I want my $10 share of the subsidy returned.

Is riding the rails so romantic that we must subsidize it long after its useful life and economic feasibility? The United States Senate thinks so:

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.

Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.

Is it really? Danielle and I will visit New York City this weekend. We’re driving. How long do you think we considered traveling by train before deciding upon driving? Zero seconds.

No cost comparison can justify a journey on Amtrak, no matter how wonderful it would be. With tolls and gas, we’ll spend a bit shy of one hundred dollars. For Amtrak, we’d spend $220 for a roundtrip ticket. Each. And the expense of parking the car must still be considered, as well as the lack of disparity in trip length with either choice.

I don’t think I need to go on, for the case against Amtrak is obvious. Remember, too, that I’m talking about a trip in Amtrak’s only profitable service, the Northeast corridor. Amtrak makes its money in the Northeast through business and government. If you’re in one city, and going to another, it makes sense. Especially on someone else’s dime, which is how I’ve paid for it both times I’ve ridden Amtrak.

Trains have a legacy and mythology in America’s history, but that time has passed. It’s time to stop funneling taxpayer money into nostalgia. Let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. Those services that can’t be justified economically should be forced allowed to die.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

For discussion: if this is how Congress treats a non-essential service in financial distress, how will it treat a financial healthcare crisis under a single-payer system when should problems arise?

We should use this opportunity to regain what’s been lost.

On Monday, I tangentially referenced statements made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson earlier this week. In summary, he said that corporate America should boycott any firms that provide legal representation to the detainees in Guantanamo because such assistance amounts to siding with the terrorists. It was stupid and offensive to anyone who values American ideals and liberty. Everyone is entitled to express hold such opinions. Unless they work in the government, for the people of the United States, anyone may express them. For such a disgusting disregard for the Constitution of the United States, Stimson should be fired immediately. Instead, of course, the Administration has done nothing more than disavow his statements. And now, Stimson is doing the same, in the Letters to the Editor section of today’s Washington Post:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients — people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

And I’m sure it was really the alcohol that made Mel Gibson an anti-Semite. All that happened here is Stimson got his hand caught in the totalitarian cookie jar that he and the administration so desperately want to raid for all of its goodies. The outcry, while surprising given how indifferently much of the nation has looked the other way over the last six years, is entirely justified. We’ll accept some offensive rights violations, but this is too far. I’m saddened by where it is, but at least there’s still a line.

Despite his apology, Stimson should be shown the door. Now.

It’s a safety concern. Think of the children.

Robert Eberth appealed and won his battle against Prince William County, in Virginia, and its practice of ticketing parked cars for expired state inspection stickers. I’m slightly deflated because Fairfax County ticketed my car under this same scenario a few years back, and I paid it without a fight¹. Regardless, good for Mr. Eberth for forcing counties in Virginia to abide by the law. It’s a miraculous concept. We should all aspire to win such an appeal in our lifetimes.

Naturally, Prince William County is responding as any libertarian would expect.

In the meantime, county attorneys in Prince William are scrambling to draft legislation for the General Assembly that would authorize ticketing of parked cars with expired stickers.

The county can’t simply stop ticketing parked cars. That would decrease revenue permit potentially unsafe vehicles from being on the road. I’m sure there will also be an update of the provision that Mr. Eberth fought, which is that the county went onto the lot of his apartment complex to ticket his vehicle. Under the court’s ruling, the county can’t do that. Want to bet its proposed legislation will include such a feature? I’ll take yes, you can have no.

Finally, I don’t know if this just comes off poorly in print, but this quote is not a ringing endorsement for leadership oriented to considering citizens.

Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, said: “We thank him for pointing out this error. I’ve got to hand it to him — he’s got determination. I hope he’ll get on with his life now.”

Mr. Eberth wins a victory indicating that Prince William county steals more than $150,000 per year from its citizens, and that’s what the county chairman has to say? He pointed out the error for six years. Prince William only listened when the Appeals Court told them the same thing. And the Stewart’s last line, why not just tack on an explicit “Go eff yourself” for good measure?

¹ I might file an appeal with Fairfax County requesting a refund. I know it would be fruitless because I did not contest the ticket at the time, but it might be fun to waste their time. And any response letter would no doubt create much amusement.

An Execution Chamber in Every Courthouse

Anyone want to read that Texas is considering the death penalty for repeat sex offenders and suggest that capital punishment serves any other function greater than revenge?

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who won a second four-year term, has led the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters, calling for a 25-year minimum sentence after the first conviction when a victim is less than 14 and the death penalty option for repeat offenders.

“The idea is to prevent these kinds of crimes,” said Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons. “It sends a clear signal and maybe these monsters will think twice before committing a crime.”

Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, said Texas is a “tough on crime” state and he’s open to tougher penalties, including the death penalty.

