Just in case you had any faith left in your state government, they’ve gone and done it again. House Bill 3008 aims to force cyclists to register their bikes. The registration will cost $54 and must be renewed every two years. The bill will also make it a crime to remove or alter the serial number on a bike or to ride an unregistered bicycle. Even better, it will create a database of bicycle registrations, available to law enforcement agencies, that will track the name, address, phone number, and date of birth of the owner, a whole mess of information about the make, model, etc. of the bike, and “any other information the Department of Transportation considers necessary.” The money is ostensibly going to go into a fund that will be used to pay for bicycle infrastructure.

Furthermore, bike owners will henceforth need to notify the government within fifteen days any time a bicycle changes ownership. Even more bizarrely:

The bill says ODOT can contract with “any private person or entity or other unit of government”. The “agent” that issues the registration would keep one-third of the money and the other two-thirds would go back to ODOT.

I can’t imagine what might go wrong with that.

The bill has already outraged the smug, self-righteous cycling set in Portland (they interviewed some woman on the news tonight who complained about being shouted at by “overweight people in their cars” when she’s just out there… you know… “trying to be healthy”), which means this thing probably doesn’t stand much of a chance. In fact, OregonLive reports that the chief sponsor, Wayne Krieger, who hails from my home town, “conceded the legislation probably won’t pass, particularly with ‘everybody struggling’ in the bad economy.”

It’s too bad Mr. Krieger can’t find a better way to spend his constituents’ money in this bad economy than introducing utterly absurd legislation that even he admits is dead-on-arrival.

The ban on novelty lighters looks like the Code of Hammurabi compared to this abortion.

Here at the University of Oregon we’ve long since become accustomed to the “diversity” gang’s dog and pony show: they find some reason to get offended, write a few letters to the Emerald denouncing whatever it is that’s got them in a huff, engage in a lot of nail-biting and childish, unconvincing theatrics in the ASUO, and basically bully whomever they disagree with by smearing them as racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever.

Unfortunately, a different U of O — the University of Oklahoma — is learning first-hand how the whole “diversity” racket works. In an interesting twist, though, it’s not a group of professional victims and serial whiners in the student body that’s causing trouble… it’s the Oklahoma legislature. Upset by the University’s decision to invite militant atheist and polemicist Richard Dawkins to campus to commemmorate Charles Darwin, the legislature took it upon itself to draft HR1015 (RTF file).

The text of the resolution contains all of the usual pablum:

[T]he University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry…

[T]he University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma…

[T]he Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma…

[T]he Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion…

Any of this stuff sounding familiar? About the only thing that’s missing are the words “safe space”.

Now, personally I can’t stand Richard Dawkins. I think he’s as shrill and intolerant as any god bothering evangelical. Regardless of my opinion or anyone else’s, though, the man has every right to speak in a public venue at a public university. HR1015 does not prohibit him from doing so. It’s merely a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars that expresses the displeasure of a nosy and self-important legislature that’s sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has thus given us yet another reason to distrust anyone in government, proving once again that nearly all of them are blithering, power-hungry idiots. Furthermore, it’s a strong reminder to look askance at anyone who is pimping the whole “diversity” scam. As should be abundantly clear by now, such individuals, regardless of whether they’re halfwit undergrads from the MCC or halfwit lawmakers in the Oklahoma legislature, are mostly interested in silencing speech they don’t agree with.

(via Slashdot)

Since we recently wrote about the case of concealed carry over at Western Oregon University, I found this story to be quite relevant:

Over at Central Connecticut University, a professor recently filed a complaint against a student, saying the student made the class feel “scared and uncomfortable” after he gave a presentation advocating concealed carry on campus. That night, the student was called into the campus police station, where police grilled him about the firearms registered in his name and where he kept them.

How wonderful that students are being harassed by universities and police for merely speaking up for the Second Amendment. I can’t really say anything more concise or to the point than the money quote at the end of the article, though:

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

On a related note, the Eugene Weekly is at it again. After the smashing success of its last gun article, the EW has once again shown it has nothing but ignorance and contempt for the Second Amendment, writing (emphasis in the original):

Wow, Lane County Sheriff Russ Burger must have a lot of extra time and money on his hands. Burger reportedly has sent letters to more than 10,000 concealed gun nuts to stir up support for his opposition to public records laws and create a problem that did not exist. What’s next, mass mailings to concealed hairdresser permit holders? This expenditure of untold tens of thousands of dollars and staff time comes while Burger complains he doesn’t have the money to stop burglaries. If this is a mass mailing for a NRA-backed re-election campaign, the sheriff should have paid for it himself.

