Someone recently directed me to a poll asking the question "Should we remove 'In God We Trust' from our coinage?" I never did take the poll, but I wrote the following answer (which I have since edited slightly):
I am certainly sympathetic to the questionable constitutionality on this topic. Yet, there are a number of mitigating factors.
The first is the gravity of the infraction. The first amendment declares that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Consider the degree to which one half of this prohibition has been expanded (make no law establishing religion), while the other half has been utterly disregarded (preventing the free exercise thereof). Consider the ever contracting interpretation of the second amendment. Contrast the liberal application of the 14th amendment with the powerlessness of the 10th amendment. Consider the use of the interstate commerce clause to restrict nearly any activity congress sees fit to restrict. One cannot help notice that application of constitutional precepts has little to do with interpreting what is written or what was intended, and much to do with congress and the courts twisting the words of the Constitution in an attempt to make them match their interests. Regardless of which part of the political fence you choose to occupy, congress has ignored some part of the Constitution which is important to you.
Given the immense gravity of many of these infractions, concerns about the use of "In God We Trust" are a trivial. These words on our coinage cannot be said to establish a religion. At most, they reflect the belief in a deity held by the vast majority of the citizens. The rights of the majority should not trample the rights of the few, but we've not established a religion, we've only acknowledged a very generic God.
We have plenty of laws banning the majority from free exercise of religion, through efforts like banning prayers in schools (1st amendment). We are willing to restrict the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment). We are willing to allow all kinds of invasions of persons, houses, papers, and effects (4th amendment). We are willing to make federal laws on any range of topics for which no such authority is provided in the constitution (10th amendment). If we are truly concerned about the integrity of the Constitution, we have more important issues to deal with than the bland statement of "In God We Trust" on our currency.
The second mitigating factor is the historical precedent. We have used the words "In God We Trust" on our currency since the Civil War - almost 150 years. The Supreme Court found in 2006 that a monument including the ten commandments could remain on on display outside a courthouse in Texas. Among the reasons given in support of this decision was the historical precedent. The monument had stood for over 50 years. With three times the historical precedent for "In God We Trust", and far less association with a particular religion or practice, the same argument applies for the coin.
On the other hand, we need to break the bad habit we've formed of ignoring the Constitution for expedience, and this should be no exception. If the imprinting of these words on our coins could be said to be respecting an establishment of religion, then the words should go. Recall the words of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." An act of congress was required to add these words to our currency. As a result, there is some weight to the argument against this use of religion. Whereas prayers in public schools are not the result of an act of congress, our coinage is. And this phrase, in particular, is on the coins as a result of an act of congress. If our courts find that prayer in public schools is a violation of the first amendment, then certainly "In God We Trust" on our coins is, too.
But this brings us full circle. The question that I have for people who want to use the Constitution to dismiss all remnants of religion from public life is this - are you concerned with defending the Constitution, or furthering some other agenda? If you use the Constitution to erase words from a coin, are you willing to stand up for those elements of the Constitution to which you do not personally subscribe? Are you willing to tell the federal government that it has no business restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The second amendment says so. If you are not a gun rights supporter, you will say "that's only for the militia". I will concede that the text is somewhat ambiguous, and I would make the same argument regarding the ambiguity of the application of the first amendment to the statement on the coin. Do you support eliminating all forms of federally administered unemployment benefits and social security? The 10th amendment states clearly that if the Constitution has not explicitly granted a power to the federal government, it is reserved to the states and the people. No authority for unemployment or social security is granted to the federal government in the Constitution. If you want to remove "In God We Trust" because it you believe it is unconstitutional, I respect that. If you want to remove "In God We Trust" because you don't like it, and you are simply using the Constitution as a tool to get what you want, I have no time for you. I have a bone to pick with people who are willing to use the Constitution to support their cause, but are equally willing to ignore the Constitution when it does not support their cause.
I would not dismiss out of hand the argument that "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency. But if the decision were given to me to make right now, I would be inclined to leave the words there. In any case, spending resources on this minor issue is much like polishing a scuff mark from a car that has been crushed by a falling bolder - there are bigger issues that need to be addressed first.
And them's the fax.
