Oakland’s police chief Anthony Batts has announced that Oakland Police will not responded to 44 different crimes if planned layoffs occur at midnight. It was useful for Batts to announce the categories in advance for criminals to chose from a criminal dim sum list of free crimes including grand theft, burglary, vehicle collision, identity theft and vandalism.
If you are the victim of burglary, you will be told to make a report online and not to expect police to respond.
Here the list of free crimes in Oakland:
burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another’s
That allows ample room for most criminals to plan a life of crime without the risk of police interference.
This is the response to the planned layoff of 80 officers. That is roughly one-tenth of the force. As we continue to gush billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our cities are returning to a state of nature. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions. However, the union would only agree if the city promised no layoffs. The city refused.
Source: NBC.
Smom,
I only used “men” where it was used in the original Declaration. If you’ll notice, I use the terms human elsewhere (except where discussing abortion rights) after the caveat about the use of the word “men”. I did this as a transition from the source material to the new material, but I will amend the sentence to read as follows:
The CPP is dedicated to the proposition that all men, in the generic sense of “mankind”, and women are indeed created equal.
As to the practicalities of when you’ll see a CPP endorsed candidate? This kind of thing take a bit of time. We might be looking at election cycles further out than whatever disastrous non-choices we’re going to have next Presidential elections. In addition, we are going to have to recognize the reality that we are likely to be starting out fielding candidates at local and state levels first. As they say, Rome was not built in a day. Nor will the reclamation of America for We the People.
Gyges:
May I suggest we reconvene in someone else house? WordPress blogs are easy to set up and you could post a link.
BIL:
I’m probably going to use WordPress but I have a couple of other alternatives I want to check out too.
CCD
Terrific!
=============================================================
I’m signed up for email updates and await new address for meetings
I will join the mailing list. I like most of the ideas presented but don’t like the use of “men”. It needs to be men and women. You don’t want this to be a party limited to white men. Ron Paul will capture those folks in any case if he runs. If it is Obama verus Palin, there is no way I will vote for a third party.
Everyone,
Anyone wanting to be on the CPP mailing list, please send an e-mail with “CPP Info Add” as the title to the following address:
CPP.America@gmail.com
This will get you updates on the status of the project.
To be removed from the mailing list, please send an e-mail with “CPP Info Remove” as the title to the same address.
Gyges:
May I suggest we reconvene in someone else house? WordPress blogs are easy to set up and you could post a link.
BIL:
I’m probably going to use WordPress but I have a couple of other alternatives I want to check out too.
Terrific!
Gyges,
“1. This is the simplest part in theory and trickiest part in practice. How do you decide which laws are Law and which aren’t?”
Basically I’m using the razor that if it abridges a Constitutional right or duty or a basic human right, then it’s illegal and must be disposed of to restore the rule of law.
“4. This and Number 5 are necessarily paired together (Byron’s dislike of public roads and teachers not withstanding), rebuilding the the roads is MUCH more effective if all the money spent on equipment and materials stays in country. I’d say you could even combine the two into: Number 4, using as much American parts as possible, and only labor in the country legally. I see restoring our manufacturing base as part of restoring our infrastructure.
5. See 4”
I do not disagree with this assessment and will take into consideration combining manufacturing capacity under the heading of infrastructure.
“6. Any stricter immigration reform has to deal with enforcing the ban on hiring. (which I believe you stick in 5).”
I propose not just a ban on hiring illegals, but harsh punishment on employers for doing so.
“8. Assuming that the Fed. supplies a subsidy to help poorer rural districts afford compliance.”
This is a resonable component of campaign finance and I will clarify and expand the language in the fuller version of the platform to address this.
“9. I think this is actually the most systematic change. While we’re at it I’d like to see us go back to a “Vice president is the guy who comes in 2nd method. I think that would be a BIG step in encouraging third parties and discouraging the sort of “anything to oppose the OTHER side” feedback loop the minority party seems to sink into lately.”
Oooo. I like the VP is 2nd runner up proposition as an alternative to the (already proving to be contenteous) No Confidence measures. It would certainly force a more intra-party co-operatve stance on the Hill especially when combined with opening the system to more parties (which in itself will foster coalition building).
