This is such a HUGE topic that I am loath to tackle it, but I shall indeed. Where to start? Government programs that provide various types of services to our citizens are growing ever more complicated that folks opt out of using them. Let's look at a few examples:
HIRING NEW WORKER INCENTIVES: Read this article from July 24, 2012 - Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Hassles, Complexity. Politicians have used targeted tax breaks to try to influence the behavior of business, by essentially offering tax breaks for hiring more workers. But many small and medium size companies have found that participating in these programs to be confusing, time-consuming and not worth the effort.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE: Being an AARP member, I read articles on how and when best to apply for those mothers of all entitlements, Medicare and Social Security. These articles are LONG and COMPLICATED and leave me more confused than before I started to read them. Try reading this one (selected randomly). I pray that we have all of our mental faculties available to us when we reach this point, because you don't want to make a mistake with this one, believe me. The only conclusion that we have come to is that we should continue to work until we drop; that way, we won't have to find out if we pulled our various Medicare and Social Security triggers at the right times and in the right ways.
READ THE LAWS BEFORE VOTING: Our lawmakers pass ever more complicated laws, and why? I suspect that it is because they are not required to READ or more importantly, UNDERSTAND the laws they pass. They just have to vote on them, whether they make an sense or not. Also, there is the tendency to pass new laws while seldom repealing old ones, whether they need repealing or not. Nobody gets re-elected by repealing outdated laws, do they?
PUT THEM IN A ROOM AND MAKE THEM DO THEIR TAXES WITHOUT HELP: I've always believed in this one. Put all the lawmakers in one big room with a PC, a tax program, a calculator, and a phone. Make them do their taxes themselves, while dining on Mac & Cheese. Then have the IRS audit them before they leave, and fine them if they make any mistakes - just like the rest of us. Just like any good idea, it'll never happen. Or if it does, they'll find a way around it. Example: California legislators have recently been required to pass a budget by a certain date or they don't get paid. So do they pass the budget? Nope! At least, not a REAL budget. They get around the law by passing some BS budget that will never work, and was never intended to be the budget. It passes the letter of the law by being a budget, but in name only. Sigh.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
INTERNATIONAL: Still Wrong - Al Gore Didn't Take the Iniative to Create the Internet
UPDATE 7/30/2012: First go see WeHelpedBuildThat.com. Then go see The Birth of the Internet. Both the government and the private sector had import roles in creating our modern day internet, and that focusing on one entity (i.e., government) to the exclusion or outright disparagement of the other elements (i.e., private enterprise) is simplistic, misleading and wrong. Obama's three points:
1) Government ALONE created the internet
2) Government built the internet to create opportunities for EVERYONE in private enterprise to make money
3) Internet companies are successful because of the government creating the internet for them to use to make money.
These 3 points are simply not true, except maybe the last one. Due to crony capitalism and favoritism, government does indeed pick some companies to succeed, and allows others to fail. One could argue that this condition of favoritism by the government is not desired, but the government is not the one who will be making the argument, I'm sure.
I'll start with my own opinion:
1) Government and private business funding created what we now call the "Internet". In what proportions is the credit meted out? It depends on how you define the question, and is hopelessly mired in a combination of politics and technology. Suffice it to say that government research ALONE did not create the internet.
2) What most people think of when they hear "internet" is really the World Wide Web ("www"). The story of the creation / invention of the WWW is complicated as well, but you can read about that here at Wikipedia and draw your own conclusions. There is no clear and compelling single answer.
President Barach Obama (in his own words on July 17, 2012):
Any article about facts in an opinion section is not to be trusted, so I searched for a more detailed and factual article on the Origins of the Internet. This is the article that I liked best. It is a rather lengthy bit of research, seems fairly unbiased, and comes to these conclusions about who were the creators of the internet.
Examining these various events, we come to some important findings.
1) There are a number of valid claims to origins of the Internet. [Note: none had Al Gore's name on them]
2) Although an original date and place might be obtainable for the first networked transmission that could be called an Internet, the result would need by definition to include more than one party or network, and is unlikely to be a satisfactory or useful conclusion.
3) Not only US projects were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
4) Not only government funded US research programs were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
5) Not only telcos and the commercial sector were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
6) Neither Arpanet nor TCP/IP is present in all valid theories.
Educate thyself.