12 March 2014
18 February 2009
The Heavy Social Burden of Rural Dwellers
If you've read anything I've written before now, you probably know that I am not enthusiastic about the recently passed "Economic Stimulus Bill". Hot on the heals of a comparably sized bailout of the financial and auto industries, we've managed to wrack up a sizable debt in the final months of Bush's term and the first month's of Obama's.
I came across an article that's got me a bit ticked off. A certain Mr. Katz, former economist for the FCC, feels that the $7.2 billion in the stimulus package intended to bring broadband internet access to rural areas is being misspent. So far he and I are in agreement. But our reasons differ. . .
Here is a clip from the article Stimulus Stirs Debate Over Rural Broadband:
Mr. Katz believes that rural people impose a burden on society. Hmm. First, let's point out that rural people did not descend on Washington demanding that the federal government provide them with broadband. We are not the financial executives from Wall Street, or the auto industry executives, demanding $700 billion dollars to take care of their problems for them. We are quietly trying to grow your food and would be thankful if Washington would just leave us alone while we do it. Rural people are not imposing a burden on society here, Washington is imposing its own will on rural people.
The "deserving" urbanites get a $700 billion bailout, and it is we rural folk who, by getting an unrequested infrastructure upgrade (at one one-hundredth the cost of Wall Street's bailout) are a burden on society. Wow. Some $3 trillion dollars has been committed for economic stimulus over the past year. We country dwellers are asking Washington to stop spending money and leave us alone, and we are the burden.
Well folks, I think it is our patriotic duty for all of us to move to the city. We don't want to impose unfair costs on society. There won't be anyone to grow food here anymore, but we can buy our melamine contaminated food from China.
I came across an article that's got me a bit ticked off. A certain Mr. Katz, former economist for the FCC, feels that the $7.2 billion in the stimulus package intended to bring broadband internet access to rural areas is being misspent. So far he and I are in agreement. But our reasons differ. . .
Here is a clip from the article Stimulus Stirs Debate Over Rural Broadband:
Former FCC economist Michael Katz didn't hesitate to bash rural life last week when he addressed an American Enterprise Institute panel discussion on the broadband elements of President Obama's economic stimulus bill.
"Other people don't like to say bad things about rural areas," Katz began. "So I will."
The stimulus package includes $7.2 billion to expand broadband Internet access into "underserved" and rural areas. Katz listed ways that the $7.2 billion could be put to better use, including an effort to combat infant deaths. But he also spoke of rural places as environmentally hostile, energy inefficient and even weak in innovation, simply because rural people are spread out across the landscape.
"The notion that we should be helping people who live in rural areas avoid the costs that they impose on society … is misguided," Katz went on, "from an efficiency point of view and an equity one."
Mr. Katz believes that rural people impose a burden on society. Hmm. First, let's point out that rural people did not descend on Washington demanding that the federal government provide them with broadband. We are not the financial executives from Wall Street, or the auto industry executives, demanding $700 billion dollars to take care of their problems for them. We are quietly trying to grow your food and would be thankful if Washington would just leave us alone while we do it. Rural people are not imposing a burden on society here, Washington is imposing its own will on rural people.
The "deserving" urbanites get a $700 billion bailout, and it is we rural folk who, by getting an unrequested infrastructure upgrade (at one one-hundredth the cost of Wall Street's bailout) are a burden on society. Wow. Some $3 trillion dollars has been committed for economic stimulus over the past year. We country dwellers are asking Washington to stop spending money and leave us alone, and we are the burden.
Well folks, I think it is our patriotic duty for all of us to move to the city. We don't want to impose unfair costs on society. There won't be anyone to grow food here anymore, but we can buy our melamine contaminated food from China.
16 February 2009
Little Tirade
My friend Greg wrote a comment replying to my Peanuts post. I ripped off a little tirade in response, but I thought it was too long to post as comment, so I'm turning it into a new post. You may want to read his comment here to get a little more understanding of the incoherent rambling in this post. I did respond to his comment with a snarky little quip. Here (in a slightly altered form) is the tirade:
Contrary to what some people may think, I am not of the opinion that if only we had Ronald Reagan back as president we could all live in some euphoric Ayn Randian utopia. Nor am I of the opinion that Obama is going to usher in an era of peace and joy. Liberals tend to think that I am a right wing nut, and conservatives think I'm a left wing nut. I have no simple answers. It is the simple answers which generally frustrate me.
