Is Annoying Young People With A High-Pitched Buzz A Violation Of Their Rights?
from the the-right-not-to-be-buzzed dept
Back in 2005, we wrote about the Mosquito device that some shopkeepers were using to ward off loitering teens. The device supposedly emitted a high-pitched buzz that was inaudible to older folks whose hearing range had decreased. Generally, the noise could be heard by teens and some folks into their early twenties. Amusingly, some teens figured out a way to turn this noise to their own advantage, recording it and turning it into a ringtone that adults couldn’t hear. Yet, The Raw Feed now lets us know that UK politicians are looking to ban the Mosquito device for violating the rights of teenagers, noting that it indiscriminately targeted all children and young people, even if they hadn’t been doing anything wrong. That’s certainly true, and it does seem rather silly to use this device in the first place, but does that mean it’s actually violating anyone’s rights? Is it illegal to play a noise that annoys people? Does it matter that it only annoys a certain age group? What if a store simply played music that annoyed a certain age group? Would that also be illegal?
Comments on “Is Annoying Young People With A High-Pitched Buzz A Violation Of Their Rights?”
Rights
Anyone who is a U.S. citizen has given up their rights
as a result of accepting an SSN. All U.S. citizens are
wards (slaves) of Congress. Unbelievable, but true.
Re: Rights
Let’s leave the American bashing for issues about America. This is about the UK or United Kingdom aka Great Britain.
On topic: The muzak annoys me and just about every teenager I have ever known. Would that become illegal?
I don’t think the noise should be illegal, but the shop keepers need to know their turning away legit buyers.
Re: Re: Rights
As a business person; I’d rather have serious buyers, than loitering teens any day
Re: Rights
are you wearing your aluminum foil hat right now?
Re: Rights
are you wearing your aluminum foil hat right now?
Re: Rights
are you wearing your aluminum foil hat right now?
Re: Re: Rights
Kip
Grow up and educate yourself. they are trying to keep people like you out of their stores and for good reason.
When you make a comment about a tin foil hat, you are buying into what they (the MAN) want you to.
Yes Kip, you are correct. WE ARE ALL LOONS. WE ALL WEAR TIN FOIL HATS. HA. You caught us – caught us ALL. LOL. Ha ha, KIP IS SO COOL AND FUNNY! ATTENTION: Everyone give KIP a high five!! He’s great, don’t you think so too!! Man, that KIP is one funny guy. Give us another there Kippy Boy… you funny guy you.
Are we dumb because we are inteligent and see “IT” or are you stupid because you cannot??
Hmmmmm… has to the be latter. Way to prove it to us all with that comment.
Maybe you should start your own blog and discussion forum where you can just post that all the way down the page if you like.
But please, as a daily reader, don’t waste reading space on this fine website – you are making yourself look stupid and I am now dumber for having read that.
Re: Rights
this might be true, but this story is about the UK.
Re: Rights
If you don’t like the system then take your happy @$$ and leave. If you don’t love America then leave, we donb’t want you here. You must be one of those people that think just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean that they aren’t really out to get you.
Re: Rights
If you don’t like the system then take your happy @$$ and leave. If you don’t love America then leave, we donb’t want you here. You must be one of those people that think just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean that they aren’t really out to get you.
Re: Re: Rights
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high
taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central
bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY ***!!!
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy
convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits! Oh please!
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it! The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the Federal Government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to
regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics”
that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided the voters have the gumption to
manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
Re: Rights
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high
taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central
bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY ***!!!
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy
convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits! Oh please!
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it! The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the Federal Government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to
regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics”
that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided the voters have the gumption to
manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
Is annoying childless folks with you bastard hells
try again
Is annoying intentionally childless folks with your bastard hellspawn a violation of our human rights??
Teenagers shouldn’t get ‘human rights’ till they grow up and become human!
