Parents would have to volunteer at schools, under proposed legislation

A bill introduced in the Ohio legislature would require parents to donate at least 13 hours of time to their school district each year or pay the price. And, if parents failed to pay up, the fine could be deducted from their state income tax refunds.

School districts would report parents who didn’t volunteer to the Ohio Department of Education.

I’d like to say I have no words for something this stupid, but anyone who knows me knows I’m rarely without an opinion, even for this.

I can’t imagine the kind of moron who takes the statistics that support the idea that involved parents’ children do better in schools and extrapolates it to an idea forcing parents to be involved… with everyone else’s kids.  At best, one could make the argument that parents, by procreating, are tacitly agreeing to be involved with their own children.  But making a parent volunteer for all the other children, rather than letting a parent choose the manner and time in which they, you know, get involved with their child’s education?  That’s fucked.

And then you’d likely get someone like me who can do the math.  Let’s see… paying $100 to get out of 13 hours forced labor with a bunch of other kids towards whom I have no obligations?  Well, I make more than 4 times the equivalent hourly wage ($7.69 an hour), so I can’t say I’d suffer too much heartburn or guilt paying the fine each year and actually working those hours at a job that pays me more than $400 for 13 hours of my time, meanwhile spending time with my own children when and how I see fit.  I’d make sure my kids understood exactly why I made that choice, too.  Helping them to understand the value, both monetary and otherwise, of their time can’t be overestimated.

The idiots in charge could, I suppose, increase the fine to an amount that would remove the incentive to pay it and move on, but then they’d be overwhelmed with cries that this was unfair to poor families who can’t provide either money OR time because they’re busy working multiple minimum wage jobs to survive, and are less likely to have employers who’ll let them leave early for volunteer work.  (Actually, it’s likely that argument will come around anyway, if anyone starts taking this bill seriously.)

Come to think of it, if I was a teacher, I wouldn’t want my classroom flooded with “volunteers” who have no motivation other than escaping a $100 fine.  It’s no stretch to imagine some or even most wouldn’t be terribly motivated to actually do any good during those 13 hours, and many of them would ultimately have to be rubber-roomed so they could put in their 13 hours while simultaneously staying out of my way.

No wonder “bureaucrat” is an insult.

I’m seeing a disturbing increase in the calls for a period national service for America’s young adults. It’s questionable whether I’d be subject to it given my age and the variety of proposals put forth, but the very idea pisses me off. From Obama’s proposal to give college-age students $4000 in tuition for an annual 100 hours of national service to this suggestion, the cries to conscript America’s youth to instill in them a sense of value, unity, and selflessness are growing louder.

In a time of growing diversity, there need to be some ways to enhance the experience and theme of unity.

Unity is overrated except to those who place “think and feel as I do” above individuality and personal freedom. Only those with some wishy-washy, feel-good notions of America insist upon unity as a goal. And no offense, Mr. Robinson, but I don’t see much in mainstream America today toward which I want to feel any sense of unity. I’m surrounded by people who make “do-gooder” a derogatory term because they believe that raping my paycheck at its current rate is insufficient, and who, if they had their way, would take 100% of my wages and give me back whatever they felt I truly needed to live, redistributing the rest to those who had no hand in earning it. And you think that the annual tithe to Caesar isn’t sufficient—now my TIME must be handed directly over in service, too? Time, unlike money, is even more precious to me than money, considering I can’t earn more of it to replace that which is lost.

It’s questionable whether teaching people that their own needs, desires, and goals are less important than government’s needs and goals—selflessness—is wise. It’s wise if your desired end result is a drone citizenry willing to mindlessly sacrifice itself to the greater causes of the state. But I can’t say I support teaching anyone that moral character necessitates the subordination of one’s desires and ultimately self-immolation on the alter of the State, even for just one or two meager years.

It’s difficult to relish the idea of bending over for the state in some suck-ass job that pays close to nothing, will give absolutely nothing of advantage on a resume, and could involve submitting oneself to an immoral cause they not only don’t support but downright loathe. (I see no conscientious objector status offered here.) I fully support volunteerism, but you have some balls suggesting that only government agencies are truly worthy of my time. To steal a voting analogy I once saw, being able to choose which government agency to which I’ll submit is a choice between shit and shit with corn in it. Fuck that.

Privatization has hardly proved the panacea that its heralds claimed it to be. Think Blackwater and 100,000 contract personnel flying under the radar in Iraq. Or consider the lengthening file of stories documenting problems in privately run prisons or in education with charter schools. There are some things that are best done by government — that is, “we, the people.”

Privatization is not to blame for Blackwater. In fact, it’s government, not private entrepreneurship that creates the distorted incentives for what we all see going on in Iraq. Ditto privately run prisons, sucking off the endless government tit all the while telling us more prisons are the solution, or education, picking every American pocket to further the brainwashing America’s youth into compliant, servile, mediocre sheep who will continue to support the educational system that created them. Every example you’ve named is inextricably entwined with government, which makes them by definition not private. Quasi-public, if you must, but definitely not private. It’s disingenuous to cherry pick those examples and blatantly ignore government’s influence in those examples. I won’t pretend the private—TRULY private—sector is perfect, but even if you’d mentioned Enron, it’s certain I could pick out half a dozen government actions, mandates, warped incentives, and other government meddling that created and abetted the “privatization” you view as ineffective, corrupt, and worthless.

We, the People, are NOT government, Mr. Robinson. Read the Constitution—its framers couldn’t have been more clear or more adamant that The People and The Government are separate and distinct from one another. Or could you be unaware of this because you’re a product of that fabulous government-sponsored education system, perhaps?

It’s for everybody, at least everybody who is physically and mentally able. Part of the downside of the privatization and the volunteer military has been that we have nearly lost the notion of required anything, of giving back, of playing our part. It’s time that Americans are reminded that “we are in this together.”

No, we aren’t in it together, not when your solution to the problem (more government, more interference) and my solution to the problem (less government, less interference) are polar opposites. I’m sure it gives you warm fuzzies to sit back and think of the beauty in forcing people to give up their time and effort in subservience to the almighty State, all under the pretense of doing good works and teaching them your value system. But I don’t share your warm fuzzies or your value system. We have no unity between us, not as long as you think the application of force is an acceptable means to a shiny, happy end where everyone farts rainbows and perfume.

I don’t ask what I can do for my country; my value system makes it morally questionable to support the state. You’re free to think that makes me a selfish asshole, just like I think you’re a brainless twit. But I don’t ask what my country can do for me, either, other than leave me alone, and it can’t even do that right. You have no leg to stand on when you suggest a stint of required national service would set my values straight and put me on the path to righteous unity and enlightenment.

Volunteering is great. It’s not voluntary work when you force or coerce folks into it with the authority of the State behind you. In short, you and the government can go blow each other to your hearts’ content in this circle jerk of State worship and rah-rah American jingoism. Leave me out of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice one, Stout.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Prosecutors seek OK to create phony files

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

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

Just wait, it gets better…

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

Gee, wasn’t there a time when falsifying court documents was considered “acting corruptly?”

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

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

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.