inertia» Anthony Martin

Bloodbath?

Anthony Martin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:37:58 +0000

It seems that at the moment, the primary rejoinder of the White House about the information released by WikiLeaks is that more innocent lives have been put at risk now than would have been without the leaks. If this is true, at some point, further leaks would cause the loss of innocent to approach the level that would result from a complete withdrawal. That's why I think these predictions are all total fabrications and BS. The White House likely believes there is a very real "risk" resulting from future leaks. They would likely call them "copycat leaks." But courage is contagious, as Assanage so astutely pointed out. Therefore future, even bigger leaks are an altogether credible inevitability. Why not minimize the loss of innocent life by making a strategic withdrawal as soon as possible? If innocent life really is such a priority to the White House, why not leave now?

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

The Magic Threshold

Anthony Martin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:48:42 +0000

WARNING: This is forbidden knowledge. I'm just telling you right up front. If you explore this idea too much, you might become an "undesirable." You've been warned.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that most people believe taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").

The way I see it, taxes are institutionalized theft. That is, theft that has been made "legitimate." But how does someone take something immoral and convert it into something moral?

I've pose two questions to help sort out the difference between theft performed by an individual and institutionalized theft (that is, theft by a group of individuals, also known as government).

If taxation is not theft, what would government have to do in order to commit theft?
If taxation is not theft, is over-taxation theft?

For some reason, the first question takes a lot of effort for people to answer. It's a little out of left field, right? The second question sort-of gives an inch to the idea. In fact, it allows the you to answer the first question and open the door to the idea that taxation is actually theft.

If I can get some agreement from above line of questioning, I can bring it home with a soliloquy I call "The Magic Threshold."

The Magic Threshold

Premise: 1) Assuming taxation is not theft *until* the level taxation is deemed to be excessive. 2) Government is not capable of theft *until* taxation is excessive; before that it is just not theft. 3) This level might well be different for everyone.

Questions: Is it possible for an individual to do the same? Is there a certain level at which taking something that's not yours is also *not* theft *until* a certain nominal level, *then* after that level is crossed, it *becomes* theft?

If so, what was it called before the theft threshold is crossed for that individual?

You might simply reply, "I don't think it applies to the individual. It applies to the collective of society."

To which I reply, "But I assume you are not suggesting that collectives are bound by a different set of moral consideration, right?"

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Mark Edge Interviews Benjamin Powell: Immigration

Anthony Martin — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:54:51 +0000

Download now or listen on posterous

Mark Edge Interviews Benjamin Powell_ Immigration.m4a (18447 KB)

Attached is an excellent interview from July 14th, 2010 between Mark Edge and Benjamin Powell on the topic of immigration.

And in "rebuttal" by Lou Dobbs:

Notice, all Dobbs can do is call Powell an idiot and a jackass. That's his only rebuttal. On top of that, Dobbs confuses "fact" with "opinion." The fact is, there is no such thing as illegal immigration because that notion is built on top of the opinion that states and nations exist in the first place.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Statelessness and "Cyber-Scammers"

Anthony Martin — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 02:52:14 +0000

As reported by Slashdot:

Barence writes "A pernicious new type of scam is targeting British computer owners, reports PC Pro. The con is both fiendishly clever and ridiculously simple. The fraudster cold-calls the customer and tells them that Microsoft has detected a virus on their PC, then invites them to download a piece of remote-assistance software. No doubt reassured by the lines of indecipherable code flitting across their screen, the caller assures the customer they can make the virus vanish – but first, of course, they want payment. £185 to be precise. The spoof site behind the scam is approved by McAfee's Site Advisor and bears Microsoft logos, something which both companies have failed to act upon. Meanwhile, an assortment of British regulators have said there is nothing they can do to stop it."

Source: Slashdot

This is a great example of what people imagine a stateless society would look like. If the authorities aren't there to step in, how will people be protected against predators and "cyber-scammers?" Well, in the current "regulated" environment, scammers are encouraged to think of ways around regulation. Regulations only offer a false sense of security. People are actually left unprotected from the scams when a simple exploit is discovered.

