While important, this is where you start?

This article is incoherent for the last two-thirds, but it raises a wonderful opportunity to restore Constitutional principles. I’m sure Democrats will screw it up based on the provided quote, but I can dream for a moment about America:

The Republican-controlled FCC — which makes far-reaching decisions on telephone, television, radio, Internet and other services that people use daily — has sparred infrequently with Republican-controlled congresses. But the Democratic-run 110th Congress is about to heat up the grill, starting with a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday.

Senators vow to press the chairman and four commissioners on matters such as media-ownership diversity, Internet access, broadcast decency standards and delays in resolving various issues. The hearing may cover the waterfront, Democratic staff members say, but there’s little doubt that the agency will face a tone of questioning unseen in recent years.

“They’ve effectively emasculated any public-interest standards that existed” for radio and TV stations, said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a committee member who plans sharp questions on decency, media consolidation and other topics. “The entire Congress for years now has been devoid of any kind of oversight,” he said, and the new Democratic majority is launching a process that will force the FCC to “beat a path to Capitol Hill to respond.”

If Sen. Dorgan intends his sharp questions on broadcast decency to imply that the FCC isn’t doing enough to protect the public (the children!), we might as well repeal the First Amendment because the politics of family values has clearly kicked the principles of liberty in the nuts male anatomical part and declared victory. The “public-interest standards” isn’t promising, either.

I don’t see any servants for the public.

I’ve been slammed at work this week with preparing for a software demo next week, so my ability to gather news worth discussing has been limited. That makes today as good a day as any to discuss something that I’ve thought about occasionally: term limits for Congress. I’ve always been against them because a method of term limits (regular elections) already exists. If you don’t like your elected representatives, vote against them. If your opinion is the minority, work to convince others. Term limits seems like the lazy way out.

I’m not immune to reconsidering my position, though. Career politicians are not generally helpful to the nation. That’s an imperfect generalization, but one that suffices close enough to accuracy most of the time. There should be relatively regular turnover. Since it’s not happening through the established, more effective method, perhaps I should reconsider.

The most common theme I’ve heard suggesting that we revisit term limits revolves around some variation of “it’ll limit the damage they can do.” This is flawed for two reasons, I believe. First, and most obvious, if we’re trying to limit the damage, the system is flawed, not the lack of term limits. Whatever it is that lets Congress flout the rules and reward itself at the public’s expense should be remedied. This is where elections should come in, but voters show a great propensity to believe that their representative is the good one. (To be fair, there are other, incumbent favoring factors.) Let Congress know that it can’t spend with abandon. Let it know that violating the Constitution will not be tolerated. These are the heart of the real issue.

Second, and more important, if we’re trying to limit corruption and influence-peddling, we must remember that unintended consequences can and will occur. Some of these might be positives, but if politicians are moral defectives, as Kip states, is it unreasonable to believe that term limits will only serve to condense their negative behavior into a shorter period of time?

I’ve seen nothing from most politicians to believe that they won’t sell out America to the highest bidder when they want to get re-elected. When they can’t get re-elected because of term limits, I suspect they’ll properly plan ahead to make sure they set themselves individually by rewarding whoever can most help them when they return to the private sector. We could debate whether or not this shift in behavioral time frame would cause more or less harm, and that would be interesting. I tend to accept Kip’s thesis, so I don’t think it’s debatable that a shift would occur.

Self-interest will still drive too many politicians if we implement term limits. Politicians won’t be better at dark art, just quicker. I remain unconvinced that term limits will solve the real problem. We’d be better suited going after the root than the symptom.

Who defines “satisfactorily”?

The given title is “Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make”, but the Washington Post should’ve titled Robert Samuelson essay in today’s newspaper to accommodate the fact that at least two choices are stupid. Consider:

Let me engage in a fantasy. Let me assume that Democrats and Republicans actually intended to address two serious national problems: first, our huge dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil; and second, the persistent mismatch between public resources (taxes) and public obligations (spending). What might they do? Herewith, a package of proposals:

  • Increase the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains (profits on stocks and other assets) from today’s 15 percent to at least 25 percent.

This list is clearly doomed, because Mr. Samuelson accepts the same garbage that the economically ignorant love to perpetuate, namely that only the rich have dividends and capital gains, and anyone rich enough to receive them is rich enough to pay their “fair share” without concern. No data actually backs this up, and principles of economics and fairness disprove it, but a lie told often enough, and with enough pleasant motivations can overcome truth.

  • Raise the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare gradually to 70 by 2029. At 65, people would have to buy into Medicare (that is, pay for coverage) until they reached eligibility for subsidized benefits.