From the article, the plan is obviously in its initial stages, and there appears to be some resistance. But this is what counts as resistance.

“We support the intent,” said Torie Camp of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. “We’re concerned about the unintended consequences.”

This is a brilliant move for covering against looking weak in the “war on crime”. “Kill ’em all, except it might create situations we don’t like.” Why is institutionalized murder acceptable when a punishment without revenge killing will serve just as well? It’s perplexing because offenders murdering their victims is the feared unintended consequences. Admittedly, if someone must be murdered, it should be the offender, but it’s a fool’s intellectual blindness that believes murder must occur for justice to prevail.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst should provide evidence that capital punishment offers any deterrence. Note, of course, that this is the same type of rhetoric that suggests sexual offenders are powered by uncontrollable urges that almost guarantee they’ll sexually assault another child. Otherwise, why would we have sex-offender registries and restrictions on how close to schools such persons can live? Isn’t this almost like guaranteeing that Texas will execute people under this proposal, if they’re right? And if they’re right, why not make capital punishment available on the first offense? At least then we could save all of the children who might will be harmed after the sex offenders first jail term is finished.

Capital punishment does nothing more than satiate the public’s thirst for the blood of the bad men.

Source: Fark.

Catching up on events

I’ve been busy over the last week or so, which meant that I didn’t have enough time to give blogging enough mental energy. That’s over, so it’s time to catch up on a few interesting stories before moving to new stuff. Without further delay:

Kudos to Sen. John Sununu for challenging the unhealthy, anti-consumer partnership between content owners and the FCC known as the Broadcast Flag. (Source)

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) has just announced that his office is working on legislation that would prevent the FCC from creating specific technology mandates that have to be followed by consumer electronics manufacturers. What’s his target? The broadcast flag.

Television and movie studios have wanted a broadcast flag for years. The flag is a short analog or digital signal embedded into broadcasts that specifies what users can do with the content. It would most often be used to prevent any copying of broadcast material, but there’s an obvious problem with the plan: it requires recording devices to pay attention to the flag. Because no consumers wander the aisles at Best Buy thinking, “You know, I would definitely buy this DVD recorder, but only if it supported broadcast flag technology,” the industry has asked the federal government to step in and simply require manufacturers to respect the flag.

Exactly the right analysis. The FCC should not be restricting innovation before any potentially illegal action can even occur. The onus should be on the businesses to engineer solutions that meet their needs, not regulation. That’s dinosaur thinking and should not be reward.

Next, just ponder this photograph’s implications. It’s posted in London, so there’s no concern for the United States, except there is concern. We move closer to this mentality with every newly brushed aside civil liberty. (Source)

Next, sometimes a cheap shot is easier than analysis. From Glenn Reynolds:

A CITIZEN’S ARREST BY PAUL HACKETT: A pro-gun anti-crime Democrat — I’m surprised the party didn’t get behind him.

Just like claiming that there’s a war on crime, this requires little thinking and says more about the writer than the facts. Who honestly believes that Democrats are not “anti-crime”? Not tough enough crime, we could argue. But it’s posts like these that prove Glenn Reynolds is little more than a Republican with some libertarian leanings. That’s not surprising, but this is an unflattering proof.

Next, North Korea has a hunger problem. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that this has as much to do with the country’s political structure as anything. Socialism doesn’t work, and can never provide for everyone’s needs. When the failure extends to famine, this moves from oppression to murder. But the North Koreans have a solution, courtesy of a German breeder (Source):

An east German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs has been asked by North Korea to help set up a big bunny farm to alleviate food shortages in the communist country. Now journalists and rabbit gourmets from around the world are thumping at his door.

It all started when Karl Szmolinsky won a prize for breeding Germany’s largest rabbit, a friendly-looking 10.5 kilogram “German Gray Giant” called Robert, in February 2006.

Images of the chubby monster went around the world and reached the reclusive communist state of North Korea, a country of 23 million which according to the United Nations Food Programme suffers widespread food shortages and where many people “struggle to feed themselves on a diet critically deficient in protein, fats and micronutrients.”

Any reasonable analysis would point out an obvious point of why this will fail to alleviate suffering.

“I’m not increasing production and I’m not taking any more orders after this. They cost a lot to feed,” he said.

The rabbits apparently feed eight. How much food will be used to feed the rabbits until they’re ready to become that one-time meal that feeds eight? How much land that could be better used to grow crops for North Koreans will be used to grow feed for these rabbits, as well as house them while they grow? This is a central-planning solution at its ugliest.

Next, religion will continue getting a free pass for unnecessary medical procedures under a socialist health system.

The NHS should provide more faith-based care for Muslims, an expert says.

