Double Standard?

The stupid military policy set 15 years ago as a "compromise" policy by Congress and President Clinton almost came around to bite an openly gay Representative.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon at first blocked Rep. Tammy Baldwin's domestic partner from traveling on a military plane with a congressional delegation on a trip to Europe but gave in after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened.

The Pentagon said it was merely following House rules, which do not define domestic partners as spouses. Pelosi's office countered that the Pentagon has its own rules about who can go on its planes.

Both sides agree that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reversed the decision to keep Azar off the plane after getting contacted by Pelosi, D-Calif.

I think the Pentagon made the right decision. I actually wish, however, that they would have prevented Rep. Baldwin's domestic partner from getting on that plane.

If the Pentagon would have kicked a Congresswoman's homosexual partner off a military airplane, a good portion of Congress would be outraged. And while Congressmen who support "don't ask, don't tell" may find it easy to tell gay people they'll never meet that they cannot serve in the military, it might hit home a little more when they have to tell a fellow Congresswoman that her partner cannot travel with her on routine business travel.

Even though both Democratic presidential candidates claim to oppose the policy, I don't believe they are sincere enough to pursue any real change if they get what they're really after in this campaign: being elected president. I hope I'm wrong and I'm just being overly cynical. But I think something like a personal conflict between people who have to work together every day (or, most days) would be a lot more effective in bringing about a change in the policy.

"Don't ask, don't tell" will eventually dissolve, and eventually sexually orientation will not affect military service. But the policy has already been around for over 15 years, so if it takes congressional infighting to get rid of it, so be it.

Someone Actually Has A Worse Understanding Of Justice Than The US Drug Czar

Relative to the worldwide condemnation of Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna," these remarks by a British Imam and "lawyer" will probably go mostly unnoticed and unpublicized. But this analysis of innocence and guilt is not something I'd want to see applied by any government or justice system:

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

And the Archbishop of Canterbury commented just two months ago that some aspects of Sharia law seem "unavoidable" in Britain.

If only I could remember why I decided to stay away from that whole religion thing...

What Do These Five "Recession-Proof" Industries Have In Common?

I found an article on CNN.com entitled "Is your job recession-proof?" that starts by reassuring that, despite the slowing economy and housing markets, employers are generally still hiring. At first, it seemed to be just another commentary on the economy.

However, something really caught my attention in the second half of the article, in which a consulting firm notes five industries "expected to offer the best opportunities for job seekers during the predicted slump." The five "recession-proof" industries listed in the article are education, energy, environmental sector, health care and security.

Why are these five industries doing so well these days, while "retail, manufacturing, finance and technology, are vulnerable during recessions?" What is it that these industries have in common? Well, their success is either directly or indirectly driven by government.

Education is almost completely a government monopoly. Government pays for about half of Americans' health care and heavily interferes with and regulates the entire system. Security, especially airport security, is booming due to the "War on Terror." Energy and environment go hand in hand to an extent, and government is either acting or about to act on both. Energy is largely controlled (see: public utilities) or subsidized (see: ethanol) by government.

The article does not explicitly note the involvement (intrusion) of government into the noted five industries. But a critical reader can read between the lines and catch the hints.

Hmm, do you think the extensive government involvement in these booming industries might play at least some role in the plight of the rest of the economy?

So Let Me Get This Straight...

If you get busted for pot, you could possibly go to jail, have some of your money or assets seized, lose student aid, lose voting rights, or even lose custody of your children.

So what happens to people like these parents?":

WESTON, Wis. — An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday. [...]

Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said. [...]

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said. [all emphasis mine]

This death clearly didn't need to happen. The article refers to the girl's condition as "a treatable form of diabetes." So while most people could go get some insulin treatment and live on, this girl had to suffer for a month and eventually die because of an ideology forced upon her by her parents.

So what of the parents who let this happen?

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

Well, look closer, chief. I know religion is a touchy subject and all, but now might be a good time to voice some criticism. I also understand the problems and complexities that come with government judging parents fit or unfit and the adverse effects on children or teens who are taken forcefully from their parents. But in this case - although a lose/lose situation - I can't imagine that the siblings could be any worse off in state custody than they would be with parents whose idea of treatment is prayer and/or subsequent resurrection.

It's stories like these that make me hope that I'm wrong, and that there really is a hell for such people.


UPDATE: FoxNews, where I originally found this article, now has a new version of the article posted. It's almost exactly the same. However, the new version does not include the mother's statement about resurrection and does not include the police chief's statement that the siblings are still in the home. Both versions are attributed to the AP. I don't know the reason for the revision, but it's interesting.

