Table of Contents
 

1. Tom Daschle in Pursuit of Bad Taste
2. On the Death Penalty
3. On the IRS
4. An Open Letter to JoDean Joy
5. On Zoe Baird
6. On Charles Rhines
7. On the Child Abuse and Neglect Law in South Dakota
8. On National Health Care
9. More On the Late Zoe Baird

Any one of these editorials may have appeared in any number of South Dakota newspapers, but I'm not aware of their publication. --Bob

 

sitemap | nakedgov homepage
Tom Daschle in Pursuit of Bad Taste

(1992)


For several hours in September the awesome force of federal government was brought to bear on one small brewery's foolhardy exercise of its First Amendment rights. Yep, our boy Tom (Daschle, that is), really came through fer us. And I was proud, 'cause this is why we pay him the big bucks (about ten grand a month, that is).

Seems Hornell Brewing committed a breach of good taste at a bad time. See, they called this new malt likker o' theirs "Crazy Horse". Now don't get me wrong, I don't like that idea any better'n you do. Fact is, I think anybody who commits a crime of breach of taste ... well, y' just can't think of a suitable punishment. But runnin' a small brewery outa business seems like a good start.

Well, ole Tom, he agrees with me on this'n. He rams a bill through the Senate, and it subsequently passes the House, to make Hornell Brewing quit using the name "Crazy Horse", 'cause it's disrespectful to this ole Indian chief who stomped the stuffin' outa Custer and then some Army corporal shot him in the back or something about a hunnerd years ago, and 'cause by using that name they're gonna increase poverty on the reservation, and when they quit usin' that name there's gonna be jobs on the reservation and people 'r' gonna quit drinkin'.

And, personally, I think it's about time. Next, we're goin' after the Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves. Then? Then the world is ours. Pontiac, Seattle, and Ogallalla, you'd better be thinkin' about what yer gonna call yerselves in about a year, 'cause it ain't gonna be Pontiac, Seattle, or Ogallalla, ''r anything else which could possibly offend anybody.

Come to think of it, I'm startin' to git offended that they're using the name "Washington" for the place wherein they cut this budget thing. Y'know, the deal where they spend all our money and then some? I think we (me and Tom) oughta pass a bill changin' the name o' that place. How about "Dillinger"? Yeah, "Dillinger, District of Consumption". How 'bout it, Tom? I mean, it'll only take a few hours, and you know how to do it. I'll he'p.

Challenges? Supreme Court? Constitution? Don't worry. Nobody who gets a job in the Federal Government has ever read the Constitution.
Table of Contents
On the Death Penalty

written 1/7/92


It's getting exciting as the race heats up. Who's gonna be the first South Dakota state's attorney to get somebody fried in over thirty years?

We watch in frothy anticipation as respective prosecutors are asked by reporters to speculate on whether they will ask for the death penalty, often for an as-yet-unidentified murderer, often before the victim's body has even cooled.

We're glued to our TV/newspaper/radio as the investigation progresses and the gruesome details of the crime are revealed. We smile grimly and nod as suspects' names are released. We cheer and slap each other on the back as suspects are arrested and await extradition to South Dakota where the prosecuting attorney makes his dramatic announcement--he will ask the jury to put this man to death and propel the then-obviously-deserving state's attorney into history and the governor's office.

Well, maybe "fried" isn't the proper word, but it's sure a lot more pleasing to the ear than "lethal injection". How to colloquialize that phrase? "Pickle"? Doesn't seem to have that certain ring. Ah, well, the result is the same--the perpetrator is dead, and a wrong has been righted, and the next guy has been deterred from killing an innocent.
No? Statistics say that the death penalty has not been connected with deterrence? Well, it sure deters the one who gets it, doesn't it?

What? You think that if it's wrong for me to kill someone with premeditation then it's wrong for the "people", the "state", to kill someone with premeditation? Even as punishment for the spilling of innocent blood? Why?

