At around 6:05PM today, May 17th 2008, Edward Marcus rang my door bell. I unfortunately wasn’t prepared and was unable to record the conversation.

He told me he was here because “the Census Bureau had sent me a booklet that was never returned” and now he just needed to come in and ask me some questions. I stood in the doorway holding open the secondary screen door with my right hand and placed my left hand up on the door frame so he wouldn’t have any opening for which he could walk in. The conversation was very repetitive. He kept telling me that I needed to provide the info and I refused.

He told me “you can have your libertarian beliefs or whatever but you’re obligated by law to answer these questions.” I told him I was well aware of the law and that I had no plans of providing him any of the desired information. Eventually he asked me just to give him my name so he could “close out the account.” After several attempts to get him to explain exactly what it meant by “closing it out” he told me that when asking questions the person can decline to answer particular questions. That the main office wanted to know why I wasn’t answering their questions. I pieced together what he wanted to do eventually which was to get my name so he could just fill out blanks in all questions. After realizing he was trying to deceive me… trying to trick me into answering the questions I became all the more stuburn.

He again told me I was obligated not only as a citizen (which I’m not since the courts have ruled the State has no obligation to protect me, therefore I’m by definition a subject) but as a person living within the United States to provide the requested information. That it was the law. That it’s necessary. That it’s only every 10 years. That it’d only take a few minutes. That it was constitutional. That it was anonymous. It wasn’t some Big Brother thing. It was used by my congressmen to help allocate money for the roads and schools.

He became agitated and started telling me there were consequences for not participating. Said that they could send more bureaucrats to my home at night to try to get me to answer. That they could request me to show up to the New York office to explain why I am refusing to participate. That they could fine me. It seemed Ed wasn’t very familiar with the legal consequences. He said they could fine me thousands of dollars and perhaps worse. I told him I was well versed in the law and that Title 13, Section 221 says that I could be fined upwards of $100 for refusing to participate and $500 for lying. He then admitted he wasn’t aware of the exact punishments and just knew that he could be fined $250,000 for misusing the census data which he collects. That’s actually not true. It’s “not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” I knew that but I wasn’t interested in arguing with him about that too. I did notice however he was carrying the same hand delivered envelope which I received last weekend so I opened it and showed him where in the letter it said I was obligated and made sure he noticed that I had gotten the title and section correct.

After about 10 minutes Ed seemed to have had enough. I had made it abundantly clear that I was not going to provide him with the data he desired. I wasn’t going to give him my name and was fully aware of the consequences for doing so. He turned to leave and I thanked him making sure I knew my obligations and the consequences and wished him a good night. He didn’t seem to acknowledge my statements and just got into his SUV, put away his laptop, and drove off.

He didn’t leave me with the letter he had for me, didn’t say whether or not he would be coming back, if someone else would be visiting or if I’d be receiving a notice to appear in front of some bureaucrat at the regional office. I’m having fun with this whole situation… I hope they continue harassing me.

Download it here. Nothing all that exciting but good to have digital versions available.

http://blog.wired.com/…

Arlen Specter, the Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday demanded an independent investigation into “Spygate.”

The announcement came three years after it was first disclosed President Bush had authorized a secret electronic eavesdropping program on Americans without warrants in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.

But Specter wasn’t referring to that.

Instead, the Pennsylvania senator is demanding an inquiry into the New England Patriots’ secret videotaping of opposing NFL coaches’ signals on the sidelines — an affair sports writers have dubbed “Spygate.”

We are not making this up. Specter said such behavior, a violation of NFL rules, is damaging to the sport. Call it Specter’s own Patriot Act.

“It’s really an insult to the people who follow it,” Specter said. He added that the Patriots “owe the public a lot more candor and a lot more accountability.”

The league has fined the Patriots and coach Bill Belichick $750,000 each. The team’s video assistant has turned over to the NFL eight tapes of opposing coaches giving signals during games.

Apparently real-world warrantless spying isn’t as egregious as snooping on opposing NFL coaches.

Specter and other lawmakers initially talked tough when The New York Times disclosed Bush’s spying program in 2005. “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” Specter said at the time.

