Ever wonder what happened to all those anti-income-tax goofballs? You know, the ones who refuse to pay federal income taxes because they say they're unconstitutional?

Did they all get together and form an Internet-only retailer? And name it Amazon.com?

Amazon has done pretty well too. Of course, your business might too if you could offer customers a 7.25% discount -- because you refuse to collect California sales taxes.

Now, Amazon says it isn't collecting sales taxes because it doesn't have to; that it has the Constitution on its side. (Oh, and if you want to buy a copy of the Constitution to check that out, it has that too; in fact, you can get "The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation" [Paperback] for just $4.95.)

Mind you, Amazon isn't hurting for cash; it's first-quarter revenue this year was almost $10 billion. But when California passed a law seeking to force it to collect sales taxes, what did it do?

It took its ball and went home, severing ties with thousands of affiliates in California. And it vowed to put the issue before California voters, pushing for a referendum as early as February to overturn the law.

 Plus, it brought out the ultimate hammer these days: jobs.  

"This is a referendum on jobs and investment in California," said Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy in Washington, D.C. "We support this referendum against the recent sales tax legislation because, with unemployment at well over 11%, Californians deserve a voice and a choice about jobs, investment and the state's economic future."

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'll sell you (although you'll have to pay the sales tax).

But hey, while we're all voting, why don't we also ask Californians if they think they should have to obey the speed limit? Can't we just ignore those pesky stop signs? And income taxes: Do we have to pay those too? 

Vote! Vote! Vote!

At least we'll be creating jobs, and lots of them -- for poll workers.

Folks, you may not like all the laws we have. You may not agree with all of them. You can certainly try to get the Legislature to change them.  

But you're supposed to obey them. 

That's you, me -- and giant Internet retailers. (Don't think so?  Then order your "Constitutional Law: The Quick Guide" [Kindle Edition] from Amazon. It's free if you have a Kindle. Don't have a Kindle?  Amazon has those too: $139 and free shipping.)

Let's get real. Amazon can talk all it wants about the Constitution and jobs and the like, but here's the bottom line, I think: Amazon doesn't want to collect sales taxes because it would hurt its business.

And the people who support Amazon?  They want a good deal, regardless of how they get it.

And everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

RELATED:

Are you an online tax cheat?

Amazon sales tax battle centers on jobs

California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from customers

Apple denied injunction to stop Amazon's use of 'appstore' name; trial date set

-- Paul Whitefield 

Photo: Katherine Braun sorts packages at an Amazon.com fulfillment center in Goodyear, Ariz. Credit: Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press

Forget my age. Really, forget it. I was as avid a fan of the early Harry Potter books as any of my kids. Showed up at the midnight releases. Bought two copies of each, for a while, so no one in the house had to wait too long to get his or her hands on the latest version. We still had to steal them from each other.

It can be easy to forget what an extraordinary feat those early books were. Amid all the the stir about Emma Watson's pixie haircut and rather strange dress for the premiere, Daniel Radcliffe's Broadway stardom, the gratitude of the actor who plays Draco Malfoy for his years with that character, and the same for the actor who plays his evil dad, I felt compelled to sneak into the room of my youngest and retrieve her copy of the first book in the series. (Purchase No. 3; the earlier copies wore out with repeated use.)

The book casts a seamless spell. You can almost feel a giant door opening as you're introduced, through Harry's eyes, to Diagon Alley, the South Coast Plaza of the wizarding world, along with photos whose subjects move about and ... well, no one needs a retelling more than a decade later. Rowling's prose is so clear and well-rendered that it does its own disappearing act; there's nothing between the reader and the story. The fourth novel made Rowling into a revered figure, She-Who-Got-Young-Children-To-Happily-Read-A-Book-Of-More-Than-700-Pages.

After that, I'm afraid -- and please hold your avada kedavra curses here -- the whole enterprise started heading downhill for me. The books became more tedious and less narrative. I'm all for the dark side, but the experience was rather dreary. The movies were ... fine for the most part.  Did this have anything to do with the Harry Potter toys, games and beach towels that suddenly flooded the market?

