Here we go again . . . .

Yesterday's Albuquerque Journal (11 July 2006, Metro section, p. D2; I couldn't find a link) reported that Valencia county (adjacent to Albuquerque) is starting down the same path that led Albuquerque to its restrictive anti-pet ordinance. The county commission has hired the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to ``inspect'' its animal shelter and all animal control procedures. Now, at one time the HSUS may have been OK, but it has now become a part of the anti-pet movement, more commonly exemplified by People for the Ethical [sic] Treatment of Animals (PETA).

It is akin to hiring the prohibitionist Women's Christian Temperance Union to conduct city inspections of all pubs and bars, or of the Ku Klux Klan to inspect efforts to eliminate racism, of asking Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to report on the fairness of Rush Limbaugh, or of asking Rush Limbaugh to inspect the ethics of Hillary Clinton's campaign, or of . . . well, you get the picture.

This is the same path which Albuquerque embarked on, leading at present to its restrictive anti-pet ordinance (which, if fully implemented, would decimate dog ownership over the next twenty years). I hope that the citizens of Valencia County that actually appreciate civil liberties will unite to oppose this trend, taking what has happened in our fair city as a warning.

We will see.

It was a nice vacation, but it's time to get back to work.

Various items

Blogging's been light due to work and family concerns. Here are a few items which some of you may wish to check out.

1. The campaign to recall councillor Sally Mayer, driving force behind Albuquerque's anti-pet ordinance, is heating up. If you wish to volunteer, drop me a line at AlbuquerqueAmerican@gmail.com.
   
2. You can sign the recall petition at The Archery Shoppe, 2900 Carlisle NE, Albuquerque (between Menaul and Candelaria, on the east side). (Full disclosure: I have no financial interest in The Archery Shoppe; I don't think I've drawn a bow since I was in elementary school. The owners are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.)
   
3. It was gratifying to read of a small success in California at the recent primaries, if news reports are correct. State Senator Jackie Speier was favored to win the Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor. She also generally favored restrictive and onerous legislation similar to Albuquerque's anti-pet ordinance. Pet-owners engaged in a get-out-the-vote campaign and successfully defeated her.
   
4. Ethics. I'm referring to ethical financial behavior on the part of city councillors. Sometimes "ethics legislation" is better termed "pro-incumbent legislation." On the other hand, high ethical standards are necessary for good government. I believe that conflict of interest disclosure information generally falls into that realm. A proposal to increase such disclosures, submitted by councilor Brad Winters, failed. It needed seven (of nine) votes to pass, since it involved an amendment to the city charter. Voting against it: Craig Loy, Sally Mayer, Ken Sanchez. The main disputed area involves councillors getting involved in city contracts: apparently, more of this involvement would have been made public. (I don't think that a contractor should be penalized or aided as a result of a relationship to a councilor.) One thing I found interesting is that, within the past few weeks, I've been hearing rumors of improprieties involving two city councilors. I've no solid information, so I won't even repeat the names, but . . . they both voted against the ethics proposal. Surprised?
   

I hope that everyone has a great week.

National menace, local threat

Long day, long day, so this'll be short.

I've written a bit about Albuquerque's recent anti-pet ordinance here and here. To me it's pretty much a no-brainer that this is a poor awful ordinance.

Over the years I had heard bits and pieces of nationwide groups out to eliminate pet ownership. The stories started to cohere: groups which were supposedly formed for humane treatment of anmimals--who could be against that?--began to have an ``animal rights'' agenda. This is a very different idea, but is seems similar when one first encounters it.

To make a long story short,here's a short column on the phenomenon.

More Wednesday.

Varied responses

In talking with friends concerning the petition to recall city councilor Sally Mayer, mainly in response to her anti-animal ordinance, I've encountered a variety of response. There are those pet lovers who are moderately familiar with the ordinance, and they leap at the chance to sign the petition. Those who are not familiar with the situation usually have "heard something in the news" about it; when I explain the ordinance (including both the provisions which affect regular pet owners as well as purebred dog and cat breeders), they also want to sign it.

