Month: September 2006

Serious and severe are synonyms

Following up on yesterday’s post on our president’s fight to convince the Congress that he should have explicit legal authority to continue what he’s already undertaken, this passage describing the compromise between Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham and the renegade White House explains how no one wins:

The biggest hurdle, Senate sources said, was convincing administration officials that lawmakers would never accept language that allowed Bush to appear to be reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. Once that was settled, they said, the White House poured most of its energy into defining “cruel or inhuman treatment” that would constitute a crime under the War Crimes Act. The administration wanted the term to describe techniques resulting in “severe” physical or mental pain, but the senators insisted on the word “serious.”

Negotiations then turned to the amount of time that a detainee’s suffering must last before the treatment amounts to a war crime. Administration officials preferred designating “prolonged” mental or physical symptoms, while the senators wanted something milder. They settled on “serious and non-transitory mental harm, which need not be prolonged.”

Who needs to enforce or overturn existing treaties when ignoring them is so much easier?

Center for Dumb Conclusions?

Let’s all embrace the feel-good sentiments our government constantly provides:

All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV to help catch infections earlier and stop the spread of the deadly virus, federal health recommendations announced Thursday say.
…

“I think it’s an incredible advance. I think it’s courageous on the part of the CDC,” said A. David Paltiel, a health policy expert at the Yale University School of Medicine.

Encouraging the FDA to end its ban on blood donations by gay men would be courageous. This recommendation is an example of “more is always better” masquerading as good policy.

The recommendations aren’t legally binding, but they influence what doctors do and what health insurance programs cover.

Some physicians groups predict the recommendations will be challenging to implement, involving new expenditures of money and time for testing, counseling and revising consent procedures.

The idea is not terrible, but its implementation must be based in reality. Raise your hand if you think this will be implemented across the healthcare industry as a new routine. I’m sticking with No because we seem to have already figured out that our “limited” money and effort could be spent elsewhere. How stunning this suggestion isn’t is clear enough in this:

CDC officials have been working on revised recommendations for about three years, and sought input from more than 100 organizations, including doctors’ associations and HIV patient advocacy groups. The CDC presented planned revisions at a scientific conference in February.

Three years to suggest that everyone between 13 and 64 should be tested for HIV. Now raise your hand if you think that government-run healthcare is a good idea. Everyone gets tested for HIV, so someone misses out on a procedure or prevention relevant to her life. I’m sure our grand experiment with government-run (or financed, at a minimum) will be different from other countries, though, so no reason to worry.

Because some government busybody will suggest new public policy eventually, I’ll point this out now to save my ranting time later for rational issues:

Previously, the CDC recommended routine testing for those at high-risk for catching the virus, such as intravenous drug users and gay men, and for hospitals and certain other institutions serving areas where HIV is common. It also recommends testing for all pregnant women.

Some misguided do-gooder will add men with intact foreskins to that list. And I’m not really saving any ranting, because I’ll do it then, as well. Ugh.

Update: Looking over this post, it’s clear I forgot one thing, although I hope it was clear given my comments about what action would be courageous. Lumping gay men into the high-risk category by virtue of being gay is preposterous. Behavior matters. It’s small thinking that equates one with the other based solely generalizations from a generation ago.

Howie Mandel is better at Deal or No Deal

President Bush wants Americans to physically beat the hell out of our enemies after we capture them. We all know that. And we all know that a silly burden like proof of guilt is only for unpatriotic wimps who love terrorists. What does it matter if an innocent man is tortured, as long as we feel safer. It’s better to torture too many people than too few. Anyone?

His stance is preposterous, but his threat to disband CIA interrogations if he doesn’t win capitulation from the United States Senate on his right to torture anyone for any reason is too much. Like a kid who doesn’t get his way, he wants to take his ball and go home. That isn’t leadership. Again he’s using fear to tell us why we need to let him do whatever he wants. Essentially, he’s told America to fuck off and he’s blaming everyone who believes torture is wrong. He’s a petulant, little man who wants every perk without any accountability. Watch this and try to disagree:

He should not be president. I’d start muttering about impeachment, but then Vice President Cheney would lose the Vice designation. Is it January 2009 yet?