UPDATE 2: Both versions of the story are actually listed in the "Most Read" column of the FoxNews.com site.

Wear A Condom, Go To Hell

I'm a bit late (ok, two weeks late) in addressing this, but I've been recovering from a flu that I caught while recovering from tonsillitis.

Anyway, the Vatican decided that only seven deadly sins just didn't cut it anymore in this modern world, so they added some more. A taste of the new sins:

Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.

Subjective as hell, no doubt about it. And this is only the first paragraph of the article. Is the doctor who recently sold me pain killers a "drug pusher?" Are you "obscenely rich" if you own a building like this? Do all cows necessarily go to hell?

However, these first few paragraphs are really just textual masturbation (and don't even get the Vatican started on that), because I'm yet to even mention that part that pisses me off the most:

[The Catholic Church] holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes”, including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell”.

Murder, adultery, lust... same ol' shit... already covered by the commandments. Perjury... yeah, ok, if you insist. There are plenty of situations in which abortion is perfectly justified, but I will admit I'm personally uncomfortable morally with terminating a pregnancy for a parent's
convenience only, even though I think it's none of the government's or the Vatican's business.

But, contraception? No shit???

First of all, if the Vatican wants to take such an absolute stance against abortion under any circumstances, isn't it just plain counterproductive to oppose slipping on a condom? If abortion is murder unconditionally, wouldn't it make sense to encourage taking a daily pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that might otherwise lead to abortion? If you're going to insist that terminating a fetus or a zygote is the equivalent of slaying a human being, wouldn't you prefer letting some sperm cells die instead?

And while the Vatican is addressing the subject of new-age sins, what do they think of encouraging the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases? An organization that considers itself an authority on morality should definitely support the efforts consenting adults, or even consenting minors, in preventing diseases, neglected babies and, yes, unnecessary abortions.

I guess the rationale of the Catholic Church is similar to that of the Bush administration: your options are abstinence or abstinence. But it simply doesn't work that way, and both the Church and the administration should know better.

I guess the Catholic Church, in which I was raised, will just have to deal with my soul being eternally damned. If everyone who puts on a condom or takes a birth control pill is going to hell, I will have good company down there. For you other contraception users out there, call my hell-cell and we'll meet up for a few drinks or lines.

Revised Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines

A December decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission could possibly reduce the sentences of many inmates. The reason for the decision is to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

Judges could reduce sentences for nearly 20,000 inmates following the decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission -- an independent federal agency that advises all three branches of government on sentences. Advocates of the sentence reduction say it is only fair, but the Justice Department counters and says that the move will allow dangerous criminals back on the street.

The Justice Department is concerned "that so many people would be released all at once -- people who have shown that they are repeat offenders, and without the possibility of any kind of transition or re-entry program to bring them from prison back to the streets," Deborah Rhodes, an associate deputy attorney general, told CNN.

But lawyers and groups that have been pushing for the change in sentencing disagree. They say that most of these prisoners are not hardened criminals, and that judges will have to approve any reduction on a case-by-case basis and will not grant an early release to those considered dangerous.

Will the early release of inmates result in a spike in crime? I sure hope not, and it's quite possible that there will not be any distinguishable spike. But I'm not willing to make that claim with much certainty.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "lawyers and groups" noted above that most of the prisoners are not hardened or violent criminals. Many of them, however, will likely be craving a hit or two of crack. Considering that many have been serving multi-year to 22.5 year sentences for getting high or providing for others to get high, I can't honestly fault them for it.

As long as the government feels the need to keep drug prices at high black market levels, corrupt the supply chain, conduct dangerous raids, rely on shady informants and, yes, throw people in jail for years for getting high, then a minority of the released inmates will relapse into a life of crime - be it crime or "crime."

Of course, you can be sure that the DEA will seize any statistic they can find that indicates a related crime spike, and you can be sure that the media will run with it. Expect that. In fact, it's possible that some of these dire stats may even be true. But until any real, substantial progress is made on ending the war on drugs or even better, legalization, it is impossible to guarantee that some of the criminals will not again become dangerous.

The reduction in crack-cocaine vs. powder-cocaine sentencing disparity is a step in the right direction, but it is for sure a baby step. Let's hope that there will still be some positive lessons to learn from this, regardless.