You say that the death penalty is applied erratically. That there is often the chance that the convicted could be later proved innocent, and what good is posthumous exoneration? That no amount or style of execution will bring the victim back. That life without parole is a more civilized method of dealing with incorrigible or particularly gruesomely violent people. That no other country in the industrialized world still executes offenders. That killing someone is simply wrong.

How about in self-defense? The law and common sense dictate that I can kill you justifiably if I believe that you are mortally or gravely threatening me or someone close to me. Wouldn't that apply to these monsters who walk among us and kill some of us on occasion in circumstances and manner which make us cringe and shiver and put bars on our windows?

Yes, I know the law says that self-defense does not apply from the moment you remove your threat to me, or at the time you have removed yourself from the scene at which you have killed my friend. I know the law says that vengeance is not sufficient cause to justify my tracking you down and killing you after the heat of passion has cooled. You think that law should apply to the state? You think that the state should have to obey the laws it enacts to govern your and my behavior?

You want to simply put these people in prison and deny the rest of us the suspense of watching as the death row list grows and the clock ticks down on those waiting there. You want to deny the news media the attention-grabbing device of reporting the literally life-and-death trial and appeals process drama. You want to deny the various state's attorneys the passionate speeches to their county commissions asking for more funding because the upcoming capital trial and inevitable appeals will cost the county's taxpayers five times as much as a trial asking for life in prison.

What would you force us to do? Our prisons are already over-crowded. What? 60% of those in prison are non-violent drug offenders? A million prisoners who didn't hurt anyone at a cost to us of $30,000 per year each? Well, it seems pretty simple to me, then. Stop all this coddling. Let the victims' families hire hit-men to track down the killers and shoot 'em. That way we'd have all of the good and none of the bad. The cost is born by those who have a direct interest, no new prison bed is occupied, and the media can still entertain the rest of us with another blood-splashed true story.

Then we can start working on a real deterrent to crime. Death to all who violate any law. It's at least the solution to recidivism and takes the burden of "rehabilitation" off the rest of us.

Fry 'em, Dan-o.
Table of Contents
On the IRS

1/18/92


The judicial branch has again joined forces with the legislative and executive to strike at entrepreneurs. On Tuesday, January 17, the Supreme Court agreed with the IRS that taxpayers can't deduct home office expenses if they do the most important part of their jobs elsewhere.

The Washington Post reported that "independent contractors and other self-employed workers who do paperwork in home offices but conduct their main business at other sites" can no longer deduct a percentage of expenses for their houses as an office, even if they have no other place to do administrative work which no one denies is necessary to their careers.

The Supreme Court reversed what has been a standard practice for the self-employed, a practice which would seem to fall under the IRS's general rule permitting write-offs for "ordinary and necessary" expenses in carrying out business, provided the room is used exclusively for business regularly. The point of contention was that the room also has to serve as the "principal place of business".

So, while I, a writer, can claim a deduction for the room in which I work, my next-door neighbor, a builder, can't. He does the "most important part of his work", i.e. pounding nails, somewhere else, even though he must use a part of his home--which he can't use for anything else because of the drafting table, desk, and files which fill it--to draw blueprints and bill his work.

He could build a shack in his back yard, move the "office" out there, and deduct the cost. He could rent office space somewhere else and deduct the cost. The result would be a net loss to the IRS, because of the higher expense incurred. The IRS knows full well most in his situation will not do that.

On the other hand, the self-employed person who has an office separate from his home, who deducts the cost of maintaining that office, violates the law with impunity every time he writes a personal note, pays a personal bill, or makes a personal phone call from his office. According to the same logic used by the IRS and Supreme Court, that person negates his deduction by having a photo of his wife and children on his desk. The office must, after all, be used exclusively for business.

It's obvious that the IRS is out of control, that it is conducting a systematic assault on free enterprise. The IRS would much rather we, all of us, worked for one of about five corporations in the United States, with taxes being withheld from our paychecks, and having no legitimate deductions. It would be much neater that way.

