Democracy is Nothing Short of Tyranny

Opening my paper this morning was no simple task, as I am still recovering from saluting Lex and killing my liver in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Wisconsin. Fortunately, the Register Guard apparently has a policy whereby anyone who can string 1000 words together gets to be published in the paper. Nothing helps this cynic's headache like a batshit editorial in the local paper.

Thank Jeebus for Laura Cooper.

Eugene income tax for schools is both unfair and unwise

It starts out promising:

It’s a lesson we all supposedly learned as children: The end can’t justify the means.

I'm not sure if this something we all supposedly learned as children. Don't eat the paste. Play nice with others. Always put your name at the top of the paper because your teacher can't know who wrote it if there's no name at the top of the page. These are the things I learned as a child. I'm not sure if I missed the day my class tackled complex philosophical arguments and came to definite conclusions on them, but then I was sick a lot, so it's completely possible.

But accepting the premise, what does this have to do with anything?

School funding is a noble and necessary end; however, the means chosen for this mission by the Eugene City Council in its income tax proposal are nothing short of tyranny as our forefathers understood, and for that reason the proposal must be defeated.

Tyranny! Nothing short of tyranny!! The kind of tyranny our forefathers faced!!! Do you think she wanted to go with Founding Fathers, but backed off because she realized that no, nothing she is about to write about has anything to do with the founding of this country? I don't know, but "forefathers" it is.

What tyranny do we Eugeneians face Laura Cooper?

As is predictable, proponents provide nothing beyond the same old arguments about taxes “boosting” the local economy without bothering to evaluate the very real impact of additional taxes on an already struggling economy — completely discounting or ignoring the impact on already overburdened local taxpayers.

Okay, but what about the tyranny? You promised me tyranny, dammit.

Nobody disputes the value of a high-quality education. The problem is that few supporters of this proposal can argue much past “it’s for the children” and focus on the horrendous details of the actual proposal.

Ok, horrendous details. Let's have 'em. And I'm still waiting on that tyranny.

Nothing in the proponents’ arguments addresses the prospect of an offset of collected taxes against equalization revenues from the state, addresses the authority of one government jurisdiction to levy taxes for another, or explains how this could possibly be a “temporary” measure when the structural problem that has caused it to occur remains unsolved.

No details. No tyranny.

In Oregon, schools are funded locally through property taxes, but Measure 5, approved by the voters in 1990, placed strict limits on those taxes. Instead, this proposal is a blatant attempt by the city of Eugene to evade Measure 5 and constitutes double taxation on Eugene residents who have already funded schools through their state income taxes.

Double taxation! Heavens. But wait. I fund schools through my local property tax and through my state income taxes?! Holy fuck, I'm already being double taxed. This would be triple taxation! Or quadruple, if you want to throw the feds in the mix. And I do!

Under Oregon’s Constitution, the state Legislature is tasked with funding schools using state taxes. Why not hold our Legislature accountable? Instead, the city simply wants Eugene voters to pay twice — even though the funds raised could well be deducted by the state Legislature in its own equalization distributions (resulting in no net benefit at all).

Given that Measures 66 and 67 were proposed last year as the solution to the very same underfunding problem, what assurances can voters be given that the current proposal will in fact be the real and final solution? Unfortunately, none — precisely because this “solution” is not even within the jurisdiction of its proponents.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. And by that I mean it's not very well written. I get that Cooper doesn't like the tax, but by this point I feel a bit Milhouse over here. When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?

Oh wait, here we go.

Nor is that simply a technical problem. Instead, the jurisdictional issue strikes at the very heart of fairness and accountability, and demonstrates that the proposal is blatantly unconstitutional and irresponsible. This proposal is a fundamental mismatch between taxing authority and spending goals, and the consequence is a basic lack of both due process and equal protection.

I should mention here that Laura Cooper is an attorney, so when she says something is "blatantly unconstitutional" I have every reason to believe that she knows what she's talking about. And while blatantly unconstitutional is not exactly tyranny, I've perked back up. Due process, equal protection. Those are concepts I know. Let's do this thing.

Here’s why: The jurisdiction of the city of Eugene extends only to the contiguous city limits, and thus the tax would affect all people who reside within those city limits and file state tax returns. By contrast, school district boundaries extend well beyond those city limits. What that means is that families that reside within the boundaries of the school district but outside the city limits would be exempted from paying the proposed tax because the city cannot exercise its jurisdiction over them.