Anyone else have thoughts on Gyges proposal?
“10. Number one covers this, being as we haven’t really ‘declared war’ on anyone in several decades. I think that the best way to go about preventing ‘military actions’ is to put a time\troop limit on any action not approved by Congress. You’d probably need to make a separate category for some small to medium sized operations (both in troop and time limitations) that allows them to be voted on by a smaller subset of the Congress (National Security and Defense committees?) for clearance reasons, but the votes and actions should be a matter of public record as SOON as the action is complete. I’d also go for a limit on the size of the standing army (on a scale relative to the rest of the world say something like 2/3rds of the worlds’ largest army).”
I agree that limiting standing army size to what is adequate for self-defense during peacetime is something to consider in re-evaluation of military resources and deployment. Jefferson was so right about the danger of a standing army but I’m certain his apprehension and fear of their abuse by aggressors was a logoritmic progression in relation to size. I also want to do away with contracted private military. Mercenaries are a bad idea all the way around and even that sociopath Machivelli thought so. If this means we have to reinstitute the draft to go to war in a foreign land? I think that’s a fine idea as long as there are no exemptions for “Politicians Son’s”, gender or sexual orientation but only allow exemptions based on filling a critical support need at home, for health reasons and/or for single parents of underage children. This is a much broader plank then the narrow piece of wood I posted suggests and I know it will expand over time.
In re: relocation. I’m ahead of you there and I am most grateful (once again) for the Professor’s indulgence(s). He is truly a kind and munificent host. I’m working on that already and time permitting will have something set up over the w/e or early next week. I’m probably going to use WordPress but I have a couple of other alternatives I want to check out too. And for the record, I try to avoid proprietary formats like Flash in favor of OS alternatives :D.
BIL,
In order to keep the Blog more or less on track, may I suggest we reconvene in someone else house? WordPress blogs are easy to set up and you could post a link. Alternatly, WIX.com has an idiot proof web designer, and free page hosting (but they do run off of flash, which has (at least for me) been temperamental lately (I blame Farmville).
Of course JT doesn’t seem to mind these sorts of distractions all that much, but sometimes discretion is the better part of manners.
I have more than that done, but that’s what I feel comfortable in submitting for review at this time.
Submitted for your consideration, the introduction and first (of six) statements of CPP Principles (draft).
______
Statement of Principles for the Constitutional Populist Party (draft)
The roots of the American Dream – the ideals and vision that made this country a bright and shinning beacon for seekers of liberty and freedom around the world for decade upon decade – are firmly set in The Declaration of Independence. As such, the Principles of the Constitutional Populist Party (CPP) use this invaluable work of Thomas Jefferson as a primary touchstone in defining both the vision of the party and our shared vision for the future of America. Along with the Constitution, the Declaration provides both the tools and lights the way to put America back on the path to being this beacon again. To explain the Principles of the CPP, let’s start with the source itself, the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
We will address these founding party principles in the order which Jefferson first presented them and place them within context of the Constitutional framework.
1.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
The CPP is dedicated to the proposition that all men, in the generic sense of “mankind”, are indeed created equal. We are committed to the ideal that ones wealth, skin color, cultural heritage, gender and sexual orientation make no difference in one’s treatment by the laws of this land. That the rights of all Americans to seek the American Dream and receive just and equitable treatment from their government is a guarantee – a vital part of the social contract between citizens and the government that serves “We the People”.
These guarantees and the others contained in the Constitution apply – indeed were meant to apply by our Founding Fathers – only to natural human beings holding U.S. citizenship and not to constructs like the legal fiction of a corporation. The CPP will always promote policies of equality and non-discrimination based on wealth, skin color, cultural heritage, gender and sexual orientation.
To that end, the CPP operates under the principle that marriage is a religious insitution but that human pair bonding and the choice of sexual self-determination are inalienable human rights. Sexual determination as an inalienable human right does not extend to the psycholigically diagnosed deviant behavior of pedophilia. This is rightfully considered criminal behavior and should contiue to be considered undesriable illegal behavior as long as people of good conscience draw breath. Children are the weakest members of society and ergo deserve protections from sexual preadators.