This most recent ruling is just another example of why the IRS must be bridled. No one expects the federal income tax laws to be observed precisely. The existence of the 9,000-page IRS manual, which even its own experts can't interpret, is prima-facie evidence that the system is not designed to be effective. It's primary use is one of intimidation, laws to be enforced when someone needs slapped down, laws to be interpreted as they need to be to convict the unfortunate of the moment.

If the current congress and president do nothing else, let them overhaul this monster, this arbitrary instrument of destruction to peoples' lives. Meanwhile, we entrepreneurs will simply do what we can, when we can, diddling the IRS out of every dime we can, and being almost universally silently cheered by everyone else. It's no longer held to be unpatriotic, since no one thinks the money is being wisely spent, anyway. It's not much, but it's the principle that counts, right?
Table of Contents
An Open Letter to JoDean Joy
 

written in early 1992


I am truly grateful for the provision in South Dakota law which provides citizens the opportunity to refer initiatives to the ballot. It is an indispensable safeguard against the encroachment on civil liberties which is a natural tendency of legislatures. I am happy to grant JoDean Joy the right to take an issue in which she believes to the people for ratification.

South Dakota legislators have, in their recent session, passed a number of laws which run contrary to a reasonable person's view of individual liberty. Some of these laws almost certainly will be taken to court and struck down as unconstitutional, as they should be. It would be of help to all of us if someone with the time and energy Ms. Joy demonstrates would take up the banner of liberty against the ilk of some of these laws, e.g., all. three abortion restrictions enacted this session.

However, in raising bet limits for Deadwood gambling, the legislature did at least take a few faltering steps in the right direction. Faltering, because the bill was discriminatory against small operators and because it set limits. But it did head in the right direction, and it's what we have to work with at the moment. Ms. Joy's initiative would reverse progress.

You see, I have this old-fashioned view that an adult should be able to do what he wants to do with his own money. I have no special love for gambling as an institution, although I've been known to sit at a poker table. However, I think a person should be allowed to waste his income in any manner he chooses.

JoDean Joy apparently feels that gambling at $5 a shot is tolerable, but that gambling at $25.00 or more per toss is not. I submit that she should allow those doing the tossing to make those decisions. What most non-gamblers don't understand is that, simply because the law allows an establishment to offer games in which a participant may bet $25.00, games in which lower amounts are bet will still exist, in fact, will still be far in the majority.

The sugar coating under which the pill of gambling was prescribed to the state in 1989 had upon it printed, "Deadwood Historic Preservation". Anyone with a mind realized that those words were there to make the pill palatable for those who think that the rest of us need government to prevent us from harming ourselves.

Table of Contents
On Zoe Baird
 

1/19/92


Why are we even discussing this matter? Zoe Baird has been nominated to the position of chief law enforcement officer of the nation. She admits having knowingly broken the law. Continuously. Over a long period of time. She admits having broken another law to hide the commission of the first offense. Her name should have been withdrawn by the president-elect by now.

Baird is Clinton's choice for Attorney-General of the United States. She and her husband employed two illegal aliens, a Peruvian couple, as housekeepers, knowing they were illegal aliens. That was the first crime. The Bairds then omitted withholding social security deductions and submitting same to the government, because doing so might cause a whistle to be blown. Crime number two. You or I would go to jail for that. As a matter of fact, I did. For less.

Clinton forgave because "Ms. Baird came clean. She admitted her wrongs willingly and and fully." Right. She came clean because someone who knew about her transgression told her that if she didn't, they would.

Now, I don't think that what she did was all that big a deal. Neither does almost anyone with whom I've spoken. And that may be the point. Ms. Baird broke a law that no one takes seriously. Except when some federal law enforcement officer is looking for some reason to give for punishing someone. Like about half of all federal laws, the one about hiring illegal aliens is not meant to be obeyed. Quite the opposite; it's meant to be broken, then used as leverage, intimidation.

