Month: October 2005

I’ll laugh at these posts if I go to law school

I haven’t changed my mind about Harriet Miers being unqualified for the Supreme Court, and I think some of the ridicule she’s getting for her clarity of writing is on target, but some aspects of two 1990s speeches reported in today’s Washington Post don’t seem unreasonable to me. Consider:

“My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue,” she said.

At a speech later that summer titled “Women and Courage,” Miers went further. Citing statistics that showed Texas’s relatively high poverty rates, Miers said the public should not blame judges when courts step in to solve such problems.

“Allowing conditions to exist so long and get so bad that resort to the courts is the only answer has not served our state well,” she said. “Politicians who would cry ‘The courts made me do it’ or ‘I did not do that — the courts did’ should not be tolerated.”

Is that simplistic, as this indicates? Perhaps, but I think there’s a fundamental truth to what she said. I have no idea if she still believes it (or even believed it then), but it’s a reasonable point. I do agree with this post’s clarification, though.

The argument [Miers] makes is that the courts can’t be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it’s hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative “failure to act,” b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature’s failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact.

I’m sure a legal scholar (i.e. not Ms. Miers) could posit a useful explanation of how to apply that in a consistent, reasonable manner, but I suspect it’s simply based a) rights being trampled, b) rights being trampled, or c) understanding that the experimentation of federalism has worked for more than two centuries, with the Republic still standing. Or cases will work through the court system as they now do. I don’t claim to be an expert.

The perfect example is same-sex marriage. Any number of issues could apply, of course, but this is the most recent, most obvious example. Essentially, state legislatures and Congress should be in front on the issue, removing DOMA nonsense and removing barriers to civil recognition of marriage for all. They’re not, which means the courts will do it. Not because they’re activist but because it’s obvious that it should and will happen under our Constitution. When elected leaders refuse to remove barriers to liberty, courts are one of the remaining options. The question of judicial involvement as activism is useful prevalent, but no one should be surprised when it’s used.

November 2006 will not be pleasant

This editorial is a few days old, but it’s still timely since it concerns the upcoming election in Virginia. Consider:

… the election is between Kaine and Kilgore, and the most important national implications of November’s voting will grow from issues — in particular, the death penalty and sprawl — that the two men are raising themselves.

If Kilgore wins on the basis of a truly scandalous series of advertisements about the death penalty, it will encourage Republicans all over the country to pull a stained and tattered battle flag out of the closet.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic who opposes the death penalty. “My faith teaches life is sacred,” he says. “I personally oppose the death penalty.” I cheer Kaine for being one of the few politicians with the guts to say this the way he does. It’s disturbing that faith-based political stands that don’t point in a conservative direction rarely inspire the church-based political activism that, say, abortion, arouses. Maybe some of the churches will examine their consciences.

But Virginia has a death penalty on the books, so Kaine says plainly: “I take my oath of office seriously, and I’ll enforce the death penalty.”

That’s not good enough for Kilgore. You have to read much of the ad he ran on this issue to believe it. In the commercial, Stanley Rosenbluth, whose son Richard and daughter-in-law Becky were murdered, declares:

“Mark Sheppard shot Richard twice and went over and shot Becky two more times. Tim Kaine voluntarily represented the person who murdered my son. He stood with murderers in trying to get them off death row. No matter how heinous the crime, he doesn’t believe that death is a punishment. Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty. This was the worst mass murderer in modern times. . . . I don’t trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty, and I say that as a father who’s had a son murdered.”

Having seen the ads, that’s an accurate recap. And they’re every bit as disgusting as one can imagine. No reasonable person wants to embrace a murderer and excuse his actions. Mr. Kaine is not doing that, as evidenced by his response. He made a particular statement that he’s personally opposed to the death penalty, but he would uphold the law if elected. How complicated is that? Do we want our politicians embracing only what the political winds bring? Do reasoned principles account for nothing?

Personally, I agree with Mr. Kaine on this. The death penalty is wrong. It’s absurd that Virginians are so adamantly in favor of executing people. It often borders on a blood thirst. (If I’m not mistaken, we’re second only to Texas – by a wide margin – since the death penalty became legal again.) That does not change my belief that the death penalty is uncivilized. It’s the mark of a society interested in revenge rather than justice. Much like the current presidential defense of torture, I can’t fathom how a party based so heavily on the teachings of Jesus could ever come to the conclusion that execution is justifiable. (Kaine is a Democrat, Kilgore a Republican.)