The EW is referring to to the current legal kerfuffle over whether or not to make the names of concealed handgun license holders public record. Of course, making the names public defeats the whole purpose  of concealed carry, but I imagine that’s what liberals are aiming for anyways. It’s not a public records issue. Plenty of personal information is off-limits to public record –  school records, for instance.

Oh, and by the way, if CHL-holders are “nuts,” then there are currently 11,000 insane people in Lane County alone.

Hat tip to The Agitator for the first story.

It’s not often that I write approvingly of anything posted at Blue Oregon, but to give credit where credit is due, this post by Jeff Alworth is right on the money:

The one thing left to conclude is that this is some kind of moral stand against beer, an intentional effort to damage the industry.  Sinners taxed to reduce the sin, not its cost.   I can’t see any other purpose here.  As good liberals, we consider how solutions like taxation will solve certain problems.  This bill has no clear idea what the problem even is, much less what the cause might be.  Worse, the effect would be to crush local business and damage a beloved part of local culture.  I can imagine reasonable ways in which the state assesses the cost of alcohol, determines who’s responsible for reimbursing the state for this cost, and decides what a reasonable tax would be.  House Bill 2461 is none of these things.

The Oregonian has more:

Never before, it seems, has the climate been so ripe to raise taxes on sin. Democrats command supermajorities in both chambers, which means they can increase taxes without Republican votes.

[…]

[Ben Cannon (D-Portland), chief sponsor of the bill] says he’s willing to talk about the size of the tax and how it should be used. And he’s open to discussing whether legislators should risk even more heartache by going after the tax on wine.

The Oregonian notes that Kulongoski is also pimping an idea to bump the cigarette tax to $1.78 per pack. While I’m disappointed that the outrage at Blue Oregon over the proposed beer tax hike doesn’t seem to be extended to the idea levying an even higher sin tax on smokers, it’s nice to see Jeff Alworth piping up in opposition to this absurd new legislation.

For its part, the Oregon Commentator pledges a campaign of terror and mayhem if this law passes.

A few months ago, we covered the predictable cheerleading by progressive types over the then-impending minimum wage hike. Well, the raise in the minimum wage has come and gone and the Eugene Weekly is reporting that things are basically working out the way anyone who wasn’t political invested in pointless exercises in populism assumed they would:

When minimum wage rose 45 cents at the beginning of this year, Jerry James knew that while the increase wouldn’t allow his family to get ahead, it would at least give them a leg up with rising costs.

“It’s good,” James said. “But with the cost of food, it sort of weighs itself out.”

[…]

The 2009 wage increase will allow full-time minimum wage workers to increase their annual income from $16,536 to $17,472, an extra $936 a year. Still, the extra $3.60 a day might not be enough to keep up with the rising cost of food. [emphasis added]

In other words, the price for consumer goods has risen right along with the increase in the state-mandated minimum wage. Who could’ve predicted that?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Just thought I’d throw out a quick link to this post at Reason detailing some of the lovely stuff that’s included in the handout stimulus bill that passed the Senate today.

No doubt some will argue that each and every one of the things included in the bill involves a transfer of money from one party to another and so constitutes a “stimulation” of the economy, but the bulk of this stuff looks like plain old fashioned pork.

Added thought: Is anyone else getting tired of legislators justifying every law and every massive spending increase with the word “green”?

Update:

According to the Register, Californian Senator and all-around waste of space Diane Feinstein is trying to use the stimulus bill to sneak through language that would let ISPs snoop on network traffic, a clear violation of privacy*:

Obama’s stimulus bill sets aside between $6bn and $9bn for expanding American broadband into rural areas, and Senator Feinstein hopes to augment this Broadband Technology Opportunities Program so that it “allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement.”

Despite Obama’s laughable promises to clean up Washington, the massive handouts he’s promising are encouraging every lobby to try to get in on the action. Moreover, the President’s apocalyptic doomsaying, promising “catastrophe” unless the legislation is rammed through Congress at as fast as possible, is making it that much easier for utter rubbish like this to get attached to ostensible “stimulus” items and avoid any real scrutiny.

