I wish I lived in San Francisco...

... again, so I could sign this petition, and vote for it when it comes up for a vote in November.

Free money?

About a month ago, I got an envelope in the mail from the IRS, offering me a handful of free cash, an "economic stimulus" payment, free cash so I could "help the economy".

I tore it up and threw it away.

Why, you may ask?

I read a story once, called "Not Yours To Give", about how Colonel David Crockett, at the time a US Congressman from Tennessee, came to understand the true purpose and powers of the federal government. If you're not familiar with the story, PLEASE read it. It will open your eyes, and probably make the rest of this post easier to understand.

What it boils down to is this: it is not the job of the Federal Government to give money away, and I refuse to make myself complicit in the crime by accepting any of their so-called "free money".

Think about something. If you wanted to buy something, don't you need to have the money first, before you can buy it? If you want to go to the store and buy a gallon of milk, don't you need to have enough money to pay for that milk?

The same is true of Congress- if they want to SPEND money, they need to HAVE the money first.

So my question is this: Congress is spending twelve to fifteen BILLION dollars a month to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They're giving billions of dollars every year to farmers, in order to NOT grow crops on their land. They're spending money on new security systems for airports, courthouses, and other federal buildings, surveillance systems for the highways, cities, and pretty much the entire country, all in the name of "security"...

And now, on top of it all, the government is handing out free money to the people. If 200 million people get these checks, at $600 each... that's $120 BILLION DOLLARS they're just handing away to people.

Where is all this money coming from?

Taxes, you say? Use a little common sense- the government is spending several times as much money as they were ten years ago. Have your taxes gone up by the same amount? (No, in fact they're giving money back to you.) Do you really believe this extra money, these trillions of dollars every year, are coming from taxes?

Think about it from a different angle- if you want to buy something and don't have the money for it, what do you do? You may put it on a credit card, or "finance it", or some other scheme, but what it boils down to is that you borrow the money, and pay it back later, and in the meantime you get "the stuff", whatever it was you bought with the money.

The government is no different- they've been borrowing the money to pay for everything they wanted to spend it on but didn't want to raise taxes to pay for. The difference is the details.

The government has what amounts to an open line of credit, like a credit card with no limit, with a private bank called the "Federal Reserve". The US Treasury first took out a loan of one billion dollars from the Fed back in 1918, and to this day the Treasury is still paying on that same loan every month... while Congress borrows more and more money against that same loan every month.

And the money they're borrowing now, to pay for the occupation of Iraq and these "economic stimulus" checks, won't actually be paid back until 20-30 YEARS from now, when your children and grandchildren's tax payments finally catch up with it.

How does it feel, America, to know that this "economic stimulus" money is actually coming from your children and grandchildren's piggy banks?

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of taking ANYTHING from my children, or my grandchildren (who haven't even been born yet.) Which is why I won't accept, and won't even ask for, one of those "economic stimulus" checks.

In fact, I'm not comfortable with the idea of ANYBODY taking money away from my children or grandchildren. So if you've already accepted the government's "free money", don't tell me about it. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY conscionable thing you can do with that money is to put it into a trust fund, or use it to buy gold or silver, or some other investment, FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. Don't touch it yourself, just put it aside and give it to them when they're old enough to use it.

If you took their money and used it for yourself, SHAME ON YOU.

Attitude of Entitlement

I was involved in a discussion on a technical mailing list about the problems Google (and possibly millions of gmail users) would run into if Google were to make a certain change the SPF records for "gmail.com". This change would mean that anybody who uses their gmail address with a "normal" email program like Thunderbird, and who wanted to send outbound email using that program, would need to configure their email program to use Google's (currently non-existent) relay servers to send mail. (I won't go any farther into the technical points here- if you're interested, here is the message which started the thread.)

The discussion came down to how much extra load there would be on Google's support infrastructure if they were to make this change- not only because most people wouldn't understand the change or why it was necessary, but because many people would demand that Google "fix it" for them, rather than taking a few minutes to find and read the web page (which Google would certainly write) which would explain how to configure their email software correctly. Many people would have an attitude of "I already set this up once, and now YOU changed something, and it's creating extra work for me, so YOU (Google) should fix this for me."

While typing a reply about this, it occurred to me that this "attitude of entitlement" I predict on the part of Google's users, is the same "attitude of entitlement" that I've seen on the part of many ISP users whenever I've had to make a change on an ISP server- that because we (the ISP) changed something on our servers, it created a little bit of inconvenience for them (the users) and somehow we "owe them something" for our trouble... I have personally had users demand that I send a tech out to their house to make a change which involves turning on one checkbox.

