The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — far from dropping — will have to go up if they go anywhere.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

Just three years ago, that trust fund enjoyed a surplus of $10 billion. Even without a tax freeze, the fund is projected to finish 2009 with a deficit of $3 billion. That that could grow as Americans drive less and buy less gas because of higher pump prices.

The consequence is that only about $27 billion in federal money will be available next year to states and local governments for new infrastructure investment even though the current highway act calls for spending $41 billion a year. For many, the solution is to raise rather than suspend or cut federal fuel taxes, which haven’t changed since 1993.

The Transportation Construction Coalition, a group of industry companies and unions, said that if Congress does not do something about the shortfall, states will lose about one-third of their road and bridge money in the budget year starting Oct. 1. That would put 485,000 more jobs at risk.

That message carried the day this summer. But now Congress has the bigger task of dealing with the short-term deficit crisis in the fund and coming up with a new spending plan, including revisiting the gas tax issue, when the current six-year, $286 billion highway-transit act expires in September 2009.

My advice is to vote against ever single incumbent every election day until they are all gone. All of them. 9% approval rating? It will be 4% Monday if they run a poll after this one. You’re fired.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/19/2008 at 04:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Government •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Right of households to rubbish bin collection by councils to be abolished

THIS IS THE ANTI-SOCIAL ACT OF A LEFT WING LABOR GOVT. 
I can’t imagine the town or city councils telling homeowners to drop dead BUT ...
I suppose that they could tell homeowners to contract out for trash pick up the same way we did in California.
Thing is tho, in our particular situation, the household is currently paying out £1700 a year to the city council.  We have no street lights or sidewalks on this street.  I’m not at all certain what the payments do cover, outside trash pick ups.  They did provide rat control (outside the house fortunately) two years in a row.  That was interesting btw.  Someone came out and put poison down this hole and spent the time to come back for something like three weeks treating the area.  They could have done it in one day with gas.  But they aren’t allowed to use it here.  ??  It’s thought they come from the field across the road which is a farm and grows rape seed, among other things.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 11:30AM BST 19/07/2008

The legal right of all householders to have their bins emptied by their local council is to be abolished, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The government is to give councils the power to refuse to collect rubbish if home owners fail to abide by draconian rules which may include leaving bins in the right place, sticking to weight restrictions and following strict recycling policies.

Labour is quietly pushing the new rules through parliament without any debate after it proposed amendments to a 130-year-old law which has, until now, made it a statutory duty of local authorities to collect household waste.

There are fears that the changes to the law will lead to large increases in fly-tipping, bonfires of noxious substances and rat infestations around uncollected waste. Despite this, there will no reduction in council tax for home owners.

The Conservatives described the plans as “disgraceful”, adding that bin men will now be able to use “any excuse not to empty your bin”.

Many Labour MPs fear the changes will add to a growing backlash against the government which has seen them slump in the polls.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP who sits on the parliamentary committee which is scrutinising the changes, said: “It is a British way of life to have your bins emptied once a week. Taking that away is like losing your birthright.”

Phil Woolas, the environment minister, quietly added an amendment to section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 earlier this month which now states: “A waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under this section.”

Town halls will be free to set their own rules on what constitutes a “contravention” of waste collection policies.

Councils could refuse to empty bins that are too far from a curb, are not placed directly outside a gate or are put out on the street too early.

The proposed changes amount to a reversal of the basic right of all households to have their rubbish collected, which was enshrined in law by the Public Health Act 1875.

The measures have already passed through two parts of a three-stage scrutiny process in parliament and will become law later this year if they are approved by the standing committee on climate change, which is dominated by Labour MPs.

It comes at a time when the government is already under fire over controversial fortnightly rubbish collections, which affect almost 20 million people, and “pay as you throw” schemes being trialled by some councils, in which bins are weighed and penalties imposed on people whose rubbish exceeds set limits.

Eric Pickles, the shadow local government secretary, said: “It is disgraceful that these new laws are being rushed through Parliament with no debate and no vote.

“People genuinely want to improve recycling and go green, but Labour’s policy of bin cuts and bin taxes will fuel fly-tipping, backyard burning and harm public health.

“These changes will fuel the public backlash at the Government’s rubbish policy. Under Gordon Brown, local residents are paying exorbitant levels of council tax, but are failing to get decent public services in return.”

