It's Going to Take 10 Years to Find That Many Guns.

Our neighbors to the north have decided to give Canadian border officers guns, but it's going to take ten years to implement the plan.

The article doesn't give details as to what will take ten years, but maybe it's training, distribution and procedures that have to be written up. Regardless, what on earth would take ten years? Clearly, there's no imminent danger. Canadian border officers, however, aren't too keen on being unarmed when scary stuff is coming through their border:

Officers left their posts in British Columbia earlier this year when they were told that two murder suspects from California were headed their way. The men were apprehended by armed U.S. law enforcement officers.

Wow, so in 2016, this issue will be resolved. I wonder why the officers left their post for this incident. Surely, other dangerous characters have been heading their way in the past.

Interesting Perspective

"In principle, I don't have the feeling that I missed out on something," Kampusch said of her youth. "I was spared some things — didn't start smoking and drinking and didn't have any bad friends."

Yeah, except for Wolfgang Priklopil, the creep who locked her up in his basement for eight years. I had to wonder, though, how she didn't escape earlier, then I remembered this occurred in Europe:

On a typical day, she said, she would have breakfast with Priklopil, a communications technician who she said usually didn't work. The day would be spent doing various things around the house.

Oh yeah, silly me. Oh, and this is unintentionally funny and begs other questions:

Police were in contact with Priklopil after Kampusch disappeared because he owned a white van — the type of vehicle a witness said the girl was dragged into. But investigators believed him when he said he was alone at home working
on his house when she vanished.

Good sir, you drive a van much like the one driven by the suspect who kidnapped the small girl... what's that? You were home at the time? Good enough for us. Wha? My guess is that at the time, Priklopil wasn't that much of a suspect, otherwise some simple surveillance would have probably nabbed this guy much earlier.

The President Could be Radicalizing America!

That's what I love about Western countries. We wring our hands over the actions of our leaders, and wonder if we're creating radical movements in other countries by taking a hard-line stance on certain foreign policy issues. Do the exotic and foreign peoples of other countries, especially those in the Middle East wonder if their own hard-line stances are radicalizing American foreign policy?

I think this is one of those uncomfortable questions we'll just whistle past...

Eminent Domain and the Distortions of Fair Market Value

If a small house in a lower-middle class neighborhood would sell to another potential homeowner who intended to occupy the property and use it in the same manner as the seller-- and its price was say, $159,000, then one could argue that the Fair Market Value of the house (and property) is somewhere near to $159,000. But lets say this neighborhood is found to be well located and situated for mixed-use, commercial and residential due to changing demographics in a city. Then lets say that the property catches the eye of a wealthy developer who plans to do large scale redevelopment over the entire area, then the Fair Market Value can no longer be assessed based upon what another homeowner who intended to simply re-occupy the same property would be.

This brings me to look at property based on two views. The first is 'as-is' market value which, in the first case mentioned above, the house and property is probably worth around $159,000 give or take. But the second scenario is a 'will-be' market value. So the question becomes, how do you assess the 'will-be' market value of property whose use will change dramatically once the developer takes ownership?

My belief is that in the second case, fair market value should be assessed as what the property would be worth if the planned development had already taken place, or some reasonable percentage thereof. If multiple parcels are being taken in one action, then the sum total of the whole group should be assessed in this manner, then divided appropriately between each property holder. So, if ten parcels are taken at a 'will-be' fair market value of $8,000,000, then each property owner should receive around $800,000.

The only question remaining is how does one arrive at a 'will-be' figure? It's reasonable to concede that the value is in the redevelopment, so one can't realistically value the property assuming that all developments take place. As we all know, the property gets some of its value by the actions of the owner so the compensation shouldn't be based upon the not-yet completed development. But it should be based upon the type of property that the government zones this land as in the process of the eminent domain taking. For instance, if I buy a piece of downtown real estate in Seattle, and plan to place a 1,900 square foot rambler on it, I'm still going to pay the tens of millions of dollars for that piece of real estate. And, if this miracle occurs and I actually get this real-estate and subsequently place my small rambler on it, the property is not suddenly only worth $159,000. The property is still worth tens of millions (less what structures I had to raze to build the rambler). This is self evident.

It is fantastically unfair that we then believe that the owner of a $159,000 lower-middle class home in a quiet neighborhood is only going to get $159,000 if the developer plans to put a glass and steel office building, restaraunt, health club and pharmaceutical research facility on it. If after the developer finishes his intended project, the property is valued at $15,00,000, it seems perfectly fair that the rezoned but undeveloped land would be worth maybe 1/4 of that value: $3,750,000. If there were ten equally sized parcels that made up the property package then each owner would receive $375,000.

