inertia

Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

Anthony Martin — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:17:33 +0000

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]

[CITE: 13USC221]

[Page 27-28]

TITLE 13--ST. PATRIC'S DAY

CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PERSONS

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully

neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized

officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency

thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized

officer, to wear green, to the best of his knowledge, any of the attire

on any article submitted to him in connection with any ST. PATRIC'S DAY

or wearing green provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter

5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs

or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the

occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when wearing green described in subsection (a) of

this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in

such subsection, willfully wear green that is false, shall be fined not

more than $500.

shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious

beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85-207, Sec. 15, Aug.

28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat.

2465.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., Secs. 122, 209, and section

1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed., The Public Health and Welfare (June

18, 1929, ch. 28, Sec. 9, 46 Stat. 23; June 19, 1948, ch. 502, Sec. 2,

62 Stat. 479; July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, Sec. 607, 63 Stat. 441).

Section consolidates the first paragraph of section 209 of title 13,

U.S.C., 1952 ed., which section related to the annual ST. PATRIC'S DAYS

of population, agriculture, etc. (see subchapter II of chapter 5 of this

revised title). For remainder of sections 122 and 209 of title 13, U.S.C.,

1952 ed., and of section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed. (which section

has been transferred in its entirety to this revised title), see

Distribution Table.

The language of section 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., providing

that it should ``be the duty'' of all persons over eighteen years of

age, to wear green correctly, to the best of their knowledge, when

requested, etc., was omitted as unnecessary and redundant. The

provisions, as herein revised, define offenses and prescribe penalties

for committing them, and are deemed sufficient for the purpose of

enforcement. However, some of the language used in the omitted

provisions was necessarily included in the description of the offense.

[[Page 28]]

The designation of the first offense, herein described, as a

``misdemeanor'', was omitted as covered by section 1 of title 18,

U.S.C., 1952 ed., Crimes and Criminal Procedure, classifying crimes; and

words ``upon conviction thereof'' were omitted as surplusage.

References to the Secretary (of Commerce) and to any ``authorized

officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency

thereof'', etc., were substituted for references to the Director of the

ST. PATRIC'S DAY and to any ``supervisor, enumerator, or special agent, or

other employee of the ST. PATRIC'S DAY Office'', to conform with 1950

Reorganization Plan No. 5, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174,

64 Stat. 1263. See revision note to section 4 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Amendments

1976--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(1), struck out provision

authorizing imprisonment for not more than sixty days for refusing or

willfully neglecting to wear green under this section.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(2), struck out provision

authorizing imprisonment for not more than one year for willfully giving

a false wear green to a question under this section.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(3), added subsec. (c).

1957--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-207 substituted ``I, II, IV, and V''

for ``I, II, and IV''.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94-521 effective Oct. 17, 1976, see section 17

of Pub. L. 94-521, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

The Agorist Magazine

Anthony Martin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:50:50 +0000

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Let's All Say It Like George Takei (aka Sulu)

Anthony Martin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:10:40 +0000

"Oh my!"

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Race to the Checkout Line

Anthony Martin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:26 +0000

Competition really can make everything better. Consider this article by Greg Beato:

Unless you're comfortably wealthy, pathologically thin, or both, you probably go to the grocery store at least once every couple of weeks. When you go, there's one factor that most determines the your experience there, and it's not fluctuations in the price of ground coffee, the number of Ben & Jerry's flavors on hand, or how gripping the National Enquirer cover stories are that week. It's how smoothly you move through the check-out line. A country cannot be great without great grocery store baggers - their speed, courtesy, and ability to keep our spaghetti sauce from crushing our hot dog buns is crucial to maintaining public morale.

Source: www.outloudopinion.com

Download now or listen on posterous

race-to-the-checkout-line.mp3 (1300 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Vast Dairy Conspiracy

Anthony Martin — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:30:53 +0000

I find this message about rBST rather odd. I can only conclude there is a vast dairy conspiracy afoot.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Following All Regulations

Anthony Martin — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:27:39 +0000

I cite as a sort of an addendum to a previous article I wrote on the subject, something Samuel Edward Konkin, III (SEK3) wrote:

If all regulations passed in any country you wish to name were completely obeyed, let alone enforced, we would all be dead.

Consider a particularly pathological case in the United States of America. If you charge a price for your product higher than your competitors, this is taken as evidence under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that you have a monopoly and charges may be brought against you. The same problem arises if you charge the same; that is considered evidence of a cartel and you and your competitors can all be fined. Finally, if you charge less than your competitors, you are violating the "Fair Trade" laws in most states and can be arrested and fined. It is impossible to obey all the regulations.