Compulsory "safeguards" that are required or will be required by government causes software and hardware vendors to raise their prices by embedding their regulatory costs. After a particularly bad incident like the one in the above article, vendors will be required by government to add more fraud protection after the fact, otherwise leave the market. In the case of the EU, it already has many regulations on the books that increase the cost of going to market. Regulations upon regulations will also keep certain vendors out of these markets.

Regulatory costs in systems like this are hidden by the falling price of physical computer hardware (costs naturally fall in the computer industry). But believe me, these embedded costs are there. At some point soon, I expect government intervention in information technology will represent the bulk of the cost of information technology (it probably already has). Regulations will also get further and further behind the latest threat from scammers.

What would be the reality in a stateless situation? What is the solution without government regulation?

Well, since people would know there's no compulsory safety net, computers would be sold with an optional support service. Due to the lack of embedded tax levied and regulation compliance on the sale of hardware and software, the initial price would be much lower in the stateless society. So people who can support their own systems don't have to pay for these services. There is no distributed penalty.

Imagine an entire computer rig, both hardware and software, that costs $50 without support service. Then you pay another $50 for security service that expires after two years. This security service comes with a great support package (like perimeter software with automatic updates and phone support). After two years, you can renew the service for another $50 or buy a newer (better) rig for $50 (plus another $50 for another two years of service).

If someone manages to scam you, the computer security company pays for a new rig plus compensation for damages beyond that. The security company then has a direct incentive to secure its customers from being scammed. So they will make sure you're on the latest firewall software or what have you. They will also send you understandable information about the latest scams. For some people who need it, there would be cause to send DVDs with instructions on how to handle calls from scammers, e-mail attachments, et cetera. Again, because they have an economic incentive to prevent fraud, there is no limit to the innovation they'll use.

And if they fail to protect on a constant basis, they run the risk of going out of business, unlike legislators do in our current situation.

Then there's competition. Maybe another computer security company only charges $25 because they don't send training media. Or maybe all of the computer security companies realize they are competing against your family members and geek friends who offer free support. Maybe your geek friend will chip in to pay for some or all of the $50 to keep you from calling. Maybe the geek friend gets a discount or reward for hooking up all his technophobe friends with a support contract. Competition and voluntary interaction is where the free market really shines.

Is it perfect? No. But it would be way better and more effective than the compulsory system we now have (and also what's on the horizon in the near future).

For more information about statelessness and what a voluntary society might look like, please consider: http://c4ss.org/content/2973

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

The Good Stuff

Anthony Martin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:51:32 +0000

I am told I am a very negative person and I don't say enough good things about the United States. Well, part of that is because we so often base our perception of the US as being its government. But the people are the rulers, thus the elected officials are the servant government. At least, that's how it should be. There is also supposed to be a division between a country's private sector and its public sector, otherwise we have state run for-profit initiatives, which is a bad thing (fascism).

So I've decided to look for the good things about American, inside and outside the government. This is by no means an exhaustive list. This is more-or-less a grouping of accolades and accomplishments I've singled out for specific reasons.

And remember, all praise is relative opinion.

Warren G. Harding

I was asked who my favorite president was in the last 150 years. Off the bat, President Warren G. Harding came to mind. The reason is, when they started to see economic problems, his solution was to invite his buddies over to the White House to play cards and drink booze.

I like that approach. Doing nothing was a pretty good plan. True Laissez-faire.

In other words, he did nothing and the economic problems subsided quickly. But in the process of doing nothing, he also allowed the Federal Reserve System to continue to exist, so that was a Bad Thing. Not his fault, but not something he saw fit to fix either.

Harry Truman

There had to be another president on my list, so after doing a little more research, I've decided Harry Truman is another favorite. He did a lot more than nothing. He got the federal government out of the way of the free market. He started to restore the gold standard after the war. He repealed price controls that were put in place for the war. In other words, he did things that were detrimental to the growth of the Federal Government. He took his oath seriously.

Any president who puts us back on the gold standard gets a AAA rating in my book. If Bush had done it even after all of what has happened, even after saying, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system," I would have given him a AAA rating if he would have at least put us back on the gold standard. Keep in mind, if Bush did that, the dollar would probably have to be revalued to $40,000 per gold ounce instead of $35 like in Truman's day, but that's a step in the right direction (I just pulled that number out of the air, same place the dollar comes from).

