Category: Government

The initial assumption was reasonable. The explanation was not.

Note: This is the entry I originally wrote about yesterday’s plane crash in New York. The quotes are no longer in the linked article, but I’ve excerpted them as they appeared yesterday afternoon.

———-

It makes sense to consider all possibilities when an aircraft strikes a building, but it can also reveal the absurdity of our thought process and reactions to terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke with Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.) to assure him there is “no credible” threat “to the homeland,” a statement from the department said.

Has any statement in recent memory better attached the dangerous implication of the term homeland to the word? Referring to America as America is reasonable and accurate. Homeland remains absurd and dangerously militaristic.

Also in the story:

“We’ve been in contact with all of our intelligence partners, coalition partners around the world . . . and there are no — repeat, no — indications that there is anything underfoot beyond this one” aircraft, [NORAD commander, Adm. Timothy J.] Keating said. He added: “We reserve the right to exercise our capabilities, which is what we have done here.“

Why state this? Who believes that we don’t have the right to respond if terrorism strikes? Saying as much makes you us look pompous and insecure. Stop it.

Defending the intrusive with the obvious

From the Department of Duh comes this study:

A Scottish study looking at the changes in bar workers’ health before and after a smoking ban finds that the reduction in second-hand smoke improved the workers’ lung function, reduced the amount of nicotine in their systems, and reduced their inflammation levels. According to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, both asthmatic and non-asthmatic workers benefited from the smoke-free working environment, and improvements in health measured occurred in as little as one month’s time.

Who is surprised by this? Less exposure to smoke reduces nicotine and improves lung function. Shocking. And useless. All this does is suggest that, if people value healthier lung function over activities where second-hand smoke exists, they won’t expose themselves to second-hand smoke environments. But we knew that. And by “we,” I mean people who have a fair understanding of property rights and free will. The public policy implication should be zippy.

You can’t make this stuff up

I’m going to stand on a strong limb here and say that a better opening for this story exists somewhere in the reporter’s mind:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission plans to sponsor educational events and seminars aimed at reversing the steady decline in the number of federal employees with severe disabilities.

Will Tony Soprano being leading the educational events and seminars? A few clubs to the kneecap should take care of the problem. At least that’s the way I read the sentence. I actually laughed out loud. Why start from the beginning – why is federal employment of the disabled declining – when you can decide that the government simply doesn’t have enough disabled employees? It’s silly.

The story continues, talking about “targeted disabilities,” which I think is a strange way of promoting non-discriminatory hiring. Is the government actively excluding those with non-targeted disabilities? It’s worth asking. But more to my point:

Experts do not know what accounts for the decline, in part because of a lack of research and data. Some suggest that more disabled workers are retiring, as the baby-boom generation leaves the workforce. Some think that federal hiring practices work against the disabled, and some think the private sector has opened more doors to the disabled over the past decade.

The data show a problem decline, though, so like the Justice League on Saturday mornings, the government must act to bring about, um, justice. I’d like to think it’s because we have few Americans with disabilities, thanks to medical innovation that treats disease or trauma before it can become a disability. But I’d be merely wishing without evidence, sorta like the government. I’d start with research, though, sorta unlike the government.

It’s still the warrantless causing the problem

I’m sure I’m stepping into intellectual muck with this, but why should that stop me? This ruling seems absurd:

The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge’s ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday.

Obviously, the Bush administration’s claims of harm from terrorism should this surveillance program be scuttled (temporarily, at least) have some merit. However, is it too unreasonable to put a halt (permanently temporarily, at least) to the warrantless part of it? Unless the court intends to find that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t cover government action if the spooky people threaten us, I don’t understand why forcing the Bush administration to use existing FISA wiretapping provisions that allow for retroactive warrants would be unreasonable.

The Bush administration’s legal “reasoning” is what’s new here, not the Fourth Amendment. The administration should have to prove itself, not receive a temporary reprieve from obeying the Constitution.

Principles used to defeat “If it feels good”

More Best of the Web obtuseness from James Taranto, this time regarding a story about the torture of British soldiers in Iraq in 2003. First, from the news report:

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

That’s a heinous crime, which I can’t imagine any civilized person would deem as anything other than the worst sort of sub-human action. Essentially, this is proof that we’re the good guys. I didn’t need more evidence, but the world is cruel. But what’s Mr. Taranto’s take? Consider:

We keep hearing that if we don’t accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy–one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva–treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

We keep our dignity and the moral high ground. We retain the right to become indignant at such violations, and to act on them. We hold true to our ideals. Most importantly, we remain human. That’s worth something. Everything, in fact. It’s shameful that the Wall Street Journal’s editors can’t understand that.

