|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Hey, Ruben! Plastic bag initiatives!
|From hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com Tue Oct 4 20:43:41 2016
Received: from www.mrbrklyn.com (www.mrbrklyn.com [220.127.116.11])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1290D163E9C;
Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [18.104.22.168])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2704A161469
for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [22.214.171.124])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4D81B199
for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by panix2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20529)
id 8B71A33C9B; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:43:37 -0400
From: Ruben Safir
To: NYLXS Discussions List
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Subject: Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Hey, Ruben! Plastic bag initiatives!
Reply-To: NYLXS Discussions List
List-Id: NYLXS Discussions List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:40:44PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> tl;dr: I have analyses posted on the Web of the June and November
> ballots at my address in California that may interest even
> right-coasters. URLs below. November one covers the last gasp of the
> plastic bag industry to overturn California law, about to go down in
> smoke. Ruben is invited to be annoyed. ;->
> Ruben won't be seeing this thread until after Shabbos, but we feckless
> goyim (and people in further-west time zones) can palaver in his
> Last May, Ruben was having a cow (subspecies virtual) over a minuscule
> tax on single-use plastic shopping bags then being debated in NYC and
> Albany. How'd that turn out, by the way?
No it is not the TAX, although the TAx pisses me off as well, since
we've gone from 8.25% sales tax to over 10% sales tax and 20 dollar
bridge tolls and a 100x jump in ticket costs....
But it is the new OVERSITE REGEIGM that comes with this and these blood
suckers are going to press every last cent they can get.
You just don't understand what it is like to run a businesses in NYC,
Aside from that, out of principle the government shouldn't get between
the free citizen and their vendors like this.
Your expereince in California is IRRELEVANT. I'm sure it sucks there as
well, but when you are dragging 20 shopping bags of groceries and 4 kids
onto the subway, then MAYBE, you might be qualified for an informed
understanding of this topic.
And yes, we poor working stiffs in NYC do this every week. And then we
run out of milk and daddy has to pick up more groceries home after he
gets home from the subway.
We not plastered over with an endless number of asphalt parking lots
that we drive to like they do in Palo Alto.
You can discuss your expereince in California from here until tomorrow
and I couldn't care less. This is a bigoted and bullying push of
government control at the expense of the public that is inexcusable,
> At the time, I mentioned part of our experience in California. All
> around the cities and counties of San Francisco Bay Area starting in
> 2007, and in a number of other cities in other parts of the state (151
> cities total) there's been for _quite_ a few years the same sort of bag
> ordinance. You no longer get paper _or_ plastic grocery & pharmacy bags
> 'free' [sic]. Either paper or _thick_ (multi-use) bags remain available
> if you need them at (typically) 10-25 cents each. You are encouraged to
> either reuse, or (better) just bring from home the now-ubiquitous canvas
> bags or other bags you already have.
> And this ordinance has been a roaring success everywhere it's been
> enacted. Just about all the blowing plastic-bag litter: Pfft. Gone.
> (The percent remaining will be in part leftover from pre-ordinance
> days and part litter brought in fron non-ordinance jurisdictions.)
> And the people who were shouting persecution pretty much all found the
> new arrangement really easy to deal with, and NOT ONE of the 151 cities
> or dozen-odd counties has repealed its ordinance. Zero. Pretty nearly
> everyone prefers things this way. Polls continue to show heavy public
> support, even in the parts of California with no local bag law.
> Except, of course, from the plastic bag industry, which _really_ got
> into the game after Governor Brown signed into law SB-270, a _statewide_
> bag statute imposing a minimum 10 cent fee for throwaway paper or
> plastic grocery & pharmacy bags. They've so far thrown at least $5M
> into getting SB-270 overturned, _and_ succeeded in both getting SB-270
> held up pending a voter referendum (Proposition 67) and also threw onto
> the ballot a second 'trojan horse' bag measure (Proposition 65) to muddy
> the waters, sabotage the statewide ban if it passes, and with luck annoy
> voters into voting 'no' on both measures -- an old trick.
> Polls are so far showing that California voters are _not_ being fooled,
> though the day is young and we'll know for certain only on Nov. 8th.
> But _even if_ the plastic bag industry is able to buy enough statewide
> influence, they'll still have the huge problem of those 151 successful,
> popular city ordinances and dozen-odd county ones.
> And, oh, the California Republican Party endorses the plastic industry's
> 'trojan horse' decoy proposition. (In fairness, they don't oppose the
> good one.)
> Anyway: These last two election cycles (June and November 2016),
> I've expanded slightly something I've always done for my family and
> close friends: ballot analysis.
> For years, I've written an e-mail prior to each major election, listing
> all the ballot issues and candidates, and saying in a separate, marked
> section for each issue/candidate, how I'm voting and why. These have
> been very popular, in part because there's no goddamned polemics in it.