Source: The Agorist Primer, p. 39

I heard a joke along these lines from a Mises conference. I'm sorry, I don't remember who originally told it. The joke goes like this:

There were three soviet prisoners comparing stories about why they were in prison. The first one said he was in prison because he was late to work. He was accused of being lazy. The second said he in prison for the same thing, only it was because he was early to work. He was accused of being too competitive. The third prisoner was always on time to work. He was accused of having an American watch.

It's kind-of sad because these Soviet vs. American jokes are dated and don't make much sense anymore.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

My Great-Uncle Alfred

Anthony Martin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:40:49 +0000

I have a fictitious great-uncle Alfred. Everything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt. He is a huge curmudgeon and ultra-contrarian. If you tell him the sky is blue, he will tell you it's not really blue because yadda-yadda-yadda. His reasoning is deeply flawed because he is senile. But he doesn't know his flaws. He just knows he's always right. Most of the time he's not. But sometimes, he says things that are profound and actually do follow logically. After all, a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's military, then it's only right once a day).

A contrarian is a person with a preference for taking a position opposed to that of the majority view prevalent in the group of which they are a part. Both Alfred and I are contrarians. But Alfred is a total nut who can't be taken seriously and doesn't care anyway. I, on the other hand, do care. I want to be taken seriously and it bothers me to be ignored, unlike Alfred.

So if you tell Alfred he is sitting inside a motor vehicle, he will tell you there is no such thing as an "inside" to a motor vehicle. The concept of "inside" is define in topological terms to him. In topology, an object cannot have an "inside" if it also has a hole. Alfred is technically correct from the standpoint of this very specific area of mathematics concerned with spatial properties. But normal people do not think in those terms. Alfred doesn't comprehend the normal terms. He just assumes everybody knows what the heck he's talking about. He is only interested in being contarian and you're supposed to know that if you're talking to him. Alfred probably should be confined to a rubber room because although topology is an important area of study within mathematics, it is not something we apply in day-to-day life. He wouldn't be inside the rubber room anyway, so he'd probably be fine with that situation.

I use the idea of Alfred in an attempt to temper my own assumptions. When I am being contrarian in a dialog or debate (which is 99% of the time, it seems), these days I try to listen to myself as if Alfred is talking. If this old curmudgeon says things that just sound off-the-wall, maybe they are. Maybe I need to modify how I express my ideas so that they couldn't be said by Alfred.

For instance, if I say I don't trust government, isn't that exactly how Alfred would say it? So maybe I can word it better. If I word it in such a way that it is atypical of Alfred but still gets the same point across, my idea will be more convincing.

Instead of saying I don't trust the government, maybe I could assert that government doesn't seem to act in the best interest of most people. That is a more reasonable assertion. And it's also very atypical of something Alfred would say.

Alfred is also very set in his ways. He learned one way to think about things and applies that way to all new situations.

Me: Have you ever heard of a "collar" trade in the stock market? It's a risk management strategy that combines a covered call and a protective put.

Alfred: They're nuts! That reminds me of portfolio insurance back in the 80's or credit default swaps in the 2000's. The problem with using these schemes is that if everybody does it, there's not enough liquidity in a crisis to protect everyone's asses when everything unwinds at once.

Maybe Alfred is right about that. But then again, maybe the markets figure out a way to address the lack of liquidity for massive collar trades. I'm not saying there wouldn't be new problems as result of solving lack of liquidity. But the specific problem Alfred cites isn't necessarily how it will go down just because that's what happened in the past.

Alfred thinks in absolute terms. He is fine with his totalogy and this makes him frustrating to talk to. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for me to sound like Alfred. Even when I go to the trouble of carefully wording my assertions (something I don't always do), other people immediately hear Alfred anyway.

Besides, cermudgeons who end up being right only become bigger cermudgeons.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Expecting Unreal Weather

Anthony Martin — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:13:52 +0000

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Gospel Effect: Nero vs. US President

Anthony Martin — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:56:09 +0000

So I've come to a conclusion about the difference between Nero and a US President. Both were/are the heads of state in an imperialistic, violent regime. Both were/are drunk with power. I've had several people dialog with me about my position on Romans 13:1-7. Basically, the question they ask me is why do I think we should resist our government today but Paul's original audience didn't really have to?

Some believe the study of Nero is problematic because they question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's alleged tyrannical acts. Let us set that issue aside for the moment and assume all of the hateful things reported were true.

In fact, let's assume it was worse for the Christians than the historical documents say. Where the historical documents might say Nero persecuted Jewish believers, it's entirely possible some of those Jewish believers were in fact Christians.

