aubreyturner.org

So it appears that the Dallas Police will be out in force today to enforce a new ordinance designed to put a stop to a serious crime that is being committed every day in the city.  What is this horrible infraction that will require so much time and effort on behalf of the city?  Shopping cart theft.

Darryl Johnson is homeless and doesn’t have a car. So he uses an abandoned shopping cart he found near a creek to move around his blankets, clothes and other belongings.

Because of a new city ordinance that police will start enforcing today, Mr. Johnson may want to ditch the cart – or face jail or a fine. The measure makes it illegal to possess a shopping cart off the premises of the business that owns it.

They’ve also established a hotline just to report shopping carts that have been taken.

Grocers hope a newly established hotline will help solve the problem. Anyone can call the hotline to report a cart off the premises of a retail establishment.

Don’t mistake my disdain for this silly ordinance with approval for the actions of the homeless.  Taking a shopping cart is theft, so I fail to see the need for this ordinance.  Couldn’t it have been handled under existing law?  Why was this needed?  Given the budget problems that Dallas has been having, how can they justify the expenditure for this enforcement as well as a new hotline.

I suspect that this is just another of the sham attempts by “Mayor Mommy” to make it look like something is being done about the crime problem in Dallas.  That, and I get the impression that she gets off on controlling other people.

I was given a gift card for Barnes & Noble at Christmas and I finally got around to going to the B&N in Grapevine this weekend.  I spent some time in their music section and came across a group called Robinella & the CC String Band.  They’re pretty hard to classify as they mix jazz, bluegrass, and country.

I ripped the CD to MP3 as soon as I got home and I’ve listened to it several times now.  I’m still enjoying it each time, which is a good sign.

Common sense could have told us about this result.

The O’Leary Report /Zogby International poll of Red States (those that voted for George W. Bush in 2000) and Blues (sic) States (those that supported Al Gore) reveals a nation deeply divided by party, ideology, the presidency of George W. Bush, and values.

For example, the answer to whether the 2000 election was “stolen” by George W. Bush depends on where you live.

When respondents were asked whether Bush was legitimately elected president, or whether the 2000 election was stolen, 62% of Red State voters said that Bush is the legitimate president, while 32% said the election was stolen away from the popular vote winner, Al Gore. In the Blue States, half (50%) of the respondents said that the election was legitimate while 44% think it was stolen.

Then there’s party identification.  Of interest is the large number of people in both “Americas” (Zogby’s phrasing) who identify as independent.  Both major parties should note this as an indicator of dissatisfaction with the choice between Socialism (Democrat Party) and Socialism-lite (Republican Party) amongst people like me.

Ideologically, the two Americas are quite distinct. Those who label themselves “progressive” constitute just 5 percent of voters in the Red States, but 11 percent of voters in the Blue States. Meanwhile, conservatives account for 39% of respondents in the Red States and just 29% of those in the Blue States.

Ideological differences are buttressed by considerable discrepancies in party identification. In the Red States, 38% call themselves Democrats while 39% are Republican. In the Blue States, Democrats dominate with 40% of the respondents while Republican identifiers total 31%. The number of independents is higher in the Blue States (29%) than in the Red States (22%).

On the gun issue, it’s easy to want to restrict something that you know nothing about.

There are significant differences in gun ownership. A majority (51%) of those living in the Red States say they own a gun, while 64% in the Blues States do not.

Again on the subject of guns, I came across a reference on Zogby’s site to this article by David Keene in The Hill, which cites the results of the above poll.

Gun issue could cost Democrats the White House again

Liberal Democrats in Congress are getting ready to force their party’s presidential nominee down the same road that led to the defeat of Al Gore and his running mate four years ago.

In the days following the 2000 election, a number of Democrats realized that their fixation on guns and gun owners had cost their candidates millions of votes that year. Even before leaving office, President Bill Clinton warned that the “gun issue” and the efforts of the National Rifle Association (NRA) had cost Gore five states that he might otherwise have won and, thus, the election. Labor leaders began urging the party to “get the gun issue off the table” after watching droves of their own members desert Democrats they were afraid would restrict their right to own firearms.

…

The irony is that as Democrats prepared for the 2000 elections, many of them believed in their bones that if they could get their candidates to focus on the gun issue and “go after” the NRA, they would win millions of new votes. In those days it was an article of liberal and Democratic faith that most Americans loathe guns and live in fear precisely because guns are legal in this country. It followed that their opposition to what they liked to describe as the “gun culture” would be applauded by an appreciative public and would help their candidates win.

Their inability to realize before the votes were counted that they were dead wrong stems from the fact that Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, really do live in different worlds. Recent evidence of this comes in the form of data from a poll conducted by John Zogby for Southern Methodist University’s Tower Center and the O’Leary Report. The poll was unique in that Zogby broke down the results by looking at contrasting attitudes in the states that voted for George W. Bush and for Gore four years ago. The data showed on issue after issue that those who live in the so-called “red states” won by President Bush harbor far different beliefs and attitudes than those who live in the “blue states” carried by Gore.