The whole thing is a monumental screw.

* Never mind that there are good arguments why spending money on broadband is a waste of time in the first place.

(via Slashdot)

Update:

Slashdot is reporting that Feinstein’s amendment apparently did not make the final cut, a conclusion that was reached by searching for her name in the final text of the legislation, rather than trying to actually read through the whole document.

Speaking of which, one wonders how many of the people who voted for it actually read it. My bet’s on “not many.”

I reported last June on the ridiculous case of Adam Sweet, a PSU student who started a moving company only to be shut down by the state because he did not have a “Oregon Intrastate Certificate to Transport Household Goods or Passengers.” (How’s that for bureaucrat-speak?)

Sweet was more outraged when he found out that the state notifies all other moving companies of new license applications, which are denied if any of the companies object. As I noted at the time, this is a shining example of a cartel. Sweet, with assistance from the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued the Oregon Attorney General, claiming the state had violated his 14th Amendment rights by providing “an unequal and unconstitutionally protectionist advantage to established moving companies who are able to limit their own prospective competition.”

Well, some good news: On Jan. 21 a federal judge blocked the state’s attempt to throw Sweet’s case out of court. There was also a rally of other small moving companies at the state capitol, and, if Internet comments are to be believed, Oregon Senator Rick Metsger has came out strongly against the moving cartel. From the Oregon Catalyst comment thread on the subject:

I am happy to report that I saw the story when it hit the paper a few months ago and was appalled that state law could allow competitors to decide who can get a moving license. I wrote a bill for my senate transportation committee to eliminate that injustice and will be moving that out of committee and onto the senate floor later this month. Thanks for keeping attention on the issue.

This year’s stable of ODE columnist is hardly a dream team, to say the least. On one end of the spectrum are writers like Matt Petryni, who is frequently readable if often conceptually dodgy (though kudos for standing up to OSPIRG). On the other end are the insipid scribblings of Alex Conley, whose columns often come across as clumsy and self-conscious attempts at trolling.

Situated somewhere betwixt the two is Truman Capps, who comes across like that good-natured Mormon kid you knew in high school who really dug marching band and was preternaturally enthusiastic about just about everything. Mr. Capps’ latest piece, “Do your part for America” echoes the suddenly popular calls to “serve the nation” now that President Obama has assumed power (mercifully, Capps avoids the sort of nauseatingly earnest grovelling that has become synonymous with many Obama supporters). Interestingly, he hits a slightly different note than some of the others currently pimping the “national service” idea:

It’s important now that we start pulling our own weight – not because President Obama wants us to, but because it’s what we should have been doing all along. We’ve got to start taking better care of our parks, roads and neighborhoods – our community gives us more than we realize, but its [sic] up to us to keep what we’ve got in good working order. [emphasis added]

What Capps actually seems to be describing (whether he realizes it or not) is not President Obama’s “mandatory volunteerism” so much as a renewed sense of individual responsibility. Even supposing that “President Bush… did not want or need the help of the American public”, as he claims, if we really wanted this “change” in our communities Capps admits that we could’ve been doing something about it all along. You know. If people hadn’t been spending their time whining about the Bush Administration and waiting for Obama and the government to come along and fix everything for them.

This is in stark contrast to “self-ascribed moderate” Alex Conley, who is apparently unaware of individual volunteer opportunities and practically chomping at the bit for the government to mandate service so he can “again be proud to be American.” One suspects this noble sentiment arose ex nihilo on January 20th and will wane the next time a Republican occupies the White House.

But volunteering was a worthy pasttime long before the Patriots of January 20th started bombarding us with schlocky YouTube videos and behavior that would be frankly embarrassing from prepubescent girls who got to meet Miley Cyrus backstage. By contrast, Truman Capps seems to grasp that volunteering is a fundamentally individual decision. It’s also one that loses much of its significance and takes on a new, somewhat more sinister character when mandated by the government.

So Truman Capps gets a gold star sticker today. Check plus.

Now that Barack Obama has ascended moved into the Oval Office, our country is ready to tackle the big problems, the tough questions, the fundamental issues that have bedeviled us for the past eight years and dragged this once-great country into the gutter of financial ruin and international ignominy.

