It’s interesting how quickly we’re seeing the demise of the TV schedule and of traditional channelized broadcasting. I’m not a big TV person, but what little I do watch has migrated from catching a show when it’s broadcast on a cable channel to watching it over the internet when I want. Tuesday night at 9p is no longer the show time, but the time the newest episode is released. I’m more likely to watch it a day or two later than at 9p on Tuesday. And with programming available anytime from producers websites I only need my TIVO for those very few that are not web available.

I’d guess that in the very near future the only channelized TV remaining will be time relevant programming, primarily news channels and maybe live coverage of things like the US Senate.

There are a lot of good options on both sides of this one. I’m a bit of an environmentalist, but I’m also a pragmatist. If it makes sense to drill on-shore or off I don’t think it’s that huge of an issue as long as proper precautions are taken. There is though one very good reason I might recommend not drilling – Security.

We only have about 3% of global oil reserves. That’s not very much. What would happen if we used up ours and the folks controlling the bulk of the rest decided to wage war against us and started by cutting off our oil supplies? We’d be crippled.

The increase in gas prices is inconvenient. But that’s all it is. We might drive a bit less. We’ll plan errand runs better instead of multiple trips. We might choose a more fuel-efficient car or maybe even invest in a scooter. Maybe we won’t fly to Disneyworld for vacation. People did without gas fueled conveniences for many many hundreds of years.

There may even be some advantages. We’ve become a nation of ugly obese slobs. Maybe we’ll rent fewer movies and walk or bike more.

The Deseret News today published this article stating that the costs to the State of Texas thus far are about $14 million. That’s a lot of money to most of us, just not to many politicians and law enforcement.

The article did say that the State of Texas does expect the costs to rise as more invoices come in, as more is done on the case, and they do expect to pay out several million dollars to FLDS and others in litigation.

What costs may not be included?

– Costs for caring for children already in foster care who were dislocated to make room for the FLDS children.

– Opportunity costs of Texas Government employees being side-tracked to work on this case instead of their normal jobs. What of their work didn’t get done? What children truly in need of protection didn’t get it? What crimes were committed because so many in law enforcement were at the YFZ ranch or working on other aspects of this case? What children already in CPS’ care didn’t get the care they needed because CPS was consumed with the FLDS raid?

– Opportunity costs of having so many attorneys doing pro-bono work for FLDS children and families? What work of theirs didn’t get done in the meantime? What was the cost to their families of their being away from home to work on this?

– Costs to FLDS families in gas, hotel, and food as they drove all over Texas to visit their children?

More?

I’ve generally been a supporter of Tim Pawlenty. This one kinda stinks though. This one can’t be called a fee, it’s clearly a tax, no way around that one. Perhaps they’ll call it an Old Tax since its on old money? Or maybe they can call it a Re-Clarification of a tax?

Governor Pawlenty recently signed New legislation regarding taxes on deferred compensation. Prior to this legislation the state taxed deferred compensation when it was paid. If you worked in Minnesota in 2005 you’d pay taxes to the State of Minnesota on the wages that you earned and were paid in that year. If as part of your pay you were also promised some stock options by your company and told that you could collect on that promise at some point in the future you might well decide to wait until after you retire to hold them to that promise. This way you’ll have that little bit of income for retirement and you may pay lower taxes as well since your overall income will likely be lower.

If you chose to move to a retirement community in another state you got an extra benefit. Under current law you’re responsible to pay taxes on this income when it is paid to you and to the state you currently reside when it’s paid. If you’d retired to any of the multitude of states with lower taxes than Minnesota you gained some benefit in lower taxes. If you retired to one of the states like Florida who have NO state income tax you got a big benefit in that, like other residents of Florida, you didn’t have to pay any income tax on this income.

This new Minnesota tax law changes this. This new law says that regardless of when you collect on that promise of stock options or where you live at the time, that if you were working in Minnesota when that promise was made then you have to pay taxes on it to Minnesota. Other than that I don’t like high taxes nor new taxes, this is legal and legit.

This isn’t just a new law going forward though, this new law says that it’s retroactive. They’re saying that if you were promised some stock options in 1980 when you worked for Dayton’s (remember them?) and you now live in Florida or Paris or London or anywhere, and you collect on that promise – you have to pay taxes back to Minnesota.

