McFreedom

Instapundit (and a lot of other people) have noticed that Target has some odd stuff for sale, lately. I've seen links to blowjob, marijuana and prostitute.

Amazon actually seems to be where these are coming from. See Amazon's listings for "Blowjob" (a CD single by "Sober"), Marijuana (a book on subtance abuse by Sandra Lee Smith, link to main version), and Prostitute, a CD by Toyah.

Here's what I think is going on. The clue is the ASIN (Amazon Standard Identification Number) that's in all the Target URLs - you'll see the same number in the Amazon URLs. Each of these items has two main features - it has no identifying photograph, and it has a weird name. The Target site is much more minimal than the Amazon site, so it looks a lot weirder there, and a lot less obviously like a CD or book. Check out, for example, Target's entry for the standard edition of Marijuana. It's obviously a book about substance abuse.

Why does Amazon have these weird entries? In the case of Prostitution and "Blowjob," I think it's because they're so obscure. No further information has been placed about them. In the case of Marijuana, I suspect it's because a slightly corrupt entry happened. I'm guessing what's happening here is that people have discovered they can search for weird things and sometimes find them. But, it's just an artifact of the fact that Amazon backends Target's website for them, and Amazon's database of items is so huge that it both has weird items in it, and no one has seen all of those items.

So, the "worst toys" of 2004 list is out. This is supposed to highlight the 10 "most dangerous" toys of 2004. Obviously toy safety is coming along nicely if this is the best they can do.

Toy	Bogus?	Hazard	Comments
Pocket Rocket Miniature Motorcycle	Semi-Legit	Could Get Hurt	Alright, this isn't much more dangerous than a go cart. But it's the type of toy that, with adult supervision off the street, could be pretty fun without much more risk of serious injury than a bicycle. It doesn't go any faster than a bike, and it's lower to the ground. The real danger is that parents are going to let their kids out on the streets with these, where they're going to be too low to the ground to be seen by drivers, and get hit. And, since this one's electric, there's not even the annoying two-stroke whine to alert automobile drivers. In my mind, though, we need to regulate their use on the streets, not declare the whole class unsafe for any age.
Imaginarium Police Car Building Blocks	Bogus	Choking Hazard	The complaint is that it's marketed for children "as young as a year old," yet contains four dowels that are "1/2 inch in diameter" and "3 inches" long. Unless your one year old is a budding sword swallower, I don't think you'll have too much trouble clearing one of these out if he tries to swallow it. For that matter, neither will he - three inches is quite long enough to grab onto.
Dress Me Paz	Legit	Choking Hazard	There's a button sewed on Paz's backpack that could come off. Since the toy is either for "Ages 18 months and up!" or "all ages" (depending on which part of packaging you read), that's a real hazard. Young kids' toys shouldn't have buttons on them.
Megabuster Battle Weapon	Bogus	Un-PC	"POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT INJURIES!" is W.A.T.C.H.'s assessment. Yup, that's right - it's a toy sword, and you could hit someone with it. Which makes it more dangerous than any other toy sword, apparently.
Fun Slides Carpet Skates	Bogus	Could actually be fun	This product mimics sliding on hardwood floors, but on carpet. I'm kinda curious how this works, but the nannies (or ninnies) at W.A.T.C.H. are just worried that you'll slip and fall. My assessment is that it's every bit as dangerous as rollerskates, but on carpet instead of asphalt. Are they going to recall socks, next, for kids who actually do have hardwood floors?
Air Burst Rockets	Bogus	Could Get Hurt	Unlike most of these, this toy actually has some potential to be actually dangerous. It's an air-powered "rocket," and if you pumped it up a lot and aimed it at someone, they could get seriously injured. Which is why the age recommendation on the package is "For ages 10 and up with adult supervision." Following the recommendation on the package, though, is probably going to lead to a lot of safe fun. We can't outlaw any toy that anyone conceivably might misuse in a way that will cause injury.
38" Playtime Trampoline	Bogus	Could actually be fun	"The many hazards associated with trampoline use make it apparent that such equipment should not be sold as a 'playtime' activity for young children." Yup, that's right. It's a trampoline, and if you jump on it, you might fall off. They go on to note, "Incredibly, the packaging promotes the trampoline as...'Great for indoor and outdoor play!', yet a warning on the package insert states: 'For Indoor Use ONLY.'" I agree that's incredible - this thing seems much more dangerous inside, where you could hit something when you fall off. Seems like an outdoor toy to me...
Happy Birthday Bear	Semi-Legit	Choking Hazard	These "Happy Birthday Bears" are not sold with a "3+" warning, but come with little birthday packages that aren't well attached and provide a choking hazard. But I'm pretty sure if they were conspicuously marked as not for young children, they'd be fine.
Parents Magazine Mirror Pound-A-Ball	Bogus	Choking Hazard	The mallet included is slender enough a kid could try to swallow it. But it's 5 inches long and has a hammer head on the other end. Again, this isn't going to be too hard to get out. There's a reason the Federal toy safety guidelines don't rule out this sort of thing - because it isn't much of a hazard!
Gun Squad Set - Uz-1 Commando Machine Gun	Bogus!	Un-PC	The hazard is "REALISTIC TOY WEAPONRY!" Yup, that's right - it's a toy gun, and it looks like a gun! And, as we all know, "In today's world, there is no excuse for outfitting children with realistic toy weapons designed to produce dangerous and unnecessary thrills."

