May 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.

-William Pitt

May 8, 2008

Random Ruminations on Reforming the Right (and Other 'R' Words)

Excellent. I hope this works out: The Next Right.

This is somewhat related to an idea that's been on my mind a lot lately. There are certain Righty pundits, namely Mark Levin, who get extremely agitated by Republicans who talk about jumping ship. Levin sees it as a loyalty obligation to stick with the Republican Party and reform her from the inside, instead of casting Libertarian or other opposition votes. For my part, I've had somewhat of a realization over the last few days, spurred-on by a biography on Confederate Partisan Ranger John S. Mosby that I’m currently reading. It occurred to me that it is unhealthy and antithetical to historical precedent to perceive political parties as rigid, non-vacillating, and never-ending institutions. Quite the opposite, we've had not only a handful of varying political parties, but the political parties themselves have evolved over time to become wholly unrecognizable versions of their former selves.

For example, from the aforementioned James A. Ramage book on Mosby, the passage below seems almost surreal by today’s stereotypes (particularly in the modern context of Katrina and the Democrats’ desire for massive Federal reconstruction of New Orleans):

For the first four years after the [Civil] war [Mosby] refrained from politics and then in the summer of 1869, when military rule under Congressional Reconstruction was about to end in Virginia, he came out exactly in the center of the political stand of the majority of white Virginians. The state Conservative Party (later the Democratic Party) that opposed Radical Republican Reconstruction nominated Gilbert C. Walker for governor. When he came to speak in Warrenton, Mosby met him at the train station and hosted and introduced him at the local rally. In his remarks Mosby said that Walker stood for civilization while the Republican Party represented "barbarism." Mosby actively campaigned for Walker and for his friend James Keith, a fellow Warrenton attorney, running for the state legislature. Both won, and the Conservative state legislature ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments, bringing an end to Reconstruction in Virginia. [...] Mosby became an aggressive Conservative Party [meaning Democrat] member, personally taking the offensive against carpetbaggers, Northern men who came into the South and worked from Radical Republican governments.

Does there come a point where enough opposition-party mud has been flung at a political party and subsequently stuck to render the party unsalvageable? The first example that comes to mind is the Whigs, who experienced mass defection because of their stance on slavery. Practically overnight the Whig Party of the mid-Nineteenth century utterly vanished in favor of the Democratic and Republican parties. A few months ago a commenter on the Atlantico remarked that the Republican Party was the party of racism, whereas the Democrats were the "Civil Rights" party. Can you imagine this being heard 140 years ago, when the North, New England, the Abolitionists, and Lincoln's Administration were overwhelmingly Republican and the Democratic Party was prevalent among Southerners, Secessionists, and anti-Abolitionists? We don't even have to go back as far as the Civil War. In 1964, the Democrats had three times the number of dissenters for the Civil Right's Act than the Republicans. And yet, enough mud has been thrown - and stuck - at the GOP that they are the party of racism. They are the party of greed. They are the party for rich, white men. The party of evangelical fanaticism and evolutionists. In general, the forest of concepts upon which the Republican Party was built has been lost for the mud-laden trees.

I think the Republican Party has served a nice, long run, and its time has come. I understand that the Next Right is looking to redefine the Republican Party, to get back to some of its grassroots. And that's great. But I also think that the time has come when we should not shy away from a complete make-over. And not just change for the change's sake, but understanding that the political party system is a fluid and evolving concept. As long as we remain grounded in our principles, then the name and history and baggage of a political party should be irrelevant. Why should I, someone who's trying to promote small-government, pro-capitalism, and traditional liberalism, be encumbered with a century and a half of GOP closeted skeletons? Likewise, I don't feel like today's socialists should be encumbered with the war-mongering likes of John F. Kennedy and FDR. Are we stuck in this rut because Fox News or CNN tells us so, or because of the deep pocketbooks and far-reaching influence of the D/RNC? Today's Democrats should form the New Socialist Party and we GOP train-hoppers should form the New Democratic-Republican Party and we should be going after each other in terms of our ideological differences instead of our historical mud-slinging and baggage pointing.

At the very least, making a serious effort towards a new Conservative Party would hopefully elicit wide-sweeping changes and reform within the current Republican Party: A "Next Right" upon which we can all agree.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 9, 2008

If only there was a word for this type of behavior…

If you had $75,000 of my money, what would you spend it on?

If you are the Virginia Senate, you would spend that taxpayer money on adjusting signs, letterhead, business cards and other literature to replace the phrase "mentally retarded" with "intellectually disabled."

At least there was an effort by the party of smaller government... oh wait, nevermind... that bill was passed unanimously

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2007

Socialism: So Pretty!

The Daily Texan is the student newspaper of UT Austin. It’s one of the largest student newspapers in the country. And yesterday, it ran an opinion piece advocating that Westerners re-evaluate the wonders of socialism. Under normal circumstances, I don’t pay much attention to student newspapers and their opinion pieces, as they just aren’t that well written. But this piece is an exception, and it therefore deserves to be highlighted.

