Ron's Log

October 2, 2010

Yet Another Opinion On Atlas Shrugged

I have a theory that someday we will arrive at a point in time when the criticisms and reviews of Atlas Shrugged will, if pasted all together, match the length of the novel. Then SOMEthing will happen, but I don't know what. Economic collapse, magic trains, 10-foot tall women in tight dresses, something. Here is John Scalzi's take on the big fat novel by Ayn Rand.

All of this is fine, if one recognizes that the idealized world Ayn Rand has created to facilitate her wishful theorizing has no more logical connection to our real one than a world in which an author has imagined humanity ruled by intelligent cups of yogurt. This is most obviously revealed by the fact that in Ayn Rand’s world, a man who self-righteously instigates the collapse of society, thereby inevitably killing millions if not billions of people, is portrayed as a messiah figure rather than as a genocidal prick, which is what he’d be anywhere else. Yes, he’s a genocidal prick with excellent engineering skills. Good for him. He’s still a genocidal prick. Indeed, if John Galt were portrayed as an intelligent cup of yogurt rather than poured into human form, this would be obvious. Oh my god, that cup of yogurt wants to kill most of humanity to make a philosophical point! Somebody eat him quick! And that would be that.

permalink | October 2, 2010 at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2010

Freedom To Video Police In Maryland

Maybe you remember that incident earlier this year where a motorcyclist, who admits he was speeding (127 MPH) while wearing his GoPro Hero HD camera, was pulled over by a Maryland State Trooper in an unmarked car. The police officer failed to identify himself and approached the now-stopped motorcyclist with his gun drawn. The motorcyclist was charged with illegal wiretapping because he had the camera running. That's a felony with a potential sentence of 5 years.

A Harford County judge has thrown out all charges except the traffic violations. "The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy."

Here's the longer vidoe giving more context.

permalink | September 27, 2010 at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2010

Dekalb County, Georgia, Grower Busted

County prosecutors in Dekalb County, Georgia, are making sure that Steve Miller doesn't succeed in his attempts to corrupt the young and old with his crop. Watch this video and you'll see his evil green peppers and tomatoes that he gave away to neighbors or sold at farmer's markets. This article says that it was even worse than that before the county stepped in. He also grew broccoli, cabbage and figs! He stopped his growing operation this summer and got his property rezoned, but that's not good enough for Dekalb County, where everybody knows fresh fruits and vegetables should only come from Mexico, as God intended.

permalink | September 13, 2010 at 10:40 PM | Comments (1)

August 16, 2010

California's Broad Free Speech Protection

The Westfield Galleria in Roseville, California, had a rule that "prohibits a person in the center's common areas from 'approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests' of the mall or its tenants." Actually, it didn't prohibit it outright. If you wanted to commit the offense of conversation with a stranger "you have to come in and fill out the application for third-party access for noncommercial speech."

Their goal seems to have been to ban religious solicitation, but the broad rule also bans one teenager saying to another something like "Hey, nice jacket."

The subject court case involved a man who got into a conversation on the subject of his Christian faith with three willing women. IOW, four consenting adults in conversation. Mall security got the drop on this hooliganism and it was quickly resolved with a pair of handcuffs and a visit from the local police.

The appellate court (yes, this rule was UPHELD at first) unanimously declared the rule violates the California Constitution's guarantee of free speech. Which sent me to actually read that provision of the Constitution, because (as I'm sure we are all aware), the right of free speech in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects you from the government. Private restrictions on free speech do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

But here's what the California Constitution says: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right."

Pretty damn broad, eh?

permalink | August 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Comments (0)

July 25, 2010

Health Code Enforcement In L.A.

Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, is a place that considers itself a private food club. The classic version of a private food club is where the members pool their money, one or two of them head out to buy hard-to-get items in bulk, bring them back, and then the members divide up the food. Way back in the 70s this might be how you would get whole organic foods in little isolated towns. Rawesome Foods goes for raw foods, as you might have guessed from their name. It has been their opinion that since they're a private club, they don't need the usual health permits. Naturally, the County of Los Angeles has a different opinion. You would think this difference of opinion would be resolved by a visit from the Health Department where they might give notice to the club or just shut it down.

But check out this video that shows how the visit was actually conducted with uniformed law enforcement officers, guns drawn. Neither the video nor the accompanying news story suggest any resistance from the club. The article does say that in 2005 they were notified that they needed a license, the club organizer objected, and then nothing more happened until this raid on June 30, 2010.

Participants in the raid included "Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

Here's an article on Huffington Post written by Tommy Rosen, who is a member of Rawesome Foods.

permalink | July 25, 2010 at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2010

Wisconsin Takes On A Free Speech Issue That It Will Lose

In Wisconsin, the very birthplace of progressivism, an independent candidate is allowed to have a five-word statement placed under his or her name on the election ballot. Here is the full text of the provision in Wisconsin statutes that governs this: "Along with the names of the independent candidates shall appear the party or principle of the candidates, if any, in 5 words or less, as shown on their nomination papers."

The Government Accountability Board has rejected the slogan used by Ieshuh Griffin, who is running to represent the 10th Assembly District, "NOT the 'whiteman's bitch'." Wisconsin has opened itself up for this sort of thing by providing a 5-word space for free speech. IMO, the greatest protections for free speech should apply during an election. Even those residents of the 10th Assembly District who disagree with her or would be offended by her words deserve to know them before the election.

Video of Ieshuh Griffin speaking to the Government Accountability Board defending her statement of purpose. At the end she makes it clear she's will take the board's rejection right to federal court.

permalink | July 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2010

Marijuana Legalization Will Be "Prop 19"

The 1972 proposition to legalize marijuana was also called "Prop 19." If you saved your campaign buttons from that vote, they just became more valuable.

