Category: Stupidity

Congress should stamp Return to Sender upon receipt

Couldn’t the Bush administration achieve this through a presidential signing statement? Why go through the established process if executive power is plenary?

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “outrages upon [the] personal dignity” of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts — such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — that fall short of torture.

I’d like to believe that this is a cowardly admission that some of our government’s policies are dishonorable (and illegal), but that’s too optimistic. Instead, I suspect the spin will involve thwarting a plot by activist judges, prosecutors, and politicians (traitorous Democrats, no doubt) to eliminate useful interrogation techniques because those nefarious individuals want our enemies to win. Or something. The president, he knows best. The only consolation is that the administration didn’t let this slide and then offer pardons for anyone convicted before January 2009. (I’m assuming the next president could pardon future patriots convicted of outrages upon personal dignity, since we’re at a permanent conservative majority.) Either way, this is shameful and should be rejected by the Congress.

Just because I like this quote:

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”

This administration has obfuscated enough.

Like making Al Capone your spokesman

I’d like to think that Antigua’s complaint with the World Trade Organization against the United States could encourage the federal government to drop our nonsensical policies surrounding internet gambling (and gambling, in general). It would be great if a quick stroke of the pen could fix our stupidity, but to believe it will is a fantasy. So I put no expectation in the complaint’s prospects. But assuming for a moment that it could change minds in Congress, and acknowledging that normal sanctions by Antigua against the U.S. would be laughable, how does this make any sense?

So the Antiguans plan to ask the WTO for the right to impose sanctions that would hurt — namely, permission to copy and export U.S.-made DVDs, CDs and similar material. Hollywood is not amused.

What kind of connection is that? The U.S. government has an irrational, anti-liberty policy, which it pursues outside the United States, so that entitles Antigua to steal intellectual property from private businesses that have nothing to do with the source of the complaint, other than being (mostly) American? It’s impossible to take their complaint seriously, and I’m on their side. I don’t imagine the fair-minded souls in Congress will care for that recommendation, either. Thanks for standing up for the cause, though.

On a side note, this is amusing:

“Gambling in general, and remote supply of gambling in particular, raises grave law-enforcement and consumer-protection concerns,” the U.S. trade representative’s office said in a legal filing. Attorneys for the trade representative declined to make additional public comments.

Legalizing “local supply” of gambling via the Internets would do a lot to eliminate the “remote supply” concern. I do enjoy that gambling raises grave concerns for law-enforcement before it raises them for the protection of consumers. That’s a good priority list for the government to take. Only the most pro-liberty solution will arise.

Brain rot leaves me ill-equipped

From its assumptions I shouldn’t be able to respond to this with proper analysis, mostly due to the copious amounts of blow I snort off the backsides of my prostitutes (when I don’t get distracted by the room full of monkeys I keep to torment mentally-challenged children for my own amusement), but I’ll give it the old (state) college try:

MTV’s own reticence aside, we can think of another reason not to celebrate the past 25 years. Almost every behavior and image the station’s name conjures up is a reminder of cultural decline.

Think about it. The phrase “MTV generation” is routinely used to connote young people with the attention span of fleas and an insatiable appetite for the next thrill.

Stereotypes and directing blame at the purveyor of “pornography” instead of at the parents of the small minority actually impacted (impacted, not impaired) by the current incarnation of MTV who don’t bother to parent is so much easier. These editors should stop writing, sit on their front porch, and scream “Get off the lawn!” at the neighborhood toughs. Then we’ll finally realize our full cultural decline, leaving every one of us incapable of anything beyond anti-social attacks on the integrity of our upstanding past.

Let’s live in huts and wear animal skins

Ummm, the definition of capitalism is not this:

The deteriorating relationship between the German government and business was underscored on Wednesday when a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union called on the party to shed its “capitalist” image.

“The CDU is not a capitalist party,” Jürgen Rüttgers, state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia and one of the party’s four deputy chairmen, told Stern weekly. “It is a community of values that is not just rooted in materialism.”