As for babies…
Re: Try Again
You’re right, brats are no fun, but they don’t always “grow up” well, either. Sometimes they become rude, crass individuals insensitive to the people around them, of any age, and who believe anything that irritates them or that they disagree with is a violation of some nebulous right or another that they feel is owed to them.
Re: Re: Try Again
There has been a device used for years specifically to irritate and agitate elderly South Floridian beach-front condo owners. It’s called skateboards.
Re: try again
You should be exterminated, that would solve everyones problems.
What about a device that only annoys black people?
What if someone found a device that created some sort of stimulus that only affected non-whites and set it up at the gates of their country club?
Effectively this would make it a whites-only establishment.
But is it illegal to make a device that only annoys certain people?
Re: What about a device that only annoys black peo
I think there’s a fallacy here, somewhere. If it simply annoyed black people, then it wouldn’t keep them out; it would just discourage them from coming in. Now, I’ll grant that’s treading a thin line, but what if, as noted above, they simply chose a theme and atmosphere which appealed to upper-middle class Christians. I KNOW that would annoy lots of people, and many wouldn’t go to such a place, but they aren’t FORCED out. Where do you want to draw the line? Should all bars be required to play Rap, Easy Listening, AND Country music, just to be fair?
Re: Re: What about a device that only annoys black
I don’t hold any specific opinion on the matter. I’m just noting the possible slippery slope that is inherent when the behavior is justified using that logic.
My personal view is that businesses should operate as they like when on private property. I hold a pretty big libertarian view on that.
That being said – it would be hard for the business to justify any such system morally. I don’t think we should legally require or disallow anything.
Re: Re: Re: What about a device that only annoys b
Depends on the moral system, eh? If you believe in, say, ethnic superiority, this sort of thing wouldn’t be hard to justify at all.
Re: What about a device that only annoys black peo
Let me know if you find one
Re: What about a device that only annoys black peo
such a device already exists. Its called country music.
Re: What about a device that only annoys black peo
if you want to keep BLACK people or WHITE people out of somewhere then as an owner you have that right
TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE
it should not be illegal to play music that irritates kids, or bothers only old people.
NOTHING SAYS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOP IN MY STORE ANYWAYS. IF I DON’T LIKE YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR STENCH – I CAN KEEP YOU OUT. ANYWAY I WANT AND THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.
Love to all colors and peoples – do whatever you like if you don’t HARM people : join us L I B E R T A R I A N S
First, it is pointlessly silly.
Second, if it were a device that was reported to needlessly bother / drive away senior citizens, people would be up in arms.
I can’t imagine a shopkeeper using this inside a store, unless they could trigger it on and off from behind the counter. It would be much more useful in an alley behind or next to the store, if you constantly have kids hanging out there that perhaps scare customers away.
What’s annoying is that the device doesn’t work. I’m 28, supposedly outside the age range targeted by the device, and I can hear it quite clearly.
Re: @Joel Coehoorn
The device works, its your ears that are broken. Or not. Whatever.
Is it Illegal? Is it unwise?
Arguably it’s illegal to play a noise that annoys people, sure. Noise ordinances are common things in the States, I’m sure elsewhere as well.
Now, consider this. Would you, as a shopkeeper perhaps of a coffee shop, a toy store, a skateboard store, a comic store, or various other places Teens/Kids might hang out.. Be okay with the shop next to you playing that annoying buzz?
Would that be a violation of that shopkeeper’s property rights?
And if so, why is it the violation of that shopkeeper’s rights when it’s affecting their business, but it’s not a violation of the passer-by’s rights when it’s ‘just’ affecting their lives?
Food for thought 😉
Re: Is it Illegal? Is it unwise?
> Arguably it’s illegal to play a noise that
> annoys people, sure. Noise ordinances are
> common things in the States, I’m sure elsewhere
> as well.
You could argue that but you’d lose. Noise ordinances, or more accurately, disturbing the peace ordinances, address people who make noise that extends onto the property of others through sheer volume.
Those laws have nothing to do with sounds being produced inside one’s own property and which do not extend out into public spaces or the property of others.
