New laws are being passed all the time. Most of the time, we are entreated to “think of the children” when considering our support for these laws.

Here are some examples:

safety seats in vehicles (until children are at least 45 years old, I think)

reducing calories of school lunches (presumably to stave off childhood obesity)

banning ice cream trucks

setting age limits for legal use of a gas pump

The list could go on and on.

Most people will support new laws that purport to keep children safe. However, there are always sacrifices of freedom to be made in exchange for this safety, which is never guaranteed by the passage of new laws.

At this time, instead of thinking of the children, I would encourage you to think of the birds.

You see, it has been discovered that birds are using discarded cigarette butts to help keep their nests free of pests.

Scientists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City examined the nests of two bird species common in North America. They measured the amount of cellulose acetate, a component of the paper filters at the end of cigarettes, found in the nests and discovered the more there was, the fewer parasitic mites were present.

So before we take too many steps to reduce tobacco consumption (like banning outdoor smoking, levying huge taxes, etc.), we might want to form a committee on behalf of the birds.

All subscribers to this blog please remember that I have a podcast, which you can subscribe to separately. Click here to do so.

In this episode, I talk about my recent trip to the dentist, a woman who called the police on The Salvation Army bell ringers, a dispute between some neighbors, and a warning from the CPSC about toxic laundry detergent.

Here are some relevant links:

A Woman Calls the Police On The Salvation Army

Corte Madera Neighbors at Odds

A Natural Consequence of the Nanny State is Calling the Police Too Much

CPSC Warns Not to Drink Laundry Soap

Why You’re Never Failing As a Parent

Public nuisance is a term that should speak for itself. It’s something that is public and annoying, basically. Here are some generally accepted public nuisances in regards to municipal code — loud mufflers, tall grass, unkempt yard, trash strewn about, etc. In the law, it is generally assumed that the “victim” of these crimes is the public as a whole. The “crimes” are publically viewable and annoying to the populace.

The very term public nuisance would exclude things that occur in private. But, that doesn’t stop many cities and counties in California for using public nuisance as an excuse to ban smoking in apartments and condos.

Calling it “the next frontier in California’s ongoing efforts to protect its citizens from secondhand smoke,” the American Lung Association’s Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing compiled a 2011 report on smoke-free housing policies and provided an update that shows 18 cities and counties in the state have banned smoking in multi-unit housing, including apartments and condominiums.

Thirteen cities and counties have banned smoking in all existing and new multi-unit housing, with five more doing so in 2012, according to the center. Thirteen of the cities listed in the report have placed a smoking ban on 100 percent of new and existing multi-unit housing.

I definitely don’t think smoking is healthy, but I am completely mystified by those so vehemently opposed to smoking that they try to ban people from doing so in their own homes. No, they don’t own them, but, if their landlords don’t mind, I don’t see how the government should have anything to say about it. And, it’s especially dumb to label it as a public nuisance. It’s obviously a private behavior occurring on private property.

I wonder who is going to enforce this. I imagine that landlords already have a hard time with compliance without being forced to ban smoking in their units.

Most new laws are unnecessary. There is a presidential debate tonight that will purport to tackle tough issues. But, nobody is ever talking about why the government feels the need to ruin EVERYTHING. There are tons of good quotes in this article about how the government is ruining your appliances.

The regulation in question is “Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwasher, 77 FR 31918.” You can spend the day reading the history’s most obtuse bureaucratese, complete with legislative history and technical detail, along with testimony for and against and the Department of Energy’ final judgement. Or you can just internalize my summary: get used to hand washing your dishes. As of May 2013, dishwasher manufacturers are not going to be allowed to make or sell a machine that works.

The excuse is energy and water conservation of course. The presumption is that consumers and manufacturers have no interest whatsoever in saving energy and water even though everyone pays for both and, for the most part, our usage determines what we pay. The reason that companies and consumers have not adopted the new standards on their own is that they are incompatible with clean dishes.

There’s a pretty good chance that your current dishwasher using 6.5. gallons in a load. In the future, only 5 gallons of water can be used in the course of washing dishes. Maybe the manufacturers can ramp up the intensity of spray? Think again: new “energy efficiency” standards require that they use even less energy. Less energy plus less water equals dirty dishes. Plus, the new energy standards will substantially increase the cost of the appliance, taking it out of the affordability range for elderly people and the poor.

So, in other words, if you need a dishwasher, go get one soon. May 2013 is right around the corner. In the meantime, I might go buy some trisodium phosphate.

