Robert Jamieson does hypocrisy

I sometimes wonder how folks can come relatively close to what I think is the right conclusion in one aspect of freedom and be so blindingly, painfully off-base in another.

Robert Jamieson of the Seattle PI bloviates:

But anyone who truly values democracy doesn't want safety if it comes attached to a troubling string: Big Brother-like surveillance.

Video eyes threaten civil liberties. And if we are not careful, we might end up like a frog in a pot of water that slowly warms up. We won't realize the worst has occurred until we're cooked.

Funny, Mr. Jamieson, but you didn't think civil liberties were all that important when it came to the right of self-defense through firearms ownership. You were more than happy to leave us at the mercy of all those downtown thugs who you now think the equally thuggish police need to do something about.

Just how much bullshit do you think they'd try if they suspected even HALF the workers downtown were armed and trained? Do you really think we'd need cops and cameras on every block if these little aggressive shits knew there was a 50/50 chance the next person they fucked with had the means to defend himself?

Oh, I suppose THOSE civil liberties don't matter. But just one last question... if and when free speech is obliterated, and the time comes to defend your civil liberties with something mightier than the pen, precisely what weapons will be left for you to pick up in your world free of private firearms?

The appropriate response to nosy cops

Police visit but make no arrests at what appears to be speak-easy

About 3 a.m. Sunday, a uniformed officer attempted to follow a patron into the club, only to have the door slam shut on both of them.

I love it! Subversive behavior AND giving a nosy JBT with no warrant exactly the entry he deserves--none at all.

Does it get any better?

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.

From the "You're kidding me" files

State looks into price hikes of military haircuts

A deputy in the antitrust division wrote that some barbershop owners in Tillicum, including her, might be violating state and federal laws by participating “in illegal price-fixing of haircuts.”

The office says it has evidence that some of them might have agreed prior to Jan. 1 to raise the price of a military haircut from $6 to $7....

The increase didn’t bother some soldiers who were in the shops Thursday for haircuts.

"It’s still cheaper than other places I’ve been," said Spc. Ray Manning of the 4th Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment. "The quality is better off post."

I'm SO filled with warm fuzzies at the knowledge that the money stolen from me each year is going to investigate the fairness of military haircut pricing in Tillicum.

As to the question of whether the Attorney General's office has anything better to do, the answer is a resounding "No." It has nothing better to do than to remind the peons of its legal superiority and authority.

U.S. has most prisoners in world

Tell me again how we're the land of the free? How we're not living in a police state?

US has highest prison population, incarceration rates

A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail.

According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000.

The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people.

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.

Brilliant... just brilliant

Smoking Ban Prompts Georgia Cafe to Ban Kids, Welcome Smokers

DUBLIN, Georgia — A year after Georgia forced restaurants to extinguish their smoking sections, the sign outside Chuck and Kay Fordham's diner defiantly invites customers to "Bring Your Butts On In."

Inside, ceiling fans stir the smell of frying bacon and hash browns and clouds of blue cigarette smoke as patrons puff away over cups of coffee. Butts pile up in the ashtrays on the tables and lunch counter.

Folks who don't want a side order of secondhand smoke with their eggs and burgers should probably stay away from the Smoker's Cafe.

The Fordhams found a way around the smoking ban by exploiting a loophole that was created to exempt bars from the law. Instead of banning cigarettes, the couple banned children from their restaurant.

Oh, I'd just LOVE to hear the commentary on this one from the obnoxious parents who worship the cult of the child. "Smoking is a choice... being a child isn't." Yeah, well, dining out is a choice, too, you ninnies.

I've had significantly more meals ruined by loud, unruly children and their lazy parents than I have the occasional smoker, even before the anti-smoking campaigns really began rolling (pun intended). Even though I haven't smoked in years - not even the occasional enjoyable cigar - I'd eat there just to patronize a place that, while filled with smoke, lacks screaming children and is making it known that nanny-statism has gone too far.

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.

And educrats wonder why parents homeschool

Looming flip-flop ban creates flap

The board decided to give flip-flops the boot because they consider them dangerous for working in school laboratories and for walking in crowded halls.

"Think about all the kids parading through the halls. You could get your feet stepped on, or a chair run across the edge of your foot," said Ed Barney, a board member who favored the ban in last week’s 3-1 preliminary vote. "Students should wear something that is going to protect their feet."