Ummm...is that really what "due process" and "equal protection" mean? Some people wouldn't have to pay taxes that they don't get to vote on, but they get the benefits? I'm not sure those words mean what she thinks they mean.

Thus, River Road-area neighbors who live on either side of city boundaries and send children to the very same schools will be treated completely differently with respect to this tax, simply by virtue of their residences being on opposite sides of the city limits.

The class of persons paying the tax bears no rational relationship to the class of persons benefiting from it.

In addition to being blatantly unfair, the proposal is also unwise.

We've walked back "nothing short of tyranny" and "blatantly unconstitutional" to "unfair" and "unwise." Yes, Johnny, there are times when I feel as if I have been cheated. This happens to be one of them.

Laura gives us some more nattering, but to be honest, I've lost interest now that I've realized that there will be no tyranny forthcoming. Read if you must, I only post it to be fair.

School district governing bodies are neither accountable to nor legally subordinated in any way to the city of Eugene, or vice versa. The city cannot dictate to the schools, or vice versa, and thus there is no procedure whereby the city can adequately oversee or monitor accountability for the funds it raises for the schools: it lacks basic authority to acquire information to enable it to determine the appropriate level or use of the taxes it seeks to impose.

As a practical matter, then, the Eugene City Council can provide no assurances that this new funding stream will correct or even address any of the underlying problems for which it is being proposed. In short, it cannot enforceably condition the funds on anything. For example, it cannot address the systemic problems creating the shortfall: It cannot require the school district to cut administrative overhead or renegotiate pension deals with the dollars that it directs toward the schools. Funding with no accountability is a direct ticket to waste, fraud and abuse.

She does finish nice though.

Means matter. What’s next? If the city’s power to levy taxes can be used to fund anything the City Council desires, what is to stop it from collecting taxes for world peace? This proposal must be defeated.

Exactly. If the City Council can propose a 1% income tax with the funds directed to schools, put it on the ballot, and have a majority of citizens vote to pay higher taxes, then where does the madness end?

It ends in tyranny, that's where it ends.

Never Too Soon

What does the futures market on the 2012 GOP nominees look like?

Let's find out.

I'm an early Pawlenty man, btw, for many of the reasons discussed here.

I'm Not a Smart Man, Jenny

Here's what I don't understand, McCain wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He wants to incentivize give automobile companies tax credits to build electric cars, which will "create jobs." Obama says the same shit really. Why doesn't our news media point out that, since both men support globalized free trade, that oil produced in America will not necessarily be consumed in America, and that there is absolutely no reason American car manufactures will build electirc cars in Ohio instead of Mexico.

It's all complete shit. I watched the two men give economic speeches today (part of jury duty seems to entail heavy doses of CNN) and it was like a contest to see who could say "America" more often.

That said, McCain said some truly crazy shit. Apparently, agreeing to drill off shore will reduce the price of oil in "months, not years, months." WTF? Of course, we come back to the anchor and he just repeats the talking points, like they were true or something. Like he needs to reinforce the take away message, because that's his job, making sure we all got the highlights.

I know you all know this. But it makes me said. Just like Jenny not loving Forrest, except she really did, she just wasn't ready for his love because it was so pure.

When the unfortunately named lash out

Meet John "Jack" Kass, columnist for the Chicago Tribune and world-class Obama hater. "Jack" Kass is angry:

"Did you ever notice that when John McCain is on TV he's always grumpy?" asked a colleague in the cafeteria who whispered, lest others denounce him for Barackian Thought Crimes.

"McCain's always made to look old and angry, a curmudgeon. And Barack Obama? He's always seen as presidential, cool, smiling, shaking hands," whispered the guy.

Now, a rational person would look at, say, this:



And then look at not only the candidate, but at his image consultants, asking, "Really, are you guys trying to lose?"

"Jack" Kass, however, is not rational. And who does he blame?

I believe this phenomenon is called liberal bias. And the country has caught on.

Since I mentioned it a few days ago, newspapers, Web sites, radio and TV news have been full of stories about media bias and outraged denials, recrimination and guilt. Always the guilt. Obama's people know we're guilty.