1) Government ALONE created the internet
2) Government built the internet to create opportunities for EVERYONE in private enterprise to make money
3) Internet companies are successful because of the government creating the internet for them to use to make money.
These 3 points are simply not true, except maybe the last one. Due to crony capitalism and favoritism, government does indeed pick some companies to succeed, and allows others to fail. One could argue that this condition of favoritism by the government is not desired, but the government is not the one who will be making the argument, I'm sure.
I'll start with my own opinion:
1) Government and private business funding created what we now call the "Internet". In what proportions is the credit meted out? It depends on how you define the question, and is hopelessly mired in a combination of politics and technology. Suffice it to say that government research ALONE did not create the internet.
2) What most people think of when they hear "internet" is really the World Wide Web ("www"). The story of the creation / invention of the WWW is complicated as well, but you can read about that here at Wikipedia and draw your own conclusions. There is no clear and compelling single answer.
President Barach Obama (in his own words on July 17, 2012):
"The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."For some opinion, try reading this article from the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Who Really Invented the Internet? by L. Gordon Crovitz. Some believe that it's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. What is the truth? If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks. But some believe that full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks.
Any article about facts in an opinion section is not to be trusted, so I searched for a more detailed and factual article on the Origins of the Internet. This is the article that I liked best. It is a rather lengthy bit of research, seems fairly unbiased, and comes to these conclusions about who were the creators of the internet.
Examining these various events, we come to some important findings.
1) There are a number of valid claims to origins of the Internet. [Note: none had Al Gore's name on them]
2) Although an original date and place might be obtainable for the first networked transmission that could be called an Internet, the result would need by definition to include more than one party or network, and is unlikely to be a satisfactory or useful conclusion.
3) Not only US projects were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
4) Not only government funded US research programs were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
5) Not only telcos and the commercial sector were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
6) Neither Arpanet nor TCP/IP is present in all valid theories.
Educate thyself.
Friday, July 20, 2012
LOCAL: Follow-Up on Sleeping in Your Car in SLO
UPDATE July 20, 2012: Yes, the Tribune's fine articles on the homeless keep on coming. This one is by Carol Nelson-Selby. She points out the folly of ticketing the homeless for sleeping in their cars. Ticketing only serves to continue the downward spiral of the homeless family unit. The $400 ticket they cannot pay causes them to get hauled into court, and they lose their car/RV and all the possessions inside. Instead of prosecuting our poor, how about doing the hard police work of ticketing those who are committing the real crimes (I don't believe that sleeping in a vehicle on public property is a real crime). Those crimes include: public urination and defecation, littering, assault, rape, plugging their RV into a power outlet from a business, etc. Our well-paid SLO Police need to get down in the dirt and do the hard police work. Ticketing an RV is an easy way out, but does not further our humanity or civilization.
The San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper had a fine article on the front page of the July 4, 2012 Tribune newspaper. Here's another, more detailed article on Judge Crandall's ruling in Cal Coast News. I'll discuss a few of the highlights.
Judge Crandall had grave concerns regarding the city law against sleeping in your privately owned vehicle on a public street, and great misgivings about the method of enforcement as well.
Because of the recession, more people are losing their jobs, and turning to sleeping in their vehicles. Rather than enforcing the act of sleeping in your own vehicle (which harms nobody), I encouraged Chief Gesell (earlier this year 2012) to enforce the violations that some of the homeless have committed, such as trash, assaults, trespassing, and not using restrooms, but instead going outdoors. He basically said that enforcing those laws was too much work for his officers, and essentially (not his words), it was much easier to scare them and fine them in the middle of the night. With this ruling, our overpaid SLO police officers might have to actually enforce the laws that actually damage the community, since sleeping will no longer be a violation (for the time being).
NOTE TO THE HOMELESS WHO SLEEP IN THEIR VEHICLES: The homeless RV sleepers should be more vigilant about NOT breaking the aforementioned laws if they want to have the sympathy and support of the community. I recommend that they listen to this advice.
BACKGROUND 1: Earlier in 2012, during the initial escalation by the SLO Police Department and Police Chief Gessell, I received numerous reports from my homeless acquaintenances that they were being rousted out of their beds (in their RVs) in the middle of the night. In addition, other homeless I knew reported a similar escalation along the creekbeds, which the homeless without vehicles favor. In February - April 2012, I spent numerous evenings helping the homeless creekbed inhabitors move their camps, because they were receiving citations and orders to move. This is what initially got me involved in this process.