While I'll agree that wearing safe footwear is essential in a lab, an outright ban is just absurd. I'm willing to bet the board doesn't require students to keep their lab goggles on after leaving the lab, or their welding helmets on after they leave shop. They also can't stop students from wearing flip-flops in the mall where the risk of someone stepping on bare toes is just as great.

Professionalism was discussed at the Federal Way School Board’s meeting, as well. Next year, three middle schools in the district will begin requiring school uniforms. None are planned for the high schools, but officials say banning flip-flops is a middle ground for establishing a dress code that is appropriate. The hope is to prepare the students for higher standards they’ll face in the workplace.

"We want students to start on their professional lives," said Debbie Winskill, a Tacoma School Board member who agrees with the ban. "Flip-flops are not in that plan."

Which is nice, but educators are forgetting that more and more companies are adopting a relaxed and casual dress code, particularly tech companies. A friend of mine recently changed jobs, and while he showed up to an interview professionally dressed, the man asking the questions was wearing a t-shirt, bermuda shorts, and flip-flops. Any educator can stress the importance of professional dress - particularly for those critical first impressions - without an outright ban. And a ban that supposedly teaches "professionalism" looks even more stupid when students are pointing out that their teachers wear flip-flops as well.

Assuming risk of injury is part of growing up. I can't even fathom how a school board would think this was significant enough to consider. And on the heels of the War on Fluffernutter... the educrats have hit the top of the septic tank yet continue to dig.

And now back to my regularly scheduled Stanley Cup game...

Mailbag

This evening I was engaged in the time-honored tradition of finding the surface of my desk. When mail arrives at my house, my modus operandi is to sort out the important mail (bills) from the unimportant (everything else). The important mail gets dealt with in a timely fashion. The unimportant mail sits on my dining table until motivation strikes me to sift and shred. Because of this shelf time, I missed the following gem from my local post office:

National Dog Bite Prevention Week (May 21-28)

Recent statistics indicate that over 4 million people were bitten by dogs last year. Half of them were children and 3,475 were letter carriers!

The test goes on to explain the problems the Post Office (not those 2 million children) experiences with dog bites, from ripped clothing to severe injuries.

So, in addition to paying the salaries, medical expenses, workers comp of the bitten employees, I get the added expense of these stupid mailers, all for letter carriers who account for 0.08% of the total dog bites in a year?

Now, I grew up attending school with a boy whose face had some serious scars from a pit bull attack, and I'm never pleased to read about any animal attack. But give me a break. I'm supposed to get all worked up over 0.08% of dog bites, bites on adults?

Then there's this little nugget at the end:

...we are requesting that if you are a responsible dog owner, you would keep your dog restrained during mail delivery hours. Your letter carrier and your friends and neighbors would appreciate it!

Excuse me, but were I to have a dog, my response would be that the dog lives here. My friends, neighbors, and postman do not. I don't go over to someone's house asking that they keep their children penned up in my presence.

Also, I'd note that because we can never know when the mail will arrive, they're in essence asking us to keep our dogs restrained most of the day - at least until the mail arrives, or we arrive home, whichever comes last.

And last, responsible pet owners will have already taken precautions to make sure their dog won't bite a visitor on the property. So why address this notice to them? Seems to me it would apply to the irresponsible pet owners... you know, the ones who probably binned this card without a second glance.

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.

Playground hysteria

Is litigation taking the 'play' out of kids' playgrounds?

Is there real danger on the modern playground?

Safety advocates say yes and want to eliminate it.

Their first target: swing sets.

They've convinced Portland Public Schools to remove all swings from elementary schools playgrounds.

But even a playground inspector finds the removal of swing sets a little over the top.

He says that swinging creates motion and is an important part of childhood development.

But the safety advocates don't stop there.

Portland Public Schools have also rejected merry go rounds, tube slides, track rides, arch climbers, and teeter totters.

But wait, there's more:

Now, it seems, anything with moving parts is a lawsuit liability, and in some places, that even means moving legs.

In Broward County, Florida, there's a new rule on the playground: no running.

A parent there commented that "no running on the playground, that's kind of like no playing on the playground" and another called for a review of what exactly was "safe" or unsafe.

So what can kids still play?