Of these ten, two of them are legitimate choking hazard. Two of them are for older kids and could be dangerous if they're misused. The rest of them are either toys that the people behind W.A.T.C.H. don't like, because they could be used for forms of play they disapprove of, or have trumped up risks that mostly invite the scrapes and bruises that come with any normal childhood. While the lessons about listening to overprotective nannies are obvious, I think there's also a lesson about the risk of doing a "top ten most" list on an annual basis (of any type). They had 2, maybe 3 or 4 toys this year that were so dangerous people really needed to be made aware of them. The rest of these are simply either cheap political points-scoring, or padding. But, of course, if six of your "10 Worst" aren't that bad, you become the boy who cried wolf.

Alright, I realize that, if you look up "easy," it looks something like this:

eas·y adj. Serious, line-by-line criticism of Nazi press releases.

But, when I saw that Nazi press release on Instapundit, I couldn't resist. Yes, the "National Socialist Movement," better known world-wide by their catchy nickname, the "Nazis," are planning on fielding a candidate for President in 2008. This marks the end of a long silcence for the Nazis; as they note in their press release, "No openly National Socialist Candidate has ran [sic] for the Presidency [sic] of the United States, since Commander George Lincoln Rockwell planned on doing so, prior to his assassinations in the 1960's [sic]." In other words, the last time a Nazi ran for President was when this other guy didn't run for President because somebody shot him. And you have to like the implied conspiracy there, "planned on doing so, prior to his assassination." In reality, he was shot by someone they kicked out of the party for being a Commie. Then there's the sinister insinuation that no openly National Social Candidate has run. As if they've been secretly pulling the strings behind American politics for the past forty years.

They then note, "The American People deserve far better than to have to make an ill informed choice between the lesser of two evils." Ok, a couple of points on this one. First of all, if my choice is only between the lesser of two evils, why does it matter if I'm ill-informed? Are they afraid I'm going to mistakenly choose the lesser of two evils, instead of the greater? Which brings me to the second point: Do these guys really want to bring up "the lesser of two evils" when talking about their candidate? "Vote Nazi in 2008: Why have the lesser of two evils?" Or how about, "Nazi Party in '08/If you want evil, make it great!"

Of course, one thing conspicuously absent from the press release is the word "Nazi." I'm guessing they're betting that the average American doesn't know their full party name. Although their site icon does kinda give the game away:

If you stumble around their website, it becomes clear that the only thing scarier than their ideology is their writing ability. Their "25 Points of American National Socialism" would be a frightening document if their main tactical goal wasn't larger than convincing their membership not to trust fake emails from the wrong hotmail account. As Commander Shemp - er, sorry, Schoep - notes on their front page, "a single letter 'm' in the spelling is the give-away" that you've received mail from the imposter commander. So, be alert out there, people!

Looking at their platform, however, I see I may have to rethink my position on the flat-tax, which I've tenatively supported. But, if the Nazis are for it, it can't be that good an idea. More comforting is that they're pro-life, anti-drug and opposed to the war in Iraq. It's a little worrisome that they demand "the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens" until you realize they're Nazis and citizens are, by definition, "only those of pure White blood." Even if you leave out the rabid racism and homophobia, it's a pretty scary platform that would effectively end private ownership of real property, outlaw charging interest and nationalize ownership of all businesses. It proposes official state censorship of the press, prohibition of unions, and, presumably (though they aren't very clear on it), socialized medicine. They're "looking for translators of all languages" to come up with versions in foreign languages (for what purpose I'm not sure, since they're going to end immigration). Some of the languages they already have I'm sure none of them read, so I certainly hope those documents were done by intelligent people and contain platform planks like "mandatory child molestation." I note they're lacking a Hebrew translation: perhaps someone could help them out! Although, if you do email them, make sure you put two ms in the address. Wouldn't want to get that imposter commander, by mistake!