In this case, it's simply proving embarassing, since no one wants to enforce it on Ms. Baird. To do so would open a can of worms. So, Congress seems perfectly willing to let her pay the social security taxes she failed to withhold, along with a fine, and say she's been punished. They can then get back to their business of passing more laws, more instruments of intimidation. Laws that Ms. Baird will be charged with enforcing.

One of the most cynical comments on this case came from Orrin Hatch, Republican senator from Utah: "Sure she made a mistake, but she admitted it. I get really tired of this attitude I hear all the time that someone's life should be ruined just because they made a mistake."

Mr. Hatch should perhaps think of all those enduring draconian sentences in federal prison for drug violations because of the inhuman mandatory sentencing guidelines which have taken judgment out of the hands of federal judges. In many of these cases, a teenager will spend life in jail with no possibility of parole for a first offense which neither cost the taxpayers money nor harmed anyone. In all too many of these cases, the offense would not have been committed without the urging of undercover cops who create the crime in order to make the bust. Mr. Hatch supported these mandatory sentencing guidelines.
Spending life in prison is the ruination of a life. On the other hand, most of us don't consider our lives to be in ruin just because we're not Attorney-General of the United States. But then, it's all relative, I guess. After all, Imelda Marcos, would have considered owning only 2000 pairs of shoes the equivalent of ruin.

Table of Contents
On Charles Rhines

1992


It was a gruesome crime. The honest, well-liked young man came to work to find his former co-worker robbing the shop. The burglar, a repeat felon, killed the young man, stabbing him repeatedly after he was bound, then dismembered the body. The burglar made off with about $2000.

Charles Russell Rhines was apprehended in another state, on the basis of admissions he'd made to acquaintances. He then made taped admissions to law enforcement officers, who followed all proper guidelines to ensure their admissability.

The state's attorney said he wanted Rhines to die by lethal injection.

The process which followed was nearly as gruesome as the crime itself, perhaps in some ways more so.

The judge appointed three attorneys for Rhines. One was from the public defender's office. The other two were prominent criminal lawyers from the city. This was to avert the possibility of a reversal by the Supreme Court on the basis that Rhines was not properly represented.

Rhines' attorneys offered to plead their client guilty if the state's attorney would agree to a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. The state's attorney held firm--he wanted Rhines to die by "lethal injection of an ultra-short-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent".

For the prosecutor, there was no other option. In South Dakota a jury has to sentence a man to death; a judge can't do it. Therefore, it was necessary to hold a trial to find a man guilty of a crime to which he had confessed and to which he had offered to plead guilty.

It was necessary to spend several days choosing a jury with which the prosecutor felt comfortable, a jury which would have no problem voting for the death penalty if they were convinced that the facts warranted it. It was necessary to spend several more days outlining for the jury the exact circumstances of the crime, to show them photos of the body, to repeat the grisly details of each blow, each stab.

It was impossible for the jury not to find the defendant guilty. He had confessed under legally permissible circumstances. They twice heard his voice on tape, confessing. The only decision they had to make was whether he spent his life in prison with no possibility of parole, or had a needle stuck in his vein and poisonous liquids injected. All the prosecutor's trial presentation was designed to persuade the jury to prescribe the latter remedy.

The state's attorney, by opting for trial instead of accepting a guilty plea, had a winner on several levels. The guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion, so the only issue was the death penalty. Had the jury opted for life in prison, no one could blame the prosecutor. He assured state-wide news coverage of his attempt to insure justice--helpful in case one harbors ambitions for office beyond county level, and not harmful if one doesn't.

Watching local news coverage after the jury returned its death penalty, I saw the family of the victim emerge from the courtroom, saw the victim's mother hug the prosecutor, saw the victim's fiance¥ smile nervously at the camera as if she weren't quite sure what face to put on for the public.

It's not likely that I shall ever be able to say that I understand what those people have endured, first learning of the terrible atrocity, knowing their son and loved one had been tortured, then having to endure the dramatic replay necessary for the purposes of the prosecutor.

