A friend of mine listens to a radio show and caught this discussion about liberty, and set it to some of his own grooves.  I’m not going to say I agree with this 100%, but if well-known, non-political radio hosts are talking this way, I can only hope that mid-town America is at least thinking a little this way.  Have a listen and feel free to comment. (Warning, there is some language.)  Also, the rest of his music can be listened to at http://www.omnifarious.tv

And for the record, I believe they’re discussing the angry man who flew a plane into the IRS building. One of the things that pisses me off is that everyone discussed this guy for a few minutes, but no one really wanted to talk about what he wrote about in his final letter. They talked about ranting, about rambling…they called it a diatribe. No one, however, wanted to deal with the reality of what he wrote about.  No one wanted to deal with ideas.  His actions were reprehensible.  That’s simple enough. But what about the situations that DROVE him to this?

Regardless, no one will discuss.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. – 14th Amendment, Section 2, U.S. Constitution

…and…

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. – Article 1, Section 2, U.S. Constitution

In short, the Census exists to count the people, for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives (1 for each 30,000 people, by the way.)

Just so there’s no confusion as to why I quoted two entirely separate sections of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment modifies the language of Article 1, Section 2, to remove the determination that only 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted for the purposes of representation.

Why, then, does the Census need to figure out how much I commute to work, whether I missed work last week, and what time I leave for work?  Are they planning on robbing my house? If I commute for work, does that mean I count for more or less people when it comes to determining the number of representatives for the state of California?  These questions are silly.  This question is not: Why do they need to know this?

Answer: They don’t.  I’ll tell them the numbers of people in my household.  If they want to send a Census worker, I’ll reiterate my answer, in case they couldn’t read it.  I’m enclosing this section of the Constitution with my form.

Yeah, that’s right.  I committed the cardinal PayPal sin of buying something with my PayPal account, and for this grievous offense, they locked my account.  I was at the seller’s site, they forwarded me to PayPal to complete the transaction, I logged in using my user name and password and BOOM!  Account Locked.  PayPal follows this awesome occurrence up with an e-mail indicating that they had reason to believe that a third party attempted to access my account.  But don’t worry, using their Resolution Center, I can fix it!!!  Ok, let’s try that.

Step 1: Confirm your entire credit card number. – Ok, this sounds a little like a scam, but I know I typed PayPal.com into my browser correctly.  So I confirm it.

Step 2: Change your password: Fine, whatever.  Anything to get my account unlocked.  Password changed.

Step 3: Give us your home number.  We’ll call you and ask you for the code we just gave you. – Uh, I’m not AT home.  Cell number?  Nope, PayPal is wise to the ways of cell.  They deny me.  Fine.  I call Kim and let her know that PayPal is calling.  PayPal calls, I have Kim enter the number, aaaaand….”You failed phone confirmation.”  What?  Okaaaaay…What now, PayPal?

Unnecessary Step 1 (For those counting, this is Step 4, but now I’m annoyed): We will send you a letter with a code to your address.  You should get it in 5-7 days.  Then come to the website, and we’ll make you enter the code in the letter, and who knows what else.

5-7 DAYS?  Why, PayPal?  All because I bought something???  Well, your punishment for this offense has convinced me of the silliness of my decision.  I shall not make this mistake again.  My steps are on the straight and narrow now.   (What follows is an actual anthropomorphic conversation I had with PayPal using their website and attempting to get my item bought.  Yes, I tried all of the following with PayPal.)

In fact, can you please cancel my account?

“No, you may not close your account because you have limited access to your account.”

So…I can’t cancel it, thereby avoiding any unauthorized charges from a third party?

“No, you may not.”

So someone can still make charges to my account?

“No, you cannot make a payment using PayPal, either.”

Really?  Well, can I use my credit card to make the payment outside of PayPal…NOT using my limited account?

“No, that is forbidden.”

Why?

“I cannot say, except to tell you it is forbidden.”

Well, can I remove my credit card from my PayPal account so I can use it like a normal credit card?

“No, that also is forbidden.”

So, what CAN I do with my useless PayPal account?

“You may receive money with your PayPal account.”

GREAT!  So if the vendor wants to pay ME to purchase the item instead, we are freaking SET!  How helpful, PayPal!  Thank you!

“You are welcome, and thank you for using (or not) PayPal.”

So, yes, I am currently actually UNABLE to purchase the item I wanted to purchase, because the only method of payment whose terms are acceptable to me that the vendor offers is PayPal.  (Using a Credit Card, etc. sets me up with recurring monthly payments, which I do not want.)  Way to go PayPal.

Morons.

Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Judicial Power extends to controversies between the citizens of a State  and citizens of a foreign state.  Listen, Republicans, you can’t whine that President Obama is ignoring the Constitution and then turn around and ignore it, yourselves.

