Predicted the Future

"When there is more government, industrialists take it over, and together they form a coalition against the individual."

Milton Friedman
1976

Post Election Marco Island

Maybe this one too will wind up in front of City Hall.

(click to enlarge)

No Change in a Real Island Paradise

By two o’clock this morning we were awaken. Cell phones rang incessantly, acting as awakening ruffians to the disturbed sleep we have grown so accustomed to. God forbid we dream of paradise lost. The arousing words: El Comamdante en Jefe will not accept the reelection as president of Cuba.

Pundits, national media, “newspapers” whose entire staff consist of “writers” and the intelligentsia sprung into action. Ah, the sound bites; “Finally an opportunity for change” or “Maybe this is the beginning of a return to paradise” or “Let’s be positive about the new leadership”. Some were pathetic to the point of being comical: “After fifty years [49 actually], now what? A change perhaps?”

Not so in Cuba or in any self-proclaimed paradise where governments are ruled by syndicates. The election (yes, contrary to popular belief there are elections in Cuba) irrespective of candidate would have merely put forth those who will perpetuate the syndicate’s existence – the benefit of the special interests. Hence the fact that the moribund in chief opted out of some internationally enigmatic role means nothing. Shuffle the deck, deal and see what comes out. It’s the same deck – it the same syndicate. In that case, the brother will do just fine. In other decks, they all come from the same deck, the same purpose. The jokers will do just fine too.

Those of us accustomed to disenfranchisement at the hands of the syndicates react by simply not reacting. Here as well as there, denizens of the real island paradise exhibited a collective yawn via no celebration, no hope, no fun thing to say. At the capitol, the revolutionary plaza was empty not for the lone soldier whose loyalty is to the four pesos per day. At the heart of the capitol in exile there is no dancing, no horns blaring, nada. The airwaves continue the reminders of the transgressions of that syndicate lest no one think that the “new” head will be any less effective in perpetuating a scam.

And the syndicate rubs it in, knowing full well the change makes no real difference, promises of a better tomorrow never seems to come invariably because of some chimerical boogeyman (malcontents, the Miami Mafia, the Imperialists, etc…). And the “be positive” campaign was long ago relegated to the puerile semantics of the infirm. Don’t go away mad, just go away. Then we will marginalize your contributions to humanity as we pilferage your property and prostitute whatever rights you thought you had.

Relatively speaking, it seems to make no difference where these hijacked paradises exist.

From Precise Technology to the Legal Black Hole: How a Good Guy May Have Been Violated

(The pan-Technical Saga of Councilor Kiester)

The Basics
Those things that control our lives, no, not government bureaucrats but computers, know only the language of ones and zeros.

This binary code is what computers record on disks when they store things. When we save pictures or documents or music or even have email in our “In Box”, the computer magnetically records millions of these zeros and ones (or Bits) on the disk.

On the surface of most modern disks there is a microscopic layer of metal fibers – kind of like tiny hairs. These metal hairs become magnetized to represent the “ones” and become demagnetized to represent the “zeros”. The fibers are read and the ones and zeros are sent to the appropriate programs for interpretation.

Disk Organization
Now, this is the part that is essential to understand if we are to take a rational position on what just happened to the good Councilor.

Two things occur nearly simultaneously when things are recorded onto the disk: the series of bits are magnetically recorded on the disk as noted above and the operating system makes an entry about the thing we just saved in a directory of sorts with a lot of important information. The file name, where on the physically on the disk it is recorded and where you THINK the thing is recorded are some of the information the computer saves in this directory. (Note: there is much more information being placed in this directory of sort – but these are the salient ones for the purpose of this article).

Here’s the Inside Scoop
In a Windows operating system, when we “delete” a thing from disk, the operating system is really not deleting it – it is merely changing the entry in the directory. What it does in part is to change where you THINK the thing is recorded. The computer does NOT physically move the thing nor does it touch in any way the bits that make up the thing.

Again, a “delete” in Windows will change where you think the thing was (like “My Documents”) to a “new” place – called “Recycled Bin”.

So you see, by simply deleting the thing, it is not being removed from the disk!