The post entitled All or Nothing points out that government programs are not all bad - it is good to have safety nets. The problem in the US is that we have the bad side of liberalism (big brother, high taxes) and the bad side of capitalism (no support from the government for the poor and needy).
The post on health care makes the same point - give us free trade or give us the benefits of government-controlled trade, ie let the government help the people. The simple argument that the conservatives make that "free market makes health care better" is simply a deluded or dishonest assessment of American health care.
I don't subscribe to the "the free market will solve all our problems" mantra. Nor do I subscribe to the "Government will solve all our problems" mantra. We are condemned to live this life in a state of struggle. Republicans want you to think that they will give us utopia. But dominating the federal government from 2001 - 2007, they did almost nothing towards improving either government or society. The Democrats have their chance again now, and I don't have a lot of hope that they will do much better. Libertarians think that they can do better, but they, too, will be corrupted by power if they ever get it. To have any hope in government, we must constantly battle it back. The government is like water - we need it to live, but if we don't shield ourselves from it, it can drown us.
I don't buy the argument that the financial mess is due to too little (or too much) regulation - I think it is due to a system that is inherently messed up. But that system is implemented and supported by the government. It is a system, much like the medical industry, which the government does in fact control, but people pretend it is free. The government injects capital into the system, manipulates interest rates, and encourages, discourages, requires or forbids many behaviors that would happen in a genuinely free system. People who are already "in" the system know the ropes, and can use the system to their own benefit. And those people will tell you that this is the free market, and it is the fairest way of doing things. But an honest eye will tell you that it is not a free market.
Claiming that either too much or too little government regulation has been the cause of the collapse of our financial system is just a badge of honor according to the side of the debate you happen to stand on. It misses the point entirely. Both contentions are untrue, because both contentions are based on an artificial and incorrect model of what the financial system really is. But regardless of the causes, we now can make a choice - we can either call ourselves capitalists and free marketeers and let the system sort itself out, or we can call ourselves socialists and let the government take over the failing institutions and create a giant safety net for everyone. What we will in fact do is much worse than either of those choices. We will claim to be capitalist free marketeers, while the government throws about money that it doesn't have with abandon, while the government prevents the free trade between farmers and customers, while the government regulates thrift shops and small toy makers out of existence (http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cspia-and-nais), while the government restricts constitutionally ensured freedoms. France is the favored punching bag of the right because of their socialist tendencies, but the government does give in return for what it takes. Which do you prefer, that system or a feudal tyrant, taking what it wants from the serfs, letting them keep at best a meager living, and giving nothing in return. I have the feeling that our taxes are something like protection money - pay it so your windows don't get broke.
In any case, it is a bit of a baffling work of logic to suggest that "people are evil in groups" and "it is clear that regulations favor the wealthy" then suggest that the biggest group going - the government that created the regulations in the first place - would fix the industry through further regulation. We cannot use regulations to create a perfect system, and an unregulated system will not purify itself. The system in question is a system designed for the purpose of amassing wealth. To use regulation to force it to distribute wealth defeats the purpose of the system. To remove all regulations from the system allows the powerful to take by force all that they want from the weak, and it is the very purpose of the civilization to prevent that.
Under Bush's watchful eye, we took the worst possible route to solve our financial trouble - we handed stupid quantities of money to the incompetent people whose failing companies were the cause of the larger economic meltdown, which they in turn used to pay themselves bonuses while firing many of the people in the bottom rungs of the companies who had performed their jobs dutifully for years. This is the perfect case of a corrupt capitalist. I am not surprised that Bush took this path, but I am surprised that there were so few conservative voices screaming from the rooftops against this outrage. Of course, most of the mouthpieces of the conservative movement either directly benefited, or are in the pockets of those who benefited from that abominable theft of funds from American coffers. If Bush really supported the rights of the unborn, he would never have saddled them with the debt he did.
Under Obama, we are getting the next worst path - spend stupid quantities of money in various wasteful and unhelpful ways. I am disappointed that Obama has not taken a more conservative path. I've been wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this economic plan that he has promoted is not encouraging.