That's right, "Jack" Kass was the first to notice liberal bias in the media. Not just content to put lipstick on that old sow, he sprinkles in some queer innuendo:

Guilt is what McCain is playing on, too, trying to shame journalists with a new video with dueling sound tracks about the Media Love that Dares Speak Barack, featuring MSNBC host Chris Matthews shrieking that when he hears Obama talk, a tingle runs down his leg.

some astonishingly bad advice:

Predictably, McCain blew it by selecting lame songs for his video. He should have used "Barry Angel" sung to the old dusty "Johnny Angel" or my personal favorite, "Oh-Bama" sung to the 1958 hit, "Oh, Donna," back in the Route 66 days when McCain was young and not so old.

some more not-so-subtle innuendo:

Meanwhile, the Democrat Obama is treated quite differently. He's the Mr. Tumnus of American politics, the gentle forest faun of Narnia, with throngs of reporters trembling to sit with him at tea and cakes, like the little girl in the C.S. Lewis story, as he plays the flute, chanting "We Are The Change We've Been Waiting For." And nobody laughs.

Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

some bedwetting about "angry bloggers":

I hesitated to suggest this is because of liberal media bias, because the last time I said so, I was frightened and intimidated by the angry left blog Daily Kos, which has discovered that I'm not liberal. One Kos reader suggested that he'd read my column in the Tribune only "if the headline read 'Tribune Columnist Beaten to a Pulp.'"

and, just because you can't do it enough, a smidgen more innuendo, with bonus cult implications!:

Because the election is over, isn't it? Obama is president, all we're waiting for is the transcending, when a beam of light shines on Chris Matthews' face, carrying him to the heavens, smiling, that tingle running down his leg.

Poor, angry "Jack" Kass.

I Am Hank Hill

I just got back from a three day raft trip on the lovely Deschutes River in Central Oregon. I was looking forward to continuing to my vacation by enjoying some relaxing sleeping in. I find nothing relaxes so much as sleeping. Unfortunately, my neighbor picked this morning to build some half-assed enclosure in his backyard using copious amounts of chicken wire and staples.

Now I understand that reasonable men (and women I suppose, but shouldn't they be in the kitchen or something?) could disagree about the earliest time it is acceptable to begin backyard projects. I have heard it advanced that 8 am is a reasonable time. With my perpetual fear of conflict (or contact) with the neighbors, I wait until 9:30 am on Monday through Saturday and have an 11 am start time for the Sunday sleepers.

Apparently the junior jackass behind me (physically in the neighborhood, not behind me in my bed, that would be awkward because he could see what I was typing), would advocate for a 6 am start time, for this is when I was first awoken to the steady popping sound of his staple gun alerting me that my slumber had come to an end.

I desperately want to go over there and say something about the block charter, but I don't believe we have one. No, what we have is a little common fucking courtesy around here. It's all we've ever needed. Until today, I guess. Also, if this is a chicken coop this man is building, and something in my soul tells me it is, all I have to say is "no got dang way."

Summer of the MILF

Is this the rollout of the 2008 "key electoral constituency"? Because I've gotta tell ya, if Chris Matthews starts analyzing how the critical cougar vote is going to break, I'm. Done.

Woodstock My Ass

My lovely wife and I went to see the Hancock last night. I have to take her to all the Will Smith summer blockbusters, as she's made it clear to me that she loves the Fresh Prince more than me. Taking her to see the movies is my way of showing that I'm cool with that.

Anyway, Hancock was a fine film. You should go see it. Seriously, I'll wait.

Back? Okay, there was one thing that bothered me about the film [insert clip from the movie Clue of Martin Mull saying, "One thing!?" Classic.] Jason Bateman's character, as you know, just having watched the film, is a bleeding heart liberal and so is his smoking hot wife, whom he managed to score despite having a young kid and no visible source of income, but that's not what bothers me, as I, too, have a smoking hot wife whom I landed while working at Taco Time. So what bothered me is the Woodstock poster they have on their bedroom wall. I know this is hard for people over the age of fifty to understand, but those of us in our mid-thirties who have hearts that bleed for the suffering in the world, do not look to the 1960s for inspiration. Well, maybe a little, but we do not hang framed Woodstock posters in our bedrooms. There would have been hundreds of other ways for set decorator Rosemary Brandenburg to emphasize the fundamental nature of these characters without resorting to Woodstock. Woodstock was the defining event of the previous generation.