A list of the ten initiatives that will be on the ballot in November.

permalink | June 29, 2010 at 02:58 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2010

The Sea Mountain Brouhaha (part 1 of how ever many parts I feel like writing)

If you're out of town or living under a rock or, like me, you just don't watch local TV news, these two videos will bring you up to speed:

• KESQ first video
• KESQ second video

As you can see there are many juicy issues: sex, zoning, city code, crappy reporting, ignorance, grandstanding, Karl Baker and government openness. But here I want to focus on just one thing. But first! My own grandstanding: I first wrote about the Sea Mountain Inn on August 17, 2006. As you can see there, I didn't have any objections to the nature of the business. Rather, I criticized their terrible website. They've corrected almost all of it, although they still claim to be "Nestled at the base of the Santa Rosa foothills." And they now clearly identify their location as Desert Hot Springs. I've got another brief post about SMI on November 4, 2006 and on January 29, 2007, where my complaint was that on KCRW they identify themselves as being in Palm Springs. They still support KCRW, but now they say they are in Desert Hot Springs. Then on July 20, 2008, I linked to a positive review of the resort. My point being that anyone who claims to be surprised by the nature of the business at the Sea Mountain Inn (or Sea Mountain Resort) has not been reading Ron's Log. To paraphrase Donn Sholty, "If you want to know what's going on in this town, read Ron's Log."

Enough of that. The thing I want to focus on is the relevant city code itself. KESQ (and some other reports) are citing old code references. I don't know what old thing they are using as a source, but the code has been re-numbered. I can't tell if any of the relevant code has actually been changed, because KESQ quotes only a small bit out of context.

The index to the part of the code that deals with sex businesses is here: Chapter 17.168 SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES.

And here you can get the full text of 17.168, from 17.168.010 through 17.168.370. Having the full text in front of you makes it easier to jump from paragraph to paragraph, which you need to do because it is not all laid out like an essay.

17.168.020 Classification of businesses.

The following uses and/or activities shall be classified as sexually oriented businesses:

1. Adult arcades;
2. Adult bookstores;
3. Adult cabarets;
4. Adult motels;
5. Adult motion picture theaters;
6. Adult novelty stores;
7. Adult theaters;
8. Adult video stores; and
9. Nude model studios.

You might think that Sea Mountain Resort would meet the common sense definition of an "Adult motel." But in 17.168.040 Definitions "Adult motel" is defined this way (emphasis added by Ron's Log):

"Adult motel" means a commercial establishment which offers public accommodations, for any form of consideration, and:

1. Provides or makes available to patrons closed-circuit television transmissions, films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides or other photographic reproductions which are characterized by the depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas; and
2. Which regularly offers or permits to be offered a room for rent or sub-rent for a period of time less than 12 hours.

Point number 1 in that definition would include any motel in the city that allows guests to access porn on their TVs. That's a pretty common amenity in all motels today (even in Salt Lake City). It's a money maker. Point number 2 (connected by "and" not "or"), however, limits the applicability to motels that rent rooms for less than 12 hours. Sea Mountain Resort does not rent rooms for less than 12 hours, so it does not meet this definition of a "sexually oriented business." It's also not an arcade, bookstore, cabaret, motion picture theater, novelty store, theater, video store or nude model studio. IOW, it's not a sexually oriented business according to DHS city code.

Does that make you think the city code may be poorly written, since Sea Mountain Resort, using common sense, IS a sexually oriented business? I've no idea when this part of the code was adopted.

The definition of a "sexually oriented business" is important because of the stated Intent and purpose of the code.

1. The intent and purpose of this chapter is to:
1. Regulate sexually oriented businesses to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City;
2. Establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent deleterious effects of sexually oriented businesses within the City;

On a related side note, I want to point out many other cities (San Francisco is the one I'm most familiar with) have learned the hard way that banning sex clubs is deleterious to the health of the community. Yes, legal sex clubs improve the health of a community. The reason is that the patrons of a sex club are more likely to be disease vectors. When a community legalizes and properly regulates sex clubs, they can get the health department closely involved with the business. Education on the prevention of the spread of STDs can be presented' patrons can be actively discouraged from "unsafe" activity, and information on STD treatments can be made available. In short, those most likely to spread disease become the best informed on how to prevent that. But without sex clubs, those same people seek out their casual sex partners where they can find them: parks, backseats of cars, grandma's basement rec room, places the health department cannot find them.

Back to the city code. The part of the code that KESQ is quoting out of context is actually 17.168.030 Prohibited uses, conduct and activities. This part contains three sub-parts. Sub-part A lists 10 things that are criminal conduct in California (like prostitution and all its various aspects) and states that nothing in the city code is meant to legalize any of these. Sort of a "just in case we wrote this code so badly that we accidentally legalized child slavery, no, we didn't mean to do that." Sub-part B is more sweeping, saying we don't mean to legalize anything that is banned under federal, state or local law.

And finally sub-part C is the part that KESQ has been selectively quoting of context:

A sexual encounter establishment is not a permitted use. For purposes of these regulations, a "sexual encounter establishment" means any business or commercial establishment that as one of its important business purposes offers for any form of consideration a place where 2 or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort for the purpose of specified sexual activities when 1 or more of the persons of the establishment is in a state of nudity or where 2 or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort for the purpose of the exposure of specified anatomical areas where 1 of the patrons of the establishment is in a state of nudity or state of semi-nudity. The definition of sexual encounter establishment shall not include an establishment where a medical practitioner, physiologist, psychiatrist or similar professional person licensed by the state engages in medically approved and recognized sexual therapy.

You've got another indication here of sloppy code. We've got a nice definition section, but here we introduce a new special term and have to define it on the fly. Let's try to untangle this spaghetti.

• A sexual encounter establishment is not a permitted use.
• A "sexual encounter establishment" means any business or commercial establishment that as one of its important business purposes offers for any form of consideration
  • a place where 2 or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort for the purpose of specified sexual activities. From the Definitions section:

    "Specified sexual activities" means and includes any of the following:

    1. The fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts
    2. Sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, masturbation, or sodomy; or
    3. Excretory functions as part of or in connection with the fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts, sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, masturbation or sodomy.

  • when 1 or more of the persons of the establishment

    [I can't find a definition for "persons of the establishment" although Google shows me that the phrase is used frequently in legal documents - I assume it would mean any owner, employee or contractor - in the Google search I found our chapter 17.168.030 reproduced exactly in the City of Tulare code so I guess that's where we copied it from - here's a link to the complete Tulare sex business code]

    is in a state of nudity OR where 2 or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort for the purpose of the exposure of specified anatomical areas where 1 of the patrons of the establishment is in a state of nudity or state of semi-nudity.