But Congress, including Specter, eventually passed the Protect America Act, which allowed government officials to eavesdrop in the United States on telephone conversations and  e-mails without warrants, if the target of the surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

The law expired in February after lawmakers deadlocked on whether to grant immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for assisting Bush in carrying out the administration’s secret spying program before it was legal.
The Protect America Act’s expiration means surveillance must be authorized by a secret intelligence court if the wiretap is physically planted on U.S. soil.

Still, President Bush maintains that, as commander in chief, his administration has warrantless spying powers regardless of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Again, we’re not making up this story.

Or total fucking tool? This really is just disgusting. At least the whole baseball drug thing it was related to the whole war on drugs thing which many people still oppose. This is related to an extreme breach of the Constitution and public trust which the executive branch not only hid from the public and the other branches of government but blatantly lied about. This asshole is more concerned with a fucking sporting event then the American people or even his own person and family. How does he think the ex-New York governor got caught?

And yet this jackball will get reelected.

http://www.boston.com/…

A group of antitax activists launched a campaign over the weekend to abolish the state income tax, setting the stage for a contentious public battle if the measure is added to the ballot this fall.After pushing a similar initiative that almost passed six years ago, a group called the Committee for Small Government is back for another round, asking voters to end the income tax and save the average taxpayer $3,600 a year. The group, led by libertarian Carla Howell, is almost certain to gather the 11,000 signatures needed to put a question on the November ballot.

To say that state officials are worried about the prospect would be an understatement.

Community, political, and business officials are grasping for words such as “chaos,” “devastating,” and “catastrophe” to describe the scenario that would unfold if the measure passes.

Six years ago, Beacon Hill didn’t pay much attention to what seemed to be a pie-in-the-sky campaign. Confident that voters would reject the plan as folly, no one even organized a campaign to fight it.

But it almost passed, gaining the support of 45 percent of voters.

A fledgling coalition of city and town officials and union officials hired former Blue Cross Blue Shield executive and civic leader Peter Meade to head a battle against the income tax cut, and is interviewing high-powered public relations firms. Their Coalition for Our Communities plans a fund-raising and public educational campaign to combat the allure of the tax-cutting measure, which would cost the state roughly $12.7 billion - about 40 percent of the budget.

Some political observers are expecting a public tax battle the likes of which has not been seen since Governor Michael S. Dukakis was in office.

“I think back to what happened in ‘89 or ‘90. I think this would be even more contentious and chaotic than that period,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, recalling the voter effort to overturn new taxes imposed under Dukakis. “This, I think, would usher in a similar kind of period because the scale of this is so enormous.”

How would the state cut $12 billion?

That’s three times the sum the state sends cities and towns for public schools. Laying off every state employee would only save about $5 billion, said Cam Huff, a private policy consultant who studies the state budget.

An initiative petition is intended to be binding if it passes, but the Legislature has found ways to buck the will of the people in the past. In 2002, lawmakers halted a gradual income tax rollback approved by voters two years earlier, prompting howls that they were bucking an edict from the populace. And though voters passed a ballot question in 1998 that called for publicly funded campaigns, the Legislature famously refused to pay for them. Continued…

I love the gloom and doom talk. I don’t doubt that the government would absolutely drop the ball if this passes. They aren’t any good at cutting back when not under pressure why should they be any better when they are? I like that they come out and just admit the reason they want state level taxation is wealth redistribution. They bring up examples that are really ridiculous like failure to plow the roads. I grew up in a very rural area. Only very major roads were plowed by the county. Random people would plow the other roads as necessary. It’s far more cost effective to have Jim down the road with his F350 plow the local roads.

Their New Hampshire neighbors to the north don’t have an income tax and they seem to do just fine even with all the NY, NJ and MA immigrants bringing their big government beliefs. I’m sure MA would be fine after everyone adjusted back to paying for things more directly.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/…

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He’s for smaller government, much smaller. He’s for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He’d also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans — regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers — also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old ob-gyn, who reputedly has delivered some 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans — albeit Burmese who are not registered to vote in Texas — afflicted with an historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere.

And the doting grandfather could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering “condolences and sympathy” to the people of Burma affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote “No.”

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It’s a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don”t even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Burmese vote around here anyway?