BACKGROUND 2: This resulted in several long (multi-hour) discussions with the likes of CAPSLO officials, as well as Police Chief Gesell. Needless to say, we did not see eye to eye on this issue. This recent ruling that finds their enforcement unconstitutional will at least temporarily end this unnecessary action.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
LOCAL: Big Brother Activity Log
SLO County Bans Outdoor Smoking
UPDATE July 20, 2012: I just read in today's Tribune (page B4) that another exception to the smoking ordinance will be at the county's golf courses. Okay, so the Supervisors will let the affluent golfers smoke at their golf "parks", so where do the poor people get to smoke? Again, surprised that nobody brings up the disparate impact of this ordinance on low income folks and folks of color. I guess I'll have to raise this issue myself, and see if some "progressives" can stand up for the "downtrodden" in society. Okay, time to dig into some hard facts: Disparate Smoking Among those with Low Income. Basically this article comes to this conclusion: "The findings in this report indicate that although progress has been achieved in reducing disparities in cigarette use among certain racial/ethnic groups, less progress has been made in reducing disparities in cigarette use among persons of low socioeconomic status."
UPDATE July 18, 2012: SLO County Board of Supervisors Bans Outdoor Smoking at Parks, Campgrounds and other Outdoor County Sites (State Parks in SLO County were not included in the ban). The ban includes structures owned or leased or concessioned by the county and all land near those structures, including walkways, landscapes, and patios. I wonder if it includes the county roadways, as smoking INSIDE a car is far more dangerous to the health of secondhand smokers than smoking done outside in a park?
Exemptions were made (aren't they always?) for county airports and psychiatric health facilities: Apparently, the health of those just passing through (airports) and the mentally ill (psychiatric facilities) need not be protected from the toxic secondhand smoke? What ever happened to protecting the health of the innocent, weak, and infirm? Oh yeah, airports and health facilities are next (you would think that health facilities would have been FIRST, but that's another topic for another time).
Statements were made (some paraphrased):
1) The wolf's freedom doesn't extend to the sheep's life (quote from Abraham Lincoln).
2) There is no level of safe exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [when your are outside] (not in a structure).
3) They considered banning snuff, but decided against it, because that would increase public opposition to their cause.
4) Public Health is the primary consideration (I wonder what the other considerations were? Smoky smelling clothe, bad breath or yellow teeth?).
5) The ordinance intrudes on personal freedom (duh - that's the purpose of the ordinance).
6) The ordinance makes second hand citizens out of smokers (too late - that's already been done, or haven't they been getting out enough?).
7) What's next? Red meat, french fries, video games, bad political commercials?
8) Bans such as these reduce the number of people smoking.
TIM'S COMMENTARY: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do smoke an occasional cigar, but not in the places banned above, so this doesn't affect me directly (yet - eventually, the ban will get to my backyard or out backpacking, where I do smoke tobacco products). Once again, we are on the slippery slope of controlling our lives in new and different ways. I am shocked that nobody has had the courage to BAN smoking in this country, as it is a drug that should require a prescription, and there are no known medicinal reasons for tobacco of which I am aware. I doubt that there are any studies on OUTDOOR smoking and the health affect of secondhand smoke. If there were, it would show no effect, at least in SLO county where the wind always blows the smoke away. I am amazed that nobody brought up the disparate impact issue, as it is always brought up when dealing with conservative causes. As a smoking ban could safely be considered a liberal cause, does anybody have any issue with the disparate impact this ordinance will have on the poor, the homeless, veterans, and minorities, all of whom smoke in far greater numbers than the public at large? In my experience, the homeless and veterans smoke in far greater numbers, and statistics have born out that most or all non-white races (blacks, hispanics, indians, etc.) smoke at a far greater rate than caucasians.
CAMPFIRE SMOKE has been proven to be the most toxic smoke of all to breath, yet I hear no quotes from campfire smoke studies or moves to ban camp fires, or hearth fires (i.e., burning wood in your fireplace in a living structure) in general from the county. Wonder when that will be voted on by the SLO County Board of Supervisors?