If we’re going to force people to buy into Medicare for those five years before they turn 70, wouldn’t it make sense to stop the charade and let them spend the money they would currently contribute to Medicare (and Social Security) on their own private insurance? This is a better-than-nothing approach, but Mr. Samuelson’s solution offers little more than a blatant acceptance that Social Security is a shell game in which no one is much interested in correcting the foundational flaw. It’s stupid.

Reading Mr. Samuelson’s conclusion, much of this becomes obvious:

That something like this won’t soon be proposed — let alone passed — speaks volumes about our politics. Both parties have marketed government as a source of aid and comfort. Benefits are to be pursued, burdens shifted and choices avoided. Problems are to be blamed on scapegoats (“the liberals,” “the rich”). There is little sense of common interests and shared obligations. Politicians resort to symbolic acts that seem more meaningful than they actually are: the minimum wage, for instance.

Mr. Samuelson’s analysis of the problem seems to coincide nicely as an explanation for his recommendations.

I want my $10 share of the subsidy returned.

Is riding the rails so romantic that we must subsidize it long after its useful life and economic feasibility? The United States Senate thinks so:

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.

Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.

Is it really? Danielle and I will visit New York City this weekend. We’re driving. How long do you think we considered traveling by train before deciding upon driving? Zero seconds.

No cost comparison can justify a journey on Amtrak, no matter how wonderful it would be. With tolls and gas, we’ll spend a bit shy of one hundred dollars. For Amtrak, we’d spend $220 for a roundtrip ticket. Each. And the expense of parking the car must still be considered, as well as the lack of disparity in trip length with either choice.

I don’t think I need to go on, for the case against Amtrak is obvious. Remember, too, that I’m talking about a trip in Amtrak’s only profitable service, the Northeast corridor. Amtrak makes its money in the Northeast through business and government. If you’re in one city, and going to another, it makes sense. Especially on someone else’s dime, which is how I’ve paid for it both times I’ve ridden Amtrak.

Trains have a legacy and mythology in America’s history, but that time has passed. It’s time to stop funneling taxpayer money into nostalgia. Let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. Those services that can’t be justified economically should be forced allowed to die.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

For discussion: if this is how Congress treats a non-essential service in financial distress, how will it treat a financial healthcare crisis under a single-payer system when should problems arise?

We should use this opportunity to regain what’s been lost.

On Monday, I tangentially referenced statements made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson earlier this week. In summary, he said that corporate America should boycott any firms that provide legal representation to the detainees in Guantanamo because such assistance amounts to siding with the terrorists. It was stupid and offensive to anyone who values American ideals and liberty. Everyone is entitled to express hold such opinions. Unless they work in the government, for the people of the United States, anyone may express them. For such a disgusting disregard for the Constitution of the United States, Stimson should be fired immediately. Instead, of course, the Administration has done nothing more than disavow his statements. And now, Stimson is doing the same, in the Letters to the Editor section of today’s Washington Post:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients — people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

And I’m sure it was really the alcohol that made Mel Gibson an anti-Semite. All that happened here is Stimson got his hand caught in the totalitarian cookie jar that he and the administration so desperately want to raid for all of its goodies. The outcry, while surprising given how indifferently much of the nation has looked the other way over the last six years, is entirely justified. We’ll accept some offensive rights violations, but this is too far. I’m saddened by where it is, but at least there’s still a line.

Despite his apology, Stimson should be shown the door. Now.

It’s a safety concern. Think of the children.

Robert Eberth appealed and won his battle against Prince William County, in Virginia, and its practice of ticketing parked cars for expired state inspection stickers. I’m slightly deflated because Fairfax County ticketed my car under this same scenario a few years back, and I paid it without a fight¹. Regardless, good for Mr. Eberth for forcing counties in Virginia to abide by the law. It’s a miraculous concept. We should all aspire to win such an appeal in our lifetimes.

Naturally, Prince William County is responding as any libertarian would expect.

In the meantime, county attorneys in Prince William are scrambling to draft legislation for the General Assembly that would authorize ticketing of parked cars with expired stickers.

The county can’t simply stop ticketing parked cars. That would decrease revenue permit potentially unsafe vehicles from being on the road. I’m sure there will also be an update of the provision that Mr. Eberth fought, which is that the county went onto the lot of his apartment complex to ticket his vehicle. Under the court’s ruling, the county can’t do that. Want to bet its proposed legislation will include such a feature? I’ll take yes, you can have no.

Finally, I don’t know if this just comes off poorly in print, but this quote is not a ringing endorsement for leadership oriented to considering citizens.

Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, said: “We thank him for pointing out this error. I’ve got to hand it to him — he’s got determination. I hope he’ll get on with his life now.”

Mr. Eberth wins a victory indicating that Prince William county steals more than $150,000 per year from its citizens, and that’s what the county chairman has to say? He pointed out the error for six years. Prince William only listened when the Appeals Court told them the same thing. And the Stewart’s last line, why not just tack on an explicit “Go eff yourself” for good measure?

¹ I might file an appeal with Fairfax County requesting a refund. I know it would be fruitless because I did not contest the ticket at the time, but it might be fun to waste their time. And any response letter would no doubt create much amusement.

An Execution Chamber in Every Courthouse

Anyone want to read that Texas is considering the death penalty for repeat sex offenders and suggest that capital punishment serves any other function greater than revenge?

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who won a second four-year term, has led the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters, calling for a 25-year minimum sentence after the first conviction when a victim is less than 14 and the death penalty option for repeat offenders.

“The idea is to prevent these kinds of crimes,” said Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons. “It sends a clear signal and maybe these monsters will think twice before committing a crime.”

Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, said Texas is a “tough on crime” state and he’s open to tougher penalties, including the death penalty.

From the article, the plan is obviously in its initial stages, and there appears to be some resistance. But this is what counts as resistance.

“We support the intent,” said Torie Camp of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. “We’re concerned about the unintended consequences.”

This is a brilliant move for covering against looking weak in the “war on crime”. “Kill ’em all, except it might create situations we don’t like.” Why is institutionalized murder acceptable when a punishment without revenge killing will serve just as well? It’s perplexing because offenders murdering their victims is the feared unintended consequences. Admittedly, if someone must be murdered, it should be the offender, but it’s a fool’s intellectual blindness that believes murder must occur for justice to prevail.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst should provide evidence that capital punishment offers any deterrence. Note, of course, that this is the same type of rhetoric that suggests sexual offenders are powered by uncontrollable urges that almost guarantee they’ll sexually assault another child. Otherwise, why would we have sex-offender registries and restrictions on how close to schools such persons can live? Isn’t this almost like guaranteeing that Texas will execute people under this proposal, if they’re right? And if they’re right, why not make capital punishment available on the first offense? At least then we could save all of the children who might will be harmed after the sex offenders first jail term is finished.

Capital punishment does nothing more than satiate the public’s thirst for the blood of the bad men.

Source: Fark.

Catching up on events

I’ve been busy over the last week or so, which meant that I didn’t have enough time to give blogging enough mental energy. That’s over, so it’s time to catch up on a few interesting stories before moving to new stuff. Without further delay:

Kudos to Sen. John Sununu for challenging the unhealthy, anti-consumer partnership between content owners and the FCC known as the Broadcast Flag. (Source)

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) has just announced that his office is working on legislation that would prevent the FCC from creating specific technology mandates that have to be followed by consumer electronics manufacturers. What’s his target? The broadcast flag.

Television and movie studios have wanted a broadcast flag for years. The flag is a short analog or digital signal embedded into broadcasts that specifies what users can do with the content. It would most often be used to prevent any copying of broadcast material, but there’s an obvious problem with the plan: it requires recording devices to pay attention to the flag. Because no consumers wander the aisles at Best Buy thinking, “You know, I would definitely buy this DVD recorder, but only if it supported broadcast flag technology,” the industry has asked the federal government to step in and simply require manufacturers to respect the flag.

Exactly the right analysis. The FCC should not be restricting innovation before any potentially illegal action can even occur. The onus should be on the businesses to engineer solutions that meet their needs, not regulation. That’s dinosaur thinking and should not be reward.

Next, just ponder this photograph’s implications. It’s posted in London, so there’s no concern for the United States, except there is concern. We move closer to this mentality with every newly brushed aside civil liberty. (Source)

Next, sometimes a cheap shot is easier than analysis. From Glenn Reynolds:

A CITIZEN’S ARREST BY PAUL HACKETT: A pro-gun anti-crime Democrat — I’m surprised the party didn’t get behind him.

Just like claiming that there’s a war on crime, this requires little thinking and says more about the writer than the facts. Who honestly believes that Democrats are not “anti-crime”? Not tough enough crime, we could argue. But it’s posts like these that prove Glenn Reynolds is little more than a Republican with some libertarian leanings. That’s not surprising, but this is an unflattering proof.

Next, North Korea has a hunger problem. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that this has as much to do with the country’s political structure as anything. Socialism doesn’t work, and can never provide for everyone’s needs. When the failure extends to famine, this moves from oppression to murder. But the North Koreans have a solution, courtesy of a German breeder (Source):

An east German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs has been asked by North Korea to help set up a big bunny farm to alleviate food shortages in the communist country. Now journalists and rabbit gourmets from around the world are thumping at his door.