You Never Know Who's Behind the Wheel

An incident like this might find a Washington State Supreme Court Justice behind the wheel:

Around 8 p.m. Sunday, a deputy assigned to Metro Transit saw the driver of a 1995 Mazda Millennia go through a stop sign at Yesler Way and South Washington and then run a red light at South Washington and First Avenue, said sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart. When the deputy attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver side-swiped another car and kept going, he said.

Charges Dropped Against Karr

Looks like the prosecutors backed away from John Mark Karr. It'll be interesting to see what all the hubbub was about.

I Got Gas...

For about $2.88 in Federal Way. So... just sayin'.

Income Taxes Are Immoral. Reason #9,234,983,234

In the shifting sands that define what 'income' is and from where it comes, the IRS is rattling sabers about online auctions, specifically those on Ebay. It's one thing to talk about sellers making an income by selling goods on Ebay--this, in my opinion is no different than someone doing the same out of their garage without an internet connection. But it's another thing to start talking about a guy who pulls a 24 port network switch off a shelf with a sticky note that reads "Bad?" and sells it on Ebay 'as is'. If you're making your entire living selling stuff, prudence says you probably ought to report something to the IRS dogs, just to keep them at bay. But when you're talking about a baseball card collection or a nice antique set of teacups, them's fightin' words.

While no details were given, the new reporting requirements could mean big changes for stand-alone Web retailers as well as individuals selling family heirlooms through popular online auction sites such as eBay Inc.

Specifically, they're targeting items which sell for more than their purchase price. If an item's original purchase value can't be determined, the IRS kindly estimates that value to be $0.

Something also tells me that the IRS won't be adjusting for inflation, either.

Not Buying It. Any of It.

I just read an excellent review of Judith Levine's book Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping. I won't comment much on the review, because I don't want to end up reviewing the review. I had heard about this book on NPR which got the expected accolades. According to Cheryl Miller who wrote the review, the books premise falls apart within the first few pages in the extremely predictable way in which a wealthy New Yorker would 'Not Buy It'. Apparently, not buying it means something very different to those of us who don't have it in the first place:

Levine claims that she means to limit herself to the necessities of daily life. One scans through Levine's list of necessities with growing incredulity. High-speed DSL (hey, it's for work!), cable television, the occasional $55 haircut, 'organic French roast coffee beans,' skiing?!

Levine airily insists that necessities in New York are different from those of a 'farmer in Bangladesh.' But she seems to forget this relative wealth when she describes the aily life she leads with her partner, Paul. She paints a pitiful picture: This 'highly insecure' existence includes two residences (an apartment in Brooklyn and a house in Vermont), flexible work that allows the couple to take off and ski in the afternoon, three cars, a windsurfer, and a healthy diet of such Whole Foods staples as 'Thai sweet black rice' and 'Mexican huitlacoche fungus.'

I'm a little stunned that this book would be this bad, so I'm tempted to buy the book so I can find out for myself. From reading a little about the book in general from other sources, I understand that it's a big anti-Republican screed which is fine. But as most Democratic screeds about Republicans, it's anti-Republican for what I suspect to be all the wrong reasons.

But no matter, it's not her politics I care about, it's the hypocrisy that I'm watering at the mouth to get at.

Miller ends her review with an utterly fantastic closer:

Levine’s no-shopping pledge has all the anti-capitalist bona fides of Adbusters’ “non-brand” brand, Blackspot, or, better yet, one of Citibank’s “Live Richly” ads. Spiky haircut? $55. Organic coffee beans? $7 a pound. Excoriating everyone else for overconsumption? Priceless.

Adjustable Rate Mortgages Kept at ARM's Length

The housing bubble has burst, according to an article by Bill Fleckstein on MSN Moneycentral. While he spends a lot of time patting himself on the back about how he 'told us so', I agree with his general thesis: That too many people overborrowed, took unconventional loans and now with rising rates, the piper's come a'callin'.

He cites a particularly nasty example:

It begins with the story of a Detroit accountant who was looking to lower her monthly payments. In 2004, she refinanced a $312,000 mortgage via an option-adjustable-rate mortgage that offered various payment choices, as do so many of these plans. Her (introductory) rate of 2.3% is now up to 8.75%, and her loan balance has grown to $324,000. She claims that the terms weren't clearly spelled out. But if she actually read the documentation, as accountants often do, and didn't get it, you can imagine how many people truly understand their mortgages. (Hint: The number rhymes with "hero.")

Taking a bit of a tangent on the above example, one is led to wonder how many lawsuits we're going to see from hapless homeowners claiming that 'they didn't know' what it really meant to have an ARM (adjustable rate mortgage).