Greg's summary question was "what kind of system will give individuals, groups, and our collective body the freedom to do as much good as they want, while inhibiting as much evil as possible?"
I would propose that this is the wrong question. There are certain evils that we can inhibit, but in general, it is the role of the government not to inhibit evil, so much as define and punish it. The government cannot measure the hearts of men, only their actions. Laws should exist for the purpose of drawing the lines around unacceptable actions, and responding to those who choose to step over those lines. Laws should make it clear what actions are unacceptable. But in general, the government should not "inhibit" evil. Discourage, perhaps, but not inhibit. The law should not say "you can't have a gun, because you might use it to shoot someone." Rather, the law should say "you can't shoot someone, and if you do, you will face harsh consequences."
The former approach attempts to make it impossible for someone to commit a crime. It means that all people, whether or not they are inclined to do evil, are constrained by the law. The latter approach assumes that most people will remain within the limits of the law, whether due to adherence to a moral constraint, or fear of the consequences of the law. It means that only those who are inclined to do evil are constrained by the law. It means that people can be free.
The choice is to build a cage around the crime, or building a cage around the people. Either way, the bad guys are going to cut the fence and commit the crime. But in one case, we give people freedom with a few exceptions (do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In the other case we put everyone in prisons, and slide under the bars the few things that we have approved for their use.
Contrary to what some people may think, I am not of the opinion that if only we had Ronald Reagan back as president we could all live in some euphoric Ayn Randian utopia. Nor am I of the opinion that Obama is going to usher in an era of peace and joy. Liberals tend to think that I am a right wing nut, and conservatives think I'm a left wing nut. I have no simple answers. It is the simple answers which generally frustrate me.
The post entitled All or Nothing points out that government programs are not all bad - it is good to have safety nets. The problem in the US is that we have the bad side of liberalism (big brother, high taxes) and the bad side of capitalism (no support from the government for the poor and needy).
The post on health care makes the same point - give us free trade or give us the benefits of government-controlled trade, ie let the government help the people. The simple argument that the conservatives make that "free market makes health care better" is simply a deluded or dishonest assessment of American health care.
I don't subscribe to the "the free market will solve all our problems" mantra. Nor do I subscribe to the "Government will solve all our problems" mantra. We are condemned to live this life in a state of struggle. Republicans want you to think that they will give us utopia. But dominating the federal government from 2001 - 2007, they did almost nothing towards improving either government or society. The Democrats have their chance again now, and I don't have a lot of hope that they will do much better. Libertarians think that they can do better, but they, too, will be corrupted by power if they ever get it. To have any hope in government, we must constantly battle it back. The government is like water - we need it to live, but if we don't shield ourselves from it, it can drown us.
I don't buy the argument that the financial mess is due to too little (or too much) regulation - I think it is due to a system that is inherently messed up. But that system is implemented and supported by the government. It is a system, much like the medical industry, which the government does in fact control, but people pretend it is free. The government injects capital into the system, manipulates interest rates, and encourages, discourages, requires or forbids many behaviors that would happen in a genuinely free system. People who are already "in" the system know the ropes, and can use the system to their own benefit. And those people will tell you that this is the free market, and it is the fairest way of doing things. But an honest eye will tell you that it is not a free market.
Claiming that either too much or too little government regulation has been the cause of the collapse of our financial system is just a badge of honor according to the side of the debate you happen to stand on. It misses the point entirely. Both contentions are untrue, because both contentions are based on an artificial and incorrect model of what the financial system really is. But regardless of the causes, we now can make a choice - we can either call ourselves capitalists and free marketeers and let the system sort itself out, or we can call ourselves socialists and let the government take over the failing institutions and create a giant safety net for everyone. What we will in fact do is much worse than either of those choices. We will claim to be capitalist free marketeers, while the government throws about money that it doesn't have with abandon, while the government prevents the free trade between farmers and customers, while the government regulates thrift shops and small toy makers out of existence (http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cspia-and-nais), while the government restricts constitutionally ensured freedoms. France is the favored punching bag of the right because of their socialist tendencies, but the government does give in return for what it takes. Which do you prefer, that system or a feudal tyrant, taking what it wants from the serfs, letting them keep at best a meager living, and giving nothing in return. I have the feeling that our taxes are something like protection money - pay it so your windows don't get broke.