I've also noticed in the past that most people have the same kind of "attitude of entitlement" toward the Federal Government (i.e. the "Gummint(tm)") as well- basically, that if something goes wrong, no matter what it is, it's the job of the Gummint(tm) to fix it.

And this is wrong.

Understanding why it's wrong inolves understanding the relationship between the Gummint(tm) and the people... or more properly, the relationship between the Federal Government and "WE THE PEOPLE".

Without going into too much detail, it boils down to this one fact: the Federal Government only exists because the Constitution says it does, and the Constitution only exists because WE THE PEOPLE decided to write it. Power doesn't flow from the Gummint(tm) to the people, power starts in the people and is given to the Gummint(tm).

Remember that our forefathers, the people who established the original colonies and decided to band together as a single nation, did everything for themselves. They didn't have a Gummint(tm) to ask for things like help with the neighbors, or an education, or a job... all they had was the skills and abilities they were born with, and large pieces of land upon which to ply their trades.

It seems to me that this "can-do" attitude, "pioneer spirit", "work ethic", whatever you want to call it- has been slowly declining as time has gone by. It's been replaced by what I see as a kind of laziness... an attitude of wanting somebody else to come along and solve their problems for them. This attitude-shift is a major part of implementing Socialism, but that's a topic for a different post sometime.

The thing is, this tendency to look for others to solve their problems, has become so in-grained in people that they have started to expect others to solve all of their problems, as if they are ENTITLED to have all their problems solved for them.

This is what I've come to refer to as the "Attitude of Entitlement". Many people seem to feel as though they are entitled to be treated a certain way, or entitled to be given certain things, and when they don't get whatever it is they think they deserve, it's okay to act like an asshole towards whoever isn't treating them in the way they think they're entitled.

So where am I going with this? Nowhere, really... just documenting a strange mental connection I made while answering an email.

Maybe this- people should stop considering themselves to be "entitled" to things, start considering how their demands affect other peoples' lives, and try to be more polite when dealing with other people?

And maybe a reminder for people who ask me questions on the Internet... unless you are PAYING me, you are not ENTITLED to an answer. If you ask a question and I choose to answer it, I am doing a SERVICE for you, because in almost every case you could do a simple Google search and find the answer for yourself. And even if not, you could always learn enough about the subject matter (usually qmail) to figure the answer out for yourself. If I choose to answer your question, I'm saving you the time and effort it would take for you to figure it out for yourself. Remember that.

Random thought...

I just noticed... the artwork behind Apple's new operating system, "Leopard", reminds me of the cover of Erasure's "Light at the End of the World" album cover. Probably just the black and purple colours and the stars...

INCREDIBLE Musical Comedy Show

I just got back from seeing "The Musical Comedians of Comedy Tour", a show put on by three stand-up comedians who use music as major portions of their acts.

Ron Feingold's act revolves around Acappella music- basically, music with no instruments. He records all of the "background stuff"- vocal percussion, "ooh-aah" sounds, backup vocals, and so forth- one track at a time, mixes it so it sounds the way he wants it, and has it on a CD that he plays on stage, so he is literally "singing his own backup vocals". He also has a bunch of very funny "normal" stand-up material, but the focus of his act really is about the music. He even managed to surprise us tonight with a new song we had never heard before. He's also one of the few professional comedians I've seen whose normal act is a "clean act"- in fact I think there's really only one bit which requires any adult language at all. I know he does a lot of corporate shows, probably for just this reason. I also know him off-stage, he is genuinely one of the nicest people you could ever want to meet.

Kier's act revolves around musical impressions- he does everybody from Sting to Springsteen to Barry White to U2... nobody is safe. With his guitar, his foot-pedal-operated sound processor, and his voice, I truly think the guy can impersonate just about any male musician out there. He lives in Tennessee and doesn't tour Florida as often as I would like, but I have seen him a few times before, and tonight he was better than ever.

Michael Mack's act starts off as if he's "just another comedian with a guitar"- the usual one-verse song parodies with enough normal stand-up material to introduce each song... except that the songs just keep getting funnier and funnier as the show goes on... and then the lights go out, and you start seeing normal songs done with flashlights pointing to his own face, along with puppets which are caricatures of the original artists- Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, the Proclaimers (you know, "I would walk five hundred miles and I would walk five hundred more", those guys) and several others which only get funnier and funnier (I won't name any more, go see his act- you won't be sorry!) Mike lives in the Tampa area, but for some reason he hasn't played Orlando much- the last time I saw him was about four years ago, back when I started going to comedy shows on a regular basis.

