Your Brain On Drugs

The other morning, as I was cooking up some breakfast, I remembered the anti-drug commercial of either the late 80's or early 90's.  So here I present my version of that anti-drug use commercials:

This is Your Brain

This is Your Brain on Drugs

This is Your Brain on Drugs with a
Smattering of Salsa!

The Moral of the Story: Don't do drugs or your brain will end up being spicy fried eggs!

LECHERY

My new word for the week is lechery.  I came across this word in Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3:

Porter:  Faith sir, we were carousing till the second cock: and drink, sir, is a great provoker of three things.

MACDUFF:  What three things does drink especially provoke?

Porter:  Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

The Porter's statements are as true in 2012 as they were in 1606.  The words of the English language's most famous Bard live on today.

How Having Your Car Catch on Fire in a Parking Lot Is a Good Thing

Or I should say, how having MY car catch on fire in a parking lot is a good thing; a blessing rather than an omen.

Cars are mechanical; full of individual mechanical parts that all must function in harmony to enable me to drive down the road.  Mechanical things break down; they fail.  It happens to all mechanical things sooner or later.  With that in mind, I relate my story.

On Tuesday I bought a new car battery for my 1990 baby-blue Lincoln Town Car because the old one wasn’t holding a charge very well.  I also had suspicions that the alternator was going bad as well.  These suspicions were confirmed as I was driving home on Tuesday night and the lights were dimming and the electrical systems in the car began to shut down.  So I connected the battery charger over night and made plans to have the alternator changed the next day.

1990 Lincoln Town Car. Not my Town Car, but mine looks exactly like this one

Wednesday morning I disconnected the battery charger.  My 11 year old son and I got into my car and drove down to a church parking lot where we meet another student for our small car pool.  I knew that the brand new, charged up battery would get me to the school and back before it lost too much of a charge.  We got to the parking lot before the other half of our car pool arrived.  As we were sitting there in the car, I noticed what looked like a tiny bit of smoke coming out from under the hood on the driver’s side.  I popped the hood latch and looked into the engine compartment. There I saw a little, tiny flame inside the alternator.  At some point I turned the car off (I don’t remember if I turned it off before I looked under the hood or after I saw the flames).  It was just a little tiny flame, so I did what any rational man would do under those circumstances: I tried to blow it out.  Well, the flame was bigger than I realized and blowing did not good.  In all reality, it probably fed the flame.

I didn’t totally lose my head.  Before I saw the smoke, I had noticed that a couple of other people in pick-up trucks were in the parking lot, apparently waiting for their car pool people to arrive.  I took off at a dead run and asked the first man if he had a fire extinguisher.  He did not.  I then asked the other man in the other truck if he had one.  Again the answer was no.  I then ran back to the car, trying to figure out if there was any way to get the fire out before it spread.  I was picturing my car engulfed in flames, and I really did not want that to happen.  On the way back to my car I remember that I had some cleaning clothes on the car floor, ones that I had purchased the day before.  I thought that maybe I could smother out the fire.  The entire time, the fire in the alternator was growing.  It looked like the entire inside of the alternator was now full of yellow flames, licking out, and still growing.  I took the rags and tried to smother it out.  If you have ever seen and alternator you know that it is full of air vents to help keep the mini power plant cooled down.  Because of that, I could not cover it up enough to put out the flames.

Alternator with Many Air Vents

At that moment I remembered that I had a small spray bottle on the back seat floor that still had a little bit of water left in it.  I was about to go and get the water to dump on the alternator when the fellow in the second truck, who had driven up close to me, came over with two half-liter water bottles, dumping them on the alternator, quenching the flames.  The alternator sizzled and steamed, but didn’t flame up again.  I thanked the good stranger.
Not more than a minute later, our carpooler arrived, and I had to ask her mom to take the two young ones to school, which she happily did.  After all, my car had caught on fire.

So why was it a blessing to have my alternator catch fire in the parking lot?  Remember that I said that cars are mechanical and all mechanical machines break down sooner or later?  Well, they key word to my assertion is “parking lot.”  I feel that my failing alternator would have caught fire no matter what.  My mechanic told me he has seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 Ford alternators that had caught fire (these must be the ones that didn’t cause the rest of the car to go up in flames).  Let’s just now imagine that the fire didn’t start when it did, but started ten minutes later.  In my estimation, this is what could have happened.