In any case, it is a bit of a baffling work of logic to suggest that "people are evil in groups" and "it is clear that regulations favor the wealthy" then suggest that the biggest group going - the government that created the regulations in the first place - would fix the industry through further regulation. We cannot use regulations to create a perfect system, and an unregulated system will not purify itself. The system in question is a system designed for the purpose of amassing wealth. To use regulation to force it to distribute wealth defeats the purpose of the system. To remove all regulations from the system allows the powerful to take by force all that they want from the weak, and it is the very purpose of the civilization to prevent that.
Under Bush's watchful eye, we took the worst possible route to solve our financial trouble - we handed stupid quantities of money to the incompetent people whose failing companies were the cause of the larger economic meltdown, which they in turn used to pay themselves bonuses while firing many of the people in the bottom rungs of the companies who had performed their jobs dutifully for years. This is the perfect case of a corrupt capitalist. I am not surprised that Bush took this path, but I am surprised that there were so few conservative voices screaming from the rooftops against this outrage. Of course, most of the mouthpieces of the conservative movement either directly benefited, or are in the pockets of those who benefited from that abominable theft of funds from American coffers. If Bush really supported the rights of the unborn, he would never have saddled them with the debt he did.
Under Obama, we are getting the next worst path - spend stupid quantities of money in various wasteful and unhelpful ways. I am disappointed that Obama has not taken a more conservative path. I've been wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this economic plan that he has promoted is not encouraging.
Greg's summary question was "what kind of system will give individuals, groups, and our collective body the freedom to do as much good as they want, while inhibiting as much evil as possible?"
I would propose that this is the wrong question. There are certain evils that we can inhibit, but in general, it is the role of the government not to inhibit evil, so much as define and punish it. The government cannot measure the hearts of men, only their actions. Laws should exist for the purpose of drawing the lines around unacceptable actions, and responding to those who choose to step over those lines. Laws should make it clear what actions are unacceptable. But in general, the government should not "inhibit" evil. Discourage, perhaps, but not inhibit. The law should not say "you can't have a gun, because you might use it to shoot someone." Rather, the law should say "you can't shoot someone, and if you do, you will face harsh consequences."
The former approach attempts to make it impossible for someone to commit a crime. It means that all people, whether or not they are inclined to do evil, are constrained by the law. The latter approach assumes that most people will remain within the limits of the law, whether due to adherence to a moral constraint, or fear of the consequences of the law. It means that only those who are inclined to do evil are constrained by the law. It means that people can be free.
The choice is to build a cage around the crime, or building a cage around the people. Either way, the bad guys are going to cut the fence and commit the crime. But in one case, we give people freedom with a few exceptions (do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In the other case we put everyone in prisons, and slide under the bars the few things that we have approved for their use.
11 February 2009
Economic Bailout
I've a thought on how we might rescue the American economy. My approach assures bipartisan support. Let me know what you think.
The problem with the bailout crafted in Congress at the bidding of the president is that it is dramatically partisan. Everyone seems to agree that the economy needs some stimulating from the government. Before Bush left office, there were a lot of republicans willing to support "spreading the wealth", though the trillions of dollars that they spent seemed to be all going to the already rich people who didn't know how to manage their money. Now that we have Obama as a president, the republicans are suddenly offended by the idea of using government money to support private industry. No matter that the previous packages signed by Bush were full of pork. Now the executive is in the hands of a democrat, and the republicans have become indignant. Well I'm here to bring unity.
We need a plan that will spread the wealth, to support democratic ideals, and simultaneously support conservative ideals. And all of that MUST stimulate the American economy.
My plan is based on a voucher system. Every American citizen will receive one or more vouchers. In order to ensure that we "spread the wealth" we will provide one voucher to every American making more than $100k per year. To those making between $50k and $100k, two vouchers. For those making between $25k and $50k, 3 vouchers. For those making under $25k, 4 vouchers.
Clearly, this is aligned with democratic values. We are helping the poor with 4 vouchers. The wealthy still benefit, though to a lesser extent. And I am willing to negotiate on the exact number of vouchers, and the associated pay scales.