SpaceX

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) is an American space-transportation startup company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. It is developing partially reusable launch vehicles - the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 - and the Dragon series of space capsules.

Source: Wikipedia

The reason this is impressive is that they did this in spite of all the resistance and interference of the government. But it also illustrates where private industry is technologically.

Chinese Food

Technically, I'm referring to American-Chinese Food, but this 15 minute video sums it all up:

Is America Number One?

Here's an ABC special from late 1999 featuring John Stossel. It's 40 minutes long and outlines exactly why I'm happy to be here.

Coming To America

So there you have it. That's the good stuff about America. I'm sure there's a lot more, but remember, I'm a curmudgeon.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Your Token Government

Anthony Martin — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:34:04 +0000

As part of an ongoing dialog with fellow Christians, when the discussion leads to politics, as it does many times, my position seems to perplex. Many times, it boils down to the question, "What is the legitimate role of government?"

And if you know me, the answer I give is none whatsoever.

I concede that if we are forced to have a government, then the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and private property. Or, to put it even more simply, the role of government is to protect individual rights. Anything more is an overstep of bounds.

But if we are forced to have a government, that force can go beyond the original role. Why? Because it was forced upon us in the first place.

Yet this is what people probably mean when they say they are in favor of small government. They're in favor of small force, hoping that it won't become big force. Of course, this also turns on the notion that any person in favor of government smaller than you  like is considered to be some kind of anarchist.

With Christians, the discussion leads to Romans 13 and other parts of scripture. Ok, so if that's you, then here's a question for you:

How can anyone defend small government using Romans 13? I don't think the original audience saw Rome as a small government.

Also if you can manage to demonstrate that small government is authorized by Romans 13, how small can it be before it becomes unbiblical?

Well, I have yet to get a good answer to those questions.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling

Anthony Martin — Mon, 03 May 2010 18:18:02 +0000

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Because of Romans 13

Anthony Martin — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:50:35 +0000

anarchism n.

The belief that proposes the absence and abolition of government in all forms.
Specifically, a political and philosophical belief that all forms of involuntary rule or government are undesirable or unnecessary, and that society could function without a ruler or involuntary government (a state).