HOW WILL THE BAN BE ENFORCED? How much will it cost to enforce the bad? My prediction is that this ban will accomplish nothing because it will NOT be enforced. Smokers will continue to smoke in the parks. All of this is for nothing, but at what cost?
UPDATE July 18, 2012: SLO County Board of Supervisors Bans Outdoor Smoking at Parks, Campgrounds and other Outdoor County Sites (State Parks in SLO County were not included in the ban). The ban includes structures owned or leased or concessioned by the county and all land near those structures, including walkways, landscapes, and patios. I wonder if it includes the county roadways, as smoking INSIDE a car is far more dangerous to the health of secondhand smokers than smoking done outside in a park?
Exemptions were made (aren't they always?) for county airports and psychiatric health facilities: Apparently, the health of those just passing through (airports) and the mentally ill (psychiatric facilities) need not be protected from the toxic secondhand smoke? What ever happened to protecting the health of the innocent, weak, and infirm? Oh yeah, airports and health facilities are next (you would think that health facilities would have been FIRST, but that's another topic for another time).
Statements were made (some paraphrased):
1) The wolf's freedom doesn't extend to the sheep's life (quote from Abraham Lincoln).
2) There is no level of safe exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [when your are outside] (not in a structure).
3) They considered banning snuff, but decided against it, because that would increase public opposition to their cause.
4) Public Health is the primary consideration (I wonder what the other considerations were? Smoky smelling clothe, bad breath or yellow teeth?).
5) The ordinance intrudes on personal freedom (duh - that's the purpose of the ordinance).
6) The ordinance makes second hand citizens out of smokers (too late - that's already been done, or haven't they been getting out enough?).
7) What's next? Red meat, french fries, video games, bad political commercials?
8) Bans such as these reduce the number of people smoking.
TIM'S COMMENTARY: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do smoke an occasional cigar, but not in the places banned above, so this doesn't affect me directly (yet - eventually, the ban will get to my backyard or out backpacking, where I do smoke tobacco products). Once again, we are on the slippery slope of controlling our lives in new and different ways. I am shocked that nobody has had the courage to BAN smoking in this country, as it is a drug that should require a prescription, and there are no known medicinal reasons for tobacco of which I am aware. I doubt that there are any studies on OUTDOOR smoking and the health affect of secondhand smoke. If there were, it would show no effect, at least in SLO county where the wind always blows the smoke away. I am amazed that nobody brought up the disparate impact issue, as it is always brought up when dealing with conservative causes. As a smoking ban could safely be considered a liberal cause, does anybody have any issue with the disparate impact this ordinance will have on the poor, the homeless, veterans, and minorities, all of whom smoke in far greater numbers than the public at large? In my experience, the homeless and veterans smoke in far greater numbers, and statistics have born out that most or all non-white races (blacks, hispanics, indians, etc.) smoke at a far greater rate than caucasians.
CAMPFIRE SMOKE has been proven to be the most toxic smoke of all to breath, yet I hear no quotes from campfire smoke studies or moves to ban camp fires, or hearth fires (i.e., burning wood in your fireplace in a living structure) in general from the county. Wonder when that will be voted on by the SLO County Board of Supervisors?
HOW WILL THE BAN BE ENFORCED? How much will it cost to enforce the bad? My prediction is that this ban will accomplish nothing because it will NOT be enforced. Smokers will continue to smoke in the parks. All of this is for nothing, but at what cost?
City of Atascadero Bans Mural
July 8, 2012, Atascadero, Calif.: ARTery mural painted on the side of their business is created without a permit. City requires a payment of $460.00 from the business to appeal the city's decision to have it removed. When did we decide that what colors are painted on a wall of a business are subject to permit and destruction, if the permit is not granted. I've seen a lot of murals around our state of Calif., and few offended me, but the creative juices of the creators of those murals is representative of the human spirit that the powers that be want to crush. Yes, I know, offensive murals leading to the destruction of civilization would be created if we didn't have local bureaucrats to quash them. Also check out Free SLO, Free SLO2, Art Tyranny.
Offending Image (Click to Enlarge):
Sunday, July 8, 2012
STATE: Lake Tahoe Crayfish (CA vs. NV)
I might just move to Nevada to retire. That way I can pay zero state income tax and be able to visit all those great places nearby, like Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Canyonlands, Arches, etc. In the meantime, Gov. Brown is determined to raise our California taxes even further, while not denting the cash overspent on the Prison Guard Union. Stuff like this is a great head-to-head comparison of why California has it all, Nevada has nothing, but Calif. throws its advantages away, while NV does the best with what little it does have.