My wife and I, in a recent attempt to consolidate a little debt and lower our housepayment were offered an ARM. The broker was very honest, didn't try to sell us something, and explained all the terms very carefully. I'm not a financial whiz, but even without his explanation, I wouldn't get near an ARM if you paid me. I always feel that the better bet is to take a fixed rate mortgage, and if interest rates go down significantly, refinance and accept the up front costs.

All of this leads, of course to a word we haven't heard in years: Stagflation. Anyone remember the Carter years when the Keynsian economists of the time were confused because the economy was slowing at a time when inflation was heating up? Something that in the Keynesian view was never supposed to happen.

A prudent warning from lefty's: Don't take the government trains...

Or so says the AWBC (A World Beyond Capitalism) website. For their 2006 conference, they had this travel tip for those who wished to make the conference:

A World Beyond Capitalism Conference 2006! No charge for anything.

BY TRAIN

Important: We do not recommend that you use Amtrak train service for travel to Portland unless you like taking risks, as Amtrak has considered filing for bankruptcy several times. The train has become one of the most unreliable forms of transportation to Portland in recent years. Several confirmed nationwide reports cite that Amtrak's Coast Starlight train, which services Portland, has Amtrak's largest number of late trains. We mean late as in days late and/or abrupt cancellations which has caused some people to lose their room reservations. More than one conference volunteer has experienced trouble with train service, including having to stand the entire train ride, missed connections and much worse.

Study: Sticking Needles In Random Places On the Body Helps Reduce Pain

Or so says a study which was trying to determine the efficacy of acupuncture reported on NPR today . I've long been an acupuncture skeptic for, well, as long as I can remember. I developed a theory that at best, acupuncture had shown some effectiveness in reducing pain due to the process, not the actual treatment itself. Lying on a table, meditative state, soothing Windham Hill CD's playing in the background... the usual. Skeptics contend that the needles and the so-called Chi points are, at best, hokum.

In the study, arthritis sufferers were broken into three groups. All three groups had modern therapies including drugs, but the second two had acupuncture treatments in addition to the regular therapies. Of the two groups receiving acupuncture, one group received 'correct' acupuncture, the other received 'incorrect' acupuncture, or what is sometimes referred to as 'sham point' acupuncture.

In the end, both groups getting stuck with needles reported pain reductions. The conclusion of NPR's medical expert was that the process of receiving the extra care, time with their caregiver and the extra attention from medical staff in general is probably a likely factor in the pain reduction.

The report on NPR's website has an interesting lede:

Study: Acupuncture Helps with Joint Pain

The small text blurb that accompanies the audio story reads as thus:

A medical study conducted in Germany shows that acupuncture might help with joint pain -- but it's not necessarily the needles that do the work.

First off, for those that didn't catch the obvious, the headline says that acupuncture helps with joint pain, then the text says that it might help with joint pain, but it might not be the puncture part of acupuncture that's doing the work. I did a quick check of the dictionary definition of acupuncture, and it read as thus, from Dictionary.com:

A procedure used in or adapted from Chinese medical practice in which specific body areas are pierced with fine needles for therapeutic purposes or to relieve pain or produce regional anesthesia.

My interpretation from this definition is that needles are really the central part of acupuncture. I'm sorry, but if I walk into an acupuncturist and she does everything but stick needles in me, and then if I get better, she later claims that it was the acupuncture that fixed me, I'm going to wonder why we're bothering with needles altogether.

The point being that if acupuncture is about the needles and specifically the needles being inserted into the 'correct' points then one is left wondering what acupuncture is if NPR publicizes a study as affirming the effects of acupuncture but concludes it has nothing to do with the needles. I'm perplexed...

Nasrallah Is the New Black

Or at least the new Arafat. Looks like the Israelis have inadvertently created a new Arafat by allowing Nasrallah to goad them into a conflict they couldn't 'win'.

Pretty brilliant when you think of it. Send a group across the border in an illegal action, capture and kill soldiers, and draw the 500lb gorilla into a fight he won't technically win because he's forced to fight amongst civilians.

There simply has to be a new way to fight this war. I think it might involve bombs in cars.

Q: What If Pot Were Legal?

Hempfest is taking place at Myrtle Edwards Park this weekend, in Seattle, prompting a Seattle Times article which poses the question "What if pot were legal"?

I had the opportunity a few years back to talk to an ATF agent about this very question when I had become particularly frustrated in a long online debate over the subject. My suspicions (according to the ATF agent) were spot on. To sum up what the ATF agent told me (sorry, it's been years and it was something like a 45 minute conversation): It'd probably be controlled much like beer and wine.

Yes, you'd be able to grow your own, but only in limited quantity. Yes, you'd be allowed to give it to a small number of people, again, in limited quantities. No you wouldn't be able to sell or produce any over a given quantity or potency.