Currently councils must collect rubbish from home owners unless it breaches one of two policies – “a closed lid” policy where the bin is not shut properly or a “side waste” policy meaning bin bags cannot be left alongside wheelie bins.

Whitehall sources said that the change in the law was proposed by central government and was not requested by councils.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “It is in no way in councils’ interests to use tactics that would alienate local people. It would be wholly counterproductive for town halls to approach this issue in a heavy-handed way that could put people off dealing with their rubbish responsibly.

“Councils always provide people with straightforward information about what to do with their rubbish and work with residents to reduce the amount they produce and to encourage them to recycle.

“Britain is the dustbin of Europe, throwing away more per household than any other country in the EU. We have to change radically the way that we get rid of our rubbish and the days of tipping everything into a hole in the ground are long gone.”

Joan Ruddock, the minister for climate change, biodiversity and waste, said: “There is still a general duty to collect rubbish free from households. All that has changed is that when a household is given a formal notice, if they don’t abide by it then the council no longer has a duty to collect.”

(Free?  What Free?  Isn’t that one of the things taxes pay for? Or are taxes only paid to support the lifestyles of politicians? oh. right. forgot.  )

Government targets are for 40 per cent of household waste to be recycled by 2010, rising to 50 per cent by 2020. Policy papers show that officials want to limit rubbish collections in a bid “to compel householders to reduce their waste”.

Last month ministers also revealed that householders will face fines of £50 for failing to recycle their rubbish.

Councils will refuse to collect rubbish if homeowners break recycling rules

http://tinyurl.com/6hgcfg

Posted by Drew458     on 07/19/2008 at 09:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Taxes • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - July 02, 2008

SOME ANGRY BRIT POLITICS IN THE HOUSE.  (doesn’t matter if you don’t know what’s going on)

I’m always fascinated by this stuff.  There’s as much acting here as there is back home in senate and congress, except these folks sound better and they’re usually better actors.  And as a rule, they don’t pussy-foot around things unless they’re referring to each other as “my honorable friend,” when they’re talking about someone they can’t stand the sight of.

http://tinyurl.com/5mc93f

Posted by Drew458     on 07/02/2008 at 02:10 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Politics • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 03, 2008

All your air are belong to us

Remember the Fairness Doctrine? The one that the libtards in and out of Washington want to resurrect? The theory behind the Fairness Doctrine is:

radio stations could be regulated in this way due to the limited spectrum of the public airwaves.

It was, in other words, a government-created scarcity that justified government regulation. Much like the government-created gasoline scarcities under Nixon and Carter.

Now a whacko Goremon named Mary Wood is asserting that the air is held in trust by the government.

University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood is tired of waiting for government officials to take action on global warming. So she’s devised a new legal tool to hurry them up.

Drawing on her background in both natural resources and property law, Wood has developed a theory that claims the atmosphere is an asset that belongs to all but is held in trust by the government. The government has a legal obligation to protect that trust from harm, she argues, just as financial managers have a legal obligation to protect the monetary assets in their care.

I’m sure that BMEWS readers have figured where this is going…

“The main problem with climate is that no government is taking responsibility for it and our government is sitting idle while this catastrophe is unfolding,” Wood said.

“There’s no other body of law that requires the government to act. But a trustee has to act to protect the body of the trust.”

Yep. And the laws are already on the books. No need to debate!

From theory to practice

Greg Costello is one of the public interest attorneys evaluating Wood’s proposal as the basis for potential lawsuits. He thinks it could be a successful legal strategy because it’s grounded in a widely accepted principle of common law.

“Public trust doctrine is a doctrine everybody learns in law school. It goes back to Roman times,” said Costello, executive director of the Eugene-based Western Environmental Law Center.

“It’s a theory that seems well-suited and perhaps ideal when you’re talking about who owns the atmosphere.”

Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

HT: Neal’s Nuze

cross-posted at my blog Something’s Rotten

Posted by Christopher     on 06/03/2008 at 10:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Colleges-Professors • Government • Insanity • Lawyers • Liberals • Nanny State • Outrageous • Scary Stuff • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - June 01, 2008

Tag! You’re It!

A week in the life of an Embassy Duty Officer and his poor family.

