The Constitution says on the subject:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

The point here is twofold: a. that the federal government gets to count us, and b. that they can do it in such manner the law directs. Implied in the latter part, of course, implies "that doesn't violate the Constitution." Otherwise, they could just make pass a law that says "no one may criticize the Census," and it would not violate the First Amendment.

That's obviously silly, but it's the argument they actually make when they say they can require us to provide any information they choose to force us to provide, despite the fact that the Constitution says they cannot.

There's four types of questions on the form. The first is the explicitly constitutional one: the number of people living there; the second is about whether those people sometimes live elsewhere; the third type is individual identification: name, phone number; the fourth is demographic information for the purposes of tailoring government programs: age, sex, gender, and home ownership.

The first type of question is obviously legitimate, speaking directly to the point of the census as explained in the Constitution. The second is arguably legitimate, as it can aid in preventing double-counting.

The third type -- personal identifying information -- is arguably legitimate as well, for the same basic reason: helping to get an accurate count. Naming each person can aid the respondent in listing all the people properly, and the phone number might be used for clarification if necessary.

The fourth type, though ... it's pure nonsense. In fact, the federal government explicitly states the purpose is all about government programs, instead of enumeration. The constitutional purpose of the census is not served. This questions can, arguably, still be allowed and required, however, if any other part of the constitution is not violated in the process.

Unfortunately for the government, however, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do protect my right to privacy. Government cannot compel this extra-constitutional information from me without following due process, and "passing a law" is not due process.

So in the end, I'll only be answering the questions about how many people live here. I am undecided whether I will provide any names of the people living here. The justification is shaky, and it's arguable either way. I'll give them my phone number, though. The Census Bureau will be free to call me and ask for clarification, which will include recitations of relevant portions of the Constitution and legal precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut.

The facts: "The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly in January to 9.7%. And businesses shed 20,000 jobs for the month, far fewer than the 150,000 jobs that were lost in December."

So when CNN says the "unemployment rate fell unexpectedly," they mean "more people stopped looking for jobs than expected," obviously, because that's the only way you can lose jobs and still increase the percentage of the workforce that is employed.

And when CNN says that the situation is "moderating," they mean "still getting worse, but not getting worse as badly as before," obviously, because we're still losing jobs.

And when it says we lost far fewer jobs than in December, it also means we lost far more jobs than in November.

I hope that helps.

I'm actually not pessmistic about all this. I don't believe this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (I still remember the 70s and 80s); I see a lot of fundamentally good things in the economy (which Obama also says ... now, even though he dishonestly attacked McCain for saying so in the campaign); and so on.

The thing that makes me most pessimistic is not where we are, but what we are doing: sowing the seeds for future crises by manipulating the market and drastically increasing debt and deficit, instead of letting the market actually work.

I guess this would be a good time to post this awesome rap video about Keynes and Hayek.

Take Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, for example. When presented with a petition of 14,000 signatures -- mostly from corporate special interests who get government subsidies -- calling for tax increases, she met with them, happy to be asked to raise taxes.

But when 20,000 signatures -- mostly from the people who pay for those subsidies -- were provided in a petition against tax increases, none of our leaders -- not Gregoire, not Speaker Chopp, not Majority Leader Brown -- would meet with them.

Even if they disagree, shouldn't they at least meet with the representatives of 20,000 citizens? Let's face it: they just don't like you. Sorry.

Gregoire was the one who said in her first term, multiple times, that we should not spend a lot during good times, so we would not have to make drastic cuts and tax increases in the bad times. But the 33 percent spending increase in her first term, signing bills passed by Chopp and Brown, is precisely why we are faced with drastic cuts and tax increases today: we could have had the modest increases she dishonestly preached about, and we wouldn't be facing large deficits (if any at all).

So now she and Chopp and Brown want to raise taxes to fix the problem they created, supposedly on your behalf.

Last year, a massive rally on their doorstep successfully diuscouraged them from raising taxes. This year, we can do it again. On President's Day, February 15, there will be another rally on the steps of the Capitol, at 10 a.m.

These players are big fat babies.

The players agreed to the franchise tag for the owners, as a compromise. The players take advantage of everything available to them under the contract; why shouldn't the owners do the same?

Stop crying. Stop whining. Sure, you don't like it, but so what? Grow up. Those are the rules that you agreed to.

As if offerring abortion referrals means it does provide medical care for pregnant women? Newsflash: providing a referral for "medical care" is not, itself, providing medical care. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but it seems it's necessary.

The center that does not provide abortion referrals also must not administer over-the-counter pregnancy tests, but instead inform the client that it is over-the-counter and give it to the client to self-administer. As if offerring abortion referrals means it should have to do differently?

It also introduces new requirements for disclosure of health care records ... again, as if offering abortion referrals means a center shouldn't have to do such disclosures?

This bill is not about protecting potential clients, it is about trying to harm anti-abortion pregnancy centers, plain and simple. If the state wants to make these restrictions apply to everyone, fine, but to single out centers for restrictions where the only differentiating factor is that they do not offer abortion restrictions is so completely off-the-wall that there's few places it could possibly happen. We in Washington just happen to live in one of those places.