Now what do the republicans get out of this plan? Well, that's where the redemption of vouchers comes in. Each voucher is redeemable for one (1) firearm of the bearer's choice. There are two be two restrictions on the weapon: 1) it must be manufactured in the United States, and 2) the bearer must be able to carry it.
No how can any self respecting republican argue against this plan? What better way to support the second amendment than to make sure that every American citizen is armed? You see, it is clearly going to gain bipartisan support.
This plan will stimulate the U.S. (weapons) manufacturing sector, creating new jobs. It will further stimulate the economy because all these new gun owners will need to purchase ammunition.
Now, how do we pay for this plan? Well, the increased tax revenue from ammunition sales will pay for it.
This is the perfect plan to stimulate the US economy, get Americans back to work, and make the United States once again the envy of the world.
The problem with the bailout crafted in Congress at the bidding of the president is that it is dramatically partisan. Everyone seems to agree that the economy needs some stimulating from the government. Before Bush left office, there were a lot of republicans willing to support "spreading the wealth", though the trillions of dollars that they spent seemed to be all going to the already rich people who didn't know how to manage their money. Now that we have Obama as a president, the republicans are suddenly offended by the idea of using government money to support private industry. No matter that the previous packages signed by Bush were full of pork. Now the executive is in the hands of a democrat, and the republicans have become indignant. Well I'm here to bring unity.
We need a plan that will spread the wealth, to support democratic ideals, and simultaneously support conservative ideals. And all of that MUST stimulate the American economy.
My plan is based on a voucher system. Every American citizen will receive one or more vouchers. In order to ensure that we "spread the wealth" we will provide one voucher to every American making more than $100k per year. To those making between $50k and $100k, two vouchers. For those making between $25k and $50k, 3 vouchers. For those making under $25k, 4 vouchers.
Clearly, this is aligned with democratic values. We are helping the poor with 4 vouchers. The wealthy still benefit, though to a lesser extent. And I am willing to negotiate on the exact number of vouchers, and the associated pay scales.
Now what do the republicans get out of this plan? Well, that's where the redemption of vouchers comes in. Each voucher is redeemable for one (1) firearm of the bearer's choice. There are two be two restrictions on the weapon: 1) it must be manufactured in the United States, and 2) the bearer must be able to carry it.
No how can any self respecting republican argue against this plan? What better way to support the second amendment than to make sure that every American citizen is armed? You see, it is clearly going to gain bipartisan support.
This plan will stimulate the U.S. (weapons) manufacturing sector, creating new jobs. It will further stimulate the economy because all these new gun owners will need to purchase ammunition.
Now, how do we pay for this plan? Well, the increased tax revenue from ammunition sales will pay for it.
This is the perfect plan to stimulate the US economy, get Americans back to work, and make the United States once again the envy of the world.
07 February 2009
Dangers of Iodine and Old Folks
A friend of mine sent me the following story after reading a posting here:
I looked up your new blog and thought you would appreciate (perhaps not the right word) this (outrageous but true) story.What price do we pay for the "War on Drugs"? Perhaps just as steep a price as we pay for the "War on Terror". We pay with our freedom and our dignity. How can we claim to be the land of the free and home of the brave? We have become a country so addicted to affluence that we have sacrificed both freedom and bravery in favour of our 72 inch flat screen televisions.
In December, my grandparents got raided by a SWAT team. Not kidding.
Someone knocked on the door in the middle of the day, and my grandfather went to answer it. It was an FBI agent (or maybe an ATF agent, I can't remember). He showed my grandfather his ID, and simultaneously ten or fifteen men appeared all around him, guns drawn. (They had left their vehicles way up on the main road, hidden.)
The agent drew my grandfather outside into the driveway while the men in their flak jackets swarmed into the house. They went back and got my 91-year-old grandmother out of her bedroom and put her under guard in the driveway too, while they searched every inch of the house.
Pretty scary for my grandparents (who don't even get traffic tickets).
Why did they do this?
My grandparents live by a lake. They have a water system, that draws water for the house out of the lake. Every house on their street has an individual lake water system. My grandparents' water system (which they built with the house) uses iodine to purify the water. (Most systems built today use chlorine instead.)