What’s more a later amendment to the Constitution even has something to say about the rights of the accused in our justice system.  Amendment 6 to the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Who has the rights, here?  U.S. Citizens?  No.  The accused in our system of justice gets these rights.  So much for a SPEEDY trial, eh?  However, in the nationalistic fervor that followed the September 11th attacks, the U.S. Congress (and public) appeared ready to vote President Bush whatever powers he felt he needed to defend us against terrorists, including the so-called Patriot Act.

My point here is not to be anti-patriotic.  I love the United States of America.  But we cannot give up our liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution simply because it’s popular to do so, or simply because a member of our own political party says we should. The Constitution is the law of the land, and we ought not ignore it whenever it is convenient. And not knowing what the Constitution says is no defense, people.  We need to know what it says in order to made informed decisions about the things on which we must vote.

I’ve heard the argument that the torture techniques used by the military to elicit the confessions of the Guantanamo Bay detainees might get these men off in the U.S. Justice system.  Maybe.  So?  If I were arrested for anti-state speech, and a confession were garnered by making me believe I was drowning, I would want MY rights protected. Rather than blame the justice system, maybe we ought to consider how we can claim the moral high ground when it comes to our treatment of those we are detaining in this non-war.

That’s another thing: Who are we really at war with?  Was war ever declared by Congress against a foreign government? We’re at war with an ideology.  I have a problem with that.  When Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass stupidly declared talk radio hosts’ keeping of politicians honest by threatening to not vote for them a “terrorist threat”, was she then determining that the U.S. was now at war with the talk show hosts? Because the government so enjoys redefining words, how can we be at war with an abstract concept?  If we are at war with no one, then, how can the 9/11 attacks be an act of war?  What’s more, if anyone sets a bomb and kills people, is that an act of war?  If a student of a high school brings a pipe bomb to school and sets it off in the name of Allah, are we now at war with that student?  His class?  His school?  Am I taking it too far?  Ok, fine.  So who, then, can actually declare us at war with talk show hosts, and my hypothetical student?  Congress?  So now we’re allowing Congress the power to make a person or group of people into a government of its own so that we can have a war with them?  Not actually declaring a war against a government was a handy bit of trickery by the U.S. Government, but it plays merry heck with our laws, doesn’t it?

So if we don’t have an actual declared war, how is a terrorist actually committing an act of war? By blurring the dimensions of what constitutes a war, we’re able now to declare an action by anyone that hurts us an act of war. This allows us to re-class anyone on the fly.

Ultimately, my point is that the Constitution has something to say about who, exactly, may be tried by our laws.  Something you’ll find when you read the Constitution is that it doesn’t mention Military Tribunals at all.  The Constitution being the highest law of the land (with regards to earthly governments) does not appear to recognize any judicial authority higher than that which is set up in Article 3.

So the terrorists being tried on U.S. soil is the way the framers of this nation intended it to be, even though they had no inkling of the method in which these people would break our laws.

This weekend, I’d hoped to get my bike put back together.  I think I’ve said that every weekend for the last month, reminding me that it’s my own fault I keep getting my hopes up.  In most cases, when I start work, I immediately find a problem that needs solving.  I spend the rest of my Saturday trying to solve it.

This weekend was no different.  I had my carburetors all reassembled, but I reasoned (oops on me, I guess) that since I had the gas tank off and the carbs out of the way, I should just pop the valve cover off and check the valve clearances on the bike, since I have no idea when the last time it was done. Most people who own these bikes say you need to do this every 3,000 miles or so.

First off, a friend measured the clearances while I did other things, and determined that out of the 8 valves on my bike, only 1 was in spec.  The others were too close.  This could conceivably cause serious damage, if the valves aren’t closing while the piston is rising. Most likely, however, it’s just causing loss of compression.  In any event, if the tappet shims (what the cams press on to open the valve) aren’t closing because they’re out of spec, then I need newer shims.

Well, I knew of a nifty way to keep the valve open while I removed the shims, so I went to Ace and got some large wire ties, and a tappet feeler gauge, so I could check the clearances myself.  I found that one of them was out of spec, but the others seemed ok.  I don’t know why my friend was unable to get the feeler gauge blade into the space between the shim and the cam lobe, but I didn’t have a problem.

So while this is partially good news, the fact that I needed 1 shim means I can’t get my bike back together…again.  I had to order online, since the local Suzuki dealer wanted to charge $14 PER SHIM!  Little 29.6m x 2.6mm circle of hardened metal, and they wanted $14.  Z1enterprises.com had it for $5.28.  Guess where I got it.

So this week, the part should arrive.  I can get it into the shim bucket, and start getting my bike together.  I have nothing else to take apart, so I can’t come up with any more areas that could have problems.  I think from here on out, it’s just going to be getting the stupid thing back together.

