Category: Politics

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I think I’m beginning to make a hobby out of countering Michelle Malkin’s lapses in logic contentions. Today, she linked to a story about released French hostages. Consider the basic facts of the story:

A French journalist who was held hostage in Iraq for five months says she was beaten by her captors.

Speaking at a new conference in Paris, Florence Aubenas said she was kept blindfolded in a basement cell that measured 4m by 2m (13ft by 6ft).

She said she was beaten after being accused of speaking to a cell mate.

Ms Aubenas was forced out of her car in Baghdad on 5 January, along with her guide, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi. They were both freed on 11 June.

Mr Saadi was reunited with his family in Baghdad. Ms Aubenas, who is a senior correspondent for Liberation, was flown home to France.

What’s the lesson in this story? Terrorists are despicable. They’ll beat hostages for allegedly speaking to a cell mate. They’ll hold hostages captive in a basement. They’ll subject them to mock trials. Most importantly, this is the lesson reported by the BBC, which any right-thinking conservative will tell you is one of the biggest pushers of the Liberal Agenda&#153. Yet, the BBC reported this with objective facts that are easy to interpret. Again, terrorists do Bad Things.

So what does Ms. Malkin focus on? Consider:

TERRORISTS HEART THE FRENCH

Terrorist farewell gifts for a recently released French kidnapping victim:

Two rings and a bottle of perfume.

The French hostage reported that one of her captors offered her gifts at the same time he returned her belongings. Rather than discounting the significance of this as either a crush or a goodwill gesture or a hideously presumptuous guard, Ms. Malkin decided that this was the lesson: We hate terrorists, terrorists like the French, we hate the French. All with the specter of hating the Liberal Agenda&#153, I presume.

How ridiculous. From reading her blog, I understand that she wants us to realize that terrorists are bad, we’re fighting terrorists, and we can’t waiver in our commitment to the task. Ok, got it. I even agree with it, despite not casting my vote for George W. Bush last November. Yet, she doesn’t use this as an example to further illustrate who the real bad guys are in this war. She takes another hysterical jab at Those Who Are Against Us because they don’t agree with and condone every action we take. That’s stupid logic.

Until we stop throwing around this nonsense and presenting the “with us or against us” mentality, we’re going to be mired in the problem rather than striving closer to the goal. America is founded on belief in the moral correctness of our ideals and the ability to dissent in an effort to stretch the moral correctness of our actions closer to perfection.

You know, because it matters not really

God bless the staunch conservative mouthpieces bloggers who look out for the good people.

In yet another lapse in logical causality thinking, Michelle Malkin points her readers (of which, I am strangely one) to this story about Rosie O’Donnell’s guest appearance on Friday’s episode of The View. Ms. Malkin quoted the article’s recap of Ms. O’Donnell’s remarks concerning breastfeeding and a recent “nurse-in”. Consider:

O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding

Comedienne Rosie O’Donnell banned her partner Kelli Carpenter from breastfeeding their daughter Vivienne just a few weeks after she was born–because she was jealous of their bonding sessions. Kelli gave birth to Vivienne in 2002, and the lesbian couple have been raising her along with their three other adopted children.

But O’Donnell admits she felt left out of the motherhood process whenever she observed her partner nursing their child.

She says, “Kelli only nursed for like a month and then I was very angry.

“With the other babies, nobody nursed because they were adopted. But with this baby she was the only one getting to bond, so I was like, ‘The nursing is over!’ I cut her off.

“I’m like, ‘You’ve had your limit, honey, no more!'”

I watched the clip (watch it here) and she did say those things. While I think she was being dramatical for the sake of television, knowing that the people who watch The View would not likely jeer her comments, I concede that it was stupid. Ms. Malkin correctly attacks Ms. O’Donnell’s “selfish, psycho comments”. I’ll even add to that how absurd Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were because, given that her partner is the biological mother, Ms. O’Donnell is in the role of the father. Men don’t get that bonding, yet somehow the term “daddy’s girl” is familiar to everyone. So, yeah, Ms. O’Donnell is selfish, putting herself above the child’s needs (if she didn’t exaggerate the truth for dramatic effect, though I don’t doubt she’s “me, me, me”).

But. How does that correspond with introducing the story as “one for the Hollyweird files” and concluding with this:

Can the pathological self-absoprtion [sic] of Hollywood be illustrated anymore clearly?

You know, because Rosie O’Donnell is the sole spokesman for parenting skills and decisions for anyone who has ever worked in Hollywood. This is ridiculous. Ms. Malkin should have challenged her comments and then explained why “forbidding” nursing is wrong. And then, she should’ve stopped. But Ms. Malkin can’t do that. Everywhere she turns there is some further proof of the Liberal Agenda&#153, which dictates that all people must be brainwashed into collectivism, self-absorption, and homosexuality. (I’ve written about this here and here.)

