Homeless Satire Brochure

[Locke_and_Rand]

I thought ya'll might find this interesting. I think too many in our society think that homeless people (formerly known as "bums") are just happless victims of their environment who can't help being poor, when, in reality, they choose to live the way they do. One of the quotes from the brochure in this article left me rolling on the floor laughing:

Advice on respecting wildlife: "While neighborhood cats, dogs and squirrels might make a tempting meal, please refrain from catching them, killing and cooking them.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n2.8664fc2.html

[AisA]

I read the article. Dallas has a "homeless czar"? And in Texas, it is illegal to publish a brochure that takes a position on a ballot issue without informing the state?

[Dismuke]

I read the article. Dallas has a "homeless czar"? And in Texas, it is illegal to publish a brochure that takes a position on a ballot issue without informing the state?

From the article:

According to Title 15 of the state ethics code, any person producing literature costing more than $100 "has to file a report as if they were the treasurer of a political committee," says Tim Sorrells, deputy general counsel for the Texas Ethics Commission. If not, the individual could face a civil fine of up to $5,000 if someone were to lodge a complaint with the state, he said.

"It would need to be reported somehow because it's taking a position on a ballot issue," Dallas Elections Manager Brooks Love said. To that end, Mr. Millet could, for example, report the newsletter as an in-kind contribution to the Heart of Dallas Partnership or register his own political action committee with Dallas' city secretary, Mr. Love said.

I was not aware of that - and it is downright frightening. Sounds like more John McCain style intimidation of free speech.

I understand that there is an attempt out there to try and impose McCain-Feingold type restrictions on commentary on Internet websites. In other words, if I wanted to editorialize on my website regarding a political candidate in the days and weeks prior to an election, that might be construed as a "campaign contribution."

It is quite alarming how statists of all stripes who are beginning to realize that their days might be numbered are trying to quash free speech whether it be via campaign finance laws or the reimposition of the so-called "fairness doctrine."

One of my big fears is that the election of 2008 might end up being between Hillary Clinton vs John McCain. That would be a DISASTER. Clinton and McCain are both about the most evil and most blatant power lusters on the American scene.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Dismuke

[DavidV]

It is quite alarming how statists of all stripes who are beginning to realize that their days might be numbered are trying to quash free speech whether it be via campaign finance laws or the reimposition of the so-called "fairness doctrine."

I think the goal of “campaign finance” regulations is to create monopoly privileges for incumbent parties, and thus raise the costs for third-party candidates. It also limits the criticism of political initiatives to views approved by the mainstream. This is just an extension of the method of business regulation to the political process. I don’t think politicians really worry about a capitalist revolution – they probably see this as another tool to avoid having to reconcile their policies with the reality of their consequences.