To me, however, this is not the republican form of government our founders instituted. Edmund Burke said in 1774, in one of my favorite quotes, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

I've always loved that quote, but in the case of health insurance reform, I think the context immediately preceding that quote is even more relevant: "... his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable."

When a legislator is bought off, or when he otherwise allows himself to be swayed for the good of the party or some other thing besides the legislation at hand, he is doing something worse than going against the will of his constituents: he is going against his own judgment, abusing a sacred trust.

I do not respect representatives who vote on legislation on a basis other than their own views of whether that legislation should or should not be law. That's their job, that's the power they've been entrusted with. But that's not how the parties expect representatives to act: they expect them to tow the party line, and at the very least, be willing to be bought off.

I understand this to some degree: parties exist to get agendas implemented. If you're a member of the party, you're expressing agreement with a significant portion of that agenda. But that is short-sighted. A strong party, long term, will nurture not fealty to specific (and ever-changing) agendas and compliance with leadership, but, rather, consistent application of the principles that support that agenda.

When you do that, you might lose some bills, but you get something much more valuable: a party comprised of representaives that the public trusts to follow their established principles and vote their conscience.

Thankfully, this being an election year in which Democrats are already running for cover, this ban most likely has no chance whatsoever of passing. I imagine most Democrats in the legislature are angry at liberal Seattle Senators Adam Kline, Darlene Fairley, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, and Joe McDermott, because just by introducing this bill, it's going to hurt Democrats who aren't in safe districts like Seattle.

Koster's a conservative's conservative. He lost to Larsen in 2000 by a thin margin -- the only time he's ever lost a general election -- but this time, combining Larsen's many missteps with John's record and the voter mood, if Koster can get his message out, he will win.

Check out his web site, his Twitter feed, and his Facebook page.

Here's some of his fantabulous bills dropped for this session. I don't know if any of them will pass, but here's hopin'. Some of the highlights:

House Bill 2709 (Preventing federal regulation from affecting state gun laws), House Bill 2711 (Regarding the constitutional right of self defense), House Bill 2712 (Creating a federal tax account to protect state sovereignty), House Bill 2713 (Regulating arrests and searches by federal employees), House Bill 2714 (exempting initiative and referendum signatures from public disclosure), House Bill 2715 (Changing the electoral college representatives), House Bill 2716 (Allowing first repurchase of surplus transportation property), House Bill 2718 (Concerning defendants who are found to be guilty and mentally ill).

When you move a 32-bit x86 perl installation to a 64-bit Mac OS X 10.6 environment, you should edit $ARCH/Config_heavy.pl and add "-arch i386" to lddlflags, ldflags, and ccflags. The compiler and tools in Mac OS X 10.6 assume 64 bits unless you explicitly tell it otherwise, but some 32-bit installs don't bother putting in an -arch flag, because at the time it wasn't necessary.

But that's exactly what you gave us: a state budget that increased 33 percent in your first term, and now we're faced with billions of dollars in deficits.

You can talk all you like about the recession and so on, but you knew a recession could be coming, and you knew what we needed to do to reduce its impact, but you didn't take your own advice. If we'd held the budget increases to reasonable levels we wouldn't be facing significant deficits at all.

You are -- along with the Democratic legislature that passed the spending bills you signed -- the reason we have this problem. It's why your job approval ratings are the worst they've ever been.

But you can redeem yourself, a little bit. You can promise to veto any removal of the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, or any bill that increases taxes, that doesn't get a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate. Back when you were running for re-election you brought back the 1 percent cap on property tax because, you said, "The voters approved Initiative 747" and "it has been in place for five years." The two-thirds requirement has been on the books for 17 years, and was reaffirmed only three years ago; does it not deserve the same respect?

Or do you really not care about whether the voters approve something, as you said you did when you were running for re-election?

You can say all you want that we can't cut our way out of this. But we know that's not true, because you spent our way into it. You know, we know it, and you can drop the charade.

And indeed, if this, that, and the other thing were each a separate bill -- or combined with nothing else into a single bill -- the Congress would pass them overwhelmingly.

But that's not what this bill is. If you're going to poll people on specific items in the bill, it is only fair -- which is why the Democrats don't do it -- to poll them on all the provisions of the bill, not just the ones you think they'll like. The tax increases, the mandates to employers and individual citizens, the reduced choices, and so on.

It's these other things that are also in the bill that are the reason why a majority of Americans oppose the bill.

However, the Democrats do have a point, though most of them won't say it explicitly: despite all the bad in the bill, once it's implemented, people will get attached to the things in the bill they like, and it will be nearly impossible to repeal it.

Take Medicare: people would never vote to repeal it today. But if it were being proposed today as a new program -- laying out all of the facts, about how it is nearly bankrupt, and how many providers don't accept it, about its many flaws -- it would never become law.

This is also why the Democrats are stupid to be worried about the details. They should instead make whatever compromises they have to, to get it passed as quickly as possible, and have it implemented as soon as possible. That's all that matters. Once they get that, they have the whole shebang. Once implemented, it will never be repealed and they can always enlarge it later. By fighting amongst themselves and trying to include everything they can possibly get and pushing out the implementation, they give opponents more opportunity to kill it.

I am grateful for this.