💾 Archived View for clemat.is › saccophore › library › ezines › textfiles › ezines › STUCKINTRAFFIC … captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stuck In Traffic #3
by Calvin Stacy Powers
======================
Minneapolis Dress Code
According to an AP wire story, a woman in Minneapolis was stopped
by police because she looked "bizarre", arrested, and charge with
"concealing one's identity in public" because she was dressed in a
robe and a veil. It turned out that the woman was a Muslim and
required by her religion to dress that way. The police spokesman
said there was no exemption in the law for religious reasons.
The press seems to have covered the story from the freedom of
religion angle., and that's fine by me. Freedom of religion is
important. It's one of the defining charactersitics of the United
States as far as I'm concerned.
But what troubles me even more is that there is a law in at least
one city that prohibits you from concealing your identity in
public. And furthermore that police can stop and arrest you for
no other reason than 'looking bizarre'. What's next? Dress
codes? Why doesn't the government just tattoo our social security
number on our foreheads and be done with any pretense of
sovereignty? There used to be a time when you could go about your
business as long as you weren't bothering anyone. That day is
long past.
=======================
Where Were the Goblins?
Kids just don't have a clue about how to do Halloween anymore.
It's a shame really. When I was a kid growing up in suburbia, we
knew how Halloween was supposed to be done. The object is to look
SCARY. And frighten people into giving you treats so that you
don't throw eggs at their house or otherwise play tricks on them.
It's blackmail and extortion kid-style. It's one night during the
year where you can be rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
But the kids coming to my door during Halloween this year stood
there like their moms dressed them up for Sunday school in a
bow-tie and waited for my handouts. Almost all of them said
"Thank-You". Arrrgh! Thank You on Halloween Eve? What's the
world coming to?
========
On Haiti
Just after the invasion, oops sorry, occupation, no that's not
right either. Well, just after we did whatever it is we did to
Haiti, I was chatting in a local coffee house with a friend of
mine about the Haiti affair. I mentioned that I could not see any
compelling interest that the United States had in Haiti. And my
friend, in an indignant outrage yelled, "My God, man! It's the
back door into the Dominican Republic!"
======================
"I also want to be remembered for taking a voluntary 92% cut in my
income for the sake of my cartoons. I figure attaining
immortality as an artist is a long shot, but I'm a shoo-in as a
martyr." --Berke Breathed
================
On The Elections
My main comment on the elections is that I expect the country to
lurch in a different direction now, though not necessarily a
better one. That remains to be seen. However, the Republicans'
"Contract With America" has added an uncommon twist to the text
two year's Washington watching. In two years, it will be
perfectly clear just how well the Republicans have, or haven't
lived up to their campaign promises.
Of course there are many ways to go back on your promise without
appearing to do so. One common tactic is the multiple competing
bills tactic. Congress has been doing this for years on the
balanced budget issues. The idea is to make sure there are at
least three or four competing bills for basically the same
proposal. Then the representatives all pick one and grandstand
over it. But no single bill ever quite picks up the majority of
votes to get out of committee. Then the Representatives can all
go home and brag about how they supported the bill and it was
really everyone else's fault that it didn't get passed. I expect
this tactic to get used on the term-limits issue.
===========
Term Limits
If it came up for a vote among the general populace, I'm sure
term-limits would pass. I might even vote for it myself. But I
seriously doubt that term limits will improve our government.
I believe that term limits will just reinforce politicians'
primary bad habit: spending money before you have it in hand. If
you are an elected representative facing a single term tenure, you
have an incentive to bring get as much as possible for your
district in as quick a time as possible and you have an incentive
to delay having to pay for it as long as possible. In fact, the
best possible scenario for a one-term elected official would be to
buy on credit now, and have the bill come due after you are out of
office. That's not exactly a formula for reforming Congress.
Most term-limits advocates believe that term limits would
encourage 'citizen statesmen' to run for office and boot out the
career politician. Citizen statesmen, i.e. men and women who
have other, nonpolitical careers, is a great goal. But in my
opinion, term-limits do not encourage citizen statesmen from
running for office because it costs so much money to run a
political campaign. Under a term-limits scenario, the people who
run for office will be dependent on PACS and special interest
groups to get them elected.
So I believe the best strategy for encouraging citizen statesmen
is to make it cheaper to run for office. And the best way of
doing that, without costing the tax payers a dime, is to
drastically reduce the size of a representative's districts.