I do envy her, though, because I imagine she has much free time. Ignore the likelihood that she uses this free time to sniff out the tyranny of the Liberal Agenda&#153, she still has lots of free time that most of us don’t. I know this because I think of those moments I spend evaluating each individual news item/circumstance/whatever to determine the truth and insight it reveals. How much easier it must be for Ms. Malkin to see the headline “Rosie O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding” and immediately know it’s the Liberal Agenda&#153. Oh, cursed objectivity, you are my life’s bane.

I thought perhaps I read too much into the post, but I know from reading through the trackbacks to her entry that I did not. Not because there is so much hatred for the Liberal Agenda&#153 in the post as much as what she spews regularly. There is an overwhelming “with us or against us” absolutism in much of her thinking, which permits every basic fact to represent the Path of Righteousness&#153 and its obvious triumph over the fallacy of the Liberal Agenda&#153. The trackbacks to most of Ms. Malkin’s “liberals are destroying America” posts include nonsense such as this blog:

Here’s yet another reason why it’s dangerous to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. The family unit is being torn apart and Hollywood embraces it. This is enfuriating [sic].

That logic is solid, because any time one member of a community does something stupid or illegal or immoral or {insert other obvious bad Liberal quality here}, that person represents everyone in that group. Right, because every priest who molests an altar boy indicates the problem with every member of the clergy. And every doctor who abuses drugs reveals the heavy burden to which every doctor succumbs. And every pro athlete who crashes his car after beating his wife while drunk with his penis in another woman is proof that athletes are poor role models and should be mocked, shunned, and shamed for existing. How much easier life must be for those who have found that ideology trumps the mind’s flexibility.

I hope the Kool-Aid&#174 tastes really good because there sure is some mass consumption happening.

The slogan will include “bias” and “pious”

That liberal media is at it again. Or is it just that the conservative blogosphere has nothing better to do than obsess about how allegedly far out of touch Hollyweird Hollywood is? Either way, there’s a new target for the disdain of so many who believe that every word uttered by, for, on, or in the media is a rant against “real”, patriotic Americans. Today, that target is Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Behold the freedom-hating, indecency-loving, vile-hatred of innocuous dialogue, as recounted (with comments) here:

If you really want to be all-but guaranteed to pick up on a bit of leftist Bush bashing on television, there’s no better place to turn than to NBC’s “Law & Order” TV series. The season finale of the show featured a storyline on judicial security. Detectives think a white supremacist is involved in the shootings of a judge’s family. Here’s part of the dialogue from that show:

ADA RON CARVER: An African American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt.

Ummm, ha ha? Really, it’s a stupid throwaway line, but that’s how people talk, stupid throwaway lines included. And I believe the point of scripted entertainment is to entertain. Do we really want dialogue to sound like this:

ADA RON CARVER: An American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody.

That works for me. “Somebody” doesn’t offend. It doesn’t describe either, but it doesn’t offend. And isn’t that the most important characteristic of entertainment? In business the maxim is “Cash is king.” I thought literature, a category in which screenwriting falls, the basic maxim is “Story is king.” Now I know better that the real literature maxim is “Non-offensiveness to any person’s politics, gender, sex, sexual orientation, education, ancestry, dietary considerations, disabilities, internet access, or humorlessness is king.” Really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

After a few incredulous comments, Mr. Boortz tries his hand at dialogue writing. Consider:

ADA RON CARVER: “She looks like she was alive when the car went off the bridge”

MAN: “Why didn’t she get out? The water is only four feet deep here.”

CARVER: “Dunno. Maybe she was dazed. The door might have been jammed. Anyway, she suffocated. Lack of air. Must have been a brutal death.

MAN: “Was she driving when the car went off the bridge?”

CARVER: “Doesn’t look like it. The seat is too far back for her to have been driving. Looks like someone taller .. a lot heavier.”

DET. ALEX EAMES: “Check the car to see if it has a Ted Kennedy bumper sticker.”

Guess what? I caught the meaning. You know, that the evidence doesn’t add up to the alleged facts. Isn’t that what good writing is supposed to convey? But somehow, I don’t understand how that conveys that the hypothetical suspect is a crazy, moonbat, left-leaning, liberal elitist. I just don’t make that connection. But, of course, when it comes from the so-called liberal media, there’s a clear intention behind the stupid, throwaway line. As Mr. Boortz concludes:

I ask you to imagine, if you can, the outrage that would come pouring forth from the nation’s liberal media if any of those punchy little vignettes actually appeared on a network television show. We would see stories damming NBC for using that dialogue and making those references to liberal icons. But in this case all NBC did was suggest that DeLay supporters kill federal judges. That’s not bias .. that’s entertainment.