For what, safety? We lock inmates away on death row now, with few escapes. Is it not possible to continue designing improved prison systems in which society is protected? I’m not sure who will advocate that death row inmates lead particularly fulfilling lives in their cells. Like most people, I don’t care about them, so keep the conditions. That’s the bargain for violating the most sacred right guaranteed within society. But taking that final step to execution only tarnishes the society, without providing added benefit. It’s the real culture of death.

Yet, that’s not the most disturbing aspect of this political smear campaign. Mr. Kilgore is the Attorney General of Virginia. He should understand the most basic function of what Mr. Kaine did as a defense attorney.

Representing death row inmates is unpopular but essential because it allows the justice system to work — and that includes finding guilty people guilty. Challenging prosecutors to make sure the wrong people aren’t executed can actually be a service to crime victims. No one wants an innocent person put to death so the guilty party can remain at large to kill again.

For Mr. Kilgore to allow his campaign to devalue that necessary function in a cheap attempt to win the governorship shows quite effectively that he does not have a sufficient respect for the American legal system or the citizens it protects. I don’t know that I’ll vote for Tim Kaine next month, but I know I won’t vote for Jerry Kilgore. If a pollster asks me why I voted against Mr. Kilgore, I’ll tell her I based my decision on morals.

I’ll pay for pregnancy insurance when I grow a uterus.

I’ve made a specific argument in my entries and comments about tax reform, but George Will described a perfect example of what I’ve written on the subject. Consider:

General Motors took an interesting turn on Monday. It is going back into the automobile business.

Granted, GM has always been in that industry, but it has also become the nation’s largest private purchaser of health care. This supposedly secondary role has become primary.

GM has been forced to allow product development, pricing and other decisions to be driven by the need to keep sufficient revenue flowing in so it can flow out in fulfillment of GM’s function as a welfare state. GM provides $5.2 billion in health care annually — more than Harley-Davidson’s revenue — to 1.1 million workers, retirees and dependents. Retirees outnumber current U.S. employees 2.5 to 1. The $4 billion that goes annually to retirees does not go into developing products people want to buy.

Concessions by the United Auto Workers will provide GM with annual savings of $1 billion in health care costs. But GM’s hourly workers, who pay no health care deductibles and only nominal co-payments, will still enjoy coverage better than most Americans have. Since 2000, the percentage of American businesses offering any health insurance to workers has declined from 69 to 60.

It makes no sense for GM or any other company to offer healthcare. It’s not the primary business, siphoning funds that should be spent growing the business through innovation and/or offering employees higher salaries. I’d contend that most, if not all should go to the employees. It’s part of their compensation, even if part of the expense is overhead. That’s overhead the company wouldn’t encounter if it didn’t offer health insurance. Human Resources is certainly designed to research and purchase insurance competitively, but where are the decisions on what individuals as individuals need (not part of the collective group of workers) best made, the fifth floor conference room or the family dining room? And what of the worker whose spouse’s company offers better health insurance? The worker loses that compensation from his own company because that portion of his compensation is non-monetary and must come in the form of health insurance or not at all. That’s not smart. Better to offer the compensation directly and let the employee decide what best suits his needs.

Mr. Will concludes:

Herb Stein, the University of Chicago economist who served as chairman of President Richard Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisers, famously said: If something cannot go on forever, it won’t. Delphi’s resort to bankruptcy and GM’s attempt, with the cooperation of the UAW, to avoid, for now, doing that, suggest that America’s welfare state — its private sector as well as its public-sector components — is reaching its Herb Stein Moment.

Let’s hope. Ultimately, a structure of competitive health insurance could replace this nonsense. Self-employed people somehow find health insurance without the benefit of employer funding and management. It’s logical to conclude that it would work when implemented on a larger scale, with insurance becoming just another product people purchase. I secured life and disability insurance policies on my own, as well. It’s funny how capitalism works to satisfy a need where it exists. Employer-provided health insurance subverts this process. Tax reform may not be 100% of the solution, but tax nonsense created the problem. It shouldn’t perpetuate it.