But it Gets Better
When you “Empty the Recycle Bin” … guess what? Windows still does NOT delete the thing! What it does now (in simplistic terms) is to go back to that directory of sorts and remove the entry to that thing from the directory. So search as you will for that thing, the directory has no mention of it anywhere so it reports back that the thing does not exist. (It’s kind of like having a book in a giant library but the index card is missing). Hence, even after emptying the Recycle Bin, the thing is still on the disk! But …

Remember the tiny little fibers? Well, they are still magnetized or not magnetized in the exact same way when the thing was placed on the computer! And as you would have it, there are programs that can scan the disk and look for these areas that have no entry in the directory and covert the bits that are there to something we can understand . Then, viola! … the thing can be determined – the thing is back!

Almost …
This process does not always work. If Windows needs to write something new, it looks in the directory to determine where there are free areas. Since the directory does not have an entry for those items that were in the Recycle Bin, it can write something new in all or part of that area making the full recovery of the previous occupier of that space impossible.

An Aside …
Say you are being hunted by the CIA or Interpol because you are a really, really, really bad person (you belong to al qaeda or Hamas or FARC or ETA or MS-13 or Hezbollah or you are not liked by the syndicate that runs Marco Island) and hence want to forever and assuredly delete something from your hard drive, use a “Wipe” program. These programs will not only update the directory but go to the physical space on the disk and physically change the little hairs to be all demagnetized – meaning all zeros – hence making simple recovery practically impossible. But … there is always a “but” … the FBI has systems that can actually determine how those little disk hairs WERE before they all were set to zeros. Therefore they can determine what was there before whatever is there now (even just zeros) got there. But … there are advanced Wipe programs that will change those hairs to random patterns trillions of times over thereby ascertaining what was there a trillion changes ago somewhat problematic (if not impossible). But then there are these Chinese scientists that … it just gets better and better but this is too far a field.

Technical Epilogue
This author’s experience is that users routinely “delete” files knowing that the files wind up in the “Recycle Bin” from which they can be recovered. This practice in essence makes the “Recycle Bin” a storage bin of sorts. Analogously, users of on-line email delete emails knowing that the emails wind up in the “Trash Bin” – from which the emails can be recovered.
This custom is shunned by experts but they accept the practice as a way common users go about using the computer. The original intent of the “Recycle Bin” was to prevent the unintentional permanent removal of files, but over the years its use is one of “out of sight, out of mind, and a place to look in case I need it” – like most garages in today’s homes.
Once a computer user opts to “Empty the Recycle Bin”, then they are in essence really deleting those files – irrespective of the above noted recovery methods.

Back to the Good Councilor
Without knowing the specifics of the technical issues of the case no analysis will be afforded on this regard. However, an offer is made for a gratis professional and technical analysis if such is desired in the event that an appeal is forthcoming.

So here are some things to consider:

• If the claim by the policia is that the emails were deleted because the “delete” was used – but the emails wound up in a recycle/trash bin – this argument is vacuous at best. Common practice is to “delete” things knowing that they can be recovered. If Microsoft could ever figure out how to appropriately name things, the delete function would long ago have been called “Ignore”.
• If a lay user has a spam program running on their computer, and that spam program determines that certain emails are spam and “deletes” them – irrespective of the mechanical implications of a “delete” as described above – is the user liable for how a spam program works?
• Or is the user supposed to read all email, determine what is spam and what isn’t? Since the entire legal system is corrupt beyond imagination – especially our local good ol’ boy network – unintended consequences open the door to more political retributions.
• If a councilor gets an email soliciting prostitution (invariably with the offer for Viagra from Canada) and determines it to be spam, but in fear of the Gestapo the councilor forwards it anyway to the city clerk, is the councilor guilty of promoting prostitution by forwarding the email to the city clerk? … a clerk that happens to be female and then can sue for sexual harassment under federal law, because after all that is how she and her lawyers are going to interpret the email, right?
• Here is a better one: same scenario but the councilor deletes the email (or the spam program deletes it automatically) and hence does not send it to the city clerk, then later finds out that it was a genuine offer for sex from a constituent – is this councilor now criminally liable?
• Or is the user supposed to merely forward all emails to the governmental body in charge of keeping all of those communications? If so, aren’t the pseudo intellectuals that run what used to be our government (i.e., the lawyers) aware that knowingly forwarding spam or knowingly forwarding any email where there is a mention of a crime (solicitation, child pornography, etc..) is a violation of federal laws? Or is there an exception to these federal laws as related to Marco Island – or better – does the “Sunshine” Law and the Collier inficio infeci infectum jurisprudence once again trump federal statutes?
• And if the user does forward all those emails, what if there is illegal content in those emails – like child pornography – is the user then liable for promoting an illegal act?
  