NBC did not suggest that DeLay supporters kill judges. Here’s NBC’s official position:

“This isolated piece of gritty ‘cop talk’ was neither a political comment nor an accusation,” NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly said. “It’s not unusual for L & O to mention real names in its fictional stories. We’re confident in our viewers’ ability to distinguish between the two.”

You mean viewers are smart enough to determine that the stupid, throwaway line implied that the killer might be a crazy person who took this statement as an immediate order to be carried out because Rep. DeLay stated “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” after judges refused to reverse the decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube? You mean writers may take the easy way out to express their thought in an “inartful” way, just like Rep. DeLay “meant that Congress should increase its oversight of the courts.” Huh? No, I don’t believe that. It’s the liberal media. It can’t be anything else, my ideological talking point interpretation tells me so, so don’t try to convince me.

Is it really that devious? Or is there an alternate possibility? Maybe, just maybe, “Tom DeLay T-shirt” is a stand-in as a current events reference, a reference which explains the point in 14 words rather than a 3-page dissertation about public figures irresponsibly bitching about so-called activist judges and how those judges will eventually be made “to answer for their behavior”. Again, I state, isn’t that the point of effective writing? Particularly in dialogue?

If it quacks like a duck, sometimes it’s actually a sound clip of a duck, played on a computer by someone who realizes that purchasing a duck to hear a duck quack is overkill.

(Hat tip: Instapundit and my friend Will)

P.S. Mr. Boortz uses a picture from the original Law & Order, even though that isn’t the correct Law & Order for this non-scandal. Isn’t putting a misleading picture with a story a conservative argument against the so-called liberal media? I’m just saying.

Sounds to me like you caused a damn accident

Those crazy liberals are at it again, what with the refusing to resist the Cable TV-fueled temptations of Satan and the pushing of the homosexual agenda onto children. Consider this story from Lexington, Massachusetts:

For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington’s Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity.

Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of Who’s In a Family? by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.

The book’s contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook’s principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker’s arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail.

Ooooh, all conservatives think books are bad, right? Nope. Mr. Parker doesn’t say that and the specific book that his son brought home wasn’t the real issue for him. He’s concerned that the school is exposing his son to “homosexual material” without prior consent. The facts seem to support a complete communication failure between the school and the parents about this issue, which is where I believe Mr. Parker tried to take the discussion. Consider these e-mail excerpts from Mr. and Mrs. Parker and the school’s principal, Ms. Joni Jay:

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We do not authorize any teacher or adult within the Lexington Public School system to expose our sons, [older son] and [younger son] (begins school in 2006) to any sexual orientation/homoseexual material/same sex unions between parents.

Principal to Parkers on Friday, March 4, 2005

I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy.

Parkers to Principal on Friday, March 4, 2005

We would like to clarify that our previous e-mail which states: “we do not give the Lexington Public School system permission to discuss homosexuality issues (i.e. – trans gender/bisexual/gay headed households) to our son [son’s name]” – is a parental assertion; not a matter open to legal interpretation or administrative policy. Let us, David and Tonia Parker, parents of [son’s name], be clear in purpose and prose on this matter:

Discussions concerning homosexuality issues will not take place in front of our son, [son’s name] (5 yrs old), at Estabrook.

There is clearly a disagreement about how to handle this book. While I suspect that this book does nothing more than present a gay couple, which is not the same thing as “pushing the homosexual agenda”, I concede that this can lead to questions that the Parkers aren’t ready to answer for a 5-year-old. My nephew is four-and-a-half and, as smart (and inquisitive) as he is, my brother probably isn’t ready to discuss same-sex couples. (I think my nephew, like most kids, would say “Oh”, and then run off to play.) So, yeah, it’s certainly a parent’s right to determine what his/her child is exposed to at that age. And I don’t believe that getting that agreement from the school is too much to ask.

That didn’t happen in this case, though. Whether the school misinterpreted state law (mentioned in the article) or not is irrelevant. Mr. Parker should’ve taken his complaint to the school board, the next logical step. The exchange between the Parkers and Ms. Jay took several months, so time lag was not a factor. If, after taking his case to the school board, he didn’t get the answer he wanted, he could consult an attorney and sue or work to change the school board rules or whatever potential remedy presented itself. He shouldn’t have to go through that, but sometimes we endure obstacles that we shouldn’t have to endure.

That’s what he should’ve done, but it’s not what he did. This is what he did:

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

He was there, officials and police asked him to leave, he declined, the police arrested him. That seems simple enough, right? Nope. This is turning into a rallying cry for “liberals vs. family values”. Consider this conclusion drawn by Michelle Malkin (where I found the article):

Unbelievable that we’ve come to this. Parker is treated as a troublemaker and a bigot –and now a criminal–for refusing to cede parental control to p.c. public school educrats. Meanwhile, “diversity” brainwashing and Moral Equivalence 101 have seeped effortlessly into government kindergarten classrooms.