My analysis also applies to the 2005 NFC East

The Bowl Championship Series rankings provided a nice shock to the college football world yesterday. I didn’t notice it until late in the day because I already assumed correctly that Virginia Tech would be third in the rankings, as we were last week. Since there are five weeks left in the season, it’s late but still too early to worry too much about the final rankings. The system may be flawed as many are reasonably arguing. I believe college football should figure out a playoff system and let the championship be decided on the field. I’m not in the minority on that, but I don’t control the millions of dollars involved in the current Bowl system. It’ll be around for awhile.

Because the rankings are what they are, they provide sports journalists the opportunity to write about the minutiae as if it mattered in October. Michael Wilbon, who I really like as a writer, discusses the latest rankings in his column today. I disagree with his analysis, but only because it’s a fundamental flaw everyone is making. In analyzing the USC/Texas conundrum brought about by the BCS, Mr. Wilbon highlights a point, that if put into another context (as I’m going to do), we’d laugh at the absurdity. Somehow we accept it in sports. Consider:

Texas shouldn’t be first in the BCS ratings. No one should be ahead of Southern Cal. The Trojans are two-time national champs. They’ve won 29 straight and counting. While Texas beat one ranked opponent on the road in the Buckeyes, USC defeated then-ranked Arizona State in Tempe and Notre Dame in South Bend. Excuse me, but nothing on Texas’s rsum matches winning at Notre Dame. And while Young can carry a team, he’s not as impressive as reigning Heisman winner Matt Leinart, all-American Reggie Bush and all-American candidate LenDale White.
…

The point is, any system that makes it possible, no matter how remotely, that an undefeated Southern Cal team could be left out of the Rose Bowl is too stupid to live with. People (mostly college presidents) who defend this system and argue against a playoff shouldn’t be able to wake up with a clear conscience.

I agree that USC’s consecutive wins streak (29, I think) is impressive. I’m even willing to ignore the last-second, come-from-behind win they had against Notre Dame two weekends ago, winning because the officials blew two calls in USC’s favor in the last three seconds of the game. (I will not, however, ignore the crap officiating that cost the Hokies a chance to beat the Trojans in last season’s kickoff game at FedEx Field Jack Kent Cooke Stadium. No, I will never ignore that.) USC is a great team on a tremendous run.

But there is a flaw in Mr. Wilbon’s logic, as I said. If this weren’t college football, but auto manufacturing instead, we’d never accept the idea that past years are as important in determining the best cars in the current model year. Just because USC has won the last two championships doesn’t mean this year’s team should face an easier judgment. The humans voting in the AP and USA Today polls are certainly capable of arriving at different conclusions but it should be based on this year’s teams. If the voters believe Vince Young and Texas would out duel Matt Leinart and USC, they should vote Texas #1. Even the computers will compare them based on what happened on the field this season. The problem is, the BCS uses the artificial measures of human voting and computer data models to judge what can’t easily be judged without an on-the-field matchup. Subjective analysis is inevitable, but it shouldn’t be applied haphazardly in a way that compounds the artificial mess that is the BCS. Seniority, which is what voting based on the winning streak constitutes, is no match for merit, which is what Saturdays are for in the college football world. Maybe those measures will come up with the right answer, maybe not. Without a playoff system, it’s mostly speculation. But those measures should only consider what’s happening this season.

I’ll defend that into January if the Hokies face either USC or Texas in the Rose Bowl for the National Championship.

This question would’ve ruined The Cannonball Run

Someone clicked on my site today following an interesting link: should cars go only 65 miles per hour.

This, I think, exemplifies the difference in political ideologies better than nearly anything else I can think of. The most obvious question would seek to uncover whether a speed limit is necessary, and if so, what it should be. Anyone who drives understands that speed limits are necessary, so the first part becomes intellectual more than anything. That leaves the second part for consideration. One could reasonably argue that 65 is too low, as evidenced by most traffic on our highways, but it’s what we have right now as a general consensus in America. We’re left with enforcement, which is what my visitor wanted to explore. Anyone wish to disagree that it’s decidedly Liberal to ask the question as the visitor phrased it?