Yes, our life in the diplomatic corps is glamorous and unexpected and lively, but it is not all fun all the time. One of the requirements of Kenny’s job is that every once in awhile - so far on 2 3-day weekends, lucky us - he must act as the Embassy Duty Officer. This means that on Wednesday afternoon before he leaves the office he is given a very large, black bag full of reference materials and phone numbers and a cell phone that he must carry on his person at all times until the following Wednesday when he passes the baton to the next victim. The purpose of the duty officer is to make sure the US Embassy in Lima (actually every Embassy in the world) has 24 hour 7 day a week coverage so that Joe Citizen can speak to someone live in the event of a catastrophe (i.e. lost passport, detention by foreign government, accident, arrest etc.). Translation: if the planets align just so, the duty officer and family will likely find themselves embroiled in a fare amount of insanity and interruption over the course of the week, and especially the weekend. Kenny was duty officer over Memorial Day weekend and, sadly for us the cosmos was feeling vengeful and directed its’ ire at us.

I thought my Memorial Day weekend was lousy. Jeesh…

The good news for Joe Citizen is no ‘Press 1 for English, Press 2 for...’, wait, this was Peru. Maybe the whole thing happened in Spanish.

Posted by Christopher     on 06/01/2008 at 05:32 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • International •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 25, 2008

A liberal tells the truth

So, ‘this liberal’ wants to take over the oil companies? At least she was honest: she identified herself as a ‘liberal’ (semantically equivalent to ‘thief’).

I issue the same challenge to Maxine Waters: if you did nationalize the oil companies, can YOU guarantee that the price would go down?

Posted by Christopher     on 05/25/2008 at 02:42 PM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats • Government • Insanity • Liberals • Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 22, 2008

This is what you get when lawyers run the government

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.

The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation.

Are they out of their ever loving minds? How terminally stupid can you be and not fall over dead? Yes, OPEC is nearly a monopoly. We’ve known that for 35 years. So what? Yes, they are a massive cartel that has the world by the nadgers. This is news? Of course they are fixing the prices and fixing the amounts delivered. You can’t do anything about it, other than invading their countries. That’s it.

And just how do you think “our friends the Saudis” are going to react to being sued for price gouging? How about “Ok, never mind, we’ll sell our oil to someone else.”?

This is another example of our do-nothing government wasting time and money just for appearance’s sake. It’s bad enough this utterly useless measure was even considered, yet alone worked on. But when it came down to voting, an awful lot of “Conservative” Republicans went over to the other side and supported this “We’re all victims, let’s sue somebody to make things fair bill. Hope you clods are wearing comfortable shoes in November, because it’s walking time.

The way to energy independance is two-fold. First, you move heaven and earth to maximize your own production. Second, you do whatever you can to eliminate or minimize aspects of your own economy that run on imported fuels. It isn’t that hard to figure out. Yes, it’s going to require some sacrifices. Tough. Fucking. Shit. And it might cost you some money. Too bad. And you might rail against it like a cranky 2 year old because it’s an evil Socialist Agenda Taking Away Your Rights. Well, there may be some truth in that. But one thing you can say for Socialism is that it gets things done much faster. And we need solutions. In place. Yesterday. But let’s keep things in balance too; we just might have to put up with a bit more pollution for a few years. An endangered specie or two might go bye-bye. Again, that’s just too bad. Let’s shoot for “good enough” instead of only be willing to accept perfection.

• No new private vehicles that run on gasoline should be for sale that don’t get at least 22mpg around town. RVing just became a thing of the past. Too bad. So did mongo truckasauruses. Also too bad. Better buy your 0-60 in 4 seconds hot rod now too.


• No new private vehicles that run on diesel should be for sale that don’t get at least 25mpg around town. You’ve been spoiled thinking that your desires are your needs. Playtime is over; it’s time to grow up. Think of it as a sacrifice you have to make for the national good.


• Not a watt of electricity should be generated using oil. That’s what nukes are for. Use them. Sure, give wind and solar a try. Keep the hydroelectric we have. But build 200 more nuclear generators, right now, until 90% of all electricity is generatred by “mostly green” sources. We need 5 times as much electricity as we currently have.


• No home should have oil heat. Period. We have lots and lots of natural gas and propane. And electricity. Here’s a tax credit to offset a third of the changeover cost.