I am, of course, talking about perverts with cell phone cameras. Hot off the desk of Representative Pete King (R-NY), we have H.R.414, which has been given the dramatic moniker “Camera Phone Predator Alert Act.” If passed, this crucial new law

[r]equires any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera’s phone. Prohibits such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan basically wrapped up and the economy on a confident upswing, it’s heartening to know that our government is finally able to spend at least some of its time writing laws forcing cell phone manufacturers to include a “camera shutter” sound that can’t be disabled so that we, the public at large, will know when some degenerate is taking our photograph.

What more could one expect from as dedicated a public servant as Representative King, who was last heard exhorting his colleagues to join him in “supporting the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias“?

Indeed, as we begin to get our W-2’s in the mail, we can rest assured that our tax dollars will not only end up as part of a massive bailout package for failing industries and pay raises for our bold civic leaders. Some of that money will go toward making sure wasted sorority girls receive an audible cue whenever a sleazefuck frat boy takes a topless picture of them on their iPhone.

America breathes a sigh of relief.

News has just broke that Portland Mayor Sam Adams has admitted to having sex with an 18-year-old. From the Oregonian:

Portland Mayor Sam Adams is expected to make his first public statement today in response to news reports that he had a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old in summer 2005 and, on the eve of his campaign for the city’s highest office, lied about it and urged the young man to lie as well.

The story was originally broke by the Willamette Week, august slayer of philandering Oregon politicians.

Adams is the first openly gay mayor of a top-40 city in America, and as such, you would think he would have the goddamn common sense not to do something like this. He’s just playing into the hands of those troglodytes on the religious right. It’s hard to say how this will affect LGBTQ politics, but mark my words it will.

And no, I don’t have a big problem with the sex aspect of the whole debacle, besides, y’know, the lecherous old man part. It was consenting, and according to statements from Adams, Beau Breedlove (seriously his name) was 18 at the time of their, uh, liaison.

Another point worth commenting on: It’s bizarre how most of the comments in the Oregonian story try to defend Adams, saying that the media are being “petty” and “intrusive.” Frankly, that’s the media’s job. I didn’t hear much crying when stories broke claiming that erstwhile House of Representatives-candidate Mike Erickson allegedly knocked a girl up and paid for her abortion. To put it another way: The media’s job is to uncover the lies of politicians. Therefore, you can only blame politicians when they get exposed for, say, having sex with 18-year-olds and lying about it.

The Ol’ Dirty Emerald issued an editorial two days ago against the statewide ban on smoking in workplaces that went into effect on the 1st. Seriously. And it wasn’t even all that wishy-washy. Check it out:

Cigarette smoke is undoubtedly bad for one’s health, and people should not be forced to breathe it in when they want to go out for a drink. But couldn’t there be some middle ground? Banning smoking from all but a few public places could seriously damage bar owners’ and others’ business, and is a decision that should be left up to the owners’ control. In order to curb smoking, the state could offer tax breaks to smoke-free establishments, rather than taking the most restrictive course possible. Let’s not forget that if an individual wishes to avoid secondhand smoke, he or she can simply choose not to go to establishments where smoking is allowed.

Aw, I didn’t think you guys had it in you – what with your embrace of novel concepts like “individual choice” “business” and all. Of course, the first comment on the online version makes me weep a little bit for humanity:

[sic]once again the poor victim is being abused. the smoker who won’t acknowledge the health cost of their vice for themselves or the people who are forced to exist near their areas of smoking. the smokers could have stopped, could have stopped tossing their butts anywhere, could have had establishments designate areas and require air systems but no they would rather demand freedom to kill themselves and others.
i am sorry i won’t feel sorry for smokers who are being inconvienced.  and if any smoker doesn’t like it have a cold and then walk into you living area and see how your world smells to others [/sic]

Oregon’s Governor, Ted Kulongoski, seems to be taking a page from the Microsoft playbook with his new proposal to replace the tax on gasoline with a mileage tax (volunteers in a trial program were charged $0.012/mile). The new program, which is going to cost $20,000,000 just to figure out whether or not it’s economically feasable, will use GPS systems to track how far your car has traveled. The reason for the proposal?

As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.