Just read the article below carefully, then weep for our California economy that will soon be experiencing even higher levels of taxation, plus environmental analysis every time we turn around, even if it is to remove an invasive species. The environmentalists seemingly play both sides of every issue: in favor of anything green, but trying to block anything green (solar power, invasive species removal, etc.) from actually happening.
Invasive Lake Tahoe Crayfish Banned by California. BACKGROUND: Nevada wildlife officials have issued the first ever commercial permit for crayfish harvest in Lake Tahoe, allowing the Tahoe Lobster Co. to go after some of the 220 million crustaceans living in the lake. The fishing is expected to be a boon for the economy, tourism, cuisine and lake clarity. Waste products from the nonnative crayfish – or crawdads – foster the shallow-water algae growth that clouds the lake's crystalline waters. The crayfish will be sold for local eating. Pulliam hopes to begin fishing this month.
Fishing will begin only in Nevada, but Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, R-Rocklin, would like to see it expanded to the California side [someday]. Current California code prohibits sale or purchase of any crayfish from Lake Tahoe, said Kevin Thomas, a senior environmental scientist for the state Department of Fish and Game. The possibility of exporting Tahoe crayfish to California is being explored. Fish and Game has taken the position that a full environmental analysis would be required to open fishing on the California side.
Wow! We can't import Crayfish from NV (because they are taken from Lake Tahoe), but we can import them from China. Hmmmmmmmmmm. How much global warming are we causing by shipping crayfish half way around the world, when we have 220 million crayfish surplus in our own state. Not to mention that these invasive crayfish are polluting what is perhaps the most pristine lake on the planet (prior to the crayfish invasion of the 1800s).
Just read the article below carefully, then weep for our California economy that will soon be experiencing even higher levels of taxation, plus environmental analysis every time we turn around, even if it is to remove an invasive species. The environmentalists seemingly play both sides of every issue: in favor of anything green, but trying to block anything green (solar power, invasive species removal, etc.) from actually happening.
Invasive Lake Tahoe Crayfish Banned by California. BACKGROUND: Nevada wildlife officials have issued the first ever commercial permit for crayfish harvest in Lake Tahoe, allowing the Tahoe Lobster Co. to go after some of the 220 million crustaceans living in the lake. The fishing is expected to be a boon for the economy, tourism, cuisine and lake clarity. Waste products from the nonnative crayfish – or crawdads – foster the shallow-water algae growth that clouds the lake's crystalline waters. The crayfish will be sold for local eating. Pulliam hopes to begin fishing this month.
Fishing will begin only in Nevada, but Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, R-Rocklin, would like to see it expanded to the California side [someday]. Current California code prohibits sale or purchase of any crayfish from Lake Tahoe, said Kevin Thomas, a senior environmental scientist for the state Department of Fish and Game. The possibility of exporting Tahoe crayfish to California is being explored. Fish and Game has taken the position that a full environmental analysis would be required to open fishing on the California side.
Wow! We can't import Crayfish from NV (because they are taken from Lake Tahoe), but we can import them from China. Hmmmmmmmmmm. How much global warming are we causing by shipping crayfish half way around the world, when we have 220 million crayfish surplus in our own state. Not to mention that these invasive crayfish are polluting what is perhaps the most pristine lake on the planet (prior to the crayfish invasion of the 1800s).
Saturday, July 7, 2012
TECHNOLOGY: Battery Packs, People!
Nissan Leaf. Tesla Roadster. What's the name of that dopey $42,000.00 GM mostly-battery-but-has-a-motor thing? [Oh yeah -Chevy Volt - how could I forget?] Battery powered vehicles are city-only cars, thus ruling them out for the masses. How about standardized battery packs that can be changed at Service Stations - those same Service Stations that pump petrol into our "dirty" vehicles?
Pulling into a Service Station every 100 miles or so for a re-fuel (ie, replace the discharged battery packs with freshly charged ones), would still get me from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles in just 2 "re-fuelings". I have never read about such a proposal in any print or on-line publication. The idea is so obvious to me, but apparently to nobody else?