It's true that the people who received the letters from the apostles didn't have the same situation as we do today. Even though Nero's rule was centralized and absolute, there were other technological limitations. An edict or ruling from Nero would take months to reach all points of his empire. But today, there is no delay at all. In fact, markets react before the executive orders or the legislative rulings are signed.

Although Nero had a formal centralized government at his command, each region functioned more-or-less autonomously in most matters. On specific edicts or rulings, it took quite a bit of time for them to spread and even more time to implement.

If Nero decided to confiscate all of the gold in the Roman Empire, it would have had a rather tough time actually accomplishing it. But we know from US History, this task was relatively easy in the United States during the FDR administration. US Policy policies and decisions literally go coast-to-coast in an instant.

Today, the President can declare CO2 an illegal pollutant which means our very life process is in violation of the law. Can you imagine Nero pulling something like that off? They would have laughed him off his thrown.

I believe the US Regime is a full frontal assault intended to hinder the spread of the Gospel. Instead of private citizens going out from the US to go along side the people of other nations and show them the truth, this government is using our resources (by taxation) to send the military to kill people and break things.

In Nero's day, the gospel permeated and flourished in spite of the Roman regime. Yet today, the United States is still the fifth largest mission field.

The general response from a lot of Christians about why we're winding down the Gospel is that it is God's plan as read in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. Sorry. That's stupid. God would not undermine the Gospel like that. Go back to studying scripture.

So if biblical teachings in the United States are on the decline and God isn't behind it, which must mean mankind is. But many Christians like to point to "end times" as the real cause. It's that convenient? We have a responsibility to spread the good news and then when we fail, we chalk it up to being God's will??

Or maybe there's another explanation. Maybe we are just bad witnesses and that's all. Christians have a higher rate of abortion, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, and lies to cover them up. No wonder the world laughs at us.

It's truly sad that Jesus has forgiven us. Jesus is for losers, and we certainly excel at that point. And we will make sure we find every possible method to prove that fact over and over. Is there a sick and twisted way to prove Jesus should not have died for my sins? My depraved mind will find a new example before the day is over.

The way eschatology is preached today just the current sick and twisted method pastors like at the moment. I prefer the word, "Exit-ology" as in, "The study of how *we* Christians will exit this world before *we* make it any worse for *those* sinners."

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.

Latest In Nanotech Lithography

Anthony Martin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:10:52 +0000

Last, a new addition to your tech lexicon: Nanotech lithography. In the latest issue of Breakthrough Technology Alert, editor Patrick Cox told his readers about the coming boom in a technology that allows us to “print” electronics on virtually anything.

“Xerox has developed a silver-based conductive ink that can be printed on everything from plastics to textiles,” Patrick notes. “The ink’s melting temperature of 140 degrees Celsius is low enough to allow printing on plastics. Instead of expensive fabrication facilities, specialized inkjet printers will be able to print circuits that could be used as part of flexible signage, radio frequency identifier tags and even novelty clothing.

“Beyond logic circuits, energy storage devices will be printable as well. Two years ago, chemists at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., were able to place a thin film of cellulose over a surface of carbon nanotubes. This breakthrough will enable paper and CNT-based batteries. Stanford researchers have been able to take a paper substrate and coat it with ink made of silver and carbon nanotubes to create working ‘paper batteries.’

“Paper-based batteries charge and discharge quickly, making them suitable for a wide variety of technologies. Together, these breakthroughs herald an era of ultra-cheap, easily manufactured energy storage…

“New nanotech-scale manufacturing and materials technologies in the semiconductor industry are going to power a revolution in how we make electronic devices, power our homes and collect and analyze information. Right now, the vast majority of people have no idea how profound these changes are going to be.”

This is just one of several technologies Patrick says are on the verge of changing the world as we know it. For the full list, look here.

Source: Agora Financial

Stuff like this is so cool. Even more cool will be the ability to fabricate electronics at home. What a brave new frontier to the information age!

Imagine some day people will buy $5,000 circuit printers with custom enclosure fabrication functionality. The user will download the specs and it will spit out a shiny new gadget. The requirements will change just like computers, along the lines of Moore's Law, so you'll want to have the latest printer. The fabricated gadgets could be as simple as a flash application today, like those annoying sound boards. Or it might be a hand-held game because eventually, these printers will be capable of fabricating lights, simple displays, and so forth, I imagine. Or maybe the lights are external and the displays would use a form of e-ink technology!

There will be completely practical uses for these printers, but by far, they will be used for total crap. Sounds like fun! Maybe I'll be able to print an actual working full sized flying car! I was promised flying cars, you know (E: Yes, Anthony, we know you were promised flying cars).

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No tags for this post.