Ideally, I'd like to see the size of a U.S. House district be
about the size of a typical state house district. Since there
would be so many fewer people in each district, the cost of
running a campaign would be cut drastically.
Running for office would still require a serious financial
commitment, but someone with broad support in the community should
be able to raise enough money from their constituents to run a
campaign in a district that small. That wouldn't make the PACs
and special interests go away of course. A candidate could still
accept money from them. But it would enable citizen statesmen
candidates to at least compete with them. And who would you be
more likely to vote for, a candidate who raised enough money from
individual contributions to fund their campaign or a candidate who
is funded by PACs and special interest groups?
One way to keep the size of districts small is to return to the
original Constitution. Originally, the constitution called for
districts of a fixed size. As the population grew, so did the
number of representatives. It wasn't until later that a
Constitutional amendment fixed the number of Representatives and
increased the size of districts.
===============================
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
comprehensible." --Albert Einstein
==================
Helms Steps In It!
Being from North Carolina, and confessing to being something of an
armchair political commentator, I suppose I am somewhat obligated
to comment on Senator Jesse Helms' recent political gaffe in which
he said something to the effect that President Clinton shouldn't
visit any military base in North Carolina without a bodyguard.
Well, it's an insult. Pure and simple. Jesse Helms insulted the
President of the United States. That just isn't done. Even the
bitterest political rivals in Washington maintain a semblance of
decorum when addressing each other, calling each other 'Gentleman'
or Gentlewoman' even when they'd rather call each other 'flaming
liberal' or 'fascist pig'. Helms stepped over the line. The
press went nuts over the issue and simply would not let the issue
die for a long time. At the time I'm writing this, the story has
finally left the front pages and now is mostly covered in the
editorial page. But there are still lots of offhand remarks about
the incident, especially when discussion of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee comes up.
I would not want to be misconstrued as defending Helms on the
issue, but it does appear that the media is showing their bias in
coverage of the incident. In 1988 when Senator John Kerry, who is
about as extremely Democratic as Helms is Republican, was asked by
a reporter if Dan Quayle was qualified to be President. Kerry
replied, on the record, "Let me put it this way, if anything
happens to President Bush, the Secret Service has orders to shoot
Dan Quayle." Funny thing that a big stink was not made about
Kerry's remarks. An equally insulting snide comment and yet it
didn't get a tenth of the coverage that Helms' remark did. To
explain the discrepancy, you either have to claim either, a) the
media is biased toward the Democrats and therefore covers them
more favorably, or b) insulting the Vice-President is not nearly
as bad manners as insulting the President.
"Everyone has talent. What is rare is Courage to follow the
talent to the dark place where it leads." --Erica Jong
==================
Helms Steps In It?
The press seems to believe that it is a forgone conclusion that
the Helms 'bodyguard' comment was a mistake, a slip of the tongue
from a borderline senile old man who doesn't have enough political
savvy left to hold his seat in the Senate, much less chair the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But I believe it is equally plausible that the Helms remark was
deliberate, finely timed, and well calculated. If I remember
correctly, the Helms 'bodyguard' quote was made to a reporter by
the name of John Rosen at the Raleigh News and Observer. The
Raleigh News and Observer, (aka The Nuisance and Disturber) is
well known for it's explicit Democratic Party leanings. It makes
no pretense of being objective when it comes to political
commentary. And John Rosen is not some fly-by-night reporter. He
is one of the N&O's key political reporters. So when Helms was
giving the interview to John Rosen in which he made his comments,
he knew the biases of his interviewers. It's not like this
comment was made in a back room at a GOP strategy meeting. He
made it directly to a well-known reporter of a newspaper with well
known biases. So, it's difficult for me to believe that the
comment was an accident. I believe it was intentional. In fact,
I'll go out on a limb and claim that the Helms' 'bodyguard' quote
was a de facto announcement that he is running for reelection
(whenever that is). My reasoning goes like this:
First, Helms is getting on up there in years so running a
fast-paced, whirlwind campaign is going to be difficult for him.
Besides that, Helms is, to put it kindly, not the most telegenic
politician that ever walked the face of the earth. So traditional
campaigning is not a very good option for him.
Second, whether it's true or not, Helms perceives that the media
is biased against him simply because he is a conservative
Republican. Certainly that is my perception also. But even if
it's not true, that's Helm's _perception_. So he can't count on
the press glorifying his image to get him reelected.
Third, like any politician, he has to get a rapport going with his
constituents. He has to get people talking about him. His name
has to be on the tip of everyone's tongue. So he absolutely has
to get press coverage.
