AlbuquerqueAmerican

Here we go again . . . .

2006-07-12T06:36:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-12T06:01:00.000-07:00

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

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.
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.)
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.
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

2006-06-06T23:12:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-05T06:13:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-02T06:55:00.000-07:00

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]

2006-05-31T20:48:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-05-30T06:51:00.000-07:00

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.

As we recall . . .

2006-05-29T19:36:00.000-07:00

. . . those who have died in service to our country, we should pause and reflect on their sacrifices and some ideals which may have led them to sacrifice.

Patriotism: that sense of love for and identity with the community to which one has allegiance.
Liberty: The God-given inalienable right, which acknowledges that each person is different and that diverse people are best able to make decisions for themselves.
Service: Using one's God-given abilities to help others: one's own strengths make up for the weaknesses of others---and vice versa.

My words are insufficient to explain those concepts, but the sacrifice of others for liberty is something for which I am grateful. My own efforts at local liberty are small in comparison.

On this day of rememberance---Memorial Day---remember. Remember. Remember.

Imagology and police blotters

2006-05-28T16:49:00.000-07:00

Missed blogging on Saturday, with various graduation festivities going on. There have been two or three parties on our block this weekend so far. (At least two of the three parties were high school graduation parties; I don't know about the third one.)

Some of you may be thinking, ``Oh no! Wild and noisy parties, horns blaring, obnoxious behavior.'' Nope, not a bit of it (rather a lot of curbside parking, of course, making it a bit more of a challenge to navigate down the street). In any event, the kids I've met seem to be pretty nice people overall.

I wonder why. The stereotype is based upon observation, but I wonder if a lot of it isn't the ``police blotter syndrome''. The name comes from the police blotter, which was basically the logbook of a police department. One could go and read a daily list of burglaries, traffic accidents, drug stops, vandalism, robbery, and even homicides, and come to the conclusion that the city was not only going to hell: it was most of the way there. Even in one of the safest cities in the country, a broadcast newsshow or a newspaper using the police blotter as a major source for its stories would never run out of scary stories to report. In effect, the image created by selectively focussing on the negative would not match the reality of actual life which was purportedly portrayed.

Milan Kundera alludes to a variation on this in his 1990 novel Immortality. He believes that this is more pervasive than ``if it bleeds it leads''. He calls it imagology.

[I]imagology is stranger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat. My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.

(Aside: I will almost never make reference to national politics in this blog: I intend to focus on local restraints on liberty. I will at times make references to blogs on the left, right, up, down, front, and back side of national politics (alas, too many of them drift to the backside!). I am indebted to the the psychology blogger neo-neocon.blogspot.com for pointing me to Kundera's writings; her post which cites more than the bit above can be read here.)

In any event, this applies to a city the size of Albuquerque. Those proposing Albuquerque's recent anti-pet ordinance used this technique quite effectively. They focussed over and over again on scare stories from the pound and used it to motiveate people to do something, which ended up doing something to (punishing) the very people who had a personal interest and history in reducing problems with animals.

But perhaps more of that on a later date. For now, perhaps it's worthwhile to ponder how the police blotter effect can influence perceptions and be used as a tool towards restricting the liberty of the unguilty: the ``99 plus percent who aren't causing the problem''.

Update on Albuquerque Anti-Pet Ordinance

2006-05-26T16:42:00.000-07:00

Flamehail is an angry college girl. She's found out more on the anti-pet ordinance, and posted it here.

(N)Ice House for youth

2006-05-26T06:21:00.000-07:00

A happy and blessed Friday to you all. Blogging will be light today due to family obligations.

This morning's Albuquerque newspaper carried a story noting that our Mayor would be using city funds to purchase a former strip club (now in bankruptcy) and turn it into an "adult-free, drug-and-alcohol free" place for kids to go to. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not this is a good use of city money. There are some concerns about the cost (half a million to purchase, plus an unknown amount to renovate, possible lead paint and asbestos problems) and utility, but having another activity for kids is a good thing.

My concerns are different.

I do not want a place which is truly "adult-free". While kids need to hang out together, they also need adult supervision and, perhaps more importantly, adult role models.
This places the city in competition with other activities, such as the Boys' and Girls' Clubs. These non-profit organizations are always hurting for money. I think there is probably a need validating another such center, but I'm concerned that people will start to think "that's the government's responsibility" when asked for a donation, and therefore give less to these worthy organizations. I think that's sad.

OK, this is probably peripheral to the topic of Liberty, but it is something being discussed in the Duke City today.

Liberty means . . .

2006-05-25T07:41:00.000-07:00

"What do you mean by `liberty'?" a good friend asked me yesterday.

We were discussing Albuquerque's recent anti-pet ordinance at the time. (Note: this blog will not be pets-all-the-time; it's just a current topic of conversation, and serves as an example for thoughtful consideration.) She continued, "I don't want Sally Mayer [author and main proponent of the anti-pet ordinance] to have liberty to do what she just did!"

The question illustrates two points.

Our first thought is often, "There ought to be a law!"
Liberty is a two-way street.