The author is history student Colin Pace, who writes:

Socialism is not a monolithic ideology and it is not a terrible, fear-driven beast that threatens the U.S. masses. In fact, it is quite the opposite. To understand this, one need not look further than Michael Moore's recent movie, "Sicko." Though gimmicky and biased, like his other movies, the film raises an important question about why universal health care systems rank so high above the United States' privatized system in a global comparison.

But Wulf! Michael Moore is a dirty propagandist and his movie is full of lies! We’ve debunked “Sicko”!

But Wulf! The US health care system isn’t actually private, it’s half government funded already!

Come on, Wulf! We have the best health care in the world! People come here from Canada for our health care! The metrics are not fair!

Oh, Wulf! It’s just an undergrad in social sciences, spouting off his dirty collectivist delusions!

Yes, yes, I know all of that. And I also know that every year there a few million kids turning 18 and getting the right to vote. And they don’t read your blog. And most of them don’t know what is inherently unjust about socialism. Rolling your eyes and dismissing them may make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn’t actually advance the cause of liberty. So let’s take a closer look.

Colin Pace represents an articulate voice pointing out that “[i]nstitutions ranging from news stations to school systems teach that socialist and nationalized programs are doomed to collapse under the weight of bureaucracy and corruption.” I would love for this to be the case, but I simply don’t agree that the prevailing theme taught to our youth is that nationalized programs are too big to succeed. Privatized education, health care, public transit, and other government services? No, that’s certainly not the predominant agenda being pushed to our youth by the sources I know of. But to an audience lacking an articulate source to the contrary, Mr. Pace can play the role of the guy who questions authority, and that gives his point the ironic advantage of being anti-authority. “Rebel against convention and think for yourself about the benefits of letting bureaucrats make more decisions for you!”

Pace then makes another appeal guaranteed to garner attention on any college campus: class warfare and rich white guilt. “Factory workers thousands of miles away are harshly exploited so consumer goods such as clothing and TVs can be sold at low prices to American consumers.” For Pace, it’s not a matter of comparing the standard of living for the workers today vs. 40 years ago. It’s a matter of comparing their standard of living to mine, or better yet to Dick Cheney’s. And again, rolling your eyes and dismissing him is not the same as refuting him - or socialism.

But the real reason I chose to highlight this article is not because it’s easy to cherry pick a couple of weak points and mock him. It’s because Mr. Pace really does make an excellent point that we should all consider:

People should not judge the word "socialism" solely by what they know of "socialist" leaders. Leaders like Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro may have upheld socialist aspects of their administrations, but they were not actually "socialists"…

Spot on. The more distant Stalin and Castro become, the easier it will be to note that they did not actually uphold socialist ideals… and therefore they do not provide an honest example of what is wrong about socialism. Those who wish to refute socialism should beware not to let their argument stop with Stalin and Castro, because it (rightly) won’t sway a collectivist who recognizes that these men were not socialists. There is a difference between oppression by a tyrant and oppression by a democracy. One is appealing to the tyrant and his cult of personality, while the other is appealing to 51% of the population. If we only know how to refute the ills of the former, we will eventually suffer the latter.

In other words, Colin Pace’s final paragraph is one that should be considered by every thinking person the world over:

Even those who are staunchly opposed to the nationalization of industry, believing that the free market is the only means for progress, should question the objectivity of the Western view of socialism. The word is loaded with connotations, but that should not stop people from asking what the system is really about.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 26, 2007

The Basics

I love it when somebody lays things out in the most basic terms. So, here's three cheers for Kip, Esquire!

To review: The government has no business providing any goods other than public goods. A public good is one that is neither excludable (I can withhold a cheeseburger from you if you do not pay for it) nor rivalrous (a cheeseburger cannot be consumed simultaneously by more than one person).

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2007

For Future Reference

WaPo:

President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

This is great news. First, it’s an attempt to block the executive branch from acting without oversight, and instead gives the power to act without oversight to legislators and their aides, which is where that power ought to be, dammit. Secondly, and more seriously, I’ll be able to refer to this post the next time a Democrat is in the White House (cough-544 days-cough) and the shoe is on the other foot. That’s always fun.

As to the details, WaPo reports that the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Cutting federal spending, I suppose – so far, so good. But what is Executive Order 13422? It amends an executive order from 1993… let’s check the text:

Each agency shall identify in writing the specific market failure (such as externalities, market power, lack of information) or other specific problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of public institutions) that warrant new agency action, as well as assess the significance of that problem, to enable assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted.

That gives me the creeps just reading it. But… I can imagine the argument that it is a damn good thing that each federal agency should have to identify in writing the specific problem it intends to address. So far, I don’t see what the Dems object to.

Unless specifically authorized by the head of the agency, no rulemaking shall commence nor be included on the Plan without the approval of the agency's Regulatory Policy Office…

The Post summarizes this as “No rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office, to be headed by a presidential appointee.” Is it a big deal to drop the first clause? But the point about the presidential appointee is a good one. Please read “presidential appointee” as “partisan political hack”. The Right Wing would do well to imagine what their reaction to this would have been under Bill Clinton… or what it will be someday under Hillary. Why do we continually have to point this out? In fact, that’s really the bottom line regarding each and every action the Bush administration has taken to gather and centralize power. While it may be fun for some of you to cheer as Bush, Cheney, et alii thumb their noses at the Democrats, it’s going to come back to bite you in the ass.