Me: I don't think government
   should have a monopoly
   on the use of force.
You: I don't even know what
   that means.
Me: Well, you know what
   government is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: And you know what a
   monopoly is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: And you know what force
   is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: So where's the
   confusion?
You: Well, I guess I've never
   put it all together like
   that. I thought monopoly
   was part of business and
   stuff.
Me: Yes and no.
You: Government isn't in the
   business of force.
Me: It's not?
You: I don't think so.
   Government is about law
   and order. Justice.
   Stuff like that.
Me: And when it isn't?
You: Well, it's not perfect.
   Nobody said it was.
   It's the best option we
   have, though.
Me: And how did you come to
   that conclusion?
You: I guess from school.
Me: You mean government
   school?
You: And church.
Me: You mean the 501(c)(3)
   organization?
You: What?
Me: Churches have a tax
   status called 501(c)(3)
   that gives them economic
   favors from government.
You: OK, look. Even if
   that's true, which I
   seriously doubt, the
     Bible says we should
   submit to government.
   The church just teaches
   what the Bible says.
Me: So we should submit to
   our government because
   the Bible says so?
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Was Paul writing to you?
You: Yes, all of us.
Me: So Paul was writing to
   all humans, everywhere,
   all time?
You: Well, I guess he did
   have a specific audience
   in Rome. But it still
   applies. It's good
   advise.
Me: What advise was Paul
   giving in Romans 13?
You: That government exists
   whether we like it or
   not. That government is
   of God.  And the greater
   context is that we
   should live in harmony
   with one another.
Me: So if a government
   exist, that alone is
   prima facie evidence
     that God created that
   government?
You: Prima facie-wa?
Me: Prima facie evidence is
   evidence that is correct
   "on its first
     appearance" or correct
   just at a glance.
You: Yes, in a nutshell, but
   I think you're about to
   use that against me
   somehow.
Me: Exactly. What about
   King George III of the
   United Kingdom?
You: What about him?
Me: Did Paul imply that King
   George was of God?
You: But you aren't talking
   about starting a new
   government like the
   colonialists did.
Me: So then, it's OK to
   resist King George
   because the colonialists
   intentions were to set
   up a new government in
   its place?
You: I think you're trying to
   trap me again. All I'm
   saying is that you can't
   use Romans 13 to defend
   your position.
Me: Only you can.
You: Well, yeah, because the
   outcome is still at
   least a government when
   it's all over.
Me: I don't see anything in
   Romans 13 that says you
   can resist a government
   that is of God for any
   reason. So how was the
   American Revolution
   justified in resisting
   King George? I'm just
   asking you to be
   consistent. The
   American Revolutionary
   War began when armed
   conflict between British
   regulars and colonial
   militiamen broke out in
   New England in April
   1775. Were the
   militiamen acting
   consistently with Romans
   13?
You: Among the two choices,
   be ruled from afar by
   King George or be ruled
   by a republic, the
   republic represented the
   best situation yet still
   fit within Romans 13
   example.
Me: So even if I could
   provide an even better
   situation, if it doesn't
   fit within the Romans 13
   example, it is not a
   viable option?
You: Yes, you got it!
Me: May I disagree with you?
You: Well of course, but keep
   in mind, you are
   disagreeing with God.
Me: Maybe so. But if I was
   to disagree with you,
   would you take steps to
   keep me from acting on
   my disbelief or would
   you leave it between me
   and God?
You: Me personally? No, I
   don't think I would.
   It's between you and
   God.
Me: That's great! So if you
   were "asked" to
   "contribute" one half of
   one cent towards keeping
   me from acting on my
   belief, would you not
   contribute?
You: Wait a second. You mean
   pay my taxes, right?
Me: Right. It might cost $1
   million for government
   to deal with me. Your
   "fair share" is maybe
   about one half of one
   cent.
You: Well. I guess I would
   pay if it kept me out of
   jail.
Me: So either jail or be@arrowj, TSD Core
   jailed.
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Is that what Paul meant
   by, as you say, living
   in harmony with one
   another?
You: But that's your own
   fault, not mine.
Me: It's my own fault?
You: Yes. You're the one in
   error. Clearly.
Me: So you are banking on
   your interpretation of
   Romans 13 to absolve
   your role in the use of
   force by government to
   throw me in jail for
   acting to resist
   government?
You: You call it an
   interpretation, but it's
   pretty widely accepted.
Me: Widely accepted by the
   501(c)(3) organizations?
You: You seem to think you
   have a better idea than
   government. But
     government is God's
   idea. How can you have
   a better idea than God
   does?
