At what point

does teaching your children what you believe to be right become brainwashing? This was the question I asked after I saw a lenghty news article about how it appears that a group of polygamists have plans to set up a community in Northern Idaho. Before I go further, allow me to say that if you think polygamy is the key to everlasting life, by all means, go for it; it's certainly not the strangest notion of salvation I've ever heard. What I do oppose is the practice of marrying young girls (15, 16 years old) to older men; to me, that smacks of exploitation. Also, if you choose to have a dozen wives and several dozen children, you should not be eligible for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps. That, too, is exploitive, but in a different manner.

Anyway, this segment had statements from some of the polygamist women and men, saying that this is how they have chosen to live, that it's not abusive, they are happy, etc. The counter argument, from other citzens and some kind of expert was the only reason these people are saying they're ok is because they've been brainwashed into accepting their lifestyle, hence my question.

From a certain point of view, everything everyone teaches their kids is brainwashing. I plan to teach my children that, despite it's flaws, democracy is the best form of governance yet devised. Meanwhile, some shild in China may be learning that, despite it's flaws, communism is the best form of governance yet devised. It's all brainwashing, according to an ardent advocate of feudalism and Divine Right. These polygamists are merely teaching their children to adhere to a doctrine that, while non-standard, is every bit as valid as people teaching children to pray to Baby Jesus, or follow the 8 fold path, or to revere their ancestors. Before anyone points out that Christianity is an accepted religion the world over, I would remind them that, once upon a time, Christianity was considered a dangerous and subsersive sect.

That's about all my thoughts on that, really. I think I had more, but had to step away from this post for about two weeks and now I can't rmemeber where I was going with all this.

I would say I'm cautiously optimistic

about Oregon's mileage tax. Basically, because cars are getting more fuel efficient, revenues from gasoline taxes (used to fix roads and fund projects) are falling. As a possible solution, Oregon department of Transportation is conducting a study where drivers are charged for the miles they drive via a specialized GPS in their car. Here is another article, and here is a disenting opinion.

I'm glad lawmakers are investigating such an innovative approach to taxation. I'm not saying it's a solution and that we should implement it on a federal level, but I am saying it has a lot of potential. Some of the ideas surrounding the mileage tax are paying a premium for driving during rush hour in congested areas and, assuming national implementation, tracking and paying the mileage rate for each state you drive in (the gas tax already works somewhat like this, as you pay each individual states gas tax when you fuel up there). Also, this system could be used to charge a heavier tax on larger vehicles that do more wear and tear on the road. An idea I had was, if the GPS systems were sensitive enough, you could charge a special, temporary tax on a road or highway that needed extensive repair, such as a new interstate exit or major resurfacing. This could, arguably, create extra revenue for special projects allowing them to be financed easier and completed quicker. Also, states could charge a premium for driving in wilderness areas where even one or two vehicles on a backcountry road can cause extensive damage.

This idea is not without potential problems, though; chief of which is privacy and fairness. The State (and potentially Federal) government is essentially wanting to put a tracking device into your car to read when and where you drive. Security of this data would have to be airtight, and even then many people would not be comfortable with it. Also, the way test is being conducted, it treats a Toyota Prius the same as a Kenworth 18 wheeler towing three trailers, which removes some of the incentive for buying fuel efficient/hybrid cars.

My impending fatherhood

has caused me to reevaluate my positions on some things. Most recently, I've been thinking about registered sex offenders. In Idaho, as many other places, convicted sex offenders must register their address with local law enforcement. Ada County even has a website where you can get the address and picture of offenders in your zip code.

This registry has me conflicted.

On one hand, arrests and convictions are a matter or public record. It's really not anyone's business, but you can head down to the DMV and see every ticket I've ever had. You can plug in local notables and see their records as well. That's all well and good, but the nature of sex crimes taint a person for life. We seem to willing to believe that a burglar can mend their ways, or a drug dealer can walk the straigt and narrow again, but not child molesters and the like. These people are branded and outcast from normal society, and putting their pictures and forceing them to register their addresses leaves them vulnerable to public prejudice and bigotry. There have been recent stories where citizens have abused this information.

As a citzen, I feel that these offenders should be given a chance to redeem themselves, to have some privacy and chance to return to a normal, productive life. I don't think they should be forced to have a seperate registry of addresses. These registries are often implimented and defended by saying it's for the safety of our kids and neighborhoods, but there are lots of other crimes that prey on the innocent, such as murderers and drug dealers. Why isn't there a registry for these people? I would like to know if there's a convicted narcaotics trafficer living near by. Or people conviced of DUI. They pose a similar danger to the welfare of my community, why aren't they forced to post their pictures and addresses online? It really bothers me that we, as a community, are heavily stacking the deck against someones' right to a second chance and a decent, private life.