• Let’s find a balance point with automobiles. Sorry, but you can’t have it all. Today’s darling vehicle, the Toyota Prius, doesn’t get any better mileage than the 1990 Geo Metro. Yes, safety is important, but today’s cars are overbuilt little tanks. I think better driver training and better traffic enforcement would more than offset “less safe” cars. We are a nation of poor drivers, isolated and innattentive to our surroundings. That stops now. While we have made cars so much more crash resistant, nowhere near enough has been done to make cars crash avoidant. And 95% of the time you can avoid the crash if your car can handle and if you are paying attention.




• Establish minimum braking standards and set the bar high. All new cars must be able to stop in 180 feet or less from 70mph, 10 times in a row.


• Establish minimum handling standards and set the bar at a decent height. All cars must be able to pass the cone test at X mph, and hold at least Z g on the skidpad.


• Establish a common bumper height range. Super lifted pickup trucks are no longer street legal. Too bad.


• Go back to the giant brake lights we had a few years back. It’s a good idea.


• The downside to the recent trend of high sided vehicles is poorer visibility. Figure out some standards: any driver has to be able to see this close around their car while driving.


• Design cost effective adjustable seats and pedals so that short people can be raised up to a proper height for better visibility, and so that they can stay a safe distance away from the steering wheel airbag and still work the foot pedals.
• Cup holders, iPod holders, TVs in the dashboard, and cellphones in your car. GONE. Pay attention to the task at hand. If you need to eat, talk, or entertain yourself, pull off the road.
• Start handing out tickets for super loud car stereos in use while driving. Hearing what’s going on is a good part of driving awareness.
• Massive nationwide campaign to stop tailgaters. Big fines. On any given morning New Jersey could garner $10,000,000 in fines for this one. Tailgating is probably responsible for a huge percentage of rear-end accidents, especially on the highway. You don’t drive NASCAR; you don’t draft on the street.




• For the millionth time: drill, drill, drill. Screw NIMBY, screw your view of the ocean, screw the polar bears and the caribou and the endangered wiggly bugs. Drill. But try to do it without spilling, m’kay?

Posted by Drew458     on 05/22/2008 at 08:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - May 20, 2008

Afghan hijacker found working at Heathrow

All together now ... Screw,,, Britannia, uh ... no. those aren’t the words. Oh damn. I know the song from somewhere.

Afghan hijacker found working at Heathrow ‘ransacked travel agency in a rage’
By Sam Greenhill
Last updated at 10:18 PM on 19th May 2008

One of the Afghans involved in the Stansted hijacking was back in court yesterday - accused of ransacking a travel agency.

During a violent argument with his landlord, Nazamuddin Mohammidy allegedly hurled a metal chair, smashed a computer and fought with staff until police arrived.

The 34-year-old was one of nine men who hijacked an airliner in Afghanistan in 2000 before landing in Britain and threatening to kill all 160 passengers unless they were granted asylum.

The gang were jailed, but cleared on appeal and freed to live comfortable lives on benefits worth £150,000 a year.

Last week, it emerged Mohammidy was working at Heathrow as a cleaner and had been given a British Airways security pass.

The latest charge of assault was unrelated to either the hijacking or the revelation of his job at Heathrow, magistrates in Ealing, West London, heard.

Mohammidy is said to have stormed into the Pamzee Airlines travel agency in West London on December 13 last year and started an argument with owner Manjit Komal.

Mohammidy rented a room above the shop and Mr Komal was his landlord. Mohammidy was complaining about the heating not working, but Mr Komal said he had infuriated the other tenants by constantly turning the temperature up to 30c (86f).

The pair came to blows and an enraged Mohammidy allegedly grappled across the counter with Mr Komal’s 20-year- old son Amardeep and threw a chair at his head.

After the fight, Amardeep had a gash to his leg needing stitches and Mohammidy was bleeding from a wound on his forehead.

Olu Phillips, prosecuting, said: ‘In the course of the struggle, there was damage to property in the shop floor.’

A computer monitor, display case and a wall were smashed causing £2,000 of damage, he said.

Mr Komal told the court: ‘He came into the shop and I saw him throw a chair at my son. The chair hit him. They were holding each other and both fell on the floor. He was hitting my son.