Me: God, by definition, has
   the best ideas. I do
   not believe Romans 13
   defines your government
   as one of those ideas.
You: You hold a minority
   opinion. If you can get
   more people to believe
   the way you do, maybe
   things will change.
Me: So until then, be
   jailed?
You: That's our system.
Me: No, that's your system.
You: You can always leave.
   You always have that
   option.
Me: So be jailed or leave.
   Those are my options?
You: All you're doing is
   trying to make me sound
   like a monster.  But
   what you're talking
   about sounds an awfully
   lot like anarchy. I
   think maybe you are the
   monster.
Me: And government schools
   told you anarchy is
   chaos. 501(c)(3)s
   told you anarchy is not
   of God.
You: You keep turning this
   around on me. I don't
   like that very much.
   I'm sorry I called you a
   monster. Let's agree to
   disagree!
Me: I am just pointing out a
   conflict of interest.
You: The Romans 13
   interpretation is clear
   enough that a conflict
   of interest wouldn't
   matter, if it even
   existed.
Me: And there is no doubt in
   your mind that God
   grants a monopoly use of
   force to government
     because of Romans 13?
You: I'm still not sure what
   you mean by that.
   Wouldn't anarchy also
   require force?
Me: Yes.
You: So what's the
   difference?
Me: Imagine there were two
   governments on the same
   plot of land that you
   and I could choose from.
   Neither government was
   perfect.  But you and I
   could pick our
   allegiance between theNow What?
   two at any time or on a
   whim.  Those two
   governments would have
   to compete for scarce
   allegiance. Technically
   speaking, these
     governments are not
   governments because they
   do not have a monopoly.
   Therefore, we have
   anarchy.
You: I don't get how that's
   any better.
Me: Scarce allegiance is how
   it's better.
   Competition makes
   everything better.
You: Yeah, well I bet over
   time, one will get much
   bigger than the other
   until eventually one
   crushes the other and
   you're back where you
   started.
Me: There were only two in
   my illustration, but
   that's why there
     actually needs to be
   more than two. The
   number should actually
   be unlimited.
You: That's crazy. That
   would be a huge mess.
   How is there any
     accountability in a
   thing like that?
Me: Is there accountability
   now?
You: Yes. There is more
   accountability now than
   there would be if
   everybody had their own
   one-person-government.
   That's just total
   anarchy.
Me: Does $12 trillion of
   debt represents a system
   that has *any* semblance
   of accountability?
You: $12 trillion of debt is
   a lot better than total
   anarchy.
Me: Isn't it nice how you
   get to decide that and
   not me, but I am
   considered bound by that
   debt anyway?
You: Like I said, it's not
   perfect. Anyway, I'm
   trying to change that
   from the inside. All
   you're doing is standing
   on the outside, maybe
   even adding $1 million
   to it so the government
   will go after you. At
   least I'm being
   productive.
Me: Because of Romans 13.
You: Because of your screwed
   up interpretation of
   Romans 13, yeah.
Me: I bet a lot of colonials
   accused each other in a
   similar way. Those in
   power have a way of
   turning us against each
   other. Many colonials
   thought a 1% or 2% tax
   wasn't really too much
   to ask as long as they
   could keep the relative
   peace.  Isn't it
   interesting that now we
   are asked to pay 40%.
You: I didn't pay 40%. I got
   my Federal tax return
   filed and it was less
   than that.
Me: If you don't pay 40%,
   your children pay the
   difference plus whatever
   they pile on by then
   because that is at least
   what is spent right now,
   at least on the books.
You: And you yourself are
   adding to it! Stop it!
Me: So you think it's
   reasonable to send
   accusations my way for
   your government's out-
   of-control spending?
You: There are a lot of
   things you can do
   without risking the
     government coming down
   on you like a ton of
   bricks.
Me: For now, that may be
   true. But that list of
   things is getting
   smaller, which is
   convenient for you.
You: Like what?
Me: Well, just take free
   speech. Public
   speaking. That's on the
   top of your list, right?
You: Yes. That should be
   safe.
Me: Well, have you ever
   heard of "Free Speech
   Zones?" I happen to
   think free speech zones
   are wherever I happen to
   be standing (via Michael
   Badnarick).
You: I don't agree with "Free
   Speech Zones." But the
   prohibited zones are
   easy to avoid. What are
   you doing, seeking them
   out just to get in
   trouble?
Me: I haven't done that, but
   are you suggesting I am
   wasting tax payer funds
   if I did that?
You: Yes.
Me: Because of Romans 13?
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Well, my friend. I see
   that as circular, flawed
   reasoning.
You: How so?
Me: We have a differing
   interpretation, but your
   interpretation
   authorizes the use of
   force against my
   interpretation because
   of my interpretation.
You: But I'm right, clearly.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