UPDATE: Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation opposes making the new sentences retroactive. I don't buy the first half of the argument that the 100-1 sentencing disparity was justified to curb inner-city violence (my paraphrase of Stimson). But the second half of the argument makes some valid points, if you have a world view that takes the Drug War as a given and you refuse to consider legalization.

Huckabee Campaign Reduced To Selling Newspapers

The Dallas Morning News has endorsed Huckabee, mathematics be damned. Well guess what, DMN? Just like Jesus, Mike Huckabee loves you.

"The Dallas Morning News is probably the greatest newspaper in America," the GOP dark horse said today at a press conference in Houston, tongue planted firmly in cheek. "And everybody ought to get a lifetime subscription."

Yeah, he's telling another joke. But it's now more obvious than ever that Huck's entire campaign is, well... a joke.


Bonus Passage: So why exactly does the Dallas Morning News like Huckabee?

The world has changed since Ronald Reagan's election nearly 30 years ago, and the great man's political heirs will have to adjust the GOP's strategy and tactics to new realities.

To that end, Mr. Huckabee, 52, should be a top leader in tomorrow's Republican Party. His good-natured approach to politics – "I'm a conservative; I'm just not mad about it," as he likes to say – is quite appealing after years of scorched-earth tactics from both parties. He's a pragmatist more concerned with effective government than with bowing to ideological litmus tests. For example, he has proven himself willing to violate anti-tax dogma to undertake investment in infrastructure for the sake of long-term prosperity.

Mr. Huckabee also is good on the environment, contending that the future of the conservative movement depends on embracing conservation and stewardship of the natural world. And he's a compassionate conservative especially in tune with middle-class anxieties in a globalizing economy.

Translation: Limited government is dead, so we endorse Huckabee because he'd spend a lot of your money and restrict trade, but at the same time magically conjure up loaves and fishes for everyone.

John Hemminghaus, This Camel's For You

Earlier today, I found via Hit&Run an interesting debate on civil disobedience. Here's Arnold Kling arguing in favor. Here's Kenneth Silber taking him on. And here's Kling's "Re:Re:" Tonight, ironically, I found a story of a guy from my former home state testing the waters of this civil disobedience thing.

WEST FRANKFORT - A call from authorities hasn't halted one West Frankfort man's plans to host a peaceful protest against the state's recently implemented Smoke-Free laws.

John Hemminghaus has been passing out flyers and making phone calls to invite as many people as he can reach to a March 1 event he is calling a "Smoke In."

"This country was founded on civil disobedience," Hemminghaus said in a previous interview. "It has gotten to where, now, people are afraid to get into trouble. It kind of makes me mad that everybody has turned into cowards."

Monday afternoon, Hemminghaus said he was recently contacted by Williamson County State's Attorney Chuck Garnati in regards to his plans."

Chuck said I would be taken into custody and get a $2,500 fine," he said. "Nobody I know can find where anybody in Illinois has been arrested yet." [...] He said Garnati told him that law enforcement would be present at his event if he couldn't be talked out of hosting the rally.

So if Hemminghaus is correct, nobody has been arrested for violating the Illinois ban to date. But one guy tries to publicize his plans to exercise his property rights and organize some people, and the State's Attorney feels the need to whip it out and swing it around a bit.

As for fines and punishment he might face, Hemminghaus said he will skip vacation to spend his money on the cause he backs, even though he stopped smoking about five years ago.
[...]

Hemminghaus said others are also on his side, including several other non-smokers. The man is so determined to have his point heard he has posted a large sign in the front yard of his business, which reads "My Place, My Choice, Smoking Allowed."

Very nice. Although a southern Illinois dissenter isn't likely to make the headlines, I'll keep an eye out for what happens to the guy. I have a feeling that if he's fined $2,500, he won't have a problem getting donations to cover it, even in a sparsely-populated area of Illinois. Best wishes, John Hemminghaus.

My previous post on the Illinois smoking ban here.

It's Official: Google Will Do Anything Any Governing Body Tells It To

You'd think that a company as significant as Google could tell an organization as insignificant as the U.N. to go fuck itself. But, here we go again. Apparently, Google News has cut its links to a "scrappy little Web site" called the Inner City Press due to its frequent criticism of internal coruption in the U.N.

It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8:

"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."

As soon as he read it, Lee immediately suspected one thing: That someone at the UNDP had pressured Google into "de-listing" him from Google News — essentially preventing Inner City Press from being classified on Google News as a legitimate news source and from having its stories pop up when someone conducts a Google News search.