Of course, none of this even remotely guarantees that the bike will start or run properly.  That’s the next fun bit.

I expected this when I bought an older bike, but it’s still been a pain.  :)

Having said that, there have been a couple of things that have happened since last I wrote.

I was picked to be on the trial of a jury on the 12th of August.  It was a felony robbery trial, and it was my first experience with jury duty. Much of the experience was very interesting, but deliberating was absolutely maddening. Much of the people on the jury were apparently not understanding what the relevant laws were, even though we’d been given the laws.  Much of the discussions had to be repeated, and it seemed as though when things were said to them, they immediately forgot or ignored what was said.  Then, when we discussed how the law applied, they answered based on their own feelings, rather than based on how the law read.  I’m pretty happy with how the case turned out, but coming to the verdict was absolutely maddening.

When I was discussing this with a friend of mine, he said “If I’m ever on trial, I am promised a jury of my peers, but that is by no means guaranteed with the common jury.”  Based on what I experienced, I’d have to say that a trial by jury can very easily be considered a deterrent to crime. Knowing that your average juror is not going to care enough to be aware of the law and will likely rule entirely on emotion can be a frightening prospect to be sure.

Something else I’ve been doing is riding a motorcycle.  Many of you are wondering if I’ve taken leave of my senses, and while that is certainly a possibility, I don’t think I have. A motorcycle is cheap to insure, cheaper to purchase, and cheaper to fuel than a car.  We only have one car, and that car is Kim’s, since it has Iain’s seat in it.  The motorcycle makes economic sense…once I get it up to 100% percent, that is.  :)

It’s had a high idle problem, and I’ve been working on solving that.  I’m close, but am having difficulty getting the carburetor back on.  However, once I’ve gotten this little thing taken care of, I’m sure I’ll post a couple pictures of me on a bike.  It’s a standard cruiser…nothing uber fancy.

As for whether I like riding a motorcycle, plenty of people have waxed poetic about it.  It’s freeing, it’s fun, it’s exciting…it’s all of those things and more.  Once it takes hold of you, it doesn’t let go, and I’m definitely hooked.  :)

My brother-in-law, Chris, said, “It makes the world round again.  In a car, you’re in a box.  On a bike, the world is round again.”  He’s right, though I can’t really explain why.  You are connected to your environment in ways you’re isolated in a car.  You’re more connected to your fellow riders and drivers…especially the riders. You feel minute changes in humidity and temperature more than you did even with the windows down in a car.

The proof, however, is in the pudding.  The last several weeks, it’s been hot…and hotter when you ride a motorcycle in town.  But I was still happy to get on my bike every morning and ride to jury duty and back…despite the heat.  That’s just how much it has a hold on me.

Now, before you all start freaking out about how I want terrorists to buy guns, you need to re-read my post title.  That is not what I said, nor is it how I feel.  I’ll explain, but you’re going to have to stay with me longer than a single paragraph.

First off, what determines whether someone is or is not a suspected terrorist? According to that article, it would be this list kept by the FBI. So if this list is some sort of master list that contains the people who are suspected of being terrorists, the question must be asked, “How does one make it into this list?”  The answer to THAT question explains why I titled this post as I did.

Let me recount for you three incidents:

1. Ron Paul Supporters Are Labeled Potential Terrorists

Yup.

Now, I’m not talking about Glenn Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists.  I’m not talking about the Phoenix report that was recirculated claiming that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. It was Missouri’s Information Analysis Center in a report released in February of 2009 that analyzed into existence the suspicion that someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their vehicle could be a member of the Modern Militia Movement, and thus could be a terrorist.  This report was circulated through law enforcement communities, and one can only wonder if anyone new made it onto the secret FBI list because of it.  I supported Ron Paul, which I guess makes me a terrorist.

2. Returning Veterans Targeted as potential recruitment targets for right-wing extremist groups by the Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2009.

“…the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups…”

I am not quoting that snippet out of context.  Read the report here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Yup…the DHS is basically saying this:

“Thank you for your service, you despicable terrorists.”

Regardless, now returning veterans are suspected of being potential terrorists.  How many of them made it onto the secret list?

3. Department of Defense potentially equates protest with low-level terrorist activities.

A multiple choice question on an exam administered by the Department of Defense asked the following:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
* Attacking the Pentagon
* [Improvised Explosive Devices]
* Hate crimes against racial groups
* Protests

The correct answer was “Protests”.  So, if you’re exercising your right to peaceably assemble, which is guaranteed you by this really obscure document called The Constitution of the United States of America, you could be a low-level terrorist. Regardless of the fact that this test is not directly equating protests with terrorism, it’s definitely saying that any protest COULD be a terrorist act. This is a concerning move, and based on this, *I* could very well be on that secret list.