So Paul’s symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out that Paul’s stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by cyclone, is not quite so principled and a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn’t want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait til the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

–Andrew Malcolm

As I posted to Andrew’s blog… Less then 30 seconds on Google News search would have rewarded you with: ‘Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma’s ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country,” Mills said. “It’s just none of our business.”‘The pointlessness of the resolution itself was not the reason for the vote. It was the fact it tried to instruct the Burmese government on what it should do. As minor as it may appear it’s only a matter of degrees from other interventionist language we place in other resolutions which represent the actual interventionist actions we take. If you want to stop being to bully you ought to stop talking like one too.

As for the other votes on pointless resolutions… there is nothing you can do. Anyone in Congress can bring up any damn resolution they want or talk about whatever they want. If Paul is already in attendance he can vote NA, YAY or not vote. Nothing changes any which way and there is nothing unconstitutional about pointless resolutions. Voting no or not voting sends no message in those cases. In this case however it can. Only reason to vote against the pointless resolutions would be to save the ink given NA is shorter then the other options or to hold an absolute stance against wasting time. The congressmen get paid yearly anyway so I’d much rather them take up their time with pointless congrats resolutions than messing with things that actually effect the real world.

I receive a phone call from a number I didn’t recognize around noon today.
I usually don’t answer unknowns, as they tend to end with me struggling to explain to Spanish-speaking Texans that they’ve dialed the wrong number.
This was my conversation, to the best of my memory:

Me: Hello?

Caller: Um, yes. Is this Laurie Par-a-vati?

Me: Speaking.

Caller: Yes, hi. This is Officer (inaudible) from the Fort Lee Police Dept.

Me: Oh, hi. (I immediately try to remember if I missed paying a parking ticket or something)

Officer: Yes, you submitted a reference letter for an Antonio Musumeci. Did I pronounce that correctly?

Me: Close enough, and yes I did.

Officer: For a fire arm permit.

Me: On, yes! (possibly a little too eager)

Officer: (long pause) I’m not sure if you completely understood what you were supposed to write on the reference form.

Me: What do you mean?

Officer: Well, (sympathetic pause) in the section where you’re supposed to explain why you think Antonio should get a fire arm, you wrote ‘because he wants one’ and ‘it’s his 2nd Amendment Right’.

Me: Yeah. Is there someth–

Officer: I always say these papers aren’t clear enough.

Me: …

Officer: Well, (pause) we aren’t really concerned with your opinion on gun control. I mean, if you look at the news, just giving someone a gun because they want one really hasn’t worked out well.

Me: (I opt to bite my tongue instead of getting into a blog of bile discussion) Oh, yea, I watch the news. I mean…

Officer: What this is suppose to serve is (pause), a moment to sort of vouch for Mr. Antonio. Tell us briefly why you think he should get a firearm. I figured you probably didn’t understand the intention of that section.

Me: I see. Because I figured, since Fort Lee already issued him a firearm.

Officer: (pause) Yes, well, you know. If you look at the news, just giving someone a gun because they want one really doesn’t work out well. If you watch the news (nervous laugh) you’ll see this.

Me: Oh, okay. Right.

Officer: Well, if you are serious about being his point of contact…

Me: Can you send me another one then?

Officer: We’ll send you another form, and just briefly explain if you think he is capable of owning a firearm.

Me: No problem. Thank you.

Officer: Have a nice day.

I want to throw this out there: the officer was not being a jerk. He stuttered, was really trying to be polite, and almost sounded like he was expecting me to get confrontational with him.

So am I surprised that my comments got me a phone call? Yes and no. I knew what they wanted to read was most definitely not what I wrote, that’s for damn sure. But the fact that they actually took the bait, wasted the time to call me, have this conversation, and to resend the reference letter annoys me a bit. Sure, now I have blog of bile subject matter to post about, but at the expense of bile’s firearm license waiting period. I guess the new game is seeing how long it will take them to mail out the blank form again.

Moral of the story? The 2nd Amendment is not a good enough reason for wanting a firearm.

http://abcnews.go.com/…

A half-dozen police officers kicked and beat three men pulled from a car during a traffic stop as a TV helicopter taped the confrontation.The video, shot by WTXF-TV, shows three police cars stopping a car Monday, two days after a city officer was shot to death responding to a bank robbery.