There are some practical problems relative to Pawlenty’s New Tax. First is that some corporations who made and keep these promises will be required by the State of Minnesota to withhold taxes correctly according to the new law. Besides considerable confusion over a number of state mandates on this regarding what constitutes having worked in Minnesota and similar issues, many companies will also have to spend considerable money and effort to revamp payroll systems to figure out when to or not withhold tax on someone who may not have even worked for the company for 2 decades.

The second problem is for the retirees. Many made decisions 5, 10, or 20 years ago based on the tax laws in place when they earned their income and when they were made promises by their employers. Many of these may face financial problems having to pay higher taxes than they’d expected. They expected to pay a certain amount of tax based on the laws in place when they earned their money. Now some may find themselves loosing homes or having to make other lifestyle changes because of this.

It’s one thing for the Pawlenty to go back on his No New Taxes pledge and add a new tax for future earnings. That’s bad enough. But for him to add a new tax retroactive to past earnings is slimy.

Even though it seems to me like it would be unconstitutional to place a new tax on old earnings retroactively, I assume that Pawlenty’s folks researched that before passing this to avoid the embarrassment of facing a constitutional challenge. Things are getting smelly.

After market failure with their previous marketing efforts, Apple will now be selling the new iPhone 3G through stores the same as other cell phones. EG, Apple sells the phones to ATT, O2, etc, who resells them to you and I along with a service plan. ATT discounts the cost to us of the iPhone (or any other cell phone) based on the revenue they receive on the service plan. The longer the plan we commit to the more they subsidize the hardware purchase. Unlike the previous plan, Apple will no longer share in ATT revenue, they’ll just sell them the phones like everyone else.

Unlocked? Possibly. ATT long ago realized that locking phones was of little or no benefit to them and that they were loosing customers who frequently travel outside the US. For some time ATT has had a policy of unlocking phones upon request 30 days after purchase. After all, they already have us locked in to a service plan and unlocking only benefits about 1% of us anyway.

Will they do the same with iPhones?

I’ll bet they will. Phone locking was always a cell carrier issue to prevent people from switching providers or in hopes of gaining roaming revenue. Mfr’s (except Apple) prefer that they not be locked since locking limits their market. Service plan terms take care of the provider switching and the roaming revenue never materialized as heavy travelers like myself just carry an extra unlocked phone so that we can use our localized SIMs.

My son and a number of other international students hope they get unlocked. They all want iPhones, but Apple’s unlock policy prevented them from buying them since the iPhone would effectively be a brick for the months each year they are in a different country than where they purchased them.

Listening to news reports of Boy Scouts in Iowa springing in to action to save their mates I thought about some of the persecution the Scouts have come under. I also thought about the FLDS kids and many of their parents. If you were hurt and trapped from a tornado who would you want around to rescue you? An average US teen? Boy Scout? Teen from FLDS?

There are some terrific teens in the US who are not Scouts and who are not part of the FLDS, but if I needed rescuing I’d hope for a Scout or one of the teens from the FLDS. How about you?

A Judge has issued a well deserved restraining order against Texas’ CPS. In her order she stated: “I am not going to allow CPS or any other agency to interfere with parents in this state.”

From: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA061008.1B.FLDShearing.3899a1c.html

Can’t wait to see what the appeals courts says.

We are, overall, a law-abiding country. We believe in obeying the laws and we generally seem to believe that people who do not obey our laws should be punished. Punishment is, by the way, the primary way we encourage people to obey laws. Punishment is our ‘cure’ for the ill.

Here is where a law against polygyny runs in to a fundamental problem. We’ll assume for the moment that polygyny is illegal because it causes some kind of harm. Under most state laws the husband in a polygynous relationship is the criminal. The wives and children are usually not. Let’s assume a family of one husband, 3 wives, and 12 children. The husband works and maybe one of the wives works while the other 2 wives take care of the children and home. They are not on welfare, other than polygyny are law-abiding, and their children are healthy, educated, and well-mannered. This scenario is, BTW, fairly typical of polygynous families.

