Category: Stupidity

I laugh in your general direction

I thought this might be the dumbest quote I could find regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment Marriage Protection Amendment:

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

More important than terrorism, war, fiscal insanity, the sanctity of the Constitution (hey, wait a minute…), and immigration? Okay. But, as stupid as that quote is, and Louisiana voters should be crying in their grits this morning reading that, unfortunately, one Utah woman made a Herculean attempt to surpass Sen. Vitter. And succeeded:

“If we didn’t believe in miracles, we wouldn’t have spent our vacation money to come here,” said Sandra Rodrigues of Utah, who with her family has been standing outside the Russell Senate Office Building all week, shouting at senators and displaying signs urging “Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.” “If same-sex marriage is endorsed,” she explained, “then you’re going to have children think it’s just another option to have pleasure.”

And I thought there was only one cure for masturbation. A Constitutional amendment will work, too? Who knew?

Wedge politics is the best we can do?

Part of me is beginning to root for this travesty:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

I haven’t changed my opposition to the proposed amendment. It would still be a stain on the Constitution. It would still require, which it would eventually receive, another amendment to repeal it. The process would be long, tedious, and divisive. It’s the antithesis of the American experiment in limited government.

But it could have positive benefits. In the eye of history, its supporters will be seen as the bigoted, anti-liberty meddlers they are. And the amendment, and its future repeal, would be a lesson for future generations in how to truly preserve the rights of all citizens. Of course, we still haven’t learned from the 18th and 21st Amendments.

Never mind. The proposed amendment must die a public death. Again.

How to win friends alienate fans and influence people

If there ever existed proof that government-imposed monopolies harm customers, the current cage match between Comcast, Peter Angelos, the Washington Nationals, and MASN is the shining example. (It also touches on a stupid business practice by Major League Baseball.) Comcast refuses to carry MASN, which has television broadcast rights to the Washington Nationals. I have no problem with the business decision by Comcast, though I despise it as a customer. Not because I want to watch the Nationals. I don’t, except when they’re playing the Phillies. The Nationals are currently in Philadelphia for a three-game series, of which all three games will be blacked out for all non-MASN outlets.

Last night, for example, Major League Baseball would not allow INHD to broadcast the game to my cable system, nor did it allow MLB Extra Innings to broadcast the game to me. It’s important to note that I’ve paid MLB for the games, yet they funnel me to MASN. This is where the problem culminates. Without MASN, I missed the game.

This could be easily resolved by Comcast or Major League Baseball putting customers first, but I’ve come to expect little from either. I tolerate Major League Baseball’s policy with my business only because I love the Phillies and watching the majority of their games not blacked out. I do write a letter every year, however. With Comcast, I only have the option to switch to satellite. That’s a fine form of competition, but it’s not feasible for my house and needs. The solution is simple, of course, but government won’t get out of the regulation business. Instead, I’m presented with idiotic symbolism:

Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) [last week] signed into law a bill requiring Comcast, which is the District’s main cable provider, to begin broadcasting Washington Nationals games or face the possibility of losing its license to operate in the city.

The bill, which was passed unanimously by the D.C. Council earlier this month, says that unless the games are on the air beginning [last week], the District and Comcast must enter into negotiations to discuss the franchise agreement and explore ways of getting the games on the air.

So, rather than open the city to competition and allow the invisible hand to do the work of providing MASN, the City Council and mayor would prefer city residents (theoretically) be without cable television service completely. This is reasonable how, other than to prove that politicians want to be central planners masquerading as heroes? Remove legal barriers to entry and let the market decide; instead of just voicing an opinion, customers could then vote with their most powerful weapon possible. If the City Council and Mayor Williams did that, MASN would be on Comcast tonight.

And I’d get to watch the Phillies.

Allowing is not the same as encouraging

This should surprise everyone no one, but North Dakota’s public smoking ban is causing harm in what I hope are unintended ways.

Ron Gibbens said there’s a “very strong likelihood” two charitable bingo halls will close because of a statewide anti-smoking law, yet he is not asking legislators for an exemption to the law.

Gibbens, who founded the North Dakota Association for the Disabled 30 years ago with his wife, Faye, has dismissed the idea of asking for a smoking exemption because of the nature of the organization.

“As an organization that provides for the health of citizens, we don’t want the NDADto be portrayed as being pro-smoking,” Gibbens said.

What about pro-property rights? Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the NDAD allowed smoking in its bingo halls before the ban. Were they pro-smoking then? Money-grubbing philanthropists? Questions worth asking.

Never mind, though, because the more interesting aspect to this story is how North Dakota residents work around the law.

The eastern bingo halls are more susceptible to closure because customers cross the border to Minnesota, where they can smoke in bingo halls there, Gibbens said.