Alright, let's get our Independence Day freak on!

Since EZ Refuses to Be Baited

Maybe we all would do well to remember that it was the right that created the fiction that Obama the biggest leftist since Che. Obama is largely "backing away" from positions that the right invented for him. Obama never ran as a leftist. He was never the progressive dream.

I am not a fan of Obama's vote on FISA, but it was going to pass. I wish I lived in a United States where the government was not routinely allowed to break the law. I wish that I lived in an America where large corporations were not allowed to routinely break the law. I wish that Obama was the kind of candidate that would rise to the challenge, make a principled stand and be respected for it.

Instead I live in an America where the government and large corporations routinely break the law and where, if Obama had cast a meaningless "no" vote on FISA or had joined the doomed filibuster, he would have been accused of making it easier for terrorists to attack the United States. Repeatedly. For months. Come the predictable October "surprise" foiling of a "terrorist" "plot" through intercepted phone conversations, Obama's opposition to FISA would have been yet another example of why it would be too dangerous to let a man as inexperienced as Obama sit in the big boy chair.

That said, Obama is rapidly alienating the left. This is the natural outcome of the fact that he's no longer standing next to Hillary. Let's face it, the biggest point in his favor has always been that his last name is not Clinton.

Oh, How I love Them All

Message Two. Monday. 6:30 pm: Hi, my name is Dickhead McFuckinstein and I came by the office earlier to make my health insurance payment, but apparently the staff had some other place to be or had better things to do and couldn't take my payment. Well, I understand that today is the deadline, but I can't come back by today, so I'll need to be able to drop that payment off tomorrow. If you can call me and let me know when you'll be in the office so I can make this payment, I'd appreciate it. You can call me at 346-JERK.

Happy Canada Day, eh!

Guess what, everyone - it’s Canada Day!

It’s the day on which Canadians celebrate… well, we’re not exactly sure what. It’s probably the day we told them they didn’t have to be the fifty-first state (which we can revoke at any time!) or something like that. In fact, most of my fellow countryfolk are only aware of Canadians' distinct language, their cheap medications, and the horribly long lines to see a doctor, even if their lungs are falling out. It’s true. Look it up.

But we should endeavor to learn more about our neighbors up north, the Dennises and Brians of the world. For example, did you know that many Famous Americans were actually born in Canadia? The Guy from Jeopardy, for example, who not only has the brains, he’s got the ggggrrrrrrrr…

Or what about that lovable Alex P. Keaton, who was able to break away from the Canadian hippie liberalism of his parents and show the world the sunny face of Reaganism?

And of course, Pamela Anderson’s dedication to her acting craft and to her family inspires my patriot…

And lastly, who can argue that the heights of Canadian culture don’t rival our own?


Had The X-Files been filmed in Canada, or if the New Pornographers were Canadian, maybe they could have produced something as fantastic as those clips.

So there you have it, fellow Americans. Now pop open a Molson’s and salute our hockey-playin’ friends in the Great White North, confident in your better cultural understanding. And on Friday, we’ll show ‘em what a real kickass national holiday looks like!

John Cornyn Ad

Someone thought this was a good idea. That's all I can say. I'm blown away.

Odd conventions

Until today, I did not know that the chairman of the Republican National Committee was one Robert M. "Mike" Duncan (I've only belatedly started going through my designated "right-wing propaganda" mailbox again). I have nothing personal against Mike or his delightfully Southern everyman name. I'm only calling him out on this because his e-signature caught my attention. However, you've seen others like him.

Roger L. "Rocco" Malone.

Wallace R. "Bud" Jenkins.

Avery T. "Tom" Patterson.

Why sign your name like that? Mike probably always introduces himself to people as "Mike Duncan," and he made it to the top of the RNC (regardless of it's current appeal as a post of duty), so why fuck with a winning formula?

On the other hand, maybe he prefers the formality of his given name for such serious work as making his candidate seem like a Man for the Times by recycling memes from the 80s. The 1980s, in case there was any doubt. So for that high-(on something)-level communication, go with the solid and officious Robert M. Duncan, etc. etc.

But awkwardly inserting the nickname - in quotes, no less! - into the more long form signature? Why am I picturing an airbrushed State Farm agent's portrait?

Oh - incidentally, I'd like you all to start referring to me as "Jim".