Nor should they. It’s none of the government’s business what sounds I do or do not play in my own home or business.
Re: Is it Illegal? Is it unwise?
> Arguably it’s illegal to play a noise that
> annoys people, sure. Noise ordinances are
> common things in the States, I’m sure elsewhere
> as well.
You could argue that but you’d lose. Noise ordinances, or more accurately, disturbing the peace ordinances, address people who make noise that extends onto the property of others through sheer volume.
Those laws have nothing to do with sounds being produced inside one’s own property and which do not extend out into public spaces or the property of others.
Nor should they. It’s none of the government’s business what sounds I do or do not play in my own home or business.
All noise should be banned
Obviously every noise that pleases one group will annoy another.
The only effective solution is to ban noise altogether, at least in public places.
The only question is – who has the copyright on silence? That guy has it made!
Re: All noise should be banned
who has the copyright on silence?
John Cage
No, it's not a violation of there "rights"
You don’t have the right to not be annoyed
This sound is just a single tone musical song, are we now banning music ?
Do we ban classical music because it’s annoying to some ?
Do we ban rap music because it’s annoying to some ?
Do we ban … music because it’s annoying to some ?
I dunno. I’m in my 30s and I can hear that “inaudible” ringtone just fine.
how about physical damage?
Do people really realize that these devices when used, will cause long term hearing damage? Any loud noise that is painful should be pretty obvious to anyone to figure out that it’s going to affect your hearing, period.
Re: how about physical damage?
> Any loud noise that is painful should be
> pretty obvious to anyone to figure out that
> it’s going to affect your hearing
No one said this noise is painful to the kids, just annoying. Like fingernails on a chalkboard, it doesn’t have to be loud to make you want to get away from it.
Depends on the sound?
What if the annoying sound isn’t a buzzing but rather the voice of the shop owner saying “You there. Get going, this isn’t a lounge, its a shop”? If the shop owner finds that she only ever has to make this annoying sound at teenagers, is she denying this class of citizen their rights?
For me the question here is no different than a storefront playing objectionable music. If they are playing it at legal volumes, the content is irrelevant. A free market will address whether or not it pays to use the noise generator.
As for legislating against it, why? No one is hurt. It may make some patrons or passersby uncomfortable, but they remain undamaged. It’s likely that younger customers (and those with acute hearing) will avoid the store. If the store’s bottom line can afford it, great. If not, the devices will come down pretty quickly.
Besides, ambience is a major selling factor for most boutique shops. Owners provide an atmosphere which caters to a certain clientele. Those atmospheres are just as effective at repeling certain customers. I think everyone has walked in to a store to realize within seconds “I don’t belong here”.
If an “undesirable” customer comes in they won’t be ordered to leave, but they are provided an environment that makes them less likely to enter. The Mosquito does just this without significantly changing the appeal of the shop to most of its custom.
As for the “country club” comment earlier… its most definitely not illegal (at least in the states, and I suspect in the UK too) to create an environment that makes people feel uncomfortable. It’s just generally bad for business.
it's a free market
For me the question here is no different than a storefront playing objectionable music. If they are playing it at legal volumes, the content is irrelevant. A free market will address whether or not it pays to use the noise generator.
As for legislating against it, why? No one is hurt. It may make some patrons or passersby uncomfortable, but they remain undamaged. It’s likely that younger customers (and those with acute hearing) will avoid the store. If the store’s bottom line can afford it, great. If not, the devices will come down pretty quickly.
Besides, ambience is a major selling factor for most boutique shops. Owners provide an atmosphere which caters to a certain clientele. Those atmospheres are just as effective at repeling certain customers. I think everyone has walked in to a store to realize within seconds “I don’t belong here”.
If an “undesirable” customer comes in they won’t be ordered to leave, but they are provided an environment that makes them less likely to enter. The Mosquito does just this without significantly changing the appeal of the shop to most of its custom.