PS - I am not sympathetic to the desire that some federally employed scientists have for everybody to shut up and let them do what they feel they need to do. When you fund your own research initiative, I’ll support your desire for the government to back off.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 26, 2007

What if Thomas Jefferson Were Alive Today?

A blog after my own heart:

What if Thomas Jefferson were alive today? What if the founding fathers were still around? What would they say about the way we live? Some of these questions are explored when writer of the Declaration of Independence and philosopher behind the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, is transported to the year 2003 through a freak time [traveling] accident, and starts up an [Internet] weblog to record his thoughts and adventures in today's time with Daniel, his all-too-American roommate.

Antics and zaniness ensue. But, a quick perusal through the pages of this site shows the author's done his homework on the third President, or "Teej" as they call him. Be sure to browse the entries chronologically starting here.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

May 9, 2007

One Day at a Time

Nancy Pelosi might be on to something with this idea of funding the war a couple of months at a time.

In fact, I propose we move to this kind of funding plan for other government policies whose “success” is in doubt or ill-defined. We can pony up a couple months of funding, attach some strings, and put it all under the microscope this summer with a budget axe at the ready. Not just the Iraq war. The War on Drugs, too. Health and Human Services. Campaign money, salaries and amenities for elected officials. Anything you consider pork.

Finally, a Democratic proposal I can really get behind. I’m even willing to suggest that federal education money comes up near the top of the list. It's friggin genius.

But why stop at two months? How about one month at a time, like most of my household expenses? Or even more frequently? We can go daily, like my junk food budget. Hey, I’ve studied Riemann sums. I’ve learned about compound interest. You let the time intervals shrink and the whole thing goes a lot smoother. And isn't that what we want in Iraq? Smoother! Again, it's friggin genius.

I’m on board, Ms. Speaker.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 8, 2007

What Limited Government?

Allow me to link BK Marcus on a point worth repeating... libertarians just might not be justified in their fond memories of that "small government conservative" Ronald Reagan. Was he better than the guys who have followed him? Sure. And is that really the point? I'm not sure. Markus links a Jeffrey Tucker article at Mises.Org that makes some points you really should remember when the 2008 GOP candidates embrace Reagan's legacy in their ads and debates.

Saul Friedman quotes Reagan himself, speaking at Oxford in 1992:

Let me tell you of another dream I have…a dream I have long had…Just as the world’s democracies banded together to advance the cause of freedom in the face of totalitarianism, might we not now unite to impose civilized standards of behavior on those who flout every measure of human decency? Are we not nearing a point in world history where civilized nations can in unison stand up to the most immoral and deadly excesses against humanity, such as those now defacing Somalia and Bosnia?

And later in that speech,

As long as military power remains a necessary fact of modern existence, then we should use it as a humanitarian tool…

What exactly did Reagan stand for, again?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 28, 2007

Hippocrates Shrugged

I don’t read the Volokh Conspiracy, mostly because I find his format unwieldy and distasteful. And that’s a shame, because my understanding is that Mr Volokh puts out some good content. But I sometimes run across his work by proxy, as was the case today. Inspired by one of Mr Volokh’s posts, Coyote Blog ponders, Does the Hippocratic Oath Make Doctors Our Slaves?

(The text of the Hippocratic Oath can be found here, if you’re the type to do research from the primary source.)

Coyote’s post is one that explains well the general libertarian philosophy as it applies to a specific situation. Libertarians (as he notes) are often written off in policy debates, because our positions come across to the average person as extreme and unworkable. And in our society, in the short term, maybe they are. But these aren’t knee-jerk, anti-social obstructionist positions. They are principled positions, stemming directly from classical liberalism. Most of our opponents are not willfully authoritarian, e.g. monarchists or the like. They are simply ignorant of how to draw political conclusions from philosophical values. They don’t recognize their own inconsistencies. And occasionally, when confronted with the issue in the simplest of terms and with the underlying philosophies and values, they recognize what’s going on.

So here it is: Just because a person has something that you want, or even something that you legitimately need, does not mean that you have a right to it. The only way to deny this fact is to reject egalitarianism* at its core – and who is willing to do that, explicitly? Most people – even those who support government medicine – will not. The failure of the collectivist philosophy that is so popular among intellectuals is not a failure to recognize that all men are created equal, but a failure to understand that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that your right to life is not to come at the expense of my right to liberty.

Often, I feel like I am preaching to the choir here at AtlasBlogged. Occasionally, I figure there is little value in doing so. But sometimes people are able to break down an issue so clearly that it is of great value to share it. Does the Hippocratic Oath make doctors our slaves? I know people who have taken that oath and believe in government health care – a “right” to medical treatment. They would never advocate their own slavery, if they recognized it for what it was. But they don’t see the issue in those terms, and they don’t fear for their own liberty. They just feel overwhelmed by hospital administrators and insurance companies. They feel badly for sick people. They know there is a better way than the current way, and they want to bulldoze everything that impedes their ability to give the absolute best treatment to everyone. What better bulldozer than the federal government?