I liked this discussion of the issue. I like the idea of standard sized battery packs, where each vehicle uses multiples of them. A small car (think Smart Car-sized) might have 4 standard SIZED (not power, but size) battery packs, and an electric SUV might have 16 or 20. Any given vehicle could be programmed to run on some of the packs, while leaving the others in reserve. For instance, let's suppose a sub-compact sized car has 4 packs. It could run on 2 of the packs until they are drained, then start using the remaining 2. When pulling into a Service Station, the 2 dead packs could be swapped out, with the remaining 2 packs continuing in service in the vehicle.
This also solves the problem of having a huge bill to replace all batteries down the road, and also lack of recycling the batteries - people might throw them in the trash. You would pay for the amount of energy in the battery you "rent" at the Service Station, and an on-board meter in the car would confirm the amount of electric power you have purchased (just like your fuel gage does now). You get credit for the amount of juice left in the battery pack that you swapped out. The Service Station would have plenty of space for continuously charging the drained batteries as they come in to be changed.
Pulling into a Service Station every 100 miles or so for a re-fuel (ie, replace the discharged battery packs with freshly charged ones), would still get me from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles in just 2 "re-fuelings". I have never read about such a proposal in any print or on-line publication. The idea is so obvious to me, but apparently to nobody else?
I liked this discussion of the issue. I like the idea of standard sized battery packs, where each vehicle uses multiples of them. A small car (think Smart Car-sized) might have 4 standard SIZED (not power, but size) battery packs, and an electric SUV might have 16 or 20. Any given vehicle could be programmed to run on some of the packs, while leaving the others in reserve. For instance, let's suppose a sub-compact sized car has 4 packs. It could run on 2 of the packs until they are drained, then start using the remaining 2. When pulling into a Service Station, the 2 dead packs could be swapped out, with the remaining 2 packs continuing in service in the vehicle.
This also solves the problem of having a huge bill to replace all batteries down the road, and also lack of recycling the batteries - people might throw them in the trash. You would pay for the amount of energy in the battery you "rent" at the Service Station, and an on-board meter in the car would confirm the amount of electric power you have purchased (just like your fuel gage does now). You get credit for the amount of juice left in the battery pack that you swapped out. The Service Station would have plenty of space for continuously charging the drained batteries as they come in to be changed.
Friday, July 6, 2012
NATIONAL: Voters Required to Show ID Equals "Attack on Civil Rights?"
UPDATE JULY 7, 2012: In the July-August 2012 AARP Bulletin there appears the article: Longtime Voter, 93, Challenges ID Law. Ms. Applewhite, age 93, is challenging the requirement to provide an ID before voting, claiming it has a disproportionate affect on the elderly. Ms. Applewhite does not drive and has mobility issues. Gee, wonder how she's gonna get to the polls, then? She claims she can't get to the Social Security Office to get a new Pennsylvania ID card. She claims she lost her birth certificate and Social Security Card years ago, and for some unspecified reason, never saw the need to replace them. Failing to replace her Birth Certificate and Social Security Card sounds irresponsible or lazy to me, unless she was mentally ill at the time, or suffered from some other affliction that prevented her from functioning in society. Lots of things disproportionally affect the elderly - need I go into details? If you are elderly, you already know what those things are - wonder if all those things are unconstitutional, too? Here's another article on Voter ID Laws from the AARP - Remember to read the comments at the end for a more rational discussion of the issues than the article itself: Are New Voter ID Laws Fair?
UPDATE JULY 6, 2012: The San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper ran a letter to the editor regarding those rascally Republicans and their desire to require a Photo ID in order to vote. Ralph Bush of Arroyo Grande simply listed all the activities that require such an ID. One would believe that most or all of these activities are required for modern human life in the United States, so one has to wonder what rock some people are living under that they engage in NONE of these activities. First, let's list them:
UPDATE JULY 6, 2012: The San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper ran a letter to the editor regarding those rascally Republicans and their desire to require a Photo ID in order to vote. Ralph Bush of Arroyo Grande simply listed all the activities that require such an ID. One would believe that most or all of these activities are required for modern human life in the United States, so one has to wonder what rock some people are living under that they engage in NONE of these activities. First, let's list them:
- purchase liquor or cigarettes
- board a plane or train
- apply for insurance
- donate blood
- apply for a credit card
- cash a check
- visit someone in jail
- volunteer at the local public schools (you even have to get fingerprinted and criminal background check)
- volunteer at the local homeless shelter
- receive services at the DMV
- I would HOPE that you need to show ID to receive government benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, etc. though I have no firsthand knowledge of such requirements
- Somebody also pointed out that you need a Social Security Number to collect Social Security, so somehow Ms. Applewhite had to provide her Social Security Card to receive Social Security, did she not? Who did she sue when she was required to do that? Surely that disproportionally affects the elderly as well?