Update: Congress reached a compromise deal with the White House on the torture issue, but details are unclear. As such, I’m holding little hope that the compromise incorporated any principles. President Bush will ignore what he doesn’t like, anyway, so it details probably don’t matter.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the video link.

Ewww! Oh my God, you sick little monkey!

Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States government should engage in morality propaganda?

The White House is distributing government-produced, anti-drug videos on YouTube, the trendy Internet service that features clips of wacky, drug-induced behavior and step-by-step instructions for growing marijuana plants.

I won’t prattle on about the remaining details since this will be an inevitable failure. Any third-grader high on his big brother’s weed could figure that out. More absurd is this:

“If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success,” said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This program is “free”, since the Office of National Drug Control Policy is only placing previously produced videos on YouTube. Gotcha. But no man hours were spent in the organization of this project? No man hours were needed to design the YouTube goodness? How much did we spend previously to put us in a position to save “just one teen”? Free is not free. It’s not provided in the Constitution, either, but I’ll just stick with the notion that propaganda is not free.

Recall that this is not the first time in recent memory that a government official has set the “just one teen” standard for any and all government intrusion. Now I’m giddy with anticipation (without the help of marijuana!) for future campaign slogans stating something like “If just one teen is saved from terrorism by program X, it will be a success.”

I’ll stick with blackjack

Really? People are getting worked up oer this device?:

Professional gamblers are rushing to buy £1,000 devices that they believe will enable them to win millions of pounds in casinos when the gambling industry is deregulated next year.

Hundreds of the roulette-cheating machines – which consist of a small digital time recorder, a concealed computer and a hidden earpiece – were tested at a government laboratory in 2004 after a gang suspected of using them won £1.3m at the Ritz casino in London.

After the research, which was never made public but has been seen by the Guardian, the government’s gambling watchdog admitted to industry insiders that the technology can offer punters an edge when playing roulette in a casino, and the advantage can be “considerable”.

Again, really? This is a big deal? Obviously the casinos will boot anyone they deem to be winning in excess, but wouldn’t it be easier to disrupt this scheme by not allowing betting after the dealer spins the wheel? I don’t know gambling law, especially in the U.K., but if betting after the spin is required, I’d work to change the laws if I owned a casino. Aside from banning the device, of course. Which seems to be the case in most places that allow gambling:

But rather than ban the devices, which are outlawed in many jurisdictions across the world, the Gambling Commission will require casinos to police themselves. Phill Brear, the commission’s director of operations, admits predictive softwares can work but suggested it might be possible to prosecute someone using them under a new Gambling Act offence of cheating.

Or more to the point, wouldn’t casinos just work to counter this by repairing or replacing their roulette wheels?

The government’s national weights and measures laboratory investigated the technique. It is thought the cheats first identify a “biased” wheel, where the ball appears to commonly drop in roughly the same zone. They also look for signs on the wheel of a “manageable scatter”, which means that when the ball strikes a certain number, it will usually fall into a neighbouring pocket. The unpublished report concluded: “On a wheel with a definite bias and a manageable scatter, a prediction device of this nature, when operated by a ‘skilled’ roulette player, could obtain an advantage when used in a casino.”

I wouldn’t sound the alarm for casinos going bankrupt just yet. They’ll adapt and the majority of people dropping £1,000 on one of these gadgets will find themselves more than £1,000 poorer. Such is life in a casino.

Source: Boing Boing

Capitalists Unite: Demand Fairness!

Who wants to bet we’ll hear no outrage from our politicians?

For a rare episode of the Gasoline Price Wars, turn to Gainesville, where station manager Kristin Daggle pulled out the equivalent of a laser-guided missile: a big, white, plastic “1” placard.