‘I held his arm and put my knee on him and was calling to the staff to call the police. I saw blood on the floor.’

Sarah Lewis, defending, said Mr Komal and his son attacked her client. She said Mohammidy was a man of good character who had been making a justified complaint to his landlord about the heating.

(A man of good character? Oh right. A hijacker of planes.  Threatens to kill ppl. Sure thing. Lotsa good character here)

Mohammidy denies assault and criminal damage and the trial continues. Last week, he was at the centre of what the Conservatives called a devastating breach of security by being allowed to work at Heathrow.

His job cleaning BA offices did not give him access to planes but he did have a pass for secure areas. The pass has since been taken from him.

In 2001, Mohammidy, his brothers Ali and Mohammed Safi and six other Afghans were jailed for hijacking the Boeing 727 and flying to Stansted.
But in 2003 the Court of Appeal ruled the convictions were unsafe and the men were released.

They moved into large private homes in Hounslow with their wives and children. In 2006, the gang were given ‘discretionary leave’ to remain in Britain as Afghanistan was ‘unsafe’ to return to.

http://tinyurl.com/6ycx23

Posted by Drew458     on 05/20/2008 at 08:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Terrorists •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 15, 2008

BATFE Out of Control As Usual

Of all the branches of the federal government, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has the worst reputation. Like the IRS they seem to be a law unto themselves. This is the group that once decided a piece of string was a machine gun and convicted someone because of it. They have a tough job to do, but many folks in the gun world see them as jack booted thugs. The news about the conviction of David Olofson seems to bear this out. Worse, Olofson is being utterly slandered by the media, who are doing their best to make him appear as some kind of gun crazy terrorist.

The rest of this post might get a little technical, and it’s pretty long, so if you aren’t a gun enthusiast you can stop here. Just be aware that BATFE is out of control, and has the power to muscle the court system to get whatever convictions they want. Mr. Olofson is appealing, and I hope he wins. BATFE should be disbanded, or severely curtailed at the least.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/15/2008 at 08:55 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control • Insanity •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 14, 2008

Did I miss the “Denial Of Reality” memo?

US Declares Polar Bears “Threatened”

U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the polar bear will receive protection as a “threatened” species under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation groups had petitioned the U.S. to give full “endangered” protection to the mammals — citing a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and U.S. government studies predicting a rapid decline for the bear population due to loss of habitat. The government was under federal court order to rule on the bears’ status by tomorrow.

Just in case you were wondering, here is yesterday’s picture of the sea ice, compared to the sea ice in mid January.

Lost of habitat indeed. The parts of the world where Ursus Maritimus (the old pole bar) lives are the least habitated areas on the planet. And the ice pack seems to be doing just fine. Heck, if this fellow is reporting things properly (looks that way to me) then there is actually far more ice around right this minute than is usual for this time of year, for the past 25 years!

On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record. It was also the second highest single month in the past 20 years (second only to Sept 1996).

But, but, but, if it isn’t the ice pack, or the habitat, something must be killing of the polar bears. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t get put on the Threatened List. Right? So maybe it’s from hunting? Just how few bears are left, and how many did there used to be? Well, according to Polar Bears International

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

So the P-bear population is 4 or 5 times higher than it used to be. Gee, that seems really threatening. But wait, I was wrong. (which is why you should always follow the links and read things for yourself.) Mr. Dr. Expert at that web site says this is a bogus statement, and the real truth is ... um ... well ... we don’t exactly know, and we never really did know, exactly or even roughly how many bears there are or used to be. Hey, maybe because they’re hard to see? Especially in snowstorms! But let me not knock Mr. Dr. Expert On Polar Bears. He is giving us an answer, and it’s a very scientific and wordy “we don’t know”. At least that’s honest science. For once.

So maybe people should lay off hunting the bears for a few decades, just to see what happens. It worked here in NJ with our regular bears, and now they’re damn near everywhere. I’m sure that when the P-bear population rises enough so that they start competing with California coyotes for tasty little children to snack on, then it will be time to think about “managing” their numbers.

So, let’s have a tiny bit of truth in government. Ain’t nothing wrong with the polar bear habitat. And nobody can tell if their numbers are growing or shrinking. Nope, they just got the special treatment from the evinron-mentalists because they’re cute when they’re babies.

