This CNN story is so unbelievably stupid, it is hard to believe it isn’t something made up by The Onion:

The [Pahrump, Nevada] town council voted last week, 3-2, to approve an ordinance that makes it illegal to display a foreign flag — unless an American flag is flown above it. Scofflaws face a $50 fine and 30 hours of community service.

The story blames a single person for the ordinance:

Pahrump resident Michael Miraglia proposed the ban because, he said, he got upset when he saw immigrant activists marching through U.S. cities last spring, waving Mexican flags.

Personally, I think there is far too much flag waving in general, but so far I have more important things to do than try to convince people not to be so irrationally nationalistic. Or maybe I am just not living in a “relaxed” enough environment:

In the Pahrump Valley, people are relaxed and enjoy life because there is no traffic to fight, very little crime and more time to do the things they enjoy.

…like passing ordinances that ban the freedom to fly another nation’s flag and express oneself. When you read the actual ordinance, it seems that the language is even more radical than the CNN story suggests. First of all, it’s primary purpose is to require English as an official language:

Pahrump Town Ordinance No. 54

ENACTING THE PAHRUMP ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND PATRIOT
REAFFIRMATION ORDINANCE OF 2006

“Patriot Reaffirmation”? Ugh. Sounds Rove-ian. Section eight covers flags:

Flying of Flags on residential and business property including land. The Official
Flag of the United States of America shall be flown in accordance to United States
Code, Title 4. No other flag or pennant may be placed above or, if on the same level,
to the right of the flag of the United States of America. And, if flown from the same
halyard in this order from top to bottom:

a. The Official Flag of the United States of America.
b. The Official Flag of the State of Nevada.
c. The Official Flag of the Town of Pahrump.
d. The Official Flag of our Military Forces.
e. Any other flag or pennant an individual whishes to fly other than a flag of a
foreign nation.
f. A flag of a foreign nation cannot be flown by itself, and must always be
flown with the Official Flag of the United States of America, union first,
from separate staffs. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations
or any other national or international flag, equal, above, or in a position of
superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States.

For the purposes of subsections a. through e. these flags can be flown by themselves.

Interesting that they specifically call out and attack the United Nations flag. How exactly that can be considered a threat is beyond me. Incidentally, how would someone in a parade fly a flag together with the American flag, yet from separate staffs? Sounds like you could have one American flag flying somewhere in a parade along with thousands of other flags flying from separate staff, even in different groups, no? Or maybe this has nothing to do with carrying flags, just flags flying from staffs permanently fixed on property? What about flags pinned to your clothing, or draped over you like a cape?

So many questions…but at the end of the day this ordinance just makes Pahrump look like a horribly mean-spirited and xenophobic place to live. As if it couldn’t get any worse, Section nine of the ordinance tries to re-write the story of America. It takes the line “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free…” and turns it into:

Illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants are not entitled to any benefits from the Town of Pahrump.

And what risk is being addressed by removing “benefits”? The cost of immigration apparently is not in health benefits.

Pahrump…now officially to be known as a*sholeville.

Incidentally, in terms of enforcing this anti-immigrant ordinance, if you are do not have your documentation and happen to get a benefit or if you improperly fly an unapproved flag (or at least fly one somewhere not very near to an American flag), you may be fined up to $50.00 (as CNN mentioned). I wonder whether that would that be $50 per illegal flag in a parade, or $50 for the entire parade group if they operate as an incorporated entity?

Oh well, as I said, there should be less flag waving all together and if this leads to fewer American flags too then maybe there is a silver lining to the nationalist ferver. I’m kidding, of course. Pahrump should send a delegate to Germany to ask someone why they traditionally have frowned upon people waving nationalist flags…

UPDATED TO ADD (16 Jan 2007): A reader sent me this funny image of foreign flag-waving aliens in the Rose Bowl parade. This shows that Pahrump may in fact have been trying to warn the Earth of an impending threat from Darth’s minions. Either that or Pahrump has a long way to go before it will be the sort of place to host a parade worth attending:

So if you placed a value on 43,000 identities, what would it be? I think we could all agree that it is more than a dollar per identity, which just begs the question of whether anyone should feel safe putting something worth more than $43,000 in checked luggage? FIRST has a link to last week’s story:

Bellevue’s T-Mobile USA Inc. on Wednesday confirmed reports that a laptop computer containing the Social Security number, salary, birth date and home address for as many as 43,000 current and former employees disappeared from an employee’s checked luggage.

And even if/when the luggage is found, will there be any guarantee that the data was not copied? Hard to say there was no breach if the data was not encrypted. The best path forward is clearly encryption of the data on laptops, and never putting high-value assets in as checked luggage.

Sign of things to come? This concept seems downright un-American, so it is probably a good thing it is not being attempted in America:

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren — by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

Here is an interesting perspective on why the concept is even being considered:

“The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We’re losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,” says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project’s co-founders. “The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility dwindles.”

[…]

It may sound like chaos, but it’s only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they’re forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, “Unsafe is safe” was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

Yes, I agree that too many senseless rules desensitizes people. Not sure that translates into a complete absence of any signs at all. After all, you have to marvel at some of the irony buried in the story:

A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads “Verkeersbordvrij” — “free of traffic signs.”

Personally, I noticed a big difference between European airport security officials who quietly shuffled everyone through security and American TSA employees yelling out mind-numbing orders like “People, you must remove your coats! Take off your shoes!” And my personal favorite: “Open your passport to the correct page!” Although the lines were more disorganized in Europe, they actually seemed to flow more steadily.

Perhaps Europe is coming to a “surrealist” movement, while the US lags behind in the age of rationalism and industrial security.

Like those involved in Dada, adherents of Surrealism thought that the horrors of World War I were the culmination of the Industrial Revolution and the result of the rational mind. Consequently, irrational thought and dream-states were seen as the natural antidote to those social problems.

Will a Dali of risk soon emerge? I can just imagine: “We no longer use stop signs, but instead try to find ways to harness subconsious abilities to manage change and conflict…” How will insurance companies cope with determining fault? What about the camera-ticket systems used to flag violations — what will the industry do?

“More than half of our signs have already been scrapped,” says traffic planner [in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands] Koop Kerkstra. “Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we’ve converted them to roundabouts.” Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: “Yield to the right” and “Get in someone’s way and you’ll be towed.”

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically.

Total number, or ratio of accidents to overall traffic? Maybe the number declined because people would rather drive somewhere else now?

Edited to add (24 Nov 2006): The BBC says that London is about to have a go at safety without signs:

Planners are now planning to strip out the safety barriers, kerb stones and traffic lights which keep pedestrians and drivers separate. Shared space, they say, will actually make the area safer – because drivers will have to make eye contact with pedestrians before proceeding.

As a former bicycle-commuter in London, I can say it takes a lot more than eye-contact to determine a driver’s intentions. In fact, this reminds me of all the cabbies who seemed to have a secret desire to take out cyclists by faking a direction and then heading another way. Can you imagine a “no-sunglasses” rule, or importing poker rules to the roadway. That seems rediculous today, but if you have to rely on body-language to be safe…

It used to take nerves of steel, lightning-fast reactions, and top-shape equipment (brakes, gears, tires) to minimize the risk of a ride through downtown London. In other words, I loved every minute, and despite all the miles I never had an accident. My only regret is that I did not know the severe health risk of the air quality on a cyclist’s lungs and there was nothing personally I could have done to reduce the risk, even had I known.