    To simplify:

    • 1 nude staff person PLUS 1 other person who is there for the purpose of sex, OR
    • 1 nude patron PLUS 1 other patron, both there for the purpose of nudity (including partial nudity).
    
    Maybe "persons of the establishment" means the same as "patrons of the establishment," but I can't be sure because I can't find a definition.

• The definition of sexual encounter establishment shall not include an establishment where a medical practitioner, physiologist, psychiatrist or similar professional person licensed by the state engages in medically approved and recognized sexual therapy.

That definition of a "sexual encounter establishment" is so broad that it encompasses all hotels & motels. Consider that most legal of "specified sexual activities," the kind enjoyed by a married couple. Surely any hotel that has a honeymoon suite, offers honeymoon packages, or even advertises double beds is offering "as one of its important business purposes" a place where that married couple can engage in "specified sexual activities" and there will be "1 nude patron [one spouse] PLUS 1 other patron [the other spouse], both there for the purpose of nudity."

Now, maybe the great minds of Desert Hot Springs (or Tulare) who wrote this intended for the nudity or sex to be happening in "common areas" like around the pool, in the pool, in the massage room, on a table in the breakfast nook. Maybe. But they didn't write it down anywhere. The law is what it is, and it is written to ban all motels, hotels, resorts, spas, inns, whatever you want to call them. Even if someone wanted to open a motel where only one guest was permitted per room, it wouldn't be legal because the definition of "specific sexual activities" includes masturbation. Perhaps we could allow a resort that was operated by members of the Shaker faith who would strictly enforce the practice of celibacy by their guests.

Oh, wait, hold on, there's an out. We may not have to shut down every TOT-paying facility in town. There is 17.168.050 Exceptions: "The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a clothing-optional motel or hotel." Maybe we'll be able to salvage a couple of resorts, eh? The definition of "clothing-optional motel."

1. In the ordinary course of business, permits persons to be nude or semi-nude in and on the common areas of the subject property which are not visible from any public right-of-way [Sea Mountain meets this requirement];
2. Except for closed-circuit television transmissions made available for viewing within a private room exclusively rented and occupied by individual patrons, does not provide or make available closed-circuit television transmissions, films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides or other photographic reproductions which are characterized by the depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas [not sure if Sea Mountain meets this requirement-do they have porn channels available on room TVs?];
3. Does not offer or permit to be offered a room for rent or sub-rent for a period of time less than 12 hours [Sea Mountain meets this requirement];
4. Does not offer or permit to be offered any single room for rent or sub-rent more than twice in a 24-hour period [Sea Mountain meets this requirement];
5. Except as specifically defined in this section to mean a clothing-optional motel, does not engage in, offer, or permit any conduct or activities in and/or on the subject property that are defined in this chapter to constitute a sexually oriented business [Sea Mountain meets this requirement because, as I wrote above, it does not fit the definition of any of those sexually oriented businesses in the code].

So any clothing optional resort that does not offer porn channels on TV can stay, but all the rest have got to be shut down.

If it really is the city's intention to ban sex clubs, then this part of the city code needs to be rewritten, because the way it's written it potentially accomplishes exactly the opposite.

But I see no need to ban sex clubs. Far from it. They should be welcomed and the health department should be actively involved in each one (and the sex club is going to pay fees sufficient to cover the expenses of the health department). A properly operated sex club results in BETTER public health and MORE INCOME to the city. Check out the rates at Sea Mountain. They're running a special where you can get a room for only $200 per night. The rates go as high as $800 a night. Our TOT rate is 12% so each of those rooms, when occupied, is paying the city from $24 to $96 per night.

If customers of the business are parking illegally, if there are fire code violations, if there's a problem with noise, if they've constructed an unpermitted wind turbine (tryin' to cover all the bases here); all of those are problems that can afflict any resort and can be handled using other appropriate parts of the code. Let's get our volunteer firefighters in there to check for locked exits and overcrowding (thank me later, firefighters). If there's barbed wire, well, our code enforcement people recently succeeded in getting that problem solved at one of our Palm Drive businesses. The city can make money correcting any deficiency that could interfere with the rights of the neighbors to enjoy their happy quiet lives, without killing the goose that lays golden eggs. We can have a win-win-win-win: good tax revenue, happy visitors, good health, happy neighbors. But that craptastic city code needs rewriting.

Continues in Part 2 here.]

permalink | May 26, 2010 at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2010

Hermosa Beach & Tattoos

You may recall the January meeting of the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission where, among other things, tattoos and the legal rights of tattoo establishments were discussed. Here's the relevant bit that I wrote in my posting about that meeting:

Attorney Davtyan said there is an appeal under way in the 9th Circuit challenging whether tattoo establishments can be banned. Hermosa Beach had done so and a tattoo artist is suing. At the lower court level the city of Hermosa Beach won. Other courts have ruled that the business itself is not protected by the first amendment - which is a different matter from the first amendment protection of the tattoos themselves.

Today the L.A. Times brings us the story of the tattoo shop owner who is pressing that First Amendment case. He's Johnny Anderson who operates a tattoo shop in a seedy neighborhood in Gardena. He wants to move it to Hermosa Beach. Hermosa Beach's zoning laws are just like Desert Hot Springs. They don't mention tattoo parlors, and if it's not mentioned, it's banned. His case is at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals now. At least one UC Berkeley law professor agrees with Mr. Anderson (but if you can't find one UC Berkeley law professor to agree with you, then you're not even trying).

Hermosa Beach officials argue in court papers that Anderson isn't engaged in expression but "merely providing a service." The city also contends that tattooing poses health risks, creates "aesthetic concerns," generates little tax revenue and would impose a financial burden on the city to provide adequate inspection and regulation.

At the DHS Planning Commission in January, the commissioners voted 4-0 to have staff proceed to prepare a zoning amendment to permit tattoo shops, to be presented to the city council.

permalink | May 23, 2010 at 09:34 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2010

Making America Safe By Eliminating Privacy

SnapScouts is an application for Android that encourages you to take a photo of anything you think might be illegal. It gets sent to "super secret servers, where a team of trained security professionals reviews every image for possible illegal activity." They then might forward it to law enforcement authorities. The site is designed as though it's intended for kids, but there's nothing on the site about an upper (or lower) age limit. In fact, there is no legalese whatsoever. But maybe if you download their app and install it on your Android phone you'll have to agree to something.