Mr. Parker is treated as a criminal, not for his beliefs, but for his alleged unwillingness to obey police instruction to leave the school premises.

Is this the only reaction where the thinker missed the simple fact for why the police arrested Mr. Parker? Consider this, from Wizbang!:

And in the meantime, what I think is the bigger issue is getting ignored. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, the fundamental question is this: are his demands that he be notified about what material is being taught to his son about a clearly controversial issue unreasonable?

…snipped…

Quibble if you wish with Mr. Parker’s beliefs, but don’t challenge his right to possess them — and act on them. We need more parents who feel as protective of their children as he does.

While I quibble with his beliefs, Mr. Parker has a right to them. His demands to be notified are reasonable. But we also need more parents who respect the law as every other parent who has a disagreement with the school but works to achieve their goals in a proper manner.

Or consider this from The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill:

The vast gulf between the left and reality is making any possibility of my children ever going into any public school vanish. This is not as some might claim the Right Wing evangelicals rolling back the clock. This is much more like parents finally understanding what is being attempted by the left wing.

Read the whole entry… it throws around the term “Nazi” and the statement that educators who believe same-sex marriage is acceptable “have dedicated themselves to getting into a position where they could start tearing down the family structure.”

Or consider this from the blue site:

The liberals want to brainwash your children as early as possible. Liberal Massachusetts has a kindergarten program that teaches kids about homosexuals and “families” with 2 gay parents…

Sickening. The hom
osexuals will do anything to force their alternative (alternative to NORMAL) lifestyle down all of our throats…their new tactic is to start as early in a child’s life as possible, so the brainwashing will be totally set in by the time they become adults. Disgusting…

This is why liberals need to be stopped from their destruction of the family, traditional values, and this country as we know it…

Do I need to comment on that?

Or consider this comment left on the blue site by moe:

So true,Josh,so true. I dunno what’s gonna happen,but it ain’t gonna be good. As much as I would like to have children,I’m glad that I don’t right now. I would be constantly on edge,worrying that some stranger,will legally try and force them to learn to be fags. I wouldn’t stand for it,and you’re right when you say the vast majority of Americans find it disgusting too.

What the hell right does the public “education” system think it has? It’s supposed to teach readin’,writin’,and ‘rythmatic…not blowjobs and buttsex. And the big pisser,is that these filthy devient heathens,are enormously outnumbered by moral Americans,yet they somehow have been given authority. I ain’t happy.

I don’t bother queers,and I don’t harass them or go hunting for them to bash,so why do they attack the rest of us? Vile bastards,they are. They remind me of muslims….always picking the fights and starting trouble,yet always claiming to be “oopressed” and “discriminated”. They are not oppressed,but they should be. They should all get the ever lovin’ shit kicked out of them everyday,then see how much they wanna bitch and moan. Same goes for anyone who supports them.

Ah, those conservatives with their family values. Thank God they’re looking out for all of us from the evil liberal, homosexual agenda. Otherwise, what would concerned, law-abidingbreaking parents do?

You are one… sick… puppy.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association announced a new initiative yesterday. The new initiative intends to “help families manage their television viewing and protect children from inappropriate programming.” NCTA president and CEO Kyle McSlarrow offered the reasoning behind the new campaign (which can be found on the internets at controlyourtv.org:

“The cable industry shares the concerns of many parents, who want to guard against TV content they feel may be inappropriate for their children,” McSlarrow said. “While many cable customers already have the tools to block unwanted TV content, many are not aware how to use parental control features.”

Blah, blah, blah. I commend the NCTA for undertaking this task, but it really is a $250 million waste of money. Ideally it’ll keep Congress at bay because Congress seems to react favorably only when money is thrown at a problem. It reacts extra-special, super-duper favorable when it gets to define the problem. The free flow of money makes them feel like maybe some more of that might come their way for the next election, I suppose. Absurd, sure, but it beats legislation.

My issue with this is that parents who won’t read the instructions for their cable box won’t be influenced by this ad campaign. They don’t take the time now, so why will they with a few more spiffy commercials? Besides, those parents aren’t the ones who send e-mail and write letters and place telephone calls to L. Brent Bozell and the Parents Television Council every time some one says “H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks” on the TV. The parents who do will not be happy with this for one reason: it’s voluntary. Put a different way, it still allows all of the so-called offensive content to go to people who want it (or can’t/won’t stop it from reaching their children). The real opponents who’ve made this an issue want morality legislation and nothing else.

Consider this statement from Mr. Bozell:

… L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, blasted the program as an attempt “to spin the public with a multi-million-dollar campaign to promote channel blocking and V-chip technologies as an adequate remedy for families concerned about their children being exposed to violent, profane and sexually explicit programming.