Now, all of these incidents were THIS YEAR ALONE. I qualify as a potential terrorist in two of those three incidents, and thus I don’t support any move by our government to bar legal citizens who have committed no crime from purchasing firearms based on some list maintained by our government, which has already been shown to have kept people on the list past when they should have been removed: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603968.html).

So I definitely DO NOT support any barring of individuals from buying firearms just because they made it onto some list that they can’t see, and can’t even find out if they’re on.

Caller, I agree with you that Tax Cuts are the way to go, but the Republican party doesn’t WANT tax cuts.

And THAT is one reason why I (and others like me) say that the Republican Party is dead.  They’re all trying to out-liberal one another despite the fact that President Reagan showed just how efficacious tax cuts can be to stimulate the economy.

It’s time for a third party to get the conservative vote.

As you well know, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a proposal to raise the Federal Excise Tax on Beer as a part of health care discussion.  This is a bad idea!

The concept of a tax on a vice is self-defeating. So we need money to pay for single-payer health care (assuming that is a good thing to have… a proposition that is by no means certain).  Taxing production of a good (thereby increasing the cost of said good) with the express stated purpose of lessening the consumption of said good can ONLY lead to a decrease in tax revenues from this source.  The single-payer health care plans, on the other hand, are ONLY going to rise, or at the VERY best stay level.  This tax, then MAY only provide a short term boost in funding, and is not a sustainable proposition for funding of this health care plan.

What’s more, who is the Senate Finance Committee to determine what I should or should not consume?  There are things in this world FAR more harmful to the human body than alcohol, and where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to regulate our habits?  (And no, “to promote the general welfare” does not count.  That is part of the preamble, which explains why the Constitution was necessary, and not a granting of powers to the government.)

Finally, this proposition will only harm small businesses who cannot afford to absorb the cost of this increase, and MUST pass this on to the consumers.  When prices go up, the demand for a good at the new, higher price will fall, and this will torpedo the brewing industry, which is really only starting to gain its momentum against the lesser-quality, but lower priced mass-producing brewing giants. So how is this a GOOD thing in an economic climate where small businesses are failing right and left already?  How will this stimulate the economy, and raise consumer sentiment, when they see their favorite breweries being shut down because of a tax increase that is only doomed to raise less and less each month…BY DESIGN?

I am overtaxed, and I cannot afford more taxes.  Beer is one of life’s great pleasures, when it’s done well, and the very businesses that are producing beer that is done well are the businesses that will be harmed by this foolhardy idea.

Please oppose the increase of the Federal Excise Tax on Beer, and protect the jobs and well-being of many who depend on the brewing industry, and the well-rated California brewing scene to boot.

Support Your Local Brewery had this to say about the excise tax:

http://www.sylb.org/excisetax.html

Seriously, send a message to Washington letting them know that their decisions as to what you should or should not put in your body are totally out of line, and taxing us to do so is even more ridiculous.

For one, the Department of Education is a HUGE tax dollar drain. In 2008, the requested budget for the Department of Education was $62.6 BILLION. If the extremely inefficient government gave those dollars back to the people from whom they took them, how better could those dollars be spent? What’s more, what do we GET when the Department of Education gets this money? Well, $300 million of that money is actually going to help low-income families obtain more choices in sending their children to PRIVATE schools.  So now we’re taking money from the taxpayer in order to allow them more options in sending their children to a private school?  What say we cut out the middleman?

Oh yeah, let’s not forget about the increasing drive to force children to accept deviant lifestyles as normal and healthy, thereby prohibiting my family’s free exercise of religion. Sex education at an increasingly young age. I object to these sorts of things and they are the reason I will not be sending my children to public schools.  However, I will be forced to pay for the Department of Education, regardless of that fact.

The biggest argument for cutting the Department of Education, however, is that it’s not a power allowed for in the U.S. Constitution. That’s right, folks. You CAN read the U.S. Constitution and understand what it says.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait….

….

Well, anyway, show me in the U.S. Constitution where the Department of Education is permitted, and I’ll grant you the argument.  However, you need to remember something as you’re reading it: Whenever a power is not granted to the Federal Government, it is reserved for the States.  Yes, that means we may be pushing the problem down one level, but I support that, as it inevitably means that some States will get it right.  At the VERY least, they have the potential to get it right.

Any arguments about how beneficial the DoEd is are easily refuted by the Constiutution.  What’s more, when you carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you might think of some other Federal Departments that could also be removed under the same argument.  Before you start telling me, “well if we have to get rid of the Department of Education because it’s not allowed in the Constitution, then that means we should also get rid of the Department of Whatever”, you should be aware that I agree with you on that count.

And you’re only giving me ideas…not proving that the DoEd is indispensable.