My father would never count himself a libertarian. But he understands this issue very clearly. He took the Hippocratic Oath, and he took it seriously. And when the hospital administration asked too much of him, and he felt that the insurance companies limited him, he faced a serious clash of values. He is a man who gives of himself relentlessly. He has literally given the shirt off his back – to strangers. But he will not be enslaved, and he knew his slaver when he saw him. He quit medicine several years ago. He wasn’t eligible for retirement, but he stood by his principles and shrugged the expectations (and chains) right off. I’ve been proud of him my entire life, but never more than on this issue.

* I use the term “egalitarianism” to mean a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges, definition 1 at Merriam Webster. The term is sometimes ignorantly hijacked to mean equality in results – redistribution of wealth or something even more reminiscent of the short story Harrison Bergeron. People who do so are jackasses.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2007

The Official PC Radio Hit List

Who is next, now that Don Imus has been fired?

Keith Olbermann has made a partial list:

Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?

Please note that I do not listen to any of these shows. But how disturbing is it that Olbermann would start calling for his ideological opponents to be taken off the air? How offensive is that mentality? (Offensive enough to call for Olbermann’s dismissal? I’m sure some on the right would miss the irony and do exactly that.) As Glenn Beck noted on air yesterday, Olbermann appears to be unaware that an atmosphere so charged would jeopardize Olbermann’s career, too. Remember: The Frankenstein monster sought to destroy its creator. This is no different, Keith.

As a side note, I do want to point out that the word “ho” clearly isn’t very offensive, as it has been casually repeated and batted around the airwaves, blogosphere, and print media nonstop for over a week. If it were truly offensive, it would be elevated to the level of those special words that go by their first initial – the “N” word, the “B” word, etc. If “ho” is so hurtful, maybe it should be called the “H” word from now on. The furor over this word is reminiscent of the Macaca flap, where commentators, bloggers, and jackasses around the world said over and over, “the use of the word ‘macaca’ is highly offensive! ‘Macaca’ compares ~~blacks~~ Indians to monkeys! The use of the word 'macaca' is enough to bar one from public office! Don’t ever say ‘Macaca’! Macaca, Macaca, Macaca!”

(Actually, this point was also made by the Jon Henke at QandO last December.)

For our amusement, let's imagine the following conversation:

Pundit: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "ho".

Al Sharpton: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Pundit: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Ho! Ho! Nappy-headed hos!

Al Sharpton: I'm warning you! If you say "ho" one more time…

(Sharpton gets suspended from radio show)

Al Sharpton Hey! Who did that?

Media Gaggle: She did! She did! He! He did! He!

Al Sharpton: Was it you?

Media Exec: Yes. Well you did say "ho".

(Media Exec gets barraged with criticism and is fired)

Al Sharpton: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! All right, no one is to fire until Jesse Jackson or I blow this whistle. Even if... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "ho"

(Sharpton gets permanently fired from radio show)

So, is there an official “PC Radio Hit List”? Yes, I believe there is. Media Matters has published it. After our airwaves have been ~~purged~~ ~~cleansed~~ (sound too genocidal?) tidied up, we can next focus on the filthy internet.

I can only hope this site doesn’t attract too much attention with its snappy, threaded prose. Think we will be safe?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 11, 2007

Rabid, Rabid!

No surprise here… Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is upset with her neighbor – some guy by the name of Monty Johnson. She refers to him as a “rabid, rabid Republican”. She once saw him brandishing a gun. She says he keeps his property “slummy” just to spite her. She wouldn’t be nice to him if she ever met him, according to the Charlotte Observer and a host of other news agencies who are pouncing on her hurtful remarks. See also the Raleigh • Durham • Cary • Chapel Hill • Podunk News & Observer, which reports:

Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.

I love the imagery.

Nothing about this situation is especially surprising (except that it was carelessly spoken aloud and giving the Edwardses bad press). Nor is it unique to Podunk, NC where these people live. But since it’s been thrown out there into the news, I’d like to highlight the parts of the story that really frame my view of the situation:

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

It’s a pretty familiar story. It really highlights the difference between the haves and the have-nots. It’s almost like there are two Americas or something.

I don’t say that as somebody who hates Jon Edwards or his family. I don’t hate him for his wealth or his politics – in fact, I don’t hate him at all. I’m just somebody who can’t stand it when people expect their neighbors to “keep up” – especially since Mr. Johnson has lived there for more than half a century longer than the Edwards family. If they wanted to live in an exclusive Democratic haven with covenants against Guliani signs, they should have purchased land in that kind of community. If they wanted to live someplace where you could have your neighbor’s run-down childhood home destroyed, they should have picked New London, CT. If they wanted to live someplace where their neighbors would never be brandishing firearms, they should have purchased in Washington, DC (hahahahahahahaha! Come on, that was funny!)

As Rammage notes via email: “I'm instantly reminded of:

“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~ Heinlein

Which would you rather have as a neighbor?”