Hugh Hewitt wonders, "What percentage of Bush's votes were pro-choice, I wonder? Thirty? Twenty? Ten?" Well, wonder no longer, Hugh. CNN's exit poll data contains some information on this. If we crunch the numbers, roughly 20.8 million, or 35% of Bush's voters in 2004 think abortion should be "Always Legal" or "Mostly Legal" (including your humble author). You lose twenty percent of those voters and we're quite possibly sitting here wondering who President Kerry is going to appoint.

Update Nov 11 10:53:34 PST 2004 Welcome, Instapundit readers! If you think this is interesting stuff, I've done a couple of more of these, on topics like gay marriage, terrorism, etc: Atheists for Bush and "Moral Values" was not Bush's top vote getter. The Excel spreadsheet I used to calculate is available, as well.

Forces clash in Fallujah, moving towards the months-delayed inevitable conclusion. The town, whose strategic importance is much larger than its borders - approximately two square miles - was surrounded and softened up over the past few weeks. Now, Allied forces are moving in, capturing the railway line that is the border on the north and turning it into an outpost. On the western side of the town, two bridges over the Euphrates mark the western edge of the town, and these were crossed and captured, as well.

In the opening phase of the battle, one of the first objectives captured by the Iraqi National forces was a hospital. Situated at the western foot of the northernmost bridge - a bridge made notorious earlier this year when Jihadis hung the mutilated corpses of American contractors from it as a taunt to our forces - the hospital was apparently in use by opposition forces as a lookout post. As well, there is speculation that the Americans, tired of Islamist hospital spokesman trumpeting every casualty to come through the doors as an intentionally targeted civilian, simply decided to run the medical facility themselves for the duration.

"Insurgents" in Fallujah, drawn by dreams of martyrdom, of taking down scores of "imperialist" troops in a final blaze of glory, are well prepared only to die. The photos made available from the AP reporters "embedded" with the Jihadis show poorly trained and equipped combatants using old weaponry and exhibiting little discipline. Clad in bright, loose clothing, and sporting masks that no doubt impair vision and hearing, with more weapons than men, firing from the hip, these fighters may be well prepared to slit the throat of a civilian hostage. But, when faced with an American force that can see them from miles away and call destruction on their heads, the only thing they will prove effective at is dying, in vast numbers.

On the home front, protesters also seem unaware of the imbalance of force. In Chicago, a man held a sign which jubilantly read "Forget the Alamo/Remember Fallujah/Graveyard of Americans!" If the Jihadis have been reading the same press releases as this gentleman, they may also be under the misapphrension that many American forces will die in large numbers in Fallujah. Coalition tactics involve slowly breaking the town into manageable pieces, isolating the barbarians from resupply, and crushing them under an assault of heavy weapons. Doubtless coalition forces will die, but certainly not in the numbers the opposition forces will, by at least two orders of magnitude. These "foreign fighters" - most effective when executing unarmed civilians begging for their lives - will make a brave enough stand, but in the end are essentially lambs for the slaughter. The technological gap between these forces is too great for this not to result in a bloodbath for the Jihadis, dashed upon the rocks by superior firepower.

And good riddance.

Some conservative comentators have wondered at Rehnquist not retiring before he was a death's door. Why didn't he retire last year, while Bush could comfortably appoint his successor, instead of risking a reelection in between? Some have suggested it represents a love of power on the Chief Justice's part, which overrode his natural desre to insure that his successor has similar views of the law. However, in reading Jack Balkin's take on whether the 2004 election retroactively cofers legitimacy to Bush's first term, I found this passage intriguing:

Bush demonstrated his political legitimacy through the combination of the 2002 and 2004 elections. I do believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore still remains a stain on their reputations. However, because Bush was not able to appoint any new Justices until he won an electoral majority, the stain is somewhat less severe than it would otherwise have been.