“This $250-million sham is being foisted on American consumers by the cable industry with the sole purpose of shirking responsibility for its product,” Bozell added.

What else would Mr. Bozell promote that allows free citizens to choose what they watch and don’t watch? Does he not realize that this “$250 million sham is being foisted on American consumers” because of his blathering about indecency and the downfall of America and the inevitable coming of orgies in the streets thanks to one (not-really-) naked nipple fifteen months ago? Does he realize that that $250 million isn’t coming from the charity of the NCTA, that it’s coming from those parents who don’t bother to read the instructions that come with the indecency machine cable box hooked to their televisions? Or that it’s coming from me, an American consumer who understands that changing the channel or clicking the On/Off button on my TV remote is free? I already paid for those instructions the first time and my mother paid the taxes that supported my education which taught me how to read those instructions I’ve already paid for. But, nope, that’s not good enough, you have to be an obsessed Luddite who believes that every American child is the direct target of indecency and every American parent is too stupid to parent. Thanks for looking out for me, guy, but stop it. Now.

Mr. Bozell does offer rationalizations for his concerns. Consider:

“In order for the V-chip to work, it must rely on an accurate ratings system,” Bozell said. Pointing to the PTC’s recent report, The Ratings Sham: TV Executives Hiding Behind a System That Doesn’t Work, he called the existing system “a fraud, rendering the V-chip a useless tool and an irrelevant, meaningless gesture.

“Currently, the networks — not an independent body — determine a program’s rating, and those same networks are financially motivated to lower ratings in order not to scare away advertisers,” Bozell said.

Mr. Bozell doesn’t seek a method for a television rating system to be meaningful. He wants Congress to be the “independent body” that legislates what is acceptable. According to his “independent” standards, of course. I’m not going argue the financially motivated part because it defies logic to bother beyond a simple explanation. Advertisers are scared away only when viewers come complaining. Mr. Bozell and his devotees don’t go complaining to the advertisers, they go to Congress and the FCC.

Mr. Bozell added:

“Finally, even if the ratings system were accurate and the V-chip useful, it does nothing to solve the root problem,” he added. “Hollywood is flooding the family living room, via broadcast airwaves and cable, with offensive material, much of it deliberately designed for impressionable children.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to literally kick my feet to brush aside the offensive material. It’s everywhere and I’m afraid that my landlord is starting to get pissed danged upset about the filth. Do you know how many times I’ve had to hide a pile of breasts and the random, scattered Victoria’s Secret lingerie show lying around so that my house would look presentable again? I fear the day that must be coming soon when one of the cats licks the carpet and comes down with some horrible STD from the three seconds my TV was stopped on MTV last week. I’m sending that vet bill straight to Hollywood. But we all know nothing in Hollywood is straight, so the kitty’s STD will probably bankrupt me before I can get paid. Good thing you’ve come up with this alternative:

“Better yet, why doesn’t Hollywood just stop flooding television with sewage?” he concluded.

I don’t think they empty their sewage into the televisions, but I could be wrong. (I would think it would do bad, bad things to the wires.) Maybe you should call them instead of Congress. Better go directly to the source. Not directly to the source, I guess, but the central office maybe. Start there.

(Hat tip: SpeakSpeak.org)

That’s a nice frame. What’s the picture again?

There is a crisis afoot in America. You know, the crisis caused by the big, bad, evil oil corporations. The one where people are complaining because the price of gas is going up and have decided that Congress must do something because there is no way to go back in time and not buy that SUV that gets 12 miles-per-gallon and now costs $50 (and more) to fill up every four days. Yeah, that one, the one that proves capitalism punishes the stupid consumer. It’s all good, because the Houses cares.

The House of Representatives passed an energy bill yesterday, so it now moves to the Senate. Among its provisions, it includes the following:

–Open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling.

–Provide product liability protection for makers of MTBE against lawsuits stemming from the gasoline additive contaminating drinking water. Payment of $2 billion in transition costs over eight years to manufacturers as MTBE is phased out.

–Expand daylight-saving time by two months, so it would start on the first Sunday in March and end on the last Sunday in November.

–Give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clear authority to override states and local officials in locating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals.

I presume that this bill is designed to be proactive regarding our current energy crisis but it misses the point. Sure, opening up oil fields in America could lead to “more” oil, but at what cost? I’m not knowledgeable enough about the details to bitch about the destruction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but I assume it’s A Bad Idea&#153. Regardless, it misses the point IF it’s intended as a long-term solution. More on that in a moment.

I’m not quite sure how liability protection for makers of MTBE is a good idea. If they’re contaminating water in two dozen states, it’s probably not smart to sweep that under the rug and say “Oops. Do over.” I need to get better informed, but that’s just a hunch. Especially when it comes with $2,000,000,000 in “You made a bad, harmful business decision, but we’re going to look the other way while we you fix it” handouts. Nice job.