Over the last couple of years, Lee has proved to be a constant — and controversial — thorn in the U.N.'s side.

I've never read the Inner City Press. Nor had I heard of them before reading the FoxNews article. But the article goes on to describe the guy as a little off-the-wall (my paraphrase). Even if this is true, however, I can't imagine why Google would take such action without some pressure from someone or something with influence.

Illinois Smoking Ban

During my vacation trip back to the US last week, I went to Peoria, Illinois, to visit some college friends. It was also my first time back in IL since the state-wide smoking ban took effect. The ban was written in such a way that, basically, nobody understands what the fuck is going on. My attempt, via Google, to find out exactly what is the enforcement policy, was fruitless.

The Smoke Free Illinois Act is apparently more bark than bite at the moment.

The St. Clair County Health Department has decided not to issue tickets until the law is better defined. The Madison County Health Department, although not saying it won’t issue tickets, has not written any either.

Officials in both counties cite the need for the law to be better defined by either the Illinois Department of Public Heath or Illinois General Assembly, or the act itself written in a way that includes a more active means of enforcement. “At this point in time we are not issuing tickets. We are offering owners and managers the opportunity to do voluntary enforcement in order to follow the law,” said Barb Hohlt, director of health protection at the St. Clair County Health Department.

The bar owner from O'Fallon, Illinois, whom I talked to said that he is enforcing the ban... but basically because he isn't sure whether or not he can get fined for allowing people to smoke in his bar. And from what I've heard from friends, the bars in the cities and suburbs are enforcing the ban while the more rural bars (and there are plenty in Illinois) are ignoring the ban, for the most part.

In Peoria, Illinois, my college town, the ban was being enforced. And while I haven't been in Peoria often enough recently to be able to tell whether the smoking ban has affected bar business, the bar I went to downtown definitely was taking advantage of it. In the case of that particular bar, if you arrived at the bar before the cover charge went into effect and you went outside to smoke later on, they'd demand the cover charge on your way back in. Of course, the bar certainly has the right to do this on its own property, but it was frustrating for both the unsuspecting smokers and the staff member at the door.

So the ambiguities of the Illinois ban could result in either a breakdown of the ban or a tightening of the regulations. Unfortunately, I suspect it will be the latter. But I was glad to hear far more opposition to the ban in Illinois than I ever heard in my current home state of Washington.

Still, though, it looks pretty much certain that smoking will soon be banned everywhere in the US besides your own non-commercial property. Some towns are even closing in on that. So now I guess it's just a matter of when, not if.

2015? 2025?

Campaigning for Office vs. Serving in Office

Russ Roberts quotes Bush in a debate with Gore in 2000. Bush, evidently, sounded quite reserved about "nation buildling" at the time.

Some of the comments to the post claim that 9-11 changed everything, so Bush shouldn't be faulted for making such statements. But I'm still waiting for a solid Saddam/9-11 connection.

Jetlag

Ugh. I hate flying. The first flight barely made it out of Nagoya in heavy snow. After I finally got airborne at about 1:15pm Saturday, Japan time, I changed planes in Detriot and landed in St. Louis at about... 1:15pm Saturday. It's now Sunday, 4:15am CST, and I've been awake for about two hours.

Anyway, while visiting Nobody's Business tonight, I saw the new photo that Rogier has posted, and the first thing I thought was: Damn, that looks like Mitt Romney. I've never thought any of his other photos looked like Mitt Romney, but even now I think this one looks strikingly so. It's the one in the red shirt and scarf.

So does anyone agree with me or am I just fucking crazy and way too sober for late on a weekend night?

This Is What Wins Front-Runner Status In The GOP

How did John McCain spend Super Bowl Sunday? Speaking at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, of course:

FAIRFIELD - John McCain cast himself Sunday as heir to Ronald Reagan on domestic spending and a strict-constructionist on judicial nominations, messages intended to reassure conservatives less than 48 hours before the Super Tuesday primaries.
[...]

But he also focused on burnishing his credentials as a fiscal hawk, decrying what he called $35 billion in pork-barrel spending signed into law over the past two years by President Bush.