Not dodge ball or tether ball, that's still too dangerous. And in Beaverton, at Barnes Elementary School, rules there forbid the game of tag.

The more I read about ridiculous things like this, the more I look at my own childhood in amazement. If we took all this at face value, it's a wonder my generation made it past our elementary school years with all our appendages. All the sharp edges, tetanus-causing metal, and wood splinters! My god, what WERE our parents thinking, sending us to the Playgrounds of Death?!?

Occasionally, I'll drive past my old elementary school during a hometown visit. Most of the fun playground equipment has long since been removed. I once fell off a concrete retaining wall on my school's playground, skinning my knee and face. Surely the school has been negligent in banning retaining walls - that retaining wall is one of the few features I still recognize about the playground today. Another child could fall off it at any second!

Maybe we should ban bicycles, too. Learning to ride is just an accident in the making. I remember crashing squarely into the back of a parked car when I was first learning to ride and hadn't quite mastered the concept of steering. Or maybe it was the parked car - that's it, ban parked cars.

This begs to be a South Park episode.

If I ever become a parent and turn into one of these overprotective nitwits, I hope someone will slap me.

A glimmer of uncommon sense

From Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science:

The U.S. Government has finally begun to reverse policy on the insecticide DDT. Let's hope that this policy shift represents the beginning of the end of what can only be called a crime against humanity: the decades-old withholding of the world's most effective anti-malarial weapon from billions of adults and children at risk of dying from the disease.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told the Washington Times this week (May 3) that it endorses and will fund the indoor spraying of DDT in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria kills more than one million Africans annually, mostly children under five and pregnant women.

The policy change is timely given a recent commentary published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet (April 25) in which a number of researchers accuse the World Bank of deception and medical malpractice in the struggle against malaria.

The researchers charge that the World Bank reneged on its promise to spend $300 million to $500 million for malaria control in Africa; concealed the actual amount of its expenditures; reduced its staff of malaria experts from seven to zero shortly after promising to do more to fight the disease; published false epidemiological studies to exaggerate the performance of its projects; and funded clinically obsolete treatments, against the World Health Organization'?s advice, for malaria in India.

As many environmentalists are quick to point out, DDT was never officially banned. However, the U.S. policy of denying aid to any country still using DDT is nearly as effective a prohibition as an outright ban would have been.

No evidence was ever found to support the allegations portraying DDT as a deadly agent - not the egg shell thinning, not the human health risk. Indeed, bird populations were seen to increase during the DDT years, contradicting the claims of scientific journals and environmental organizations antagonistic to DDT.

Additionally, there's evidence to suggest that the World Health Organization viewed overpopulation of Third World nations as a threat, and saw no alternative but to increase the number of childhood deaths through malaria. As one worker for one health agency put it: "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

In short, the malaria epidemic, because of its direct causation by international health agencies and their political motives, appears to have been used as the means to the most significant genocide the world has seen.

The cynical part of me wonders if the existence of a biological population control tool more effective than malaria accounts for the shift in DDT policy, but that remains to be seen.

Thoughts on immigration protests

Later today, traffic in downtown Seattle is expected to be snarled beyond belief due to the second immigration protest in three weeks. And I'm extraordinarily angry about it.

First, as my political leanings go (somewhere between libertarian minarchist and anarcho-capitalist), I support their cause. On fundamental levels, I'm opposed to restrictions on movement and limits on the rights of individuals to enter consensual contracts with each other, including contracts involving employment and wages. And I truly believe that federal and state minimum wage requirements have roped the U.S. into the precarious position it currently holds.

But not a single one of these protests serves to inconvenience or punish government for its meddling, overbearing position. The biggest burdens of these protests are born by the private citizens and business owners. Businesses must scramble to adequately staff their operations. Workers, legal and illegal alike, face commutes that take hours longer than normal because of streets closed to traffic. And the taxpayers foot the bill for the traffic revisions, police presence, damage to public property, and other incidentals.

Unlike the bus boycotts of the 60s civil rights movement, these rallies strike at the heart of private enterprise, inclusively punishing those who support the rights of undocumented workers and even provide them with jobs. Government doesn't suffer because government isn't heavily staffed by undocumented workers in the first place. Government doesn't care about 15,000 screaming protesters throwing a tantrum on its doorstep and the ensuing traffic problems. Government doesn't have to scramble to meet staffing needs.