They say on their FAQ page: "We made SnapScouts because America is more threatened today than it ever has been before." Which is why they tested it in Indonesia, England and Germany.

Another question:

Q: Should I be concerned if my child is taking pictures of me?

A: Only if you have something to hide! But seriously, we realize that reasonable actions can sometimes look suspicious. If you'd rather not involve the authorities, Keep an eye out for SnapScouts Reports — it let's you monitor what reports have been filed about you or anyone in your network and negotiate with the reporter anonymously — coming soon!

How soon is "soon?" Here's a telling quote:

"My eight-year old caught the gardner smoking something suspicious. It wasn't marijuana, but it turns out he was illegal!" - Phyllis Specter, 32, Idaho

That ought to make it popular in Arizona. Use it to take photos of everyone you think might be an illegal alien - as a private citizen you don't even have to have a "reasonable" suspicion.

And what about at home? Who is that man visiting Mommy? Adultery is still illegal in some jurisdictions.

At school? Is it illegal for the coach to administer corporal punishment to a naked boy in the locker room? [Hey, that's how it was done at my high school.] Better take a photo!

In the lunch room? Is that cafeteria lady picking her nose? Get a photo.

The site claims that 600 crimes have been "reported," but it makes no claims about arrests or convictions.

The great thing about this method of reporting is that the reporter stays anonymous! So, all the people like those anonymous dodos who post comments on the Desert Sun's website will be motivated to get out of the house and do their damage elsewhere.

permalink | May 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)

May 7, 2010

Just In Time!

Arizona is terminating its highway speed camera program. "John Keegan, a judge for the Arrowhead Justice Court, had called the cameras unconstitutional and dismissed more than 8,500 photo-enforcement tickets."

When I crossed Arizona last month, there were at least four separate instances where I found myself in front of a speed camera going maybe 2 or 3 MPH over the limit. I asked my Arizona brother how strict they were and he said thought that they were pretty strict on out-of-state plates, but I might be within the safe range. I haven't exactly been sweating with anticipation of getting some notices from that state that pays so much lip service to freedom, but it's nice to be able to stop wondering.

permalink | May 7, 2010 at 09:54 PM | Comments (0)

May 4, 2010

Like we didn't see this coming: Lancaster Sued For Prayers At City Council

The City of Lancaster, California, has had a lawsuit filed against it by attorney Roger Jon Diamond who says prayers at city council meetings (approved by 80% of the voters on April 13, 2010) violate the 1st amendment.

Lancaster City Attorney Dave McEwen said that "Since the beginning of the year, 'at least one or two' prayers from non-Christian faiths have been given at council meetings."

Diamond said sectarian prayer at government meetings is illegal, regardless of which religious beliefs are being expressed..."If next week they prayed in the name of Allah, it wouldn't make a difference," he said. "It doesn't help that maybe once in a while, they violate the law in a different way."

permalink | May 4, 2010 at 11:12 PM | Comments (0)

May 3, 2010

"Born Free" - M.I.A and Romain Gavras

On-the-street interview with 12-year old actor Ian Hamrick and his mum (precededd by a short ad).

They are talking about this violent video which takes you on a little tour of Los Angeles and then the high desert.

permalink | May 3, 2010 at 09:27 AM | Comments (0)

April 16, 2010

The School That Spied On Its Students

You may remember the story that came out in February about the Lower Marion School District in Pennsylvania that used school laptops to spy on students, and anyone else in camera range, 24 hours a day. More about the case has come out, and our worst fears are being confirmed. Not only did the laptops get photos of students undressed and sleeping, but school officials saw and retained the photos.

Back at district offices, the [Blake] Robbins motion says, employees with access to the images marveled at the tracking software. It was like a window into "a little LMSD soap opera," a staffer is quoted as saying in an e-mail to Carol Cafiero, the administrator running the program.

"I know, I love it," she is quoted as having replied.

One image showed a student with a handful of Mike And Ike candies which administrators thought were drugs.

You've got to wonder how seriously out of touch the school administrators are that they don't recognize a popular American candy that's been around for 70 years.

permalink | April 16, 2010 at 02:00 PM | Comments (0)

April 12, 2010

City Council Invocations In Lancaster, California

Tomorrow, voters in the City of Lancaster, California, are voting on the city council's prayer/invocation policy at their meetings. "Vice Mayor Ron Smith, who wrote the ballot measure, has said that the policy of randomly selecting someone to deliver the invocation allows citizens the opportunity of freedom of speech, to be able to pray the way they want to pray.'"

I was curious how the random selection policy would work, and also how listening to other religion's prayers at random would somehow enhance any individual's ability to pray the way he or she wants to pray.

I found the Lancaster Sample Ballot and the neutral statement written by the City Attorney says this:

CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF BALLOT MEASURE I RELATING TO THE CITY'S INVOCATION POLICY

The City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Lancaster (the "City"), on November 10, 2009 adopted Resolution 09-103 submitting Measure I to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on April 13, 2010. The ballot measure asks whether the City Council should continue to follow its adopted invocation policy. This policy provides that the City Clerk shall maintain a list of representatives of all religious organizations with an established presence in the community and shall select on a random basis individuals to provide the invocation at each meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. Provided that the invocation is not used to convert others to a particular faith or disparage any faith or belief different than that of the speaker, the individual selected is free to offer the invocation according to the dictates of their own conscience and may include references to a particular deity. This policy is consistent with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marsh v. Chambers and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pelphrey v. Cobb County.

In order for Measure I to be approved, a majority of the votes cast must be in favor of the Measure.

/s/ David R. McEwen, City Attorney, City of Lancaster

No details on the random selection method. Some people would expect random to work the way "shuffle play" usually works on your music device; that is, it goes through all the selections in random order until all have been played.

Let's say, for saying sake, Lancaster has 100 Christian congregations, 3 Jewish congregations, 2 Muslim congregations, 5 Buddhist organizations, and 2 Hindu groups; and that they all wanted to pray or invoke at a city council meeting. If they worked it like a CD player, then the next 112 city council meetings would be covered. And then I guess you would refresh your list to take in new groups and start over.

But "random" means random, unless the ordinance/resolution defines it a different way. The city clerk might draw the name of the orthodox Rabbi at the first meeting and then, just as randomly, draw it again at the next, next and next. Random can do that.