Indeed. Good call, Rammage.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 8, 2007

The Enemy of my Enemy is not my Friend

A Reminder to libertarians that the Democrats are not pro-liberty:

As unlibertarian as Republicans can be, the case for the libertarian Democrat is far from well-made, despite what Markos Moulitsas says.

You lovers of liberty who feel betrayed by the Republican Party and conservatives in general: How do you feel about those Democrats? Did you vote for this? The next time you find yourself thinking that the Democrats may be a libertarian option, remember these words by John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee (and Pelosi’s choice for House Majority Leader): "I think everybody ought to be obligated to serve."

Let that ring in your ears.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Personalized Pork

How can I not bring attention to an article titled, “Congress should terminate its Edifice Complex”?

…ego-driven pork-barrel projects protect incumbents, fuel their vanity and cost taxpayers real money. And they should stop.

This problem is bicameral and bipartisan.

The fact that it is bicameral and bipartisan should be disheartening to all citizens, but it also means that the practice is firmly entrenched and loved by politicians. It’s a great op-ed that Deroy Murdock has written on the topic. I would love to see this problem taken seriously by legislators.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 19, 2007

Truancy Equals Freedom

SCOTUS begins hearing Morse v. Frederick (a/k/a the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case), about which our friend and fellow libertarian Kip asks, “Why is this even a case?” Being both a libertarian and a public school teacher, I’ve paid some attention to this case. I am very concerned about the outcome – which I suspect will go poorly for young Mr. Frederick.

Okay, if you have no idea what case I am talking about, let me bring you up to speed – with some heavy quoting from SCOTUSblog, to which Kip also links.

The core facts that the two sides can agree upon are these: when the Olympic torch was being carried along Glacier Avenue in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot banner with the message, “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” (“Bong hits” is slang for smoking marijuana.) Glacier Avenue runs in front of Juneau-Douglas High School, where Frederick was enrolled as a senior. School Principal Morse crossed the Avenue, and demanded that the sign be taken down; Frederick refused, and the principal grabbed the sign and crumpled it. Later, Morse suspended Frederick for ten days, citing a variety of infractions of school rules. The Ninth Circuit found a violation of Frederick’s First Amendment rights, and found that the law was so clear on this issue in January 2002 that the principal was not entitled to legal immunity to money damages.

But the agreement on the facts largely ends there. The principal and the Juneau School Board insist that Frederick was taking part in a school-sponsored event – the students were let out of school to attend the torch-passing rally, and school cheerleaders and pep band took part; the students were closely supervised; school system money was spent to bus students in from other schools; the event occurred during school hours, and four students were torch-bearers. Frederick with equal fervor insists that this was a public event in a public forum (a sidewalk next to a public street), he was not on school property at the time, he was an 18-year-old adult, and he had not even gone to class that morning so was not among students released to go to the rally.

Now, I’d have to say it’s pretty clear that citizens have the right to unfurl banners with ambiguous religion/drug messages. It’s also pretty clear that the student would not have been allowed to do this in his school cafetorium – his suspension would have stood, and he never would have made it anywhere near the Supreme Court. But he wasn’t on school property, so he’s golden.

Except that the defense will argue convincingly that the torch rally was a school-sponsored event, much like a field trip. I am (annually) a field trip sponsor, and it has been made very clear to me (every damn year) that (to turn a phrase) school officials do not shed their in loco parentis responsibilities at the schoolhouse gate. I am not even allowed to change the rules of dress code or conduct just because I’ve taken the students to an amusement park to study the physics of the rides (not at taxpayer expense, settle down). And incidentally, this does not magically change when the student hits 18, so Joseph Frederick’s being that age at the time of this incident is probably completely irrelevant. The fact that Juneau-Douglas High School brought students to participate in this Olympic rally is enough to sink his case.

Except that Joseph Frederick had not gone to school that day. (dum-dum-dum!)

That was the one fact of the case that I picked up from SCOTUSblog that I had not known this morning, when I emailed the Atlantico list about this case. This morning, I said:

The case is interesting to me because I have seen groups from the right and the left supporting this kid. The ACLU and gay rights groups in particular seem concerned about potential abridging of free speech, no surprise, but several religious groups recognize how a ruling in support of the school could be used against religious expressions at school. But he's so going to lose.

Ah, not so after all. In light of the fact that Joseph Frederick was absent from school, he can’t reasonably be considered to have been participating in the torch rally as a student subject to the school rules. Suddenly, it’s much more like the time that I ran into students at the amusement park who were not on the physics field trip, and in fact weren’t enrolled in a physics class. They were not my problem, from a legal point of view.

Well played, Mr. Frederick. Well played. Bong hits 4 Jesus, indeed.

ps - I personally think the defense is further hurt by the arguments that are being made about schools needing to enforce anti-drug policies. I just can’t see the justices nodding along with that argument. At least, I hope not.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2007

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is formally seeking the Republican presidential nomination – something that we’ve known, but that was just made formal this week. I didn’t think the official announcement would cause me any confusion, but then I read this in the NYT:

A statement released by campaign chairman Kent Snyder described Paul as “a real conservative in the race for president” who Republican primary voters can support.