Congress could be where thinking began

Congratulations are in order to the United States Congress. In a bold move of understanding, it stripped a needless provision from the port security bill it passed over the weekend:

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn’t just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.

Felons will not be barred from crucial jobs where a reasonable person not using the wonderfully intuitive powers of deductions granted to our smartest leaders might believe that to be a Bad Idea&#153. But leadership involves understanding the full picture of society, those “unintended consequences,” if you will. When viewed together with this provision of the port security deal, the good senators (Sen. Frist, in particular) understood that we wouldn’t want to exclude a significant portion of American adults.

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last night on legislation to tighten maritime and port security regulations and, in a last-minute move, added an unrelated measure that seeks to ban Internet gambling.
…

The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns. Senate Republican and Democratic leaders announced it would be passed by voice vote after the House’s late-night vote.

You see, foresight! The Congress knew that many Americans could now become felons for operating a financial institution that offers customers a service they want violating Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s morality funding drugs and terrorism¹! That’s bad, and they should pay the price, but we still need secure ports. We don’t want no stinkin’ foreigners handling that job.

¹ From the Washington Post’s article:

Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, accounting for half the worldwide market, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Am I going too far out on a limb to request that the reporter investigate this claim rather than accepting spoon-fed horseshit from some political hack? I don’t think so.

No constitutional protection for you!

I came across two curious quotes about Virginia’s proposed amendment designed to diminish the Bill of Rights.

“Nothing will change,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “All this would do is prevent the gay rights crowd from gaining any perceived right to marry by going to the courts.”

If nothing will change, why go through the process of putting a hateful limitation in the Bill of Rights? Oh, right, activist judges who might find a “perceived” right. I keep forgetting that our rights are open to the subjective view of the not-really-a-majority majority. If enough people don’t like you for their own reasons, you’re out of luck. As a bonus, there’s no need to consider whether or not a judge would actually interpret Virginia’s Constitution so that gays “gain” the right to marry.

“Opponents are looking for every single nuance to say why we’ve put this on the ballot,” said Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake), another sponsor of the amendment. “All the brouhaha about unintended consequences and any partisan motivations are just scare tactics.”

I’m an opponent, but I’m not looking for nuance here. The wording and hysteria makes it fairly obvious that bigotry explains this proposed amendment. But Del Cosgrove’s dismissal of the brouhaha about unintended consequences is an amusing insight into his understanding of government action, as well as his shameful agreement with exclusionary politics at the expense of justice and logic. He wants this amendments language to fight the potential for activist judges to read a right in the Virginia Constitution that he claims isn’t there. Okay, so a strict textual interpretation. So how would he decipher this, without needing an activist judge to decide that unmarried individuals actually means same-sex individuals?

“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Allow me to grant for a moment the notion that this language achieves the specific “interest” of the Commonwealth. This is still nothing more than a bigoted assault on the Bill of Rights. That’s shameful, whatever the excuse.

Can I steal a MINI if I spend $25,000 on football cards?

I don’t have much to say on Hollywood’s economic assertions about intellectual property piracy, other than to say that I’m sure it’s overstated, it will result in destructive legislation, and it will delay the industry’s entrance into the 21st Century of electronic distribution. In other words, it’s the typical nonsense from a dinosaur. However, this quote countering Hollywood’s nonsense is bogus:

It’s important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said.

“In other words, let’s say people are forgoing paying for $6 billion in movies by downloading or consuming illegal goods but end up spending that $6 billion on iPods, computers and HDTV sets on which to watch the movies, which leads to $25 billion in job creation in the computer/software/consumer electronics field,” Jason Shultz, staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in an e-mail.

The net economic effect of piracy is irrelevant to the intellectual property discussion. It does not matter that consumers spend their $350 on an iPod instead of movies. What matters is that $350 is not going to the company that created something of value to the consumer. There are many theories on how best to protect intellectual property and guarantee payment, most of them interesting. But the basic formulation of the problem does not include a community approach to evaluating economic spending. He who takes the risk should reap the reward.

The Central Planner’s Handbook for Protecting the Ignorant and Ungrateful

Libertarians understand the stupidity of this action by the New York City Board of Health:

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.