As for the “country club” comment earlier… its most definitely not illegal (at least in the states, and I suspect in the UK too) to create an environment that makes people feel uncomfortable. It’s just generally bad for business.
I think the idea behind the “violation of rights” claim is that the noise is designed specifically to keep young folk away. Which is, no matter how you look at it, discrimination. Which is illegal.
Whether or not it works, whether or not it’s painful or just “annoying”, isn’t the issue. The fact is, it was designed specifically to keep a certain group of people away which, in the UK especially (where discrimination of any group of people is a *huge* deal), is illegal, or at the very least against the spirit of many laws.
I was a white boy in jail L.A. County jail gang block back in the 70’s. I had a “J” walking ticket that went to warrant because I never paid it. I assume they put me in one of the gang blocks so I would be “scared straight” so to speak. Every morning I was there (3 days), the Sheriffs on duty would play Country & Western Music at about 4:30 in the morning. Really loud PA announcements, taunting the inmates about how if they didn’t like the music, they should stay out of jail, would accompany the Honky Tonk music.
I don’t think it did much good, but it was funny on a macabre level.
In downtown Minneapolis they had problems with loitering hoodlums outside of certain large establishments. They now blare loud opera music outside the entrances of those types of places, all day and night, to keep the hoodlums and hooligans away.
Rap "Music"
This means that stores playing rap “music” is a violation of my rights.
Re: Rap "Music"
But the rap music the store is playing is not designed to specifically target you, to specifically annoy you, so you will go away.
Common sense
We should make a distinction between sound designed to attract vs. repel. If a store plays loud rap music or any other kind of music because that is preferred by its clientele, who cares? If a store plays a sound that is repellent to a specific group of people for the sole purpose of discouraging those people to enter the store, this is something altogether different.
A public space is one that the general public is allowed to use without interference. If a shopkeeper opens their store to the public, but is playing a sound inside the store that interferes with a normal person’s ability to use the space, then they are certainly violating the principle of public space.
Re: Common sense
“attract vs. repel”
Enough said. Although I don’t think it needs to be legislated.
That reminds me...
There could be a lot of reasons why things like this happen but honestly, what is the fix? How about getting some judges on the bench that will penalize the lawyers who bring this crap forward?
Resist the liberal, they brought it down, they should fix it.
One of the most short-sighted, ignorant things ever to be uttered was: “We should ’empower’ our children.” Empower them to do what? Make decisions they are not qualified to make based on limited experience and 100% hormone-driven emotions?? Really! Children need to grow up first, guided by competent parents who are involved. This “empowerment” has only done one thing: removed the fear of anything. With no fear, there is no respect. No respect is a problem that only the jails and prisons can solve…or not. The way it is going, my great-great grandchildren will be leading their grandparents to the gas chambers because they cost too much.
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high
taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central
bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY ***!!!
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy
convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits! Oh please!
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it! The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the Federal Government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to
regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics”
that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided the voters have the gumption to
manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
god damn BILL dont use so many carriage returns! I’m guessing you pasted that from somewhere? If you’re gonna put spam up here (what you posted has nothing to do with the topic) can you at least format it a little, thanks
Re: HERE - HAPPY NOW? READ IT 48 sicks. MORON.
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high
taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central
bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY ***!!!
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy
convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits! Oh please!
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it! The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the Federal Government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ .
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to
regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist
disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics”
that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided the voters have the gumption to
manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
Re: Re:
4 -80
MORON. HEY.
BIL DIDN’T WRITE THAT. GLAD YOU KNOW HOW THIS FORUM WORKS.
YEAH, PLEASE KEEP COMMENTING, WE ARE ALL GETTING DUMBER.
YOU ARE WELCOME.
4 -80
MORON. HEY.
BIL DIDN’T WRITE THAT. GLAD YOU KNOW HOW THIS FORUM WORKS.
YEAH, PLEASE KEEP COMMENTING, WE ARE ALL GETTING DUMBER.
YOU ARE WELCOME.
Is that so?