Muslims are about twice as likely to report poor health and disability than the general population, says Edinburgh University’s Professor Aziz Sheikh.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, he called for male circumcision on the NHS and more details over alcohol derived drugs.

Leaving aside the obvious questions of whether or not routine/ritual circumcision of children should be allowed, it’s an unnecessary medical procedure that drains resources. As an ethically-questionable procedure, it’s also unacceptable to force taxpayers to fund such surgeries. This is why current U.S. funding under our relatively free market system is objectionable. This call from Britain just seeks to double the mistake. It’s absurd.

Because the system isn’t bureaucratic and dysfunctional enough already, Democrats want to allow unionization by TSA employees. That won’t end well.

One Year of Laughs, Interrupted

Yesterday Howard Stern celebrated his one-year anniversary on Sirius. As a fan who’s listened for that year, I can say that the show’s never been better. Artie is hilarious now that he can be blue honest. Howard is relaxed, with no need to rant about the FCC. Although I enjoyed those rants, not needing them has made the few that did occur that much funnier. More targeted anger/comedy, if you will. And the J.D. song makes me smile every time Fred plays it. One year of the show is worth celebrating.

As a gift to the fans, Sirius replayed the first show, from January 9, 2006. I listened when it was live, but somehow I was either away from the radio or not paying close enough attention during one specific announcement. (Read by the awesome George Takei, written by ???.) The segment was meant to praise Howard, and the concept is reasonable to fans: A Salute to Great Revolutionary Men.

The list exaggerated Howard’s importance, of course, but that’s part of the humor. Still, the list made me angry for one particular inclusion. Can you spot it?

  • George Washington
  • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Ernesto “Che” Guevara
  • Mahatma Gandhi
  • Nelson Mandela
  • Howard Stern

It’s blasphemous to include a communist thug murderer in that list of great revolutionary men. Justifiable revolutions free people from oppression. Che Guevara sought to oppress a nation. Unfortunately for much of Latin America, he succeeded. Including him in this list is appalling.

Che Guevara is proof that it takes more than being revolutionary to make someone great. Idolization by the popular, ignorant culture notwithstanding. Worse, I fear the number who actually agrees with Guevara’s ideas and methods. Shameful.

Behold the Annual Hall of Fame Post

Should I write something new about Dale Murphy being bypassed by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America for the ninth time? Probably not, since it would be the same entry I wrote in 2004 and 2006. I’d lament how stupid it is to discount players from the 1980s because their statistics do not match the statistics of players from the 1990s. Following on that, I’d also question how voters can keep Mark McGwire out of the Hall of Fame because his greater statistics are allegedly steroid-enhanced, yet continue to dismiss the lower statistics from players like Dale Murphy, who we know was clean. Then I’d quote the only sane writer, ESPN’s Jayson Stark. I might use this quote:

Murphy’s stats may not look so dazzling stacked up against the numbers of today. But in his heyday — the decade of the ’80s — Murphy got more hits and scored more runs than anyone in the National League, tied Mike Schmidt for most RBI and was second to Schmidt in homers. He was also a back-to-back MVP, a five-time Gold Glove winner, a proud member of the 30-Homer, 30-Steal Club and a big enough star to lead the entire sport in All-Star votes in 1985. So he sure deserves to be getting more than 56 stinking votes.

This year, 50 voters marked Murph on their ballot, which is fewer than 10%. Shame on the writers, but I shouldn’t be surprised given that two writers didn’t even deem Tony Gwynn or Call Ripken worthy, casting blank ballots. The process needs to change, or at least waive Murph’s remaining eligibility and send his candidacy to the Veterans Committee. That’s his only chance to claim his rightful spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But, no, I’m not going to bother with a post this year to express my outrage. That would be redundant.

“I disagree” is mature; the delete key isn’t.

Last week I entered a short exchange with a pregnant woman about circumcision. I thought it might go well enough, although I’m well aware that when people get it in their head that genital cutting is reasonable, there is little anyone can do to restore sanity. The need to dig in and not confront truth seems quite powerful.

One particular phrase jumped out at me in her entry:

…oh, the terror that awaits him. I hope I don’t have to take Alec in to get his circ done…

If it’s a terror, and you don’t want to do it, don’t do it. Maybe there was some connection to reality in there. So I commented, asking why she would go through with it if she knows it’s a terror and clearly doesn’t want to do it. Simple enough, I thought. Her response?

That was a little more like a “kidding around” type of thing. I don’t think it’s a horror. If it was a serious problem, they wouldn’t circumcise babies. 🙂

It gets worse from there, which you can’t validate for yourself because she deleted the first two comments and my response. It was long, but I addressed each of her wishful thoughts with facts. Clearly she didn’t like being challenged, so she deleted the “debate”, presumably to believe it never happened. Like I said, the need to dig in and not confront truth seems quite powerful.