Surprisingly, however, the data showed that while more people in the blue states favor new and tougher gun laws than those in the red states, most voters in both groups of states are far more supportive of the right to own firearms than the Democrats suspected. Indeed, only the sorts of urban and campus-based liberals who dominate the leadership of the Democratic Party were found to be as hostile to gun ownership as Gore and his running mate had been in 2000.

While the candidates are trying like crazy to distance themselves from the gun control platform that seems core to the Democrat Party, we’re still seeing the party being driven by the shrill, pointy-headed “urban and campus-based” set.  This is part of the reason that I almost never believe a Democrat who says he supports the right to own guns.  If the candidate says that he believes in hunting or makes a point to be seen shooting skeet or hunting ducks, then I give him extra demerits on my internal freedom scale.  As someone once said, “The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting.”  Of course, GW isn’t winning any points with his silly statements about supporting renewal of the “Assault Weapons” ban. 

It’s almost enough to make me stay home on election day, given the dearth of available candidates that seems likely.  And I’ve heard the arguments about how if I stay home the Democrats will win.  Well, if they do at least we have a pretty good idea where they stand on the issue.  A declared enemy is better than a “friend” who is an enemy in disguise.

As usual, government attempts to “help” have come to naught.

MX Logic looked at a random sample of over 1,000 unsolicited commercial emails during the course of a seven day period beginning New Year’s Day and found only three of the messages complied with the CAN-SPAM Act.

“Calling this a high rate of non-compliance would be a gross understatement,” said Scott Chasin, MX Logic’s chief technology officer. “It is no surprise that rogue spammers would fail to comply, but the non-compliant messages we saw appeared to be from all types of companies.”

Actually, I saw that this law would not help.  In fact, given the way it’s written, we would all be guaranteed to get more SPAM.  As an example, I’ve already received one SPAM that alleges that it’s just a “Crazy State Law” of the week list and that it’s not a commercial email, but that while they’re sending me the email I should know about their wonderful offer to “Email Advertise Your Web Site to 1,850,000 0PT-IN Email Addresse= s for FREE!” (fulltext in the extended entry if you’re morbidly curious).  Of course, I don’t give a damn about protestations of being noncommercial.  I reported the bastard via Spamcop.  I hope he got spanked appropriately.

Given the economic realities of SPAM, stopping it isn’t going to be handled by the law, especially when most of the spammers are operating outside the US.  It’s something that will require technical and human intervention (like perhaps hanging a few of them from lightposts as examples for others).

Link via Slashdot.

From: “Brian Durham” <782iybjm@everyone.net>
Reply-To: “Brian Durham” <782iybjm@everyone.net>
To: <one of my many email addresses>
Subject: State Laws that you wont believe
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 04 09:36:44 GMT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

“It is illegal to put tomatoes = in clam chowder” – In Massachusetts
The Primary Purpose of this Email is to Deliver You a “C= razy USA State Law of the Week” – The Secondary Purpose of this Email is t= o Let You Know:

Clic= k Here to Email Advertise Your Web Site to 1,850,000 0PT-IN Email Addresse= s for FREE!

If You Meet the Criteria of Being A Non-Prof= it Organization That Helps People Defend Themselves From Unfair State Laws= .
Once at Our Web Site, Mail Us With Your Non-Profit Organization Informatio= n & We Will Provide Details on How to Receive Your Emailing.

Leave From Our “Crazy USA State Law of the Week” Ema= il List

DISCLAIMER: This is Not a Commercial Email Message and i= s Exempt From Guidelines Outlined in US Code S.877
The Primary Purpose of this Email is Not a Commercial Advertisement or Pro= motion of a Commercial Product or Service.
The Secondary Purpose of this Email is a Non-Commercial Offer for Non-Prof= it Organizations That Defend People From Unfair State Laws

If it pans out, this could be a fairly significant advance in earthquake prediction.

In June of 2003, this team predicted an earthquake of magnitude 6.4 or higher would strike within nine months in a 310-mile region of Central California whose southern part includes San Simeon, where a magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck on Dec. 22.

In July of 2003, the team predicted an earthquake in Japan of magnitude 7 or higher by Dec. 28, 2003, in a region that includes Hokkaido. A magnitude 8.1 earthquake struck Hokkaido on Sept. 25, 2003.

Previously, the team made “intermediate-term” predictions, years in advance. The 1994 Northridge earthquake struck 21 days after an 18-month period when the team predicted that an earthquake of magnitude 6.6 or more would strike within 120 miles from the epicenter of the 1992 Landers earthquake — an area that includes Northridge. The magnitude 6.8 Northridge earthquake caused some $30 billion in damage. The 1989 magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake fulfilled a five-year forecast the team issued in 1986.

Keilis-Borok’s team now predicts an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.4 by Sept. 5, 2004, in a region that includes the southeastern portion of the Mojave Desert, and an area south of it.

It’s not yet down to the level of specifying a city and a date, but it’s definitely an improvement.  Any little bit helps, and a prediction in the next few months for an earthquake might get otherwise unconcerned people to take action, rather than simply ignoring the threat (although I’m probably being too optimistic here).