- volunteer at the local public schools (you even have to get fingerprinted and criminal background check)
- volunteer at the local homeless shelter
- receive services at the DMV
- I would HOPE that you need to show ID to receive government benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, etc. though I have no firsthand knowledge of such requirements
- Somebody also pointed out that you need a Social Security Number to collect Social Security, so somehow Ms. Applewhite had to provide her Social Security Card to receive Social Security, did she not? Who did she sue when she was required to do that? Surely that disproportionally affects the elderly as well?
Anyways, I'm sure there are many more. Some believe that those that object to showing ID to vote want to allow those who are not eligible to vote or have died to vote anyways. Its time for me to jump back in the ring.
The bottom line is that some political groups want those who are ineligible to vote or are dead to be able to vote one or more times. Voter fraud is statistically small but it does occur. Voting is perhaps our most sacred right in this country, and those who do not have the right to vote should not; those who do have that right do not consider it an inconvenience to prove it.
SHOULD VALID GOVERNMENT ID BE FREE: If that were the only objection to Voter ID, I'd say yes. However, this is a political issue, and those who are against Voter ID would still be against it, even if IDs were free. My answer would be no: government has costs, and to the degree possible and reasonable, people should pay for the government services they use. Should there be an exception for the poor? Okay, I'd go along with that, but it would not change the issue in any significant way, in my opinion.
The bottom line is that some political groups want those who are ineligible to vote or are dead to be able to vote one or more times. Voter fraud is statistically small but it does occur. Voting is perhaps our most sacred right in this country, and those who do not have the right to vote should not; those who do have that right do not consider it an inconvenience to prove it.
SHOULD VALID GOVERNMENT ID BE FREE: If that were the only objection to Voter ID, I'd say yes. However, this is a political issue, and those who are against Voter ID would still be against it, even if IDs were free. My answer would be no: government has costs, and to the degree possible and reasonable, people should pay for the government services they use. Should there be an exception for the poor? Okay, I'd go along with that, but it would not change the issue in any significant way, in my opinion.
ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 2011): Last night, both my boys were finally home from college, and I went to the local grocery store to pick up some last minute food supplies - young men in the 19 to 21 year age group like my boys love to eat more than they love us, so we make sure that when they are home, all the food groups are available. This time of year, that includes egg nogg and fudge! Surprise! At checkout, the grocer asks for ID - provided in the form of my driver's license - the same ID that I need to carry with me to drive to the store. This is no different than the 30-some-odd states that currently require some form of ID to vote.
Yet, the some politicos are up in arms up about the ID requirement, calling them a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote". Really?
For more, see this article: Holder's Voter ID Fraud
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
LOCAL: Prohibiting Sleeping in Vehicles Ruled Unconstitutional
July 3, 2012
A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge just issued a ruling against the City of SLO stating that the enforcement of regulations prohibiting people from sleeping in their vehicles is unconstitutional. The suit was filed earlier this year by the SLO Homeless Alliance - a group of homeless who have been sleeping in their vehicles and are being represented by Stew Jenkins and Saro Rizzo. The suit followed a concerted effort by the police department to enforce the regulation and discussions by the City Council on changes that are in the works regarding those regulations. The ruling means a preliminary injunction will now keep the City from being able to enforce their recreational vehicle as dwelling unit regulation – which states that no recreational vehicle, camper shell, or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park or campground. Businesses near the main enforcement area-Prado Road- have reported reduced amounts of health and safety violations since enforcement began. City staff will recommend that the City appeal the decision. City Council will decide the next step in closed session. The City Council is scheduled to evaluate the City's parking regulations later this year. The ruling may prompt moving up that action.
This report was brought to you first by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce.
