Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!: Part II

I was so desperately trying to think of the correct term that, essentially, the land and property that we "buy" does not really belong to us. The sovereigns probably use this as an argument to already further their perplexing agenda of "rights," but imagine their disdain at what is called eminent domain.

Essentially, eminent domain gives power to the national government to seize property with fair (due) monetary compensation but without owner consent. This is usually done when land is needed for government or public use. Surprisingly (to me at least) I did not know that this could be exercised on other things such as patents and copyrights.

My opinions on eminent domain are not fully formed so I won't go into that here, but the fact that sovereigns (and many other law-abiding citizens) think that the property they own is "theirs" are right, but only up to a certain point. The fact that we live in a land governed and protected by a Constitutionally-abiding government means there are rights, but also reminds us that it's the government's land, not ours.

The article that triggered my memory is here. I wasn't planning on blogging about it, but you're more than welcome to share your comments and thoughts on eminent domain and the impact it has on citizens and land owners.

Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!

Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but when I read this article from my beloved hometown, it reminded me thusly:

This is a clip from the Family Guy episode "E. Peterbus Unum," in which Peter creates the micronation Petoria when the mayor shows Peter that his house is not part of the United States. Insanity, hilarity and the U.S. Army ensue.

In all seriousness, however - regardless of the fact that Peter establishes an oligarchy, and so-called "sovereigns" look to a more anarchy-type government (or lack thereof) - you have to wonder how sovereigns get up in the morning and operate within a democratic country. The lack of a driver's license, insurance, and bristling at paying mortgages they applied for reminds me vaguely of a kindergartner stomping his feet when his mother asks him to play nice with the other kids in the schoolyard.

The Constitution of the United States has long been a source of pride for this country, yet sovereigns view it as an oppression of their rights, a piece of paper that stifles their complete and utter freedom. Last time I checked, the government did not owe it to us to establish our own fractured, individual, feudal-like system in which we lay claim to bits and pieces of land and respond to no authority except the one between our ears. Furthermore, you better believe that the few powerful - those with the land, the weapons, the means to barter or trade things of value - would probably start taking over the many tiny pieces in a complicated Risk game-like quest to claim the land for their own. There would be war waged every day. Can you imagine what would happen to our nuclear stockpile if this country went "sovereign?" What individuals in this nation would afford themselves the power? Those with money? Those with the most land?

Furthermore, you'd better believe that the lack of a government means lack of protection. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: if you don't like the government and believe law enforcement is oppressing your "rights," then don't come running to the White House the next time someone attacks the home land. Don't call 911 when you have an emergency. Don't try to drive on roads not owned by you. If you want to mail a parcel to someone, you'll have to figure out how to do it without paying for postage. And just forget about getting married and anyone recognizing the legality of it. Oh, and don't expect people to barter with you for every service you need - most folks around the world still recognize the value (although decreasing) of a U.S. Dollar.

What irks me the most is that some of these people bristle at being convicted for, say, drunk driving because it infringes on their rights. Rights for what? Driving impaired and putting me and my children in danger? How about the delusion that a mortgage doesn't require repayment? You can bitch and moan all you want about interest rates - that's a bit of a different story - but you borrowed the money, you lunkheaded twit. Do you really think a private bank has the power to loan you money for property that is "rightfully yours" and then not have the authority to tattle on you to the government when the property goes into foreclosure?

Our government, through the Bill of Rights, guarantees us as citizens to certain freedoms not restricted by our government. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, it was okay to own a gun; it was NOT okay to put others in danger by driving drunk. It was okay to have a free press and free speech; it was NOT okay to use your freedoms to the disadvantage or danger of your fellow citizens.

This is what gets me most of all: That folks think of themselves most instead of cooperating with the other millions of people who call this land their home. Do these sovereigns have no sense of pride of being part of a larger community and only care about themselves, THEIR rights, what is ENTITLED to them? What a selfish, self-serving movement. Don't they see the other people around them? We all have to get along somehow.

No doubt that the government they see is self-serving, corrupt and dependent on the obedience of its citizens, but that same government provides protection from other governments around the world. This country would be gobbled up and disappear if it was every person for themselves; if not by the few powerful sovereigns in the country, then surely piecemeal by other countries looking to expand their borders, in which we'd just become citizens of another country with another government (if they were feeling generous). Let's not think of the worse situations - second-class citizenry, slavery, or worse.