I have one of these dog waterers so that I don’t have to constantly refill her water bowl.  However, the dog is a little afraid of it.  She’ll take a few sips and then move back, eyeing it warily for a moment.  Then she’ll go back for a few more sips.  She’s afraid of the “burble” noise it makes when the air bubbles move to the top of the bottle.

Interestingly enough, my mother’s dog has the same problem, although her cat seems to enjoy making it burble.

This item from Michele got me to thinking.  It served as a catalyst to bring together a couple of different issues concerning the right to vote that were brought up recently.  In this case, it was about restoring the right to vote to convicted felons.  I’m of the opinion that once one is fully released (not on parole or probation), then one should be a full citizen again (debt paid, all rights restored).  But (there’s always a ‘but’), in my world sentencing would be quite a bit harsher:

• No parole.  No early release.  You serve every single day of your sentence.
• Crimes would have sentences commensurate with their impact.  E.x. There wouldn’t be the need for a debate over civil commitment, since child molesters would be in for life.
• No multiple bites at the apple.  Anyone convicted of a second crime involving violence gets life.  Period.

Of course, at the same time we would need to get rid of a bunch of nonsense federal felonies and anything else that doesn’t relate to harm caused by one person against another.  We have too many damn felonies these days for pissant little things like dumping grass clippings in the wrong place (this would seem suited for the civil court system) or owning a piece of metal that is 1-inch too short (sawed-off shotgun).

Anyhow, I’m hoping the combination carrot/stick approach of full rights restored after harsh punishment would deter future offenses, but if not, then the two strikes and you’re out rule would clean up any idiots that fall through the cracks.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of (justified) furor concerning the “S Factor” article (the one that held that the only reason George W Bush could be elected was that people were so stupid).  The author suggested that some kind of literacy test should be required to vote.  One commenter at some site (which I can’t recall right now) suggested that the right to vote should only apply to those who were landowners (as the founders originally intended). 

I’ve been considering this for a while, and I think it might not be such a bad idea to establish some kind of “productivity” test for voting.  The original idea of allowing only landowners to vote was to foster the idea of civic involvement among voters.  But I think ownership of land is not necessarily the best test, given that there are people who are productive in society that don’t own land or a home.

Another alternative would be that you had to be a taxpayer to vote (Neal Boortz even suggested once that you get a number of votes, proportional to the amount of taxes you paid; perhaps one vote for every $5000 in taxes).  However, on further thought that bugs me too, in that it could deny the vote to spouses who choose to stay home and raise children.  These people are doing something productive and deserve a say in the vote.  So, that brings me around to the idea of the criterion being that anyone who is currently accepting an unearned benefit from government (welfare, food stamps, etc) would lose their franchise temporarily until they were off the government benefit (I’ll probably get labelled as a hard-hearted mean-spirited grinch for suggesting any such thing, so I can probably just go ahead and say that I’d prefer to see the government out of the business of handing out our money).

Despite the cries of discrimination that this may bring, I think this helps in two important ways.  First, it encourages people to be productive and work, rather than relying on the government for everything.  Second, it prevents the dangerous ability of people to vote themselves more largess from the government when they aren’t contributing to it (of course, I suppose this is the exact goal of certain groups in trying to get more and more people hooked on Uncle Sugar).

I’ve been planning to replace my mailbox ever since I moved in, since the one that came with house is a bit run-down looking.  However, I don’t think I’ll be getting one like the one my neighbors up the street just put up.

I suspect that someone gave them this for Christmas, since it appeared shortly after.

If there’s one phrase that’s guaranteed to get steam coming out of my ears, it’s “undocumented immigrants”.  As if they merely forgot to stop at the office on the way into the country to pick up some papers.  What utter bullshit!  These people committed a crime by entering this country illegally and should be arrested and sent home.

I may rant and rave about all the stupid and unconstitutional laws that we have at the federal level, but controlling the borders is one of the few jobs that government legitimately has.  Now it appears that we’re going to abdicate that responsibility and ignore the law.  This doesn’t exactly send a good message about our seriousness concerning our borders (nor does it do much to enhance “homeland security”).

I really don’t have a problem if people want to come to this country to work, especially given that the majority of the Mexicans who come here take low-paying grunt work that Americans don’t want to do.  Our economy depends on them.  But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore our own laws concerning legal entry into the country.  If the law is getting in the way of people who want to work coming into the country, then we should change the law.  But granting “amnesty” to people who have violated the law is just inviting more lawbreaking.

Jeff at Caerdroia has been pondering his position in relation to the available political parties and doesn’t like what he sees.

I cannot find a political party that accomodates me. I am a libertarian, republican, liberal, federalist, free-market (not far away from laissez-faire), interventionalist, natural rights respecting American with no place to go. As Treebeard said, “I am not entirely on anybody’s side, because nobody is entirely on my side.” Yep, that about says it all.

I can understand where he’s coming from.  I, too, have no political home after having discarded the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party (in that order).

I particularly liked this line, as I think it neatly sums up my objections to the two major groups in American politics.

I want the Right to stay out of the front of my pants, and the Left to stay out of the back.