Daggle — a 25-year-old field general on a well-traveled stretch of Lee Highway — posted the number, followed by two “9” placards, on a 20-foot-tall sign in front of her 17-month-old Exxon station over the weekend. And just like that, a milestone in the competitive world of gasoline retailing was reached.

“This is the first day we’re below $2” this year, Daggle said, as customers streamed in Saturday. “Our goal is to be competitive.”

The Congress must rectify this unfair increase in Windfall Savings&#153 by customers. Are customers, as the beneficiaries of risk-taking by business owners, not entitled to a cap on their savings? Gas station owners have to pay their mortgages, too. We clearly need legislation and the politicians just sit around allowing the laws of economics to screw businesses.

Other nuggets of goodness exist in the article, particularly surprise that supply and demand conspire based on market forces rather than the whim of evil corporations, but you can read those on your own. Just remember how little you’re hearing from Washington about this “travesty” for gas station owners the next time gas prices spike upwards. They’re all hacks.

This is like déjà vu all over again

I wrote this nine months ago. Little did I know it would happen again. In honor of this degen move’s reappearance, I must repost what I wrote the first time.

This morning, like all mornings, I deposited my used newspaper in the recycling bin after I got off the train. Only this time, unlike every other morning, some dude stood by the bin. The moment my newspaper hovered over the open slot, the dude stuck his hand underneath the paper as I let go. He snatched the paper for himself.

Umm… I would’ve given it to him. Asking was too much? And 35 cents for his own paper was too much? And yet, it was awesome. People rule.

To my new degen friend, may I suggest a subscription? It’s barely 20¢ per day, delivered to your front door.

Do schools in Texas teach American civics?

If ever we had doubt that President Bush is unwilling to carry out his duties according to the Constitution’s text, he’s trying to open our minds to that reality:

Bush said he has “one test” for the proposed legislation [to allow “aggressive” interrogation techniques not authorized by the Geneva Conventions]: “The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.” He declined to comment on whether he would veto the alternative bill if it passed, saying that he expects his version to win out.
…

Also vital, Bush said, is passage of legislation that would “provide additional authority” for a warrantless eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency. The program, which he approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to target communications between suspected terrorists abroad and plotters in the United States, has helped to detect and prevent attacks, Bush said.

“Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror,” he said. “We’ll work with Congress to get good bills out, because . . . we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.”

Protecting America from attack is a valid use of governmental power, and the president is the person most directly charged with ensuring that we remain safe. But the president (and Congress and the Judiciary) must act within the bounds of the Constitution. President Bush needs to add at least two more tests for any proposed legislation, ones that involve assessing the Constitutionality of the legislation and its accordance with American principles. On the latter president Bush’s proposed legislation fails miserably. America should not torture. For the sitting president to make the counter-claim brings disgrace to the office.

Naturally he had to tangle himself up in his words to make his atrocious plea. Forget the mangled sentence structure of his first sentence. Read what he means in his statement.

“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic,” Bush said, his voice rising. “It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Since the explanation is in how the comparison is phrased, of course we’re not the same. The more fundamental point is whether or not we believe in civilized society ruled by law. Islamic extremists have already proven that they do not. But I think (thought) we do believe in the rule of law. Surely that entails a basic respect for human life, independent of actions. We’ve decided that justice may include the taking of life, but is that life not protected until we determine guilt? Is it okay to bash someone’s brains in because he might be holding information? I say no, regardless of whether or not the tortured person is scum. Our decency and ethical restraint is not about his worth; it is about ours. The president thinks differently. The president is wrong.

