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.

Party patrol nabs more than 140 underage drinkers

“We’ll be doing this the whole month of June. That’s when we have the most problems with parties. It’s the beginning of summer, it’s the end of the school year and it’s graduation,” sheriff’s spokesman John Urquhart said.

So, basically what they’re telling you, kids, is just to hold off until July, and your chances of getting caught with the booze will decrease significantly.

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.

I meant to write about this last week, but I got sidetracked by other distractions.

Young mothers don’t kick habit long

Young expectant mothers may quit drinking and smoking during pregnancy, but they are back to old habits roughly two years after giving birth, a new University of Washington study of local families suggests.

If dads typically engaged in binge drinking and smoking cigarettes and marijuana before a partner’s pregnancy, becoming a father didn’t change those habits, the report said. That’s a problem because if Dad is still smoking or drinking, it is even harder for Mom to stay sober and tobacco free.

Is it just me, or did the public health nannies just reveal that they want everyone who has kids to abstain from drinking? If two post pregnancy years isn’t a satisfactory period of abstinence, would five years be satisfactory? Ten? (I’m guessing if pressed on the issue, this batch of nannies scientists would say no, parents need to wait until their kids leave the house, which, with increasing numbers of children who remain in the nest long after fledging age, could theoretically mean 30-plus years of postpartum abstinence for anyone foolish enough to buy into this drivel.)

And god forbid anyone point out the distinction between mom having a drink or two once a week and being falling down drunk. They conveniently fudge it with the phrase “back to old habits,” ignoring the fact that mom’s old habits might have been a glass of wine a week. While it’s certain these researchers would suggest that NO smoking is acceptable, how many drinks a week would be acceptable? Again, is it zero (MADD would love that), in which case they’ve just outed themselves as interventionist, pushy assholes that need not be taken seriously?

Yep, new mothers beware. Controlling your behavior DURING pregnancy isn’t satisfactory. Even your postpartum years aren’t yours to enjoy, because WE know best. Even a single glass of wine, and you’re on a self-destructive path to sinful alcoholism that will drive your child to drink and use drugs in later years. Why, why would you do that to them? For God’s sake, think of the children!

This kind of misrepresentation ticks me off to no end:

But opponents say the report shows a large increase in annual deaths since the law’s implementation — 15 died under the law in its first year.

Opponents also pointed out that no psychiatric evaluations were ordered by doctors in 2007, while arguing that anyone who chooses suicide is suffering from depression.

It’s unbelievably dishonest to point out an increase in deaths without discussing whether more people were considered terminally ill. Is it really so difficult to point out that as the population grows and ages (Baby Boomers especially), it’s highly likely more people will take advantage of such a law? When we see story after story about increases in cancer rates, increases in multiple sclerosis, and other potentially debilitating, life-sucking diseases, it stands to reason a few more people will step forward and pursue the one option that allows them to end their lives peacefully, quietly in their sleep.

It’s fascinating that they have the temerity to argue that anyone who chooses physician-assisted suicide must be suffering from depression, yet in the same breath point out that there were no psychiatric evaluations done on these same people. “Yes, we admit they weren’t examined by anyone we consider to be qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses, but they’re suffering from depression.” Wow, glad you cleared THAT up for us, you sanctimonious fucktards. You WOULD know best.

Maybe it’s because we’re allowed to provide a higher standard of care to our aging pets than we are to our aging friends and family that suicide appears as a more appealing option in those final days. Doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe the amount of pain medication to actually keep them comfortable, because we consider fucking addiction to be a more serious risk than pain to a terminal patient. Someone who needs a high dose of narcotics MUST be addicted, rather than physically dependent. (Yes, there IS a difference.)

Activists here in Washington are gearing up to make another attempt to follow in Oregon’s footsteps with its own laws covering death with dignity. I hope biased media garbage like this is identified for what it is.

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

Robert Jamieson of the Seattle PI bloviates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does it get any better?

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?