The governor also promises that even though GPS units will be uniquely identifying and tracking the location of every car on the road, “privacy will be respected”. I think we all know how long it’ll take for police bureaus to find an excuse to get access to that database.

Unlike the relatively simple gas tax, the new proposal seems likely to come with higher administrative costs, since the Governor has also promised that rural Oregon (where the roads are likely to be less used and driving distances are likely to be far greater) will not be “adversely affected”. What this will likely mean in practice is dividing the state into a number of administrative zones, each with its own “pricing scheme”. I also think we all know how long it’s going to take for members of a community that’s near the border between two zones to start complaining to the legislature if they happen to be situated in an an area in which the state has decided driving is more expensive. (One also assumes that it’s going to cost money to hire people to set up and administer the database and all the other infrastructure.)

And just in case you decide not to install a GPS unit in your old Ford Aspire, the Governor has you covered: he’s just going to raise your gas tax by $0.02/gallon

Expect similar “innovations” in the ways the State of Oregon takes your money if and when aggressive anti-smoking programs and legislation lead to a serious decline in the number of smokers and a concomitant decline in the revenues from sin taxes on tobacco products.

(via Slashdot)

Everyone’s favorite money-wasting douchebag, Bill Sizemore — known for his seemingly unquenchable thirst to put as many ballot measures as he possibly can before Oregon voters — got thrown in jail today for contempt of court.

Oh well.

There’s a guest post up on Blue Oregon called “The 2nd Amendment is for Progressives Too” by someone who self-describes as “a progressive libertarian, someone who used to be welcome in the Republican Party.” A promising headline, I suppose, but unfortunately the post itself displays a fundamental ignorance of the actual motivations underlying conservative critiques of gun control legislation.

After some obligatory paranoia (“He explained to me that if our freedoms are taken away, it will come from the right, not the left, and maybe progressives are the ones who should be a little paranoid.”), the author, Peter Hall, goes on to make some curious assertions about the point of the Second Amendment:

Our founding fathers understood this, and I believe the 2nd amendment was designed specifically to allow military style weapons in the hands of the public…  it is clear to me that our founders were not thinking of hunting rifles when they wrote the amendment.

The Democratic Party has a major opportunity to make the West blue (with the exception of Utah, that religion thing). Truly embrace responsible gun ownership, and we take a big weapon away from the right wingers (lame pun intended). [emphasis added]

A couple of things, here:

First off, just what sort of weaponry does he imagine the founders were thinking of when the Second Amendment was written, if not “hunting rifles”? It’s not as if there was a whole lot of distinction between “military-style” weapons and firearms that might be used for hunting in the late 18th Century. Hall’s distinction seems arbitrary, to say the least.

Second, I’m not sure that someone who conceives of Second Amendment rights as something to be adopted solely for the purpose of “[taking] a big weapon away from the right-wingers” and “making the West blue” really quite “gets” it.

The Second Amendment is not a “wedge” issue. The right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  It’s not about “blue” or “red”. Nevertheless, while Hall might be a bit misguided, I’m hesitant to be too hard on someone who wants to finally pull the Democrats closer to a position that respects the Second Amendment. That’s more than can be said about some of the people in his comments section, who have such perceptive things to say as:

“On a day where the newspaper talks about how we’re supposed to make a bunch of noise and wear bright orange clothes when we’re out hiking (thereby destroying the solitude and beauty) because hunters are accidentally killing people, a post celebrating guns.”

“One can responsibly use a gun about as easily as one can responsibly drive a tank down a sidewalk.”

“Europeans seem to manage to get by without personal arsenals. Perhaps the difference was explained by Michael Moore in “Sicko.” In France the government fears the people. In America the people fear the government. So what will they do with all their guns? There may come a day when some people wake up and realize they are under a fascist dictatorship and call for a charge on the barricades…”

“… when the NRA starts advocating for public education and living-wage jobs, and stops worrying that the gummit gonna take away their armor-piercing ammo, then we might be getting somewhere.”

It goes on in that vein. One can only help but feel that people with the sort of views as Mr. Hall have a long way to go before they can overcome the reflexive and frankly ignorant anti-gun reactions of their fellow “progressives”.

 Shocking news!

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

 […]

 As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

A ringing endorsement of the clearly effective institution of the “gun free zone” if ever I’ve heard one.

(h/t: Instapundit)