“I don’t want to send anybody to jail, but I do like people to follow orders,” Howell said. “All I wanted to see was that you were working diligently to clean up the mess. Again, I tried to keep you out of jail.”

Here are some pictures of my neighbors’ back driveway (facing the alley):

a pile of mulch, covered with a tarp

some carpet, part of a mattress, etc

Here’s the story: A few days ago, my neighbors were issued a warning for a city code violation. The warning read that they were in violation of cide code 6.0 22 1994. Here is a picture of the notice:

Maybe I’m bad at reading handwriting, but that code violation seems to start with a six. Even though all of the codes are online, I cannot find one with that particular number. I even have a printed copy of the codes, and I don’t see that number. In fact, the codes online do not even contain a section 6. It literally skips from section 5 to section 7. Take a look:

So, instead of going by the number, let’s go by the supposed infraction — permitting the accumulation of waste or recyclables. When I search the code for that, I find that section 95.01 of Title I indicates the following:

If any person maintains, uses, creates, causes, places, deposits, leaves or permits a nuisance to be or remain on any property, that person violates this section. The following list includes, but does not limit, the conditions constituting a nuisance under this section:

(1)     Accumulations of rubbish, trash, refuse, junk and other  abandoned materials, metals and lumber;

(2)     Harborage of rats, mice, snakes and other vermin;

(3)     Disagreeable or obnoxious odors and stenches, as well as the conditions, substances or other causes which give rise to the emission or generation of those odors and stenches;

(4)     Carcasses of animals or fowls, not disposed of within a reasonable time after death;

(5)     Buildings, structures or other places and locations where any violation of federal, state or city law is conducted, maintained or performed; and

(6)     Accumulations of stagnant water.

So, now I refer you back to the two pictures at the beginning of this post. One is a picture of a pile of mulch. I certainly would not call this an accumulation of ”rubbish, trash, refuse, junk and other abandoned materials, metals and lumber.” It’s a nice, tidy pile of mulch…and it’s even covered. But, the city warning does indicate the accumulation of wood and hay as being problematic. I guess anything can be considered an “abandoned material” these days.

So, what about the other pile? It’s not nearly as tidy and nice. Actually, it is kind of junky. Exactly. That’s why my neighbors called the city to do a special garbage pickup. In my town, you can request this kind of thing if it is too large for normal pickup. The only problem is that they have been extremely slow in coming to get the items. So, in the meantime, one of their own officers issues a warning that it’s there! Incredible.

Now, this isn’t one of the major injustices of our time, but it is pretty darn stupid. Don’t people have anything better to do?

I also can’t help but point out the poor grammar in the warning.

If not corrected by August 4th, 2012, the City of Marion will take legal action against you to enforce it’s ordinance.

While I am not above reproach on these issues, I would like to remind people that it’s is a contraction that stands for “it is.” Now read that sentence again. That apostrophe should not be there.

Jackson County, Oregon says it owns YOUR rainwater, and the county has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him over $1500, for the supposed “crime” of collecting rainwater on his own property.

The man’s name is Gary Harrington, and he owns over 170 acres of land in Jackson County. On that land, he has three ponds, and those ponds collect rainwater that falls on his land. Common sense would say Gary has every right to have ponds with water on his 170 acres of land, but common sense has been all but abandoned in the state of Oregon. (source)

If you’ve read my book, you know that this is one of the topics that came up there — and it’s back in the news again. For the crime of not getting a water right before digging holes for ponds on his property, this man has been sentenced to serve time in a cage. As we know, regardless of their official names, these institutions are not correctional facilities. Indeed, this man has nothing to correct in his behavior. The threat of serving time in the county cage doesn’t seem to deter this guy:

Harrington said that he will never stop fighting the government on this issue. As reported in CNS News: “When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, This is wrong; you just can’t take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I’m going to fight it.”

Good for him. Too bad he has to be a martyr, but maybe people will start to pay attention to how ridiculous and tyrannical the government has become.

For another source article on this topic click here.

A lot of what I write about here doesn’t turn many heads — just me and my followers. Yeah, the articles tend to make a splash in certain circles, but even the people who live in the communities where the events I document take place don’t tend to have much reaction. This story is different. The comments section is full of comments that have been flagged for review/removal and name calling, etc.  People are mad about this. Of course, much of the commenting is political right vs. left jabs that don’t interest me much. But, it does interest me that this topic is gaining some attention.