Marriage, while rooted in various religious traditions, has long been recognized to contain a contractual component. In order to promote equity, the CPP endorses same sex civil unions with rights and responsibilities equal to those attached to traditional religiously sanctioned marriages. To whit, insurance and tax benefits for partners, access to civil divorce proceedings, the right to visit ill partners in hospital and be legally recognized as next of kin if still participating in a civil union. If a religious insitutions should choose not to recognize same sex unions within the confines of their organization, that is their right under the Constitution, but as a matter of law and equity, the law must be made to recognize all human pair bonding as equal before the law and afford them the legal protections and rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
Given that sexual determination is an inalienable human right, the CPP also considers that a woman’s freedom of choice in choosing to have an abortion in line with the ruling of ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is also an inalienable right that travels soley with the pregnant woman. There are many reasons to disallow religious beleifs to influence the law in this matter and guarantee it as a civil right. Chiefly among these is the inability to care for a child either emotionally or finanacially creates an added burdon not just to the prospective mother – who may or may not have a present biological father to contribute to the raising of children – but to society as a whole in the form of costs associated to welfare programs and the abadndonment and/or abuse of undesired children. Brining children into the world and raising them to be healthy responsible adults is a serious business that should not be forced upon those unable and/or unwilling to do what is required.
These principles are in line with both equality and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Michelle “Batshit Crazy” Bachmann is in the news again!
Michele Bachmann Plans To Form Tea Party Caucus In Congress (Huffington Post, 7/16/2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/tea-party-caucus-michele_n_648817.html
Excerpt:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has plans in the works to create a Tea Party Caucus in the United States House of Representatives.
Bachmann on Thursday filed paperwork to establish the House affinity group, which the conservative congresswoman says will call for “fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government.”
“This caucus will espouse the timeless principles of our founding, principles that all Members of Congress have sworn to uphold,” Bachmann said in a statement. “The American people are doing their part and making their voices heard and this caucus will prove that there are some here in Washington willing to listen.”
Bachmann took to Twitter to credit Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul with inspiring her to start the new caucus. “I applaud Rand Paul and look forward to bringing the Tea Party to the House!” she wrote.
Earlier this week, Paul raised the idea of founding a “tea-party caucus” in the Senate in an interview with the National Review.
edit:
“Construction company A needs to buy a steam roller to complete the job for the government, it needs to either buy an American built steam roller, or show that one is prohibitively expensive, demonstrably inferior, or simply nonexistent.”
Byron,
To be clear, I’m talking about a specific restriction for new purchases for Federally funded government contracts, NOT a restriction on private enterprises, or even state and local governments. In this case: Construction company A needs to buy a steam roller to complete the job for the government, it needs to either buy an American built steam roller, show that one is prohibitively expensive, demonstrably inferior, or simply nonexistent, before it can use government funds to buy a foreign built steam roller.
Ideally the steam roller should be made from American parts, but that level of investigation and documentation would be prohibitive, so I’m just suggesting that Construction Company A needs one that was assembled in the U.S.
Since the Government is acting as one party of a contract in this scenario, it is free to ask for whatever it wants from the other party, who is free to say “yes\no\this is going to raise the cost X.”
This all assumes a bidding process for contracts, so that “Raise the cost by X” is based on reality rather than some company seeking to jack up their profit. Will this raise prices? Probably initially, but I think the benefits to the American Tax payer as a whole would be enough to justify the increase.
Workers demand higher wages in China
By ELAINE KURTENBACH | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 10, 2010
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/business/2010/jul/10/b-chin10-ar-287158/
Excerpt:
SHANGHAI —
Factory workers demanding better wages and working conditions are hastening the eventual end of an era of cheap costs that helped make southern coastal China the world’s factory floor.
A series of strikes over the past two months has been a rude wakeup call for the many foreign companies that depend on China’s low costs to compete overseas, from makers of Christmas trees to manufacturers of gadgets like the iPad.
Where once low-tech factories and scant wages were welcomed in a China eager to escape isolation and poverty, workers are now demanding a bigger share of the profits. The government, meanwhile, is pushing foreign companies to make investments in areas it believes will create greater wealth for China, like high technology.
