It amazes me that, as much money as I've spent on bargains found on the 'net, it has never occurred to me to look for tobacco products.  But as of today, thanks to the New York Times (registration required) and an article by Eduardo Porter, I can save money on that, too!  I intend to place an order as soon as this is posted....

The upshot of the article is that state attorneys general would like to sue the Seneca nation for mail fraud because it (and a few other Native American websites) sells tax-free tobacco products on the Internet.  The issue is, in a word, contentious because states are barred by treaties from taxing Indian tribes on sales of tobacco and fuel; so state legislators, faced with increasing budget deficits, are working feverishly to figure out how to get around those pesky treaties. 

The article reports that New York City estimates its annual revenue losses from uncollected taxes to be in the millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are marshalling forces with lobbyists for anti-tobacco groups, and a convenience store trade group would like to see legislation that specifically permits states to sue Indian tribes (which, by the way, are sovereign nations).

Read between the lines, though, and you will recognize as I did that big government -- as it has before -- is helping the tobacco industry itself avoid culpability.  HELLO!?!  Where did the tribes get their tobacco from in the first place?  The article reports that 20 billion packs of cigarettes were sold in 2002; and Philip Morris Company's 2003 Financial Snapshot reflects revenue of $60.7 billion.  (In fact, I'll buy and send a carton of cigarettes to the first person who finds and posts, via "Comments," verifiable figures reporting the tax breaks that Philip Morris Company has received from our government.)

Interesting, too, that Philip Morris has sued non-tribal and foreign Internet tobacco sellers -- but no Indian sellers. 

Some things never change.  People will always use tobacco.  And big government will always protect big business and shareholder profits, targeting symptoms instead of the sources.  Lyle Beckwith, senior vice president for government relations at the National Association of Convenience Stores, articulated this principle clearly:  "If you don't deal with the Indians, you don't solve the Internet tobacco problem." 

Because in business -- as in warfare -- the easiest (and most vulnerable) target is the little guy.

Pet Peeves.  We all have them, and I'll admit I have a couple.  One is managed fairly well because when it happens, the other person is simply reacting to their environment -- something competely out of their control.  (It kinda bugs me when I'm talking to someone and they turn to speak to someone else, do something, or point out something entirely unrelated to the conversation at hand.)  But what torques me most are inconsiderate or uninformed drivers. 

Like the ones who refuse to acknowledge that you've just let them edge their car in front of yours, because you realized that there are a shitload of cars behind you and they might not be as nice as you are.  So you let them cut in front of you... and then off they go, never breaking their chit-chat with the passenger (or the person on the other end of the phone).  And then the light changes just as they're zipping through... and now you're stuck at the light. 

Or how about those who STILL don't know that, unless posted otherwise, you can turn right on red? and left on red from a one-way to a one-way?  And while we're on the subject of turns, whatever happened to turn signals?  Are they optional equipment now??  (SUV drivers are the absolute worst for not using signals; I guess it's because that would fall under the category of multi-tasking, and everyone knows SUV drivers can't walk and chew gum at the same time.)

Then there are the drivers who've never figured out the purpose of those solid white lines that follow through the curve around a corner.  They're not solid because the cutting blade on the Public Works truck wasn't operating correctly; they're meant to direct the flow of traffic.  If you start the turn from the inside lane then you end up in the inside lane.  By the same token, if you turn from the middle lane then the solid line will direct you to the outside lane.  In other words, folks, don't cross those lines. 

But here's the biggest one.  In my day, new drivers were taught never to make a lane change without physically turning the head to look back over the shoulder and check for cars in the blind spot.  It's called a head check and, unless you're wearing a brace or have a stack of gold rings soldered around your neck, there's really no reason not to do it.  Yet I constantly see people going through wild gyrations to check their mirrors -- scrunching down to see the bottom of the side mirror, grabbing the steering wheel to lift themselves higher to see the view from the rear mirror, or leaning 'way over the steering wheel to extend their view of either side mirror.  Good grief, every one of those uses four times more muscles than just a head check.

Okay, I feel better now.  At least until tomorrow morning.  Maybe I'll drive to work pretending I'm in an SUV.

There are occasions when a photograph does so much more than freeze a moment in time.  Sometimes, they tell a story that would otherwise take 30 minutes to articulate.  A local paper printed a picture last week that captured, in a millisecond, true government hypocrisy.  It showed 627 immigrants taking their oath of citizenship in front of the state capitol building, and all manner of people were represented:  Latino/a, African, Asian, European.  Directly in the center were three men -- one from Nigeria, one from Ireland, and another from Costa Rica.  And all were wearing the uniform of the United States Army.