Holy crap, someone needs to do something. Those poor bingo players are subjected to cigarette smoke. No matter what, North Dakota’s leadership must resist the urge to acknowledge that the smoke they’re being subjected to is the smoke rising from their own cigarettes. But don’t resist it because it’ll lead to the common sense acceptance that property rights and individual liberty matter. No, that would be too ambitious. Resist that urge because it will lead to more intrusive violations aimed at protecting people from themselves. It isn’t working now. How much further will politicians push to achieve compliance with “for your own good”?

One other consequence, which I’m sure smoking ban supporters ignored, was also foreseeable.

Gibbens estimated that the state would lose about $1 million a year if either one of those [charitable organization tax relief] proposals passes but that the state risks even more losses if two bingo halls in eastern North Dakota – one operated by the NDADin [sic] Grand Forks and another by the Plains Art Museum in Fargo – close.

Tax receipts decline when artificial barriers are imposed to protect people from themselves? Who knew? I’m sure a good general tax increase will follow, since all government actions must meet a revenue-neutral minimum standard. The smoking ban supporters will feel awful about it, I’m sure. Unless that was an end-goal all along.

For more amusement, I enjoyed a few of the comments posted to the story.

Al Gee wrote on May 25, 2006 8:03 AM:”Whaaaaa! Whaaaa! Our customers can’t smoke some heaters and daub some paper at the same time so we need a tax exemption. How about trying to improve your product and or marketing instead of blaming the law for your financial difficulties.”

The product was fine before the state imposed a restriction on what private property owners could do within their walls. And the marketing “problem” is that the NDAD can no longer sell the same product. But those are just facts, which are justifiably irrelevant.

Stop Whining wrote on May 25, 2006 8:32 AM:”I get tired of businesses complaining because of no-smoking changes. My grandmother plays bingo in these halls and is very happy to go and play bingo and plays more now that the bin is in effect. I realize that many smoking customers may have left, but that is the nature of the beast. No matter how you look at it, this is gambling. There should not be any changes made to the tax structure of these businesses.”

The beast. Finally, an honest assessment of government infringement on property rights. I disagree with the commenter’s approval of the beast, as if you didn’t know.

Not up to business wrote on May 25, 2006 10:33 AM:”It should NOT be up to businesses to decide whether or not they allow smoking. That would be the same as allowing businesses to decide whether or not they will allow vulgar profanity, nudity, or drunken behavior in their place of business; yet in many places, with a few exceptions, each is against the law. Simply put, the majority of people have determined that certain behaviors which infringe on others rights are no longer allowable. Smoke all you want, when you want, and where you want; as long as you don’t pollute anyone elses [sic] clean air in doing so. “

It would be the same, wouldn’t? Heaven forbid someone should smoke while saying “fuck” and drinking naked . We can’t allow that person to infringe on everyone else’s right to not witness it. It’s in the Constitution. Look it up. It follows the “free puppy” clause.

I wonder if Not up to businesses would accept the conclusion of the qualifier in the final sentence. That logic would allow the state to ban smoking in private homes with at least one non-smoker. The only way to enforce that would be require learning the wrong lesson from 1984. Mob rule has such pleasant outcomes.

Should police ticket under-inflated tires?

I’ve already said I won’t vote for Sen. Clinton when if she runs for president in 2008, so this entry is really just piling on. However, it’s important to highlight examples of why she’s every other hack politician, except she had the good fortune to be First Lady before entering public office. She gets more acceptance than she should. Her new energy plan proves it.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that the United States should cut its consumption of foreign oil in half by 2025, and outlined a national strategy of tax incentives, an oil-profits tax and more funds for research aimed at spurring conservation and development of alternative sources of energy.
…

“Our present system of energy is weakening our national security, hurting our pocketbooks, violating our common values and threatening our children’s future,” Clinton said in a speech at the National Press Club. “Right now, instead of national security dictating our energy policy, our failed energy policy dictates our national security.”

How creative. She managed to include fear of death, poverty, and morality, with a nod to the children. Classy leadership. At least she’s learned her trade well, no matter how despicable its current tradesmen may be.

Clinton said she plans to introduce legislation to create a strategic energy fund, largely paid for by an excess profits tax on big oil companies, who she noted earned a combined $113 billion in profits last year.

She estimated that the profits tax and a repeal of other tax breaks for the oil industry could pump $50 billion into the energy fund over two years and pay for an array of tax incentives and for $9 billion in new research initiatives for wind, solar and other alternative energy resources. Oil companies could escape the tax if they reinvested profits into similar programs.