Who did McCain choose to have at his side while delivering his "fiscal hawk" message? Who else: CT Rep. Chris Shays and Sen. Joe Lieberman. As David Boaz notes, Lieberman is no conservative, fiscal or otherwise. Besides hawkishness and age, there's basically nothing Lieberman and McCain have in common. And Shays? Well, his wealthy CT district was a well-represented part of the 2008 additions to the DHS "Terror Risk" list. Each of the three CT cities added to the DHS list this year have some zip codes in Shays's district. And while it's true that the list is actually released by the executive branch, it's not farfetched to believe that Shays may have had some influence. He also serves on the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Was he any more credible regarding judicial nominations? Hard to tell... he didn't really say much:

"I am proud to have been part of a team that got Justice Roberts and Justice Alito appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court," McCain said. "I will appoint judges that strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislate from the bench."

CNN correspondent Dana Bash recently commented on TV that the quote from McCain was "essentially code" to appeal to conservatives. She's right in that it was a pander to conservatives... "strict-constructionist" and "not legislate from the bench" are classic GOP pandering lines. But it's not at all "code." Code, by definition, is that in which "symbols are assigned definite meanings." But there is no definite meaning here. Normal politics, absolutely. Bullshit pandering, you bet. But for fuck's sake, how about some clarification:

* What do you mean by "strict-constructionist?" Is this just a way to say "pro-life only" without saying "pro-life only?" Or do you mean "strict-constitutionalist?"

* Name three examples of "legislating from the bench." Explain how those decisions contradict the constitution. Next, explain how the constitution allows the federal government to prohibit or regulate abortion.

To be fair, I never hear any serious candidate answer these questions, not just McCain. But the point is that this guy has no idea what he will do if he is elected president, except stay in Iraq indefinitely. While McCain may be a fiscal conservative in some ways, he's obviously not a principled fiscal conservative. In other words, I cannot be confident in McCain to take the right side of any fiscal issue that may become the new hot button issue over the course of a 4 year presidency. If he wins, he might as well just flip a coin to choose his position on each new issue.

More Cities Within Which You Should Be Afraid

This year, the Department of Homeland Security has increased the number of areas considered "at risk" of a terrorist attack by one third. The perk of being on the list is that the areas are then eligible to compete for $782 million in grant money from the federal government (i.e. from your paycheck). So who made the list this year?

For instance, Albany, N.Y., was put back on the list this year after being dropped in 2003.

Other regions added to the list this year are: Rochester, N.Y.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Austin and Round Rock, Texas; Baton Rouge, La.; Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk, Conn.; the Hartford, Conn., region; Louisville and Jefferson County in Kentucky and an adjoining area in Indiana; Nashville, Davidson County and Murfreesboro, Tenn.; Richmond, Va.; Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario, Calif.; Salt Lake City; San Juan, Caguas and Guaynabo, Puerto Rico; and Toledo, Ohio.

Ten bucks says Osama bin Laden has never heard of Round Rock, TX.

Hiroshima Photos

This week, I found out I will be moving back to Nagoya from Hiroshima at the end of February. I could have sworn that about three months ago I promised you photos from Hiroshima. But my memory is shit, so who knows.

Anyway, here you go. I'm not much of a photographer, and I haven't taken nearly as many pictures as I should have in such a historic city. Regardless, I've captured some neat stuff the few times I've remembered to take my camera along with me.

Side note: Two of the pictures are from Nagoya, not Hiroshima. They're labeled accordingly.

Dumb Celebrity Quote

HT to TheAgitator for the link to the article. The quote:

"My favorite thing about Bhutan is they measure their country's wealth, not based on dollar amount but on gross national happines," [actress Cameron] Diaz said.

That's "GNH" for you less 3rd-world-happiness-savvy readers. The full context is here. From elsewhere in the same article:

Bhutan, a country that received particular praise from Diaz for its environmental policies, has one of the highest infant mortality rates (103 infant deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancies (54 years) in the world.

True, this doesn't necessarily correlate with happiness. But it's enough to make me (and I assume Diaz, too) hesitate to pack my bags and move for the sake of the clean air.

At the bottom of that article's page, there was a link to this one. The title: "Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity." Yes, it's every bit as bad as it sounds. I can't do it justice by pulling a clip, so check out the whole thing (it's short).

Kickbacks For Cash Flow

Sure, the Japanese prime minister could easily afford his own iPod, but this just seems tacky:

Rock star Bono bowed deeply and gave Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda an iPod at the start of a meeting Saturday to try to get more Japanese support for the fight against poverty in Africa.

The gift broke the ice as Fukuda sat down with Bono, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other major supporters of more aid for Africa.

Again, it's a pretty trivial gift. But still, Jesus Christ, try to follow the rationale here... The gift is to get the Japanese PM to pledge more "Japanese support." That makes it sound like Fukuda-san would just whip out his wallet and hand the poor people of Africa $1000-Yen per person.

