Reading an article posted online in The Press Democrat, it would seem that not all Californians are crazed denizens of an alternate universe where common sense is prohibited and personal liberty is an affront to society at large. Indeed, it would seem that there are not only rational people living in California but they are in fact doing so by choice.
Carl Malamud is a Sebastopol, California, resident who has this silly notion that state governments, in fact all level of government, have no legitimate right to claim copyright to the laws they pass.
"We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California," said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state's laws. "We are obtaining compensation for the people of California."
Really? The state government of California is the people of California. It is not some autonomous institution that the people have been blessed with. Whether elected representatives or employees of agencies constituted through the actions of elected representatives the government is an extension of the people, working on behalf of and for the benefit of the people.
One can obtain a digital copy of the California Code for a bargain price of only $1,556. A printed copy runs at $2,315. That's right - any citizen wishing to know and understand the laws they are obligated to live under must pay for that privilege. Laws conceived, created, and enacted by elected citizens whose salaries are paid by tax dollars extracted from those very same citizens. Citizens should then pay for the privilege of accessing the laws they have enacted? Would you stand for having to deposit a dollar every time you wanted to access your home or automobile, or turn on the television set you paid for to watch the ball game? Me neither.
Or, they can go to Carl Malamud's web site, public.resource.org, and review all 33,000 pages of the California Code for . . . free! The PDF files are even available for download.
Malamud has apparently done this before. In 1994 he was behind an effort that ultimately led to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission posting public corporate filings on the internet, making them freely and reasonably accessible to all. Earlier this year he convinced the State of Oregon that the laws of Oregon belong to the people of Oregon, and the copyright assertion by that state has since been dropped. Once he injects a bit of common sense into the California bureaucracy, Carl Malamud intends to go on and do the same for the remainder of the states and the Federal government as well.
A quick trip to the web site (I will definitely be going back) shows entries from at least 47 states. Though hardly exhaustive for each state, it is still a remarkable compilation of the laws of this land. I've done time in California (lived there as a requirement of my employment, not as a guest of the State thank you very much), and feel entitled to know the laws I was subject to. Just to thumb my nose at Sacramento I will certainly be downloading a copy of the California Code of Regulations.
Then I might just send an email to The Governator and Linda Brown (or try staff@oal.ca.gov) confessing my "crime". Why not do the same, especially if you live in California at the moment? Let them come and get us all for taking possession of what is ours in the first place! Crashing the email servers would be fun, too.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
'Georgia Congressman Calls Obamas 'Uppity'"
AP Story - 9/5/08
Is it a case of professed ignorance to conceal racism, or have the PC Police finally run up against their worst imaginable nightmare - success?
Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) described the Obamas as a couple who ". . . thinks that they're uppity." Westmoreland was asked if that was really the word he meant to use, and confirmed that, yes, it was exactly what he meant.
Is Westmoreland to be believed when he claims to be unaware that "uppity" was commonly used as a derogatory term to describe blacks seeking equal treatment? Being a white man born in 1950 and raised in the south, Democrats are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The head of the Georgia Democrat Party demanded Westmoreland apologize, saying the congressman's comments were “more of the same, tired old politics that are dividing this country.”
What if Westmoreland was sincere though? What if, as he claims, he was thinking of the dictionary definition that identifies uppity as "someone who is haughty, snobbish or has inflated self-esteem"? What if the negative connotation of that particular word, from a racial rather than social perspective, truly never crossed his mind or had ever even passingly resided there?
Accepting for the sake of argument the premise that Rep. Westmoreland was innocent of harboring racially insensitive intent in his comments, the Political Correctness movement is faced with a terrible dilemma. If the intent of PC is to stamp out divisiveness and inequality, to build a world in which we can simply all just get along, aren't they obligated to applaud a mind that has moved beyond misapplied connotations of words to instead use words with their explicit denotations instead?
Not really. Removing all racist, sexist, and every other divisionist interpretation words might carry would destroy the power base of the PC Police. Such an outcome would be as unthinkable as removing every facet of black existence in America from the realm of a white oppressive agenda would be to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A community devoid of victims is not in need of self proclaimed messiahs.
This is just the most recent in a long string of attacks against legitimate use of the English language. In 1999, David Howard, an aid in the administration of Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, was in a meeting with two city employee's. The city treasury was in a particularly dire condition at that time, and Howard expressed that he would need to be "niggardly" with his agency's budget. One of those in attendance at the meeting lacked a functional understanding of the English language, and as a result Howard was soon compelled to resign his position simply because the word niggardly is homophonously similar to nigger. Not that the two words have anything in common. Niggardly means miserly, and has no etymological connection to nigger at all. The two words sound alike though, and that is deemed more than sufficient for a public lynching.
Are the Obamas uppity? Perhaps. Does that make the one calling them that racist? Not necessarily. Racism is in the mind of the offender, not in the mind of the beholder who is desperate to find offense hiding beneath every rock and behind every tree. In the absence of proof otherwise, Westmoreland deserves to be taken at face value and on the strength of his assertions.