So, what is it? Well, evidently, a farmer in Virginia has been cited for “selling farm products and hosting a birthday party for her best friend’s 10-year-old daughter on her 70-acre Paris, Va., farm without a special administrative permit.”

The Virginia Right to Farm Act prohibits local authorities from treating agricultural activity as a “nuisance” — which seems to be what’s happening here, since Johnson was reportedly responding to complaints from nearby residents. Boneta already had a business license the county issued her in June 2011 that allowed her to operate a “retail farm shop” on her property. Her license application specifically noted her intention to sell handspun yarns, birdhouses, soaps and other handicrafts in addition to fresh vegetables, eggs, herbs and honey.

The following month, the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors changed the classification of “farm sales” to require a special administrative permit for activities that were in compliance with the ordinance just one month before

Remember, it should not only be farmers who are upset about this. Whatever activity you enjoy doing or keeps food on your table could soon become illegal if you’re not careful to protect all liberties. If you find yourself as a complaining neighbor, ask yourself what good you are really doing for your community by getting the “authorities” involved in something like this. You are setting yourself up to be called on yourself when you think you’re doing something innocent like hosting a birthday party.

Ted Nugent used to live in my home town of Concord, Michigan.  It’s a small town of about 1,000 people, and it’s where I attended school (K-12).  Besides being a rock guitarist, he is also known for hunting.  In fact, he’s in the bowhunter’s hall of fame and not the rock and roll hall of fame. Of course, the rock and roll hall of fame is a joke since they won’t admit Rush. Anyway, Mr. Nugent has been in some hot water lately for some remarks he made about president Obama.  It’s probably not a super good idea to say that you’re going to be dead or in jail if Obama gets re-elected (even if it is some kind of metaphor).  It will land you a meeting with the secret service.  He’s also been in some hot water for violating a hunting law in Alaska.

Even though he has hunted in Alaska for almost 40 years, he managed to violate a law and has to pay:

Nugent is forbidden from hunting in Alaska or any United States national forest for one year and must serve two years’ probation. He also must pay a $10,000 fine and $600 in restitution to the state of Alaska.

He violated this law unwittingly by shooting a bear after making a non-lethal hit on a previous bear. Evidently, if you shoot at a bear and hit it (even if it is not injured), the tag you bought is “filled,” and you cannot shoot another bear.  He did this while filming for a television show, and the violation actually occurred on published film.  I have no doubt that he did not realize he was breaking the law.

He has pled guilty to his charge and acknowledges that he should have been aware of the law.  But, he does mention in his statement how confusing it is becoming to navigate all of the rules and regulations.

Was I negligent in not knowing the Alaska bear hunting rule for the specific region I hunted that year? Absolutely. For my negligence, I have been charged with a violation and I plead guilty. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person ever charged with violating this new, unheard of law. Lifetime AK hunters, guides, outfitters, even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation.

The outdoor lifestyle cannot be preserved for future generations of sportsmen by constructing such a labyrinth of confusing, unscientific and oftentimes counterproductive regulations and rules. Reversing this trend is my focus.

Since Mr. Nugent hasn’t made many friends lately, I can see why a lot of people think he should have known better. He’s rich, right?  Can’t he have some lawyer check that stuff for him?  Well, according to him, not even the judge knew about this rule. But, please don’t use the excuse that he should have known better when they haul you off for buying too much cold medicine or saving a baby woodpecker.  There’s a whole list of things you might want to investigate here before you head out for the day.

I would venture to say that everyone violates the law on a weekly basis.  We usually violate the law without realizing it either because we’ve always done it and it’s never been enforced, or because everyone else does it, too. Until you read your city’s municipal code book and the enacted statutes in your state, you cannot assume that you are a law-abiding citizen.  It’s easy to break the law these days. We really shouldn’t blame Ted for breaking the law without knowing it. We should agree with him on at least one point — there are too many confusing laws.

I won’t make a lot of comments on this story because, frankly, I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the reasoning behind this law.  In my experience, however, the reasoning behind laws is often feeble.  I imagine it’s the same in this case.

A marine biologist in California has been indicted for violating federal laws as they relate to marine mammals.  In this case, she was accused of feeding whales.  Then, she is accused of editing a video that supposedly showed her feeding whales.  If she is found guilty of editing the video and, thereby lying to investigators, she faces a possible 20 year sentence (as well as $500,000 in fines).  In the case of the feeding charges, each one carries a maximum 1 year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine.

*Note — Some of the links in this article  have been updated/changed from their original sources. The current links should work, but may not be as relevant as the originals, which were removed by their owners.