So does the state now supplant our ability to reason and make decisions based on our intellectual wherewithal tempered by our affinity to moral principles and best case application of the mountain of contradictory laws that suffocate our existence? Oh, sorry, the answer to this one is of course YES.

In the world where high technology is not prostituted for political vendettas, these paradoxes, contradictions, infinite circuitous inductive reasoning exercises, and deductive dead ends don’t exist.

By the way, did the city have documented procedures in place on how to address these (and many more) questions before the incident? Any well managed organization established anytime in the last 20 years has specific well documented policies and procedures regarding email – did those exist before the alleged crime was committed?

If the PUBLIC justification for the verdict was that the councilor deleted the emails and then emptied the recycle bin of emails THAT HAD BEEN PERSONALLY READ by the councilor and that the emails contained content which was clearly meant for city business, then this author would need compelling information to find fault with the PUBLIC justification for the verdict.

Any other justification for the verdict, inclusive of all PRIVATE validations (a la the wink and nods from certain those in the gallery), is indicative of a gross injustice.

Hopefully this information is helpful for those remaining that are wrestling with yet another insult.

No Rights for Mr. Kiester?

By Ed Foster

"I do hope that Mr. Kiester has the financial wherewithal (or can raise it) to take this very important matter up the ladder. A county judge should not have the final say on the interpretation of a state law that has such far-reaching implications.

Backed by Mr. Arceri and Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Sciarrino accused Mr. Kiester of deleting e-mails from his personal computer. He did not bring the same charges against Mr. Tucker and Ms. DiSciullo who have publically admitted to committing the same "crime." It is clear that Mr. Sciarrino brought the charge against Mr. Kiester for political reasons and has admitted as much.
But that is beside the point.

My purpose in this posting is not to attack Messrs. Sciarrino, Arceri and Lazarus or to defend Mr. Kiester but to point out that, if this county judge's decision is allowed to stand, the people of Florida will have no way to communicate in private with their representatives. I cannot believe
that this was the intention of the state legislature in passing this law. The law forbids destruction of "public records" such as those on the city's server. It is only the Attorney General's "opinion" that the ban extends to a councilor's private computer.

If a private e-mail automatically becomes public simply because the person to whom it is sent is a councilor, does it not follow that a telephone conversation to that person must be recorded and made public too? Both are electronic means of communication. For that matter, mustn't each councilor carry a voice recorder and make a permanent record of every conversation he or she has on the street because it might have to do with "public business"? No one knows how a conversation will progress until it is over so all must be preserved for Big Brother.

This is the real problem I have with the county judge's decision. If allowed to stand, every citizen loses the right to privacy that is guaranteed by our constitution. I submit that no county judge has the authority to abrogate that right.

Perhaps this is a matter for the ACLU. Is the right to privacy not a "civil liberty" guaranteed to every American? Is privacy of communication not a right that distinguishes our society from that of totalitarian states like Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Cuba under Castro?

Messrs. Arceri, Sciarrino and Lazarus raised an issue for local political ends. In doing so, they opened Pandora's Box and obtained a decision from a politically appointed county judge that has national implications. This is the first time that the Florida Attorney General's "opinion" has been tested in court. It is imperative that higher judicial authorities review this decision and let Americans know whether they do or do not have the right to privacy in communicating with their representatives.

Rental Problem

By Greg Salvi

On February 27, at 7:00 PM there will be a meeting open to the public at the Community Center at San Marco and Bald Eagle. It is for residents who want to have rules for rentals. The residents will be able to tell their rental abuse stories. Presently as many people as possible (10, 20, 30 or more) can occupy a rental for any period of time, including nightly and weekly rentals. We are trying to get the word out to Marco residents that this is a very important meeting.

It is my opinion that this rental committee, formed in good faith by Keister, is heavily weighted by realtors and businesses. This committee is going to vote on whether the city needs new ordinances for abusive rentals which are located in single family neighborhoods. The City Council will then make the final decision.