Mr. Rüttgers should get his reasoning correct, since capitalism is not as he describes it. I believe the term he’s searching for is consumerism.

Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of equating personal happiness with purchasing material possessions and consumption.

Compare that to capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit. These include factors of production such as land and other natural resources, labor and capital goods. Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” (or corporations) to trade in a free market.

Capitalism, as Mr. Rüttgers should realize, means that individual Germans can decide how much or how little materialism is appropriate in their lives. The CDU’s responsibility is to get out of the way. I’m sure Christian social awareness will survive the purchase of a new iPod or twenty.

Hokies thank you for free WiFi

This story is a few months old, but since I visited Blacksburg last week, I learned about it now. The facts:

The New River Valley will soon be more connected than ever as Blacksburg Transit goes wireless with a pilot program offering Internet service aboard select buses.

The new service, created as the result of a partnership between Citizens Telephone Cooperative, based in Floyd, and Blacksburg Transit, has already begun wireless Internet service aboard a single bus, but plans are in the works to add six more by the end of May. “We’re still testing, but we should have them all done by the end of the month,” said Tim Witten, manager of BT Access.

“We’re doing it as a pilot program. We’re deploying this to see how it works, and hope it would be a really attractive part of our service, and serve as an example to the rest of Virginia,” Witten said.

That’s fancy enough, but I don’t imagine students clamored for this service. Although my experience is eight-plus years old, I’m confident that local travel patterns among Virginia Tech students haven’t changed that much. Most users aren’t on the bus long enough to scan for the wireless network and connect, much less to check the status of their fantasy football. Those students who are on the bus long enough and want to download the latest Paris Hilton song should pay for it themselves.

The program is being paid for by a series of grants from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation and the federal government, thus restricting the number of buses that will receive wireless service.

Because it’s some tech nerd’s vision of cool does not mean it’s a public good. Should I also point out that Blacksburg Transit does not intend to test the program on specific routes? That the routes could change daily? I’m sure that will inspire riders to bring their laptops on a regular basis. Hopefully this flawed premise will help the program fail. As long as it’s in place, when the Hokies take the field and the leaves change colors this fall, you should stop by Blacksburg and surf the free wireless you’re providing.

………….

(General hat tip to Kip for the basic structure of this post.)

Only consumers of redistribution count

Shouldn’t researchers ask you and me what we think?

Most senior citizens who signed up for Medicare’s new prescription drug coverage say they are happy with their plans, but some report that they are not saving money and many say the overall program could be better designed, two new independent studies show.

I’d also say the program could be better designed. Barring the obvious course (elimination), those receiving the “benefits” should pay for them. Those of us not receiving benefits shouldn’t. The phrase private markets comes to mind, but I’m probably being selfish.

Leslie Norwalk, deputy administrator of the Medicare agency, said, “I was heartened to know that we were largely successful.”

Let’s wait more than two months to pop the champagne. The longer-term success might need different standards to determine success.

Protecting America from the Constitution

The House legislation to bar federal courts from hearing constitutional challenges to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad idea. Whether its goal is to solidify federal recognition of the Christian God as ruler of America or to allow state and local courts to better reflect the supposed will of the people to force everyone to worship the same, nothing good can happen if the Senate passes its version. I suspect the Senate will choose to be the chamber where bad bills go to die, so I’m not particularly worried.

Instead, it’s worth highlighting two quotes from the debate. First:

“We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,” said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. “It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.”

Actually, our history cries out for religious tolerance and governmental indifference. Many of the first settlers of the New World fled religious oppression. That some of them wished to impose their own oppression here is worth noting, specifically because it failed. As evidence see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is our true spiritual heritage. But, if this debate is about not rewriting history, how to explain this:

  • 1892 to 1923: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1923 to 1954: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1954 to Present: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

It seems history can be rewritten. All Rep. Wamp wants is for us not to rewrite the historical rewrite. Wouldn’t honesty be a part of the Family Values Tour 2006, or whatever Republicans are calling this wrecking ball publicity stunt?