(Note: Some may be offended by the word "nigger" being used above. I most emphatically do not apologize for the appropriate and germane use of that word in a discussion regarding racial insensitivity and the harm specific words might have the capacity to inflict. No mature, intellectually honest author in any milieu would use the word "wee-wee place" to describe the penis in an article involving male genitalia. The same should be true for nigger or any other emotionally traumatic word. Applying a childish synonym or pretending to avoid the offensive word while using it endlessly, such as "the N-word", is intellectually dishonest and actually retards the stated goal of bringing respect and maturity to society as a whole. Those who are not satisfied with this explanation are welcome to go elsewhere, or take up their objections with someone who cares. Lokhi)
Is it a case of professed ignorance to conceal racism, or have the PC Police finally run up against their worst imaginable nightmare - success?
Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) described the Obamas as a couple who ". . . thinks that they're uppity." Westmoreland was asked if that was really the word he meant to use, and confirmed that, yes, it was exactly what he meant.
Is Westmoreland to be believed when he claims to be unaware that "uppity" was commonly used as a derogatory term to describe blacks seeking equal treatment? Being a white man born in 1950 and raised in the south, Democrats are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The head of the Georgia Democrat Party demanded Westmoreland apologize, saying the congressman's comments were “more of the same, tired old politics that are dividing this country.”
What if Westmoreland was sincere though? What if, as he claims, he was thinking of the dictionary definition that identifies uppity as "someone who is haughty, snobbish or has inflated self-esteem"? What if the negative connotation of that particular word, from a racial rather than social perspective, truly never crossed his mind or had ever even passingly resided there?
Accepting for the sake of argument the premise that Rep. Westmoreland was innocent of harboring racially insensitive intent in his comments, the Political Correctness movement is faced with a terrible dilemma. If the intent of PC is to stamp out divisiveness and inequality, to build a world in which we can simply all just get along, aren't they obligated to applaud a mind that has moved beyond misapplied connotations of words to instead use words with their explicit denotations instead?
Not really. Removing all racist, sexist, and every other divisionist interpretation words might carry would destroy the power base of the PC Police. Such an outcome would be as unthinkable as removing every facet of black existence in America from the realm of a white oppressive agenda would be to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. A community devoid of victims is not in need of self proclaimed messiahs.
This is just the most recent in a long string of attacks against legitimate use of the English language. In 1999, David Howard, an aid in the administration of Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, was in a meeting with two city employee's. The city treasury was in a particularly dire condition at that time, and Howard expressed that he would need to be "niggardly" with his agency's budget. One of those in attendance at the meeting lacked a functional understanding of the English language, and as a result Howard was soon compelled to resign his position simply because the word niggardly is homophonously similar to nigger. Not that the two words have anything in common. Niggardly means miserly, and has no etymological connection to nigger at all. The two words sound alike though, and that is deemed more than sufficient for a public lynching.
Are the Obamas uppity? Perhaps. Does that make the one calling them that racist? Not necessarily. Racism is in the mind of the offender, not in the mind of the beholder who is desperate to find offense hiding beneath every rock and behind every tree. In the absence of proof otherwise, Westmoreland deserves to be taken at face value and on the strength of his assertions.
(Note: Some may be offended by the word "nigger" being used above. I most emphatically do not apologize for the appropriate and germane use of that word in a discussion regarding racial insensitivity and the harm specific words might have the capacity to inflict. No mature, intellectually honest author in any milieu would use the word "wee-wee place" to describe the penis in an article involving male genitalia. The same should be true for nigger or any other emotionally traumatic word. Applying a childish synonym or pretending to avoid the offensive word while using it endlessly, such as "the N-word", is intellectually dishonest and actually retards the stated goal of bringing respect and maturity to society as a whole. Those who are not satisfied with this explanation are welcome to go elsewhere, or take up their objections with someone who cares. Lokhi)
1-800-STAMP24?
Oh, sure, the phone number on the current duck stamp was supposed to read 1-800-STAMP24. As everyone knows, though, mistakes do sometimes happen.
Such as accidentally printing the number as 1-800-TRAMP-24.
What a difference a couple of letters make.
1-800-STAMP24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase the current Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting.
1-800-TRAMP-24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase, well, whatever one might expect to purchase at a service called "Intimate Connections". (Editorial Note: Anyone unable to imagine what might be purchase through such a service really ought not be reading this post.)
A spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the $15.00 stamps will continue to be sold with the "misprinted" phone number. Reprinting the stamps would cost $300,000, money they believe would be better spent on conservation. Perhaps for the next stamp they should budget one hour's worth of minimum wage time for a proof reader?
In an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Rachel Levin with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said "The stamp is perfectly usable. It will just be a lot more interesting for people now."
So, why night take a few minutes out of your busy day and show your interest in "conservation". Pick up a phone and call 1-800-TRAMP24. No doubt, they will have many interesting suggestions as to what you might do with a duck . . ..