But Bono's not interested in Fukuda's money. He's interested in the Japanese taxpayers' money. To make it sound like anything else is underhanded bullshit. Although I don't believe it's a Japanese taxpayer's moral responsibility to give money to the poor in Africa, that's not the point. If any citizen of Japan wishes to send money to Africa via any medium available, he or she is free to do so.

What is disgraceful here is that Bono has the balls to hand the prime minister of Japan anything; be it an iPod, a Pepsi from the vending machine, or a slap on the ass; and expect the prime minister to be more likely to pledge the hard-earned yen of his taxpayers towards Bono's pet cause.

Bono, seriously... I don't want the people of Africa to be poor any more than you do. But can you at least be straightforward about what you're proposing? I'd have so much more respect for you if you'd just say, "I think every person in the world should be forced by his or her government to give $100 per year to the poor people of Africa" than this lobbying of government officials to get them to spend taxpayer money per your demands.

George Will on the Economy

In his latest Newsweek column, George Will has one of the best takes I've read to date on the economy and the inevitable stimulus package. I can't do the article justice by quoting a paragraph or two, so I recommend the whole thing.

From Will's article from the November 19th issue of Newsweek, the hard copy of which I just received last weekend due to the administrative cluster fuck involved in forwarding my mail to Japan, comes this great quote:

Everyone should remember the witticism that the stock market has predicted nine of the last three recessions.

Besides George Will and John Tierney, can anyone think of any other MSM columnists you'd recommend to a libertarian? I'm sure there are one or two more who I just can't think of right now or maybe have never even heard of.

Added: I later remembered PJ O'Rourke, who I guess can still be considered MSM.

Dear Bush, Bernanke and Congress,

I have heard the news that you plan to release an economic stimulus package that entails giving each American taxpayer a lump sum payment of, tentatively, $800 per person.

Therefore, I feel compelled to disclose that I plan to spend my "stimulus" payment primarily on marijuana, with the remainder going towards a beer chaser and cigarettes. Likely there are many Americans, young and old, who plan to spend their checks in a similar manner.

I hope you realize that your policies on drugs, alcohol and tobacco will mostly likely prevent such expenditures from stimulating the economy whatsoever. For instance, the marijuana I plan to buy is inflated in cost due to the risks involved in growing, transporting and selling it in the black market. So instead of my "rebate" being injected back into the economy, most of it will end up in the pockets of various levels of dealers who don't pay taxes on drug income, likely don't invest in the market, and will probably spend the money in a way of which you wouldn't approve.

The remainder, which I will spend on beer and cigarettes, will indeed go into the economy. But since these industries are taxed so heavily in the name of "public health," you'll probably be taking back a good chuck of this sum anyway. If the money is - at least in part - going right back into your hands regardless, then why bother with the lump sum payout to me in the first place?

I realize that my economic rationale in this letter may not be flawless. But I do sincerely believe that it's better than all of yours. I have been waiting, but so far left wanting, for an explanation of exactly how sending just a small part of the taxes we pay back to us is going to stimulate the economy at all. Please feel free to explain your rationale in the comments section of this post.

Sincerely,
Nate

Bitter Debate Hurts Obama More Than Clinton

I'm sure everyone who's reading this has already heard about all the Clinton vs. Obama bickering at the SC debate and afterwards, but I'll link to the CNN story anyway. And here's a video clip.

As someone who may (reluctantly) vote Obama for president but would not vote for Hillary, I think Obama needs to tone it down. This type of bickering from Hillary isn't much of a surprise to me, and I'm guessing it wouldn't come as a surprise to most. Obama, on the other hand, is (or at least was) banking on his more honest and friendly image.

If not for personality differences, what exactly is left to distinguish between Obama and Clinton? Except for non-binding versus binding universal health insurance mandates, I can't think of any solid difference. If Obama wants to defeat Hillary based on the friendly, new-guy-to-Washington image, then he needs to stop sounding so much like a seasoned politician.

ACLU Gets It Right... But Could Say It Better

My knowledge of law and legal precedent is slim, but this rationale from the ACLU in support of Larry Craig (which is allegedly based on Supreme Court precedent) sounds fishy:

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

Even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, the ACLU argued, his actions would not be illegal.

I know a little more about sex than law, although not much more, unless the single-participant type counts. Practically, however, I find it hard to fathom that it's possible to expect privacy when having sex in a public bathroom. I guess it's possible in some cases, but considering the two or more sets of feet beneath the divider and the potential for noises not related to relieving oneself, I find it hard to believe that such sex would go unnoticed.

