an annoyance to one degree or another.

In the mean time, have an ordinary day :-|

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.