Thoughts on Pakistan

Generally I keep my musings much more local. It takes more than I have to get torqued over issues of foreign/international consquence. But I have a couple of thoughts on President Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule (read: imposition of dictatorship) and the suspension of law in Pakistan.

First, why can't our own leadership see that attempting to spread democracy in the middle east is a whac-a-mole game we'll never win? Just when we'd been patting ourselves on the back having Pakistan even marginally on our side, its governing leadership does an about-face and pops up as one more non-democratic society that, inevitably, someone in power in the US is going to insist we squash in the name of saving them from themselves. We'll waste even more lives and resources trying to fight the hydra of undemocratic thinking that is the middle east. Fuck pride - why can't they just admit that it's a lost cause and stop pissing away our military and our money by spreading them thinner and thinner over that sand pit?

Second, for those of us who've noticed Bush quietly move the chess pieces into place for exactly the same scenario, it's a struggle not to feel a bit alarmed as events unfolding so far away might later unfold here. (And please note, even if this doesn't come to pass under Bush, our next President will have exactly the same bloated powers, courtesy of the predecessor. That the powers might be wielded by The Other Party doesn't make me feel any warmer or fuzzier.)

On the drawing of battle lines...

PintOfStout over at Murphy's Bye-Laws writes yet another excellent piece:

There are two reasons voting persists even though the choices almost all crawl from the same cesspool. The first reason is to keep those that are being extorted from flat-out stringing them up. This is accomplished by slapping some hooker-red lipstick on this pig and promising the booboisie anything they want, including respecting them in the morning. The second reason to keep up the voting illusion is to roll everyone, participant or not, into culpability for the actions of the few in control.

Precisely. Voting is an illusion... the Blue Pill. Nothing more than a feel-good measure to keep people believing that their input matters. Every single voter out there can recall at least one instance (if not more) when voters have had their say only to watch politicans and other bureaucratic slime do an end-around the voters, usually in a manner so underhanded that the blood boils.

To keep voting fits the definition of insanity--trying the same thing expecting different results. It matters not which mouth-breathing warm body is occupying a given office. Voting for the Other Party won't fix it. But few folks learn this cycle and opt out of it entirely. Even I haven't been able to entirely divest myself of the bad habit of voting. Surely there's a 12-step program for this...

In a means over ends approach of Voluntaryists, proper class struggle will be framed by means (political or productive) and not ends (rich and poor or labor and owner).

Describing politics as the diametric opposition to production is dead-on-balls accurate (it's an industry term). A struggle between the givers and the takers. Between the doers and the leeches.

The older I get, the less I appreciate the automatic bashing of the wealthy solely because of the bottom line on their bank statements. Whenever someone starts to vilify the wealthy in my presence, I feel my attention and respect for them slip away, and unfortunately, hating the rich is trendy, so this happens all too often. Granted, many of the wealthy have racked up laundry lists of reasons to dislike them--supporting government protectionism that drives out their competitors, subsidies, grants, property theft through eminent domain--but wealth alone is NOT sufficient reason to put someone on the other side of the disagreement.

Nice one, Stout.

Fuck you, Seattle PD, redux

Looks like their response to crime and thugs is to turn downtown into Stormtrooper Central. I hadn't noticed it today, given that my mind is on other things, but I'll be keeping watch over the next few weeks. I carry my camera with me at all times, so if I get any interesting pictures, I'll post them.

Fuck you, Seattle PD

Busy downtown corner is a "hot spot" for crime

It just takes police too long to respond, he said. Even for something serious like Monday's shooting, it takes police too many precious minutes to get to the scene, he said.

Pan said he met with an officer about a month ago, but he doesn't feel like there's much they can do — they're too understaffed — and the city can't afford the number of officers it would take.

(emphasis mine)

I have a bit of an interest in all this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that I work a block from the McDonald's where the shooting took place, and it didn't occur, as most incidents around here do, late at night or on a weekend. It happened at 4:30 in the afternoon on a weekday, a time when I might conceivably be out on the mean streets, as it were.

But I just have to say this: fuck you, Seattle PD. Spare me this "we need more police!" bullshit. You have apparently inexhaustible resources to place police to catch drivers who inadvertently venture onto 3rd Avenue when it's closed to any traffic but buses. You have plenty of bicycle cops who have nothing better to do than hand out $60 tickets for jaywalking. Why? Because those activities generate revenue. Dealing with violent and property crimes cuts into your precious operating budget with absolutely no financial return, and we can't have that, now can we? Plus, how would those poor officers meet their quotas for ticket-writing?