A real… conservative? Wait… Ron Paul is known for being libertarian – in fact, he played the part of the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. So which is it? Libertarian, or conservative?

Or are libertarians and conservatives really very similar after all?

Oh, sorry. Ron Paul is running for the Republican presidential nomination, which means he needs to get GOP voters to identify him as a reasonable option. Thus the word “conservative” being so attractive. I get it. Just for a second, I thought we were going to have to identify the issue that separates libertarians from conservatives. (hint)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 27, 2007

Playing Politics with the Iraq Troop Surge

I really like it when the media frames a debate the way I would do. NPR’s Ron Elving was apparently willing to accommodate me for this piece on the Iraq troop surge.

I, unlike most self-described libertarians, recognize that it would be foolish for the Bush administration or military commanders to announce a pull-out date. But that doesn’t mean I am not looking forward to seeing the troops exit Baghdad. And that’s exactly what the troop surge would lead to if all goes well. As Elving notes:

The question now is not whether more U.S. troops will be committed but whether they will accomplish what most Americans want: an expedited disengagement.

While Democrats jockey to get the credit for the eventual troop withdrawal - Senate Democrats are considering legislation that would revoke the 2002 authorization of force that allowed the Iraq invasion, which would probably be followed by legislation revoking the laws of supply and demand so they can ram through some kind of socialist healthcare and attempt to nationalize Big Oil – the fact is that this has been the culmination of US efforts to get Iraq’s government on its feet all along, as I have noted before. The Bush administration has not been able to effectively convince Americans of the progress, partly because it brings up the obvious questions of when our troops will be done and get to leave Iraq – a question that the administration can answer in terms of benchmarks but not in terms of timetables, as Ron Elving and I have already mentioned to you.

In Elvings’ piece from this week (the one I quoted above), he implies that there are some who wish the American troop presence in Iraq could just go on and on – an indefinite pseudo-occupation that would presumably continue to take the lives of good American soldiers. Except that I don’t know anybody who wishes for that. But that’s my only complaint with Elvings’ view of the troop surge. As he ends;

So the surge will go forward. Those who want U.S. involvement to end as soon as possible must now wish for events in Iraq to render a clear verdict, pro or con. If the surge works well, the phased withdrawal so many Democrats demand (and for which so many Republicans wish) can still begin this year. If the surge fails utterly, withdrawal becomes inevitable.

The next task for Democrats and the media, really, is to write the story so that it looks like the troops only came home because the Democrats had the mandate of the people to shut off Bush/Cheney’s blood spigot. Just tell yourselves that otherwise, it never would have ended.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 20, 2007

Virginia General Assembly (Updated)

Try to follow this logic. The Virginia General Assembly is poised to pass legislation allowing youths as young as 14 to make decisions regarding alternative medicine. Though the wording of the current bill reportedly gives judges discretion on the matter, 14 is being referred to as the “age of consent” on the issue. Of course, that same kid is still 2 years too immature to drive, and 4 years too immature to make his own decisions about smoking, dropping out of school, or joining the military. He is also 7 years too young and immature to drink wine with dinner or have a beer at the game. Perhaps if he were to claim any of these were medicinal, it would suddenly be okay - pending judicial review. (Story at Virginian-Pilot on line.)

In other news, the House Finance Committee voted down legislation that would have allowed a 40 percent tax credit on contributions of at least $1,000 toward private schools serving children with disabilities. Which horrific special interest group would discourage donations to schools for disabled kids? The Virginia Education Association, for one. Again, try to follow this logic:

They said money that would pay for the credits would reduce general funds available to public schools.

The lesson? When push comes to shove, those disabled kids had better back off of the ~~taxpayers’~~ VEA’s money.

And lastly, legislators have shot down a bill that would protect homeowners who use legally owned weapons to defend their lives, their families, and their property. The bill would have protected homeowners from wrongful death suits, but not from criminal suits (obviously). One last time, try to follow the logic of those opposing the bill:

But Henry County prosecutor Bob Bushnell, speaking for the Virginia Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, said the legislation would shield someone who opens fire on a mentally ill person who wanders into his home.

It also would provide immunity to a drug dealer who shoots a police officer who enters a home unlawfully because he didn't notice that a magistrate forgot to sign a search warrant, Bushnell said.

(emphasis mine)
So according to Mr. Bushnell, if an officer enters my home unlawfully, and I take him to be a non-police officer who has entered my home unlawfully (the only difference here being his occupation), then I should not be able to defend myself? Keep in mind that during the average unlawful home entry, there isn't a lot of time for asking whether the masked man in fatigues is a police officer or a criminal. Besides which, a criminal might lie.

I guess I’ll just take comfort in the fact that I’m not a drug dealer, and therefore the police would never enter my home unlawfully.

Update: MichaelW of ASecondHandConjecture comments at QandO that Virginia follows the Castle Doctrine; Thus the legislation in question concerned civil liability, but Virginians are already protected from criminal liability if they shoot a violent intruder. It is true that the legislation was about civil liability – the sponsor was concerned with a homeowner facing a wrongful death suit filed by the family of an intruder that had been killed – but my understanding of Virginia Law is that the Castle Doctrine is not spelled out in Virginia. It may be implied or understood, but my understanding is that is as far as it goes.