Theft, redistribution, and bribery are admirable public policy goals. And what will the good senator say to the investors whose stock portfolios get hammered because the major oil companies will no longer earn windfall average profits? Take one for the team, maybe? It’s for the children?

Or economic decline could be her goal. If we’re all a little bit poorer, we can’t afford so many vacations and wasteful trips in our gas guzzlers. (Don’t tell House Speaker Hastert.) Hence, we’ll use fewer barrels of oil. Conservation works, she’ll say. And we’ll all be thankful that she’s in charge.

Maybe, but it’ll be without my vote.

Hurricane season is fast approaching

When I saw that the FTC found no clear price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I’d planned to discuss the report. Not only because he beat me to it, but because he’s 100% correct, I’ll point you to Kip’s analysis at A Stitch in Haste. He says everything I could’ve hoped to say about the report’s specifics. Read it.

Instead, I want to mention this brief passage with ominous warnings for the future.

A House measure passed earlier this month would raise penalties for price gouging and order the FTC to define the term. But the commission’s report yesterday said that a federal law on gouging could “run counter to consumers’ best interest.” The commission said price gouging “is neither a well-defined term of art in economics, nor does any federal statute identify price gouging as a legal violation.”

[FTC Commissioner Jon] Leibowitz said the FTC report showed that “price gouging is a phenomenon that is hard to nail down.” But he compared it to obscenity: “difficult to define in theory but easily recognized.”

The FCC’s enforcement of “indecency” isn’t the most promising path we can pursue. Perhaps we could try something more sane, say “if you don’t like the price, don’t buy the product”. How’s that sound? I like it because it leaves the power in the hands of the consumer instead of some central planner ruling through threat of official reprisal, with both financial and criminal penalties.

We’re going to pursue the latter, stupid path, of course, because Congress has so little brain power and leadership. What the people want (mob rule) can’t be wrong. Can it? Never, so I suggest we set up the price control board now rather than waiting until the next crisis. We’ll have more time to adjust, at least. And we can learn to live without all the nice essentials luxury items we’ve grown accustomed to having. Thanks.

Banning the two “F” words

This morning, like every morning, I woke up to Howard Stern. Usually it’s a good way to ease into the day. A few laughs, a little banter, and pop culture references. It’s worth $12.95 per month. Usually.

This morning, I awoke to Stern discussing an article in yesterday’s New York Times by Nicholas Kristof. It’s titled “Killer Girl Scouts”. Lovely, huh? I couldn’t read the article because I don’t waste my money on Times Select, but the one sentence synopsis, “Beware of cute little girls bearing trans fats”, is enough to know I disagree.

Stern offered a summary, with commentary, on the article, and that’s what got me fired up today. From what he said, it’s the same argument that we’re getting fatter, the evil corporations don’t care, our government-financed health care is going bankrupt, and something needs to be done now. The article (apparently) includes an example from Denmark in which the government requires that trans fat be no greater than 2% of a food item. McDonald’s chicken nuggets in Denmark have .33 grams of trans fat, while the same chicken nuggets have 10+ grams of trans fat in America. Outrageous.

So maybe they are trying to kill us, right? The solution, according to Stern? You know what’s coming, don’t you? That’s right. Pass a law. Force companies to limit the trans fat in the food products they sell to us, the unwitting dolts who can’t make conscious, responsible decisions for ourselves. We shouldn’t stop financing health care with public funds to prevent the system from going bankrupt, that would be too obvious. We should outlaw bad food, instead. For a brief moment, I wanted to cancel my subscription.

Again, since it’s not clear, the free market can take care of this “problem”. If a person is responsible for his own health care costs, isn’t he more likely to take care of himself, by his own actions? And if not, why should we care? He’ll pay the higher costs. He can make that rational decision of which is more important, dollars or Thin Mints.

Stern’s next topic made this morning’s discussion especially frustrating. He launched into his commentary about the Senate voting to increase fines for “indecency” on public airwaves. His current stance is motivated by business interests, and I think, a little hope at exposing Congressional hypocrisy. He applauded the Senate’s action, even though he acknowledged that it’s an affront to the Constitution. The increased fines will only help satellite radio, of course.

I see the humor in that, but can’t stand the double standard for freedom that Stern’s dual positions represent. He accepts that the Constitution protects free speech from the whims of Congress, noting that the free market can handle what the public wants and needs. Satellite radio is sufficient proof, although that’s not an excuse to allow Congress to continue its election-year crusade to protect us all. Which is what it comes down to, isn’t it? Protecting us from ourselves.

We’re too sensitive to hear swearing on the radio, so Congress should protect us. We’re too irresponsible to eat our vegetables, so Congress should protect us. Both are symptoms of the same disease. Politicians take their direction from the few who are vocal enough to make their preferences known, regardless of the damage to liberty. Paternalism arrives marketed as leadership. And most of us decide where we stand on each individual issue by determining which we prefer. In Stern’s case, he hates healthy food and loves freedom of speech, regardless of the underlying principles.

Me, I think we should all be vegans, but I love liberty more.

One brilliant governing strategy

The Wall Street Journal’s editors know how to frame a debate. That frame is made of lies, of course, but so be it. If it sells the party line, all is fair.

If ever there was a market test of economic policy, the last three years have been it. The stock market has recovered from its implosion in Bill Clinton’s last year in office, unemployment is down to 4.7%, and growth has averaged 3.9% in the three years since those tax cuts passed–well above the post-World War II average and more than twice the growth rate in Euroland.

It’s not enough to say the tech bubble collapsed, it was clearly Bill Clinton’s fault. Our greater economic growth than Europe has nothing to do with a complex combination of factors, but rests solely on one set of tax cuts. The partisan defense only appears because it’s so self-evident, I guess. More interesting, though, is this:

Yes, gas prices are high and interest rates are rising, which helps to explain the anxiety felt by some of the public. But these headwinds are all the more reason to be impressed by the economy’s ability to push ahead nonetheless. We’d have thought that the Democrats who are now voting to let taxes increase would be thrilled to know that things turned out better than they had feared. Americans are better off despite Democratic predictions that, as Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put it back in 2003, tax cuts would “damage long-term economic growth.”

When long-term is now defined as three years, it’s little wonder that current Republican economic “policy” is so great. Reap all the benefits of lower taxes and greater spending, with no worries that the looming (super-duper, extra-double long term?) devastation will come up and bite the savior President Bush. The hero always rides off into the sunset, but perhaps this is where we should remember what the horse leaves behind for the saved as the hero claims the glory.

Tax cuts are great, and I’m generally for them. I like the money I earn and would love to keep it. However, Congress and the President have lost all sense of how to run a budget. I’d rather feel the rough impact of this current profligate spending in the next few years, than to feel the decimation from bankruptcy. Maybe that’s just a dash of realism in knowing that “starve the beast’ is a joke, or maybe it’s just naked cynicism. No matter. The bill is coming due at some point.

I know the political strategy is to leave the Democrat to take the blame for increased taxes (which they’ll happily do because they won’t control spending, either). But it tells me a lot to know no politician seems to care that we’re all the ones who will get screwed eventually. Consider the lesson learned. No political point is too small to score.

Are voters this easily manipulated?

The United States Senate is filled with those who are either too stupid to understand basic economics, or with those too politically ambitious to care about the damage they cause with reckless threats and action.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he believes gas prices “would come down within a matter of days” if President Bush told oil companies that he was going to support a windfall profits tax.

“But the president will not call the oil companies into his office because he’s been too closely allied with those oil companies, and if he does it’s going to be a window-dressing conversation,” said Levin, who appeared with Specter on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Right, rising gas prices are a strict conspiracy by President Bush. Whether it’s political pressure driven by low poll numbers, a need to be leaderly, or stupidity, President Bush responded:

President Bush has asked the Energy and Justice departments to investigate whether gasoline prices have been illegally manipulated, he announced in a speech this morning.

The White House is also asking states to guard against unfair pricing.

Essentially President Bush offered every hack prosecutor an excuse to go after gas station owners to advance their political careers protect the public from the threat of supply and demand. Unfortunately the president is protecting himself, too:

The president also moved to temporarily halt deposits to the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, making more oil available for consumer needs while seeking to ease prices at the pump.

The United States uses far too much oil every day for that to work. Not standing up to the idiocy of the fine folks in the Senate and delivering the hard truth to the masses will haunt President Bush, because when this move inevitably fails to reverse the laws of economics, Democrats will hammer him for it. They’ll be wrong, but they’ll have a cheap win.

At least Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino tempered expectations a little with this bit of logic:

“Nothing is going to be a magic wand that will lower gas prices overnight.”

No kidding. At some point some politician needs to have the guts to admit that price is only a measure of cost. Value is something else entirely. Our refusal to take mass transit and to stop buying SUVs shows that we value our current lifestyles more. It should be no surprise that prices increase with our demands, since short-term supply is less flexible. Reducing contributions to national oil reserves notwithstanding.

Still, Democrats are hammering Bush and his Republican colleagues for failing to come up with a strategy that would cut prices soon. They hope to harness voter anger over the trend and, by Election Day, turn it against the Republicans who control Congress.

And that’s why Democrats are no more qualified to govern than the Republicans they attack. But we knew that. The only new lesson is that Sen. Levin needs to remove his tinfoil hat and grow up.