So Helms does something that is guaranteed to inflame the
(presumably) biased media yet develop a rapport with his
constituents, or at least to get his name firmly ingrained in
their brain. The bodyguard quote was, in my opinion, an attempt
at doing this.
Now, believe it or not, most North Carolinians are not backwater
rednecks. Even folks from the most rural counties are decent,
civilized folks. (The redneck is a dying breed deserving federal
endangered species protection.) So almost everyone in North
Carolina will, publicly, speak unfavorably of Helm's remark. But,
North Carolina _is_ an extremely conservative state and President
Clinton, if the recent elections are to be believed, is very
unpopular in this state. (If memory serves, North Carolina is one
of the few states that went to Bush in the '92 elections.) So
even if most folks will speak publicly against the propriety of
Helms' remark, I believe Helms has earned himself a favorable
place in the hearts and minds of many, many North Carolinians as
'the man who told off President Clinton.' Thanks of course to the
national coverage his remarks have gotten. Helms is playing the
press like a musical instrument and making beautiful music to the
ears of lots of people.
All this is conjecture of course. But Helms has done this sort of
thing before. Remember Helms campaign against Mapplethorpe and
the NEA? Here again was an issue that was guaranteed to inflame
the media and generate endless coverage of Helms and yet it was
also an issue that was certain to be well received by his
conservative constituents. The national and local media coverage
was something like, "How in the world could Helms advocate
abolishing the NEA? How dare Helms suggest we impose moral
standards on art?" And it was endless. Helms was in the news for
months. But the message received by his constituents was the
Helms was the man who wants to put an end to blasphemous, immoral
art funded with the tax dollars of good, honest, hard working
people.
Love him or hate him, I don't believe you can write Helms off as a
senile old man. I believe he is a shrewd politician that knows
exactly what he is doing.
=============================
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost;
that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under
them." --Henry David Thoreau
==============================================
SEVEN SOFTWARE COMPANIES ADDED TO "WATCH LIST"
The following story has been circulating around the internet
New York, NJ, Sept. 24 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of
Software (PETS) announced today that seven more software companies
have been added to the group's "watch list" of companies that
regularly practice software testing.
"There is no need for software to be mistreated in this way so
that companies like these can market new products," said Ken
Granola, spokesperson for PETS. "Alternative methods of testing
these products is available."
According to PETS, these companies force software to undergo
lengthy and arduous tests, often without rest for hours or days at
a time. Employees are assigned to "break" the software by any
means necessary, and inside sources report that they often joke
about "torturing" the software.
"It's no joke," said Granola. "Innocent programs, from the day
they are compiled, are cooped up in tiny rooms and 'crashed' for
hours on end. They spend their whole lives on dirty,
ill-maintained computers, and are unceremoniously deleted when
they're not needed anymore."
Granola said the software is kept in unsanitary conditions and is
infested with bugs. "We know alternatives to this horror exist,"
he said, citing industry giant Microsoft Corp. as a company that
has become extremely successful without resorting to software
testing.
=================================
"When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards
and examine ourselves." --Confucius
======================
Where Are Your Papers?
Over the past year the state of North Carolina has been promoting
a high profile campaign called "Click It or Ticket". The police
set up roadblocks and stop all cars passing the checkpoint. You
have to produce identification, prove that your car is insured and
you have to answer the police officer's questions about where
you've been, what you were doing, and where you are going. And
oh, by the way, if you aren't wearing your seatbelt, you
immediately are ticketed for a $25 fine.
I know because I have been stopped twice at these checkpoints.
Now the state is starting up a follow on program called "Booze It
and Lose It" which is basically the same thing. Random
checkpoints where you have to produce identification, prove that
your car is insured, and answer the officers' questions about
where you've been and where you are going. And, by the way, if
you show any signs of having been drinking, they grill you further
and possibly charge you with DWI.
There are two interesting things about these programs. First, the
police have apprehended literally thousands of people wanted for
various reasons. It's unclear to me just how they do this and the
press has not given any details. But it appears to me that when
they stop you, they check their computer systems to see if there
are any outstanding warrants for you. The two times I was
stopped, I didn't actually see this happening. But this past week
I received the license plate renewal form for my car. In the
envelope was a notice that the NC Division of Motor Vehicles
requires people to supply their driver's license number when they
register their car, if they don't have it already. And sure
enough, there on my renewal form was my driver's license number.