I’m not even going to bother swinging at the daylight-saving time nonsense, as Kip over at A Stitch in Haste already dismantled that idea with this post. Definitely read it. (And stick around and read his other posts, too. You’ll be glad you did.)

As for giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “clear authority to override states and local officials in locating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals”, I can only interpret that with basic logic. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a For Citizens – LNG Overview, which offers this information specific to that provision:

Where do ships unload LNG?

Ships unload LNG at specially designed terminals where the LNG is pumped from the ship to insulated storage tanks at the terminal. LNG is also converted back to gas at the terminal, which is connected to natural gas pipelines that transport the gas to where it is needed. Specially designed trucks may also be used to deliver LNG to other storage facilities in different locations.

Oh. That’s nice. We need that. There’s the obvious question, of course, which this provision clarifies. Where should we place that terminal? What we now know is that if the Senate agrees and President Bush signs, this will go wherever the federal bureaucrats urban planners decide. No community decisions necessary. How is this smart? All bow before the Federal government, I guess.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan did weigh in on this. When asked, he offered this:

This is a comprehensive piece of legislation, and it does address one of the fundamental problems facing our nation, and that is that we are growing more dependent on foreign sources of energy. And we have high energy prices facing consumers because we have not had a national energy plan in place. We have a growing global economy and a growing demand from countries around the world for oil. And we are relying on foreign sources of energy. And that’s why the President believes it is all the more reason we need to act now. He put forward a plan four years ago, and it’s time for Congress to get that passed.

The key to solving any problem is to define it correctly. Once you do that, the solution becomes possible. Mr. McClellan, and by extension, President Bush, are wrong on the problem. It’s not that we are “growing more dependent on foreign sources of energy.” While that may be true, it isn’t the issue. Framing the problem that way only encourages solutions like drilling for oil in Alaska.

The problem is that we are relying on the wrong sources of energy. (I’m including the wrong mix of sources in this explanation, solely as a simplification.) Our current energy usage has severe political baggage, which is what Mr. McClellan’s statement conveys. Fine, we get it, but don’t pit this as an us-against-them ploy. The global economy is here, whether we like it or not. That our political situation and energy needs aren’t meshed demands a better response than a “circle the wagons” self-reliance isolationism.

President Bush claims to support alternate sources of energy. I’m willing to believe him to an extent until proven to the contrary. The quest for non-petroleum based energy sources is young, and the president stated that the nation should explore this. Mr. McClellan hinted that this energy plan does not meet President Bush’s agenda. If we’re going to offer incentives (not that we should; just that we are), let’s do it wisely. How will President Bush work with the Congress to resolve this? Will he veto this energy bill if it comes before him without any significant changes from the Senate? I’m anxious to know.

I have no idea of the exact solution, but perpetuating the old paradigm (I have an MBA; I need to use 10&#162 buzzwords.) with a mix of handouts for old ideas and new federal power-grabs isn’t the answer.

File under “D” for Duh.

This seems self-explanatory:

“The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years,” Greenspan said in his prepared testimony. “But most important, deficits as a percentage of [gross domestic product] in these simulations rise without limit. Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse.”

Too bad Congress and President Bush don’t get it.

Different gunman, same gun

Just in case anyone is thinking that I’ve gone soft with all the tender posts lately, know that I haven’t completely thawed my soul. Politics still matter to me and within politics, I have a few pet issues that seem to never attract common sense from our elected representatives. Today’s lunacy is brought to us by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who stated this about indecency and obscenity on our public airwaves:

“People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulatory process,” the Wisconsin Republican said at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual convention.

“That way you aim the cannon specifically at the people who are committing the offenses,” and not at everyone, he said. “The people who are trying to do the right thing end up being penalized the same way the people who are doing the wrong thing.”

Good plan, Congressman. To be fair, he doesn’t support expanding current regulation to cable and satellite broadcasts, though I suspect he’d vote for it if it came up in Congress. And he does have a brief glimmer of rational thought about the easiest, least intrusive solution, which I will point out before analyzing his new idea. Consider:

“The first thing we need is education has got to get better, he said. “You can’t expect the government to replace parental responsibility.”

He said it was “far better” for consumers to press a button on their remote control to lock out programs or channels than for the government to set the standard.

This sounds remarkably like some other comments from the convention:

Glenn Britt, chairman of Time Warner Cable, agreed that the industry needs to do more to educate customers about parental controls but added that the industry can only do so much.

“What we can’t do is … make parents take responsibility,” Britt said. “But if parents do take the responsibility to be concerned about what their children are seeing, this industry provides all the tools they need.”