Not that I want to see more jackbooted thugs around here. It was bad enough when my employer decided to cooperate with your drug task force by allowing you to use some of our window offices to spy on the drug dealers below. And every fucking one of your officers did nothing but scowl at us as we went about our business in our own office space.

Just stop blowing smoke up my ass about needing to hire more officers, and the ensuing money crunch associated with hiring them. You HAVE the officers. You've just chosen to dedicate them to more lucrative pursuits.

Blatant emotional pandering

Wash. congressmen want to fight 'meth mouth'

"It is disgusting, utterly disgusting to see a little kid's teeth rotting out," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at news conference Thursday, flanked by four huge pictures of gaping mouths with blackened, rotting teeth.

Good fucking grief. This is such blatant emotional pandering for the purposes of drumming up support that I actually threw up in my mouth a bit. Little kids? When was the last time you saw a little kid with meth mouth, Senator? Say, someone around 8 years old? We're supposed to get all teary-eyed because the scourge of meth is ruining the teeth of American children everywhere? Spare me.

Teens and adults--NOT children--are the ones getting meth mouth, and I have little sympathy for them. But judging from the rest of the article, I'm supposed to pony up because a segment of the population not only doesn't care for their teeth, but actively pursues a course that will destroy their dental health? That dog won't hunt, sorry. Not that I think it's the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for dental care, but if we're going to be forced to pay, why not start with the folks who are actually trying to care for their teeth, not those who (metaphorically) knocked their own teeth out in a drug-induced haze?

Endangered incandescents

Rather than creating incentives to switch to the more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) now common on the market, governments around the globe are adopting various timetables to phase out or ban the incandescent light bulb.

I'm not entirely sold on the case against the incandescent bulb. Yes, they're energy hogs, with a mere 5% of the energy they consume emitted as light and the rest wasted as heat. (Okay, sometimes that heat isn't wasted; reptile tanks usually make use of it.) I could conceivably realize some savings in my electricity bill by switching to CFLs entirely.

And I have, to a degree. My outdoor bulbs would burn out once a month because of broken filaments caused by the vibrations from regular training flights conducted by the nearby air force base. Tired of wandering around the house to change bulbs, I switched all my outdoor lights to CFLs, which have no filament to break. And the woman who fixed up my house before I purchased it did install some fixtures that take nothing but energy savers. Other fixtures will take either, and as the incandescent bulbs burn out, I replace them with fluorescent ones.

But (you just knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you?) I haven't made the switch completely, and it's not for a lack of effort. Not every lamp in my house is accepting of the newfangled CFLs. I have two lovely lamps in my living room, each of which takes two bulbs, that stubbornly refuse to play nice with the new ones. I have two halogen desk lamps that also won't make the switch. CFLs aren't generally dimmer switch-friendly. I haven't tried CFLs in my motion sensor lights, but then again, I haven't seen a flood light or a small candelabra light that isn't incandescent. When I start having to consider replacing multiple lamps and light fixtures as well as the bulbs in them, the meager cost savings in energy flies right out the open window.

New fixtures? Strike 1 against the CFLs.

CFLs have hefty transaction costs, even when all your lamps and fixtures play nice with them. Right off the bat, they're damn expensive to purchase. I can buy 8 incandescent bulbs for less than the price of one CFL. And they're not easily disposed of. You can't just throw them in the trash--they require hazardous material disposal because of the 5 milligrams of mercury in each bulb. Some hardware stores have take-back programs for CFLs, and in many places, the local dump will take them, but either way, that's an extra errand for me because I can't just drop it in the trash or recycling bin and be done with it. If every household were using CFLs, trash hauling companies might begin accepting them at the curb, but I wouldn't count on it.

And where does that mercury end up? Some studies suggest that despite their mercury content, CFLs would net a decrease in mercury released to the environment because (in theory) fewer coal-fired power plants would be operating, therefore releasing less mercury. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Because power plants are quasi-governmental, there's no way they'd be allowed to close solely because of lower energy use. And it doesn't factor in the amount of extra mercury ending up in the environment because many folks are ignorant of the fact that CFLs can't be disposed of like regular bulbs, or the danger to your household should one break before you've disposed of it.