US: A Totalitarian Government

Anthony Martin — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:44:40 +0000

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge is the foundation of all totalitarian governments" - Who Said it? (click here)

Let me spell it out. Today, the president and vice-president have the power to throw anyone into prison as a terrorist, claiming emergency powers the War on Terror.

One of Obama's campaign promises was to reverse any and all unconstitutional laws within the first 100 days in office, saying:

I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution.

Source: Reuters, or try: Google

I still holding my breath.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Providing Effective Services

Anthony Martin — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:52:09 +0000

If you were doing business with an organization that made the same mistake fifty times and, try as they might, they were never able to correct the problem, would you continue doing business with them?

Say you want a nice New York style cheesecake for your dear old mother's birthday each year. Every year, you go to the same bakery, and every year, for fifty years, they fail to print her name on the cake correctly. And her name is Gurtrude, so maybe you understand it's not the easiest name to get right. But would you really go back to the same bakery year after year, times fifty?

If this was the only bakery in town, maybe you'd eventually go to the next town, just to see if someone, anyone, can get her name right, just once.

Or maybe you'd attempt to write the happy birthday message yourself. How hard can it be? At this point, you might reason that if a bakery can't handle this, what makes anyone think they can produce a tasty cheesecake in the first place? You might just make your own.

In other words, you have options. That fact alone keeps stuff like this from happening fifty times in real life. After about the third time, the bakery will realize they need to handle the problem because they're losing business because of their own ineptitude.

So this other story didn't take place over the course of fifty years like my illustration. But a mistake was made fifty times (and cheesecake was involved, although it wasn't part of the ongoing problem).

This should help illustrate two things.

First, monopoly is a bad idea. If an organization is able to remove choice and alternatives, how can effective pressure be applied to that organization if it has systemic flaws? The only way to initiate change in such an organization is from the inside. But the removal of choice and alternatives means internal change has less, if any, motive.

Second, if they can't fix this problem, an honest mistake, what assurance does anyone have to expect other more serious problems to be addressed, especially when they can so easily be hidden by the thin blue line?

NYC cops sorry for pounding couple's door 50 times

NEW YORK (AP) - Cheesecake in hand, the police commissioner personally apologized Friday for the 50 or so mistaken, door-pounding visits that police have made to the home of a bewildered elderly Brooklyn couple in the past eight years.

It seems a glitch in computer records had led them over and over to Walter and Rose Martin's modest home in the Marine Park neighborhood, about 7 miles southeast of the Brooklyn Bridge.

The most recent intrusion came Tuesday, with officers pounding on both the front and back doors, yelling "Police, open up!"

On Thursday, detectives from the NYPD's Identity Theft Squad went to see the Martins again - this time to apologize. "And we wanted to be sure perps weren't using that address for identity theft," NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told The Associated Press on Friday.

The detectives told 82-year-old Rose and 83-year-old Walter that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had ordered them to solve the problem, which started eight years ago and was first reported this week in the New York Daily News.

To bring home the sincerity of the NYPD's contrition, Kelly showed up Friday at the Martin's house with a gift: New York cheesecake.

The commissioner rolled into the quiet Brooklyn neighborhood at midday, stopping in front of the Martins' small, neatly kept house, a large American flag fluttering by the front door.

Kelly "went to apologize - and to explain," Browne said. "They expressed appreciation that the police commissioner came and they showed him pictures of their grandchildren."

The snafu started in 2002, when police used the Brooklyn address as part of what Browne called "random material" to test an automated computer system that tracks crime complaints and records of other internal police information. Before that, the work was done manually.

The couple first complained about the harrowing police visits in 2007, when Rose Martin wrote a letter to Kelly. "And we identified the problem then," Browne said. "It was a mistake by the police department."

Police wiped the Martins' address from the system.

Or so they thought, Browne said. Instead, the visits continued, and some computer files bearing the Martins' address stayed in the system.

"We thought all the test data had been purged, but apparently it had not," Browne said. "The Martins' address ended up migrating to various complaint forms and warrant information."

Most of the visits came in 2006 and 2007, he said. After the latest, "We realized we still had a problem and went back and further purged the records," the deputy commissioner conceded.

To make sure it will never happen again, Browne said the address has been flagged with alerts, so if there's any record indicating officers should question the Martins, "they're barred from doing it."

Rose Martin has asked the department to write her an official letter to that effect.

"It seems like too simple a correction for something that has been going on for eight years," she told the New York Daily News, which first reported the story.

"I'm not feeling well today," she told the AP after the commissioner's visit, adding that neither she nor her husband could comment.

But they did their best to carry on their business. Walter Martin left the house briefly to walk the dog, with a young man helping him.

Source: AP

I have attached a podcast short (25 minute) episode from "School Sucks Podcast: The END of Public Education" that explains how government provides services versus how regular people provide services. The only difference is that this podcast episode uses education to illustrate the business plan. But it's the same for any government service, including police and public education.

Episode 1: The "Business" Plan by School Sucks Podcast: The End Of Public Education
Download now or listen on posterous

Episode 1_ The _Business_ Plan.mp3 (17381 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.