UPDATE

HA! The thing about news blogging is that everyone else is going to jump on the same story. There are no exclusives, and nobody really cares if you get there first. So Michelle Malkin has put up her version of this story, which links over to the American Enterprise Institute. Where they say, and she quotes

At present, polar bear populations are robust and, according to native people, are considerably larger than they were in previous decades. Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bear response are equally limited.

Because of extreme limitations in data, it is essentially impossible to decide whether polar bears are endangered and whether their habitat is threatened by man-made global warming or other natural climate cycles. This is acknowledged by the experts themselves–the actual IUCN/SSC report is more broad in naming causes and more conservative about estimating their effects.

What we do know about polar bears is that, contrary to media portrayals, they are not fragile “canary in the coal mine” animals, but are robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over one hundred thousand years, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.

In discussions of whether to drill in the Arctic, one of the arguments raised by environmentalists is that this would harm the habitats of the many creatures, including polar bears, that make their homes in Alaska. If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase.

Now, I have to say that I didn’t think of that, perhaps because the news articles I heard and read said “threatened”. But it nice to see that both AEI and Ms. Malkin notice the same Global Warming tie-in I wrote about. Even sweeter is AEI’s title for their article - “Is the Polar Bear Endangered, or Just Conveniently Charismatic?” which really says exactly the same thing I did, although maybe in a little more polished manner: the darn bears got on the list because they’re cute.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/14/2008 at 02:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Climate-Weather • Government •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 08, 2008

Not Your Usual Aarrggh Pirates, part 2

Local governments in California and the United States have long had the power to declare property a public nuisance when their owners allow their land to become denizens of drugs, gangs, prostitution and gambling.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, following New York’s lead, is adding a new category: music and video piracy.

In an ordinance just adopted, the five-member board is declaring that piracy “substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county’s citizens, its businesses and its visitors.”

The regulation was crafted at the urging of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Oh hell, you wouldn’t think LA would be in bed with the MPAA now would you? Not a chance. It’s not like they own Hollywood or anything. Um, hang on ...

The county retains the right to shutter a property for up to a year for violating ordinance 13.90.010 and also gives local authorities the right to bring a civil action to “temporarily restrain, preliminarily enjoin, and/or permanently enjoin the person or persons intentionally conducting, or knowingly maintaining or permitting the public nuisance from further conducting, maintaining, or permitting such a public nuisance.”

Property owners who knowingly permit such activity can also be dinged $1,000 for each counterfeited work produced on the property.

Permanently enjoin the person conducting the nuisance from maintaining the nuisance. Yup, I’m pretty much sure that means We Get To Seize Your Property.

Fuck ‘em. Another punishment that’s waaay overboard for the crime committed. Avast there LA, else it be fair time for the oak plank two step, and a long dance with Davey Jones.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/08/2008 at 06:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Pirates, aarrgh! •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - May 02, 2008

Is New York State Now The Federal Government?

That’s a strange and seemingly stupid question to ask, but I was certain that the regulation of interstate commerce was a power/duty reserved for the feds. A few weeks ago New York passed a convoluted tax that is going to require Amazon and other complex online retailers to collect NY state sales tax for them. While quite a few states have a Use Tax which requires citizens of that state to fork over tax money for everything they buy out of state, almost no one other than my mom actually complies, because it is obviously unenforceable. New York’s new “Amazon Tax” would close this “loop hole”, and if effective, would spread overnight to every other state, and the tax advantages of buying things on the internet would soon evaporate.

What makes the Amazon Tax interesting is the convoluted thought process behind it. Amazon is not one store anymore. Amazon is a reseller; more and more of what you shop for there doesn’t come from a place called “Amazon.com”, it comes from whatever Mom & Pop happens to have the product at the price point you want. Amazon simply redirects your order to the small businesses, and takes it’s little slice for that effort. There are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of these associated businesses, all over the country. Therefore, reasons NY, some of them must be in NY. Therefore an internet sale to Amazon from a customer in NY is a sale within NY so sales tax must be collected. Thus their new law.