Which makes me wonder - did Rehnquist, in fact, chance retiring or dying with a Democrat in the office of the Presidency because he feared that, if Bush appointed a Justice in his first term, the "stain" of illigitimacy that some place on the Supreme Court would be spread through history on any Justices Bush appointed? If so, that would seem a much more noble motivation for not retiring - he wished to ensure that any questions about the accuracy of Bush v. Gore were put to the electorate before any more Justices were appointed. Thus the Court can avoid the complaint that the conservative members manipulated the outcome of the 2000 election in order to insure the illegal perpetuation of their majority.

A Princenton Prof has put together some some interesting election maps. I especially like the per-county map that doesn't just show red vs. blue but shades by intensity to remind us that neither the red nor blue areas are monolithic.

Paul Freedman has a spot on analysis of why Bush won in Slate. "[I]f you want to understand why Bush was re-elected, stop obsessing about the morality gap and start looking at the terrorism gap."

Amusing stat in the CNN exit poll data, which I've been spending way too much time looking at. One of the questions is, "Vote if only Bush and Kerry were Running?" It provides an interesting sanity check on polls. Presumably the point is to guage to what extent Nader "spoiled" one candidate or the other. Anyway, the fun part is: 1% of Bush voters say that, if Nader hadn't been running, they would've voted for Kerry! And 2% of Kerry's voters said, if Nader hadn't been running, they'd've voted for Bush! Huh?

What's better is, 67% of those who "Would Not Have Voted" if "Only Bush and Kerry were running" voted for Bush or Kerry! What?! "Well, because Nader's running, I decided to vote for Bush, but if Nader hadn't been on the ticket, I would've stayed home." Yeah, got it...

Michele at a Small Victory has a longish morning after post that Instapundit briefly linked to. All of it's really worth reading, but I especially liked this bit in the middle:

I voted for George Bush.
I am not a redneck.
I do not spend my days watching cars race around a track, drinking cheap beer and slapping my woman on the ass.
I am not a bible thumper. In fact, I am an atheist.
I am not a homophobe.
I am educated beyond the fifth grade. In fact, I am college educated.
I am not stupid. Not by any stretch of facts.
I do not bomb abortion clinics.

You will not be thrown in jail for the sole reason of being a liberal.
Your child's public school will not suddenly turn into a center for Christian brainwashing.
Your favorite bookstore will not turn into puritan central.

This is not Nazi Germany in any way.
You will not be forced into concentration camps.
You will not be burned in human-sized ovens because of your religion.
We will not be forced to wear uniforms and march in line every day.
You will not live in fear.
If you think this is a country in which you have to live in fear, I have some friends in Iran who would like to have a little talk with you.

The Democrats are on a cusp, right now. If their conclusion is that they just lost because 51% of America thinks that God Hates Fags, they're going to get an even smaller part of the vote. Performing a similar analysis of the exit poll numbers as we did below, we find that only half of Bush voters favor "no recognition" for same-sex couples. If the Democrats had been able to attract the 6.3 million people who voted for Bush and support gay marriage (to say nothing of the 20 million pro-civil union Bush voters), this would've been a very different election.

A number of other factors belie the "Only Bumpkins Vote For Bush" theory some Democrats are spinning. Depending which contradictory poll you believe, either the Republicans won amongst college grads, or at best it was split 49/49. Only 14% of Bush's voters considered his most important quality to be his "Religious Faith" - 55% of them said it was because he was a "Strong Leader" or because of his "Clear Stand on Issues." There are a large number of Americans who aren't evangelical Christians, support gay marriages or unions (46% of Bush's voters), think abortion should be legal (35% of Bush's voters), and yet voted for Bush anyway. If the official Democrat response to these voters is "well, you're stupid," then they're going to do nothing to win us over.

The big news for the Democrats of 2008 is that there is a big block of swing voters that swung against you this year. Don't focus on the 50% of Bush voters that oppose gay marriage - I agree you don't want them. But pay attention to us, the college-educated, pro-choice, pro-civil-union (or better), non-evangelical Christian middle. There are at least 15 million of us (who vote) and perhaps as many as 25 million. We decided this election. If you want us to vote your way, you're going to have to come up with something more compelling than "fuck middle America." I got news for you - we're middle America, and we just fucked you. You need a new sign if you want us back next time.