For 45 years, my grandfather has regularly bought iodine, which he puts into the water equipment each month. (Very small amounts, mind you.) In recent years, as iodine has become increasingly hard to find at hardware stores and such, he has been ordering the iodine by mail order. Last fall, the supplier he was ordering from stopped carrying iodine. He found another mail-order supplier, and ordered the usual amount of iodine.
Apparently the fact that he had ordered a small amount of iodine was enough to give the feds reason to believe he was running a meth lab. (I thought you needed *probable* cause for a warrant? I could be wrong.)
There appears to have been no investigation done beforehand. No questioning or inquiries, no checking with the neighbors, certainly no surveillance - or the authorities would have seen that the only traffic in and out of my grandparents' driveway was two very elderly people going out together to the grocery store occasionally, and some weekends a minivan of great-grandchildren arriving for a visit.
The SWAT team found no meth lab or anything else of note in their search, and the leader was apparently quite apologetic to my grandparents. Just following orders, you know. Had to check it out.
Needless to say, my grandparents arranged to have a whole new water system installed pretty quickly. They use chlorine now.
Who knew elderly people could just buy vials of iodine on the open market? Think what they could have done with it! Fear not, law enforcement is on the job.
21 January 2009
Peanuts
After a long respite, I'm back to make some suggestions to our new congress and president. Congratulations to all of them, by the way. Now let's all buckle up and do our best to ride it out.
Anyhow, you have, no doubt, heard about the peanut butter problem. Bunch of people got sick from peanut butter. Some 470 or so people. A few even died. That's bad. The government must put new regulations in place to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
My proposal is this - peanut farmers should register their farms as a "peanut premise". Then, they should mark each peanut, with an individual tag, that identifies the point of origin (premise). The farmers can then easily keep records of the date each peanut was planted, picked, and leaves the farm. All other points along the peanut processing route can be listed as a premise as well, and they can provide and transmit the same sorts of records to the government. As long as they relay those records to the government within 24 hours of each "event", the USDA will be able to determine the source of any future outbreaks.
Now, it would be a bother to farmers if they had to mark each peanut inside the shell. As you know, most peanuts have a shell containing two nuts. In order to make the whole thing manageable for the farmer, they can tag the outer shell, unless they open it, in which case each individual nut will require a tag.
Large processors who move the peanuts in batches can mark and track whole batches of peanuts as a single entity.
Granted this is likely to lead to consolidation of the peanut butter industry - dramatically increasing the likelihood that contamination will occur and contaminated food will be in every corner of the country before the government even realizes that there is a problem. Sure, it means that a single contamination could lead to every single jar of peanut butter everywhere in the country being potentially contaminated.
Hmm. Perhaps instead of creating ridiculous regulations that are likely to drive small farmers out of business and lead to a consolidated industry, the government could encourage the small farmer and the local sales, ensuring that contamination would be limited to a small area, easy to track, and contained to a small population. Nah - that would never work.
Oh - maybe the government should just leave us alone to do as we please. People who want to buy local can, people who want to buy from Acme Consolidated Peanutbutter and Jet Fuel Inc. can do so, too.
Na, more government is always better. I'm sure of it.
Anyhow, you have, no doubt, heard about the peanut butter problem. Bunch of people got sick from peanut butter. Some 470 or so people. A few even died. That's bad. The government must put new regulations in place to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
My proposal is this - peanut farmers should register their farms as a "peanut premise". Then, they should mark each peanut, with an individual tag, that identifies the point of origin (premise). The farmers can then easily keep records of the date each peanut was planted, picked, and leaves the farm. All other points along the peanut processing route can be listed as a premise as well, and they can provide and transmit the same sorts of records to the government. As long as they relay those records to the government within 24 hours of each "event", the USDA will be able to determine the source of any future outbreaks.
Now, it would be a bother to farmers if they had to mark each peanut inside the shell. As you know, most peanuts have a shell containing two nuts. In order to make the whole thing manageable for the farmer, they can tag the outer shell, unless they open it, in which case each individual nut will require a tag.
Large processors who move the peanuts in batches can mark and track whole batches of peanuts as a single entity.