Well, this guy is breaking the law so we have to punish him for it. What are we to do? Throw him in jail? That will sure be of benefit to the family and to society. Order him to leave 2 of his wives? That works well. Make him pay a fine? Remove the wives and kids from their home? Even community service creates the problem of taking a father away from his children while at the same time communicating to them that according to society their father is a criminal. We’ve either harmed their relationship with their parents or their relationship with society. And to what end?

Just how much harm is caused by polygyny itself that we apparently believe is so atrocious that we are willing to cause these other harms?

When Texas tossed over 400 FLDS kids in to the foster care system, what happened to other kids already in the system? Was there ample room in the system to absorb such a huge influx without impacting others? What happened to kids who were displaced to make room for the FLDS kids? What impact did this have on them?

The State of Texas faces numerous potential hurdles in their presumed upcoming prosecutions. They will likely file statutory rape charges against any men in the FLDS they suspect of having had sex with girls younger than the age of consent and I would expect a variety of ancillary charges of sexual abuse, molestation, kidnapping, etc. Defendants will likely claim that they were married to the girl and therefore the sexual relationship was not illegal. If the marriage was celestial and no state marriage license had been issued then the defendant will likely claim that they could not obtain the license because of Texas laws against polygamy, that these laws are unconstitutional, and that they could not even apply for a license due to fears of religious persecution.

NOTE: Sexual abuse is a horrendous crime and anyone guilty of it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The question in this case though is if it is sexual abuse when two people are married and everyone including the bride, groom, and parents are supportive of the arrangement. We must also remember that the marital lifestyle of the FLDS is actually more in line with historical practice and Biblical practice than even our wished for monogamy. EG, leaving aside our love of divorce, serial monogamy, casual sex, uncommitted polygamy, single-parent households, etc.

This case may also have implications far beyond Texas. It involves issues that could be very significant for every person in the US with regard to privacy. When may law enforcement or other government authorities enter a private home? What constitutes reasonable suspicion upon which to base a search warrant? Will this give law enforcement the ability to obtain a search warrant for any home in the US with a pregnant woman in it simply by saying that they believe the pregnant woman to be underage? To what extent can law enforcement rely on anonymous calls to intrude on citizens privacy without verifying the identity of the caller and the veracity of their story? What rights do state authorities have to remove children from parents and what level of abuse must be provable? What danger are any of us in from authorities acting on anonymous calls or other dubious tips in taking actions such as entering homes, conducting searches, or removing children?

Let’s look at some of the potential problems of this case.

Validity of First Search Warrant – This warrant was issued to search for an anonymous 16-year-old. There are questions about it’s overall validity and of the admissibility of evidence. Did authorities have any suspicion that the call was a hoax? How long did law enforcement wait from when they first learned of the caller and when they obtained a search warrant and entered the ranch to search for her? If they believed this girl were in imminent danger should they not have obtained a warrant and gone to YFZ immediately? What efforts were made to determine where in YFZ ranch she was located, which house was she in? During the time they waited did authorities make any effort to verify the identity of the caller such as tracing where phone calls originated or to verify her story in any way?

Validity of Second Search Warrant and Evidence – This warrant for an in-depth search for evidence of widespread sexual abuse is based on suspicions from the first warrant including; female hairs on an unmade bed in the temple, a 15yo who said that a 16yo was pregnant, an 18yo who had a 10mo baby with her 33yo husband, an 18yo who had a 1yo child with her 36yo husband, a 19yo who has a 1yo and 2yo, a 16yo with no children who is married to a 40yo, a 16yo who is currently pregnant, testimony of an 8yo who said a 16yo has 4 children, a confidential informant who said that beds in the temple are used for sex with underage girls, and a document seized during the first search indicating numerous marriages but no divorces thus leading to suspicion of polygyny.

The Reality Element: While 5 teen pregnancies in a population of over 700 people might seem high to those few privileged folks in the nicer suburbs of America, it’s actually a normal number for many neighborhoods and rather low for the average inner-city neighborhood.

With the exception of the supposed 16yo with 4 children all of these would likely be legal within a marriage. So, if the girls under 18 were not married then their husbands may be guilty of statutory rape, if they are married and to multiple women then they are guilty of bigamy.