Then all three of them came out on stage together and held an impromptu "jam session", first playing off of each others' material and then coming together for a ten-minute montage of songs- some with slightly altered lyrics or voices, but mostly just plain jamming together... it was truly an incredible end to an awesome show.

And to top it all off, there were camera crews taping the whole thing. They plan to make a DVD of the show, as well as short promotional videos on their web sites. I don't know the details yet, but I would imagine that once the DVDs are available, you'll be able to order them from any of the comedians' web sites (although if this changes, if they do start a web site for the three-man show itself, I will add a comment with that web page address.)

Jury Service

What fun.

I just got finished performing my civic duty by serving on a jury. It was a prostitution case, it was over in less than two hours, and we found the defendant "not guilty".

I got the "you've been chosen" card in the mail about three weeks ago, and yesterday morning I went down to the Orange County Courthouse, expecting to just sit there all day and do nothing, or that I would be called to be interviewed for a jury and then not actually USED on a jury. However, I was chosen for a jury, and I took the job seriously- I listened to the testimony, and I tried to be as fair to both parties as I could while making my decision.

It was interesting to hear the questions that the state's attorney was asking during the selection process- he never came right out and asked about "jury nullification", but I could tell that he was looking for people who might be inclined to treat their jury service as a platform for making some kind of political statement.

For those who may not be familiar with the idea, Jury Nullification is the idea that a jury can refuse to find a defendant guilty, regardless of the evidence or the facts of the case, simply because they don't agree with the law itself. And regardless of what any lawyer or judge tells you, this is always something that a juror CAN do- because, as the judge explains at the end of the case, before sending the jury off to deliberate, a juror is free to believe or dis-believe any testimony or evidence as they see fit.

However, the only time I think nullification SHOULD be done is if the court itself were to try and order the jury to find a defendant guilty. This is actually the whole reason we HAVE juries in the first place- judges are responsible for applying "the letter of the law", but juries have both the freedom and the responsibility to follow their conscience- and this means that their job is not only to decide whether a person did whatever action violated the law, but whether those actions were "right or wrong". A jury, in fact, can be viewed as the "morality" of the legal system.

This is why, in the voir dire process (the interview before selecting jurors), one of the things that the lawyers and the judge try to find out is if you, as a potential juror, have any particular bias about the issues involved with the case. If a person has no bias about the issue, then in theory it should be safe for them to decide "right or wrong"... but if, for example, you believe that marijuana should be legalized, then your existing bias makes you "not the right person" to decide "right or wrong" in a drug case. In my case, I don't have any strong feelings regarding prostitution- it's not something that I agree with, but it's also not a religious issue with me (as it was for one of the other prospective jurors.) I would probably not be the best person to sit on a jury involving an alleged violation of the DMCA, however, because I feel that this particular law is a lot stronger than it needs to be- in fact I feel it's totally unnecessary, and that the copyright laws at the time were already sufficient to protect the rights of those who own copyrights, as well as the rights of people like myself who exercise their fair-use rights by "ripping" their own music CD's to listening to them on an iPod.

Of course, many courts seem to have the opinion that if a prospective juror knows what nullification is, that they will be more inclined to find a defendant "not guilty" simply for the sake of doing it... maybe as some kind of misguided attempt to "stick it to" the government or the courts. This is sad, because it tends to knock a lot of people out of jury service who would otherwise be perfectly suitable to serve on a jury, and who might actually be honored to be chosen for a jury, as I was.

Anyway.

In this particular case, the state called two witnesses- a deputy who was working undercover, driving a cargo van as part of a prostitution "sting" operation, and another deputy who was listening to the first deputy's hidden microphone. The defense didn't call any witnesses at all, they simply cross-examined the two deputies. And while it may seem unusual that the defense didn't call any witnesses at all, the only people who were there were the law enforcement officers involved, and the defendant herself- and the Fifth Amendment states that nobody can be forced to testify in a case against themselves, and that if a person chooses not to testify against themselves, it wouldn't be fair for a juror (or anybody else) to hold that decision against them in any way.

