Category: Stupidity

Save our souls (and state monopolies)

Congress: Boo yourself!:

The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn’t a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Work with is a euphemism for force. Anyone still want to claim that Republicans and Democrats are for economic freedom, and liberty in general? I don’t. Paternalism marches on.

I don’t have any more to say on this bill specifically, but I want to savor the stupidity of this quote:

“Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age,” [Jim Leach, R-Iowa] said.

When will Congress act to outlaw citizens from using credit cards to finance a new business? As a business owner, I could lose everything I own. Won’t you protect me?

Ass.

Exceptions prove the fallacy of majoritarianism

Where to begin today? New York’s Court of Appeals ruled that the state can continue discriminating against same-sex couples. Apparently, a heterosexual oopsy with birth control proves that gays and lesbians don’t need the same rights.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

My interpretation is a slight simplification of the majority’s opinion, but only slight. Because a heterosexual couple can create¹ life because they forget to use a condom, they need marriage rights to help those potential offspring. Even if the couple isn’t married when the child is conceived. Or seeks to stay married. Or intends to ever get married. Nope, doesn’t matter. This decision is crap². Remind me again who is seeking special rights in this debate?

Meanwhile, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld its citizenry-supported bigotry today. I don’t have anything to say about the decision itself. Instead, I’d like to highlight the patronizing majoritarianism of Georgia’s governor:

“We don’t do a referendum very often,” Perdue said. “But when we do a referendum such as a Constitutional amendment, I think we need be very respectful of the people’s voice and listen to that. I think the Supreme Court has done that and I’m very grateful for their action and their affirmation of the people’s voice in overturning the trial court’s opinion.”

The governor also said that he hopes gay Georgians do not feel marginalized by the decision. He said they are free to work and live their lives here – they simply can not marry in the state of Georgia.

I’d like to find a direct quote supporting that second paragraph. If his words verify that summary, does that come with a pat on the head? I can only hope that every gay Georgian says a big “Fuck you” on his or her way out of the state.

For excellent analysis of this decision, read this thread at A Stitch in Haste.

¹ Excuse me. Since we’re now going with majoritarianism instead of science, our bigotry must conclude that a man and a woman cannot create life. Only the monotheistic God our nation’s founders included in our Constitution’s First Amendment is capable of such divine action. And traditional marriage is his conduit.

² Read Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent. It’s not possible for someone who understands our principles defining individual rights could walk away from reading this dissent and still think the supposed majority has any right to deny a fundamental right to anyone in America.

“It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation,” she wrote. “The court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

Majoritarianism can’t accept that. The New York Court of Appeals proved today that it’s an activist court.

Digital Lefts Management in France

Two things interest me in this story explaining Apple’s possible response to French legislation requiring that songs purchased online be playable on any mp3 player. Personally, I think the choice is simple: Apple should close shop in France. When citizens in France are still walking around with the latest iPod every time Apple releases a new product, the government will have its answer on which the French consumer values more. Capitulation to the French central planners would only encourage other central planners in Europe. I suspect Apple pulling out of France would lead to the same nonsense surrounding region-encoded DVD players, preventing online purchases of non-compliant players. Permit central planners to invade on the small things and they’ll control the big things, too. So Apple should leave France.

More intriguing is this:

Members of the activist group Free Software Foundation have staged protests this summer outside of Apple stores across the country, with members dressed in colorful toxic waste suits and carrying signs that rate digital rights management software such as Apple’s as “Defective by Design,” the name of the group’s campaign.

Henri Poole, a Free Software Foundation board member, said that such software restrictions infringe on consumer rights and are designed to protect “antiquated business models.”

“We purchase [songs] and we think we have the same rights we had two years ago, but those rights are being eroded and the [digital rights management] rules can even be changed after you’ve purchased,” he said.

I agree that excessive DRM is indeed “defective by design.” However, as I’ve said before, I’ve come to accept that with the iPod and iTunes. I knew going into the deal exactly what Apple expects, what it will license to me. As such, I won’t argue that my rights are being eroded. Perhaps they are, but if I value something else more (convenience, functionality), that’s my choice. I don’t need a central planner to tell me how I’m supposed to enjoy my iPod. I want it to have Sirius functionality, but I’m not going to ask Congress to require it.

Of course, economically, I’m still discussing the French, so I leave open the possibility that French consumers believe it’s better to have nothing than something if that something is “exploitative”. If so, c’est la vie. I’m not the boss of them.

Joe Buck could be a Congressman

Sen. Charles Grassley is quite the innovator:

Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, wants the Internal Revenue Service to chase after pimps and sex traffickers with the same fervor it stalked gangster Al Capone for tax evasion.