If the objective is a strong show of support numerically speaking, then rallying in a place capable of accommodating thousands is far more appropriate, and far less likely to raise the ire of those who are otherwise supportive of the motivation for protest.

The war protesters typically reserve their actions for the weekend, when more people can attend and less harm is done. It's too bad the immigration protest organizers can't grasp the same concept - making nice with the neighbors. And if any actions are to be successful, they must strike at the organization that benefits the most from illegal immigration - the government.

Here's to your health

Shortages of drug for asthma cause concern

The Food and Drug Administration ruled that inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had to be gone by Dec. 31, 2008. CFCs, commonly used as refrigerants and propellants, have been banned in the United States for most purposes since 1996 because they deplete the ozone layer. But drug companies have been slow to respond.

Bomgaars said that until production of inhalers fueled by hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) -- a propellant that doesn't affect the ozone layer -- is ramped up, availability will continue to be a problem.

Sooooo, we're banning CFCs to protect the ozone, fucking over a bunch of asthmatics in the process. I'm sure each person struggling to find albuterol or pay for the substantially more expensive substitutes appreciates all that's being done to help protect their health. After all the lip-service from the beltway regarding environmental policy and the supposed public health benefits, I'm speechless at the irony of this move.

New formulations hitting the market cost about twice as much as albuterol with CFCs. At Bartell Drugs, for example, generic versions of albuterol products were in the low $20s. A comparable prescription with the new HFA is in the low $40s.

Dr. Jonathan Becker, an asthma/allergy board certified specialist at Northwest Asthma and Allergy Center, acknowledged that the eco-friendly products are quite a bit more expensive, but said the HFA products also "have the potential to better deliver medications."...

Bomgaars suggested that those taking albuterol should check with their physicians to see if they should be on it -- if it's still the appropriate drug for them. "Short term, as much as we hate to have people shop around, it may be necessary for them to call around and see if the product is available."

And how is it we can still be pondering the mystery of expensive health care?

I'd be curious to know just how much, by weight and by volume, the CFCs from inhalers contribute to overall CFC emissions. I'm betting it's not a significant percentage of either. Instead, this measure reeks of concern over public perception - that we must be "doing something" to save the environment and stop global warming.

Fear of freedom

Crispin Sartwell writes:

We want the government to guarantee our health, deflect hurricanes, educate our children and license us to drive; we want to be told what to eat, what to smoke and whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stun gun, a can of pepper spray and a database that includes us, we feel happy and secure.

Our submission is absolute: We want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.

The terrorists hate our freedom. But we should be comfortable with that. We hate our freedom, too.

(Hat tip to Radley Balko for the find.)

This is precisely the same thought that's been nagging at me for months now. We as a society AREN'T comfortable with freedom, and for two main reasons.

The first is that with freedom comes responsibility - self-determination is a scary, daunting proposition, especially to those who've never known the definition of "self-supporting". It gives us the ability to soar to great heights, and to plummet with a resounding thud and no safety net. It also provides us no scapegoat for our fears and failures. When we make mistakes, be they as big as choosing the wrong mate or as small as leaving a red sock in the washer with the whites, no one is around to shoulder the blame and whisk away the consequences.

The second is that we aren't comforable with what others will do with their freedom. They might *gasp* light up a cigarette at the bar stool next to you. They might leave rusting car bodies on their front lawns. They might gamble their money away at the local casino. And, horror of horrors, we just can't have that.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if it's worth trying to convince anyone that living free is the only acceptable choice. All too frequently, the recipient of my suggestions nods in agreement until they remember just one thing they wouldn't like their neighbors to be able to do. And each one of them justifies their intrusion with "it's just one little law - what's the harm?", not even acknowledging the cumulative effect of each of those little laws.

I can't say that I'm always comfortable with the things my neighbors do with the freedoms we still have. For example, the newest family on the block has taken to parking their oil-leaking disastermobile in front of my house on occasion, and yes, it grates on my nerves when I see the greasy slick on the pavement. But if I'm going to walk the walk, I need to just let that go for the bigger picture. They're a quiet couple with kids, and other than the car, they've given me no grief.

What a sad little battalion of busybodies America has become. And I'll still struggle to keep my annoyance in check, because I don't want to enlist.