Reading between the lines of this CNN report, it seems like Arafat's as good as dead, they're just trying to figure out where to bury him: "The two U.S. officials say that since Muslim custom requires burial within 24 hours of death, no one will declare Arafat dead until they figure out where to bury him." When you connect that with the earlier report that he was "brain dead," it seems like what's probably going on is that Arafat is past the point of no return, but the plug will not be pulled until they have a plan for what to do with the corpse. The Palestinians want to bury him in Jerusalem, but the Isrealis want to bury him in Egypt. No word on what the Egyptians want, or the French, for that matter.

Heard someone on NPR yesterday - I think it was David Brooks - suggest this humorous statement (or something like it, I don't remember the exact quote) for Bush following his inauguration in January:

It's been a long, bitter campaign, and it's important that we as Americans try to overcome the issues that divide us. That why, in a spirit of reconciliation, I'm pleased to announce my nomination of John Ashcroft for the Supreme Court...

The Corner points out this EPA article on air emissions trends. I've reproduced it, here, because it's a government document and therefore by definition public domain:

This chart shows that while every measure of usage has grown - GDP, Vehicle Miles, Energy Consumption and Population - real (not relative) aggregate emissions have dropped. None of my liberal friends believe it when I say that the air's getting better, but it is!

One random thought about this most recent election. While everyone likes to talk about the way the Internet has influenced this election, it seems to me that a lot of this influence has been...well, illusiory. Remember this time last year when Howard Dean was an unstoppable juggernaught because he had the Internet that was firing up his base? And then none of them made it out to vote and he died?

Before he died, though, he made Kerry tack left - voting against funding the Iraq occupation, for example - which left Kerry very vulnerable in the broader electorate. Amazingly, Kerry went on to make the exact same mistake thinking that millions of new voters would be fired up by the Internet and swing the election. If the Democrats had simply ignored the Internet, they probably would've been better off. Instead, they kept getting the wrong directions from it, and drove off a cliff.

Jay Cost - whom I generally recommend for his insightful polling analysis, a lot of which was behind my confidence of Bush's win - thinks the media failing to call the election this morning was "disgusting." He apparently feels they were treating Kerry with kid gloves to give him a chance to resign the race honorably, and that this is somehow bad.

Personally, I think it's a nice bit of politeness in this rancorous age. Sure, had Kerry not conceded this morning I'd be very hopeful that everyone would start calling the race in order to put pressure on him. But everyone - from the President to the media - gave Kerry time to make peace with his loss and withdraw before granting Bush the victory. I think that's a great echo of a time when politicians and reporters acted more like gentlemen, and I for one am happy to see it.

This Reuters story is typical of much of the lazy analysis coming out of the media following the election:

CNN's analysis of the exit data showed that morality was cited as the number one concern by 22 percent of voters -- four-fifths of whom voted for Bush. The second top issue was economy and jobs -- and Kerry captured four-fifths of those votes.

Terrorism was the third top issue, at 19 percent. Iraq was fourth at 15 percent -- and 73 percent of those voters went for Kerry.

The impression given is that terrorism was not a significant factor in Bush's reelection, as it was the "third top issue." But, pulling data from CNN's exit polls, it is clear that the majority of Bush's support came from "Terrorism as top issue" voters. This chart breaks down where each candidate's support comes from:

2004_Exit_Poll_Breakdown.xls

31% of Bush's support came from those saying "Moral Values" were their top issue but 32% of his support came from those for whom "Terrorism" was the top issue. While a greater percentage of the electorate is concerned about "Moral Values" (whatever that means), some of them voted for Kerry. Bush's number one issue was terrorism. Period.

Interesting side note - this is probably a coincidence, but it's amusing, nonetheless. Evan Thomas (the Newsweek editor, not my brother) once famously remarked that he thought the media's support for Kerry was "worth maybe 15 points." A big bunch of Kerry's support - 23% - came from those who said "Iraq" (as opposed to "Terrorism") was their top concern. My hypothesis is that such voters have largely been swayed by media coverage of the "quagmire" in Iraq. Such voters broke 73% for Kerry. If you count the voters that voted for Kerry because of "Terrorism" or "Iraq" - two issues on which the media has been relentlessly anti-Bush - it adds up to 14% of the voters. So, 14% of the voters voted for Kerry largely because of media coverage. Maybe Evan wasn't so wrong about those fifteen points, after all...

Kos clearly gets what I'm talking about below, when he says Howard Dean for DNC Chair. There's a man who clearly understands what went wrong with the Democratic party - they weren't anti-war enough!