As a father, I want to know where these bastards live so I can tell to stay the fuck away from my kids.

Baby Update

I feel lucky. Other than the diabetes, this seem sto have been an extremely easy pregnancy, for me at least. There have been no weird 3 am cravings for sardines and bean sprouts (she has had some cravings, but they've been fairly mundane, and nothing that she hasn't craved before) and with one exception, we've managed to avoid any highly emotional pregnant outbursts.

The one exception is kind of an interesting story. On her way to work, Nomi decided she wanted some coffee, so she stopped at a gas station, fixed her cup just the way she likes it and took it out to the car. When she set it on the top of the car to open it, it spilled all down the front of her work shirt. Now, this is something that make just about anyone upset , but for Nomi, that it day it was devastating. She came to work in tears, and I just happened to be in the break room when she walked in, clearly upset. Between sobs, she told me what happened. I tried to comfort her, but she could not be consoled. She left to go clock on and about an hour later, I got a call at my register. She was still distraught, and need to talk to try and feel better. I did what I could, but we were busy and I couldn't spend too much time with her. Three hours into her shift, she is still crying in the kiosk, and her boss says it's ok to go home. This made here feel worse, as it meant her already short handed department had to pull someone from the floor to run the fuel station, and she was shorting her paycheck four hours. We all tried to tell her it was ok, that we understood, she was pregnant, and we didn't hold it against her, but she wouldn't believe us. She still wasn't totally ok when she came to pick me up from work. We laugh about it now, but at the time her whole universe was upsidedown.

In baby news, we are 20 days from induction. Nomi had an ultrasound yesterday, and Sidney weighs six (!) pounds. This is exactly where she needs to be, and the doc said she may gain up to two more pounds by the end of it. I was really happy to hear this. I was afraid that, because of the gestational diabetes, Sidney would be far above agverage, which would cause problems. Also, she has flipped over, and is head-down, ready to deliver. This explains why Nomi had been especially uncomfortable over the last few days.

Two Positions I Hold

Position #1

High prices at the pump could be good for the country, in the long run.

First off, the US has some of the lowest gas prices in the world. In Europe, prices regularly run $4 and $5 USD a gallon, so quit bitching.

Second, gas prices are not coming down in the foreseeable future. Why? Two words: 'China' and 'India'. With a combined 2 billion (just under 10 times the population of the US) souls and counting, and massive untapped markets that are gowing amazingly quickly, their demand for oil and petrolium products is surpassing our own. It's a simple law of free markets: when demand goes up and supply stays the same, prices go up.

Third, our dependance on foerign oil is a huge weakness in our economy. Relying heavily on another nation for something so very vital to everything in this country (buisiness, trade, national defense etc. all run on oil) is foolish. As long as oil is cheap, we have no real impetus to wean ourselves. We are the largest market for crude, so of course they'll keep selling it to us, even if they don't like us very much, because they want to make money. But we're not the largest market anymore; the oil producing countries can sell to others and still make a profit.

Fourth, it's bad for the environment. Again, as long as oil is inexpensive, we have no reason to investigate other energy sources. When the price of crude is down, who cares about hybrid cars or hydrogen fuel cells or effective mass transit, or what the mileage on your Urban Assault Vehicle is? Gas is $1.50 a gallon, I'm making $6.75 an hour. But when it breaks the $2.00 mark and continues to climb, peopel get worried.

If handled properly, high prices are very good for us in the long run. We can make our econmoy stronger, prices of goods shipped by truck (basically everything) would stabilize, and if it's the US who develops truly viable fuel cells (or whatever) we could make a killing selling it to other countries.

Position #2

I am pro-choice, but against abortion.

I have been told, recently, that this particular position is not merely untenable, but logically impossible. I was not afforded the time to explain myself, so I thought I'd do it here.

At first, it would seem that my position is inherently contradictory; either you allow abortion or you don't. However, I see the pro-choice/life debate as two seperate arguements, one moral, one legal.

From a legal standpoint, I don't feel that it is within a governments sphere of influence to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion. I see nothing in the constitution that supports that argument, and not from a 'freedom of choice' standpoint, either. It's more that I see nothing that specifically gives the (Federal) government that power.

That being said, I feel that women (and men. We must always remember it take s two to tango) should look at all the possibilities before getting an abortion, starting with not having sex unless you're ready to face the consequences.

If I were to give my view a soundbite, it would be "Abortion should not be made illeagle, but neither should it be used as a form of birth control or as a procedure of convinece."

Of Anniversaries and such

Today marks one year of continous employment with one company. This is the longest I've worked at one place since 2000.

Are we sick?

The wife and I were just figuring what our newborns AC would be:

10 (base) + 2 (tiny size) - 5 (dex 1) = 7