Electronic Sign Ordinance

Without any buzz or promotion, a city council vote will be held today in Oklahoma City. The action concerns a new ordinance which would regulate the previously insufficiently managed use of electronic signage in OKC.

The ordinance language can be viewed here:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWS9/PDF/0912/ElectronicSignOrdinance.pdf

This new language intends to give the zoning folks a less anachronistic tool to manage the new signage technology.

Two results from the passage of this bill are likely:

1. Signs will initially shrink in size.

2. Clarity will foster additional participation, likely leading to more electronic signs.

While I am in favor of laws keeping current, I am not in favor of these quiet votes, as they stink of intent to manipulate results by the folks holding the vote. It is my opinion that the only legitimate objective of the folks who hold the votes should be to accurately capture the sense of the voting public on the issue of the election. Any effort to manipulate or advocate for an outcome by other than elected legislative officials is reprehensible.

Sense of Urgency

Somebody should help me understand this. President Obama is adamant that we pass a health insurance realignment plan immediately, because people are dying today,even though he specifies that no component of the plan can be implemented before he cements his next term in office. We had to pass bill after bill fascizing industries and re-directing income from producers to folks that pay no income tax, and from industries that are solvent to campaign donors that aren't, and most of that money won't hit the shovels until 2011/12. Yet, we need weeks or months to respond to a general, in the field, who says he needs more resources to accomplish his mission with sufficient force to protect his soldiers. This would be a request from the same folks that executed a strategy that turned the war in Iraq into a place that's safer than Chicago. This request would be for the same war in Afghanistan that candidate Obama said was the real war we needed to focus on. Help me with the priorities on that please.

Bob's Addiction

I was reading up on the "bliss point", a sensory recipe for saturating the taste buds with salt, sweet, and fat molecules to maximize food attractiveness. But that's not important now; one of the items of interest uncovered in that research was that about 30% of folks, when they experience that blissful food, have such a rapid interplay between sensing the taste and the brain deciding it wants more of it that they lose control over self, and consume until the source of bliss is exhausted. Their brain becomes seized with desire. Onion dip does that to me. Is that a kind of instantaneous addiction?

I hold a theory that some percentage of folks are addictable. There are no doubt some substances that overcome our ability to control ourselves, and addict nearly everyone that experiences it, like crack, but that's not what I'm talking about. Rather, that in the normal course of events they will find a target for that addiction sensitivity, become addicted, and live their life striving to normalize around it. If they adhere to a bad one, they may try to replace it with a good one, trade alcohol for running, cocaine with the adrenaline of "the deal".

Is it true? Is it a nature vs. nuture thing? Does the percentage vary by gene subset? Are there genetic subsets which have culturally self selected over time for non-addictability? Is there a bell curve for addicts? Would we want to know? Would it be politically correct to use such information in policy?

Getting pushy

Having liberty is a little bit like the joke about guessing where you are when every direction you look is south, it means you're standing on the North Pole. The ideal of America is the maximum liberty available to a physically secure free market society bent on non violent transfer of power at the direction of the electorate. That position of maximum liberty is like being at the top of the mountain, every attack on that liberty, every compromise that is made in the name of bipartisan cooperation is a move away from that pinnacle, that shining city on the hill. The only direction you can go from the top is down, and the path down is a slippery slope; not only does the direction suck, the descent is messy and the destination is unpredictable.

What is an assault on liberty? Any time the forces of government choose to tax an activity which used to be free, that is an assault on liberty. Any time a transaction incurs fees beyond those which pay for the necessary related services performed by the government, that is an assault on liberty. Any time a law is passed which creates a hurdle to the pursuit of an action which is not strictly illegal, that is an assault on liberty.

Liberty is a type of order. Like the second law of thermodynamics, if we let loose the control of our liberties, let them be traded to special interests for campaign cash and votes, our condition will tend toward an entropic disolution into societal chaos. Our freemarket energies and self improvement inclination will be disorganized to the point of being unable to improve the quality of our lives.

I have a personal mantra, never risk something you can't afford to replace. Once sacrificed recapturing liberty has never required less than bloodshed. Everytime we give up an iota of liberty we place an IOU in the war chest we will have to empty to get it back.

There is a reason that authoritarian politicians want us in deep debt and without the freedoms to pursue our goals excepting with their permission, it makes us easier to control. Think breadlines in the Soviet Union, even a crust of stale bread is worth selling out your family when you are hungry and the end is inevitable anyway.

Pounding the table

There is a adage in the law, "When you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the table." Pounding the table is a diversion, to take your opponent's focus from the facts and the law.

Civil rights are a defense against the majority, in action as the government, taking advantage of a person of "minority" status. I put that in quotes because the word minority is inaccurate. Women are considered a minority because they act like one, not because they are one. In many voting locales causasians are in a minority vs. non-caucasians. But since these majorities won't work like a majority, our law continues to treat white males as the majority. These "minorities" can get whatever they want in the democratic process. Screaming "Race!" or "Prejudice!" in the middle of the debate is a diversion, not a point of fact or law, because even if it exists, it doesn't matter to the context. Likewise, when the subject complains about the incivility of being called out as a liar, rather than refute the charge of having lied, it's a diversion. "Incivility!" is the new "Race!".

Diversion is a debating tactic that you use when you are losing the debate. In a debate, in a class or competition, it doesn't matter if the victor scores the winning points as a result of superior tactics, even though the issue itself was poorly addressed. In the real life of our national condition, it does matter.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/09/20/stephanopoulos-and-acorn-obama-lies-again/

Isn't it obvious (part 2)?

It is obvious to the point of being trivial that the most assured way to eliminate anthropomorphic global warming is to get rid of all the darned humans. I'm not sure that's in the best interest of the human race. I am sure that there is no larger group I care about whose objectives are so important as to outweigh those of the human race. After that, it's just a matter of deciding which ones of us get to stay around to enjoy the earth left less populated (and less consumed and less polluted) by those we choose to eliminate. I think if there was ever a time to shoot first and ask opinions later, this is it.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9APOM880&show_article=1

Isn't it obvious?

You can't be surprised at this. President Obama now opines, after clearly stating that ObamaCare will not cover those here illegally, that the concept of being here illegally is anachronistic. We need to do away with it. That if you are here, then you are legally here.

The implication then is that he wants America to become a "no appointment necessary, free, walk-in health care facility" for the world. At some point I fully expect that it will become law that if a person has gotten themselves here for healthcare, then restaurants, hotels and transportation services will be obliged to serve these folks free of charge, else their "real" access to healthcare will be impinged.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/?feat=home_cube_position1