As I’ve explored politics and begun to think about a broader range of topics, I’ve set out to construct stronger critical thinking skills through which I may process new issues. Rather than wait for partisan talking points, I can come to my own conclusion. That requires asking questions, and asking them correctly. For example, I used to believe that smoking bans were wonderful. I hate smoking, I hate second-hand smoke, and I hate smelling and feeling like an ashtray whenever I’ve been around smoking. With a smoking ban, I would be able to go to bars and hang out with my friends. Since I don’t drink, the atmosphere has to sell the bar to me as a customer and clean air is successful in that effort. That made smoking bans enjoyable for me. The net positive effect on me was “good”.

But now I think a bit differently. I imagine the issue within a larger framework, built with only three walls instead of four so that I may look out and see how it affects society. I have rights, but so do others. Sure I like the benefits of not being around smoking, but there was always a flaw in my analysis. I hate bars, too. I don’t like being around drunk people. (Hell, I don’t really like being around people.) What legitimate benefit would I get from a smoking ban, protecting me from a harm that I can avoid without government intervention? More importantly, how does an outright ban impact other people who do enjoy smoking and bars that allow smoking? Businesses are privately-owned, since the owner either owns or controls the property. He should be able to dictate what people may do within the confines of his establishment. Government has no right to step in and protect the patrons who frequent the bar by choice just because I view their behavior as stupidity. If enough people don’t like smoky bars, the loss of business will force the owner to change. Either that, or someone else will act on the opportunity to open a non-smoking bar. Capitalism is grand that way.

Back to the original example, I would never ask if cars should go only 65 miles per hour. I suspect that visitor could support government regulation to force cars to accelerate to no faster than 65 miles per hour. Speeding would stop overnight. Such a ban would benefit society all around, but only if we ignore the simple fact that speed and recklessness are not directly correlated (an observational statement rather than scientific, but I don’t suspect many will disagree). Again, watch the highways and see that the majority of traffic flows at anywhere between 70 and 80 miles per hour (or more) with few accidents.

How a person phrases her question will impact the conclusion. Ask wisely.

Propaganda will broadcast in digital

Following up on yesterday’s post, here is further proof that Senator Ted Stevens is a hack. When his shameful subsidy bill passed the Senate Commerce Committee (19-3!), the bad senator offered this stupid comment:

“We take the position that, if we’re mandating this conversion, we cannot leave people behind,” said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the committee chairman.

Maybe you shouldn’t be mandating this conversion. And being without a television isn’t like being without food, shelter, or an education. The kids will survive.

The House passed a separate bill, but before we think they’re any better for authorizing only $1 billion, consider what representatives consider wise:

Like the Senate bill, the House measure would subsidize $40 per converter box. It would cover up to two boxes per household.

Some House Republicans had said they wanted to subsidize boxes for low-income consumers only. Democrats, though, said it would be a nightmare to carry out such an income test.

To limit costs, the House bill would force consumers to request subsidy coupons from the government. But Democrats have complained that few people would seek a subsidy if it’s a hassle.

Seriously, these are the brightest people we can elect? Two televisions? I guess it’s too much of an impact on the American lifestyle to watch one television.

My MacGyver theory of government

Mr. Doughnut here. When I wrote Wednesday’s flat tax post, I mistakenly thought that point # 5 was obviously ridiculous. I misunderestimated that point. “The rich benefit more from government than the poor, so the rich should pay more for those services” is buried deep, and probably latched on like a parasite, in many minds. Since it’s not, I’ll address it here. I think it’ll be more efficient for me to reply to this comment directly rather than starting from the beginning. Consider:

I guess a snarky answer comes in handy when one doesn’t have a logical one. Is the notion that poor people are getting all those big welfare checks, while rich people are out there making money with no help from anyone? Get real. Clearly the rich benefit more from our stable system than the poor do. They (or at least, some of them) also make the system possible, which is why we’re talking about taxing them a couple of percentage points higher, rather than confiscating all their money.

I was aiming for exasperation more than snark, but where I may have failed in that, it was not from a lack of logic. I don’t think the poor are getting big welfare checks and I don’t think rich people are making money with no help. But that still doesn’t mean the rich benefit more from our centrally planned stable system. And how is what amounts to little more than a use tax justified as a rational, progressive income tax? I don’t buy that argument, but if I did, I wouldn’t support it that way. But on to the logical answer, devoid of snark.