I have two 11 year olds in my car driving south bound on Redwood Road, cruising at 62 miles per hour (yes, I do speed a little bit on that portion of Redwood).  The alternator then starts on fire.  First a very small flame, but then, before I see enough smoke to even know that the alternator is aflame, the 62 mile per hour indirect wind, that blows ever the radiator and into the alternator air vents, feeds the fire all the oxygen it needs to go from a small flame to a very large flame.  I then picture the flame growing and being pushed back into the other electrical wires, the spark plug wires, the vacuum hoses, and the air intake tube, along with igniting any oil residue on the engine.  At that point, I imagine that I would pull to the side of the road as I see great wisps of smoke coming out from under the hood, and coming into the inside of the car through the air vents.   I holler at the two children to, “Get Out! And stay away from the car and the road!”  I pop the hood latch, open the hood, and see the engine compartment being engulfed in flames.  I panic; I forget I have water bottles in the trunk.  When I remember, the flames are too big to be put out with a couple of  water bottles.  A few cars stop.  Maybe one of them has a fire extinguisher; maybe not.  I call 911 as I move myself and the children away from the burning car.  Cars rarely explode, but it can happen.

Engine Compartment of a 1990 Lincoln Town Car

The fire department comes, and puts out the flames.  My prized 1990 baby-blue Lincoln Town Car is now a total loss.  When my wife discovers that the car is a loss, but that we are all safe, she rejoices that “Carlos’ Pimped Up Ride” will no longer don the driveway.  But then the police officer, who is on scene, calls a tow truck.  I say, “tow it to my house,” to my wife’s utter dismay.  But not to worry, as I will be calling Tear-A-Part to come and pick up the car and give me $100 for it.

HOWEVER, none of that happened.  I have had cars break down on me before, but I almost always have had them break down the moment I pull into the driveway at home, or the parking lot at work.  Or I have been able to limp home or to the auto shop before the car “won’t go no more.”  Once I made it from Los Angeles to Southern Utah where family was able to help me fix my car, with no breaks.  Now as then, I was safely sitting in a parking lot when I saw smoke.  The fire was put out and only the alternator was burned.  Now the alternator (and the burnt wiring directly on top of the alternator) have been replaced.  And I, one again, to my wife’s chagrin, am cruising the valley in my awesome Town Car.

My Comments on KSL Article about Immigration Law / Constitutional Rights

I was ready an article today about the Utah Attorney General informing the Federal Court that the US Justice Department is looking at Utah's recently passed law on immigration, prompting the federal judge to postpone an upcoming injunction hearing (Federal Judge Waddoups issued a temporary restraining order against House Bill 497 only hours after the law went into effect in May)

I then read the comments, which you can read for yourself if you would like.  I decided to post a reply to one of the comments, from poster Code Exempt. 


Code Exempt [wrote]
"I still don't get what the problem is with a cop asking for a ID. If a person can't produce proper ID, I think the cop SHOULD dig deeper to find out who this person is."


Carlitos27 (that's me) [wrote]
"It saddens me that you would so easily give up the rights afforded all of us under the Constitution of the United States.  The only time I will ever be showing my identification to a police officer is when I have been driving and a peace officer requests my driver license. I will then present my driver license.  If, however, I am a passenger in a car, or am walking along the street, and a police officer asks me to produce identification, I will kindly tell him/her no. I value my constitutional rights, and will not waive them without a very good reason. If a police officer "digs deeper" to find out who I am, that action is, or will most likely lead to, a violation of the constitutional rights afforded me under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution as well as Article I Section 14 of the Utah Constitution.

"As an aside, I am pleased that during the 16 months or so I spent in Mexico as an illegal alien, I was not treated as most of the commenters wish to treat those illegal aliens who are here."

I have no desire to go to jail for any amount of time, but I would risk upsetting a police officer, even to the point of being arrested, in standing up for my constitutional rights.

A Nine-Year Old's View on Federal Taxation

The other day I was driving my nine year old son to school.  Not too far from our home, and on the route to school, the United States government is building a very large NSA building, which we refer to as the Spy Building.  We started talking about the building.  There is no actual structure at this point; just a lot of land preparation, with dozens of large tractors driving all over the place.  I explained to my son that all the work that has been done to this point, in just preparing the land for construction, has probably already cost several millions of dollars.  He asked who paid the money and where the money came from.  I told him the money came from taxes. 

Prior to this moment, I had never discussed taxes with my son, with the exception of trying to teach him that he needed to have an extra 7 cents for every dollar he planned to spend.  On this short car ride, I began a brief explanation of taxes.  I premised my discussion by saying, “If you ever want to be rich, you have to understand about taxes.”  I went on to explain that we are taxed when we buy anything at the store; we are taxed on money that we earn money; we are taxed for owning a house or a car; and we are taxed when we die.  For three or four minutes, I continued explaining tax disbursement to the multiple levels of government we have.  My tone was not negative, as I was trying to give him a subjective overview of all the taxes we pay.