Imagine that. Technology is so good that parents can actually solve the problem. Let’s see, what can they do? They can sell their television. They can pick up the phone, dial between seven and ten numbers, speak with a representative of their cable company, and cancel their subscription. They can use the little buttons on the television/cable box/remote that reads “Power”. They can use the v-chip embedded in their television, assuming it’s there, of course. They can even set the parental lock on their cable box to block certain channels. No need to be a luddite, folks. Technology kicks ass buttocks.

But what about Rep. Sensenbrenner’s plan? Could it work? After all, indecency and obscenity are already criminal offenses; the government merely enforces them with a regulatory agency. It’s certainly possible that our government has made a mistake in the past and could reverse course and prosecute indecency and obscenity with criminal penalties. I wrote about this on another blog (hat tip: Jeff Jarvis for the story), but realized, I shouldn’t leave some of my better writing elsewhere. It’s mine, all mine, so I’m going to use it here, expanding and editing where necessary. Here is my simple thought experiment that began with a simple question: “Diminishing the FCC’s power is the goal of my protests, for Constitutional reasons. Is the solution to transfer the FCC’s power to a district attorney, and by extension, a jury of citizens?”

I agree that having it decided by citizens instead of the FCC is a good idea, but probably only in theory. The United States is a republic to legislate and lead through calm, rational reasoning, not the mass hysteria that seems to pass for democracy. The FCC is made up of lawyers who refuse to follow the Constitution, seemingly unable to understand that “Congress shall make no law…” isn’t a suggestion. Should we have confidence in lay people who don’t have a legal education? And it still doesn’t resolve the issue of the definition of obscenity. I don’t see legislatures defining it any time soon. So we’d have 12 citizens deciding the traditional “community standards” for everyone. Are we confident that that’s the best place to legislate for everyone?

Of course, if indecency/obscenity enforcement becomes a criminal matter instead of a regulatory action, that puts it in the hands of prosecutors and defense attorneys. I bet the defense attorneys will be better funded than the prosecution and able to convince the juries of what the Constitution means, right?

I don’t think so. In criminal cases, the facts are the facts. If someone commits murder, there are facts. There was a living person, now there is a dead person. The suspect’s fingerprints were on the gun. Simple. (I simplify for the purpose of my point.)

Ok, now apply that logic to indecency/obscenity. Let’s consider a hypothetical situation. The producer of Fox’s latest reality show airs a segment that contains the phrase “He’s an ass.” A TV viewer in Peoria, IL decides that she doesn’t like that and complains to her local district attorney. The local DA files criminal charges. The jury of twelve peers decides for the city of Peoria that “He’s an ass,” violates their standards. The jury deliberation is closed, so we don’t know how they specifically came to this conclusion. Either way, “He’s an ass,” is no longer acceptable on television in Peoria.

At the same time, a viewer in Clearwater, FL also disapproves of the phrase “He’s an ass.” He complains to his local DA and the case goes to trial. Now the producer must stand trial in two districts. Of course, in this case, the producer is acquitted, so the phrase “He’s an ass,” is still acceptable on television in Clearwater, FL.

See any problems yet? I count at least two. So what do we do? To (hopefully) eliminate the need to defend himself in every jurisdiction and to have conflicting standards for national broadcasts in local markets, Congress passes legislation that makes indecency/obscenity a federal offense. Community standards (Federalism?) are no longer relevant. It’s national standards now, but so as not to offend anyone, we set that standard at the lowest level possible rather than the reasonable person standard supposedly in place today. Sound familiar yet?

Of course, with this idea, federal prosecutors are now the clearing house for criminal complaints. The PTC continues to catalog every possible offense occurring on television. They send lists on a daily/weekly basis to the federal prosecutor’s office. There are too many requests, so the federal prosecutor hires more attorneys to handle the case load, to review what should and shouldn’t warrant criminal charges. Eventually Congress decides that the case load is too much and creates the, oh, I don’t know, the Federal Department of Homeland Decency to handle these cases. Problem solved.

That scenario seems plausible to me. Likely? Probably not, but nothing else about the last fifteen months of indecency nonsense was probable. Congress certainly seems gung-ho to deal with everything through an expansion of federal powers and control. Is my scenario really so far-fetched?

Our criminal system deals with complexities every day, but in
those cases, the crime is determined prior to the crime. With obscenity, the crime only occurs if the wrong person is watching or listening and the material offends his individual standards. Do we really want a jury to decide if someone has harmed nothing more than a community’s sensibilities? Criminalizing indecency/obscenity doesn’t change the situation; it just moves disregard for the Constitution from one location to another. The true solution is to understand that the Constitution is the law of the land and no amount of moralizing is going to change that. Personal responsibility still matters and is the easiest, most immediate solution.

The pen is mightier than hatred?

The issue everyone loves most is back, this time in California.

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County’s trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be “no rational purpose” for denying marriage to gay couples.

I’m not going to go into any details because I’ve written many times about this subject. My opinion is clear. This ruling only confirms my belief that same-sex marriage will be legal in the United States. There will be bumps and setbacks along the way, but this movement isn’t turning around.

