Category: Stupidity

Abusing language to abuse people

I’m “stunned”:

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

We don’t believe in enumerated powers or a limited executive any longer, so why bother with descriptions of who qualifies as an “unlawful enemy combatant”? We can trust the benevolence and good intentions of whichever administration occupies the White House to not abuse its allegedly plenary power. It’s worked well so far.

Is it January 2009 yet?

Majoritarian pleas should consider the actual majority

I suppose Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, is now the preferred religious candidate for president in 2008. For evidence, witness John Fund’s glowing review following the Family Research Council’s weekend Values Voters Summit:

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts’ Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation’s most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. “I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008,” says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

I’m left wondering what role Gov. Romney imagines for the judicial branch. Court-imposed seems to predict four more years of “activist judges” nonsense should Gov. Romney be our next president. Me, I’ll pass. I’ve heard the term enough. Court’s interpret the Constitution and the laws that supposedly flow from it. This is not a hard concept, even in disagreement with the decisions.

The “activist judges” is understandable, if not forgivable. Worse, though, is the clear indication that majoritarianism is a reasonable standard for Gov. Romney. The legislature disrespected the will of the minority people. Big deal. This is representative government in our Republic. This is surprising?

The “liberals” restrained government from acting to subordinate the rights of one group of citizens at the whim of another group. That sounds more like responsible government than failure. That it’s also the conservative (i.e., limited government) position in this debate indicates that Gov. Romney has no taste for principle. See Exhibit B

There’s much more worth reviewing, but I enjoy this. It’s where I’ll end:

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

Contributor base and shared religion. Those sound like the two finest qualifications for the presidency, I wonder why we don’t just anoint Gov. Romney Presidential Apprentice when his term as governor is finished. That way he can learn from the current president, who also happens to be endowed with those two brilliant qualifications.

Why do some people refuse to take their head out of the political sand?

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.

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.

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.

Employment is not daycare

At my last job, I witnessed management issuing stupid, condescending guidelines on “business casual” attire similar to this dress code offered by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel:

Last month, the agency devoted part of its employee newsletter to “Business Casual” do’s and don’ts. Tight pants, short skirts and long fingernails are out; khaki trousers — for everyone! — are in. Any among the 100-plus staff of lawyers and investigators who have spent their careers blind to the sartorial signals of official Washington were told: “You are not trying to stand out for the cutting edge look, but for your good judgment.”

Next came two pages of tips for achieving the good-judgment, non-cutting-edge look.

Men: Avoid sneakers for receptions, leave earrings at home and strap on a “conservative watch.”

Women: Wear the conservative watch, plus tailored pants, tailored shirts, tailored sweaters, and “a tailored purse . . . that hangs on your shoulder is often advantageous as it frees your hands for greetings (hand shakes) or holding a beverage.” For those who cannot master this, “leaving your purse locked in the trunk is preferable.” Also “make certain you can walk comfortably in your shoes.”

Etc, etc. Now people are either mocking the agency or feeling offended. I’m more dismayed at the message such drivel sends, and more importantly, why employees continue to put up with this.

I certainly mocked the dress code guidance issued by my former employer (sweat pants are not business casual), but that kind of treatment factored heavily into my decision to leave. Pay me to do a job, and I will do it. Like most employees, I am not stupid. I’m more than capable of figuring out how to model the dress code of my superiors. Respect me enough to assume that. If I fail to demonstrate that ability, speak to me separately about it.

Infantilize your entire workforce, and you eventually have a workforce incapable of thinking for itself. Kinda like socialism and its paternalistic form currently spilling out from legislative bodies all across America.

Will a computer guard the prisoners beyond hour 48?

Richard A. Posner may be on to something regarding an American need for an MI5 equivalent, in light of the recent foiled attacks. In his essay, he concludes:

We cannot afford to assume that we are safe. Perhaps we will now abandon that comfortable assumption.

I’m fine with that, and don’t believe I’ve argued for anything to the contrary in my words here. But this is not a strong foundation for convincing me of his specific plan:

But to the extent that our laws do handicap us in fighting terrorism, it is one more sign that we do not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to be willing to reexamine a commitment to a rather extravagant conception of civil liberties that was formed in a different and safer era.

I read that portion of Judge Posner’s essay as referring specifically to the period in which suspects can be held without a hearing. Let’s debate that, and take appropriate action if 48 hours doesn’t make sense. But the solution does not involve removing an extravagant conception of civil liberties. The government already believes any constraints are extravagant. They do not need fewer constraints. Seek a solution that protects oversight of civil liberties protection, not a solution that tramples our ideals with a guilty until the government decides otherwise conception of national security.

Jesus Saves while Uncle Sam spends

I suspect there’s a better solution to this local religious quandary than having the federal government purchase land it does not need.

A gigantic cross in San Diego that has been the focus of a 17-year court battle became the property of the federal government yesterday with President Bush’s signature.

Supporters hope the legislation enabling the federal government to purchase the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial — featuring a 29-foot cross — from the city of San Diego will protect it permanently. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

“Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn’t mean you destroy it and tear it down,” said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.), after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members who sponsored the bill.

If the cross is so important to religious Americans, those individuals and/or groups are free to band together to purchase the property themselves. With private ownership, the establishment clause impact would be gone. That should be obvious. Instead, we’re left with Rep. Bilbray’s strange notion that the property’s religious connotation only offered two choices, government protection or destruction. How strong is faith in this country that its symbols must be protected by government, lest it perish from the Earth? To Rep. Bilbray I say this: just because something may have a religious connotation to a few (or even many) doesn’t mean we all must pay for its protection. If you like the cross so much, use your own money.

I lost the government’s birth lottery

From Cato @ Liberty:

Social Security turns 71 today. One can argue about whether or not the program was a good idea in 1935, but there should be no question about its inadequacies today. And its flaws just get worse with each passing year.

Social Security will begin running a deficit in just 11 years. Of course, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2040. That’s not much comfort to today’s 33-year-olds, who will face an automatic 26 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. …

Let me ponder for a moment that I’m 33, and will reach my (government-accepted) retirement age of 67 in July 2040. Yay, me. Is this the part where I state that leadership is preparing today for what tomorrow will bring, while politics is preparing tomorrow for what yesterday brought? I thought so.