Mercury hazards and an extra errand just for disposal? Strike 2.

Lastly, color me skeptical that anyone is likely to realize lower electricity rates from energy conservation. Energy rates aren't subject to the laws of supply and demand, largely because of *gasp!* government interference. Local monopolies dominate the market. If I want electricity, I either hook up to the sole local provider, or I sit at home reading by candle light. I can't do business other energy company whose practices and rates I find more reasonable. If use and demand fall, rates still increase. As an example, during a particularly dry 2001, Seattle Public Utilities strongly campaigned and encouraged folks to use less water. The public responded favorably by significantly cutting consumption. And at the end of it all, what did SPU do? Because so little water was used compared to projections (which are synonymous with budgets), SPU lost money and needed to raise water rates. I suspect any drastic reduction in energy use would net the same reward. And what incentive does any public utility have to keep energy rates low? When was the last time you've seen one petition the public utilities board for a rate decrease?

And not only that, I'm willing to bet the energy savings is a farce similar to the lies that brought us low-flow toilets. Toilet flushing in America is completely insignificant when you consider water consumed by agricultural and industrial uses. Nothing. We could all start doing our business in the woods behind the house, and statistically speaking, water usage wouldn't go down at all. I suspect, though I have no evidence, that energy wasted by incandescent bulb usage is much the same--an insignificant blip next to energy spent by industry and air conditioning. Why bother with all this if our net gain as a nation is using 0.001% less energy than we did before?

Liars dangling the carrot of lower energy bills and energy consumption? Strike 3--YOU'RE OUT!

So, with the prospect of a phase out of the incandescent bulb looming, I'm doing the only thing I can--hoarding incandescents. It's incredibly ironic that congresscritters spend so much time talking about creating incentives to become more environmentally conscious, yet the incentive they're creating now has driven me to do exactly the thing they don't want me to do--buy incandescent bulbs, in larger quantities than I would otherwise buy. If those idiotic fucks in Washington think I'm going to replace all my unacceptable lamps and light fixtures or spend serious cash having them retrofitted to accept CFLs because "incandescent bulbs are bad, mkay?", they can kiss my ass.

Prosecuters want falsifying court records legalized

Prosecutors seek OK to create phony files

Florida's prosecutors are floating a proposal to the Legislature to give them the power to secretly falsify public court records -- with a judge's approval -- for undercover law enforcement purposes.

Spurred by Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle, the draft bill would limit the authority to manufacture and plant fake documents in court files to 180 days. But it also provides for an unlimited number of 30-day extensions.

Just wait, it gets better...

A second, longer version of the bill has been prefiled with the House. It would convey authority to falsify any public record to prosecutors, judges, mayors, sheriffs, coroners and other public officers unless they were acting corruptly.

Gee, wasn't there a time when falsifying court documents was considered "acting corruptly?"

Given the lack of oversight already provided when signing search warrants with what are often later revealed to be false statements or gross omissions, excuse me if I don't suddenly have enough faith in judicial oversight in this matter.

Someone needs to put the smackdown on these power-hungry bastards and inform them that transparancy in court proceedings is no longer going to be considered optional.

(Hat tip to henshawe over at TCF for the find.)

Internet Gambling Nanny Swoops on First Target

27 Arrested in First Online Gambling Bust Since Bush Signed Law Banning Internet Wagering

Prosecutors brought charges Wednesday against 27 people — including a Major League Baseball scout — in connection with a billion-dollar-a-year Internet sports gambling ring, the first such case since President Bush signed a ban on Internet gambling last month.

I'm posting this only because I recently had someone tell me that this law didn't exist, and that no one was made a criminal overnight with the stroke of a pen.

As for the motives for the law itself, ALWAYS follow the money.

Kevin Ryan, a spokesman for the Queens District Attorney, said "we have initiated a $500 million asset forfeiture case," one of the largest in state history.

Oregon and Asset Forfeiture

Oregon has its faults, but in some significant ways (death with dignity, medical marijuana), those folks sure are ahead of the curve.

Court upholds Oregon law restricting forfeitures

Before the measure passed, police were able to use civil courts to seek forfeiture of money and property believed to have been obtained in criminal activity, such as drug buys, or purchased with the proceeds of criminal activity.