Granted this is likely to lead to consolidation of the peanut butter industry - dramatically increasing the likelihood that contamination will occur and contaminated food will be in every corner of the country before the government even realizes that there is a problem. Sure, it means that a single contamination could lead to every single jar of peanut butter everywhere in the country being potentially contaminated.
Hmm. Perhaps instead of creating ridiculous regulations that are likely to drive small farmers out of business and lead to a consolidated industry, the government could encourage the small farmer and the local sales, ensuring that contamination would be limited to a small area, easy to track, and contained to a small population. Nah - that would never work.
Oh - maybe the government should just leave us alone to do as we please. People who want to buy local can, people who want to buy from Acme Consolidated Peanutbutter and Jet Fuel Inc. can do so, too.
Na, more government is always better. I'm sure of it.
20 October 2008
All or Nothing
I have a friend, a native Texan, who is a pretty staunch republican. He's lived in Australia for the past few years. He really likes living in Australia, but he often rants against the socialist nature of the country. I've always found his cognitive dissonance somewhat amusing, and informative. He likes the people of Australia, he likes the country, he likes the way things are run, but he stumbles when he sees the taxes he pays, and when he hears the word "socialist" applied to the government. Now this is not a man who is hurting for money - he makes a lot of it. Even after the socialist taxes he pays, he makes a lot more money than most of the people that I know. So the taxes may look ugly on the pay stub, but he's not having any trouble paying the bills.
Unemployment in Australia is comparable to the US. Poverty levels in Australia are lower than they are in the US (though one does have to account for the different systems of determining "poverty"). By and large, people live well and happily in Australia. And the country does have a working safety net for those who are poor. So what is wrong with socialism? It seems to not be an undue burden for the wealthy, and it provides much needed services for the poor.
Tax rates in Australia range from 18% - 45%. Tax rates in the US range from 15% - 35%. So, ya, we're a little lower here. Rush Limbaugh actually claimed that residents of New York City pay more taxes than Europeans. (See Story #7 on this link). So the question is, if we are going to pay all those taxes - taxes which turn out to be not dramatically lower than the "socialists", what are we getting in return?
The US is the wealthiest country in the world. So even with lower tax rates than some counties, the government must be pulling in much more tax revenue. But for all that revenue, we have only the weakest social safety net. We have absurd degrees of government involvement in private business and private lives. So the way I see it, we pay taxes at a socialist rate and we have big brother watching us. Those are the bad parts of socialism. What are the good parts of socialism? Free or cheap health care, employment security, unemployment benefits. The US is a lot weaker in those areas than those counties we call "socialist".
I would gladly do away with many of the "services" that the government offers us. But I propose that if we must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous tax rates and government intervention, we should have the benefit of a comfortable safety net - or rather, a hammock, on which to rest.
Unemployment in Australia is comparable to the US. Poverty levels in Australia are lower than they are in the US (though one does have to account for the different systems of determining "poverty"). By and large, people live well and happily in Australia. And the country does have a working safety net for those who are poor. So what is wrong with socialism? It seems to not be an undue burden for the wealthy, and it provides much needed services for the poor.
Tax rates in Australia range from 18% - 45%. Tax rates in the US range from 15% - 35%. So, ya, we're a little lower here. Rush Limbaugh actually claimed that residents of New York City pay more taxes than Europeans. (See Story #7 on this link). So the question is, if we are going to pay all those taxes - taxes which turn out to be not dramatically lower than the "socialists", what are we getting in return?
The US is the wealthiest country in the world. So even with lower tax rates than some counties, the government must be pulling in much more tax revenue. But for all that revenue, we have only the weakest social safety net. We have absurd degrees of government involvement in private business and private lives. So the way I see it, we pay taxes at a socialist rate and we have big brother watching us. Those are the bad parts of socialism. What are the good parts of socialism? Free or cheap health care, employment security, unemployment benefits. The US is a lot weaker in those areas than those counties we call "socialist".
I would gladly do away with many of the "services" that the government offers us. But I propose that if we must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous tax rates and government intervention, we should have the benefit of a comfortable safety net - or rather, a hammock, on which to rest.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
- Samuel Adams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)