The tape shows about a dozen officers gathering around the vehicle. About a half-dozen officers hold two of the men on the ground. Both are kicked repeatedly, while one is seen being punched; one also appears to be struck with a baton.

The third man is also kicked and ends up on the ground.

“On the surface it certainly does not look good in terms of the amount of force that was used,” Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said. “But we don’t want to rush to judgment.”

No need to rush to judgment… seems to me all the evidence necessary is right here. Five of these officers are off the street now… just not in a jail where they belong.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN0952458820080511?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

A California man who has defaulted on nine homes and expects banks to foreclose on all of them, forcing him into bankruptcy, says he now considers it a mistake to have invested in the real estate market.

Shawn Forgaard, a 37-year-old software company project manager, bought one home for his family to live in and nine more as investments. He stands to lose all the investment houses in the mortgage meltdown but says he has come away wiser from the experience.

“Everyone stumbles. I’m not going to hide or run or live in denial, or with regrets,” Forgaard told Reuters in an interview. “On the surface it looks like total devastation but it’s just the opposite. I’m confident our lives will be much, much richer as a result.”

Forgaard bought a house in Santa Cruz, about 60 miles (100 km) south of San Francisco, in 2000. Four years later, using $800,000 in stock options, he began snapping up investment properties, putting 10 percent to 40 percent down on negative amortization loans — in which payments do not cover the interest so that a borrower’s balance grows over time.

It was those “neg-am” loans, which include triggers causing payments to balloon if the debt reaches a certain percentage of the original balance, that would come back to haunt him.

“I knew I was sitting on time bombs,” Forgaard said. “I knew the market was going to go soft and I knew that property values would decline. But I figured that I had enough equity to survive the storm and sell or take the loss and refinance.

“I didn’t anticipate a downturn of epic proportions such that home values are 40 percent less than they were,” he said.

That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.

While this type of scenario is very rare… having one or more investment homes was not and just as many primary homes are foreclosed so too are many many of these investment homes. They will all be counted in those numbers you see on TV when they report how many homes are in foreclosure. I’ve never seen them seperate it down into primary and secondary homes.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

The government of Vallejo, California, files for bankruptcy, thanks to diminished returns from its tax-thefts to pay its tax-eating police, fire, and other unions. (Via Drudge.)

UPDATE from Tim Wangelin: a list of the 242 public servants publicly serving the tax-payer of Vallejo by making $100,000 or more a year.

UPDATE from Robert Mayer: “Vallejo, California’s motto of ‘City of Opportunity’ couldn’t be more appropriate…if you’re government bureaucrat, that is. Using the handy online search tool you linked to, I was shocked to discover that this city of a mere 125,000 employs 77 people in the fire department who make over $150K per year! Is this the most fire-prone city on the planet or what?”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Writes Kitty Carr: “I loaded that database [of government workers in bankrupt Vallejo, CA, making more than $100K), and the number is actually 292, not 242. The highest salary is $435,638 (Police Department token woman) and the lowest is $100,499 (Community Development Department, which is not to be confused with the Development Services Department.) Of the 292 on the list, there are 148 members in the Police Department and 100 members in the Fire Department.

“Thirty-one government ‘workers’ make over $200,000, including nine in the Police Department and 30 in the Fire Department.

“According to 2003 Census data, the population of Vallejo is 119,708. The per capita income for 1999 was $20,415, but I think it is now somewhere between 54,000 and 61,000.”

UPDATE from Steven St. Jean: “The ‘police department token woman’ mentioned by Kitty Carr was one Joann West, a spokeswoman who took a retirement payout of over $435,000 last year. Realizing it was in ‘public relations’ trouble for such malfeasance, the city spent yet more tax money to hire a propaganda expert. Who did they hire? You guessed it:

“‘On Monday, Vallejo hired West, a former spokeswoman for the city’s Police Department, to guide the city through the intense public scrutiny that’s sure to come in the next few months.

“’West was the highest-paid Vallejo employee last year, taking a $435,638 payout when she retired from the Police Department.’”

City of Opportunity indeed… for bureaucrats.