A little digging found the resolution itself, approved at the August 25, 2009, city council meeting that the voters will be approving or disapproving. If we eliminate all the whereases, here's the meat of it:

1. In order to solemnize proceedings of the City Council, it is the policy of the City Council to allow for an invocation or prayer to be offered at its meetings for the benefit of the City Council and the community.

[2. The prayer shall not be listed or recognized as an agenda item for the meeting so that it may be clear the prayer is not considered a part of the public business.]

3. No member of the City Council or City employee or any other person in attendance at the meeting shall be required to participate in any prayer that is offered.

4. The prayer shall be voluntarily delivered by an eligible member of the clergy/religious leader in the City of Lancaster. To ensure that such person (the "invocational speaker") is selected from among a wide pool of the (jurisdiction)'s clergy/religious leaders, on a rotating basis, the invocational speaker shall be selected according to the following procedure:

a. The City Clerk shall compile and maintain a database (the "Congregations List") of the religious congregations with an established presence in Lancaster.

b. The Congregations List shall be compiled by referencing the listing for "churches," "congregations," or other religious assemblies in the annual Yellow Pages phone book(s) published for the City of Lancaster, research from the Internet, and consultation with local chambers of commerce. All religious congregations with an established presence in the local community of Lancaster are eligible to be included in the Congregations List, and any such congregation can confirm its inclusion by specific written request to the Clerk.

c. The Congregations List shall also include the name and contact information of any chaplain who may serve one or more of the fire departments or law enforcement agencies of the City of Lancaster or any nearby military facilities.

d. The Congregations List shall be updated, by reasonable efforts of the City Clerk, in November of each calendar year.

e. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this policy, and on or about December 1 of each calendar year thereafter, the City Clerk shall mail an invitation addressed to the "religious leader" of each congregation listed on the Congregations List, as well as to the individual chaplains included on the Congregations List.

f. The invitation shall be dated at the top of the page, signed by the City Clerk at the bottom of the page, and read as follows:

Dear religious leader,

The City Council makes it a policy to invite members of the clergy in the City of Lancaster to voluntarily offer a prayer before the beginning of its meetings, for the benefit and blessing of the City Council. As the leader of one of the religious congregations with an established presence in the local community of the City of Lancaster, or in your capacity as a chaplain for one of the fire departments or law enforcement agencies of the City of Lancaster, you are eligible to offer this important service at an upcoming meeting of the City Council.

If you are willing to assist the City Council in this regard, please send a written reply at your earliest convenience to the City Clerk at the address included on this letterhead. Clergy are scheduled on a first-come, first-serve or other random basis. The dates of the City Council's scheduled meetings for the upcoming year are listed on the following, attached page. If you have a preference among the dates, please state that request in your written reply.

This opportunity is voluntary, and you are free to offer the invocation according to the dictates of your own conscience. To maintain a spirit of respect and ecumenism, the City Council requests only that the prayer opportunity not be exploited as an effort to convert others to the particular faith of the invocational speaker, nor to disparage any faith or belief different than that of the invocational speaker.

On behalf of the City Council, I thank you in advance for considering this invitation.

Sincerely, City Clerk

g. Consistent with paragraph 6 hereof and, as the invitation letter indicates, the respondents to the invitation shall be scheduled on a first-come, first-serve or other random basis to deliver the prayers.

h. If the selected invocational speaker does not appear at the scheduled meeting, the Mayor may ask for a volunteer from among the Council or the audience to deliver the invocation.

5. No invocational speaker shall receive compensation for his or her service.

6. The City Clerk shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that a variety of eligible invocational speakers are scheduled for the City Council meetings. In any event, no invocational speaker shall be scheduled to offer a prayer at consecutive meetings of the City Council, or at more than three (3) City Council meetings in any calendar year.

7. Neither the City Council nor the City Clerk shall engage in any prior inquiry, review of, or involvement in, the content of any prayer to be offered by an invocational speaker.

[8. Shortly before the opening gavel that officially begins the meeting and the agenda/business of the public, the Mayor shall introduce the invocational speaker and the person selected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance following the prayer, and invite only those who wish to do so to stand for those observances with the City Council.]

9. This policy shall be intended for all Boards and Commissions for the City of Lancaster, California.

10. This policy is not intended, and shall not be implemented or construed in any way, to affiliate the City Council with, nor express the City Council's preference for, any faith or religious denomination. Rather, this policy is intended to acknowledge and express the City Council's respect for the diversity of religious denominations and faiths represented and practiced among the citizens of Lancaster.

The staff report on this can be found here.

The minutes from the August 25, 2009, city council meeting are here. The brackets around items 2 and 8 are, apparently, there because the city attorney wanted the city council to discuss those specific items. Those sections were removed by the city council.

My impression is that for a lot of Christians the full extent of religious freedom is this: "We get to talk about Jesus Christ." You see some of that in the public comments on this item. One Bishop he has ignored letters from the ACLU. Anna Menenes liked prayers "ending in the name of Jesus Christ" and said the ACLU attempts to silence voices but she is concerned about Wiccans coming to pray.

She doesn't seem to realize that if she wanted to silence the Wiccans she needed to oppose this resolution.

A Robert Yapp said the ACLU tries to bully the city.

The Mayor said "this should be a simple issue about allowing anyone to come and give an invocation and pray to their God and including praying in the name of Jesus Christ."

[On an unrelated issue, if you read further on in the minutes you will see that the Lancaster city council allows banter and questions and answers between the city council and those making public comments! The time it takes for a member of the city council to talk during the comment comes out of the speaker's time!]

I've bolded the part of the resolution that defines the randomization process (item 6). They have defined "random" specifically for this purpose to say that the city clerk has the job of ensuring a "variety" of speakers. It also puts limits on repetitive selections. To some city clerks "variety" will mean you cover all the Christian congregations and even let the Mormons speak once a year.

Item 4 in the resolution says the speakers are to be selected on a rotating basis, which is not random. Items 4 a, b, and c describe how the list of potential speakers is to be compiled by the city clerk. The clerk goes to the Yellow Pages, searches the internet, and consults with the Chamber of Commerce. It also says any Lancaster congregation "can confirm its inclusion by specific written request to the Clerk." I don't know if that means they are permitted to find out if they are on the list, or that they can ask the clerk to add their congregation to the list.