Of course, I am no lawyer, and the scenario in the QandO story is a bit off of my original point anyway. My point is that the reason given for killing the legislation was that homeowners might take advantage of the freedom to kill trespassers wantonly, or at least inappropriately. And I understand the concern, I guess. But the appeal that one of those trespassers might be a police officer instead of just a citizen is one I find lacking. If the intruder is there illegally, then the homeowner should be explicitly protected under the law. If the intruder is there legally, then the Castle Doctrine does not apply, and the now-dead legislation would not have, either. Whether the intruder is a cop or not shouldn’t matter at all to this discussion. Their lives are not to be held above those of citizens.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 7, 2007

On Trial for Publishing the Danish Cartoons

Philippe Val, publisher of the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went on trial this week for publishing the infamous Danish Cartoons.

The charge is “publicly slandering a group of people because of their religion” (I have seen several variants of this, so I guess the translation is a bit open to interpretation.) The charge carries a possible six-month prison sentence and a fine of up to €26,800. Val was quoted as saying, "In a democracy, we're all shocked by what people say and do. We just have to learn to talk about it.”

The shame is that he even needed to say that. As Rammage so eloquently noted last year, this situation puts the American Left in quite a quandary. Which value is more important – freedom of the press, or respect for the cultural and religious beliefs of those in third world countries? Is it okay to print cartoons that criticize Islamists, or is it not?

But even if Americans answer that question correctly, it may not help Mr. Val in his trial over in Europe. After all, Europeans have criminal bans on swastikas, headscarves, and “hate speech” (potentially on line, as well). I have no faith that justice will prevail.

Of course, maybe I will be surprised. After all, Germany recently announced that it will not push for a EU-wide ban on swastikas and Holocaust denial. There may be some pockets of Europe where dialogue is preferred to prison when dealing with those with whom one disagrees. I sincerely hope Mr. Val is in one of those pockets.

While I am on the subject of Holocaust denial, let me share with you an amusing point by the Brussels Journal:

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 4, 2007

Bad, Virginia Legislators, Bad!

Thus always to Payday Lenders.

As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Virginia General Assembly is tackling the "problem" of payday lenders. I use the quotation marks not to imply that there is no problem, but rather to note that my legislators are not limiting themselves to their proper role in this matter. They first considering a repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002, but have since moved toward simply capping the fees lenders can charge for these small short-term loans.

Detractors (and the media) continue to insist on comparing the fee levels to compounded interest, which is not accurate or appropriate. For example,

the House of Delegates [today] advanced legislation that would cap the interest lenders could charge on short-term loans of $500 or less... The rate cap would reduce the interest on a two-week loan from $15 per $100 to $2.77...

As the article notes, the bill is not sure to pass as is. But something will be done, because legislators have decreed that something must be done. They don't even mind that payday lenders may go out of business. In fact, bill supporters are downright flip about it:

"If they can't make money off of 72 percent interest, I think they need to reconsider their business plan," said Helen O'Beirne, a spokeswoman for Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending.

At least the General Assembly killed the proposal to outlaw anonymous sperm donation, which I think is a euphamism for one-night stands. I don't know how they planned to enforce that, but I'm sure there are some who would be willing to give it a try.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Conservative Professor's Discrimination Suit

Virginia State University is a historically black university located just outside of Petersburg. It was the United States' first fully state-supported four-year institution of higher learning for black Americans (an oft-repeated point of pride which I first heard when visiting VSU, back when I worked for the SMV). My problem with that, of course, has nothing to do with the students being black, and has everything to do with asking why the state is using my tax dollars to support higher learning for anybody at all. But that's not even the issue I wanted to discuss today.

It has been alleged more than once over the years that VSU discriminates against conservatives on its own faculty. The latest case is Jean R. Cobbs, an outspoken conservative black woman who was a professor at Virginia State University with more than 27 years of tenure when, in January 2005, she was fired for reasons that look to me pretty unfounded. She sued the school, its president, and its provost, claiming that her termination was simply retaliation for her testimony in another suit, years earlier, in which the school and its president were accused of racial discrimination.

VSU has offered Cobb $600,000 to settle the suit out of court. A Goy and his Blog notes that this benefits the university, its president, and its provost in that they do not have to admit any wrongdoing or shell out any of their own money in order to make both Professor Cobb and her lawsuit go away:

the settlement guarantees an end to the public controversy. Much better to rob VSU’s students of a half million dollars in funding than to let the internet, mainstream media and public-at-large get hold of the details of this case. Think what a can of worms that might open!

Well, yeah, I live less than half an hour from VSU, and I've heard this case mentioned exactly zero times on the local TV and radio news. The Richmond Times-Dispatch carried one story, and it hasn't been mentioned much elsewhere.