Anyone who’s paying attention to what I’m writing about the flat tax should understand that I also support governmental reform. It’s why I so thoroughly reject the revenue-neutral nonsense bantered about in this discussion. There are things the federal government does now that it shouldn’t do. While tasked with perpetuating the public good, we’ve somehow managed to include every crumb of American life as part of the national sphere. Our kids need education? The federal government can help. Our kids need a drug-free life? The federal government can help. Our kids need digital television? The federal government can help. But how? How is the government helping when kids still fail out of school, kids still do drugs, and kids will watch television, whether it’s digital or analog? We’ve migrated local and state tasks to the federal government, in a long-building abandonment of federalism. Now that it’s virtually complete, rather than admit our mistakes and fix the system, we perpetuate the notion that the rich get the most from the nanny state. Even if that’s true, the system is flawed.

But what should the government do? That’s the important question, and one which the commenter seems to almost get at. Consider:

I make a great living in the securities industry, for example. If it were not for government regulation of the securities markets, there would be no public trust in the markets and thus no money-making opportunities. Not to mention that our entire financial system relies upon government backing of our currency. Not to mention that our government negotiates trade arrangements with foreign countries that make our industries possible in innumerable ways.

Securities industry regulation is a viable public good, but who benefits? Just Wall Street people? Corporate CEOs? Doesn’t the public trust in the markets extend down as far into society as individuals wishs to take it? Consider the poor who won’t trust even their neighborhood bank, choosing to store their life’s savings in cash hidden in their house. Do they not have to pay for the public trust built into the securities industry by government regulation? Do those individuals have an external, rich vs. poor barrier that excludes them from participation, a barrier that is not in their mind? Of course not. If I buy a gym membership and never use it, do I get a refund or a discount?

I’ve read arguments that police protect more wealth and assets for the rich, so the rich should pay more. Carrying the idea further, the military could be said to do the same. Both police and military are a public good, for which everyone should pay, but is there a reasonable truth in the rich/poor divide on this? Of course not. As much as security forces protect wealth and assets, they protect the ability to earn and accumulate wealth and assets. It’s not tangible, but it’s a legitimate function. If I have to call the police because my house gets burglarized, do I get a refund? As much as securities regulation builds trust, security builds trust in the system. Anyone, rich or poor, can take advantage of that trust and strive for wealth.

A basic idea of our government is that the federal government serves everyone equally. “One man, one vote” and all that craziness. Is the issue federal under the Constitution, serving the public good, or is it left to the states, where communities can decide what’s best for them? (Think generous welfare without work instead of censorship, unmentioned versus protected by the Constitution.) We’re in the process of deciding that that Constitutional question is quaint and irrelevant for the touchy-feely goals we want but the Constitution never meant to convey. Hard work matters. Skill matters. Intelligence matters. I happen to believe that everyone can make something out of what they’ve got in life. Those who pretend that the rich must prop up the poor seem cynical and condescending about the poor to me. I came from a humble background, devoid of monetary wealth, yet I’ve managed to build a little for myself. I’m working to build a lot. I don’t want to support a government that rewards the opposite.

Yet, somehow I’m wrong on logic. When I say that we should remove non-federal issues from the federal government, pushing them down to the states where the represented are closer to those making the decisions, it isn’t clear that progressive taxes are unfair and unnecessary. The commenter, in ignoring what I’ve clearly included in other posts about the flat tax, transitions to this bit of logic to support his opinion that I’m wrong:

But put that aside. The real reason for a progressive tax system is that if someone has to pay a few extra dollars, the rich can give them up with less pain than the poor. Again, people talk as though there’s a 90% tax on the highest tax bracket, or as though there’s no incentive for rich people to make more money since taxes soak it all up. Of course there’s plenty of incentive to get rich under our current system, which is why so many people keep trying to do it. We’re talking about a difference of a few percentage points, an amount that is only meaningful to those who are barely scraping by.

I’ve never suggested hosing those who can’t afford it, going so far as to explain how to avoid doing so, but again I’m devoid of logic. I mocked the idea that progressive taxes are touted because “the rich can afford it”, but “the rich can give them up with less pain than the poor” is different? Right. It doesn’t make sense to me, either.

What time is lights out, Senator?

