Generosity Causes Homelessness

Here's the story: A driver tries to give a disabled person a few bucks at an intersection, one dollar falls to the ground, and the driver is given a $344 ticket for littering.

What the ...? Well, you see, in Columbus, Ohio, it's illegal to give money to a panhandler.

Um, okay, but the ticket was for littering? Well, you see, the penalty for littering is higher than the penalty for giving to a panhandler, so they're prosecuting him for the "greater crime." All for giving a few bucks to a disabled panhandler.

This is your tax dollars at work. Not at work, trying to help a disabled adult whose only income is from panhandling. No, that would be foolhardy, and would only encourage people to be disabled and destitute. No, this is your tax dollars hard at work punishing those naive fools who help out their fellow man.

Anti-panhandling laws (and anti-"camping" laws, and loitering laws, and...) arise out of the notion that if you make life inhospitable to the homeless and destitute, that they will, at best, suddenly be able to get a job and move inside, or, at the least, move on to another locality.

In Columbus, however, they've taken the next step. It's no longer enough to punish the poor for being poor, they've taken it upon themselves to punish decent citizens who take pity upon their fellow man, and therefor encourage them to be disabled and broke.

In some ways, this does make sense: it's easier to collect a fine from the guy with a job than from the guy on the street. But this is also their public policy, they obviously believe that it's that driver's fault that the guy in the wheelchair is a beggar.

Clearly, the good people of Columbus have discovered and gone after the root cause of poverty: Generosity. If we would only stop caring about the less fortunate among us, life would be wonderful, and our streets would be clean and safe.

Thank you, Columbus, for leading the way to a sweeter smelling, less caring America!

What's So Wrong About Enforcing Citizenship Laws?

A friend, who I consider of at least average intelligence, and reasonably reasonable, just innocently put out the statement, "The folks opposing the efforts of Arizona to enforce citizenship laws have yet to convince me why it's a bad thing."

Well, of course, I gasped in shock. How could any right thinking person not recognize this obvious evil? But then, I tend to get outraged easily and these are easily outraging times. So I've learned to maintain my calm and think about a reasonable answer that might explain "why it's a bad thing."

Simply, it puts the concept of justice as we've practiced it in the USA for over 200 years on its head. We have a justice system in which we value the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and we have a dedication to freedom that includes freedom of movement and travel without harassment from authorities. Each of those is reversed by the Arizona law.

What has been voted on by the legislature and is awaiting the governor's signature is a law that requires all law enforcement figures to presume that anybody who may not have been born here is here illegally, without any proof or reasonable suspicion that any crime has taken place. All immigrants (and anybody who might look or sound like an immigrant) would essentially be required to carry their papers proving they're here legally with them at all times and subject to this question on a continuous basis for simply going about their daily business.

People who came to this country legally - and many who were born here but "look wrong" - will be subject to a burden that no other citizen or legal immigrant is subject to. And, of course, only a complete fool would deny that this is aimed solely at those of Latin decent. No British tourist or immigrant is likely to be hassled under this law. But Latinos who've lived their entire lives in Arizona will be.

This law has very little to do with "enforcing citizenship laws" and quite a lot to do with holding out one group of people and making them subject to additional official harassment. That is racism, pure and simple.

And, of course, there's the question of proper authority. Border patrol is the jurisdiction of federal authorities, not state or local police. This law creates an unnecessary burden on the police as well, who will be charged with carrying out this racist policy.

Of course, where there is evidence of a crime, the proper authority must investigate. And if, in the course of investigation of a local crime, police determine that a suspect may be in the country illegally, they should turn that fact over to the federal authority to prosecute. But the presumption of a crime is un-Constitutional and un-American.

When I was young, and the Soviet Union was still our greatest threat, one of things we were told that made our country so much better, was that we had no need for "Internal Passports." That in the USSR, people had to carry papers to travel from town to town, whereas we were free to move about within our borders. When I think of the effect of this law on the Latino population of Arizona, I am reminded of this and again, I say, anything that makes us resemble the old Soviet Union is most likely un-American.

Requirements for internal passports, the presumption of guilt before evidence of a crime, and a policy that singles out one group for official harassment all add up to why I think "it's a bad thing," a dangerous thing, and one more major blow to democracy and freedom and all that I love about America.

I don't know if that will convince my friend, but I certainly know where I stand. And I won't be standing in Arizona anytime soon if this becomes law.

Keep Your Laws Off My Cappuccino Stout!

Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose) is normally somebody I really like. He's a great, honest guy, who actually cares about the community. Both now, in the state legislature, and earlier, on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, he's been a friend and advocate of the nonprofit community in which I work. But, Jim, if you're reading this, now you've pissed me off.

Assemblyman Beall has introduced legislation to ban caffeine in malt beverages (IE: Beer). The target product, it seems, is this:

...sweet malt beverages known as "alcopops," which often mask the flavor of alcohol and tend to be marketed to younger drinkers. ... many of these products come in 23-ounce cans that contain the equivalent of five to eight cups of coffee, are 12 percent alcohol and are sold for $1.99. A regular energy drink, by contrast, can cost $2.99...

Personally, I've never heard of these before, but I can see why it would be an issue. But there's a couple of problems with attempting a ban.

First of all, the products are likely just a response to consumers who were already mixing energy drinks with vodka. Those who want a "buzz-drunk" will continue to do that, whether or not the pre-mixed version is on market shelves. This could be yet another law that will have absolutely no effect on the actual situation: those who market alcohol to under-age drinkers and lack of public knowledge of the dangers of the buzz-drunk.

Secondly, and what's really got me worried, is in trying to remove a few products aimed at under-aged drinkers, they could accidentally ensnare and ban legitimate adult products, such as ales, porters, and stouts enfused with coffee or chocolate.

According to the article, "Beall said he is working with beer lovers to make sure they can still enjoy brews such as the Cappuccino Stout from Lagunitas brewery in Petaluma." Well, I hope so! I love that brewery, and their product. But, somehow, I'm nervous that this bill can be written broadly enough to target all offending products, but narrow enough to keep Lagunitas and other creative craft brewers in the clear. It seems that whatever loophole is written in to save craft brews will be exploited by those market to kids.

Aren't there already laws against marketing booze to minors? Whether it's the manufacture who promotes the product to kids or the retailer or bartender who sells it, we have the tools to crack down on wired drunk adolescents already. Let's use these resources to get rid of the "alcopop crisis" and leave the craft brews alone!

A Few Thoughts on Iowa

By now pretty much everybody has heard the news that the Iowa State Supreme Court has ruled that the state's law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection. And, if you've been to this blog before, you know that I agree with that ruling.

But, while I agree that this is an important ruling, and a step in the right direction toward the inevitable recognition of marriage equality nationwide, I'm not exactly partying like it's 1999 over this.

Basically: We've been here before. We, in California, have certainly been here before. And if the California experience teaches anything, it's that the pendulum swings both ways before finding its resting position.

The Iowa Court found that their current state law does not fit within their current state constitution. There are two ways to fix this. Either amend the law to recognize same-sex marriages. Or amend the constitution to clarify and cement the ban.

I applaud the Iowa Supreme Court for their unanimous decision, but all they've really done is select the stage for the next big battle. The war is far from over.