As I gazed at the photo, scanning the faces, I found myself wondering what each of them left behind in their countries of origin.  Perhaps the educational or job opportunities are greater here, or maybe they were drawn by a vision of owning a home made of something other than mud and straw.  Or maybe they believed the part of the Constitution that says Americans have a right to choose their religion, to express themselves through speech, to bear arms, and to cast a vote.  There's also a good chance that at least one was escaping persecution or certain death; heck, there are so many countries with US-backed guerilla forces, it's difficult to keep track.

Still, since 9/11, the War on Terrorism and the Patriot Act have made it tougher than ever to achieve American citizenship.  And as difficult as we've made it for Arabs and East Indians, we've never let up on the Hispanic immigrants.  Instead, we've done everything imaginable to further disenfranchise them, claiming that they rob Americans of jobs while draining government entitlement programs.  (Funny thing is, I have yet to see an Aryan building janitor.)

Which leads me to why I found that photo at once disturbing and supremely ironic.  The three men in the center -- the ones in uniform, who collectively represent a minimum of 20,000 air miles -- are expected to lay their lives on the line for what is turning out to be a wholly unwinnable war even though they are not citizens.  And then we have the temerity to accuse former senator Max Cleland, a citizen by birth, of being unpatriotic.

It remains a mystery to me why so many people still consider the United States a land of opportunity.

Isn't it interesting that, even as we're "fighting" the War on Terrorism, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire?  I know, I know -- if someone really wants an assault weapon they'll find the means to obtain one.  I guess what really troubles me is knowing that the NRA (National Rifle Association) will spend upwards of $23 million on President Bush's re-election campaign.

Good to know that Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" was so effective in opening the eyes of our erstwhile legislators.

I have a certain respect and admiration for people who have not only a good idea of their purpose but are happy with who they are.  It must be incredibly empowering to know of one's worth and value to others in their circle. 

I'm not there yet.  In fact, I'm not certain I've ever been close to it in all of my adult life.  I'm actually beginning to suspect that it's a genetic flaw, that it simply isn't possible to experience what others all around me are.

Immanuel Kant said "it is a duty to maintain one's life," but we preserve life AS duty requires -- not BECAUSE duty requires.  Does this mean, then, that there really are more unhappy people than we realize?  Kant went on to say that "if adversity and hopeless sorrow have completely taken away the relish for life, the unfortunate one, strong in mind, indignant at his fate rather than desponding or dejected, wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it -- not from inclination or fear, but from duty -- then his maxim has a moral worth."  Is this why societies established the prohibition against suicide?  Do we stand upon a higher moral ground for not succumbing to the sometimes overwhelming urge to depart our stations?

There's times aplenty when I could bear abdicating my share of that real estate.

The local Pacifica Radio Network station just started broadcasting in this metropolitan area!  After a year of struggle, negotiations, and fundraising, a local signal was purchased and programming began Sunday, just in time for coverage of the Republican National Convention in New York City.  Yes, the appearance at first glance is that Pacifica's programmers must be confused.  But the coverage is not just of what's happening within the walls of Madison Square Garden; it's also giving a picture of what's taking place on the OUTSIDE, including first-hand accounts by peaceful protesters.  In other words, they're covering the stories that will never make network [read:  corporate] media.  A truly independent media outlet is a welcome addition to this market, a perfect counterbalance to National Public Radio (which is about as liberal as [John] Kerry himself).

It's been most interesting to hear the divisions that exist even within the Republican Party.  Amy Goodman (WBAI's host of Democracy Now!) interviewed a convention speaker this morning, who complained and sputtered about immigrants taking American jobs and using government resources.  But the Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, addressed the convention Tuesday night, saying that immigrants are not only welcome in this country but guaranteed to achieve exactly what they desire.  (Before Arnold decides to run for president, I hope he reads his copy of the Constitution.)  And am I the only one who remembers that W. said he would NEVER use September 11 as a campaign platform?  Republicans have some nerve calling Democrats wishy-washy....

Honestly, if I weren't so convinced that a vote for the Green Party was the same as a wasted vote, that's the direction I would go.  Whoever said that America has two parties, both right-wing, wasn't speaking a complete untruth.