A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge just issued a ruling against the City of SLO stating that the enforcement of regulations prohibiting people from sleeping in their vehicles is unconstitutional. The suit was filed earlier this year by the SLO Homeless Alliance - a group of homeless who have been sleeping in their vehicles and are being represented by Stew Jenkins and Saro Rizzo. The suit followed a concerted effort by the police department to enforce the regulation and discussions by the City Council on changes that are in the works regarding those regulations. The ruling means a preliminary injunction will now keep the City from being able to enforce their recreational vehicle as dwelling unit regulation – which states that no recreational vehicle, camper shell, or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park or campground. Businesses near the main enforcement area-Prado Road- have reported reduced amounts of health and safety violations since enforcement began. City staff will recommend that the City appeal the decision. City Council will decide the next step in closed session. The City Council is scheduled to evaluate the City's parking regulations later this year. The ruling may prompt moving up that action.
This report was brought to you first by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce.
Monday, July 2, 2012
STATE: California's Bullet Train to Nowhere
Governor Jerry Brown's foolish/ambitious plans to build the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line is set for a vote by the Legislature this week to authorize $2.7 billion in voter-approved bonds for construction of the first 130 mile stretch, to be built in the middle of the California desert.
BACKGROUND 1: In 2008, California voters approved $9,000,000,000 in bonds for the first round of financing for the LA to San Francisco Bullet train. The bullet train is estimated to end up costing a total of $68,000,000,000 to construct [although I recently read that the estimate had ballooned to $177,000,000,000, but for political purposes, it was whittled back down to the $68,000,000,000 instead], but if you believe that number will not grow before it is finished, you haven't been paying attention. The first phase of the train is planned to travel from Madera to Bakersfield. In other words, the easy part will get built first. If this section is all that ever ends up getting built, we're looking at our bridge to nowhere. If you've been to Madera and Bakersfield, and seen all that lies in between, you don't need to ponder whether that is true or not.
LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE: If it ever does get started and completed, it'll end up costing way more than $68,000,000,000. Then, it'll run at a massive deficit each year, thus burdening the taxpayers even further. Amtrack runs at a deficit every year, and it runs on rails that have already been built. Checkout Five More Reasons Not to Build California's Bullet Train to Nowhere.
SO WHY IS CALIFORNIA PURSUING THIS? Good question. First, we're going to get a ton of federal dollars to build it, and that will push up hiring and jobs, though at a very steep price per job. First, Japan built their high speed rails, followed decades later by China. So if they can do it, why can't we? Answer: In California, we drive cars or fly - we don't take trains, even if they are fast. I don't see that changing.
ALTERNATIVES: Some California democrats have suggested the money go towards improving existsing rail infrastructure, and I could certainly get on board with that long before I would approve of this Bullet Rail project. How about putting the money towards closing the annual state deficit instead, by just not spending taxpayer dollars on this loser?
BACKGROUND 1: In 2008, California voters approved $9,000,000,000 in bonds for the first round of financing for the LA to San Francisco Bullet train. The bullet train is estimated to end up costing a total of $68,000,000,000 to construct [although I recently read that the estimate had ballooned to $177,000,000,000, but for political purposes, it was whittled back down to the $68,000,000,000 instead], but if you believe that number will not grow before it is finished, you haven't been paying attention. The first phase of the train is planned to travel from Madera to Bakersfield. In other words, the easy part will get built first. If this section is all that ever ends up getting built, we're looking at our bridge to nowhere. If you've been to Madera and Bakersfield, and seen all that lies in between, you don't need to ponder whether that is true or not.
LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE: If it ever does get started and completed, it'll end up costing way more than $68,000,000,000. Then, it'll run at a massive deficit each year, thus burdening the taxpayers even further. Amtrack runs at a deficit every year, and it runs on rails that have already been built. Checkout Five More Reasons Not to Build California's Bullet Train to Nowhere.
SO WHY IS CALIFORNIA PURSUING THIS? Good question. First, we're going to get a ton of federal dollars to build it, and that will push up hiring and jobs, though at a very steep price per job. First, Japan built their high speed rails, followed decades later by China. So if they can do it, why can't we? Answer: In California, we drive cars or fly - we don't take trains, even if they are fast. I don't see that changing.
ALTERNATIVES: Some California democrats have suggested the money go towards improving existsing rail infrastructure, and I could certainly get on board with that long before I would approve of this Bullet Rail project. How about putting the money towards closing the annual state deficit instead, by just not spending taxpayer dollars on this loser?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)