> Many people including Our Good Host seem to fail to realise that there's
> an _art_ to the writing and publishing of rants. If you get it wrong,
> all you accomplish is to annoy and get ignored if not killfiled, thrown
> off mailing lists where you've gone bezerk, etc.
> Unless you're Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, or Bill Maher,
> your political rant is going to just make you look stupid and rude, the
> more so if you _push_ it at people, e.g., at subscribers of a mailing list.
> Such things are so widely understood to be noxious that even polite
> recommendations that you _don't_ push at people must be written
> I _think_ I've been pulling that off. Judge for yourself:
> You in the Empire State might find some of that good reading even if you
> have no real interest in the Left Coast, if only because the crazy
> stuff Golden State voters try out often knocks on your own door
> a couple of years later.
> Y'all might find the Top-Top Primary bit interesting, in particular.
> It's one of two recent reforms (along with an independent redistricting
> commission) that have pretty much ended partisan gridlock in Sacramento.
> You might want to give it a try.
> And feel free to laugh at California throwing _seventeen_ ballot
> proposition at voters on the November 8th ballot. I sure do.
> Quoting Rick Moen (rick-at-linuxmafia.com):
> > Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> > > On 09/06/2016 09:02 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > > > has anyone followed the imprisonment and months long interment in
> > > > Solitary Confinement of Francis Rawls, of Philadelphia? He is accused
> > > > of watching child pornography and they are holding him in contempt of
> > > > court because his systems are locked with cryptography.
> > ^^^^
> > Are you forwarding mail from your evil twin Ruben Safir?
> > You did not bother to provide the news article, just the full text of an
> > advocacy blog post. The interesting legal question is: What evidence
> > did prosecutors provide to the judge to support application of the
> > 'foregone conclusion' doctrine's exception to the Fifth Amendment?
> > Without understanding the legal issue, your covering this matter is
> > pretty fruitless. If you agitate about legal issues without bothering
> > to understand the law, you are just making noise.
> > NY Times article says on that point, 'Parts of the court documents that
> > would explain the reasons for Mr. Rawls???s detention and the court order
> > are still under seal.' So, we presently do not know.
> > The doctrine was developed by the USSC in 1976 in the case Fisher v.
> > United States, 425 U.S. 391, 411 and reaffirmed in United States v.
> > Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000). The Fifth Amendment privilege against
> > 'self-incrimination' has always been ruled to extend only to
> > 'incriminating communitcations... that are testimonial in nature' (US v.
> > Hubbell).
> > Fisher was an IRS case in which defendant Fisher refused to produce
> > documents sought by IRS, citing Fifth Amendment privilege. The USSC
> > disagreed, ruling that "the act of producing [the papers]???the only thing
> > which the taxpayer is compelled to dowould not itself involve
> > testimonial self-incrimination." The Court held that the government
> > can compel production when the "existence and location [of documents]
> > are a foregone conclusion and [the defendant] adds little or nothing to
> > the sum total of the Government???s information by conceding that he in
> > fact has the papers." Thus, the act of producing papers wasn't
> > testimonial; it was not functionally equivalent to admitting-guilt words
> > from Fisher's mouth.
> > By contrast, the USSC disagreed with prosecution in the Hubbell case,
> > where a grand jury had subpoenaed documents from an official who refused
> > to comply. Here, the Court found that the prosecution had _lacked_
> > a priori knowledge of the subpoenaed documents, and thus compelling the
> > papers would have constituted a testimonial act.
> > Lower courts have tended to follow dicta in the Hubbell case and
> > requiring the state seeking compulsion under the 'foregone conclusion'
> > doctrine to be able to show the court independent, convincing evidence
> > of the 'existence, custody, and authenticity' of the material sought --
> > all three of those elements, not just police handwavium.
> > Moveover, because of subsequent cases, in three District Courts (DC
> > Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit), prosecution must also have
> > existing knowledge of the subpoenaed documents with "reasonable
> > particularity" before "the communication inherent in the act of
> > production can be considered a foregone conclusion." (Philadelphia's
> > served by the Third Circuit.)
> > _So_, the implication in the Rawls case is that the judge has seen other
> > evidence (so far under seal) that already convinced him/her past a
> > reasonable doubt that the hard drives' contents are child pornography,
> > which is why he ruled that decrypting them isn't a testimonial act, and
> > refusing his order to do so is contempt of court. Rawls's public
> > defender's job was to convince the judge that whatever-that-was _didn't_
> > establish the 'existence, custody, and authenticity' of kiddie porn on
> > Rawls's hard drives -- but on the evidence he didn't succeed.
> > Now, you can dislike the court's holding if you like, but at least you
> > understand it better.
> > And, next time, don't try to understand legal issues by reading advocacy
> > blog postings.
> hangout mailing list
hangout mailing list