I strongly suspect that while I was being interviewed by the
trooper, someone was looking up my license plate number, getting
my driver's license number and looking up my records in their
computers to see if there were any warrants for my arrest.
Regardless of how they do it, there are weekly press reports about
how many tens of thousands of people the police have caught, from
deadbeat dads who owe child support to people who have had their
license revoked, to wanted criminals.
The second interesting thing about these programs is how amazingly
popular they are. The press have been reporting these programs as
runaway successes. Everyone they interview on TV, from the
Governor down to the average Joe on the street says how great they
think these programs are. I have yet to see a single newspaper
story or TV news story that questioned the authority of the police
much less the propriety of these programs. And this is just the
sort of thing we need to be on the defense against. As James
Madison put it in 1788: "I believe there are more instances of
the abridgement of thefreedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations."
I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the street. But it seems to
me that a program could be designed to crack down on drunk driving
without turning North Carolina into a police state.
=============================
Trans-Theological Bagel Haiku
Roundness surrounding
nothingness in the center.
It's the staff of Life.
=======================
History Is Up For Grabs
In terms of their ability to do harm, I used to think that
politician ranked at the top of the "most dangerous professions"
list. But I now think that historians, if they don't top the
list, rank a very close second. I came to this conclusion after
reading Pat Hartman's excellent 'zine, Salon. Issue number 22,
almost all 148 pages of it, is dedicated to exploring the topic of
Holocaust Revisionism.
Just mention the words "Holocaust Revisionist" and you will
immediately find out exactly who does and does not support the
First Amendment. I personally know someone who was banned from
participating in a "read in" during banned book week because he
insisted on reading a revisionist book about the Holocaust. It
was fine if he wanted to read a "safe" book that people had tried
to ban, like Huckleberry Finn or Tropic of Cancer. But when it
came to really subversive literature, they didn't want any part of
it. As Pat Hartman puts it in the opening paragraph of Salon: "A
characteristic of primitive societies is the existence of
extensive taboos: things which are never voiced, or which are
articulated only in very special circumstances of revelation,
initiation, and so on. After some years of refreshing candor, the
present-day world has gone retro, and humankind has managed to
create a whole new realm of Things Which Must Not Be Spoken Of."
It's obvious that Pat has done a large amount of secondary
research on this issue and she does an admirable job of covering
the breadth of the whole debate. Pat covers both sides of the
debate and gives you the gist of who all the key players are and
their backgrounds. Pat summarizes the points and counterpoints
each side makes and points you to further reading on most topics.
It won't make you an expert on Holocaust Revisionism, but it's a
great place to start. You will be able to hold up your end of a
conversation when confronted by a Holocaust Revisionist.
So are the Holocaust Revisionists' arguments convincing? Did Pat
come away from her research/oddesy with a different view than when
she started. Not really. On the whole, Pat finds the
Revisionists' arguments to be "pretty thin".
But not entirely transparent either. Some of the assertions made
by the revisionists have come to be accepted over time and the
official keepers of the Holocaust history have even updated their
official estimates of the numbers of people killed during the
Holocaust. And the Holocaust history keepers aren't entirely
without fault either. Pat Hartman does a credible job of showing
how Holocaust historians have tried to thwart investigation and
criticism of the official party line. Having a reference work
that pretty much covers the entire scope of the Holocaust Revision
debate is well worth the $5.00 price on that issue of Salon. But
the true value of Pat Hartman's investigation into Holocaust
Revisionism doesn't lie in the completeness of her survey. It's a
stunning demonstration of just how much our view of history
depends on the historians writing it. And that's why historians
are so dangerous. If you are interested in getting Salon, the
price is $5.00 and Salon's address is 305 W. Magnolia - Ste 386,
Fort Collins Colorado, 80521. The Holocaust Revision issue is
Number 22.
===========================
"As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings
happy death." --Leonardo Da Vinci
==================================================================
Stuck In Traffic is a bi-monthly e-zine edited by, and mostly
written by Calvin Stacy Powers. Copyrights of individual articles
are held by their respective authors. All unsigned work is
authored by Calvin Stacy Powers, who holds all copyrights.
Permission is granted to redistribute Stuck In Traffic provided
that it is redistributed in its entirety (including this copyright
notice), and that no fee is charged. For commercial
redistribution rights, or for permission to reprint/redistribute
individual articles contact Calvin Stacy Powers at
powers@rdu007.pdial.interpath.net.
If you would like to receive Stuck In Traffic free by e-mail
subscription send e-mail to the address listed above.