Category: Government

Abusing language to abuse people

I’m “stunned”:

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.

We don’t believe in enumerated powers or a limited executive any longer, so why bother with descriptions of who qualifies as an “unlawful enemy combatant”? We can trust the benevolence and good intentions of whichever administration occupies the White House to not abuse its allegedly plenary power. It’s worked well so far.

Is it January 2009 yet?

Majoritarian pleas should consider the actual majority

I suppose Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, is now the preferred religious candidate for president in 2008. For evidence, witness John Fund’s glowing review following the Family Research Council’s weekend Values Voters Summit:

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts’ Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation’s most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. “I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008,” says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

I’m left wondering what role Gov. Romney imagines for the judicial branch. Court-imposed seems to predict four more years of “activist judges” nonsense should Gov. Romney be our next president. Me, I’ll pass. I’ve heard the term enough. Court’s interpret the Constitution and the laws that supposedly flow from it. This is not a hard concept, even in disagreement with the decisions.

The “activist judges” is understandable, if not forgivable. Worse, though, is the clear indication that majoritarianism is a reasonable standard for Gov. Romney. The legislature disrespected the will of the minority people. Big deal. This is representative government in our Republic. This is surprising?

The “liberals” restrained government from acting to subordinate the rights of one group of citizens at the whim of another group. That sounds more like responsible government than failure. That it’s also the conservative (i.e., limited government) position in this debate indicates that Gov. Romney has no taste for principle. See Exhibit B

There’s much more worth reviewing, but I enjoy this. It’s where I’ll end:

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

Contributor base and shared religion. Those sound like the two finest qualifications for the presidency, I wonder why we don’t just anoint Gov. Romney Presidential Apprentice when his term as governor is finished. That way he can learn from the current president, who also happens to be endowed with those two brilliant qualifications.

Why do some people refuse to take their head out of the political sand?

Center for Dumb Conclusions?

Let’s all embrace the feel-good sentiments our government constantly provides:

All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV to help catch infections earlier and stop the spread of the deadly virus, federal health recommendations announced Thursday say.
…

“I think it’s an incredible advance. I think it’s courageous on the part of the CDC,” said A. David Paltiel, a health policy expert at the Yale University School of Medicine.

Encouraging the FDA to end its ban on blood donations by gay men would be courageous. This recommendation is an example of “more is always better” masquerading as good policy.

The recommendations aren’t legally binding, but they influence what doctors do and what health insurance programs cover.

Some physicians groups predict the recommendations will be challenging to implement, involving new expenditures of money and time for testing, counseling and revising consent procedures.

The idea is not terrible, but its implementation must be based in reality. Raise your hand if you think this will be implemented across the healthcare industry as a new routine. I’m sticking with No because we seem to have already figured out that our “limited” money and effort could be spent elsewhere. How stunning this suggestion isn’t is clear enough in this:

CDC officials have been working on revised recommendations for about three years, and sought input from more than 100 organizations, including doctors’ associations and HIV patient advocacy groups. The CDC presented planned revisions at a scientific conference in February.

Three years to suggest that everyone between 13 and 64 should be tested for HIV. Now raise your hand if you think that government-run healthcare is a good idea. Everyone gets tested for HIV, so someone misses out on a procedure or prevention relevant to her life. I’m sure our grand experiment with government-run (or financed, at a minimum) will be different from other countries, though, so no reason to worry.

Because some government busybody will suggest new public policy eventually, I’ll point this out now to save my ranting time later for rational issues:

Previously, the CDC recommended routine testing for those at high-risk for catching the virus, such as intravenous drug users and gay men, and for hospitals and certain other institutions serving areas where HIV is common. It also recommends testing for all pregnant women.

Some misguided do-gooder will add men with intact foreskins to that list. And I’m not really saving any ranting, because I’ll do it then, as well. Ugh.

Update: Looking over this post, it’s clear I forgot one thing, although I hope it was clear given my comments about what action would be courageous. Lumping gay men into the high-risk category by virtue of being gay is preposterous. Behavior matters. It’s small thinking that equates one with the other based solely generalizations from a generation ago.

Ewww! Oh my God, you sick little monkey!

Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States government should engage in morality propaganda?

The White House is distributing government-produced, anti-drug videos on YouTube, the trendy Internet service that features clips of wacky, drug-induced behavior and step-by-step instructions for growing marijuana plants.