But civil liberties groups objected, saying police could take property even if its owner never was convicted of a crime and without proving their case by the high standard required in criminal trials.

The 2000 law, known as Measure 3, raised the bar, requiring police to get a criminal conviction before they could pursue a forfeiture. It also tightened the rules on what is subject to forfeiture, effectively slashing the amounts police could claim and cutting off a major source of funding for narcotics investigations.

I probably need not mention how silly it is that police think they can, in essence, convict inanimate property of a crime, especially when there isn't enough evidence to charge the owner with anything. Score one for the little guys. Asset forfeiture has become one of the largest abuses being perpetrated by police in this country, and it's good to see that the residents of at least one state are telling their law enforcement that they've had enough of these unjustifiable police garage sales.

Think we're free? Just try to get crabs

Over this past weekend, I had the pleasure of playing host to a friend of mine, K., in from the southwest. Good guests make it easy to be a good host, and she's definitely among the best ones I've had stay with me since I bought my first house in September. She denies that she's charming, despite all evidence to the contrary. Excellent conversation, great sense of humor, and though she embarrassed me more than a few times staging pictures of the snow globe accompanying her (like the garden gnome from Amélie), we had a great time.

Some have heard the staying that goes something like "Think you're free? Try buying a cow and selling the milk." After watching what's happening to an Amish man in Ohio who sold raw milk to an undercover government flunkey, it's clear how much freedom has suffered, even in the ironically named nonexistent "free market". I had my own similar moment of clarity this week.

K. and I had planned on trying out crabbing for the first time this weekend, so I hopped on the internet to find out what we needed to do to keep the government thugs at bay. God knows you don't want to get nabbed with an illegal catch when they can seize your car and all your gear over a case of crabs, and being a total newbie at crabbing, I was prepared to jump through the hoops to prevent that very thing. I mean, how many hoops could there be?

Oh, the horror! Buy a 1 to 5-day fishing license and get a dungeness crab stamp affixed to it for an extra fee; be sure to fill out your catch record and send it to the state by next April, complete with personal contact info; crabbing is allowed here, here, or there, except on dates X, Y, and Z; generally the crabbing season starts on this date but may start later in certain zones because of decreased dungeness numbers; crabs must be male and more than six inches across... The rules and regulations and restrictions went on... and on... and on. And not only that, those regs were spread out over pages and pages of information. There wasn't just one web site titled "Crabbing info" that laid out everything we needed to know. All of it is parceled out and hidden in more generalized sites relating to all types of fishing.

In the end, we both decided it'd be better to just get crabs at the docks and skip the bureaucratic bullshit. So if you think we're still truly free, I challenge you to get a case of crabs without the government getting involved.

Vive le Resistance!

Smokers find refuge in secret nicotine dens

Almost six months after the nation's toughest statewide smoking ban went into effect in Washington, smoke has virtually disappeared from all bars and restaurants in Seattle.

But in places reminiscent of speakeasies from the Prohibition days, smokers are still finding opportunities to take a drag in between sips of their favorite libations.

Smokers say the locations of smoke-easies are spread by word of mouth and usually involve a swearing of secrecy. In most of the five smoke-easies visited in neighborhoods across Seattle for this story, the transformation from otherwise-law-abiding bar to underground nicotine den happens late in the evening. There is no official witching hour, just the sense that for the most part only the regulars are left.

I'm not even a smoker, but this warms the cockles of my little individualist heart. Good for them.

And from the P-I's published list of smoking violations, one location really stood out to me - Diwan Hookah Lounge. I mean, how exactly does one run a hookah lounge with self-deputized Seattlites (I won't pretend that this law was pushed by all Washingtonians) looking to rat them out?

I've patronized a hookah bar down the street from my office in the past, an enjoyable experience. But, because of soured lease negotiations and the effect of the new law, that hookah bar is no more. And, sadly, this one will likely follow, all because a bunch of paranoid control freaks can't stand being told to make a choice where to spend their dollars on a Friday night.

There's another bar near my bus stop where the tiny sidewalk patio is always jammed with smokers - even in inclement weather - not 5 feet from the entrance. (I won't reveal its name or location lest one of the aforementioned control freaks reads this.) I'm still in amazement that this little dive hasn't been reported by some nosy, prissy passerby. Because this hole-in-the-wall seems to be patronized solely by smokers, I wonder if some ultimatum has been handed down by the bar's owners, something along the lines of "We'll close if we receive even one complaint." Smokers or not, the patrons certainly aren't tattling.