Grassley, R-Iowa, would hit pimps with fines and lengthy prison sentences for failing to file employment forms and withhold taxes for the women and girls under their command.

The proposal would make certain tax crimes a felony when the money comes from a criminal activity. A one-year prison sentence and $25,000 fine would become a 10-year sentence and $50,000 fine for each employment form that a pimp or sex trafficker fails to file.

Implement a little extra residency in the federal pen, and prostitution ceases. Or pimps start reporting their income and we nab them for being dumb enough to implicate themselves running a prostitution ring. This has the smell of success. Just like drug prohibition with stiffer penalties eliminated drugs, this’ll be quick and effective.

Why is Sen. Grassley so stupid? If he really wants to protect our poor, vulnerable women, he could seek to decriminalize prostitution and, dare I suggest, regulate it? Might that do more to help women working as prostitutes, excuse me, being exploited by evil men, than threatening criminals with extra-super punishment?

I know, I know… think of the children. Why do libertarians hate children so much?

Just vote on it, already

Sen. Arlen Specter is a genius. How else to describe such brilliant words defending our nation’s immediate need to alter the Constitution in word and spirit to protect the flag:

“I think it’s important to focus on the basic fact that the text of the First Amendment, the text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of Rights is not involved,” Specter argued.

I don’t understand that, so I can only assume he knows more than me. Thank God he’s a United States Senator. Mere mortals who can’t understand what he said shouldn’t be allowed to disagree. Imagine the damage that could cause.

Of course, I am also thankful for Sen. Orrin Hatch.

“They say that flag burning is a rare occurrence; it is not that rare,” he told the chamber. An aide hoisted a large blue poster detailing 17 incidents of flag desecration over three years. Hatch, citing “an ongoing offense against common decency,” read them all. “That’s just mentioning some that we know of; there’s a lot more than that, I’m sure,” he said.

That is 5.67 flag burnings per year, or 0.0000000189 for every man, woman, and child in America. Don’t worry, I’m doing my part being pissed off. And holy crap, am I ever offended by flag burnings that nobody knows about. Sweet Hell, I won’t be able to sleep tonight.

The Eighth Amendment isn’t on the ballot

This is why I do not like Justice Antonin Scalia as a Supreme Court Justice:

Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. That is a truism, not a revelation. But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum. This explains why those ideologically driven to ferret out and proclaim a mistaken modern execution have not a single verifiable case to point to, whereas it is easy as pie to identify plainly guilty murderers who have been set free. The American people have determined that the good to be derived from capital punishment—in deterrence, and perhaps most of all in the meting out of condign justice for horrible crimes—outweighs the risk of error. It is no proper part of the business of this Court, or of its Justices, to second-guess that judgment, much less to impugn it before the world, and less still to frustrate it by imposing judicially invented obstacles to its execution.

(concurring opinion in Kansas v. Marsh, 04-1170)

Reprehensible logic. The possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly is indeed a truism. However, when the punishment is death, “reduced to an insignificant minimum” is not acceptable. Executing an innocent man is murder, regardless of how happy the American people are with the derived good. Gleeful retribution is not a derived good. The possibility of a mistake is exactly the reason the government should not have the power to execute a prisoner. Do we still believe in a society where individual rights are protected from the whims of the majority?

Just as disturbing is Justice Scalia’s abdication of judicial responsibility. It’s an accepted position by the Court that capital punishment is Constitutional. But, and this is important, it makes no difference that the people love sending convicted felons to the executioner. The Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution. Interpreting “cruel and unusual” warrants a look, regardless of the outcome, beyond blind deference to mob rule. (Or taking collective joy in thumbing our judicial noses at for’ners.) If it doesn’t, there is no reason to bother with a Constitution.

Will his face be on the dollars he saves us?

President Bush wants a line-item veto. Never mind that he claims to want it to weed out wasteful spending, none of which has been so egregious (in his mind) to force his veto pen into action since taking office, despite threats to the contrary. Also, the Constitution, and previous Supreme Court rulings, suggest that it’s not an option. The executive veto power is all or nothing. The Constitution apparently means little this decade, though, so it might be helpful to analyze the “problem”:

“A line-item veto would allow the president to remove wasteful spending from a bill while preserving the rest of the legislation,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Or he could suggest that Congress send him bills with a narrow focus, rather than omnibus spending bills without any sense of constraint. Or he could veto bills, and attach a Post-It note saying “remove this spending and send it back”. That might work.

“A line-item veto would reduce the incentive for Congress to spend wastefully because when lawmakers know their pet projects will be held up to public scrutiny, they will be less likely to suggest them in the first place,” Bush said.

Or Congress could read the full text of the bills it passes. Or he could read it when it hits his desk, veto the bill, and publicly call the lawmakers who sneak pork into the bills he’s asked to sign on their waste.