I won’t prattle on about the remaining details since this will be an inevitable failure. Any third-grader high on his big brother’s weed could figure that out. More absurd is this:

“If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success,” said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This program is “free”, since the Office of National Drug Control Policy is only placing previously produced videos on YouTube. Gotcha. But no man hours were spent in the organization of this project? No man hours were needed to design the YouTube goodness? How much did we spend previously to put us in a position to save “just one teen”? Free is not free. It’s not provided in the Constitution, either, but I’ll just stick with the notion that propaganda is not free.

Recall that this is not the first time in recent memory that a government official has set the “just one teen” standard for any and all government intrusion. Now I’m giddy with anticipation (without the help of marijuana!) for future campaign slogans stating something like “If just one teen is saved from terrorism by program X, it will be a success.”

I’ll stick with blackjack

Really? People are getting worked up oer this device?:

Professional gamblers are rushing to buy £1,000 devices that they believe will enable them to win millions of pounds in casinos when the gambling industry is deregulated next year.

Hundreds of the roulette-cheating machines – which consist of a small digital time recorder, a concealed computer and a hidden earpiece – were tested at a government laboratory in 2004 after a gang suspected of using them won £1.3m at the Ritz casino in London.

After the research, which was never made public but has been seen by the Guardian, the government’s gambling watchdog admitted to industry insiders that the technology can offer punters an edge when playing roulette in a casino, and the advantage can be “considerable”.

Again, really? This is a big deal? Obviously the casinos will boot anyone they deem to be winning in excess, but wouldn’t it be easier to disrupt this scheme by not allowing betting after the dealer spins the wheel? I don’t know gambling law, especially in the U.K., but if betting after the spin is required, I’d work to change the laws if I owned a casino. Aside from banning the device, of course. Which seems to be the case in most places that allow gambling:

But rather than ban the devices, which are outlawed in many jurisdictions across the world, the Gambling Commission will require casinos to police themselves. Phill Brear, the commission’s director of operations, admits predictive softwares can work but suggested it might be possible to prosecute someone using them under a new Gambling Act offence of cheating.

Or more to the point, wouldn’t casinos just work to counter this by repairing or replacing their roulette wheels?

The government’s national weights and measures laboratory investigated the technique. It is thought the cheats first identify a “biased” wheel, where the ball appears to commonly drop in roughly the same zone. They also look for signs on the wheel of a “manageable scatter”, which means that when the ball strikes a certain number, it will usually fall into a neighbouring pocket. The unpublished report concluded: “On a wheel with a definite bias and a manageable scatter, a prediction device of this nature, when operated by a ‘skilled’ roulette player, could obtain an advantage when used in a casino.”

I wouldn’t sound the alarm for casinos going bankrupt just yet. They’ll adapt and the majority of people dropping £1,000 on one of these gadgets will find themselves more than £1,000 poorer. Such is life in a casino.

Source: Boing Boing

Capitalists Unite: Demand Fairness!

Who wants to bet we’ll hear no outrage from our politicians?

For a rare episode of the Gasoline Price Wars, turn to Gainesville, where station manager Kristin Daggle pulled out the equivalent of a laser-guided missile: a big, white, plastic “1” placard.

Daggle — a 25-year-old field general on a well-traveled stretch of Lee Highway — posted the number, followed by two “9” placards, on a 20-foot-tall sign in front of her 17-month-old Exxon station over the weekend. And just like that, a milestone in the competitive world of gasoline retailing was reached.

“This is the first day we’re below $2” this year, Daggle said, as customers streamed in Saturday. “Our goal is to be competitive.”

The Congress must rectify this unfair increase in Windfall Savings&#153 by customers. Are customers, as the beneficiaries of risk-taking by business owners, not entitled to a cap on their savings? Gas station owners have to pay their mortgages, too. We clearly need legislation and the politicians just sit around allowing the laws of economics to screw businesses.

Other nuggets of goodness exist in the article, particularly surprise that supply and demand conspire based on market forces rather than the whim of evil corporations, but you can read those on your own. Just remember how little you’re hearing from Washington about this “travesty” for gas station owners the next time gas prices spike upwards. They’re all hacks.

Do schools in Texas teach American civics?

If ever we had doubt that President Bush is unwilling to carry out his duties according to the Constitution’s text, he’s trying to open our minds to that reality:

Bush said he has “one test” for the proposed legislation [to allow “aggressive” interrogation techniques not authorized by the Geneva Conventions]: “The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.” He declined to comment on whether he would veto the alternative bill if it passed, saying that he expects his version to win out.
…

Also vital, Bush said, is passage of legislation that would “provide additional authority” for a warrantless eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency. The program, which he approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to target communications between suspected terrorists abroad and plotters in the United States, has helped to detect and prevent attacks, Bush said.

“Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror,” he said. “We’ll work with Congress to get good bills out, because . . . we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.”

Protecting America from attack is a valid use of governmental power, and the president is the person most directly charged with ensuring that we remain safe. But the president (and Congress and the Judiciary) must act within the bounds of the Constitution. President Bush needs to add at least two more tests for any proposed legislation, ones that involve assessing the Constitutionality of the legislation and its accordance with American principles. On the latter president Bush’s proposed legislation fails miserably. America should not torture. For the sitting president to make the counter-claim brings disgrace to the office.

Naturally he had to tangle himself up in his words to make his atrocious plea. Forget the mangled sentence structure of his first sentence. Read what he means in his statement.

“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic,” Bush said, his voice rising. “It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Since the explanation is in how the comparison is phrased, of course we’re not the same. The more fundamental point is whether or not we believe in civilized society ruled by law. Islamic extremists have already proven that they do not. But I think (thought) we do believe in the rule of law. Surely that entails a basic respect for human life, independent of actions. We’ve decided that justice may include the taking of life, but is that life not protected until we determine guilt? Is it okay to bash someone’s brains in because he might be holding information? I say no, regardless of whether or not the tortured person is scum. Our decency and ethical restraint is not about his worth; it is about ours. The president thinks differently. The president is wrong.

Specifically:

Bush criticized language in Common Article 3, notably a prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” He said, “It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

Reasonable people can decipher “outrages upon human dignity,” but since the president believes we cannot, thus opening our interrogators to possible prosecution, let’s have a debate. Let’s discuss the techniques we can and can’t use. The president will not do this because he says he does not want to let our enemies know how we will extract information from them. A hollow, I believe, but I’ll grant that condition. To do so, the president must accept the vague prohibition against outrages upon human dignity. He cannot have plenary power to authorize whatever interrogation methods he deems necessary, with only the assurance of saying “oops” if someone goes too far.

Limited government does not thrive on vagueness. The president wants the vague rules to remain, as he only seeks immunity from prosecution under those vague rules. In other words, he wants no rules. But we knew that. Congress must not grant it to him. Bravo to Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham for defending the Constitution.

When will Congress ban Happy Meals?

Shocking news from the futurists:

One in five children is predicted to be obese by the end of the decade.

Uh oh. Someone wants more of my money. And who is that someone?

… Wednesday’s report [by the Institute of Medicine] spotlighted the government’s VERB campaign, a program once touted as spurring a 30 percent increase in exercise among the preteens it reached. It ended this year with Bush administration budget cuts.

VERB encouraged 9- to 13-year-olds to take part in physical activities, like bike riding or skateboarding. Slick ads, at a cost of $59 million last year, portrayed exercise as cool at an age when outdoor play typically winds down and adolescent slothfulness sets in.

The demise of the program “calls into question the commitment to obesity prevention within government,” the panel concluded.

[Emory University’s Dr. Jeffrey] Koplan was more blunt, calling it a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program that works and then dismantle it.

We all know the government is the only effective way to stop kids from being fat. Why do the fiscal conservatives hate fat kids? Sometimes I wonder how I sleep at night? Of course, I also wonder, if we encourage children to ride a bike or a skateboard, how will they accomplish what they’re now so wonderfully motivated to do if they don’t have a bike or a skateboard? There are poor parents in America who believe food, clothing, and shelter are more important. Their kids will be at a disadvantage, no? How much government taxpayer money is enough, so we don’t miss anyone?

Specifically to Dr. Koplan’s point, it’s a waste of taxpayer money to develop a program. Notice that I used his sentiment, but put the period in the correct place. It’s amazing what can happen when political principle meets grammar. Taxpayers save money, which is especially useful to me since I don’t have children targeted by that $59 million. I’d rather we spend it wisely. If that means I hate fat kids, so be it.

Or here’s an idea. When I was a kid, my brother and our friends liked to play football. You know what held us back? No field to play on. Fields existed in ready supply at neighborhood schools, as you’d expect, but we weren’t allowed on. If we’re going to have public provision of education, and all of the facilities apparently necessary, why not open them to the public paying for them. Liability blah blah blah. Football is a violent, dangerous sport etc. etc. etc. I know. Bikes and skateboards are dangerous, too. Solve the barriers imposed on money already spent on mostly idle property instead of creating new programs. It’s a suggestion.