Some minority religious groups such as Wiccans, Satanists, pagans, Native American traditional religions, may not list themselves in the Yellow Pages and may not be easily found via some internet search. I will help the city clerk to get started by pointing out this group of Antelope Valley Freethinkers who, I guess, discuss humanism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In any case, the entire process, even if fairly administered, excludes one specific group: atheists. They don't have congregations. They aren't in the Yellow Pages. If this resolution is approved and the ACLU wanted to challenge it, I'd suggest they find an atheist in Lancaster who wants to speak on a point of philosophy and have that atheist request that the city clerk include him on the list. Then wait to see what happens.

The arguments in favor of this resolution published in the Sample Ballot give you an idea whether the supporters want free exercise of religion or if they just want prayers to their God at city council meetings:

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I

Our Nation was founded on Godly principles. This is evident in the public and private writings of our Founding Fathers, and in the documents that established this GREAT NATION.

"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?" – Thomas Jefferson

After ratifying the Constitution of the United States of America, Congress was so resolute to protect the people from the abuse of power by the government and secure their unalienable rights, that on December 15, 1791 they ratified 10 amendments – THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The FIRST AMENDMENT starts with the FREEDOM OF RELIGION. It specifically states that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE" of religion.

Asking for DIVINE GUIDANCE during PUBLIC PRAYER has been an integral part of government ceremony since the formation of our Nation; including the INAUGURATION OF THE PRESIDENT, and the opening sessions of the SUPREME COURT and CONGRESS.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, ... and humbly to implore His protection and favor..." – George Washington

The City Council of Lancaster has a long history of opening the public meeting with prayer.

It is every INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to pray in accordance with their own convictions and beliefs; and to pray to the deity of their own choosing, including in the name of JESUS CHRIST.

There are those who are trying to rewrite history, and are working to take YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF RELIGION and FREE EXERCISE away.

TAKE A STAND!

PROTECT YOUR FREEDOMS and VOTE YES on MEASURE I.

/s/ Paul W. Chappell, Pastor

/s/ Ronald D. Smith, Vice Mayor

/s/ Sharon Runner, Former Assemblywoman

/s/ David M. Prather, Pastor

/s/ R. Rex Parris, Mayor

permalink | April 12, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Comments (3)

April 6, 2010

Border Patrol

After a restful night in lovely Las Cruces, New Mexico, I hit the road for Tucson, Arizona, where I was going to meet my brother and sister-in-law for lunch. I was buzzing along I-10 until I came to the border patrol checkpoint. There was a short line, with maybe half a dozen cars ahead of me. The drug-sniffing dog was especially frisky this morning. She had really had her coffee. She was darting about eagerly. Her handler had to pull her back from sniffing the ground in front of moving cars a couple of times.

I was rolling forward when she first sniffed at my truck, so the handler brought her back to me when I had stopped. As she came by my door she jumped up and put her paws on my truck for a moment. When I got to the head of the line the officer there asked where I was headed. "Tucson," I said. He asked where I was coming from and I told him I had spent the night in Las Cruces. He asked if I had been in El Paso. No, I have never been there.

The officer said they'd like to do a canine search of the truck; I think he phrased it as a question. I said okay and he directed me to pull out of line into a space on the left, which I did. Another officer there more clearly asked for permission for a canine search and said okay. He told me to turn off the truck and step out. I took the keys with me and put them in my pocket. The officer told me to keep my hands out of my pockets.

I stood 10 or 15 feet from the truck with a lot of officers around me at a safe distance. One or two of them asked me questions like if it was my truck and had I owned it a long time. One asked if I spilled anything "like food" in the truck. My answer was yes. I eat in the truck all the time and I never really clean it, so there are dried bits of food in every crevice. And then one asked "Is there anything in the vehicle." I love that question when I hear it on COPS. Unless I have just driven up in a Ford Ranger that contains a perfect vacuum that is somehow also impervious to electromagnetic radiation, then, yes, logic tells us that "something" is inside it. An interior does exist. Ford designers saw to that.

Not seeing a need to give an English lecture on the spot, I skipped to the point: "There's nothing illegal in it." Something I could say with perfect assurance because I've never been so stupid as to put anything illegal in it. The owner before I bought it (in 2003) was a Sheriff's Deputy in San Mateo County, so you figure it out. They double checked my answer. They asked if I'm a medical marijuana user "We know you can do that in California," or if I have smoked marijuana in the truck. I answer truthfully "No" to both questions.

The handler brought the dog up (the driver-side door had been standing open). The dog sniffed around outside a bit and then went into the cab where she had a very happy time sniffing around everywhere, walking all over my sweatshirt, my backpack filled with camera gear, my computer (in a bag), and a bag of trail mix from Costco. It was nice to see someone so happy with her work, but she's hardly the first dog I've encountered who seemed fascinated by the odors I brought along. Did I tell you about my visit to the wolf sanctuary in Lucerne Valley a few years ago? When a wolf wants to sniff, you let it sniff.

The handler got the dog out of the truck and walked her away out of sight. We all stood there silently for a bit, like it was my turn to sing but I'd forgotten the next verse. One officer asked when the last time was that I smoked marijuana in the truck. I repeated that I never had, and that I never had any marijuana in the truck. He also asked broader questions like whether I smoked marijuana at all, but I kept my answers focused on the truck, saying I had never smoked in it ever and had never had marijuana in it. The officers did says several times that they didn't care about medical marijuana or smoking in the truck, but they had asked about it two or three times. An officer said the dog had "alerted on your vehicle." So they were going to do a more thorough search.

They began to walk me towards their little building. The escorting officer asked me if I had ID. I said yes, and asked if he wanted it. He said no, not yet. But then when we got to the narrow space between their building and the cars coming through the line, he stopped and said "Yeah, just give me your ID now." So I gave him my drivers license, and another officer took me into the little white room lined with metal shelf benches. The "Group W" bench, but I was alone. He did a pat down and told me to have a seat and left the room. One wall was all windows through which I could see a gaggle of Border Patrol officers working at computers, watching TV monitors and generally looking all business. There were small openings at the bottom of each window so I could hear a little of their talk, but not most of it.