It all started when Karl Szmolinsky won a prize for breeding Germany’s largest rabbit, a friendly-looking 10.5 kilogram “German Gray Giant” called Robert, in February 2006.

Images of the chubby monster went around the world and reached the reclusive communist state of North Korea, a country of 23 million which according to the United Nations Food Programme suffers widespread food shortages and where many people “struggle to feed themselves on a diet critically deficient in protein, fats and micronutrients.”

Any reasonable analysis would point out an obvious point of why this will fail to alleviate suffering.

“I’m not increasing production and I’m not taking any more orders after this. They cost a lot to feed,” he said.

The rabbits apparently feed eight. How much food will be used to feed the rabbits until they’re ready to become that one-time meal that feeds eight? How much land that could be better used to grow crops for North Koreans will be used to grow feed for these rabbits, as well as house them while they grow? This is a central-planning solution at its ugliest.

Next, religion will continue getting a free pass for unnecessary medical procedures under a socialist health system.

The NHS should provide more faith-based care for Muslims, an expert says.

Muslims are about twice as likely to report poor health and disability than the general population, says Edinburgh University’s Professor Aziz Sheikh.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, he called for male circumcision on the NHS and more details over alcohol derived drugs.

Leaving aside the obvious questions of whether or not routine/ritual circumcision of children should be allowed, it’s an unnecessary medical procedure that drains resources. As an ethically-questionable procedure, it’s also unacceptable to force taxpayers to fund such surgeries. This is why current U.S. funding under our relatively free market system is objectionable. This call from Britain just seeks to double the mistake. It’s absurd.

Because the system isn’t bureaucratic and dysfunctional enough already, Democrats want to allow unionization by TSA employees. That won’t end well.

Despicability is no excuse for revenge and savagery.

Better late than never? Charles Krauthammer’s column from last week on the execution of Saddam Hussein is an example:

Of the 6 billion people on this Earth, not one killed more people than Saddam Hussein. And not just killed but tortured and mutilated — doing so often with his own hands and for pleasure. It is quite a distinction to be the preeminent monster on the planet. If the death penalty was ever deserved, no one was more richly deserving than Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Krauthammer makes excellent points about all of it, the execution, the Iraqi government, and our mistakes. But this is not the meat of his essay for me. This is:

True, Hussein’s hanging was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next hanging might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the death penalty provision, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless hangings.

Let me rewrite that in terms that, unless he’s changed his tune, I doubt Mr. Krauthammer would agree with. Consider:

True, the enemy combatant’s torture was just and, in principle, nonsectarian. But the next torture might not be. Breaking precedent completely undermines the Geneva Conventions, opening the way to future revenge and otherwise lawless torture.

How is Mr. Krauthammer’s statement logical and mine illogical? They’re the same because justice and the rule of law should be supreme. Whether or not someone deserves a specific punishment is sometimes open for debate. But breaking precedent is a terrible idea, given the clear line of increasing abuses that result. History has taught us this, which is why we’ve fought hard to eliminate these from our system of justice, both civil and military. We must not surrender the moral ground we’ve recovered from the foul grip of convenience.

The decision to hastily execute, or to torture, is wrong, regardless of who is being executed or tortured.

Sorry, folks, hospital’s closed. Moose out front shoulda told ya.

More single-payer “goodness”, this time from the U.K.

Patients are being denied basic operations, including treatments for varicose veins, wisdom teeth and bad backs, as hospitals try frantically to balance the books by the end of the financial year, The Times can reveal.

NHS trusts throughout the country are making sweeping cuts to services and delaying appointments in an attempt to address their debts before the end of March. Family doctors have been told to send fewer patients to hospital, A&E departments have been instructed to turn people away, and a wide range of routine procedures has been suspended.

A letter from [North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust] chief executive, Janet Soo-Chung, says that all non-urgent admissions must be approved by an assessment team or they will not be paid for. A&E departments in Harrogate, Scarborough, South Tees and York have been told that they will not be paid for treating patients with minor ailments who could go elsewhere.

No patients will be given a hospital appointment in less than eight weeks, and none admitted for elective surgery unless they have waited a minimum of 12 to 16 weeks. Those treated quicker will not be paid for.

The United States will be no different if we implement a single-payer system. Given the timeline progression of other single-payer systems, I’m probably at the perfect age (33) for our system to break down around the time I retire. Wonderful. I’ll pass, thanks.

Source: Socialized Medicine