After I finished my brief discourse, there was a moment of silence.  Then my son made his profound statement.  As I noted, I had not talked about taxes with him before, except telling him he has to pay sales tax.  He said, “I don’t want to be rich right now.”  In the past, he always told us that he wants to be rich and live in a mansion, so I asked why he didn’t want to be rich.  He responded, “Now is not a good time to be rich, not until we get another president, because this president wants to take too much money from you in taxes if you’re rich.”

After that I didn’t say anything; I was too astonished at discovering that my nine-year old had already formed an opinion about the tax plans of the current administration to say another word.

Utah Tries to Exert State's Rights With Firearms Law: Not The Best Avenue

On Tuesday, I attended my  Republican Party "neighborhood" caucus meeting.  It was about as much fun as slopping the hogs, but I did my duty.  One candidate for our precinct State Delegate position stated that he applauded the state legislature for standing up for states' right by passing legislation to exempt guns manufactured in Utah and for sale only in Utah, from federal regulation.  I am a huge proponent of states' rights, along with a small federal government that is limited to the powers outlined in our beloved federal Constitution.  The Utah law in question, however, Senate Bill 11, titled the "Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act" was a waste of legislative time and a waste of Governor Herbert's signature.  It was poorly drafted.  The language is more of an affirmation of state rights against the big federal bully, rather than a straight forward law.    It would have been much better with a simple numbering revision of the sections, making the first line Paragraph (1) and then paragraphs 1 through 7 as subsections of paragraph (1).
The applicable language is:

 In reviewing any matter covered by this chapter, a court shall consider the following:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the state and its people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Utah certain powers as they were understood at the time that Utah was admitted to statehood.
(2) The guarantee of powers to the state and its people under the Tenth Amendment is a matter of contract between the state and people of Utah and the United States as of the time of statehood.
(3) The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of Utah certain rights as they were understood at the time that Utah was admitted to statehood.
(4) The guarantee of rights to the people under the Ninth Amendment is a matter of contract between the state and people of Utah and the United States as of the time of statehood.
(5) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the state under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
(6) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Utah was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Utah and the United States as of the time of statehood.
(7) The Utah Constitution clearly secures to Utah citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Utah citizens to keep and bear arms.
(8) A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under  the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.
(9) The Legislature declares that a firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm  accessory, and ammunition described in Subsection (8) does not travel in interstate commerce.
(10) The importation into the state of generic and insignificant parts and those parts' [sic] incorporation into a firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in the state does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, firearm action or receiver, or ammunition to federal law or regulation.
(11) Basic materials, including unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearm actions or receivers, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
(12) Trade in basic materials is not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearm actions or receivers, firearms accessories, and ammunition as if the basic materials were actually firearms, firearm actions or receivers, firearms accessories, or ammunition.
(13) Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm actions or receivers, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in the state from basic materials.
(14) The attachment or use of firearms accessories in conjunction with a firearm manufactured in the state does not subject the firearm to federal regulation under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, without regard to whether the firearms accessories are themselves subject to federal regulation.

Sooner or later this law will be challenged in federal court.  I assume, one way or the other, tax payer dollars will be used to defend the suit.  Utah will lose the case, and our tax dollars will be wasted.  It is possible, however, that one of the several Utah gun manufacturers will be the subject of the law suit.  In that case, I think Utah would have the obligation to intervene in order to uphold its law, assuming that the gun manufacturer was following Utah firearms regulations.

Photo: Handgun manufactured in Utah by North American Arms

The US Constitution gives the federal government two main powers which they use to make laws that affect us on a daily basis.  First is the commerce clause. The second is the usually improperly used power to tax and spend, often referred to as the power of the purse.

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution  states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".  The basis for the Firearms law is that it is dealing only with intra-state commerce (under the assumption that the guns are made and sold in Utah so they obviously stay in Utah).  The truth, however, is that no lawyer can say with a "straight face" say that 1) a Made-in-Utah gun will never be sold or transported outside of the state, and 2) that manufacture of firearms in Utah have no impact on interstate commerce.

The cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court make it very clear, especially in our age of modern transportation, that nearly all, if not all, manufacturing activities have an impact on interstate or even international commerce, and can therefore be regulated by the federal government.  In fact, there was a case decided in 1942, in which it was clear and undisputed that a farmer was not selling his wheat, but was growing the wheat for his own use (to feed his chickens and his family).  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in a case titled Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, determined that by producing his own wheat for his chickens and other personal use, the farmer was not buying chicken food, and not buying bread for his family, therefore, his actions did have an effect on interstate commerce.  To understand this case at all, you must understand that in an attempt to recover from the Great Depression, congress passed a law in 1938 to limit the amount of wheat each wheat producer could grow, in order to drive up the price.  This farmer was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre, which equaled 11.1 acres for an average yield (congress apparently thought they could legislate mother nature, I can just imagine some congressman saying,  “each acre will produce 20.1 bushels of wheat, no more, no less”).  Nevertheless, the farmer planted wheat on all 23 acres and from the excess 11.9 acres he harvested over 20 bushels of wheat per acre.  He was fined 49 cents per excess bushel.  In the past, he had sold some of his wheat, used some to feed his animals, and used some to make bread.  The farmer freely admitted that he had over produced, and admitted that none of the excess wheat went to market, but was used for personal purposes.  But, as I stated above, the court found that while the over production of wheat for a single farm, stored for personal use, may be trivial enough, but not so much to remove the grower from the scope of the federal regulation where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.

Other cases talk about the stream of commerce.  In the case of a firearm manufactured in Utah, once it is sold, the firearm is placed into the "stream of commerce."  Once in that stream, it is nearly impossible to dictate that the "stream" will never leave the state of Utah.  Just imagine trying to control where a firearm goes after it leaves the sporting goods store.  It is more difficult to purchase a pistol, so there would be more control on whether that gun leaves the state, but not enough to guarantee that the pistol will not ever be sold outside of Utah.  Suppose someone buys a "Made in Utah" pistol, by going through all of the proper channels. The gun owner falls on hard times and pawns the pistol.  Then suppose a Nevada resident purchases the pistol and takes it back to Nevada.  That pistol entered into the stream of commerce in Utah but "flowed" out of the state, becoming an item of interstate commerce.  The possibility of a Utah Made rifle leaving the state is even more likely.  There is no requirement that a buyer of a rifle be a legal resident of Utah.  Someone can come in from Wyoming, go to any store that carries firearms (like Wal-Mart), purchase a rifle and return to Wyoming.   The firearm entered the stream of interstate commerce immediately after being purchased.

Now looking at the “Firearm Protection Act” in light of the Wickard case, if Utah residents who buy firearms are purchasing the "Made in Utah" firearms, they are no longer buying a Smith and Wesson, or a Sig Sauer, or a Glock, or a Remington.  That has a cumulative effect or impact on interstate commerce.  Therefore, whether it be under the reasoning that "Made in Utah" firearms will eventually enter the stream of interstate commerce, or that by purchasing "Made in Utah" firearms, other firearms that are unquestionably part of interstate commerce are not being purchased, (thereby affecting interstate commerce), the federal government, under the commerce clause, has every right to regulate "Made in Utah" firearms to the same extent that it properly regulates any other firearm.*  As I see it, there are plenty of other venues in which the Utah State Legislature can, and should, flex its States’ Rights muscle, but the Firearms Protection Act was simply not the right venue.  Tax payer funded fights should be chosen with great care as to the likelihood of a positive outcome.

* (I make no opinion here as to whether all the federal regulations of firearms are proper under the commerce clause.  My gut reaction is to assume that the federal government oversteps its authority in regulating firearms, under the auspice of the commerce clause, like it does in most everything else.  See for example US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) where the US Supreme Court held the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 "exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce.")

Judge Learned Hand . . . What a name

I always find it extremely difficult to take my mind off of work. So while thinking about work, I started thinking about Judge Learned Hand. Learned Hand was a judge on one of the federal circuit Courts of Appeal, and yes, his first named was Learned. I don't think his writing or legal reasoning were greatly superior to other federal judges who wrote appellate opinions, but for some reason other judges, in writing their appellate or district level opinions, very often have cited to Judge Hand's opinions to give support to their own findings. (It is a very common practice for appellate judges to cite other cases, and then to either show how the the other cases support their current findings, or how the current case is significantly different from the one being cited. It is much less common, however, to cite the name of the authoring judge unless it is one of the US Supreme Court Justices). This then begs the question as to why so many other judges have cited Judge Hand's opinions and also stated the author's name. I think the silly, obvious answer is the correct answer; they like to say his name. Judges like to say, "according the the learned Judge Learned Hand in XYZ Case..." I guess this shows that judges are people too. 

Photo: Judge Learned Hand