Re: Re: Rights by BILL – don’t use the word “WE” in your responses- on Feb 14th, 2008 @ 11:56am
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Re: Rights by DAVE HAS SAID IT BEST ! ! ! on Feb 14th, 2008 @ 11:43am
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA ‘S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
He didn’t write it but he sure did post it here. Like I said, “I assume you pasted that from somewhere else?” I don’t give a shit who posted it first, it’s up there about five times now. Somebody doesn’t KNOW HOW THIS FORUM WORKS and it’s not me.
IT’S NOT SPAM. IT’S VERY RELEVANT.
Relevant to what? This is about annoying people with a high-pitched buzz, shopkeeper’s rights and public rights, and there’s a stupid essay up here over and over again about federal budgets and deficits and taxes and shit. Go on, tell how it’s relevant. It’s not, it’s posted repeatedly, it’s S-P-A-M spam.
I’m going to ignore the above flame war above and state that in my opinion this shouldn’t be allowed anyway because they are “disturbing the peace” by playing the sound outside their establishments. If I can call the police to stop my neighbor’s wild party at 2 AM, I can call them to stop this nonsense. If it’s inside their store, fine, I won’t shop there since I can hear it and it feels like someone using a dental drill in my ear canal. Basically, I think I should have a right to walk down the street without having my sense of hearing molested by someone so scared of young people that they’ve put some sadistic auricular torture device outside their place of business.
Illegal and unwarranted - anyone fancy some paybac
the.artic above touches on it but there’s some fundamental misconceptions going on in this thread regarding these devices
1) They are on the OUTSIDE of the buildings concerned, the sound is audible in public places and some people have already reported instances such as not being able to enter their pubs beer garden owing to the shop next door having one (whether that last bits true or not I don’t know)
2) The sound is not necessarily just annoying – various people have reported actual pain and depending on the quality of their hearing I can believe that
3) The devices work by transmitting sound at a frequency that MOST (i.e. not all) people over 20 can no longer hear…
Most people are born with roughly 20-20 hearing (20Hz-20KHz give or take), as you progress through life you lose frequencies from both the top and bottom of this – more from the top than the bottom. Exposure to loud noise is one of the main causes of this – that ringing in your ears after being in a club all night is a few more frequencies waving goodbye forever
Consequently the kind of ‘nasty’ kids who spend more time in raves, listening to loud music etc will lose these frequencies quicker and be less likely to be as effected by the devices in question. The ‘nice’ stay at home quiet kids on the other hand….
Personally I think any device whose stated aim is to discourage arbitrary groups of people based on nothing more than prejudice, from being in public places and in some cases causing them pain is inherently illegal and unwarranted
Here’s an idea….
If anyone knows of one in their area which annoys them, get a good quality recording of it, use a basic sound editing program to pitch shift it down a bit (so older people can hear it), create a looooooooong loop, then park your car outside the premises and leave it playing it while you go shopping somewhere else. Keeping a spare battery in your boot might be an idea!
Since merely playing a tone like this is merely annoying surely no one will object?
For the record, groups of kids hang about round the back of my house most nights and we have loads of problems with them including having the last 2 cars heavily vandalised and more. Whilst I hope the individual(s) involved rot in hell, even I can see treating nearly a quarter of the population as criminals as a response seems over the top, and more likely to cause more problems than it ‘fixes’
Re: Illegal and unwarranted - anyone fancy some pa
Incidentally I did some surfing for those of who who can’t think of a way to record it and you don’t have to
The site http://www.teenbuzz.org/ has a selection of the tones which should be useful
Incidentally I am over 30 and I can hear the 17.4KHz signal these devices apparently use perfectly well so apparently I am also a trouble-teen, cool ;0)
One last thought – mums with babies, you might want to start questioning why junior always starts crying in a certain store…..
Turnabout's fair play
Hey, we have to put up with their thumpy bass from blocks away with their cars. I think I’ll wire up one of these so it will play through my car horn. Catch them at a stop light and hit the switch!