I don't think, however, that discrimination against conservatives in academia is so systemic as to warrant some sort of Academic Fairness Doctrine or Equal Time provision. Nor do I support Rammage in his grudge against Atlas Blogged reader feminist mom. But I wish that Professor Cobb was able to wring a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing out of VSU - and getting paid in a manner that punishes the wrongdoers personally, instead of with tax dollars. As it is, she stands as yet another example of how an academic career can be broken by politics. If we must be saddled with state universities, then this behavior shouldn't be tolerated in them.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2007

Second-hand Smoke and You

This AB article is dedicated to Jib Halyard.

Fellow AB author Rick asked me: "Who would have to present evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, for you to believe it?

My response:

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that second-hand smoke can't be harmful. Clearly and ad absurdum, if you and I sat in a closed 10x10x10 cube for thirty years with me blowing cigarette smoke in your face then you're going to be just as likely to get lung cancer as I. What I am saying is that the science is being blown out of proportion - and often times outright fraudulent - in order to justify and form policy that is eroding personal freedoms. It's going to be the trend of the 21st century, I'm starting to think.

I tell you what. I'll let a Harvard Medical School graduate talk for me first, and I'll throw in a few comments at the end:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it "impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science..there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings.a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

Okay. Let's take a step back from the studies and the degrees and the arguing from authority and so forth, and let's take a Sanity Check. For shoots and grins, Google the term "Second-Hand Smoke."

Here are some of the words used on the first Google'd page:

Secondhand smoke causes about 3000 deaths each year from lung cancer...
Secondhand smoke kills...
Secondhand smoke affects everyone, but children are especially vulnerable...
Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma episodes...
Second-hand smoke is actually more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke...
It is not easy to avoid secondhand smoke...

Let me ask you, does this sound like science or politics to you?

Incidentally, here is the EPA's report refuting their critics' critique of their report. Bottom line: There may be a slightly increased chance of lung cancer for second-hand smoke, for a person living with a chain smoker for twenty-years. But even then, it's rare.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 21, 2007

Regulating Payday Loans

Doug Mataconis tackles an issue at the Liberty Papers that I've been meaning to write about all week. The Virginia General Assembly is considering a repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which legalized the short-term, high-interest loans commonly known as Payday Loans.

Last November, the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a panel on the topic (sponsored by Family Resource Clinic, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, and the Federalist Society). An article in the newspaper UVA Today explains the loans as well as any other source:

Payday loans are generally governed by the states, explained moderator Prof. Daniel Nagin, director of the Law School’s Family Resource Clinic. But the federal government recently got involved when Congress passed legislation placing a 36-percent cap on the annual interest rate of loans taken out by active-duty military personnel.

Obtaining a payday loan in Virginia is as simple as writing a check, Nagin said. Anyone who has a checking account is qualified to take out a loan. The payday lender will charge the borrower $15 for every $100 that is loaned. At the end of the loan period, which can be as short as seven or up to 30 days, the borrower must return to the store to repay the loan, or the company can cash the check that was written at the beginning of the transaction. The maximum a borrower can take out under Virginia law is $500...

The payday loan industry in Virginia has grown from a $165 million business in 2002 to more than $1 billion worth of transactions in 2005, Nagin explained. There are approximately 750 authorized payday loan outlets throughout the state.

750? That sounds like there is quite a demand for these places. But Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond, has a different take on that number:

There are over two payday lending stores for every McDonalds in Virginia and three for every Starbucks. This is ridiculous.

I am horrified to learn that this is the standard my lawmakers will use to judge the situation. [shudder] And that's clearly become a talking point. I have no idea where it started, but it's constantly repeated on the Richmond radio and in most news articles. My question: why have we allowed this disparity between the number of McDonalds and the number of Starbucks in the first place? What ever happened to equality in this country? And what is the ratio of payday lenders to Taco Bells? I demand an answer!

As Mataconis points out in the post at The Liberty Papers, we can question the wisdom of borrowers to enter into a payday loan, but what right does the state have to prevent it? Not that legislators give a damn about what they have the right to do, of course.

Since we're here, let's take a look at what proposals are on the table. Again from UVA Today,

The Virginia General Assembly is currently reviewing two bills that would affect the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which authorized payday lending companies to set up shop in Virginia and exempted the industry from the prior 36-percent interest rate cap. The first bill repeals the Act; the second bill introduces an amendment calling for a real-time database that would force payday lenders to report the identity of the borrower and the terms of the loan to the state. Lenders would be able to search the database when a prospective borrower wants to take out a loan. The lender would be prohibited from lending money to patrons who had three or more outstanding loans. Finally, lenders could not loan money to anyone who had terminated a loan contract within the previous 48 hours.

(emphasis mine)

I love the comments by Michele Satterlund, an attorney who represented the payday lending industry at the UVA panel:

There are no viable alternatives being presented and there is a market need. We are a product that serves that market.

When I hear [panel member Jay Speer, executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center] talk, it’s as if he’s saying people who find themselves in financial hardship are not very smart, that’s the message I get. They’re not very smart, they can’t control their money, let’s control their money for them.

Opponents of Payday lenders point to a lot of alternative sources, but when it comes down to it, they are trying to legislate away one of my options because they think they know what's best for me, and I don't. Doesn't that sound familiar?

For those who think the high interest rates warrant government action, consider a point illustrated in Wikipedia:
<