What I do want to point out, though, is this press release from Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver after Judge Kramer announced his ruling. Consider:

“This ruling is not the end of the battle. It is just the beginning. Marriage should not be undermined by the stroke of a pen from a single judge. Marriage is a fundamental policy issue that must be decided by the people. To rule that there is no rational purpose to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman is ludicrous. This ruling, which flies in the face of common sense and millennia of human history, will pour gasoline on the fire ignited by the pro-marriage movement. Californians and the rest of the country will react to this decision by passing constitutional amendments to preserve marriage on the state and federal levels. No society has created a buffet-like arrangement of human relationships from which anyone may pick and choose and call it marriage. Marriage is and must remain the union of one man and one woman.”

The pro-marriage movement? It seems to me that expanding marriage is pro-marriage and limiting marriage is anti-marriage. Liberty Counsel is self-delusional in thinking that it’s pro-marriage. And “no society has created buffet-like arrangement”? That statement is explicitly not true, and I have no doubt that Mr. Staver knows that. The Netherlands, among others, recognizes same-sex marriage. And I can only assume that Mr. Staver intends for that statement to lead into the inevitable argument that marriage between a man and his dog or a woman and her desk won’t be far behind. That sentiment is ridiculous and it’s not going to happen, so I’m not going to refute it.

Really, I’m bored with the fear that surrounds this issue. There is nothing more traditional than two people wanting to pair up and commit to each other. How is that anti-family? Why the fear? At least with my boredom I know that this mass hysteria will pass, civilization will not crumble, and the planet will continue to spin. The only question left is whether to look forward to the expansion of freedom or backward to the safety of tradition.

SIDEBAR: For an in-depth understanding of the legal aspects of the same-sex marriage issue, read A Stitch in Haste. Kip has an excellent array of posts about the various dimensions of the issue. His blog is worth reading to become better informed.

I only write the interesting bits

The House of Representatives is considering legislation “that would let parents and children filter the curse words, sex scenes and violence out of movie DVDs”. Senate bill S. 167 passed the Senate, so the House is its final obstacle before it lands on President Bush’s desk for his signature. I think everyone can assume that he’ll sign it. Here’s the surprising point: I don’t care.

I’ve written about free speech and our need to protect it, especially the speech that we least enjoy, but this legislation doesn’t upset me. It’s a blow against the boneheads in charge of Hollywood studios who wouldn’t know business sense if Congress stapled it to the desk of every executive. For a group so historically focused on the greenback instead of artistic merit, this doesn’t surprise me. Rather than embrace the potential for an expanded audience, the studios seek to shut down anything they don’t control. This is very much an “old media” strategy when there wasn’t money to be made in new ways or, wait for it… consumers who wouldn’t purchase the Hollywood product before technology made it possible to be family-friendly safe watered-down.

Specifically, the Family Movie Act of 2005 addresses the following issue:

The legislation was introduced because Hollywood studios and directors had sued to stop the makers and distributors of technology for DVD players that would skip movie scenes deemed offensive. The movies’ creators had argued that changing the content would violate their copyrights.

But the legislation would create an exemption in the copyright laws to make sure companies that offer the technology like ClearPlay, a Salt Lake City business, won’t get sued out of existence.

An unfortunately worthy goal, although perhaps the “activist judges” would interpret the law as they did the invention of the VCR. Dare we trust the system? Of course the answer is no, and I think we all know the primary reason. This issue involves “family”, so it’s a political goldmine, no legislative necessity required. That it involves “family” against Hollywood transforms it into a bottom-of-the-ninth, bases-loaded four-bagger. Consider:

“These days, I don’t think anyone would even consider buying a DVD player that doesn’t come with a remote control,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. “Yet there are some who would deny parents the right to use an equivalent electronic device to protect their children from offensive material.”

Yes, but wouldn’t strapping a collar on your child and putting the offensive material beyond the electric fence be as effective? Even though that amazing technological device known as the remote control can be used as a MovieNanny&#153 to “protect” children via its surprisingly effective On/Off button, I’m kidding. Representative Smith is correct that devices like the ClearPlay DVD player are simply electronic devices that filter content, helping parents to avoid responsibility protect their children from objectionable material. The original version of the disc isn’t change. Take the DVD out of the player, put it into a non-ClearPlay DVD player and the movie plays as the studio and director released the film. The studios can complain, but there is no issue.

Rather than write a new ending, I’ll rehash something I wrote last April. Behold:

If people are buying a movie, then watch a filtered version, the director still wins. She can continue making the movie that she envisions, while more people see it than would have originally. Through maintaining her artistic vision, she can perhaps enlighten those viewers about her idea of creativity and free expression. Who loses?

But I still think there’s something to that whole invisible fence thing.