|Pirated from here|
PRECEDENT, n. In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire. Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible arbitrament. -- Ambrose Bierce
By Tom Drummond
Being an addict of the archival, ancient, and documented, I like to review things a lot to reconsider the future. Like documents that floated into Wikileaks about a glorious Everglades Restoration that never happens while frackers and Big Sugar run us pell mell into a return to the state of primordial ooze from which all things arose when the good Lord granted himself 3 wishes: MAN, woman, and prey.
High on Hiaasen
Recently, I read an old article by Carl Hiaasen that appears to question Rick Scott's motivations as pertains the cleanliness of the water. He implied that Rick Scott's acquiescence about his Big Sugar donations was proof positive explaining his reluctance to address issues of arms of mahogany fertilizer rivers reaching like the proverbial lovely tree arms to pray to offshore drilling rigs. Hiassen envisions a conspiracy whereby the monied sugar cane robber barons divert their waste downstream because they prefer it not in their own backyards, perfectly ignoring the fact that waste flows downstream in as organic a fashion as natural gas is natural.
Tampa Bay Times
These observations stymied my appreciation for the vast empirical literature of science with which I generally feed my disciplined, rational Politifact-enhanced cognitive matrix of knowledgeable and credible world viewing. And the Tampa Bay Times supplemented the stool of my official certainty with a kickstand consisting of precedents and appeals to the Constitution. They wrote: "
the move could backfire and ultimately hurt more than help", just like if you feed a homeless person, say, they would suddenly have the energy to come to your house and write Satanic messages with feces on your windows. One never knows! They also noted: "the long-term impact depends on future governors and Legislatures", and what if a future governor is, say, Ted Nugent? Did you even think of that? And then Governor Nugent decides he wants to use the land to shoot Florida panthers from a helicopter? The TBT also noted: " It all but removes the environment from annual policy debates. The trust fund will likely act as a maximum funding ceiling, not a minimum floor"? You see, you can't put any money into the environment ever, or that will be all the money ever put into the environment. It's just like that with the military. Remember how we developed the stealth bomber and then there was never ever another military project?
And, even worse, what if Big Sugar and Big Oil stop funding the Tampa Bay Times? Then we'd miss out on all this fantastical empirical objectivity.
Clyde the Butcher
But I digress, on purpose. Consider Clyde Butcher's appeal concerning Amendment 1. Here we have an avowed madman who believes "If you don't find chaos, it's usually screwed up by man,". And so, what does he do? He wants to have man put man's money into nature conservation! Think of the chaos that won't result! And then he'll take subversive pictures of it, no doubt.
|Studies Have Shown These Photos Induce Socialist Tendencies|
On top of that Clyde Butcher cited the Constitution of Florida, showing his true colors as a tenther.
The Marihuanization of the Cleptocracy
Well, that's all fine and good, but there's a big hole in this plan, as I see it.
It doesn't increase taxes. Specifically, it doesn't tax the wealth of the corporations and rich families who constitute a blight on our environment and democracy. If we even taxed a tenth of the wealth of U.S. Sugar, Duke Energy, Nextera, Rick Scott, Dan A. Hughes, or the Collier family we could save the beaches, the rivers, streams, panthers, and crotalus adamanteus in one fell swoop.
Furthermore, there are complaints that Amendment 2 (which also doesn't go far enough) gets much more attention than Amendment 1. Well, the solution is simple--make marijuana COMPLETELY legal for any purpose not endangering the welfare of a child, and tax it to pay for conservation.
|Here's another precedent for you, marijuana was taxed before--but for the wrong reasons!|
And, I don't believe that the Amendment considers the issue of subsurface rights, which has been an ongoing problem thanks to the mutinous and greedy Collier family. Here's another precedent for one--none other than President George W. Bush almost bought all the subsurface rights from the Collier family at one point. And idiots at the newspapers and elsewhere argued against it, but it would have averted the whole fracking debacle we have been beset with.
Recently, Republicans agreed it was time to protect subsurface rights.
The best protection is ownership followed by proper maintenance. Buy the land, the subsurface (or mineral) rights, and maintain it with guaranteed tax flows that don't affect the public but only the cleptocratic goons up top and those who need or indulge in marihuana. Because they're basically the same, just like David Cameron pointed out about Hitler and conspiracy theorists recently.
|Should This Man be Drug Tested?|
It's a modest proposal.
If you can't handle all that, at least vote yes on Amendment 1 and Amendment 2.
Or this will be your future--
|Not taken by Clyde Butcher|
And remember: torture produces information. In fact, Newton discovered gravity only as a result of being traumatized by an apple.
(Note: there are ads on this blog now. That shows I am totally controlled by the creators of Soylent Penile Enhancement Doubleplusgreen. Soylent Penile Enhancement Doubleplusgreen: For All Your Surveillance Enviro Cannibal Porn Needs. )