That said, I agree with the last sentence of the above quote, although I suspect it's for a different reason. I view it as entrapment that a police officer is allowed to cocktease in a public restroom with the intent of making an arrest, much like I view officers dressing as prostitutes and hitting the streets as entrapment. What gives the police the authority to set up such a sting for voluntary behavior?

Even if we assume that sex in a public restroom should be a criminal offense (which I do not necessarily believe), how could the police prove that the signals indicate an intent to have sex in that restroom? How can they prove that the foot tapper doesn't instead intend to exchange phone numbers and meet up for sex in private?

It's possible there could be some grounds for civil action between two non-police parties, but that sounds like something more complex than I'm capable or willing to address.

If anyone can provide more details about the Supreme Court precedent in the comments, I'd appreciate it. I did some quick Google and ACLU.org searches but came up empty handed.

Is Cloned Meat Immoral? Let The Market Answer

The FDA will apparently soon report that cloned meat is safe to eat and contains the same or similar levels of vitamins and other goodies as conventionally bred animals. Ron Bailey has reported on this issue for a while and has always suspected as much. After all, besides the "eww gross" factor and sanctity of life arguments against cloning, there has never really been any scientific reason to believe that cloned food would be any different nutritionally.

Today CNN has of course reported the FDA results, but - I guess for the sake of "balance" - still seems to dwell on the questions of morality and "grossness." However, I am yet to hear any scientific or safety objection to cloned meat.

If it's safe, there's no reason the meat shouldn't go on the market as soon as it's available and profitable. For those who are freaked out by the whole idea of eating a clone, don't eat it. For those who think that the cloned meat industries will be infringing on God's turf, don't patronize them.

That said, this is the one sentence of Bailey's post that I found surprising:

The FDA may allow food produers [sic] to label their products as deriving from non-clones.

May allow? Why the hell wouldn't they allow it? And what gives the FDA the authority to prevent such labeling, anyway? It seems like voluntary labeling is the only option besides either banning cloned meat outright or not letting people know where the fuck their steaks come from.

I'm with Bailey: I'm ready to grill up a cloned-beef steak when available. I bet it will taste a lot like... steak.

Ron Paul As President vs. Ron Paul As Person

I was going to write a post on the importance of distinguishing Ron Paul as a person and Ron Paul as president, but then I found this Samizdata post in which Perry de Havilland says almost exactly what I was going to say, but far more eloquently.

In response to David Boaz's (pretty good) post at Cato@Liberty that mentions how Paul has "slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government," here are the money paragraphs from de Havilland:

Please, gentlemen, take a deep breath. I realise racism is the cardinal sin of our time and that it carries the automatic penalty of public abomination and auto da fe, followed by burning at the stake (it even gets you banned from commenting at Samizdata, although probably not for the reasons most people think), but the notion that the cause of liberty is inextricably tied up with Ron Paul's campaign is excessive hyperventilating, both from Ron Paul's supporters and his detractors.

I never felt he was the dream candidate, just the only one serious about shrinking the size of the state and frankly if he wanted to do that in order to preserve the purity of his precious bodily fluids rather than to increase the general sum of liberty, well so be it, just so long as he really is serious about shrinking the state.

Most of the quotes from the Paul newsletter really are indefensible (some are defensible), but I won't get into that since they have been covered and covered again since the TNR article. What is obvious is that Ron Paul's character has been tarnished.

The point is that I still believe, despite his character and how important his character may be to voters, that Ron Paul as president would understand the limitations of his presidential powers as delimited by the Constitution. And most, if not all, of the other candidates would not.

Not only because of the newsletter controversy but also because of the recent elections, Paul's hopes for president are now none (as opposed to slim-to-none before). This may very well be my last post about Ron Paul. But goddamn, the remainder of the field is depressing.

As far as the claim that Paul has tarnished libertarianism goes, I don't buy it. After all, libertarianism hasn't really been drawing the masses recently. Is there really that much to tarnish? Although each person at both Cato and Reason is a far more "solid libertarian" than Ron Paul, let's face it, Paul has reached more people. And if a few of those people were intrigued enough to look into libertarianism further (like I was about 4 years ago, thanks to Radley Balko's FoxNews articles), perhaps they will discover the ideals for the sake of the ideals, not for the sake of the candidate.