The Absurdity Element: If only the FLDS had followed our socially acceptable practice of serial divorce and each man had divorced each wife before marrying the next they’d all be OK. No bigamy, no statutory rape. But stick around as a husband and help raise the kids and we’ll take your kids.

With this warrant signed Texas authorities entered the ranch at 2am, began an in-depth search, and removed every child under 18 as well as a number who claimed to be adults but who authorities suspected of being under 18.

Some potential problems:

– If any part of the first warrant is proven invalid then much or all of this second warrant may be in jeopardy.

– At least 26 of the 31 girls Texas authorities said were underage mothers or pregnant turned out to be adults. One of these was at least 27. There are serious questions about the status of at least 4 of the remaining 5. Is it reasonable that every time someone sees a pregnant girl whom they believe to be underage that an investigation ensue? Given that Texas authorities were wrong at least 84% of the time with underage identification does that leave sufficient reasonable suspicion to uphold the second warrant? How believable must reasonable suspicion be before a search warrant is issued? To what extent can law enforcement fabricate a ‘reasonable belief’ just to obtain a warrant for a witch hunt?

– Were searches of individual homes legal without individual search warrants for each? Can authorities obtain a blanket search warrant for an entire 200 unit apartment complex and every individual apartment within it based on a belief that 5 underage girls may be pregnant? Any evidence seized from individual homes may not be admissible.

– Is there any proof of premeditation on the part of the authorities to obtain this warrant prior to the first warrant being issued? Was the initial warrant simply an excuse to get on the YFZ ranch for a witch hunt?

– There is a significant credibility gap with Texas authorities having proven wrong on numerous occasions and FLDS members not being proven wrong on any occasions. Attorneys are sure to raise this with any court testimony.

– Will ‘victims’ testify? Any girl who is willingly married to her husband will likely be reluctant to testify against him with regard to any charges and without victim testimony a conviction of any sort may be difficult.

Constitutionality of Texas Change in Marriage Age – Prior to the FLDS establishing YFZ the State of Texas issued over 800 legal marriage licenses per year for girls under the age of 16 to marry and often to men twice their age. State Rep Harvey Hilderbran, who sponsored legislation in 2005 to raise the age of marriage from 14 to 16 appears to be on the record as stating that he did so specifically because of the FLDS presence. This could raise serious concerns over religious persecution as well as challenge the constitutionality of the change in age.

This could have far reaching impact. The first search warrant was based on an adult having sex with a 15-year-old girl whom he was supposedly married to and on the warrant states that it is illegal for a 15-year-old to marry. This law being declared unconstitutional could throw water on the first search warrant. This will, I believe, directly invalidate any cases based on girls marrying between the ages of 13 and 16. Finally, this could be one major element in establishing a pattern of religious persecution that can not only be used as a partial defense of not having applied for marriage licenses but also in future lawsuits against the State of Texas.

Constitutionality of Polygamy Laws – Is a prohibition on bigamy, polygamy or polygyny constitutional? The US Supreme Court has already ruled against Texas with regard to Sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas and in his dissent of that opinion Justice Scalia raised the very issue that this opens up the potential that a prohibition of bigamy, like sodomy, is not a legitimate state interest and thus a prohibition of bigamy is unconstitutional.

Given the vast problems in our ‘monogamous’ society of serial monogamy, serial divorce, teen sex, teen pregnancies, HIV/AIDS/STD outbreaks, single-parent welfare homes, and crimes committed by children raised in single-parent homes, the State of Texas may have an extremely difficult time arguing that there is a legitimate state interest in prohibiting a polygynous arrangement where none of these problems appears to exist.

The upshot of it all. Could the FLDS be more cunning than we ever imagined? Within months of SCOTUS’ decision in Lawrence v Texas the FLDS were setting up shop in Texas. My guess is that we may find that the FLDS were careful within the State of Texas not to violate any laws except polygyny and that they’ve been conducting themselves in a way to force the State of Texas to defend their prohibition on bigamy as a legitimate state interest in order to prosecute the FLDS for anything.

Stay tuned, this will get interesting.