Such as accidentally printing the number as 1-800-TRAMP-24.
What a difference a couple of letters make.
1-800-STAMP24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase the current Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting.
1-800-TRAMP-24 takes callers to the opportunity to purchase, well, whatever one might expect to purchase at a service called "Intimate Connections". (Editorial Note: Anyone unable to imagine what might be purchase through such a service really ought not be reading this post.)
A spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the $15.00 stamps will continue to be sold with the "misprinted" phone number. Reprinting the stamps would cost $300,000, money they believe would be better spent on conservation. Perhaps for the next stamp they should budget one hour's worth of minimum wage time for a proof reader?
In an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Rachel Levin with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said "The stamp is perfectly usable. It will just be a lot more interesting for people now."
So, why night take a few minutes out of your busy day and show your interest in "conservation". Pick up a phone and call 1-800-TRAMP24. No doubt, they will have many interesting suggestions as to what you might do with a duck . . ..
Friday, September 05, 2008
Question of the Day: September 5, 2008
A circle is said to have no beginning and no end. If this is indeed the case, do circles in fact exist?
C-SPAN (Almost) Rocks
Last night I watched the John McCain show. I happened to watch it on a PBS channel, mainly because the picture quality was far better than what Comcast gives me for C-Span. Even seeing the speeches on PBS, I was reminded why I have gravitated towards C-SPAN for viewing conventions and State of the Union addresses in recent years.
PBS did not have any annoying crawls across the bottom of the screen. They did however have a cast of characters who felt the need to tell me what was about to be said, what just had been said, what it meant, what I should think about what I had just seen and heard, and how this all relates to the much larger picture of doing whatever it takes to get Barack Obama elected as the savior of the United States and all humanity.
CNN and FOX crank that nonsense up a bit further. With their endless crawls across the bottom of the screen and constant flicker of graphics placed just below the speaker, viewers are subjected to reiteration, interpretation and overt political commentary while the speech is still in progress.
Anyone who is going to rely on Wolf Blitzer, Brit Hume, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson to tell them what to think and who to vote for really shouldn't be involved in the electoral process. Or the gene pool for that matter.
As an informed voter, I do not require my news to be interpreted or presented, I simply ask that it be reported. Provide me with access to the facts, and I will evaluate those facts and arrive at my own conclusions. Presenting the viewer with a conclusion and then supporting that conclusion with only selected, non-contradictory facts is not reporting it is editorializing.
Strangely, these same people criticize and dismiss as irrelevant all the moronic Dittoheads for receiving their daily briefing from the puppet master and then acting in lockstep accordance with Rush Limbaugh. Worse, they truly don't seem to recognize a parallel between the two situations.
News ought not be a matter of Right and Left, or even of Right and Wrong, even when that news is alleged coverage of political events. News simply is. Deliver the facts, as many as possible from all possible viewpoints. Put that news channel on television, put that philosophy into a daily newspaper, and I will be among the first to watch or activate my subscription.
C-SPAN comes closest, though when they open the phone lines at the end of any covered event, the calls they take and commentary they make quickly reveals a discernible bias on their part as well.
No matter how hard we try, Heaven will clearly never be a place on Earth.
PBS did not have any annoying crawls across the bottom of the screen. They did however have a cast of characters who felt the need to tell me what was about to be said, what just had been said, what it meant, what I should think about what I had just seen and heard, and how this all relates to the much larger picture of doing whatever it takes to get Barack Obama elected as the savior of the United States and all humanity.
CNN and FOX crank that nonsense up a bit further. With their endless crawls across the bottom of the screen and constant flicker of graphics placed just below the speaker, viewers are subjected to reiteration, interpretation and overt political commentary while the speech is still in progress.
Anyone who is going to rely on Wolf Blitzer, Brit Hume, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson to tell them what to think and who to vote for really shouldn't be involved in the electoral process. Or the gene pool for that matter.
As an informed voter, I do not require my news to be interpreted or presented, I simply ask that it be reported. Provide me with access to the facts, and I will evaluate those facts and arrive at my own conclusions. Presenting the viewer with a conclusion and then supporting that conclusion with only selected, non-contradictory facts is not reporting it is editorializing.
Strangely, these same people criticize and dismiss as irrelevant all the moronic Dittoheads for receiving their daily briefing from the puppet master and then acting in lockstep accordance with Rush Limbaugh. Worse, they truly don't seem to recognize a parallel between the two situations.
News ought not be a matter of Right and Left, or even of Right and Wrong, even when that news is alleged coverage of political events. News simply is. Deliver the facts, as many as possible from all possible viewpoints. Put that news channel on television, put that philosophy into a daily newspaper, and I will be among the first to watch or activate my subscription.
C-SPAN comes closest, though when they open the phone lines at the end of any covered event, the calls they take and commentary they make quickly reveals a discernible bias on their part as well.
No matter how hard we try, Heaven will clearly never be a place on Earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)