Friday, March 20, 2009

More ridiculous EU regulations: use of 'miss' and 'mrs' banned.

Someone pointed me to this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384

Now, I used to like the idea of uniting Europe but the way they are doing it sucks. And they're not uniting anything in the first place.
That said, let me explain how EU regulations work from the point of view of an EU citizen.

Europe doesnt have a common historical background like, say the US or Australia, each European country (and often regions inside countries) have own history, way of life, language, tradition, etc.
Yes, it is a very well know fact but I had to point it out. Keep that in mind. Very different peoples.

EU regulations are effective in the whole European Union, which includes Scandinavia, the UK, Southern Europe, Central Europe, and part of the former Communist Central and Eastern Europe.
How do you write a law that works as well in Scotland, Portugal, Greece and Poland?
Easy answer: you don't.
All they can do is come up with an idea for a "regulation" (eu-ish for 'law'), then stretch it here and there to make it fit all the member countries (which takes years of discussions in very expensive sessions that are paid for with our money), and finally end up with a ridiculous law that wont work in any of the member countries.

How do Europeans live with that?
"Regular EU Joe" simply thinks something like "yet another piece of politician idiocy that costed us several millions euros. We will ignore it and everyone will forget about it within 2 weeks".
Companies and corporations update the labels on their product to match the new dispositions. The actual product doesn't change at all but the new label and the new EU regulations are a good excuse to raise prices.
In case of regulations like "ms" instead of "miss" or "mrs", tons of money are spent by governments, cities etc to conform to the new law. More sound use of tax payers' money.
People will keep on saying "miss" and "missus", just as before (how do you pronounce "ms" anyway? "mus"? "mwz"?)

Possible Solution #1: Divide EU into at least 3 "zones": northern-central (Germany, Scandinavia, etc), Southern (France, Italy, Greece, etc), and Eastern zone that would include most of the former commies, but some may go with the central zone, and possibly the British Isles would need their own zone. (would take a while to work out the details...). Make different versions of EU law and regulations, adapting them to the different conditions in the different areas.

Possible Solution #2 (my favorite, but probably wouldnt work in RL): Abolish EU. Abolish UN. Abolish national states. Abolish the military. Let people organize themselves in small communities (yes, I can see the problems, I said it wouldn't work)


Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Forgotten Precedent

Shamelessly stolen from Russ Kick's 50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know


In the early 1920s, Dr. Linder was convicted of selling one morphine tablet and three cocaine
tablets to a patient who was addicted to narcotics. The Supreme Court overturned the
con-viction, declaring that providing an addicted patient with a fairly small amount of drugs is an
acceptable medical practice "when designed temporarily to alleviate an addict's pains." (Linder v.
United States.)

In 1962, the Court heard the case of a man who had been sent to the clink under a California
state law that made being an addict a criminal offense. Once again, the verdict was tossed out,
with the Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel and unusual and,
thus, unconstitutional. (Robinson v. California.)

Six years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in Powell v. Texas. A man who
was arrested for being drunk in public said that, because he was an alcoholic, he couldn't help it.
He invoked the Robinson decision as precedent. The Court upheld his conviction because It had
been based on an action (being wasted in public), not on the general condition of his addiction to
booze.

Justice White supported this decision, yet for different reasons than the others. In his
concurring opinion, he expanded Robinson:
If it cannot be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use narcotics,... I do not see how
it can constitutionally be a crime to yield to such a compulsion. Punishing an addict for
using drugs convicts for addiction under a different name.

Distinguishing between the two
crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick with flu or epilepsy, but
permitting punishment for running a fever or having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be
abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume alcohol should not be
punishable for drinking or for being drunk.

Commenting on these cases, Superior Court Judge James R Gray, an outspoken critic of drug
prohibition, has recently written:
What difference is there between alcohol and any other dangerous and sometimes addictive
drug? The primary difference is that one is legal while the others are not. And the US
Supreme Court has said as much on at least two occasions, finding both in 1925 and 1962
that to punish a person for the disease of drug addiction violated the Constitution's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If that is true, why do we continue to
prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when it would be unconstitutional to
prosecute them for their addiction?

Judge Gray gets right to the heart of the matter: "In effect, this 'forgotten precedent' says that >ni! (*)
can only be constitutionally punishable for one's conduct, such as assaults, burglary, and driving
under the influence, and not simply for what one puts into one's own body."
If only the Supreme Court and the rest of the justice/law-enforcement complex would apply
these decisions, we'd be living in a saner society.

(*)Typo in the original

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Libertarian?!? "moi"?

According to the Libertarian Purity Test , I would be a "radical lilbertarian". I scored 93/100 and the results page invited me to "contact us [the Libertarian party] if you want to run for office'" .
Too bad they assume too much:
Assumption 1 - that I am an American citizen with right of running for office in that country, which I'm not
Assumption 2 - that I would run for office in the first place, which I wouldn't (I support abolition of national states)

Luke For President

I posted this to the SkiesOfFire froums some time before the last Us Presidential Election

VOTE FOR ME!
Here's my platform:

- Out of Iraq now. Like, by Monday.
- Legalize all currently illegal drugs, tax sales and use the money (+ the money saved from not enforcing prohibition) to fund free detox and rehab for those who want to quit.
- Crime policy: a crime with no victim is not a crime. (that would mean for instance legal hookers as long as they aren't forced into prostitution)
- Universal heath care for the poor, very low cost health care for the middle class, some benefits on costly health issues for the kinda-rich. Billionaires etc. keep flying private jets to private clinic in Switzerland like they always did.
- No more eavesdropping on your telephone, internet communications without warrant and without proof of involvement in a crime.
- No more undercover agents: the Police has to fight crime, not be criminals that betray their hum... co-workers.
- No more overseas military bases. Keep US Military inside the US... well, unless someone ELSE starts a war
- NO MORE AGGRESSIVE WAR. Wasn't the Axis "bad guys" for doing that?!?
- Sex education in schools done the scientific way (pops impregnates mom, mom makes the baby), including STD and condom use
- More nuclear power, more solar power, more alternative energy, more electric cars, less oil/coal based power, less gas-powered cars
- Intelligent design is NOT science. It may be philosophy, possibly, but definitely not science.
- Stop trying to enforce immigration policies: whoever wants to get in, can do that. All the money saved on border guards and immigration policy enforcement would go to help countries where immigrants come from, improving the quality of life there, so they wouldn't have to emigrate in the first place.
- It's gonna end there because by the time I get this far reciting this list in a convention, I'll get shot. BTW, carrying weapons should stay a citizen's right (in fact, that should be reintroduced in countries where the Nazis abolished that right)

And no, I'm not an American citizen so I couldn't run for president. And even if I could, I wouldn't; just as I wouldn't run for office in 'my' country (and if I did, no-one would vote for me).
I'm so darn happy I don't have any kids so I can die without worrying about where this world is going...