“I call on the Senate to show a bipartisan commitment to fiscal discipline by passing the line-item veto so we can work together to cut wasteful spending, reduce the deficit, and save money for American taxpayers,” Bush said.

A commitment to fiscal discipline would mean not proposing such spending waste in the Congress, and definitely not passing such bills. But the Congress hasn’t shown such commitment, nor has President Bush tried to impose it. Instead, he now asks for the power to say “no”, like any good father would. This will work how? Instead of trying to extend his nanny powers beyond the Constitution’s current boundaries, President Bush could lead. He could exercise the power he already has in a prudent manner, without asking for more.

With almost 5½ years of evidence to the contrary, I’m not optimistic.

Burn the ban

We’ve finished with the bi-annual marriage amendment stupidity, but it’s still an election year. That means we still have to knock down the bi-annual anti-flag desecration amendment. I don’t have much new to add that hasn’t already been said. The First Amendment still exists and actual flag desecrations remain rare, so our (lack of) need doesn’t seem changed. But we’ve solved every other issue facing the United States, so it’s worth revisiting the most important second most important issue facing our nation.

On this issue, I like former Senator Bob Kerrey’s editorial in today’s Washington Post for what he says about the strength of our nation’s symbol. In demonstrating the principles for which the flag represents, he also makes the following point:

No doubt the sponsors and advocates of this amendment mean well. They believe it is a reasonable and small sacrifice of our freedoms. They believe no serious consequence will come of this change.

It does not matter how well-intentioned they are. Those who advocate this amendment do not understand our freedom. They do not believe our government derives its power from the people it represents. They do not believe in individual rights. They do not believe in dissent. They do not believe we are strong. If they did, they would know that rare occurances of flag burning will not destroy our nation. If it offends, the fault lies with the offended who does not trust the indestructible truth of our principles.

Real patriotism cannot be coerced.

This amendment’s advocates believe it can, and must, be coerced if it does not pour forth from everyone. They are wrong.

Why not, since we only have one point-of-entry?

I thought this suggestion by Donald Rumsfeld might signal an embrace of reason:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wants to end Army helicopter support for a joint U.S.-Bahamas drug-interdiction program that over the past two decades has resulted in hundreds of arrests and the seizure of tons of cocaine and marijuana.

The Army’s seven Blackhawk helicopters and their crews form the backbone of Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, which the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration credits with helping drive cocaine and marijuana smugglers away from the Bahamas and its easy access to Florida.
…

The Bahamas anti-drug program, Rumsfeld wrote, “now competes with resources necessary for the war on terrorism and other activities in support of our nation’s defense, with potential adverse effects on the military preparedness of the United States.”

Alas, it’s not meant to be. Ending army effort does not mean ending our irrational, never-ending war on drugs.

The letter asks [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales to help identify “a more appropriate agency” to provide the air support.

Of course. Rather than address the more fundamental question of whether or not we should be doing this, Sec. Rumsfeld wants another agency to do it. Looking at the results of the effort, though, he’s right; we should continue accruing successes.

When the program began in 1982, up to 90 percent of the cocaine smuggled into the U.S. from Latin America came into Florida through the Bahamas and Caribbean. Now, most of the cocaine moves across the U.S. southwestern border, in part because of the pressure on traffickers operating off Florida’s coasts.

“If we start letting our guard down here now, and we reduce our presence here, it will be more economical (for smugglers) to come back this way. And certainly the state of Florida is ground zero for that,” [Mark R. Trouville, chief of DEA’s Miami field office] said.

I’m sure Texas is happy for Florida.

“You made us do it” is bad government

The editors at Opinion Journal hate liberty. I can think of no other explanation to support this statement in today’s editorial on the now-failed marriage amendment:

We remain opposed to federal interference in this issue, believing that issues of family life and law are best settled in state legislatures.

As opposed to the individual’s home? Why? Given the manner in which state legislatures are dealing with this issue, do I trust them to err on the side of individual rights? Of course not. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the mess that Virginia is trying to pass this November.

States have also devised a range of policies for civil partnerships or other legal rights for gay couples. These innovations reflect the reality that most Americans oppose extending the term “marriage” to gays but are open to other legal arrangements.

The marriage debate demonstrates nothing more than naked majoritarianism. The Constitution does not work that way. Denying rights at the state level because the solution is federalist is still a denial of rights. Why should a gay couple care if their oppressor is the United States Congress or the Virginia General Assembly? Either offer the same marriage benefits to every individual or extract marriage from civil government. No individual should have the right to determine, through government, which rights another individual is allowed to possess. He possesses them from birth. The government can only secure or infringe.