And I'll always choose to ignore Rowling's post-publication pronouncements of her characters' careers and Albus Dumbledore's supposed homosexuality. These might have been what Rowling intended for her characters, but in literature, it's what's in the book that counts; what readers can see in and between the lines. Not for Rowling to steal our imaginations away.

As kids gear up for the midnight release of the movie Thursday -- just as they used to attend the midnight releases of the book in stores -- early reviews are glowing about the end to the cinematic series. I'll be there too, if I can stay up that late at this stage in my life. But as it all ends, I'll be glad that my kids were reading one of the best series in kid-lit when it was all simply a great and deservedly successful endeavor of storytelling. For now, I'll wait for the next clever writer who is struck by a wholly imaginative new idea -- and perhaps pick up the tale of the sorcerer's stone one more time.

ALSO:

'Harry Potter': Find your personal Patronus

Movie review: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2'

Why doesn't Harry Potter have the magic touch at the Oscars?

'Harry Potter': Emma Watson's Hermione Granger through the years

'Harry Potter': A decade of Hogwarts professors and first-class actors

--Karin Klein

Photo: Hermione Graner (Emma Watson), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) battle their way through "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2." Credit: Warner Bros.

A blog post Tuesday about Jaycee Dugard's forthcoming memoir gave Nicholas Goldberg, editor of the Los Angeles Times editorial pages, an idea for an editorial, which he sent off to other members of the editorial board. Here are excerpts from the exchange that ensued, which we're sharing to give you an idea of how the board operates. These discussions usually happen face to face when the board holds its meetings three times a week, but occasionally they're conducted by  email, as happened in this case.

Please note: This is just the starting point for an editorial -- the off-the-top thoughts that present the writer with angles to pursue and questions to answer. In other words, don't confuse this banter with the reporting editorial writers put into their pieces.

Nicholas Goldberg kicked off the conversation at 8:50 a.m.

What do people think the news item below? Anything to be said? Obviously, Jaycee Dugard can do anything she wants and we only wish her the best, etc etc, but there’s something sad and strange about a society that encourages a person who has been through such a traumatizing and personal nightmare to -- so quickly -- go public with every detail. For money? For fame? For catharsis? No matter what the reason is, it’s weird. No?

[News item in consideration: Jaycee Dugard's memoir, 'A Stolen Life,' will be published in July]

Michael McGough: 9:03 a.m.

Creepiest line:

she writes with such honesty and intimacy, that as I read her narrative, I felt like I was in the room with her.

I agree but it would be strange to seem to lecture her on deciding when to tell her story. I like your idea about the publisher and society pressing for this

Karin Klein: 9:26 a.m.

Maybe I'm just another sad, strange member of society, but I'm not bothered by this one. Have been by other "news fame" books, but not this. Of course, that's based on the assumption that she wasn't pushed into doing this, that she's doing it for reasons that work for her. But I wouldn't want to judge that otherwise, even though there were certainly agents hopping up and down urging her to strike while the iron is hot.

 While other girls were going to school, going off to college, making a mark on life, Jaycee was deprived of all that, and now has responsibility for children that she would not have chosen to have at the point she did. Her public persona has been that of victim, victim with more than an edge of salaciousness to the whole thing. This is a chance to emerge from that embarrassed privacy, to assert some self-control over a life that has had little to none, and perhaps to have fame based on the image of her as a strong survivor, and one who wrote a book.

This probably would have been a more successful venture--in terms of what valuable insight it would offer readers--had she waited to get more perspective on it. Having read the novel "Room," which is inspired by the Dugard case though quite different in many regards, I'd be interested to know what the transition is like for her children and her parents as well as for her. Maybe five years down the road,  she can offer a sequel.

Jon Healey: 9:25 a.m.

I’m not offended either, and I’m not sure we need to weigh in. It’s her life, her speech and her choice; those are three things she didn’t have while the Garridos held her captive.

