A week ago, Sabrina and I had our car break down. Something is wrong with the transmission. We're having a (hopefully) trustworthy mechanic look at it this week. Unfortunately, since we own one car, and we have one car in the shop, we have zero cars right now (it's the sort of math we'll be teaching Adie soon). Fortunately a kind in-law has lent us a car for a few days till we get ours back. It has led us to begin the search for a new vehicle. New meaning new to us, not 2009 model year.
We've wrestled with the questions of how soon do we actually want to have a larger vehicle? Do we really need a second car right now? Are we financially better off to wait? We know (or so Sabrina tells me) that we're going to want 2 cars when we move to Arizona.
We're considering purchasing a friend's vehicle as we trust that they've taken care of it (single owner) and it's still relatively new. We were looking at the cost to put it into our name and came across information that I was surprised by. The government gets to charge sales tax on the private sales of cars. They will do so when you register the vehicle (if you purchase from a private party). For some reason I'm really just fine with the government charging sales tax on new items I buy, but after sales tax has already been charged on an item, it seems like you shouldn't have to pay it again. Maybe I'm out of line, and I admittedly don't have a good argument why I shouldn't have to (other than someone already paid sales tax on it once), but why should the government get to charge sales tax on something lots and lots of times? Or should they?
On a related note, we will almost assuredly be purchasing a car in Utah and not in Arizona. For as much as I complain about the high prices around here, after running several vehicle models through a search on Cars.com, it appears that you can get a newer car, with less miles in Utah than you can in Tucson, and even Phoenix.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The right to keep and bear arms
Come on guys. Admit it. You've missed our political rants. As a disclaimer, most of my information has been collected from several sources, including Wikipedia, The Boston Globe, the LA Times, and www.disastercenter.com/crime/
The US Supreme Court is currently deciding whether or not a hand gun ban in Washington DC is legal. This is a fascinating case because the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court has a chance to rule on individual rights, rule on the government's ability to limit them (preferably reasonably), and lay some smack down on indignant law makers who believe that their situations allow them to ignore the Constitution.
The Mayor of DC said:
"This is a public safety case. We have long had a law in the District of Columbia that hand guns are banned in the city. Thirty years ago, as is the case today, hand guns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia; everything from robberies to homicide to rape. The fact that we have had a hand gun ban has significantly curtailed the amount of violent crime in the city as is evidenced by the fact that violent crime has significantly went down since the law was enacted. As mayor of the District of Columbia, I can attest that a majority of the residences of this city enthusiastically support the law that the council passed in the 70s, and want it to continue in order that crime continues to go down."
I have a couple of points I wish to make.
1) This is a case about the legality of the law DC passed, not about whether or not we think Washington DC needs to be a safer place.
2) So, if you have a hand gun ban, and hand guns still make up a disproportionate number of crimes just like thirty years ago, you think the law is working? So the criminals still have guns, but regular people don't anymore...
3) Oh wait though, we know that the law is working because violent crime is down significantly since it was enacted. I love when people confuse correlation and causation. We enacted this law and 30 years later, there is less reported violent crime. Just in case anyone is wondering, in 1976 (the year this law was enacted) there were 10,399 violent crimes. In 2006, there were 8,772 violent crimes. Sounds like it's working, right? Well, let's delve a little deeper. In 1976, there were 702,000 residents of Washington DC. In 2006 there were 581,530 residents. Which means, per capita, there were about 2% more violent crimes in 2006 than in 1976. Numbers don't lie, right? No, they just tell you what you want them to. Also, if you want an interesting perspective on why violent crime decreased (it hit its peak in the 90s in DC, 20 years after banning hand guns) read Freakonomics.
4) The DC Police Chief Cathy Lenier also made comments. She made sure to point out that handguns aren't completely banned. Police can have them. Retired police, federal law enforcement and security agencies too. So, there isn't a complete hand gun ban. Whew, I feel safer knowing that the government has guns. The criminals too.
4) Lots of people wanting something that's not legal doesn't make it legal. If they don't like it, change the Constitution. We have the mechanism to change the Constitution for a reason.
Please note, I do not own a gun. I don't know that I'll ever own a gun. I do not believe that people should have access to whatever guns they want and I think that mentally deranged people, violent criminals, and children should not have access to guns. I do believe that people need to respect the Constitution. We have rights which were thought out by far more intelligent (and dare I say, inspired) men than currently run our government. Let's not blow it.
The US Supreme Court is currently deciding whether or not a hand gun ban in Washington DC is legal. This is a fascinating case because the Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court has a chance to rule on individual rights, rule on the government's ability to limit them (preferably reasonably), and lay some smack down on indignant law makers who believe that their situations allow them to ignore the Constitution.