According to the first deputy, he pulled his vehicle over to the curb, and the defendant got into the van without invitation and immediately asked if he was a cop. He said no. (If you've ever seen on TV or in movies that they are legally required to admit to being law enforcement officers if they are asked, remember that you're watching a TV show or a movie, and not the real thing.) She then told him to touch her a few times, in various parts of her body, to "prove" he wasn't a cop. He did so. She then asked him what he wanted. He named two acts, and offered $70. She said "alright", and told him to drive to a location a few blocks away. She then said she wanted to go into the house to "do it", but he said he wanted to do it right there in the van.

Somewhere along the line, his cell phone rang- it was the second deputy, who told him that the wireless microphone wasn't working. The first deputy answered with a code phrase which meant "come and arrest this person", and according to the first deputy, when they stopped at the corner, a separate team of uniformed officers took her out of the van and arrested her.

HOWEVER. According to the second deputy's description of events, the woman had gotten out of the van and gone into and out of a house at the corner a few times. He also admitted that he didn't see the woman after she got into the first deputy's van, and mentioned that there was a third deputy who was better positioned to have seen the whole process.

The state never called this third deputy to testify at all. They also didn't have any kind of physical evidence at all. The equipment needed for video recording would obviously have tipped off the subjects, so that's understandable- but the second deputy, who normally would have been listening to the wireless microphone worn by the first deputy, explained that there was no recorder attached to the receiver, so even if the wireless microphone HAD been working correctly, there would have been no recording. And the fact that the two deputies' testimony contradicted each other, opened the door to there being "reasonable doubt" as to the veracity of their stories.

I'll be honest, I'm about 90% sure that the defendant agreed to perform these acts with the first deputy. However, the sheriff's department's lack of even TRYING to gather evidence (not even something as simple as an audio recorder) and the state's attorney's office mis-handling of the case by not calling this third deputy as a witness, allowed there to be enough doubt in my mind that I wasn't 100% sure- and as both attorneys and the judge were very clear about expressing, both during the selection process and before the trial itself, the whole idea of "reasonable doubt" means that the defendant has a "presumption of innocence", and if I'm not 100% sure, my duty is to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt by finding them "not guilty".

It's strange... again I'm about 90% sure that I just let a guilty woman go free. However, I still feel good about it, because the other jurors and I weren't 100% sure- so she gets the benefit of the doubt. However, even though she's free right now, she should count herself lucky- because she did get off on a technicality.

If I can offer a few suggestions to the various parties involved...

To the Orange County Sheriff's Departement. (1) The next time you guys run a prostitution sting operation, put a tape recorder in the pickup vehicle, with a microphone that picks up voices but filters out engine noise and vibrations. With all the money you guys are getting from our taxes, you can afford it. Busting a prostitute and then letting her walk because you didn't have enough evidence is a waste of time and money. (2) Before a deputy goes to court to testify, have them review their original reports, so that inconsistencies like "she stayed in the van" versus "she got out of the car and went into the house a few times" don't show up on the stand, unless they are actually part of the original reports. (In this case, the original reports were never entered as evidence so we never got to see them.) (3) Tell your deputies, when they go to testify in court, don't look so cocky about being there- one of the other jurors noticed that both deputies seemed to "know they were gonna win" and were treating the case as "a joke, or a formality", and this juror voted "not guilty" on those grounds alone.

To the defense lawyer, who I suspect was working for the public defenders' office, even though we were never told as much. One suggestion. Practice. Your questioning of the witnesses could have been a lot better than it was. It was good that you pointed out the inconsistency in the two deputies' testimony during your final statement, most of the jurors didn't catch that at the time it happened... but we could tell you were struggling, especially during your closing argument. The case resulted in a "not guilty" verdict, but the truth is that you didn't WIN the case so much as these two deputies (especially the second one) LOST the case for you.

And to the defendant, if she ever reads this... Be careful. Realize that you got lucky this time- most of us were sure that you did intend to follow through with the services being offered, and if the state hadn't screwed up the case so badly, you would probably be in jail right now.

Interesting article.

I just came across a rather interesting article. Michael Tiemann is one of the "founding fathers" of the Open Source Software (OSS) movement. He wrote the GNU C++ compiler, worked on the gcc compiler and gdb debuggers, and started Cygnus Solutions, one of the first companies in the world devoted to supporting OSS.

While looking up a link for the term "Open Source" I came across one of his blog articles, called "What I Learned from the Libertarians". Very interesting, it explains a lot of the similarities between what most OSS advocates think and what most libertarians think.