Now we can concentrate on the REALLY evil criminals

Illinois Woman Fined for Getting Puppy Drunk

WOODSTOCK, Ill. — A McHenry County woman has been fined $100 in a bizarre incident involving a glass of red wine and a Chihuahua named Chico.

A judge Monday found 50-year-old Diane Marcotte guilty of the misdemeanor charge of failing to provide humane care and treatment for a pet.

What a waste of resources. Though the article doesn't say, it sounds like they nailed her on pet abuse because they couldn't make the drunk driving charges stick.

Landlords, renters take heed

Tacoma extends ban on group housing

The change in course means that private landlords won't escape notice and that social service providers won't necessarily be penalized for trying to help people, Lonergan said.

"What we've been doing really is aiming the land-use cannon at some entities that are really part of the solution," he said.

City Manager Eric Anderson told council members last week that a solution could include:

• Licensing every landlord in the city.
• Requiring regular inspections of rental properties and paying for the service with fees charged to landlords.
• Getting tougher on property maintenance and paying for the enforcement with fees.
• Requiring "good neighbor" agreements between landlords and the surrounding community.
• Changes in land-use regulations.

(emphasis mine)

Suddenly everyone should need a license to own real estate and rent it out? Give me a break. If I were a landlord, this would certainly give me pause to continue the practice.

It'd be fitting if, in its zeal, the city caused a rental property shortage by pushing landlords to sell or convert their rented properties to owner-occupied ones.

Could this also be a ploy to increase acceptance of warrantless searches? Were I still renting, I'd balk at the idea of having strangers coming into inspect my home without my authorization, even ostensibly to check for landlord violations. Who cares to wager city inspectors wouldn't report any signs of child abuse or drug use to the "proper authorities"?

Majority: from super to simple

The Heartless Libertarian brought something to my attention that Washingtonians should be aware of - and frankly, I, too, am astonished that this is completely below the radar of state tax protest groups.

Doing research for my post below, I came across something, and I have to wonder why the anti-tax crusaders in Washington state aren't making a bigger deal about it. That something is the undermining of I-601, which limited the ability of the Legislature to increase spending beyond specified growth limits and to raise taxes. The Legislature accomplished this undermining through the enactment of SB 6078. 601 required a supermajority to raise taxes without sending the issue to the voters in a referendum,which basically means that any tax increase must have bipartisan support; 6078 reduces the requirement to a simple majority. Furthermore, 6078 was declared to be 'emergency' legislation, meaning it couldn't be challenged by voter referendum.

From the bill's summary:

Effective immediately and continuing until June 30, 2007, the Legislature may enact legislation increasing state revenue by a majority vote. After June 30, 2007, legislative actions increasing state revenue will require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.

This doesn't just undermine I-601 - it guts it completely. Pretty convenient since the state legislature, and particularly the Democrats, have been enacting new taxes and spending like a bunch of drunken sailors ever since Gregoire took office. Moreover, anyone with half a brain and ANY memory of history will take no comfort in the fact that it supposedly sunsets in two years. Nothing that benefits government spending EVER sunsets.

Wake up, Washington!

Asset forfeiture gone mad

Feds tried to seize gold caps from defendants' teeth

TACOMA, Wash. — Talk about taking a bite out of crime — government lawyers tried to remove and confiscate the gold-capped teeth known as "grills" or "grillz" from the mouths of two men facing drug charges....

According to documents and lawyers involved in the case in U.S. District Court, Flenard T. Neal Jr. and Donald Jamar Lewis, charged with several drug and weapon violations, were taken on Tuesday from the Federal Detention Center to the U.S. marshal’s office, where they were told the government had a warrant to seize the grills.

Before being put into a vehicle to be taken to a dentist in Seattle, they called their lawyers, who were able to halt the seizure, said Miriam Schwartz, Neal’s public defender. A permanent stay of the seizure order was signed Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate J. Kelley Arnold, court documents show.

Okay, the comparison to Nazi Germany is a smidge overdramatic. But no asset forfeiture should involve doctors, dentists, or any other member of the medical establishment. I mean really - if drug money paid for a pacemaker implant or artificial limb, would they steal that, too? They can be auctioned off, you know.