An officer came back after a minute or so to ask for my keys. I gave them to him and pointed out the key to open the back of the truck, since I'm sure they wanted in there. In the back of my truck I've always got an emergency sleeping bag in a trash bag, a tote box of a few emergency items, plus on this trip my bag of clothes and my Camelbak pack were there.

I couldn't tell if any of the officers behind the windows were doing anything related to me, until after many minutes one officer said "Show us your shirt." I turned a little on the bench to face him and stretched out the front of my t-shirt so it was clear to see.

More minutes passed and then an officer came back in and asked me to empty my pockets, which I did. As I was putting the stuff back in my pockets I asked him if the dog would alert on hemp oil, as I had a couple of hemp oil capsules in with my vitamins. He said he didn't know, but he would ask or mention it. He escorted me back outside to a spot about ten feet behind my truck where a few officers were still inspecting stuff. He stood me next to more fully-uniformed officer (I think this was one was hearing a helmet, while the others were hatless).

That helmeted officer said to me "They're shaking your vehicle." Or at least that's what I thought he said. I took "shaking" to be cop-jargon for something like "shakedown," meaning they were searching the vehicle. That was all obvious to me. He kept talking and it was a little hard to follow him because of the background white noise of the traffic and because he seemed to be throwing in some rapid cop-jargon. After hearing the word "shake" a couple more times, I realized he had said "There's shake in your vehicle." I asked for an explanation of "shake." Crumbs and seeds was the basic explanation he agreed to. Here's a fuller definition of "shake":

In cannabis culture, shake refers to the small, leafy fragments of cannabis (drug) that gather at the bottom of a bag, which are said to result, putatively, of it having been shaken in handling. By extension, shake has come to refer to many different types of crumbs or other small leafy particles of the plant which gather at any stage of harvest, packaging or transit. Shake can refer to either the shade leaves of the plant (not themselves potent, but may have a dusting of trichromes which fall from the flowers) or small broken parts of the bud (potent), and implies the absence of stems (which are not smoked). Shake can be smoked or further processed into kief, hashish, cannabutter, and others.

I was (and still am) sure there was no "shake" in the vehicle. He didn't offer to show me the evidence and I didn't ask for it, because it was looking like they were about to let me go on my way. But the helmeted officer kept on talking. He said they were looking for "bags and bundles." He repeated that several times. Again he asked when I last smoked marijuana in the vehicle. He said they didn't care about that. He said "You're wasting our time." I wasn't sure I had that clearly, so I said back to him (with a little animation) "I'm wasting your time?" Yes, he answered, and made it clear that I wasted his time.

Now, if he had said stopping and searching me was "a waste of time," we would both be in happy agreement. But no, this officer has been well trained not to allow the passive voice to creep into his statements. "I" was the actor, and my action was to "waste his time."

I kept my mouth shut, knowing that if any arguing needed to be done, it would be much later in the process. He seemed to have forgotten who put the checkpoint there, who trained him for this job, who trained the dog and brought her up to my truck, who asked to search my vehicle and who asked all the other questions. My only job that morning was to get to Tucson. Everything else was their doing. It wasn't as if I had flagged them down because I had lost an ounce of good weed in my truck and would they be so good to help me find it again. No, it hadn't gone that way at all.

Honestly, I don't know any way that I could have helped them be more efficient. I answered all of their questions truthfully. I was fully cooperative. All of their questions were focused on small (presumably non-serious) amounts of marijuana. They never asked anything about large quantities — not that I would have anything to tell them on that point either.

At this point everything was back in the truck and the officers didn't seem interested in it anymore and some had begun drifting away. Nobody said anything to me, so I asked the helmeted officer if I was still waiting or if I was going. He said I was free to go, but first he admonished me to get that shake cleaned up. Yes, in his personal interpretation of the 4th amendment, those rights were dependent upon the searched party maintaining a sparkling, pine-scented vehicle. I told him I had been through the checkpoints around the Salton Sea dozens of times with no problem. He didn't know about that. I asked if maybe the Salton Sea drug-sniffing dogs were just lazy. He shrugged his shoulders, maybe yes.

I got in the truck, keys were in the ignition, seat was a little out of adjustment. It looked like they had tried to put everything pretty much back as it was. I drove away. As I thought about it over the next several miles I did get a little paranoid. I stopped and did a pretty complete search of my own vehicle to make sure the B.P. officers hadn't planted anything. Nothing found.

I don't know how I could have done anything differently so I would not have been wasting the time of the Border Patrol. If I could have snapped my fingers and made a pound of marijuana magically appear in my truck, that would have increased their efficiency, I guess. The checkpoint does have two lanes labeled "Cars" and "Trucks." My suggestion to avoid wasting time would be to change those to "Law Abiding" and "Law Breaking." Then the law-abiding drivers could just pass on through and not waste the Border Patrol's time while the officers focused on the other lane of vehicles who voluntarily waived their 5th amendment rights.

The most innocent interpretation of this episode is that the dog simply gave a false positive. I think when the officer said "There's shake in your vehicle," they had not actually found any crumb or seed. But in his mind the dog wouldn't give a false positive. If the dog alerts, then the B.P. officers "know" (in their way of thinking) that the vehicle contains something as little as shake or as great as a hundred pounds of dope.

Here is Justice Souter's dissent in the 2005 decision in Illinois vs. Caballes where the Supreme Court established that police could use drug-sniffing dogs pretty much any damn time they want. Justice Souter wrote:

The infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction. Although the Supreme Court of Illinois did not get into the sniffing averages of drug dogs, their supposed infallibility is belied by judicial opinions describing well-trained animals sniffing and alerting with less than perfect accuracy, whether owing to errors by their handlers, the limitations of the dogs themselves, or even the pervasive contamination of currency by cocaine. See, e.g., United States v. Kennedy ... (describing a dog that had a 71% accuracy rate); United States v. Scarborough ... (describing a dog that erroneously alerted 4 times out of 19 while working for the postal service and 8% of the time over its entire career); United States v. Limares ... (accepting as reliable a dog that gave false positives between 7 and 38% of the time); Laime v. State ... (speaking of a dog that made between 10 and 50 errors); United States v. $242,484.00 ... (noting that because as much as 80% of all currency in circulation contains drug residue, a dog alert "is of little value"), vacated on other grounds by rehearing en banc ... ; United States v. Carr ... (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("[A] substantial portion of United States currency … is tainted with sufficient traces of controlled substances to cause a trained canine to alert to their presence"). Indeed, a study cited by Illinois in this case for the proposition that dog sniffs are "generally reliable" shows that dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60% of the time, depending on the length of the search. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 13; K. Garner et al., Duty Cycle of the Detector Dog: A Baseline Study 12 (Apr. 2001) (prepared under Federal Aviation Administration grant by the Institute for Biological Detection Systems of Auburn University). In practical terms, the evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times.