Specifically:

Bush criticized language in Common Article 3, notably a prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” He said, “It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

Reasonable people can decipher “outrages upon human dignity,” but since the president believes we cannot, thus opening our interrogators to possible prosecution, let’s have a debate. Let’s discuss the techniques we can and can’t use. The president will not do this because he says he does not want to let our enemies know how we will extract information from them. A hollow, I believe, but I’ll grant that condition. To do so, the president must accept the vague prohibition against outrages upon human dignity. He cannot have plenary power to authorize whatever interrogation methods he deems necessary, with only the assurance of saying “oops” if someone goes too far.

Limited government does not thrive on vagueness. The president wants the vague rules to remain, as he only seeks immunity from prosecution under those vague rules. In other words, he wants no rules. But we knew that. Congress must not grant it to him. Bravo to Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham for defending the Constitution.

Another reason I’m a libertarian

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart because I loathe its overall experience. A few pennies extra is a small price for the (by comparison) more upscale presentation Target offers. Yet, I agree with George Will’s column today demonstrating how stupid the Democratic party is in its anti-economics crusade against Wal-Mart. Here’s a simple highlight:

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart — it has one-fifth of the nation’s grocery business — save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party’s leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times as many applicants than there were jobs at this store.

Demand creates supply, unless politicians get in the way. Demand won’t go away, as the Democrats hope. The supply disappears, or worse, becomes diluted to something that satisfies no one. In this case, Wal-Mart pays more than it should, passing those costs onto customers who don’t want to pay. The only people who get what they want are the politicians.

Yet, I have a disagreement with Mr. Will’s column:

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald’s (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

It’s a small point, but painting liberals as our national scolds is nowhere near generous enough in placing blame. How liberals treat the Wal-Mart issue is telling, but only of the sense of superiority politicians of all political stripes take in telling others what to do. Mr. Will is trying to make a point, but it’s applicable to every person in political power.

Telling customers Americans they shouldn’t want what they want is a losing long-term strategy.

When will Congress ban Happy Meals?

Shocking news from the futurists:

One in five children is predicted to be obese by the end of the decade.

Uh oh. Someone wants more of my money. And who is that someone?

… Wednesday’s report [by the Institute of Medicine] spotlighted the government’s VERB campaign, a program once touted as spurring a 30 percent increase in exercise among the preteens it reached. It ended this year with Bush administration budget cuts.

VERB encouraged 9- to 13-year-olds to take part in physical activities, like bike riding or skateboarding. Slick ads, at a cost of $59 million last year, portrayed exercise as cool at an age when outdoor play typically winds down and adolescent slothfulness sets in.

The demise of the program “calls into question the commitment to obesity prevention within government,” the panel concluded.

[Emory University’s Dr. Jeffrey] Koplan was more blunt, calling it a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program that works and then dismantle it.

We all know the government is the only effective way to stop kids from being fat. Why do the fiscal conservatives hate fat kids? Sometimes I wonder how I sleep at night? Of course, I also wonder, if we encourage children to ride a bike or a skateboard, how will they accomplish what they’re now so wonderfully motivated to do if they don’t have a bike or a skateboard? There are poor parents in America who believe food, clothing, and shelter are more important. Their kids will be at a disadvantage, no? How much government taxpayer money is enough, so we don’t miss anyone?

Specifically to Dr. Koplan’s point, it’s a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program. Notice that I used his sentiment, but put the period in the correct place. It’s amazing what can happen when political principle meets grammar. Taxpayers save money, which is especially useful to me since I don’t have children targeted by that $59 million. I’d rather we spend it wisely. If that means I hate fat kids, so be it.

Or here’s an idea. When I was a kid, my brother and our friends liked to play football. You know what held us back? No field to play on. Fields existed in ready supply at neighborhood schools, as you’d expect, but we weren’t allowed on. If we’re going to have public provision of education, and all of the facilities apparently necessary, why not open them to the public paying for them. Liability blah blah blah. Football is a violent, dangerous sport etc. etc. etc. I know. Bikes and skateboards are dangerous, too. Solve the barriers imposed on money already spent on mostly idle property instead of creating new programs. It’s a suggestion.

Or government could leave parenting to parents.