The Mayor of DC said:
"This is a public safety case. We have long had a law in the District of Columbia that hand guns are banned in the city. Thirty years ago, as is the case today, hand guns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia; everything from robberies to homicide to rape. The fact that we have had a hand gun ban has significantly curtailed the amount of violent crime in the city as is evidenced by the fact that violent crime has significantly went down since the law was enacted. As mayor of the District of Columbia, I can attest that a majority of the residences of this city enthusiastically support the law that the council passed in the 70s, and want it to continue in order that crime continues to go down."
I have a couple of points I wish to make.
1) This is a case about the legality of the law DC passed, not about whether or not we think Washington DC needs to be a safer place.
2) So, if you have a hand gun ban, and hand guns still make up a disproportionate number of crimes just like thirty years ago, you think the law is working? So the criminals still have guns, but regular people don't anymore...
3) Oh wait though, we know that the law is working because violent crime is down significantly since it was enacted. I love when people confuse correlation and causation. We enacted this law and 30 years later, there is less reported violent crime. Just in case anyone is wondering, in 1976 (the year this law was enacted) there were 10,399 violent crimes. In 2006, there were 8,772 violent crimes. Sounds like it's working, right? Well, let's delve a little deeper. In 1976, there were 702,000 residents of Washington DC. In 2006 there were 581,530 residents. Which means, per capita, there were about 2% more violent crimes in 2006 than in 1976. Numbers don't lie, right? No, they just tell you what you want them to. Also, if you want an interesting perspective on why violent crime decreased (it hit its peak in the 90s in DC, 20 years after banning hand guns) read Freakonomics.
4) The DC Police Chief Cathy Lenier also made comments. She made sure to point out that handguns aren't completely banned. Police can have them. Retired police, federal law enforcement and security agencies too. So, there isn't a complete hand gun ban. Whew, I feel safer knowing that the government has guns. The criminals too.
4) Lots of people wanting something that's not legal doesn't make it legal. If they don't like it, change the Constitution. We have the mechanism to change the Constitution for a reason.
Please note, I do not own a gun. I don't know that I'll ever own a gun. I do not believe that people should have access to whatever guns they want and I think that mentally deranged people, violent criminals, and children should not have access to guns. I do believe that people need to respect the Constitution. We have rights which were thought out by far more intelligent (and dare I say, inspired) men than currently run our government. Let's not blow it.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Digital Music Rights Rant II
For all my talk of not expressing my opinions, I probably shouldn't have started, because now I feel compelled to follow it up with more opinion. Two opinions today, both of them having to do with a bill in Congress.
First:
The government wants to filter your internet. If anyone believes this is a good idea, I have a book you should read. It's called "1984" by George Orwell. It's starting with filtering for movies. But we've already seen that our government can't be trusted, as evidenced by the illegal wiretapping which the government is now, retroactively, trying to legalize. Whoever controls the information, rules. If our government starts by trying to filter certain types of content, who's to say that they can't interrupt or even replace content through filtering. Really, if you support government instituted filtering, go have your head examined.
Second:
For once, I agree with a portion of the government, not for the same reasons, but hey, we're aligned, sort of. The DOJ is opposing the passing of a bill that would create a position some are calling a "copyright czar". A position overseeing IP (intellectual property) enforcement which reports to the White House. They don't like people messing with their internal operating structure. I'm fine with them not wanting the bill because it makes their jobs more difficult. I don't like the bill because it's rediculous legislation which, if passed, only continues to illustrate how many politicians are on the payroll of the RIAA and MPAA. Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel for NBC Universal and chairman of the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy said, that IP issues tend to "fall down the 'to-do' list". Well, shoot. I'm sorry mister. I'm sorry. I didn't know that IP issues were the most important thing in this country. I'm actually quite pleased he feels that way. It is my opinion that most, if not all people really don't know what technology will be doing for us in 10 years. Our laws are being written by politicians who likewise are unable to imagine the possibilities and direction that technology will take our society. We are currently being pressured by industries to implement laws to deal with last years problems, stifle innovation by making the next great thing (youtube, etc.) more susceptible to lawsuits, and the penalties of which are exorbitant and totally out of whack with reality (the latest bill would allow you to be fined $1.5 million for you or your children sharing a single CD!).
This is my plea for people to be less apathetic about the laws that are being written in our society. The industries which are pressuring government now are far different than the oil companies, corn industries, and railroad barons which have influenced the government in the past. You can have a major update to an operating system (Ubuntu) in the time it takes to grow a crop of corn, or a new internet buzzword (google) in less time than it takes to drill a well and setup a refinery. The lives of everyone, including yours and mine, are being shaped by special interests groups who don't understand and really, can't image, the possibilities which lie before us. We live in a time which has greater potential for good, and for bad, than ever before. While pirating isn't the answer, neither is the response of the RIAA and MPAA (though to be fair, they're not the only groups who are pushing for bad IP legislation). Anyway, enough ranting for a day. Tune in again soon for the next session of my rants.