Here's a more recent news story from Attleboro, Massachusetts, where a drug-sniffing dog at Attleboro High School gave three false positives and NO accurate positives (an accuracy rate of 0) resulting in the finding of no illegal drugs at all after the search of three vehicles and six lockers.

But I suspect the real reason for the "false positive" and the subsequent search is in the photo below:

That's me in my brand new VLA tie-dye t-shirt sitting with my sister-in-law Anita in Tucson.

I have never owned a piece of tie-dyed anything. But at the gift shop at the Very Large Array (more on that later), I spotted this little number. Besides being refreshingly different from the usual sort of gift shop t-shirts, the dye job was done right there in little Magdalena, New Mexico, the closest town (technically a "Village") to the VLA, being about 20 miles to the east. Well, who could pass up such a wonderful thing? And I rolled into that Border Patrol checkpoint wearing this tie-dyed shirt (had to look nice for lunch with the relatives, you know). It's no big thing for a handler to induce a level of interest from a drug-sniffing dog that, when later reviewed on video in court, would pass muster for an "alert" to justify further search.

I wonder if the B.P. officers thought that radio telescope on my t-shirt was a magic mushroom.

An even more thorough search of my vehicle would also not have turned up a crumb or seed of Grateful Dead music. They should have asked about that right after the question about El Paso. "Do you have any music by The Dead in your vehicle, sir?"

If anyone wants to bring their dogs around to jump in my truck so we can see how much they enjoy sniffing around, they're all welcome until I take the truck in for a full shampoo job.

permalink | April 6, 2010 at 08:22 AM | Comments (8)

February 18, 2010

I Am Shocked! (No, I mean it, this time I'm really shocked)

The Lower Marion School District in Pennsylvania is one of those well-off school districts that can afford to outfit every high school student with a laptop. The difference (I hope it's a difference) between their laptops and any other school district's laptops is that the Lower Marion School District set up their laptops so that the school district could remotely and covertly activate the webcams built into the laptops so they could monitor student behavior. This feature could be used no matter where the laptop was, whether in a classroom or in the student's bedroom at home.

There were no problems until the Vice Principal used a photo from a student's webcam to discipline him for "improper behavior in his home." Let's keep our imaginations on the higher road and visualize the student smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer in front of the webcam. Of course the shit hit the fan and a class action suit has been filed.

I can just barely imagine that a single Big Brother nutjob or pedophile at the school district would think this was a good idea, but how did this feature get approved and used by some number of people, all of whom are responsible for taking care of children? In case it needs to made clear, the Lower Marion School District is a public school district, not a Roman Catholic institution.

permalink | February 18, 2010 at 08:51 AM | Comments (1)

January 15, 2010

First Legal Nevada Male Prostitute

Markus

Maybe I didn't write anything about the decision at Shady Lady Ranch brothel to employ a male prostitute. The brothel's management said it would be up to the employee as to which customers he would accept. IOW, if he wants to restrict himself to women he can. And that is the decision Markus has made. Looking at his photo I feel no sense of loss.

Here's an interview with him in Details (also a better photo).

He's 25 and took the Greyhound from L.A. to Beatty, Nevada, to start his job. He calls himself a "gigolo" or "love surrogate," not a "prostitute." He draws a parallel between himself and Rosa Parks. She stood up for "her rights as a disadvantaged, African-American older woman." And he's standing up for his rights as a disadvantaged, white, young man. [Oh, I can feel the music stirring in my soul!] This is NOT about selling his body, but changing social norms. He is seeking a surrogate mother.

His rate for the surrogate mother will be $200 for 40 minutes. But his "sphincter isn't for sale." He says "There's five things I think that separate a gigolo from the average man." The gigolo...

1. "must have the heart of a saint, the mind of a philosopher,"
2. "and the skills of the devil;"
3. "never refer to any woman as a bitch, ho, twat, cunt, or any of those terms;"
4. "The fourth thing that separates a gigolo is a gigolo knows how to cook, clean, and do the things necessary to upkeep himself;" and
5. Must be well-read.

He's an artist and has been involved in two porn films, but didn't like it. He did his first film a month ago. He grew up in Lawrence County, Alabama. Did two years in the Marines but "got into trouble." When it came time for him to be deployed...

I just didn't want to go. I told my commanding officer I didn't want to be a Marine anymore and he was like, 'Okay, we'll file your paperwork." I didn't get benefits or anything, but I got out.

"other than honorable" he says.

Wow, is that really how the Marines work in war time? They need to backfill with some reliable gay Marines.

After the Marines he went to college, but got sick of that, "that wasn't for me." Eventually he ended up in a homeless shelter in Santa Monica. He saw the stories on the internet about Shady Lady and decided to apply for the job.

More remarkably uninteresting photos of him here. It seems odd to me that they are photographing Nevada's First Male Prostitute from the shoulders up, wearing a shirt, in a slumped "I-couldn't-care-less" sort of pose. He looks like he could be anyone's hungover boyfriend or husband.

permalink | January 15, 2010 at 10:02 AM | Comments (2)

January 13, 2010

German Protestors Adopt The Karlbakermethod

German Pirate Party members stripped down to their skimpy bits to protest der Nacktscanner.

permalink | January 13, 2010 at 10:08 PM | Comments (2)

November 7, 2009

Chris Edelson Talks About The Republican Party

The Republican party that has allowed itself to become a vehicle piloted by the stupid and insane.

The Republican party stands for absolutely nothing other than the pursuit of power. For 30 years, the Republicans have claimed to stand for 3 things: (1) small government (2) family values and (3) strong national defense. They don't actually stand for any of these things, and it's not clear that they ever did.

permalink | November 7, 2009 at 01:54 PM | Comments (0)