3/25/2008
Indiana: A tax (and a boondoogle) by any other name
The Indiana legislatures has just proven itself to be dumber than a box of rocks and have morals that Nixon, Libby, and Putin would consider slimy. They have decided that any place selling books with 'sexually explicit' content would have to pay a $250 fee. This information is to be shared with local officials who will then be able to 'monitor' them for violations of the law. The standards for this immensely useful law are:
Now, this standard would include just about any book written for anyone over the age of seven. It would include just about all general psychology text books, most medical text books, all books meant to help children understand puberty, most fiction including genres like science fiction and fantasy, romance, and most classic literature, a large percentage of sociology text books, religious texts like; the Bible, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, the Quorran, vast amounts of poetry.
So let's review a few famous works that would be affected by this law: Wuthering Heights, Hamlet, Watership Downs, and The Scarlet Letter.
There are three (major) things wrong with this law:
1) It's self defeating. The number of places selling materials that will meet the standards laid out in the law vastly exceeds the number of places selling books that don't meet these standards. Everything from corner drug stores to local independent book stores, and big book chains like Borders and Barnes and Noble, department stores like Target, corner news stores, college bookstores etc. How does this law narrow down the list of places that law enforcement needs to look for offenders?
2) It is by any reasonable standard a violation of the 1St Amendment.
3) It's redundant. I'm certain their are other laws regarding telling the truth about what you intend to sell in your place of business.
That includes any work that "describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse."
Now, this standard would include just about any book written for anyone over the age of seven. It would include just about all general psychology text books, most medical text books, all books meant to help children understand puberty, most fiction including genres like science fiction and fantasy, romance, and most classic literature, a large percentage of sociology text books, religious texts like; the Bible, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, the Quorran, vast amounts of poetry.
So let's review a few famous works that would be affected by this law: Wuthering Heights, Hamlet, Watership Downs, and The Scarlet Letter.
There are three (major) things wrong with this law:
1) It's self defeating. The number of places selling materials that will meet the standards laid out in the law vastly exceeds the number of places selling books that don't meet these standards. Everything from corner drug stores to local independent book stores, and big book chains like Borders and Barnes and Noble, department stores like Target, corner news stores, college bookstores etc. How does this law narrow down the list of places that law enforcement needs to look for offenders?
2) It is by any reasonable standard a violation of the 1St Amendment.
3) It's redundant. I'm certain their are other laws regarding telling the truth about what you intend to sell in your place of business.
Labels: 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, bad laws, civil rights, constitution, constitutional rights, democrats, election, election 2008, immigration, the powers that shouldn't be, those who need to die
12/06/2007
Border Security and Immigration
When are we going to get serious about these two separate but related issues? The latter is actually the one we need to tackle first. By putting into law exactly the steps, standards and practices expected of those wishing to live here be it for five months, five years or for the rest of their life we can make a lot of things happen. The simplest of them will be to cut down spending on a bloated bureaucracy that like many federal departments probably wastes more money than it gainfully spends. Next is that it would provide a fair, easy to understand set of checkpoints for those moving here with one standard for those coming to America. Making the language clear, and easy to understand would lower confusion on both ends of the immigration process making the jobs of numerous Americans simpler. With a clear, detailed and above all simple immigration policy we would lower the desire for people to risk illegal crossing that is hazardous to their health and could land them in the hands of unsavory employers and importers who are nothing but domestic slavers. Giving people the information they need to live here before they arrive, will make it easier for them to navigate not just criminal law which is information we all hope they never need to apply, but our school systems, property laws, various personal contracts for services like cell phones or medical insurance that probably don't work or don't work the same way in their nation of origin.
Some countries like Germany have a fairly transparent system in place that let's people know in unambiguous terms. Our firmest ally the United Kingdom is working on a bill to enact their own crisp immigration process. Other countries seem to have the type of border security certain segments of the population seem to think ours is or will be if we fortify our own in any way. Not true. With a fair and simple immigration policy that let those with legitimate reasons into the country we could make serious cuts into the smugglers who endanger the lives of the people they bring in, with less criminals attacking the border we would be able to not only better control who does come in, but leave more money where it belongs, in the tax payers pockets.
Labels: and you thought america was bad, border security, immigration, national securit, politics, society