Sellers would be licensed much the same way pubs, liquor stores or restaurants would be. Taxes paid, forms to fill out, licenses to obtain. Forget about the guy with his basement lined in mylar, flourescent lights and 2,000 plants. He'd still be in big trouble just as before. He would be the equivalent of a shine still in the woods. And the government doesn't look kindly upon moonshiners.

Regulations would follow, probably for quality and safety. The list goes on. None of these possibilities are completely lost on our baked friends at hempfest, however:

If people are able to buy weed like liquor and beer, it will probably come with the same kind of corporate trappings, said Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"I would love to see only nonprofit cooperatives ... or little produce stands," he said Saturday at Hempfest 2006. "But the truth is somebody is going to make a lot of money off of marijuana."
[...]
But a man who called himself Cloud, an organizer of Emerald Empire Hempfest in Eugene, Ore., worries that mom-and-pop artisans would get squeezed out if marijuana and its accoutrements went legit.

I'm not sure why the Hempfest crowd always gives me a chuckle, but maybe this is why:

"My parents don't know I'm here," said one boy, wearing a rainbow-colored, crocheted cap pulled over blond dreadlocks.

If his parents aren't themselves baked from roasting the chronic, I'm sure they'll know he's there. Afterall, it seems to me that marijuana attire hasn't changed for forty years- it's a freakin' uniform. Making assumptions about the age of his parents, it's very likely that they put on the exact same attire when they went a tokin'.

Whoosh! Here comes da judge!!!

Oklahoma district Judge Donald Thompson got busted for using his penis pump and exposing himself to hapless court reporters during trials.

Foster told authorities that she saw Thompson use the device almost daily during the August 2003 murder trial of a man accused of shaking a toddler to death. A whooshing sound could be heard on Foster's audiotape of the trial. When jurors asked the judge about the sound, Thompson said he hadn't heard it but would listen for it.

Alaska Airlines, check yourself b'fo you wreck yourself.

I fly Alaska Airlines mainly because they have direct flights to Tucson and we're with their frequent flier program. For those of you who have long forgotten what a direct flight is, let me remind you: Imagine flying from a place like, oh, Seattle and heading for Tucson and being on a plane for about two hours. So it's hard to give up Alaska. But damn if they aren't having a whole passle of trouble, lately.

Anonymous poster sent this link detailing an interesting experimental kayak design. I wonder how much drag is caused by the submerged hydrofoil when you're not at top speed? I think Anonymous needs to be careful about experimental kayak designs.

Goddamnit! Will it never end?!!

According to a story in the Seattle Times, a victim of the shooting at the Jewish Federation is going to dedicate herself to fighting for tighter gun control laws. For anyone not familiar with this story, this is the case where an unbalanced Muslim man forced his way into the Jewish Federation in downtown Seattle and shot six people, killing one of them.

Without going into the long, typical and perfectly diamond hard logical rant of why a gun ban would be a waste of time, I'd like to point out that Scotland has just passed a law banning swords because "blade crime" is apparently out of control in a country where guns are very tightly restricted already.

"They are certainly among the range of weapons that are used by people. This reduces their availability except for legitimate reasons. I think if it saves one life or permanent disfigurement it is worthwhile."

If the above quote were any more cliche, I'd probably think that they were talking about guns, but they're not, they're talking about swords.

SWORDS will be banned from sale in Scotland in a new effort to tackle the country's "booze and blades" culture.

In fact, if the text of this story could be any more parallel with a gun debate, I'd have the vapors:

However, it is understood that exceptions will be made for weapons required for religious, cultural or sporting purposes.

Retailers yesterday claimed the move was an over-reaction, as swords constitute just 1 per cent of knife crime.

[...]

They will be required to record the names and addresses of all purchasers and be prohibited from displaying non-domestic knives and swords in shop windows.

It looks as though that in this episode, the assault rifle will be played by the Scottish Claymore, and the cheap imported firearms will be played by various other non-domestic knives and swords.

Geraldo: This time he's REALLY in the sludgeheap of history...

An arrest has finally been made in the age old JoneBenet Ramsey murder case. The first thing that struck me was not so much the details of the arrest, but what Geraldo must have been thinking. To remind everyone, Geraldo had been so convinced that JonBenet's mother Patsy had killed her because the girl was wetting the bed that he even held a mock trial in a 1997 television special in which the Ramsey parents were found 'guilty'.

The Ramsey's may have been a bit creepy, but their little girl never deserved her fate. Saying that, Geraldo can go bugger off. I'm too lazy to research Geraldo's reaction to the arrest, if he's even had one. Maybe someone can comment?

Global Warming gets that Old Time Religion!

Case in point