There needs to be media coverage (other than the Eagle) to publicize this meeting because the city representatives are confident that no one will show up to express their discontent with the rental abuse problem. The police chief spoke at the last meeting and quoted statistics that don't accurately reflect the extent of the problem in my opinion. (It should be noted that police refuse to make reports when called regarding noise complaints).

It is also legal to renovate a single family house to add more bedrooms, therefore, making it into a "hotel house". This was done to the abusive rental next to me with no building permit and no consequences. I believe that single family residential areas are in serious peril.

After the election, it is obvious that permanent residents are a minority vote-wise. However, minorities still have rights and we believe home owners have a right to live in their home in a peaceful manner.

Quality of life is the most basic right which Marco residents are entitled to.

Please spread the word.

Post Election - Everything is Great!

By Mike Sullivan

I have lived on Marco all my adult life and here at 453 South Heathwood since 1988. Before the city acquired the S, Heathwood Water Plant it was quiet and well maintained.

SSU demonstrated respect for the neighbors and even landscaped it back there so it was like an extension of Mackle Park.

Once the city took over things declined rapidly. They quit watering, let all the nice landscaping die and started using the area as a dump site for Public Works and contractors working on city projects.

As you are probably aware if you live within 300 feet of the South Heathwood Water Plant there will be a public hearing on 2/22/08 at 9:00 am in the Community Room of our Police Station.

Public Works Director, Rony Joel wants "a conditional use permit to allow for expansion of an essential service within an RSF-4, Residential Single Family Zoning District, as necessary to provide for staff offices and indoor and outdoor storage of equipment and parts within and adjacent to an existing facility.."

I find it rather disturbing that they have already constructed the office/trailers and have been storing equipment in the parking area they constructed last summer. Also the inclusion of " as necessary " which gives Joel pretty much free reign to do whatever he wants as long as he deems it necessary.

Our Director of Public Works has ignored our concerns and on the few rare occasions he has privileged us with a reply, he has lied and demonstrated his arrogance by stating " It is City property and I will do with it as I deem fit."

This is what has been going on behind the fence - http://resortphotographics.com/SWTP/Blog/Blog.html

Since we were promised all staging would stop last June, there have been at least 4 different contractors nosily using this area. Why is it City Hall will not adequately address these issues?

Please help to fight the injustices being forced on the families of those who have the misfortune of living near city property by attending this public hearing. If you can't attend please write a letter.

Written comments filed with the City of Marco Island Community Development Dept. prior to 2/22/08 will be considered at the public hearing.

Don't Get Any Ideas

Some time ago, when one was operating under the mistaken belief that becoming involved in the governmental affairs of this city was noble and mattered – namely “BL” (Before the Landslide) – this author volunteered to be part of a focus group on the Jolley Bridge.

The focus group met today. The focus group was exceedingly well conducted by a very professional company hired to conduct a bridge study.

All of the focus group participants agreed that there is no basis for a new bridge now or anytime in the foreseeable future and that there is no factual evidence to the contrary. And that if a new bridge is mandated, putting a toll on either end would be a very serious mistake for a plethora of reasons. All agreed that if any work is done on the bridge, including building a new one, the cost should be borne entirely by the state – as in the State of Florida.

Anecdotal information put a toll anywhere from 50 cents to 5 dollars. The moderator noted that the bridge is in good condition with a rating of 81 (scale of 0 -100). That nothing needs be done to the bridge for another 10 years. That the Goodland bridge is actually much worse with a rating of 47.

No on seemed to know why replacing the bridge was even a matter for discussion, except to reach back to some arcane discussion by two councilpersons. When this author asked for ONE independent engineering report recommending that the bridge be replaced for ANY reason, the answer came back that there was but … ready for this? … we can’t see it because it’s classified as a national secret by the Department of Homeland Security. (Seriously, you have admit ... think about it, isn’t that just so funny?)

Having been down this road before (asking for ONE scientific report stating that the septic tanks on Marco have or will ever introduce one iota of anything into the waterways – at least in that case the answer came back as “there isn’t any such study”), and analyzing the focus of the discussion into one topic (more on “how bad will a toll really be” as opposed to “is a bridge really needed”) it became clear that a toll on a new and soon to come Jolley Bridge is a foregone conclusion. No vote, another decision made by God knows who impacting those who remain.

Merely to imitate two other seemingly lost causes – Jesus holding up the shekels from the money traders and Ghandi holding up the salt – this author held up the below sign to the cameras.