McGough: 9:30 a.m.

There’s no way the marketing of this book won’t be sensationalistic, but that’s true of all books like this, no?

Goldberg: 9:32 a.m.

I’m interested in knowing what life is like for her too and what captivity was like [...] That’s why the book will be an instant bestseller. And she’ll make a lot of money. And I wouldn’t dream of criticizing her for doing so.

But I don’t think it’ll be good for her or that she’ll “assert self-control” over her life or emerge from embarrassed privacy. That’s Oprah talk. The fact is that our society thrives on these stories of tragedy and violation and she’s no doubt been under enormous pressure to tell the story and she (understandably) wants the millions that will come along with it. 

That’s why nothing  -- not even the most horrifying personal trauma of the sort that takes years to recover from in therapy and with one’s family – is kept secret anymore.

Jon says: “It’s her choice.” But I don’t really believe that. It’s the way our culture works these days and to me it’s unseemly. Again, I’m not blaming her for doing what people do in these situations; I’m just think the phenomenon is an interesting one and a sad one.

Of course we don’t need to weigh in -- it’s not terribly important -- but people would read about it.

If no one agrees with me, I’ll shut up.

Healey: 9:37 a.m.

Hmmm. Seems like the revelations she would really want to have kept secret -- that she was raped repeatedly [...] -- became public knowledge long ago. The book gives her the chance to be something more in the public’s mind than just a rape victim. That strikes me as a good thing, even if it smacks of armchair psychology.

Klein: 9:42 a.m.

Unless she forged this deal before they had a good idea that they'd get a big settlement from the state, I doubt it was money. $20 million is enough to see most of us [...] through life.

[...]

Society's prurient interests, and the push to gratify those interests for money, is unseemly. But I'd read this book. I'd want to know what captivity was like for her and her children, what the world looked like to them, with or without salacious details. And Oprah or not, I think there is tremendous interest for many people in writing a book, especially after they've been through a tough time. It's a chance to do something, to act in some way, and in a way that feels like it matters.

Dan Turner: 9:48 a.m.

It seems a little odd for a newspaper to bemoan public interest in the details of personal tragedies; isn’t that how we make a living?

Carla Hall: 9:49 a.m.

Why all the hand wringing? I think her book will be--or could be--fascinating. I'm dying to hear all the details. She has neither spoken nor appeared publicly, right?  We get to hear her story; she gets to make a ton of rightly deserved money. Maybe she gets some catharsis out of it too. Win-win.

Here's the final product based on the morning's discussion:

The Jaycee Dugard story

Her memoir, "A Stolen Life," may give readers insight -- but what will it do for her?

RELATED:

Jaycee Dugard: Brave young author, or victim once again?

Photo: Cover of "A Stolen Life." Credit: Nancy Seltzer & Associates Inc.

The editorial board has been discussing Tuesday morning the announcement that Jaycee Lee Dugard is publishing a book this summer about the 18 years she spent in awful captivity, forced to live much of her life in a box in the backyard, sexually abused by her kidnapper, and giving birth to her first daughter when she was only 14.

Of course, the world wishes the best to Dugard. May she make many millions from this book, on top of the $20 million the state is paying her. The question is whether this book was Dugard's independent choice, or whether she was pressed into it by overeager publicists in an era when everybody's personal  secrets are up for grabs. It has been less than two years since she emerged from her horror, thanks to the sharp eyes and thoughtful mind of a UC Berkeley police officer. That doesn't seem like a lot of time for her to have figured out the instant-information, sell-it-all world that she only recently joined. What do you think?

RELATED:

Behind the Scenes: How the board arrived at its editorial about Jaycee Dugard's memoir

Jaycee Dugard's memoir, 'A Stolen Life,' may give readers insight -- but what will it do for her?

Authors on books to conquer -- and the ones that got away

-- Karin Klein

 Photo: Cover of "A Stolen Life." Credit: Nancy Seltzer & Associates Inc.