Or government could leave parenting to parents.

Where’s the green slime?

I don’t have much to add on this development that I haven’t already said:

Television broadcasters won a temporary victory yesterday when a federal appeals court told the Federal Communications Commission not to enforce an indecency ruling it imposed on several television shows earlier this year.
…

“We are gratified that the court has taken the first step in recognizing the serious First Amendment issues raised by the FCC’s new enforcement policies,” CBS said in a corporate statement.

The FCC also considered yesterday’s ruling a partial victory. The agency said it made the March indecency rulings to give the broadcasters guidelines on what can be said on television. But when the broadcasters complained, the FCC acknowledged that it had not followed its usual procedure in declaring the shows indecent. The agency asked the court to send back the indecency decision so it could be reconsidered, which the court did yesterday.

A precedent enforcing the First Amendment would be wonderful, but I guess it takes more courage than anyone in government possesses to understand that bullshit is not going to lead to rotting child brains. If the FCC must think about the free speech ramifications of its actions before it acts, that’s a chilling effect I’m willing to live with. More than anything the Constitution protects the people from government intrusion, not through government intrusion. It’s worth remembering.

I’m accustomed enough to this wave of censorship that I’m resigned to fighting it rather than getting upset. However, 2½ years is not enough time for this quote to do anything other than make my blood boil.

“Hollywood argues that they should be able to say the F-word on television whenever they want,” FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said in a written statement. “The commission continues to believe they are wrong, and there should be some limits on what can be shown on television.”

It would be easy enough to just use the F-word here and pretend like that’s a victory. I know it’s not, although I do take (minimal) joy in knowing that every person who reads that quote will think of the actual four-letter F-word. Saying and writing the F-word doesn’t sanitize reality, no matter how many horseshoes and rainbows busybody social conservatives want to wish upon to pretend it does. Ha! Point, my side.

What disgusts me is the tone and implication within Ms. Lipper’s statement. Trotting out “Hollywood” is a useful tactic because we all know they’re leftist liberal weenies who need to be stopped from corrupting our innocent, angelic little children. But I want my government to have just a smidge less contempt for the notion that it serves me. I do not care for the idea that the government may decide what can and can’t be shown. It is not in the Constitution, and it is not in our ideals. Next thing we know, the government will dictate what we can and can’t say on television about it and our elected leaders. Oh, wait.

Once given power, government tends to assume more and wield it in broad strokes. Ms. Lipper and the FCC demonstrate our need to better adhere to limited government principles as stated in our Constitution, lest we lose what rights are naturally ours.

Employment is not daycare

At my last job, I witnessed management issuing stupid, condescending guidelines on “business casual” attire similar to this dress code offered by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel:

Last month, the agency devoted part of its employee newsletter to “Business Casual” do’s and don’ts. Tight pants, short skirts and long fingernails are out; khaki trousers — for everyone! — are in. Any among the 100-plus staff of lawyers and investigators who have spent their careers blind to the sartorial signals of official Washington were told: “You are not trying to stand out for the cutting edge look, but for your good judgment.”

Next came two pages of tips for achieving the good-judgment, non-cutting-edge look.

Men: Avoid sneakers for receptions, leave earrings at home and strap on a “conservative watch.”

Women: Wear the conservative watch, plus tailored pants, tailored shirts, tailored sweaters, and “a tailored purse . . . that hangs on your shoulder is often advantageous as it frees your hands for greetings (hand shakes) or holding a beverage.” For those who cannot master this, “leaving your purse locked in the trunk is preferable.” Also “make certain you can walk comfortably in your shoes.”

Etc, etc. Now people are either mocking the agency or feeling offended. I’m more dismayed at the message such drivel sends, and more importantly, why employees continue to put up with this.

I certainly mocked the dress code guidance issued by my former employer (sweat pants are not business casual), but that kind of treatment factored heavily into my decision to leave. Pay me to do a job, and I will do it. Like most employees, I am not stupid. I’m more than capable of figuring out how to model the dress code of my superiors. Respect me enough to assume that. If I fail to demonstrate that ability, speak to me separately about it.

Infantilize your entire workforce, and you eventually have a workforce incapable of thinking for itself. Kinda like socialism and its paternalistic form currently spilling out from legislative bodies all across America.