Sometime between December 2008 and April 2009, the federal government will require traditional broadcaster to use digital signals rather than broadcasting over the current analog spectrum. After recapturing the spectrum, the government will then auction the spectrum. Who will buy, I have no idea, but the government expects the auction to generate $10 billion, which the government can then use to pay down debt waste somewhere else. Senator Ted Stevens has an opinion on where part of that $10 billion should go. Consider:

What’s it worth to make sure nothing gets between Americans and their TV sets?

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) thinks $3 billion is about right. That’s what he proposed yesterday to spend to make sure TVs don’t go blank when broadcasters switch to digital signals in about four years.

The money would subsidize the cost of set-top boxes to convert digital signals to play on the old analog sets that millions of people without cable or satellite TV rely on. Under Stevens’s proposal, people would make a $10 co-payment for the boxes and the government would absorb the rest of the cost. The cash would come from an estimated $10 billion to be raised from auctioning the spectrum when analog broadcasts end.

Why exactly is the government playing this shell game? I have a television capable of receiving digital signals, so I won’t need a converter. Someone who can’t afford a new television will pay his $10 co-payment and still be able to watch his favorite programs. This doesn’t require a tax on me, of course, but it is still redistributionist nonsense. If the government wants to argue that the airwaves belong to the public, I own a portion of the airwaves. When the government takes my portion of the eventual auction and offers it to someone else, rather than using the money for a legitimate government need, I incur a tax burden I shouldn’t have to incur. This program is laughable. Senator Stevens is a hack. And the United States is replacing capitalism with a nanny state. Ridiculous.

The only bright spot in this is that I can’t decide who gets the quote of the day award, Rep. Lee Terry for this:

“It is not a constitutional right to own and watch a TV. . . . I can’t envision that we’d go for a number that’s triple what was our upper end.”

or Rep. Jeff Flake for this:

“What’s next, $40 to upgrade people’s iPod Mini to the Nano?” Flake said.

Who knew Bipartisan meant stupid?

There is religious persecution brewing in the military. We all know that it’s the Christians being persecuted, but I’ll let this article explain it.

Lawmakers yesterday said Christian chaplains throughout the branches of the military are being restricted in how they can pray, and President Bush should step in to protect religious freedom.

“We’re giving the president an opportunity to use the Constitution to guarantee the First Amendment rights of our chaplains,” said Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican.

He is circulating a letter to send to Mr. Bush explaining that Christian military chaplains are being told to use general terms when they pray publicly, and to not mention the name of Jesus.

“This is a huge issue with many of the chaplains in the military,” said Mr. Jones, whose letter has 35 lawmakers’ signatures so far, and will be sent later this week.

He cited a letter from one Army chaplain who said it was made clear in his chaplain training course that it is offensive and against Army policy to publicly pray in the name of Jesus, and he later was rebuked for doing so.

“Much to my great shame, there have been times when I did not pray in my Savior’s name,” the chaplain wrote.

Boo. Hoo. I’m not dismissing religion when I say that. This isn’t religious persecution, even though that’s the obvious impression being offered by Rep. Jones. Still, before explaining further, let’s hear from two more politicians about this case:

“Chaplains ought to be able to pray based on who they are,” said Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina Democrat. “Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy.”
…

“We’re seeing the same pattern … and it’s a pattern of hostility to freedom of speech,” said Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Republican. “The chaplains have complained, and it’s been increasing and more widespread and not only limited to the Air Force.”

How is it possible to have three politicians so blindingly stupid on one simple non-issue? It’s not widely understood that only government can run rough-shod over an individual’s civil liberties. Private individuals and businesses can’t. Fortunately, this passes the government involvement test. Unfortunately, it involves the military. Specifically, here are details about the Army Chaplaincy:

You will serve in the active Army, with an initial duty of three years.

1. You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:

a. A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
b. Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.

[emphasis added]

Oh, yeah, there’s that little challenge of Army Chaplains being active in the military when they’re ministering. Unless I’m mistaken, and when am I ever mistaken, civilians don’t lose their rights when they join the military, but they do face looser protections while serving. The chaplains have superior officers issuing orders, applicable only when meeting with a denominationally-diverse group. This is not an abuse by the United States Military. Religious freedom is in no danger.

No doubt Rep. Jones, Rep. McIntyre, and Rep. Akin are the next three in line for the Supreme Court.