But I do know this; killing Charles Russell Rhines will not change a single thing about he did to the young man. I also know this; for us to kill Charles Russell Rhines by strapping him to a table and placing a needle in his vein and injecting poison through it makes us into something like him.

I also know that the approximately $200,000 which will be spent by Pennington County in convicting the killer who offered to plead guilty, and in defending the conviction through the automatic appeal could have been better spent in providing help and counseling to some fifteen-year-old whom, because of lack of funding, will not receive the help necessary to guide him through a brutal adolescence which will produce the next Charles Rhines.

Part of the justification for killing a killer is that it will deter another from committing the same offense. Part of what's wrong with that argument is that the very types of crimes prescribed by South Dakota law to deserve the death penalty are the types of crimes committed by people who don't have the capacity or inclination to consider the penalty at the time they commit the crime.

Any potential killer knows that if he's caught, he'll likely spend life in prison. If he's rational, the difference between that and being executed is unimportant. Unfortunately, those who kill in the manner of Charles Rhines are not rational. Are we?
Table of Contents
On the Child Abuse and Neglect Law in South Dakota

1993


Child abuse and neglect is a serious problem. It is incumbent on us to protect our fellow citizens from harm forced upon them, inasmuch as that is possible, and inasmuch as "harm" can be defined satisfactorily. This is particularly true of our responsibility to children.

I have no doubt as to the good intentions of the South Dakota state senators who voted in favor of extending the definition of child abuse and neglect to include dealing and/or consuming illegal drugs or substances in the presence of "young" children. However, the highway to Hell is paved with good intentions. This is another brick in that highway.

We humans have yet to arrive at a consensus on the definition of "good parenting". Until we do, we would be well advised to tread very carefully when it comes to passing legislation which extends the power of the state into folks' homes and private lives.

Prior to this extension of the definition of child abuse and/or neglect, violations generally involved physical harm or gross negligence in providing for a child's welfare. In other words, parents who beat their children "excessively" or who starved them or left small children alone for "long" periods of time were adjudged incompetent or unworthy to raise those children.

There's always been a huge problem with application of the child abuse/neglect law. When does discipline become abuse? Under what circumstances is it permissible to leave a child unattended, and for how long? Only the most extreme cases are unambiguous.

Now the senate of South Dakota has taken a step towards making at least one circumstance unambiguous. Unfortunately it's a foolish, thoughtless step in a weird direction.

The national hysteria over consciousness-altering substances has again contributed to government's taking another bite out of personal liberty and to extending government's not-so-benevolent parent role in our lives.

I call it hysteria, because we face a lot more serious problems than whether someone chooses to get high or not. I call it hysteria because we have for some twenty years now been centering more and more on one small, albeit legitimate, area of concern, while giving free rein to abuses which threaten us immeasurably more.

I don't advocate or condone drug use of any sort. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, beneficial to a child for his parents to deal or use drugs. But it is not prima facie evidence of child abuse to smoke a joint in front of a child. To arbitrarily make it so makes a mockery of the law.

By the logic exercised by the sponsors and supporters of this law, then every time a parent breaks a law, the state should take his/her children. If a parent runs a stopsign or speeds, he/she should forfeit parenthood. If parents cheat on taxes, litter, or turn without signalling, they should lose their right to be parents.

To extend the logic, everything a parent does which is not beneficial to a child should be illegal. If a parent calls his child stupid, the child should be taken by the state. If a parent smokes cigarets or drinks beer, if a parent is obese, if a parent is illiterate, if a parent swears, does not fasten his/her safety belt, does not take his/her children to church, to the right church ....

This is, simply, a bad law. It opens the door to much more bad law, of which we already have an overabundance. This bill still has to get past the House. There is still a chance sanity will prevail. But I doubt it. It's said that no one is safe while the legislature is in session. The truth of that statement is apparent in Pierre right now.
Table of Contents
On National Health Care
 

written 2/3/92


We get sick. We get hurt. Eventually our bodies cease functioning and we die. We agree on this about as universally as we do on anything.