There is a basic logically fallacy here which I can’t quite put my finger on. Something about not extrapolating from the individual to the general? Sounds close. Just because an Amazon affiliate is in NY doesn’t mean they are ALL in NY, so making a law requiring NY sales tax to be collected at Amazon is logically incorrect. And unconstitutional, by, as we have seen with Philthydelphia’s gun laws, that doesn’t stop laws from being passed at all.

New York has some of the highest taxes in the country, if not THE highest. The recent state budget is $122 Billion, for a state with a population of 20 million. This law is expected to collect about $50 million.

‘Amazon Tax’ Lands in New York
Controversial new law shifts collection requirement to online retailers in a move that other states could follow, but legal uncertainties abound. With the passage of the hotly debated state budget last night, New York legislators approved a bill that will require many online retailers to begin collecting sales taxes on purchases shipped to the state, even if they have no operations or employees working there.
New York Governor David Paterson is widely expected to sign the measure.  The so-called “Amazon tax” closes a loophole for Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs in which Web site owners place a link to the merchant on their site and earn a commission on sales made from referrals. In lobbying for the bill, the industry group representing New York retailers had argued that the exemption from the sales-tax collection requirement gave out-of-state online retailers an unfair competitive advantage.
...
The controversial bill ends what for many New Yorkers had been tax-free online shopping, and experts predict that other states could follow suit with similar provisions. Consumers are required to report purchases they make online from out-of-state companies on their tax returns and remit a use tax, but many people are either unaware of that obligation or ignore it. Collecting those taxes from individuals has been an administrative impossibility.  New York expects the new requirement will generate about $50 million in revenue this fiscal year.
...
The tax was inspired in some ways by a 1992 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Quill v. North Dakota, the Court determined that out-of-state retailers cannot be required to collect sales tax on purchases sent to states where they did not have a physical presence. They argued that compelling merchants to adhere to the complexities of the state and local tax codes would place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

With the new law, New York is taking an aggressive stance on the Quill ruling, claiming that a retailer such as Amazon holds a physical presence in the state because it derives sales through its affiliates who live there, explained Hugh Goodwin Jr., a state and local tax attorney and partner at the global firm DLA Piper.

Amazon is suing of course. My guess is that a mere 98% of the population supports their suit.

Amazon Sues New York State to Void Sales Tax Rules
Before the ink on the bill has even dried, Amazon.com has filed a suit challenging New York State’s new law that forces online retailers to collect sales taxes on shipments to state residents.
...
The question is whether the vendors must collect those taxes on behalf of the state. Generally, only those companies that have a physical presence, such as an office or store, in the state of the purchase are required to collect the taxes.

The new law is based on a novel definition of what constitutes a presence in the state: It includes any Web site based in the state that earns a referral fee for sending customers to an online retailer. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates—from big publishers to tiny blogs—that feature links to its products.
...
The state law says that if even one of those affiliates is in New York, Amazon must collect sales tax on everything sold in the state, even if it is not sold through the affiliate. This is an extension of an existing rule that companies that employ independent agents or representatives to solicit business must collect sales taxes for the state.

Amazon’s suit challenges the constitutionality of this interpretation and seeks a declaratory judgment that it is invalid.
...
The online retailer further claimed that the new rules violate the equal protection clause of the constitution because it specifically targeted Amazon. “It was carefully crafted to increase state tax revenues by forcing Amazon to collect sales and use taxes,” the complaint says, noting that “state officials have described the statute as the ‘Amazon Tax.’ “

So there you have it. A new law, a new lawsuit. I’m sure Amazon can claim “proactive standing” as they will obviously be “injured” by this one. But that’s a side issue. Is New York overstepping it’s bounds? Does this law attempt to regulate intersate commerce through taxation? Why write such a law against Amazon - and it is against Amazon and other Big Business, because the law doesn’t apply to small companies that have less than $7400 per year worth of referral fees - when this kind of action would probably be more effective if written against the credit card companies and PayPal.

Personally I think it’s bullshit and I hope NY gets a swift boot in the ass in court. I understand it takes money to make government run, and that money has to come from taxes. But I think all Use Taxes are wrong, period. It’s my money. The state I live in already taxed me when I earned it, and they tax me again on what I spend within the state. That’s more than enought. What I spend out of the state is none of their goddammed business. They do not own my money and I can spend it how and where I please. Fuck off.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/02/2008 at 10:27 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Greed • Taxes •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner