Category: Stupidity

The game took a dreadful turn early in the 2nd half

So this is the Democratic boundary of free speech?

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is vowing to appeal a federal court ruling that shot down a new Illinois law intended to ban the sale of violent or sexual video games to minors.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled Friday that the law, which was to take effect Jan. 1, was unconstitutional, and he barred the state from enforcing it.

The Democratic governor and other supporters of the measure have argued that children were being harmed by exposure to games in which characters go on killing sprees or sexual escapades.

“This battle is not over,” Blagojevich said in a statement. “Parents should be able to expect that their kids will not have access to excessively violent and sexually explicit video games without their permission.”
…

The judge said that it would interfere with the First Amendment and that there wasn’t a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that. The state also would have to show the law was the only way to achieve the state’s goal and that it was as narrowly written as possible.

I keep forgetting that as long as it’s for the children, any law is reasonable. No need to remember that some parents believe their children shouldn’t be shielded from “harmful” products as much as their children should be taught to make appropriate choices. And shockingly, those same parents believe they should be the ones to do the teaching. That the Constitution implicitly backs them up shouldn’t come as a surprise. Granted, if all else fails, they’ll call Super Nanny, but she’s a television personality, not a government statist.

Freedom costs twelve bucks ninety-five

My complaining about the FCC and free speech infringement does not mean I don’t realize how much free speech we really have. Here’s why our First Amendment is spectacular.

… Sirius Canada, which plans to start beaming to your car and home before the end of this year, has no plans to include Stern and his no-holds-barred morning show that includes the likes of Stuttering John [ed. note: my strike-through], Baba Booey and butt-bongo stunts.
…

So, Sirius Canada, isn’t this like acquiring the Pittsburgh Penguins and deciding you don’t need Sidney Crosby?

“Well, what if Sidney Crosby was going to be arrested and put in jail within two weeks?” said Gary Slaight, the CEO of Standard Broadcasting, which co-owns Sirius Canada along with the CBC.

“The CRTC, who we are licensed to, would eventually force us to take Stern down, because we have standards we have to abide by in this country when you own a broadcasting licence.”
…

“When we applied for a licence, the CRTC pushed us about this,” he said. “(Stern) was definitely a topic of conversation. We (Standard) are a big broadcaster and have to deal with the CRTC on other issues. And the CBC obviously has a cultural mandate to be concerned with.”

Read that again. Arrested and put in jail. For words. Our system of fines is arbitrary and political, but there are no jail threats, aside from those from random idiot Congressmen who want to change our rules. This doesn’t mean we should be complacent in fighting First Amendment infringements, but we have it pretty good, eh?

Post Script: For what it’s worth, I’ve used my Sirius car kit when driving into Canada. I could see Toronto in the distance and my receiver still had a clear signal from the satellites serving the United States. Hint, hint.

(Source: Get Sirius Info)

How to Hurt Everyone with Good Intentions

Via A Stitch in Haste, this story is enough to frustrate anyone remotely interested in economic freedom.

[Massachusetts] has warned the upscale Whole Foods supermarket chain that it will risk criminal charges under the state’s centuries-old “blue laws” if it goes ahead with plans to open on the holiday.

Is it so complicated to think that maybe Whole Foods, along with every other business, has a reasonable expectation that it can open its doors to customers whenever it wants? Yet, the reasoning behind this is what’s most ridiculous.

Shaw’s [Supermarkets], which has 200 stores in New England, complained to Reilly after some of its employees spotted a banner advertising a Thanksgiving Day opening at a Whole Foods in Bellingham.

“Besides disadvantaging competitors, a Whole Foods opening would harm consumers, due to lack of choice in the marketplace for consumers to shop and compare prices for the best deal,” Shaw’s legal department wrote to [Attorney General Thomas] Reilly on Nov. 4.

Ummm, if Whole Foods opens on Thanksgiving, consumers will be forced to buy at Whole Foods prices since they can’t compare prices for the best deal. I know that whenever I go grocery shopping, I visit three, sometimes four, different supermarkets before I contemplate making any purchases. Granted, consumers still retain the option to not buy anything, but why bother with that. Here’s the question, though. Won’t enforcing blue laws to Whole Foods’s detriment reduce the choice for consumers from groceries at one price to no groceries? That’s better? Granted, customers could go to 7-Eleven, since they’re allowed to open. Since we know they offer a wide selection at competitive prices, consumers are protected.

At least the Attorney General is looking out for the little guy.

Nick Messuri, chief of Reilly’s business and labor protection bureau, said that while the blue laws sound archaic, they protect workers from pressure to give up their holidays.

We don’t want the evil corporation taking advantage of the poor workers, which is what Whole Foods would no doubt do with such slave labor tactics.

[President of Whole Foods Market’s North Atlantic Region David] Lannon said working on Thanksgiving was voluntary and workers would have received double pay.

How dare they be such heartless capitalists. As a new college graduate, I worked a temp job that paid me $7.50 per hour. Even a decade ago, that didn’t go very far. And I didn’t get paid holidays. January 1, 1996, I worked four hours while everyone else sat at home, enjoying hangovers, leftovers, and college football. My paycheck reflected a full day’s pay because of the double time. My electricity stayed on thanks to those uncompromising bastards who pressured allowed me to work that day. Virginia’s Attorney General didn’t step in to save me.

For anyone who thinks I only hate Republicans

I’ve written about our need for tax reform, but I realize I haven’t catered to everyone who might be interested in the subject. I’ve argued from a pro-individual, pro-business, pro-responsibility foundation. If you don’t like that, and prefer your tax reform to include tax increases, anti-investment incentives, and heightened class warfare, advocating poverty for all, I’ve found the plan for you, courtesy of Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden. Behold:

Wyden’s plan, the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, would replace the six current personal income tax rates with three – 15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. Corporate income would be taxed at a single flat rate of 35 percent. The proposal would eliminate many of the personal and corporate tax breaks that encrust the existing tax code, and would allow all taxpayers, not just those who itemize, to deduct state and local taxes from their federal income tax forms.

Most significantly, Wyden calls for taxing all income equally, regardless of its source. Interest and dividends would be taxed at the same rate as wages and salaries, eliminating the preferential treatment for investors over workers.

That’s brilliant. Instead of ending extra punishment for wage income, Sen. Wyden wants to punish investing. Not a moment too soon, of course, because we know only the wealthiest, greediest individuals invest their money in financial instruments generating interest and dividends. The bastards deserve to be punished for their capitalism hatred of poor people.

Simplicity is a virtue of any tax system; fairness is another. Wyden’s idea of equalizing the tax treatment of all income – whether it comes in the form of a paycheck or a stock dividend – has powerful appeal. The preferential tax treatment of investment income clearly favors the richest taxpayers. In Oregon, according to the state Department of Revenue, the richest 5 percent of taxpayers received 40 percent of all income from interest and dividends, and 79 percent of all income from capital gains.

Here’s an angle these editorial writers might like to pursue: what percentage of Oregon’s tax payments come from the richest 5 percent? Might that reveal a useful understanding, as well? But it’s about helping the poor, not punishing the rich. The use of “clearly favors the richest taxpayers” is all the analysis I need, so never mind.

Tax rates on interest, dividends and capital gains were cut during the Clinton administration, and again under President Bush, as a means of encouraging investment and savings. The resulting disparity in tax rates is manifestly unfair to those who rely on income from salaries and wages. A middle-class taxpayer who gets a $1,000 raise will forfeit 25 percent of it in federal income taxes, plus Social Security taxes. The same amount paid in dividends, interest or capital gains is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, with no Social Security bite.

Once again, this plan just looks out for the poor(er) taxpayers. We wouldn’t want to bring that 25% tax hit on the $1,000 raise down as much as we want to hit the rich with an extra $100 tax for having the nerve to derive sources of income apart from direct labor. We shouldn’t care if they spent years building the wealth to invest. Hell, they should’ve donated the extra to the poor. Since they didn’t, we should take it from them.

If this is the best Democrats can do, they should just shut up and let Congressional Republicans continue to botch our nation’s economic well-being.

UPDATE: With a little research, I found this statistic from 1999. (I’ll look for a newer statistic, but I don’t think the result will change.)

For example, 38.1 percent of 1999 full-year taxpayers had an income of $20,000 or less but paid only 4.2 percent of all taxes. Conversely, those 1999 full-year taxpayers with income of at least $100,000 comprised only 6.8 percent of all taxpayers, yet they paid 42.8 percent of all taxes.

Spin that.

Can we return the favor next November?

Because flood insurance and pension guarantee failure aren’t enough, Congress wants to extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).

The version approved by the House Financial Services Committee contains several provisions that the Treasury Department opposes, such as the addition of group life insurance and the kinds of coverage eligible for the backstop. The bill also calls for different triggers for different types of coverage — a provision dubbed siloing — that critics say would lower the damage level at which the federal program could be invoked.
…

The Treasury Department has not favored extension of TRIA, but agreed last summer to accept it if it were more restrictive than the original program and designed to be temporary, leaving coverage eventually to private insurers.

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow endorsed the version approved by the Senate Banking Committee. [ed. note: The Senate version is less expansive.] The panel’s actions “recognize the temporary nature of the program and place terrorism insurance on the right path to full private market participation,” he said.
…

The Treasury Department and other critics say the private market is now able to resume insuring against terrorism but will not do so as long as the federal government provides the coverage at little or no cost.

I’ve left out the details because they don’t matter in the discussion of principle. They’re in the article if you want them. What’s important here is that the government is once again circumventing the private market and the Treasury Department tried to explain this. It’s nice to have the assurance that someone will pay for the damage should another attack occur, but it’s not at little or no cost.

An attack could occur anywhere, but no one expects it to be in Peoria. Those people shouldn’t pay for the risk inherent in building a new skyscraper in New York City. We should’ve learned this lesson with every hurricane that comes along. The private market would’ve compensated for the extra risk to lives and property along the Gulf Coast by making it (prohibitively?) expensive to live and work there, but our helpful friends in Congress crushed that. Taxpayers get the $200 billion bill, yet the undesirable fallacy of socialized risk management denial marches on.

Post Script: Thankfully we have someone in Congress to put it all in perspective.

“I do not regard TRIA as a favor to the insurance industry,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “It’s a favor to the insureds.”

I think that (D-Mass.) should read (S-Mass.) “favor to the insureds” shows me that Rep. Frank prefers his capitalism with a large dose of socialist stupidity.

Who didn’t see this coming?

In what will likely be sold as fiscal sanity, but is in reality only a calculated political conclusion that eliminating tax cuts raising taxes is more acceptable than eliminating wasteful spending, the Senate Finance Committee decided not to extend dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

Facing a stalemate over one of President Bush’s top economic policy goals, the Senate Finance Committee yesterday gave up efforts to extend deep cuts to the tax rate on dividends and capital gains and approved a $60 billion tax measure largely devoted to hurricane relief and tax cuts with bipartisan appeal.

The measure, which could pass the Senate today, marks the latest in a string of legislative setbacks for Bush, who has repeatedly called on Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent and has taken particular pride in the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2008.
…

“The fact is, these are a confluence of challenges that require a confluence of choices,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who forced Republican leaders to back down on the dividends and capital gains extensions when she argued such cuts would primarily benefit the wealthy as Congress was moving to cut programs for the poor.

A confluence of challenges indeed. Perhaps she and her fellow Senators should look in the mirror to find the biggest source. But benefiting the wealthy? Sure, but they’re hardly alone. I’m not wealthy, yet those tax cuts affect me by helping me become wealthy. It’s might be helpful for the Senate to remember that I’m doing the work to make myself wealthy, not the multitude of spending nonsense they offer. Might it be better to start with spending than with taxes?

When Republicans start co-opting the economic language of Democrats, little hope remains.

This probably means I’m unpatriotic

The latest from Iraq:

Talk of a secret detention center at the Interior Ministry compound had surfaced in Baghdad this summer. Officials of the ministry, whose ranks are made up mainly of former members of Shiite militias, have repeatedly acknowledged some human rights abuses by their forces but never confirmed the rumors of a secret torture center run with the help of intelligence agents from neighboring Iran.

The first official acknowledgment of the allegations came Monday, when Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, the Interior Ministry’s undersecretary for security, said an investigation would be opened into unspecified reports that ministry officers tortured suspects detained in connection with the country’s insurgency.

We rightfully must speak out against this nonsense, because turning Iraq from a tyrannical pro-torture government into a democratic pro-torture government isn’t much of a win. But President Bush should, even though he never will, understand that our moral ground is now quicksand on this. Well done.

No Vengeance, Know Justice

Last week, President Bush said that the United States does not torture. Given the significant evidence to the contrary, this was an interesting position to take. I give him enough credit that I don’t think he’s too stupid to understand what he’s saying. Unfortunately, that reflects poorly upon him, because I can come up with no other explanation than the notion that President Bush lied. Perhaps he doesn’t think he’s lying, but only in a “depends on the definition of ‘is'” manner. That makes US national security adviser Stephen Hadley’s admission clarification troubling. Consider:

“The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law,” the national security adviser said. “But… you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there’s going to be a devastating attack on the United States?”

He insisted that it was “a difficult dilemma to know what to do in that circumstance to both discharge our responsibility to protect the American people from terrorist attack and follow the president’s guidance of staying within the confines of law.”

This administration hasn’t found it difficult to decide what to do. The president’s guidance, based on a memo redefining torture, attempts to deny habeas corpus to detainees, and refusal to offer any information on where we house prisoners, make it very clear that any treatment short of death is acceptable. In the cases where death occurs, there’s plausible deniability because we’ll blame it on a few renegade soldiers. I don’t see the confusion here and I think Mr. Hadley’s statement confirms that the president doesn’t, either.

More importantly, Mr. Hadley’s September 7th dilemma is crap. We knew something was in the works before then, but failed to act through government bureaucracy and ineptitude. Our security officials missed the link, whether it was ignoring FBI memos warning of suspicious activity or presidential avoidance in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The intelligence gathering system worked as designed. Somehow, Mr. Hadley and everyone involved with this administration seems to forget that. That they do and that their immediate, unapologetic response is to beat the shit out of captives, whether convicted of a crime against the United States or not says a lot about President Bush’s leadership and adherence to American ideals.

The proper response isn’t even hard. Senator John McCain introduced an amendment legally binding the United States to existing policy on prisoner treatment, which President Bush explained was already our method. The amendment passed the Senate overwhelmingly, but it’s stuck in the House due to Vice President Cheney’s insistence that the CIA be exempted. Why do they need to be exempted? The question aswers itself.

I’ve stated before that “enhanced interrogation techniques” torture is not only immoral, it’s also stupid policy. So consider Sen. McCain’s argument against torture:

“I hold no brief for the terrorists,” he said. “But it’s not about them. It’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.” [emphasis mine]

Aside from the most fervent anti-American hack, no one denies that the terrorists we face are scum. I knew that immediately on the morning of September 11, 2001. Like a million of my fellow citizens, I fled Washington, D.C. that day, fearful of what else might be on its way. On September 13th, I went back to work. In those two days, and in the following days and weeks, I witnessed what every person in America witnessed in our collective response to the unthinkable. We’re not scum. We’re better than those who murdered so many of our citizens and those who wish to murder again. We behaved in a way consistent with our ideals then. We didn’t need memos, we didn’t need guidance. We just did. We should again. The only unknown is whether or not the Bush administration will rejoin the rest of us before tarnishing our great country any further.

Search Mike Alstott for the two points he stole

After yesterday’s game debacle for the Redskins in Tampa, I hope all Buccaneers fans have to go through tedious, invasive searches. That doesn’t mean I don’t think they have a point, just that I don’t wish them relief.

Millions of fans attending National Football League games this season have undergone mandatory security frisks, and at FedEx Field the lines often back up to dozens of people. The tactic is one of the best ways to deter suicide bombs and other terrorist plots, league officials say, and most fans simply outstretch their arms and undergo it without objection.

But [Gordon] Johnston, a mild-mannered season ticket-holder from the nosebleed seats, has begun to raise a far-reaching ruckus. After suing the Tampa Sports Authority in October, Johnston won a court victory last week that at least temporarily halts the pat-downs at Raymond James Stadium, where the Washington Redskins are scheduled to play Sunday.

He said he dislikes being touched by “a total stranger” and believes that the potential terrorist threat has been wildly exaggerated. And with his initial court success, Johnston has become either a champion of civil liberties or a meddler whose challenge is, by restricting security measures, endangering the lives of his fellow fans.

“Hey, this is the United States of America,” Johnston said. “If you allow this, then it goes to all the other sporting events, then it spreads to restaurants and malls and every place there’s a group of people, then pretty soon what do we turn into?”

Possibly, he said, “a police state.”

I’ve been to probably a dozen games at FedEx Field Jack Kent Cooke Stadium in the four years since Septmber 11, 2001 and have experienced the same security scrutiny that Mr. Johnston complains about. I don’t have the same level of passion against such searches that Mr. Johnston feels, even though I admit to not thinking too much about the legal foundation underlying the searches. I also trust that, when the process becomes a hassle, people will stay home and watch on television. Football’s (and other sports) owners will deal with the consequences of their policies. I am glad that people like Mr. Johnston care enough to challenge the policy and fight for the underlying principles of limited government, whether the facts warrant such consideration.

Personally, I have problem with the stupidity involved.

The NFL policy calls for every ticket-holder to stand with arms extended to be patted from the waist up.

“What’s to prevent . . . hands to accidentally go other wheres,” he testified.

Forget the possibility of hands going other wheres. It’s a legitimate concern and should be dealt with by the police if it occurs. But that’s getting stuck on stupid while ignoring the obvious. Patted from the waist up doesn’t cause alarm for anyone in the NFL so concerned with fan and team safety. What’s to prevent someone from strapping explosives to legs and other wheres? If the defense is that it’ll be obvious, why will it be? The NFL will play its games in the next three months in generally cold weather. Cold weather will allow for bulky clothes. How many terrorists with explosives strapped underneath their zubas do we need before someone learns that, if it’s valid (and legal) to search fans in this way, “from the waist up” is a stupid policy. Enemies adapt, especially when the policy is public knowledge. (I am NOT advocating making such information secret, of course.) Strategies like this offer little more than a happy sensation that we’re doing something, probably for the children more than anyone.

The sky isn’t falling. Even in Texas.

Even though a “traditional” marriage amendment passed in Texas yesterday, and a similar amendment is likely to pass in Virginia in 2006, I’m not distressed. I’m nowhere near last year’s level of frustration because the past twelve months showed that the “losses” in this debate are short-term. Freedom has always prevailed over legalized bigotry and it will again. Instead, I’m inclined to amuse myself with the tangential aspects of the debate. From DailyKos comes this statement:

An anti-gay marriage amendment in Texas passed easily (even though it may hilariously invalidate every marriage).

I hadn’t read the text of the amendment before reading that comment, so I looked it up. The ballot language was this:

“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

No shocker there, of course, but it doesn’t match any remote idea of a controversial interpretation. I followed the link to the amendment’s text for the answer. Here it is:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Section 2 reads as nothing short of a concession that some legal rights must exist. The obvious question is why Texas won’t set aside the charade that they’ve saved marriage by denying gays and lesbians access to the same civil institution, while allegedly conferring the same legal abilities. But that’s more a head-shaker than anything else. The point of the DailyKos comment is Section 1 (b).

As always, I’m not an attorney, but I understand how the amendment’s wording could lead to a different interpretation from the meaning. The text is awful, but I don’t think this will lead to any nullification of marriage. It requires the reader to insert a bit of context to interpret it the way it’s meant, but it requires just as much to interpret it broadly. With the current judicial activism nonsense, I can’t imagine a Texas judge reading the broader meaning from the text. (How this isn’t legislative activism is an appropriate question.)

An opponent could make the argument that reading the intended meaning out of that text is judicial activism, as well, and I’m inclined to agree. However, I don’t believe that argument will stick, so it’d be an energy expense with little payoff beyond intellectual entertainment. I love those scenarios, but I’m a little strange.

As an aside, if I were a Kossack, I’d be more concerned that the election post carried the title “Weird. We Won. Onward to 2006!”. When your party wins an election, you shouldn’t be surprised. Especially when taking the Governor’s mansion in both elections means handing the keys from the current Democrat to the new Democrat. Being surprised implies acceptance of permanent minority status. That’s not really leadership-oriented thinking, no?

(Source: Balloon Juice)