This is absurd, because the eventual “logical” step is banning the sale of packaged foods with trans fats within the city limits. At what point do citizens stand up and demand that government not turn a city into an institution where permission for every decision must be granted by some small group of public officials claiming to be experts? This is lunacy, although not a surprise.

Chicago is considering a similar prohibition affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in annual sales.

Why only restaurants with less than $20 million in sales? Even if this type of policy made sense, it’s counter-intuitive to impose this regulation on the smallest members of the group while leaving the largest free to attack its customers’ arteries offer any menu item its customers desire. The restaurant industry is a small-margin business, so those with lower sales have less fiscal cushion in their budgets. I’m most amused that Chicago loves big restaurants while it hates big stores. But government knows best.

Lynne D. Richardson, a member of the Board of Health and a professor of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said yesterday that restaurant owners might still see an advantage in the long shelf life of trans fat products.

“But human life is much more important than shelf life,” she said. “I would expect to see fewer people showing up in the emergency room with heart attacks if this policy is enacted.”

Expects? Obviously the greedy restaurant owners don’t care about their customers (repeat business is insignificant in restaurants, right? No?), but should she support public policy based on hopes rather than logic? If diners want foods with trans fat, and restaurants can’t serve it, diners will stay home and eat their bad oils and margarines and whatever else will no longer be allowed. If When that happens, I’m fairly certain the same people will show up in the emergency room with heart attacks. That gets back to the likelihood that the planners will admit that the policy isn’t having the intended effect, thus justifying the need to ban trans fat products from grocery stores.

If people wanted strictly healthy diets, everyone would be vegans who eat only raw, organic food and exercise every day. They aren’t those people. We can cry about that, but statist public health policies won’t make it any more our reality than it already isn’t.

Update: Based on information provided in by Chris in the comments, the New York Times report about Chicago considering a trans-fat ban affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in sales is wrong. The ban under consideration involves restaurants with greater than $20 million in sales. My analysis is now worthless for the facts, but that doesn’t make the ban any wiser. Screw the poor, screw the rich. It’s still the same stupidity. Regardless, I should’ve checked those facts first.

The need to “do something” isn’t enough.

Robert Samuelson’s column from today’s Washington Post:

If you’re in Asheville, N.C., stop by Biltmore, the vast estate that George Vanderbilt III — heir to a railroad fortune — constructed between 1889 and 1895. You can tour most of its 250 rooms, including 43 bathrooms and an indoor swimming pool. When few Americans used electricity, Biltmore had its own generators. To take the tour is to grasp one of the great advances of the 20th century: The gap between the super-rich and most Americans has narrowed enormously. In Vanderbilt’s time, most Americans lived in filthy slums or on modest farms. Now even the wealthiest among us live more like ordinary people than Vanderbilt ever did.

To better reflect reality, I’d rewrite that last sentence as follows:

Now even the most ordinary among us live more like wealthy people than Vanderbilt’s contemporaries ever did.

Mr. Samuelson goes on to provide various economic details about how “trickle-up economics” benefits only the rich, which “seems un-American.” Meritocracy is decidedly un-American, I guess, but that’s not really what’s useful here. Instead of debating the merits of the potential causes of this supposed economic disparity, including “costly” employer-provided “squeezing take-home pay in the middle,” this passage matters most:

What might government do? The Bush administration’s enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich could be tempered; to reduce the budget deficit, their taxes could be raised without dulling economic incentives. (For the record: I supported the first Bush tax cut and opposed his cuts on capital gains and dividends.) Equally, liberals and others who support lax immigration policies across our southern border should understand that these policies deepen U.S. inequality.

But many familiar proposals would be mostly symbolic or hurtful. Raising the minimum wage might directly affect only about 5 percent of workers and might destroy some jobs. Protectionism might save a few well-paid jobs but would inflict higher prices on those least able to afford them. Still, no one should be happy with today’s growing economic inequality. It threatens America’s social compact, which depends on a shared sense of well-being.

Of course government must do something. Otherwise, our shared sense of well-being will die. Huh? From what I can decipher, Mr. Samuelson is not saying we should just continue with the same government policies. Good for him. But what evidence does he have for believing that some other government program we haven’t tried, which I believe is his assertion, will save the social compact? He acknowledges the perverse consequences of existing government policy. To the question of what might government do, the answer just might be to get out of the way.