Second:

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. “We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights.”

I believe that there is a Constitution which gives basic rights to each person and it is the job of the government to protect those rights. The facts support my position. The current state of civil liberties protections in America, as exhibited by the House and Senate, indicates that many of our leaders in Congress share Rep. Akin’s misconceptions. Instead, Rep. Akin holds a view of our government which allows him to enforce laws not supported by the Constitution, and to deny rights that conflict with what he believes people should do. Denying a child the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with its recent addition of “under God”, may be censorship, but I wonder what he would call forcing a child to say something he doesn’t believe? Perhaps the honorable gentleman from Missouri thinks every child can’t wait to recite “under God,” but it’s also possible that some children notice the inherent flaw in American spiritual strength that forced religious patriotism represents.

He’s a political promise keeper

Two quick points on President Bush’s veto explanation, now that he’s actually used that power. (I know, I’m as shocked as you that it took him this long to discover a real power. With all the imagined powers he now has, you’d think he would’ve already burned through all of his real powers. Anyway…)

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at the White House, following through on his promise to veto the bill. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”

First, if I was mistaken in my post yesterday, so is President Bush. Hopefully every Congressman who voted for the bill should call him out if he’s wrong. Otherwise, this is just politics as usual. Ahem…

Second, of all the reckless misadventures of the last 5½ years by the Congress and the Administration, this is the first to “cross a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”? Right. Perhaps the President needs a better moral compass, one that involves civil liberties and fiscal responsibility.

Imagine the fun of National Healthcare!

I can’t imagine a better story to support my contention from yesterday that the federal government should not be funding medical research than this story:

Federally funded “pregnancy resource centers” are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.

The report said that 20 of 23 federally funded centers contacted by staff investigators requesting information about an unintended pregnancy were told false or misleading information about the potential risks of an abortion.

The pregnancy resource centers, which are often affiliated with antiabortion religious groups, have received about $30 million in federal money since 2001, according to the report, requested by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). The report concluded that the exaggerations “may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.”

It’s not essential to take the specific topic of abortion out of this debate. Like it or not, abortion is legal in America. If the federal government should be funding science, or not funding science for moral rather than constitutional reasons, does it not have the obligation to tell the truth? Or is the truth, as based on evidence, too inconvenient to fit with a specific political agenda? Just like I don’t want my tax dollars paying for circumcisions, religious Americans probably do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. This isn’t a complicated argument. Keep the government checkbook out of science.

I hope Tom Clancy is not a prophet

If Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman paid any attention to national politics, he’d know that Gambling Is Bad and Americans Hate Gambling. But, until the House gets around to outlawing Las Vegas, Mayor Goodman is in charge. And Tom Clancy has him working feverishly to protect Las Vegas from its no doubt imminent economic collapse, thanks to his new “terrorists invade Las Vegas” edition of Rainbow Six:

“It could be harmful economically, and it may be something that’s not entitled to free speech (protection),” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said of the game’s realistic scenes, which he had not personally viewed.

“It’s based on a false premise,” Goodman said, adding federal and state leaders have repeatedly assured him that Las Vegas is “the safest place imaginable” nearly five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the East Coast.

“I will ask … whether or not we can stop it,” Goodman said of the game’s planned November release.

In other news Destroy All Humans has completely turned me off the idea of visiting strange towns filled with stereotypical bumpkins. I might end up dead with my brain stem extracted through mental powers. Or worse, I might end up the victim of mind control and be forced to sing and run around in circles. And I definitely fear being in a hotel when a UFO launches a sonic boom or two at the structure’s foundation, thereby causing it to collapse. Why didn’t someone acknowledge that the game’s makers don’t deserve free speech because the resulting fictitious game might scare me?

As stupid as Mayor Goodman’s comment is, I’m going to happily give (hopefully legally take from, of course) Las Vegas some of my money next month when I’m there on vacation. He’s worrying for nothing.

Source: John Dvorak