So, for the few sovereigns of this country who want their piece of the feudal pie: Good luck. Being born on this soil does not entitle you to a grain of ownership, although it does entitle you to its social services, military protection and a chance to navigate through its confusing, enraging, but loop-holed tax system. And if you do get the chance to travel the world and see what "freedom" is really about, let me know what you think about the "freedoms" that some countries afford their citizens when you get back - that is, if Border Patrol will let your sovereign butt back in the country.

Pillow Talk Boycott

This was too juicy to pass up. 

Although it addresses a very serious concern, you have to chuckle when you start to read about how easy it is for a woman, in a man's world, to find a way to frustrate him.  

The women's caucus in Kenya, in an attempt to call attention to the bitter relationship between the country's prime minister and president, urged women to withhold sex as a way of protest.   This has been particularly interesting because Kenya is considered a conservative country, and all this discussion of sex and pillow talk usually has been regarded as taboo.  The women fear that the prime minister and president's argument could open the door to more violence in the country, and so are finding a way to bring women into political concourse and influencing change.

Before the ban went into effect, there were conflicting reports as to how men would handle this ban:  One Martin Kamau insists that this would do nothing but embarrass him, especially since he was "being punished" and not the one causing the problem.  (I'd like to point out that political activism gets the better sound bites instead of political passivity, so Mr. Kamau, perhaps this will give you an especially delicious incentive to participate.)  Another man claims "seven days was nothing" and could "wait a year."

Even the prime minister's wife supported the campaign "100 percent" and hoped the campaign's publicity would be a success.  

It looks like it has.  One man (who I assume swallowed his pride for this one), after the week-long abstention was up, then filed a lawsuit against the activists and claims the following: 

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

*pause for a beat, then two *

Backaches and lack of sleep?  That's what supposed to happen when you are having sex, Mr. Kimondo.  *snickers*  

The retort from one the activists is even better:

'I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting,' said Ann Njogu, executive, director for Centers for Rights Education and Awareness.  'It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country.'

Ouch.  Hit 'em where it hurts, Ann!  

Apparently, the activists regard this as a victory as Njogu said that they are planning to meet with the prime minister and president.  

Perhaps one of the famous women in the United States' boycotting history is Rosa Parks, whose refusal to give up her seat to a white person on a bus sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s.  No doubt her act of civil disobedience at the time inspired a nation to follow a path of reform, acceptance and equality, and let's assume this:  The white man who was refused her seat was probably humiliated for being the target of a black woman's protest.  Prohibition in the United States was also influenced by the work of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who instead of promoting moderation of alcohol decided educating children with a "dry sentiment" was the best way to promote the movement. 

In any case, women have found a way - not always grand, mind you - to influence public opinion and participate in politics, even when they are most explicitly not welcome.  Perhaps it takes creativity to get the point across, but the irony of it all is that no matter how hard some men try to separate the political from the personal, we all find out it is much more related than they'd care to admit.  If political and personal matters were so separated, then the likes of John Edwards and Bill Clinton would have a different political history, indeed. 

Wait, Whose Privacy?

Because this is just ridiculous

No, not the fact that mug shots are being published - once you're arrested, your identity and transgressions become public property for the safety of others.  Newspapers are finding some delicious (perhaps) morbid interest by the public in examining mug shots.  Not that this hasn't been done many times before by the folks at TSG, but now mainstream newspapers are getting in on the fun. 

The ridiculous part I'll just quote for you below:

Shannon Nicole Hulton was arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. She says she “knew that so many people were going to see this picture, so I don’t want a really gruesome picture of me where everybody knows the situation.” She adds that this is a “horrible invasion of privacy…and it makes me uncomfortable and sad.”

Um... you smiled for a mug shot after you got arrested for drunk driving, and then you complain about your invasion of privacy?  You put the public in danger and got caught; that's the point of criminal justice.  You do something to endanger the public, you are going to pay with a bit of embarrassment, a bit of your privacy.  Even worse offenders than yourself are able to give a photogenic shot for the police.  Because folks like you, even after you make a dumb mistake, are still at ease enough to smile for your cute little mug shot, not worrying that you'll be mistreated in prison, will have the right to a defense attorney assigned to you at the expense of the state, and that you live in a country where they don't put drunk drivers to torture or death.  You poor gal!  Your privacy was invaded!  Never mind the fact that you'd probably be singing a different tune - erm, smile? - if an innocent person were killed because of your stupidity.