Kos, 51% of the American people just voted no because they think Kerry was too much like Dean. If you put Dean in charge of the Democratic party you're going to have a rush to 25% popular vote, because the anti-war people in the Democratic party are such a minority of the popular vote.

The magnitude of this loss for the Democrats cannot be overstated. The pundits have been busy talking about whether or not Kerry has the grace to concede - turns out he does - and not about the ramifications of this race.

They lost the Presidency, obviously. But they also lost at least two Senate seats (net) and at least two House seats (net). All together this is a loss as stunning as the 1994 "Contract with America" loss, in which the Democratic leadership completely misjudged the mood of the country and got blindsided as a result. I'd had some sense for a while that this result was coming - that Democrats had completely insulated themselves from reality, and they were going to be very surprised when it came down on them like a ton of bricks. I'd been expecting to spend this morning reading "how we were all so surprised" stories, but I guess Kerry's late concession pushes those off 'til tomorrow. No matter.

Most of the die-hard Democrats I know (or read) concluded long ago that Bush is an idiot, and anyone who votes for him is an idiot, too. Since they know that the average person isn't an idiot, they figured they had this locked up. Crucial to their party (and our country) is that they look themselves in the mirror this morning and ask what went wrong. If their answer is that the American people were too stupid to see the brilliance of their candidate, they're going to cement themselves in the minority for a long time. Most of the Republicans I know (or read) conceded that while Bush isn't their ideal candidate on every issue, security trumped all of that this year. Kerry was a candidate who was fundamentally unserious on security, and the 51% of us that consider that the top issue this year had no option of voting for him. As long as we're in a war and the Democrats refuse to admit we're in a war, they're going to lose. Trying to educate the rest of us that we're not in a war is a losing strategy.

In short, I'm tired of the Democrats telling me I'm idiot because of my concerns. My concerns are shared with 51% of the electorate. If the Democrats want their popular vote to ever rise above 49%, they need to stop telling us we're stupid and start telling us what they're going to do about our concerns.

Finally, now that this campaign is over, and despite the constant smearing he's received in the press, Bush received 51% of the popular vote, it would be nice to see the Democrats acting like they're on the same side as our country. Stop writing Osama's press releases for him, guys, and try to remember that, as stupid and evil President Bush is, he's still your President, too, and he deserves your respect. Or at least to have an opposition that remembers they're Americans first and Democrats second.

Sadly, I haven't had time to finish my rationals for these predictions. But, with time rapidly running out, I'm going to cut to the bottom line of what I've been thinking for about a week.

For a lot of reasons I don't have time to go into now, I feel the polls are complete bunk. Nobody knows what's going on out there - if they're right that it's a 49/49 split, it's just luck. I'm very confident in saying that this isn't gonna be close - the winner gets at least 290 electoral votes and at least 51% of the popular vote. I say that because that's the way (at least) most Presidential votes go, and I just don't buy the polling, for a number of reasons I don't have time to go into (maybe tomorrow, or Wednesday in the post-mortem).

The second big prediction - and this one is more of a hunch than a well-reasoned position, although I have some good reasons - I'm predicting Bush is the one who wins big. Probably 300 electoral votes and bare minimum 51% of the popular vote, and I wouldn't be surprised by more.

Now, all we can do is wait. And vote.

Couple of clarifications on the Sequoia Hospital issue. First, I was incorrect when I stated that CHW "owns" the hospital - apparently a separate entity, Sequoia Healthcare Services actually owns Sequoia. CHW operates it under a 30 year lease (and, although it's not completely clear from the SHD's website, presumably keeps the profit from these operations).

Second, one interested element of this case is the fact that a San Mateo Grand Jury, in May of 2004, said the district should stop collecting taxes. The article quotes Bruce Hasenkamp, the Jury's foreman:

"These folks are playing games with the taxpayers, not coming clean," Hasenkamp said. "They've been operating as far as we can tell similar to a philanthropic foundation using tax money to make contributions to various other governmental and nonprofit agencies. The taxpayers didn't vote to tax themselves to support those agencies."

Of course, the district's administrators didn't see it the same way, calling the report "arbitrarily and unilaterally rude." Yeah, well, you take $40 million from people under duress and they're a lot less likely to be polite to you. The fact that the district can't figure out how to spend the money as fast as it's coming in clearly shows it is over funded, and someone need to stop this.

Unfortunately, the Grand Jury's report was nonbinding, and, as the article notes, "It's up to the district's board members to decide whether to follow the grand jury's recommendation to stop collecting taxes."