Many companies are striving to stay profitable by shifting factories to cheaper areas farther inland or to other developing countries, and a few are even resuming production in the West.
“China is going to go through a very dramatic period. The big companies are starting to exit,” said Rick Goodwin, a China trade veteran of 22 years whose company links foreign buyers with Chinese suppliers. “We all see the writing on the wall.”
Byron,
Since the Government isn’t looking to turn a monetary profit, the cost\benefit analysis involves different considerations. Encouraging return of manufacturing to the U.S. has several benefits that seeking a cheaper source would not. Jobs, reducing the out flow of capital from the U.S., self sufficiency in times of war, etc. That’s not to say that all work EVER should only use American parts, that’s just to say that all work done with government funds should try and provide the most benefit to the source of the funds (the tax payers), and using as many American goods helps goose the benefits of a project.
The language of the requirement would be something like ‘the company can apply for an exemption, if they are able to show that: the cost of American goods is too high, the quality is too low, or are unavailable.’ That assumes a review process that would be subject to corruption, but that’s why we have the office of Inspector General. Also, if science can do Double Blind studies, why can’t bureaucracies be set up in a similar fashion?
Byron,
Free trade doesn’t work simply because most of the world doesn’t engage in it. It’s a lovely idea that has largely failed in practice. We are headed back to the age of trade wars, one way or another, so I say we should benefit American based companies just like the Chinese and Russians do for their domestic companies.
Gyges,
I’ll get to your points later. My stomach is threatening to consume my liver so I’m going out for lunch.
Gyges:
why only American goods? I want free trade with no tariffs or other restrictions. To hell with the rest of the world, if they want to limit their economies then let them.
I am not against teachers, I married one and roads are good as well. I am just saying there are other ways of doing things. We need to change how we conduct and think about how we do business as a country. Buddha’s idea about getting rid of K St. is a very good start and an elimination of corporate welfare is good as well.
And yes I did mean “Worlds'” I’m counting on first contact within 25 years or so.
The question is how exactly do we determine the army size of a species who function as individuals until the numbers gathered together reaches critical mass, and then they function as a hive mind?
Where’s Lem when you need him?
Buddha,
A few thoughts:
1. This is the simplest part in theory and trickiest part in practice. How do you decide which laws are Law and which aren’t?
2. Amen
3. Preach it Brother
4. This and Number 5 are necessarily paired together (Byron’s dislike of public roads and teachers not withstanding), rebuilding the the roads is MUCH more effective if all the money spent on equipment and materials stays in country. I’d say you could even combine the two into: Number 4, using as much American parts as possible, and only labor in the country legally. I see restoring our manufacturing base as part of restoring our infrastructure.
5. See 4
6. Any stricter immigration reform has to deal with enforcing the ban on hiring. (which I believe you stick in 5).
7. Sign me up (even though I loose my successful on an evolutionary level credit)
8. Assuming that the Fed. supplies a subsidy to help poorer rural districts afford compliance.
9. I think this is actually the most systematic change. While we’re at it I’d like to see us go back to a “Vice president is the guy who comes in 2nd method. I think that would be a BIG step in encouraging third parties and discouraging the sort of “anything to oppose the OTHER side” feedback loop the minority party seems to sink into lately.
10. Number one covers this, being as we haven’t really ‘declared war’ on anyone in several decades. I think that the best way to go about preventing ‘military actions’ is to put a time\troop limit on any action not approved by Congress. You’d probably need to make a separate category for some small to medium sized operations (both in troop and time limitations) that allows them to be voted on by a smaller subset of the Congress (National Security and Defense committees?) for clearance reasons, but the votes and actions should be a matter of public record as SOON as the action is complete. I’d also go for a limit on the size of the standing army (on a scale relative to the rest of the world say something like 2/3rds of the worlds’ largest army).
In short, a political organization requires organization by definition.
Byron,
That won’t work as a practical matter. I was in fact addressing that very issue in the Statement of Principles before I checked back in here. We have to have a mechanism for the party members to contribute to platform definition. Right now? That’s what we are in effect doing on an ad hoc basis, but as the party grows we’ll need a caucus like structure so party members can submit platform proposals to the CPP for debate and democratic review by party members before including said items in the platform as it evolves.