Ron Paul deserves the criticism he has brought upon himself. But I believe that libertarianism in general has been helped by his campaign, not hurt. Those who have been drawn to libertarian ideals thanks to Paul's campaign will - and must, if the libertarian movement is to become significant - understand individual liberty as an ideal in and of itself and look past the quirkiness of Ron Paul as an individual.

Weekend Links

* Man sues the Yankees for "fraud" based on the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. The amount he's suing for? $221. I think I've spent that on beer at a baseball game before. If I was going to sue the not-so-strapped-for-cash Yankees, I'd go for at least 8 digits. By the way, good luck proving that case.

* In Pennsylvania, a man was charged with disorderly conduct for writing "fuck" on the memo line of a check used to pay a parking ticket fine. The article claims the charges were filed because the comment was obscene. And, upon the charges being dropped, the police chief is quoted as saying "He was contrite enough to offer an apology, and I think that satisfies the people who were insulted by it". Is insulting someone grounds for a lawsuit? The article doesn't say. The Bill of Rights does.

* Dog damn nearly gets hit by lightning.

* One more reason to love YouTube: Amateur blues guitar.

Elitist Bullshit At Its Finest

An Indian automotive company has developed a car that not only gets 50 miles per gallon, but sells for roughly $2500 new. Goddamn, this is great news for both the Indian people and the environment, right? Well, maybe not:

While the price has created a buzz, critics say the Nano could lead to possibly millions more automobiles hitting already clogged Indian roads, adding to mounting air and noise pollution problems. Others have said Tata will have to sacrifice quality and safety standards to meet the target price.

[...]

Chief U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize, said last month that "I am having nightmares" about the prospect of the low-cost car.

If you oppose Indians driving a compact car that gets fifty miles to the gallon, I guess that means you oppose Indians driving anything at all. After all, what would be the better option? I guess you think the current state of India is preferable to one in which the common person or family can afford a car, right?

I wonder how Dr. Pachauri gets around as a U.N. scientist. Does he walk on water to get to Belgium? Assuming he obeys the laws of physics and takes an airplane (or even a boat), why does he think he deserves fast and efficient transportation while the common Indian shouldn't even have a fuel-efficient compact car?

I suppose that overcrowding on the roads could be a concern. But if millions of Indians are suddenly able to afford this car, then wouldn't that suggest that there's a market for new roads also? I guess not if you operate under the meta-context that requires that the government and only the government to provide roads.

Dr. Pachauri should be ashamed of himself for spewing this garbage. That cushy U.N. job must really be getting to his head.

Good News For [Censored], Bad News For The [Censored]

Not fair! Why should my life-altering decision have consequences? So say some pregnant high school students from Denver:

Teen mothers-to-be attending a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks maternity leave, saying they don't want to be penalized for absences while healing and bonding with their new babies, The Denver Post reports.

The current policy at East High School requires new mothers to return to school the day after they are discharged from the hospital or be penalized for unexcused absences, the paper said.

Next, the article gives Head ['s opinion]:

"My initial reaction is if we are punishing girls like that, that is unacceptable," Nicole Head, one of the counselors who brought the matter to the school board last month, told The Post. "We've got to do something."

Punishing? Are you kidding me? Listen, I'm all for a new mother taking some time off work or school to care for the newborn. But calling it "punishment" just because there are negative consequences is fucking insane. What about the other students who practice safe sex or abstinence and still have to attend class every day and do homework every night? As if the current structure of the welfare state doesn't encourage teen pregnancy enough already, now new teen mothers might also get a month off school with no strings attached? Unbelievable...

In addition, this is yet one more issue that could be a non-issue were it not for the government monopoly on schools and the complete lack of consumer choice. The last sentence of the article states that the Denver Public Schools do not have a set policy for student maternity leave, and it's up to the individual schools. Therefore it's possible that some public schools in the Denver area have policies more friendly to new moms. If students or parents had any choice in education, the mothers could simply choose a different school. (Given the high costs involved with having a baby, the private school option will not be feasible in many cases.)

Even so, I find it extremely unfair to more responsible high school students for mothers to get time off school with no consequences.

Story here.

Damn, I Feel Bad For These Poor Kids

CNN's Nancy Grace gave birth to twins.

I can only imagine what it would be like to have Nancy Grace as a mom. And frankly, I don't even want to think about it.

I think TtP should start a fund for these poor kids to ensure that as teens they will have all the drugs they need to put up with mom's shit.

Multiple videos of Grace being a huge bitch on national TV here.