First:
The government wants to filter your internet. If anyone believes this is a good idea, I have a book you should read. It's called "1984" by George Orwell. It's starting with filtering for movies. But we've already seen that our government can't be trusted, as evidenced by the illegal wiretapping which the government is now, retroactively, trying to legalize. Whoever controls the information, rules. If our government starts by trying to filter certain types of content, who's to say that they can't interrupt or even replace content through filtering. Really, if you support government instituted filtering, go have your head examined.
Second:
For once, I agree with a portion of the government, not for the same reasons, but hey, we're aligned, sort of. The DOJ is opposing the passing of a bill that would create a position some are calling a "copyright czar". A position overseeing IP (intellectual property) enforcement which reports to the White House. They don't like people messing with their internal operating structure. I'm fine with them not wanting the bill because it makes their jobs more difficult. I don't like the bill because it's rediculous legislation which, if passed, only continues to illustrate how many politicians are on the payroll of the RIAA and MPAA. Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel for NBC Universal and chairman of the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy said, that IP issues tend to "fall down the 'to-do' list". Well, shoot. I'm sorry mister. I'm sorry. I didn't know that IP issues were the most important thing in this country. I'm actually quite pleased he feels that way. It is my opinion that most, if not all people really don't know what technology will be doing for us in 10 years. Our laws are being written by politicians who likewise are unable to imagine the possibilities and direction that technology will take our society. We are currently being pressured by industries to implement laws to deal with last years problems, stifle innovation by making the next great thing (youtube, etc.) more susceptible to lawsuits, and the penalties of which are exorbitant and totally out of whack with reality (the latest bill would allow you to be fined $1.5 million for you or your children sharing a single CD!).
This is my plea for people to be less apathetic about the laws that are being written in our society. The industries which are pressuring government now are far different than the oil companies, corn industries, and railroad barons which have influenced the government in the past. You can have a major update to an operating system (Ubuntu) in the time it takes to grow a crop of corn, or a new internet buzzword (google) in less time than it takes to drill a well and setup a refinery. The lives of everyone, including yours and mine, are being shaped by special interests groups who don't understand and really, can't image, the possibilities which lie before us. We live in a time which has greater potential for good, and for bad, than ever before. While pirating isn't the answer, neither is the response of the RIAA and MPAA (though to be fair, they're not the only groups who are pushing for bad IP legislation). Anyway, enough ranting for a day. Tune in again soon for the next session of my rants.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Digital Music Rights rant
I'm not one to really publicly express my disgust with the RIAA or the MPAA (though I do have it). As a disclaimer, I don't download music off of P2P software, or any other illegal channels. The latest and greatest (well, actually worst) that they are working on is trying to peg mp3s as evil. In Atlantic vs. Howell, they specifically call out mp3 and say that if the songs are ripped to a person's computer in mp3 format and in a shared folder, the songs are no longer authorized copies. If successful in their claims, "fair use" of music which you've purchased will continue to be eroded. The music industry would like nothing more than to sell you music on a CD that you can only use in your house. It would then like to sell you a copy for a musical ringtone for your phone, and a DRM encrypted copy to play on your non-mp3 music player. Oh, and then maybe one more copy that you can only play in your car, if they can swing it. I don't think a lot of people realize how much is at stake as the RIAA continues to sue people. I realize I'm degenerating into a rant, but this is a modern monopoly changing laws and rewriting fair use to help maximize the paychecks of the executives and the lawyers associated with the RIAA. And they're just planning on succeeding based on people's apathy, but that's a rant for another day.
Friday, November 30, 2007
College football
It's that time of year again. The time when everyone not from the Big 10 starts to complain about the BCS system. Yet again we see the mediocrity of "big time" conferences. UCLA has a chance to go to a BCS bowl game. UCLA!!! They would be 7-5. (Coincidentally, if UCLA does win the PAC-10, and Hawaii loses, odds are that BYU will go to a BCS bowl. Not that I'm cheering for that to happen or anything.) Anyone who claims that a system which allows only "elite" schools to be 6-5 and have a chance of going to a BCS bowl game with one game left in their season is a good idea is either controlled by Jim Delaney (commissioner of the Big 10 and football public enemy #1) or smoking crack.
I've found a post by a sports writer on Yahoo which I thought was well written proposal for the 16-team playoff system. While I personally haven't decided if his way would be the easiest/most likely/best way of overcoming the Bowl Cartel System, he also directly responded to some of the typical propaganda by answering letters by some of his readers. I would encourage all football fans everywhere to consider the needs of their team and realize that you'll get better football by changing the current system.
I've found a post by a sports writer on Yahoo which I thought was well written proposal for the 16-team playoff system. While I personally haven't decided if his way would be the easiest/most likely/best way of overcoming the Bowl Cartel System, he also directly responded to some of the typical propaganda by answering letters by some of his readers. I would encourage all football fans everywhere to consider the needs of their team and realize that you'll get better football by changing the current system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)