the palest ink

Censored Confustion

2009-10-02T11:36:00.000-07:00

The ACLU is confused (yes, again). Here is their intro to Banned Books Week:

What do The Grapes of Wrath, Little Red Riding Hood, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and Playboy have in common?

Every one of these works has been censored somewhere in the United States. Censorship comes in many forms. Whenever a school board librarian, newspaper editor, politician, or store owner tries to take away your right to decide what you want to see, hear or read, that is censorship.

If "censorship" is to have any meaning, it must involve someone interfering with your rights. This always entails violence or coercion at some level. Notice please, the "newspaper editor" and the (book) store owner in the quote. These people, by profession, facilitate your access to information. Suppose they wanted to retire? ... or go on vacation? Do you think you have a right to make them keep working, to keep facilitating for you? The idea is, of course, absurd; that would be slavery.

The politician in the ACLU's list is very different. Politicians in my experience rarely have an idea that does not involve coercion of someone. To mix the two, as they do, is horrid and a betrayal of the very meaning of rights. Shame on you, ACLU. No biscuit!

To The Honorable Brad Miller

2009-07-17T07:12:00.000-07:00

Health care? I got your survey and the first thing you should know is that responsible people do not click on buttons in any e-mail, ever! (Sure, it SAYS it was from you -- and some Nigerian wants to send me millions, too!)

On to substance: there is nothing in your newsletter to indicate you gave a moment's thought to WHY health care costs are soaring. Other high tech aspects of our economy are greatly expanding capability while reducing costs -- why is health care different? The answer has many aspects, but one stands out: third party payers! This system leaves all the people directly involved (that's doctors and patients) with no incentive to hold down costs.

The problem was created by Congress -- they gave a huge discount on some methods of paying for health care and not to others. The corporations love it -- they like having employees chained to their jobs. Congress could easily fix it, just by treating all medical costs the same. It doesn't much matter whether health care is deductible or not, as long as all payment models are treated equally. But. no....

Congress, instead of fixing the problem they created, wants MORE (and more remote) third party payers! What's worse, the so-called "reform" proves that Congress knows they are making the problem worse: it includes a brand new federal agency just to deny health care when it's too expensive.

Everybody thinks they hate insurance company bureaucrats; just wait 'til they have to deal with government bureaucrats!

Back to the survey: the only proposal there that even half-way deserved a check mark was this -- "Reform medical malpractice laws to help bring down health care costs." I would ask you to "reform the entire tort system to bring down the huge costs to doing any kind of business."

Precautionary Compulsion

2009-07-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

I would call the Graedons, Joe and Terry, native North Carolina heroes. They do a radio show on home remedies, medical practices, health and related issues. The principal effect of their efforts is to empower their listeners -- as individuals -- in the competition (as it would seem) between the medical establishment and patients.

For all that, they seem to have one blind spot, though. There is one "medical practice" that doesn't get much scrutiny for efficacy or cost and there's to be nothing like empowerment of individual related to THIS issue! This week's show (11 July '09) had a guest who vividly illustrated the problem. The guest was one Linda Birnbaum (PhD, DABT, ATS), who is Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. (Yes, all that!) Ms Birnbaum is concerned about plastic, plastic that touches your skin, plastic that touches your food, and just plastic generally. The stuff might be dangerous. It might be!

There's a principle involved here. Ms Birnbaum explained that she believed in The Precautionary Principle, which she explained meant that one did not have to have complete information or "proof" in order to take action. Well, that sounds pretty norm... wait -- don't humans always have incomplete information? Always! And what sort of "action" would Ms Director of National [Stuff] be planning to take? If you guessed she will substitute her judgment for everyone else's and (she's a bureaucrat) compel (regulation, fines, jail, violence!) obedience, then you understand the situation. This "incomplete information" gambit means she doesn't want to be bothered to justify her dictates.

If I pitched a new drug to Joe and Terry and I explained that I had "incomplete information" and I wanted -- not just to offer, but to compel people to take my new drug, they would be livid. But for regulations or for any government sponsored interference in medicine, it seems that good intentions are all that is needed. No double blind, placebo controlled study (or any study) is needed. Why Joe? Why do government edicts get by on good intentions while real medicine needs extensive (expensive, long delaying) tests?

Is there anything that more red tape won't fix?

2009-05-18T06:50:00.000-07:00

The N&O is mournful; it's just so sad that the State has to enact a new law (S729) to prevent people from doing a "wrong thing [that] is blindingly, glaring apparent." So, after making laws for 3000 years, what wrong thing has everybody missed until now? In the words of the N&O, it's selling "a load of aluminum or copper or cast iron that obviously belongs to someone else."

Now, you probably thought that it had already long been illegal to traffic in stolen goods. And you probably also thought that "obviously" meant ... um, at least "easy to prove in court." Ah, but you'd be wrong. Senator Bob Rucho (R-Etard) and his pals believe some stolen goods are being bought and sold, but prosecutors just can't prove it. So, they have to DO something, don't they? So, they want to add extra red tape to every transaction, so they can punish people even when it cannot be proven they were knowingly buying stolen goods! And, even when they're NOT buying stolen goods, but merely failed get a permit.

Pretty soon everything you want to do will require a permit. Do you have a permit to ask for a permit?

When is a probe a Probe?

2008-04-08T09:46:00.000-07:00

Thank goodness we have Fox 8 to keep us informed about the goings on in Iredell County, here in NC. Here's the lead: "During a traffic stop, sheriff's deputies discovered a woman who had 400 pills of ecstasy hidden inside one of her body cavities."

No, it was not her mouth.

The story is here. And the question is, of course, do they probe you at every traffic stop in Iredell or just if you're an 18 year old woman?

Coming soon to a traffic stop near you?

Want a new Garbage Disposal? TOO BAD!

2008-03-05T04:38:00.000-08:00

No More Garbage Disposals in Raleigh

Not only does this limit your personal choice as to what you can install IN YOUR OWN HOME, more food waste in the trash and in our landfills is bad for environment.

According to the article, they are also "encouraging" citizens to disconnect the devices. I wonder how long before it's "mandated" that you disconnect your garbage disposal?

Raleigh Water Restrictions

2008-02-27T15:40:00.000-08:00

Raleigh is now under Stage 2 Water Restrictions

I care about my community. I always do my best to help out the community by volunteering my time, cleaning up after myself (and others), helping others in need and just try to be an all-around good citizen. I do not do these things because I am bound by the law, I do them because it's what I want to do. When I was made aware of the serious water shortage in my community, I immediately made a few lifestyle changes. I did not water my plants, didn't leave my faucets running, checked for leaks, stopped washing my vehicle and I also made a conscious effort to shorten my showering time. I care about my community and f there is something I can do to help, I do it.

The most challenging was probably shortening my shower time. I have thick hair and it's hard to rinse it out in a short period of time. I managed to get it down to a science. Without washing my hair, I could be in and out of the shower in 3 minutes. Washing my hair, no more than 7. I miss my long, hot showers, but it's a small sacrifice.

I recently received a letter from my landlord informing me that the City of Raleigh had mandated him to install "low-flow" shower heads. About a week later, he installed them.

Well, no more 7-minute showers for me! I can barely rinse myself off in 7-minutes,much less rinse the shampoo out of my hair. How much do water these "low-flow" shower heads actually save? I actually feel like I'm using MORE water than I did before.

As usual, government does NOT know what is best. If they did, we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Water has been a problem in this area since I moved here 13 years ago and no one has ever done a damn thing about it.

Harassment of shy people is okay, says NC State Policy

2007-11-10T13:22:00.000-08:00

The administrators of North Carolina State (NCSU) issued a policy statment REG 04.25.04 to aver that "harassment based upon race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age, disability or veteran status ...[would] not be tolerated." We see that shyness, height, left handedness, wearing eye glasses, and hundreds of other perceived or actual conditions are not listed, ergo we conclude that harassment for those reasons is encouraged at State.

No, wait! "Retaliation against any person complaining of harassment..." is also not tolerated. Now, common sense would say that "retaliation" and "harassment" are some forms of assault or battery and, hence, hardly need a university policy statement to discourage the practice. So, is the Chancellor just making an empty statement? The chancellorship is a political position, so that's a possibility, but there are two other, better guesses at the reason for the policy.

One: If a criminal charge is brought against a student, then the accused is entitled to presumption of innocence and to see and challenge the evidence against him. A reasonable level of proof is required to sustain the charge and there is an appeals process. The Chancellor doesn't want to bother with all of that.

Two: Most usage of the words nigger, fag, or bitch do not constitute assault. But a violation of policy? Oh my, yes! The Chancellor can dismiss you for any display of emotion that displeases HIM. (Not you Nerd; not you Four Eyes; not you Bean Pole. Not yours!)

On November 8, someone on campus twisted some toilet paper into the shape of a noose. The noose has been used in state sponsored killing since 1300, so perhaps the person made the noose as a political statement, opposing the current de facto moratorium in N. C. What's that? You don't think so? It's much more likely that the person was just being immature, like most of his fellows. That kind of thing can end your career in this politically correct country.

Progress on Real ID opposition in NC

2007-10-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week I called and e-mailed my legislative representatives in the NC Senate and NC House (Ellie Kinnaird and Verla Insko, respectively)
and laid out my opposition to Real ID, and provided them both with links to the bills passed in other states which oppose
Real ID, and asked for one or both of them to introduce similar legislation here in NC.

I have since received replies from both (a phone call from Ellie Kinnaird, and an email from Verla Insko). Senator
Kinnaird seems very sympathetic to the idea of blocking Real ID here, while Represenative Insko did not seem to be
terribly well informed on the issue, but promised to look into it further.

So right now, it seems like those of us who are opposed to Real ID may have a chance to get something done: Possibly we
can get some legislation introduced at the very least. But I don't think my calls and e-mails alone are going to be enough.
What we need is for every concerned NC citizen to step up and contact *their* state legislators as well. Contact info
for all North Carolina Senate and House reps can be found here.
I would heartily encourage anyone who is opposed to this National ID nonsense to please contact your reps and ask them to
pass legislation opposing Real ID. This is a battle that can be won, but it's going to take some serious grass-roots
work, especially this late in the game.

Flag Follow-up

2007-08-02T18:44:00.000-07:00

In a rare victory for free speech, the flag desecration charges against the Asheville couple were dropped! Let's hear it for Asheville!

Charges Dropped in Flag Case

"All charges in the case of activists Mark and Deborah Kuhn, arrested on July 25 in an incident involving alleged flag desecration are being dropped, Buncombe County Sheriff Van Duncan announced this afternoon. An internal investigation of the arrests is continuing.

“We have conferred with the district attorney and are dropping the charges,” Duncan said. “We’ve reviewed the issue and the Supreme Court rulings in this matter are very clear, as is a 1971 North Carolina case deciding this [the flag desecration] statute unconstitutional. We don’t have a good charge here and it wasn’t proceeded with in the proper manner.”

Free Speech Violated in Asheville

2007-07-29T16:04:00.000-07:00

An Asheville couple was arrested on charges of flag desecration. The Kuhn's had pinned signs to an upside down American flag along with pictures of Bush with the text "out now". The couple plans to plead not guilty. Their lawyer plans to ask for a dismissal.

The world becomes a dangerous place when you cannot speak out against the actions of the government that supposedly represents you. You can read more about the story here:

Asheville Couple Arrested

Another taxpayer funded, state (mis)managed boondoggle in NC

2007-07-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

The new section of 540 in Wake County is open, and the results are not impressive. Poor planning by NC DOT engineers has resulted in even more traffic headaches for traffic exiting 540 for I-40 East or West.

Now the DOT is talking about spending even more tax-money to try and fix the mess. But to make matters worse, they're saying they don't know if they *can* fix it, because the exit ramp which needs to be expanded is bordered by water.

It makes one wonder what would happen if highways were run by private companies without the ability to subsidize their mistakes by collecting tax money. One supposes the need to make a profit (or go out of business) might encourage better planning; as opposed to the DOT who can (and do, routinely) screw up everything they touch, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayers of NC will continue to absorb the cost of fixing their mistakes.

North Carolina government brags about Real ID compliance

2007-06-28T21:28:00.000-07:00

If you live in North Carolina, you may have heard the expression "First in Freedom" a few times. That phrase
has long been something of an unofficial second state motto here, to the extent that it used to appear on NC license
plates where they now say "First in Flight." The history of the phrase dates to something called the Mecklenburg
Declaration - an event which is debated by historians - where a group of citizens in Mecklenburg County, NC were the
first Americans to declare independence from Great Britian.

Whether that even happened as reported or not, there is no doubt that North Carolina and it's people have a
long history of embracing Freedom and Liberty as core values. Now however, we see that corruption and decay
have reduced this once proud state to a level where state official are *bragging* about their compliance with
a totalitarian National ID law passed by the Federal government in 2005.

Now, living in a state which - by all rights - should have been the FIRST state to reject this law, we have our
state officials making statements like this:

Therefore, North Carolina is preparing as best it can to come into compliance with the law by May 2008.

North Carolina has made many strides since early 2004 as part of Governor Easley’s Operation Stop Fraud.

On February 2, 2004 we implemented new, tougher standards for proof of identification. These new standards restricted the use of ID documents to those which could be verified as needed. The standards restricted the acceptance of foreign documents, except for the use of valid, unexpired foreign passports.

In early 2004, the Division implemented verification of Social Security Numbers. In 2005, we implemented fraudulent document recognition training, requiring all examiners and License and Theft inspectors to complete a nationally-certified 20-hour course. Later that year, we implemented the use of face recognition technology, which has proven extremely valuable. A year ago, we also began tying the expiration date of a driver license to the expiration date of the Visa for customers with visas. On August 28, we implemented the new law eliminating the use of ITINs.

We have also implemented the use of an OVD overlay on the face of the license. Later this year, we will be the first state in the nation to implement the use of the new common security element recommended for all states. This will be an OVD patch on the back of the license.

As a result of North Carolina’s actions, there are many parts of the REAL ID law that North Carolina is already in compliance with.

Now having seen North Carolina's reaction to Real ID, let's examine what our neighbors in South Carolina had to say:

AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL REAL ID ACT.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Nonparticipation

SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 56-1-85. The State shall not participate in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act."

There you go. Short, sweet and to the point. Now, are we here in North Carolina going to sit back and accept that South Carolinians love Freedom
more than we do? I, for one, say most emphatically "NO." I say it is time for us to take action, one way or another. This rampant abuse by the Federal government must not be allowed to stand, and
North Carolina should be at the front of the pack in opposing this unconscionable nonsense. So to all you reading this, I ask that you
please contact your House and Senate representatives in the NC General Assembly and ~~ask~~demand that NC pass
a resolution mirroring the one passed by South Carolina (and Utah, Maine, and several other states as well).

It's time for North Carolina to retake her place as a shining beacon of Liberty and Freedom. And if the leaders we have
in place now won't acknowledge that, it is time to remove them from power.

Oh, no, the FLAGS! SO MANY FLAGS!

2007-06-03T04:33:00.000-07:00

Raleigh has recently passed an ordinance limiting the number of flags yu can have on your property to 3. Personally, I do think having a lot flags in front of your house or business is a little tacky, but what do I care? More importantly, why should the government care?

I'm offended that my taxes are going towards running the city and THIS is what they use their time to discuss.

Full Story Here

MADD about you...

2007-05-26T10:28:00.001-07:00

Wow.

Just got a mailing from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

They want us to sign a petition. Ignition interlocks, in all our cars.

Some points:

1. Drunk driving is already illegal.
2. Driving without a license is illegal.
3. Interlock systems are expensive and cumbersome.
4. On the other hand, interlock systems are easy to defeat.

Do you really think that the sort of person who drives with a suspended license, on probation, and stone drunk is going to obey THIS law?

It would just impose huge costs on the rest of us.

From the mailing:

"Right now there is legislation pending in 30 states to require alcohol ignition interlocks on the vehicles of either repeat or first-time DWI offenders!"

Really? First time offenders? So if I am considering driving drunk the first time, a nice policeman will come install an interlock system?

Presumably, they meant possible SECOND time offenders, or people who have been convicted once.

But this is just a short jump to the full, "interlock for all cars" system.

Why do I have to pay, and be inconvenienced, for the tiny proportion of people who can't control themselves?

All we would need to do to solve the drunk driving problem is have real civil penalties, large fines and compensation laws. And people who can't pay can work off the debt in prison. No parole, no privileges.

Instead, we fill our prisons with folks whose only crime is to use harmless drugs in the privacy of their own homes! The prisons are full of people who have hurt no one, so we cut loose the drunken killers who endanger us all.

My answer? Simple.

1. Legalize, or at a minimum decriminalize, possession of all substances, so long as they don't harm anyone else.
2. Punish, and fine, anyone whose use of a substance, or need to purchase a substance, results in damage to someone else.

Incredible that you can go to jail for LONGER for possessing marijuana inside your house than for killing someone with your car while you are driving drunk.

Punish HARM, and the use of FORCE, not violations of some made up moral code.

MADD should be focusing on real jail terms, and real solutions, not some techy thing that will just make money for corporations and bureaucrats.

North Carolina finds yet another way to persecute the poor

2007-05-09T11:58:00.000-07:00

As WRAL is reporting

the NC state House passed a bill Wednesday that calls for abandoned vehicles on the shoulder of highway to be removed within 24 hours.

Under current law, abandoned cars can legally sit on the roadside for two days.

Now obviously it goes without saying that the working poor are the ones most likely to be driving an undependable vehicle, and to find themselves forced to abandon their vehicle on the side of the road temporarily. Concordantly, these folks need *more* time, not less, to make the necessary arrangements to have their vehicles towed and repaired. It's not uncommon for someone who is living week to week to literally have to wait until payday in order to afford something like that. And now the State wants to add an additional, unwarranted tow-bill to their burden.

I know from experience, having grown up just about dirt-poor, what kind of impact something like this can have. A $100.00+ tow-bill and impound recovery fee can all but break the back of someone earning minimum wage and already struggling to survive.

Is anybody surprised by this action though? Does anybody really believe that the self-appointed elites serving in the legislature give a damn about regular folks? This action is absurd, unconscionable, and amounts to an extra tax on the people least able to afford it.

Barry Saunders: "Tiger + Michael = Timid" -- No Barry, Not Likely

2007-05-04T14:32:00.000-07:00

Barry Saunders, Staff Writer for The News and Observer, criticizes Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods for not doing what he’d like to see them do. I think he misses the point of the facts he cites; that is, these two sports heroes know how to say no to people who want to use their celebrity status for their own purposes.

Saunders is still hung up because Jordan declined to endorse Harvey Gantt in his run for U.S. Senate in the 90’s. He also insults Jordan by criticizing his preferences about making charitable contributions. If it's his money, then it's his choice, Barry, not yours!

Saunders also has the nerve to criticize Tiger Woods for declining an invitation because he was tired. Hey, everyone gets tired now and then. Who can’t understand that?

Saunders should acknowledge that Jordan and Woods have the right to say no any way they like, just like anyone else.

------------------------

I may disagree with Saunders' negative opinion in this case, but I don't take positivity nearly as serious as the Russian News Service. According to a recent NY Times article:

From now on, at least 50 per cent of reports about Russia must be "positive".

This new desire for positivity doesn't extend to opposition leaders or the US, unfortunately:

Journalists working for the Russian News Service were told by the new managers, allies of the Kremlin, that opposition leaders could not be mentioned and the US was to be portrayed as an enemy.

It's going to be tricky for reporters:

How would they know what constituted positive news? "When we talk of death, violence or poverty, for example, this is not positive," said one editor who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution.

The press in Russia is now a mix of government-controlled and private:

The three national television networks are already state-controlled, though small-circulation newspapers generally remain independent.

But freedom of the press and political speech is quickly being restricted:

This month alone, a bank loyal to President Vladimir Putin tightened its control of an independent television station, Parliament passed a measure banning "extremism" in politics and prosecutors have gone after individuals who post critical comments on web chat sites.

Sadly, the list of media restrictions and censorship in Russia grows longer as authoritarianism rears its ugly head again there.

At least in the US, most of us still believe in a free press, at least up until 60 days before an election and except for those who support the misnamed Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully, conservatives are overly worried because of the Imus firing as Alex Koppelman suggests, but the US has also been downgraded in the Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index, as pointed out back in January by Dave Nalle, one of the “superior writers” of Blogcritics Magazine.

Smoking Ban Update

2007-05-02T18:17:00.000-07:00

A rare victory for freedom, ladies and gentlemen! The smoking ban did not pass!

"The state House voted this afternoon to defeat an effort to ban smoking in public places such as restaurants.
The bill, pushed by House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman in an effort to combat second-hand smoke, was defeated 55-61 following about two hours of debate.

Opponents of the measure argued it would intrude on the rights of business owners and penalize them rather than smokers."

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/569990.html

Tennessee moves to allow guns in public buildings

2007-04-19T18:19:00.000-07:00

In what appears to be a response to the disaster in Virginia; some interesting news from our next door neighbors to the west:

NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

I'm certainly surprised by this move, but pretty happy about it. It's a strong step towards eliminating defenseless victim zones and giving would-be killers another reason to reconsider their plans. After all, a shooting spree can't seem as appealing for those guys when the victims can shoot back.

The next question is, what is North Carolina going to do about this? I'm not - as of this writing - completely clear on what NC state laws says about guns on public property. If NC doesn't currently allow lawful firearms owners to carry on public
property, then one would certainly hope our leadership shows the same wisdom as Tennessee's and makes equivalent changes to NC law.

Duke charges dropped, but has Justice been served?

2007-04-12T18:42:00.000-07:00

As you probably know by now, NC Attorney General Roy Cooper has dropped the remaining charges against the three Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a woman at an off-campus party approximately a year ago.

Now it would be easy to sit back and say "Ok, the system worked. The boys were innocent, the charges were dropped, it's over." But to take that position would be to avoid the larger issues raised by this case; issues that have haunted humanity as long as we've had governments and will continue to haunt us.

Was Justice truly served here? Ask yourself this: How much money did those kids and their families spend on attorney's fees in the past year? How long will the stain of these accusations hover over these young men, and how will it affect their careers and lives? How much emotional stress and turmoil did they - and their families - experience over the past year having their names constantly in the media limelight? How does it feel to have your good name smeared internationally by prominent media figures?

The simple truth is, these young men have paid an incredible price for the act of throwing a party and hiring a couple of strippers; neither of which is necessarily a "bad thing." And they will likely never be sufficiently compensated for what they have paid, despite the charges being dropped. Perhaps it's not even possible to properly recompense somebody who's been through this kind of turmoil.

So if Justice has not been served, what good can come from this case? Well for starters, we can allow it to remind us of simple truths: That in the United States we are supposed to follow a concept known as "presumed innocence." ( You may know this as the old saw "innocent until proven guilty"). And that - while we may need the State (or something like it) to prosecute wrongdoers - we MUST have "checks and balances" to ensure that what authority we may entrust the State with, is not abused.
And that the rights of the ACCUSED are just as important as the rights of the alleged victims in these cases.

In short, we need to keep the questions "how much power and authority is it proper to invest in the State?" and "how do we make sure the State doesn't misuse that authority?" at the forefront. It is crucial that a free people never make the mistake of assuming that total trust in a political body - which government assuredly is - is justified.

Remember, ""... my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

South Carolina ahead of North Carolina on Real ID

2007-04-10T08:52:00.000-07:00

The rivalry between North and South Carolina runs deep on many levels, but today we see one area in which SC has clearly exceeded The Old North State: The SC state Senate has passed an act rejecting the federal Real ID Act of 2005. I believe this still needs to pass in their House to become law, but it already sends a strong message. South Carolinians have said, in no uncertain terms, that they don't appreciate the federal government meddling in their affairs.

In making this statement, South Carolina have joined New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho and Arkansas in standing up for the Constitution and the idea of States Rights. Supposedly a few other states are also considering similar acts. So my question is: Where is North Carolina on this issue? More to the point, why wasn't North Carolina - a state with an unofficial state motto of "First in Freedom" - the first state to reject this blatant power-grab by the Feds?

Our neighbors to the South have done something we should have done months - if not years - ago. It's time for North Carolina to take a stand and tell the federal government to bugger off and mind it's own business.

Tax Choice Idea and Ron Paul on FM Talk 101.1

2007-04-04T06:15:00.000-07:00

Early this morning, on the Alan Colmes show aired locally by FM Talk 101.1, a caller brought up the idea of taxpayers being allowed to select their choice of government programs for which to direct their tax money. This particular caller* wanted to direct his money to the war in Iraq instead of having it go to welfare and other social programs.

Like a typical liberal, Alan didn't get past the fact that the caller didn't want to pay to help out poor folks. I don't know if he realized that if people were allowed to choose where their taxes go, he'd be able to direct his money away from the war and towards welfare or whatever program he prefers.

As long as we're required to pay income taxes, whether we want to or not, why shouldn't Americans be allowed to at least have some say in where their money will go?

Tuesday night's show was a pretty good one for Alan, with both Charlie Daniels and recently announced presidential candidate Ron Paul taking part in the first hour. As the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, Dr. Paul is not your typical Republican. He believes in a Constitutional foreign policy and wants to bring the troops home from Iraq - now.

* Alan didn’t allow the caller a chance to explain his idea, but I think he was talking about a choice-based taxation scheme like the one briefly explained in this post or more completely in the article: On The Road to Voluntary Government Financing.

None of their business

2007-03-30T09:54:00.000-07:00

... if people play poker or gamble but that didn't stop the cops from busting up a poker game in Cary this week. I guess the state doesn't want anyone encroaching on their gambling monoploy.

No More Smoking in Tabacco Country?

2007-03-17T04:51:00.000-07:00

Hugh Holliman has introduced a bill that would ban smoking in ALL restaurants, bars and indoor workplaces in all of North Carolina. Supposedly, the bill is aimed at protecting the workers from secondhand smoke.

I'm not a smoker, nor am I a big fan of being around a lit cigarette, but this is NOT the government's call to make. Whether or not a business allows smoking is the business owner's perogative. As far as the worker's go, if you don't want to be around smoke, tell your boss you only want to work in the "No-Smoking" section. Or, better yet, find onw of the MANY bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking and work at one of those. No one is forcing you to be around smoke if you don't want to be there. We don't need to add another stupid law to the ever-growing list.

Sometimes people ask me why I am so quick to defend smokers when I am not "one of them". If they go after cigarettes, what's next? I love to enjoy a glass of wine after work, the same way that some people enjoy their cigarette, or cigar. If the NC Government wants to take away someone's cigarette, who's to say they won't come after my glass of wine? One aspect of being a Libertarian is defending people, behaviours or speech that is unpopular. I may not like to be around smoke, but far be ot from me to stop someone from smoking in a business that allows it.

School Choice: Why is This So Hard?

2007-03-03T08:13:00.000-08:00

This gem of statist reasoning, from the Raleigh NEWS AND OBSERVER, got me thinking about school choice:

Some excerpts from the story by Samiha Khanna, Staff Writer for N&O, with my most insightful comments in caps:

DURHAM - ...The opening of Durham's eighth charter will expand a $6 million dent in the school system's budget.

Though charter schools are public schools, they operate independently from the local school district. They receive money from the state, and for each student from the Durham school district who enrolls in a charter, a certain per-student allowance follows him. (BUT...BUT...BUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A SEAT FOR THAT STUDENT, OR SCHOOL BUS SERVICES! AT A TIME WHEN SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED, HOW CAN THIS BE A COST? UNLESS...UNLESS YOU JUST THINK THE LOSS OF CONTROL OVER CITIZEN CHOICE IS A COST, RIGHT?)

This will make difficult several projects coming up for Durham Public Schools, including the opening of a new middle school and three small high schools in the fall. (AGAIN, THEY ONLY NEED TO DO THAT IF THEY ARE OVERCROWDED. AND SENDING KIDS TO CHARTERS RELIEVES OVERCROWDING. FURTHER, CHARTERS SAVE THE STATE MONEY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T PROVIDE LUNCH, OR BUS SERVICE, AND GET MUCH LESS PER STUDENT THAN THE STATE-RUN SCHOOLS.)

"We're trying to do a lot of things that require revenue," said Hank Hurd, associate superintendent of administrative services for Durham Public Schools. "Charters are depleting some of the resources that we need to address the student population at large." (STOP DOING THOSE THINGS! THAT'S NOT "REVENUE!" THAT'S MONEY TAKEN AT GUNPOINT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE DESPERATE TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO BETTER SCHOOLS!)

When it opens in the fall, Voyager will serve about 320 students in grades four through seven. Its home will be the 40,000-square-foot former Little River Elementary School in the northern Durham town of Bahama. (NO NEW BUILDING, AND NO STATE COSTS, EXCEPT THE RENTAL. LESS THAN HALF AS EXPENSIVE FOR TAXPAYERS, AND HIGHER QUALITY EDUCATION.)

The school will expand to eighth grade the following year, and eventually cap growth at 500 students, according to a plan the school's board of directors submitted to the state.

As of this week, the school received about 400 letters of interest from parents in Durham and as far away as Hillsborough and Roxboro....(GOSH, SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE DURHAM SCHOOLS AREN'T REALLY DOING THEIR JOB. AND THEIR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS...PREVENT PARENTS FROM HAVING ANY CHOICES? IT IS TRUE THAT WITHOUT CHOICES, THE DURHAM SCHOOLS WOULD HAVE MORE STUDENTS. WHY NOT PURSUE THAT A LITTLE FURTHER? IF WE CRIMINALIZE READING, WE CAN JUST USE THE PRISONS FOR SCHOOLS, AND THEN WE CAN REALLY MAKE SOME REVENUE! USE THE SCHOOLS MONEY TO BUILD NEW PRISONS!)

...At Voyager, the emphasis will be on hands-on projects and other interactive activities, said Christy Whiteside, a contractor who worked with the school's board to create its education plan.

Teachers also will focus on character education and public speaking. Directors are still trying to solidify a partnership with the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University, Forsyth said.

Parents and students won't know until March 31 who will attend Voyager. If the school gets more applications than there are spaces available, it will choose by lottery. (I'M GUESSING THEY ARE GOING TO NEED A LOTTERY. SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD EXPERIMENT IN EDUCATION, AND IT WILL CUT COSTS TO TAXPAYERS.)

Most of Voyager's students are likely to come from Durham, so administrators with the school system can expect to send at least an additional $800,000 to the new school in per-student allowances, plus state resources allotted based on enrollment, Hurd said. (AAARGH! WHERE DO YOU START HERE? IT IS NOT DURHAM'S MONEY TO LOSE! THAT IS TAXPAYER MONEY. CHARTER SCHOOLS JUST LET PARENTS MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES WITH THEIR OWN MONEY! HOW DARE DURHAM BUREAUCRATS TALK ABOUT "LOSING" MONEY? THEY HAVE LOST THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE LOST!)

....Durham administrators tried to drive home the point last fall, when enrollment in traditional public schools in Durham increased less than 1 percent and charter enrollment soared by almost 22 percent.

***********

And, remember, charter enrollment is capped by capacity. That's not the number of people who WANT to send their kids to charters. That is the actual number of seats filled by parents who are going crazy with worry about how their kids are treated in the schools runs by teachers' unions and indifferent, revenue-maximzing bureaucrats.

Anything that improves choice, improves education. Charters, and vouchers, are a good start. Let's get started!