The attempt to extend, to deny, our mortality is almost as universal. It's part of the natural selection process, the attempt to be a successful species.

Humans have subverted natural selection by their application of medical knowledge. In other species the sick and infirm die, limiting the passing on of undesirable tendencies. Humans spend huge amounts of energy (read "money") keeping their sick, infirm, and aged alive.

We generally approve. It is a product of our compassion, our intelligence, our humanity. Given this ability, it would be unnatural for us not to use it.

But rational humans agree that there is a point at which it is no longer practical to expend energy (money) to extend the life of another. We disagree often on when that point arrives. We disagree on whose money should be spent and how to collect it.

Enter the federal government. Having assumed the right to extend its power far beyond the basic facilitatory functions outlined in the preamble to the Constitution, and having assumed the right to collect a portion of our incomes to finance its extended authority, it has naturally assumed the right (the government calls it a "responsibility") to "provide" all of us with "adequate medical care".

In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid became facts. Prior to that, people either chose their own medical care providers and paid their own bills, bought their own insurance, or relied on family, friends, or charity to subsidize expenses. Of course, many went without.

In 1992, senior citizens pay a larger portion of their incomes for the Medicare deductible than when they paid 100 per cent of the bills themselves. For the rest of us, non-subsidized medical care is out of reach unless we're in the top 15-or-so per cent in annual income. Of course, many go without.

About 15 per cent of the income received by medical care providers is spent fulfilling the requirements of Medicare/Medicaid, i.e., filling out forms. Since Medicare/Medicaid covers only certain procedures and mandates the price for each, providers naturally do as many covered procedures as possible on each covered patient, regardless of the procedure's necessity or its cost to a self-payer.

Now the debate in Washington is on how to extend this boon to all of us.

We seem to have trouble learning a simple lesson. Whenever the federal government sets out to do "X", "Y" happens. The only rational direction to take is one of less government involvement in our lives, regardless of the apparent intent of that involvement. Medicare and Medicaid are financial disasters for all except those who administer them. They cost more money than the problem they attempt to solve. They depersonalize the attention our doctors give us. They encourage our taking less personal responsibility for our own well-being.

A more comprehensive national medical program can only be a larger disaster. Those of us who live "healthy" lives, paying attention to exercise, nutrition and stress-reduction, will subsidize those who don't. Some will lobby for more stringent regulation on both the "greedy" care providers and on those who utilize them, providing an excuse for more government interference.

About half of all money spent on medical services is spent on people during the last year of their lives. I have the right to expend my own fortune pursuing another six months of life. The government has no right to take your money to extend my life another six months. Impersonal decisions are made every day about who will or won't live a while longer, who gets a life-extending organ transplant, who gets available time on a dialysis machine. That won't change.

Since virtually no one can afford medical insurance or self-payment, our lives have become consumed by worry over what will happen to our families, to us, if we sustain a work-stopping injury or disease.

The proposed answer is to nationalize, collectivize, all health coverage. South Dakota's U.S. Representative was never more amusing during the 1992 campaign than when he attempted to justify a national "sharing of risk" while claiming, "I'm not suggesting socialized medicine". Further nationalizing medicine will assure higher prices, more administrative costs, and less care delivered. He knows that, endorses it, while claiming he doesn't.

The simple truth is that we can't afford to splurge our resources in this futile exercise. To do so is to assure poverty, strife, and lack of productivity for us all.

The only rational path is in a direction of reducing government involvement. Encourage people to take more responsibility for their own actions, to live healthier lives, and allow them to keep more of the money they earn so they can pay their chosen care-provider for services they and the provider decide they need. The eventual result will be lower prices for all services and a tendency towards the return of family and community support for the truly needy.

We get sick. We get hurt. We die. National health insurance can affect nothing about that except to make the consequences more expensive. We pay the bills; "government" doesn't.