I just... I can't... attempting at... processing... stupidity... CRASH.  Rebooting...

Further on in the report, the defense attorney interviewed makes a pretty good point:  

“If you have a photo of a person with a toothy grin after just being arrested for a very serious crime, jurors might find that somewhat offensive, and find that the person is looking at it in kind of a dismissive way.”

Right on, sir - although prosecutors might welcome this cheeky humor.  

May Day Money

Wife has 800,000 secrets

Well, the secrets are all the same, and until recently they resided quite privately in the wife's personal bank account.  Until the bank called the husband and suggested that he move the money to a different account.  

Here's the back story:  A wife had $800,000 that was not earned during the marriage, and kept it in a bank account in her name only.  Since the money wasn't earned during the marriage, it is not considered marital property.  She decided to keep the money a secret from her husband, who apparently had spending problems.  Well, the bank called their residence, and spoke to the husband about this sum of money and suggested he move it to a different account.  The wife is now suing the bank for disclosing that information to someone whose name was not on the account, and claims she paid her husband $155,000 to keep the marriage intact and reestablish marital bliss in the home.   She is suing the bank for this amount that she paid her husband for their (illegal) disclosure. 

The link above provides two viewpoints:  the gentleman on CNN says that it was wrong for the wife to keep such a huge secret.  The lady says that it's the woman's business since the money was earned outside the marriage, and the bank did break the rules.  They both agree on the legal aspects of the issue (i.e., it's the woman's money only) but then argue about the disclosure of the money between them. 

We do not know where the money came from, just that it came from before they were married.  Two women called into the CNN show and defended the wife's actions.  Unfortunately, no men called in to weigh their opinion on the matter. 

I have a few thoughts on this matter, of course.  One is that I think it's interesting the man got in a huff that this now-rich wife, who apparently has the upper hand in the financial aspects of the marriage, did not disclose her financial status.  He doesn't even change his mind when we find out that the husband has a history of spending problems.  Look:  For whatever reason they got married, I bet she had a good reason to keep her stash to herself.  

Let's say that the money was from her own personal business earnings.  Perhaps it was a life insurance policy.  Or an inheritance.  Whatever it is.  If you were dating around and had this huge amount of cash on hand, would you really want that person to know about your financial statements?  Personally, if I were in that position, I'd rather men think that I'm a poor typist than someone who has plenty of disposable cash on hand.  It's mean, but I think I'd keep lots of secrets about my life until I knew I could trust them and they weren't hounding for a booty call or some of my money.  Money talks, even if it's not yours.  

My second thought is that there is a disparity in this country about who has the financial upper hand in a marriage.  Most of the time, in married situations, the woman does earn less, or stays at home.  She has her own responsibilities in the marriage.  And oftentimes, people get the impression that if a woman earns the household moola or has more assets to her name than the husband, there's something wrong with the guy:  He's lazy.  He's a mama's boy.  He has no ambition.  He's a loser.  He's not man enough.  The concrete reasons are murky, and the discrimination blunt and unfair, but the name-calling remains.  

I think this guy from CNN felt indirectly threatened by the wife's financial power, and maybe even a little offended that she'd keep a secret like that, even though I think her reasons are completely justified:  The wife had to PAY OFF THE HUSBAND to maintain marital peace after the money was discovered.  Doesn't that explain something to us?  If the husband found out, he shouldn't be demanding his wife's money.  Maybe he has the privilege to demand why she hid it, or where she got it, but the wife knew the only way he'd shut up was to get 155k.  I bet you that money has already been spent by the husband.

I'd like to shake this woman's hand.  Good for her that she kept her property separate from this jerk.  It sounds like she had a good reason (or 800k of them) too.  I know that keeping secrets, at least in the Christian marriage tradition, is frowned upon and shouldn't be done.  But the reasons she married the guy and kept the money secret are her own decisions, and considering she had this huge lump sum of money that she was SAVING, not spending, probably reflects her financial responsibility better than the husband's likely squirrely spending habits.  And even if she wanted to spend that money to create more income for herself, that additional income may have been considered marital property, and could have created even more of a mess. 

She wasn't pilfering any of the marital property for her own gain.  Sounds like the husband got away with that, though.