"There ought to be a law!" Originally an ironic comment, this idea has become part and parcel of the culture nowadays. When there's something we don't like---or when there's any problem, the first thought often is to bring it into the legal system. The legal system is inherently anti-liberty to the criminal, as it should be. The problem arises as more and more activity becomes criminalized by making laws against more and more activities (there is an equivalent action within the tort system). One city councilor hates the whole dog-show idea---`there ought to be a law'---and now a person pays a $150 fine for owning a show dog (and is limited to only owning four!).

Liberty is a two-way street. In the anti-pet example, the City Council majority (there are three pro-liberty councilors: make sure you vote for their reelection) demonstrated their opposition to liberty. Ms. Mayer should be at perfect liberty to own or not own an animal as she sees fit for herself, and her liberty should extend to others, who should be at liberty to do or not do the same. However, she has chosen to deny liberty to others and punish those who don't share her preference. In this case, liberty is restricted to one-way.

My friend was upset that the Council was at liberty to enact this oppressive ordinance. There is some truth to that. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution exists explicitly to limit the ability of Congress to make certain types of laws. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent restriction on the Albuquerque City Council in this matter.

Perhaps part of the problem is that of vocabulary. What words are available to describe those who would restrict the liberty of others. I have several thoughts on this, but that's a topic for another post.

Welcome! Inaugural mourning

2006-05-24T06:54:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the AlbuquerqueAmerican blog. I hope that this blog provides thought and useful insight to most of you.

It is somewhat exciting---but not without apprehension---to be putting one's thoughts out for others to read and criticize. However, that is one way that each of us can grow as individuals. I look forward to civil comments (others are likely to be deleted).

No adult person lacks complexity, but each is a mixture of various competing ideas and ideals. Some of these are good and beneficial; some are not. In this blog I intend (at present) be mainly at the focus of two ideals:

Liberty
Putting global concepts into local context.

This leads into my first comments.

Inaugurating a blog should be a rather joyful time, but the Albuquerque city council has made it rather sad, by passing an ordinance which decreases the freedom of Duke City residents. What is sadder, is it pretends to be correcting a problem, and punishes people who not only aren't part of the problem, but who are working to solve it!

It is instructive to look at the history of this ordinance, which illustrates how people can use the force of government to control others whose actions they don't like.

The central character from the task is Councilor Sally Mayer (she gives it a Frenchish pronounciation, "my yay"). She's not a totally bad Councilor, but has some extreme prejudices against people who enjoy dogs, cats, and birds, and their history and breeding.

The city of Albuquerque also has two dog pounds, which serve the city and surrounding counties. The population is growing, and so the number of dogs and cats requiring euthanizing is also growing. Most of these are animals with behavior problems or disease, but the picture many get is of the poor puppy without a home --- and truly, there are a lot of those, too.

Ms. Mayer used this situation to further her cause. She would not have been able to persuade other Councilors to ban dog and cat showing outright, but she could use the situation to further her agenda. She wrote a 70 page ordinance (the former ordinance was four pages) which combined many, many items, but also included some poison pills. Some examples:

Fine people owning show dogs and cats $150 per year for each animal they owned.
Specify detailed mandatory requirements (for example, the perch size in a bird cage, the type of waterbowl for a dog) which, if not met, would allow the city to take your animal.
Provisions that to retrieve your own animal from the pound, it would have to be made unsuitable for showing. (Note how this relates to the previous item.)

In parallel, hysteria was being generated about the 'terrible problem' at the pound, with an urgency to do something! It didn't matter if the 'something' really had anything to do with the problem, as long as something was done.

And the dog, cat, and bird fanciers had something done to them.

Most people don't realize that the majority of dog and cat fanciers (that's a term they use among themselves) aren't the stereotypical millionaires in mansions, but come from all income levels and classes. They really reflect the local demographic. (Of those dozen or so I know locally well enough to guess, probably 65% are below the state median income; perhaps 10% significantly above.)

Most people are also unaware that those in the fancies which breed have a rather high code of ethics. Most are almost fanatical on whom they'll sell an animal to: the qualification process is pretty detailed. Many also follow up and retain a 'co-ownership' contract, allowing them to get the animal back if it is mistreated or abandoned. They take very good care of their animals, which is costly: I know of no one who makes a profit from the hobby. (An example: a friend of mine has records of every dog she's sold over the past 30+ years.)

My friend now would have to pay a fine of $750 a year to continue her endeavor---and would have to destroy one of her dogs (since there is now a limit of four dogs, total!). No dogs of hers--nor of most hobby breeders affiliated with American Kennel Club or American Cat Fanciers Association and such groups---winds up in the pound for adoption or euthanasia! Yet, an hysteria over euthanizing was used to punish her for her dedication.

Of course, dog show and cat show people do love to do something which many aren't interested in doing. But few people really mind that they do their own thing. Some do mind. Those who mind were able to pass this ordinance which restricted the liberty of people in our city.

I hope you all find this blog interesting and thought provoking.