Table of Contents
More on Zoe Baird

1993


It was, indeed, a strange deal. The United States Attorney-General-designate was in front of the U.S. Senate judiciary committee admitting she had knowingly, over the course of two years, violated two federal laws. And she still expected to be confirmed.

The senators, mostly, supported her. Until they started geting phone calls at the rate of 5000 a day--running 95-to-1 against confirmation. The new president supported her up to the point it became apparent the senators were jumping ship.

And we just looked at each other and rolled our eyes. We weren't surprised by any of it. We knew that among those who make more than $500,000 pr year, as do the Bairds, that the criminal code means something different from what it means to the rest of us.

We knew we couldn't expect the senate judiciary committee to do the right thing on their own. These were, after all, the same bunch who confirmed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court after everyone in America watched him lie to them. No, not about Anita Hill. He lied when he said he had never thought about the Supreme Court decision concerning "Roe v Wade". There is not a literate American over the age of fifteen who has not considered "Roe v Wade", whether or not he or she calls it by name.

The prize for cynicism in the Baird case goes to Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (also one of the stars of the Thomas hearing). He said, "Sure she made a mistake, but she admitted it. I really get tired of this attitude I see all the time that someone's life should be ruined just because they made a mistake." How many people do you know who think their lives are in ruin because they are not Attorney-General of the United States?

We now know that we can't accept at face value any of the promises Bill Clinton made to us. Like, he was gonna hold his administration to an exceptionally strict ethical standard. Like, he was gonna make this a better country for those "who work hard and play by the rules".

Now, the question is, do any of them get the real point? The real point is, nobody thought that what Zoe Baird did was wrong. She and her husband hired a Peruvian couple, illegal aliens, and paid 'em cash to be housekeepers and babysitters because you can't withhold and submit taxes on illegal aliens without sending up flags on yourself. Big deal. It's done all the time.

Everybody, everybody, who can diddle the IRS does so. Anybody who's looking for help hires whoever fits the bill. Illegal? Yes. Wrong? We tend not to think so. That's the real point.

These, like about half of all federal laws, are not designed to be obeyed. On the contrary, they're designed to be broken, to be used at the convenience of an FBI agent or US Attorney for leverage and intimidation.

Who's getting punished in the Baird case? The Bairds paid their back taxes and a $3000 fine. That's not punishment to someone who makes half a million smackers a year. No, the INS has issued a summons to the Cordero's, the Peruvian couple. They're goin' back to Peru, if they can be found. That's who's gettin' punished in this deal.

The real point here is that we're sick of having to put up with stupid laws, whimsically applied. Laws which make it close to impossible to start a business, to offer a service, to fill a demand. Laws which are ignored with impunity by those with money and power. Laws which are so ill-defined that conviction or exoneration is a matter of whether a jury personally likes the defendant. That, and whether the defendant can afford a lawyer who knows what he's doing.

For example, almost daily, we see evidence of price-fixing in Rapid City. Every time gasoline prices change, within minutes every station in town has the new price posted. Senators and Representatives have told us they can find no evidence of a violation.

What they are saying is that the anti-trust laws are stupid, and that we're stupid for thinking they're gonna waste their time prosecuting a few small-time gas distributors in some backwater town. No, anti-trust laws are to be saved to slap some big corporation who happens to get caught in bed with the wrong people when the opposite party is in power.

The real point is that we're starting to see what a price we're paying for the endless stream of unenforceable and contradictory laws whose purpose is to both make justice so complex and convoluted that it is non-existent, and to further restrict the freedom of the marketplace. The real point is that we can't tolerate the arrogance of someone who would assume she can wink at something on national television which would get one of us thrown in jail and then expect us to accept her as the chief law enforcer of that very law.

Unfortunately, since those who passed a great deal of these unenforced, unenforceable laws are the same ones who are now taking our angry phone calls, we're in for a generation or so of government-by-straw-poll, decisions taken on the basis of the tally on a secretary's score card. Just call 1-900-DUMB LAW.
Table of Contents
sitemap | nakedgov homepage