I won’t bore you with the details of my second comment for I’d have to excerpt everything in her comment for it to make sense. But I opened with this:

If it was a serious problem, they wouldn’t circumcise babies.

That’s not true. Just because something is easy does not mean it’s right or in the boy’s best interest. Doctors regularly removed tonsils, but now it’s clear that tonsils fight infection. It’s not a routine procedure now. Doctors wait until disease that can’t be treated with less invasive measures. Explore history and you’ll find examples of medical practices that are now known to be wrong. Our medicine is the most advanced in human history, but that doesn’t mean we know everything and won’t know more in the future. We will rediscover the foreskin’s value. Other developed countries have abandoned infant circumcision to no ill effect.

That should be enough, but another example came to my attention yesterday, via Ken Jennings. Consider:

Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.

Coaches and personal trainers tell athletes and exercisers that they have to learn to work out at just below their “lactic threshold,” that point of diminishing returns when lactic acid starts to accumulate. Some athletes even have blood tests to find their personal lactic thresholds.

But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.

How many more examples do we need from history? When we look back in the future at the madness that is forced circumcision, how will we view it? We’ve shown too much willingness to dig in despite facts for me to believe we’ll be harsh on ourselves. But history will not be kind.

Science changes, but even beyond the basic evidence-based facts, however flawed the methodology that generated them, common sense must prevail. That’s where the general idea “first, do no harm” originates. It’s one thing to believe the opposite about lactic acid. With infant circumcision a doctor willfully removes healthy tissue from a child for potential benefit, if the parents even care about the potential benefits. Too often the justification is purely social. Read many of the comments at Suburban Turmoil if you question how nonsensical some parents get when deciding to have someone cut their children sons. I will never understand why parents value the possible opinion of another, future person over the normal, intact penis of their son.

Of interest, from the article on lactic acid, I doubt I’d phrase my indictment this nicely, but the basic idea is applicable to circumcision.

“It’s one of the classic mistakes in the history of science,” Dr. [George A.] Brooks said.

That’s just a theory with limited permanent impact. What would we call medically unnecessary genital surgery on non-consenting individuals? Parental choice? Classic, indeed. And insane.

Despicability is no excuse for revenge and savagery.

Better late than never? Charles Krauthammer’s column from last week on the execution of Saddam Hussein is an example:

Of the 6 billion people on this Earth, not one killed more people than Saddam Hussein. And not just killed but tortured and mutilated — doing so often with his own hands and for pleasure. It is quite a distinction to be the preeminent monster on the planet. If the death penalty was ever deserved, no one was more richly deserving than Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Krauthammer makes excellent points about all of it, the execution, the Iraqi government, and our mistakes. But this is not the meat of his essay for me. This is:

True, Hussein’s hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the death penalty provision, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless hangings.

Let me rewrite that in terms that, unless he’s changed his tune, I doubt Mr. Krauthammer would agree with. Consider:

True, the enemy combatant’s torture was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next torture might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the Geneva Conventions, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless torture.

How is Mr. Krauthammer’s statement logical and mine illogical? They’re the same because justice and the rule of law should be supreme. Whether or not someone deserves a specific punishment is sometimes open for debate. But breaking precedent is a terrible idea, given the clear line of increasing abuses that result. History has taught us this, which is why we’ve fought hard to eliminate these from our system of justice, both civil and military. We must not surrender the moral ground we’ve recovered from the foul grip of convenience.

The decision to hastily execute, or to torture, is wrong, regardless of who is being executed or tortured.

Sorry, folks, hospital’s closed. Moose out front shoulda told ya.

More single-payer “goodness”, this time from the U.K.

Patients are being denied basic operations, including treatments for varicose veins, wisdom teeth and bad backs, as hospitals try frantically to balance the books by the end of the financial year, The Times can reveal.

NHS trusts throughout the country are making sweeping cuts to services and delaying appointments in an attempt to address their debts before the end of March. Family doctors have been told to send fewer patients to hospital, A&E departments have been instructed to turn people away, and a wide range of routine procedures has been suspended.

A letter from [North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust] chief executive, Janet Soo-Chung, says that all non-urgent admissions must be approved by an assessment team or they will not be paid for. A&E departments in Harrogate, Scarborough, South Tees and York have been told that they will not be paid for treating patients with minor ailments who could go elsewhere.

No patients will be given a hospital appointment in less than eight weeks, and none admitted for elective surgery unless they have waited a minimum of 12 to 16 weeks. Those treated quicker will not be paid for.

The United States will be no different if we implement a single-payer system. Given the timeline progression of other single-payer systems, I’m probably at the perfect age (33) for our system to break down around the time I retire. Wonderful. I’ll pass, thanks.

Source: Socialized Medicine