On the other hand, one person---otherwise a very nice person---stated, "I don't like dogs and I don't like people who own dogs." Yoiks! You're probably laughing, but, naive me, I was unprepared for that.

I now have a response. I think it is just as wrong that I have to pay $150 per year to own a show dog or cat as it would be for you to pay $150 per year unless you owned a dog or cat.

I think this response gets to the heart of the issue of liberty. It is analogous to the declaration, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." A person may not like cats, but will defend your right to have a cat.

One also should not have to gratuitously pay money to the city except in return for goods or services rendered by the city. If there is a city responsibility which is of general benefit, then it should be paid for out of the general fund, since all taxpayers benefit.

In future posts I hope to publish locations where people can go to sign the recall petition. It's still in its early stages. Until then,give your pet a hug. Or, if you don't have one or don't want one, give a hug to someone else---friend or family or coworker. It will be good for you both.

`Ethics' Task Force

The Albuquerque Journal yesterday had a small front-page story on an `Ethics Task Force' whose members were selected by Gov. Richardson. Apparrently there are several front-line proposals that the group intends to propose, including government/taxpayer paid election campaigns, limits on candidate support, and giving legislators more state money as a salary.

My initial reaction is that paying the legislators for their work---as long as it is still part-time!---is an idea to consider. On the other hand, as a supporter of liberty, including free speech, I find the other two proposals lacking and susceptible to even worse problems than they purport to cure.

I find it rather disconcerting. The supposed problem is that a legislator is beholden to those who contribute to his campaign. The solution? Make him beholden to the bureaucrats who administer money obtained by taxes---or to whatever a legislative majority and the governor decide. The proposal has potential for discouraging those who would oppose whatever a current government majority decides. Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has noted and ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits mandating government finance of political campaigns.

Limits on candidate support also to me seem to be limits on free speech. Given that the First Amendment was intended specifically for political speech---and campaigning is speech---it is sad to see this obstruction becoming more current.

Note also the misuse of language involved, which plays on the confusion people have between ethics and morality. Whatever the group proposes will be deemed ``ethical''---with the implication that its opponents are therefore ``unethical''. In reality, in a general sense, the discussion is about a set of rules to be enforced which will be labeled ``ethical'' regardless of the underlying ethics or morality of the rules.

Liberty? [TBC]

Liberty is not uniquely an American concept, although we were the first nation to significantly incorporate it into our legal system. The Magna Carta did precede the U.S. Constitution, and was no doubt very influential in laying the groundwork, but its scope was very limited and all too often ignored. (Of course, arguably the U.S. Constitution has also been ignored, especially in the 20th Century. )

I don't think that liberty is pushed in the schools much any more. The culture seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between liberty and libertinism on the one hand, and between liberty and democracy on the other.

In my blog's header I note that "Liberty means letting other people do things that you don't like." That's often hard to do, especially when we see someone doing something we `know' is bad. Or, if not intrinsically bad, something we know is bad for them. Obviously, we know better. From this arises the temptation to enact a law or ordinance to take away their liberty to do . . . whatever.

The question---and it is not an easy one---is how to distinguish the cases in which it is justifiable to infringe on someone's freedom, and when it is not. Something to think about . . . .

Will we recall?

That is, will we recall city councilor Sally Mayer, the city councilor who authored the anti-pet ordinance? According to a metro section article in the Albuquerque Tribune this past Saturday, a recall is being organized. (A much shorter Associated Press report is here. The petition drive was started by a lady who owns a show dog, a Welsh Corgi, who would have to pay an extra $150 per year for the privilege. That's not her only grievance, of course, but it's what tipped the scales.

Recalls are notoriously difficult, but it is good that someone is making the attempt. For those of you in Albuquerque District 7, I'll try to find a location to sign the petition. You can see a map or use your address to find out what district you are in here.