Category: News

Networks finally understand the Constitution

Even though lawsuits like this shouldn’t be necessary, it’s about time the broadcast networks grew a set:

Four TV broadcast networks and their affiliates have filed court challenges to a March 15 Federal Communications Commission ruling that found several programs “indecent” because of language.

ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, along with their network affiliate associations and the Hearst-Argyle Television group of stations, filed notices of appeal in various federal courts, including in Washington D.C. and New York. Some were filed late Thursday and the rest Friday morning.

The move represents a protest against the aggressive enforcement of federal indecency rules that broadcasters have complained are vague and inconsistently applied. Millions of dollars in fines have been levied based on those rules.

The networks need to fight the censorship coming from the FCC more often every time. That won’t happen, but this gives hope that maybe they’re growing a spine. It’s an infant spine, sure, but it’s a start.

Personally, I like this:

The networks and affiliate groups, representing more than 800 individual stations, issued a rare joint statement Friday calling the FCC ruling “unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades of previous FCC decisions.

“In filing these court appeals we are seeking to overturn the FCC decisions that the broadcast of fleeting, isolated _ and in some cases unintentional _ words rendered these programs indecent.”

“Unconstitutional and inconsistent with two decades…” Blah, blah, blah. They should’ve just stopped with unconstitutional. Using the less severe, but equally offensive, censorship practiced by the FCC for the last two decades as a defense only invites the court to rely on tradition rather than the Constitution. Given how frequently that seems to be happening lately, I want the courts to use clearly absurd logic to insert tradition into “Congress shall make no law…” Instead, we’ll maybe get the status quo from last year. Big deal.

FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 20 years ago that comedian George Carlin’s monologue on the “7 dirty words you can’t say on television and radio” was indecent.

“Today, Disney, Fox and CBS challenged that precedent and argued that they should be able to air two of those same words,” Lipper said. “We are reviewing their filings.”

What’s to review? That ruling was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. The Constitution should still prevail over the scared, puritan hacks reading, “interpreting”, and “enforcing” it. At some point, the national mommies and daddies in the Federal government need to stop being nanny-statists.

Your neighbor has to pay for your broccoli

More information on the Massachusetts bill requiring universal health care coverage.

“We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance,” [Gov. Mitt] Romney said in an interview. “And cars are a lot less expensive than people.”

I’m dismayed to see that a likely presidential candidate’s thinking is so evolved that he compares people to cars. It would be an effective analogy if he hadn’t forgotten that a car is a choice that poses a known hazard to other people, which in turn imparts legal liability on the owner. If I choose to carry no health insurance and I get sick, I face the financial burden of that choice. Big difference. Naturally, Gov. Romney hoped to imply that the financial burden placed on society from uninsured individuals requiring medical attention. That’s a reasonable debate, but instead of going for the reasonable, he aimed low to appeal to the simple-minded who want government to manage everyone’s life. Or at least everyone else’s life.

This is, I suspect, the target for this new legislation:

But no state, experts say, has taken the step of making health insurance coverage a legal requirement. The idea was applauded by Uwe E. Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who said that he has long believed that the American system of allowing uninsured patients to receive care at the government’s expense was nothing more than “freedom to mooch.”

I can hear the chorus of cheers coming from market-driven liberals progressives (it’s a faint cheer), but the overall idea looks a little different when considering the final portion of Prof. Reinhardt’s statement:

“Massachusetts is the first state in America to reach full adulthood,” said Reinhardt, noting that the new measure is a move toward personal responsibility. “The rest of America is still in adolescence.”

Only in modern America, with our full complement of government parentalism, could anyone consider forced action to be personal responsibility and adulthood. I could wear a penguin suit to work tomorrow, but that won’t make me a penguin.

As for the plan itself, if this is what providing a conservative, private sector solution looks like, I’m giving up.

Uninsured people earning less than the federal poverty threshold would be able to purchase subsidized policies that have no premiums, and would be responsible for very small co-payment fees for emergency-room visits and other services. Those earning between that amount and three times the poverty-level amount would be able to buy subsidized policies with premiums based on their ability to pay. Though no maximum premium is set in the bill, legislators’ intent seems to be for it to top out at about $200 to $250 per month.

All residents will have to provide details about their health insurance policy on their state income tax returns in 2008. Those who do not have insurance would first lose their personal state tax exemption, perhaps worth $150, and later face penalties equal to half the cost of the cheapest policy they should have bought. That might work out to $1,200 per year, officials said. Those who cannot find an affordable plan could obtain a waiver.

I might give up anyway. Please, someone in Massachusetts, step back from the nanny-state abyss and think about what this really means. I’d love for it to succeed, but I’m only promising that I won’t say “I told you so” when it fails to deliver the hoped-for outcome. Rather than babble on further, I’ll let yesterday’s hero, Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, fill you all with his words of inspiration:

“We did something to solve the problem,” he said.

Do you think he’ll stand on “we did something” or “solve the problem” when this blows up?

For a smart take on this: National Review

Tales of the Weird, with a bit of insight

This story about three men arrested for allegedly performing castrations without a medical license is disturbing enough, needing no extra analysis. However, this quote from Charlotte, N.C. District Attorney Michael Bonfoey jumped out at me. Consider:

“Assuming that the victims consented to this _ and we don’t know that for sure yet _ that doesn’t make it a defense,” Bonfoey said. “We can’t have people who are not medical doctors lopping off limbs and other body parts.”

Mr. Bonfoey is so close to the correct answer on the concept of consent and the removal of “other body parts”. Yet, somehow, I suspect he’s so far away from the truth in understanding how people can (legally) run afoul of medical ethics.

Safety is voluntary?

How does this work, from a story about a child who died of lead poisoning, allegedly from a promotional piece of jewelry given away by Reebok?

Since 2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced 13 recalls of metal jewelry, involving nearly 162 million pieces, citing the risk of lead poisoning. Three of those recalls, including Reebok’s, were announced yesterday.

More are likely as the agency continues to enforce its voluntary guidelines, issued a year ago, limiting lead in children’s jewelry to no more than 600 parts per million in any component. “This isn’t the last lead jewelry recall you will see,” said CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese.

I have no opinion on the guidelines. I haven’t read them, so I couldn’t begin to be insightful. But how does an agency begin to enforce voluntary guidelines? Do this or we’ll be really angry? Don’t do that or we’ll wave our fingers in your general direction? Seriously, I don’t get it. I’m sure it works something like the FCC’s system of fines. Offenders don’t have to pay, but there’s always the chance that the next broadcast license renewal might not go so well. This is effective? There has to be a better way.

College is not about collecting notes

It’s reassuring, I guess, that whining is universal across industries. A professor at the University of Memphis banned laptops from her class.

On March 6, Professor June Entman warned her first-year law students by e-mail to bring pens and paper to take notes in class.

“My main concern was they were focusing on trying to transcribe every word that was I saying, rather than thinking and analyzing,” Entman said Monday. “The computers interfere with making eye contact. You’ve got this picket fence between you and the students.”

What’s the issue? The law isn’t about rote memorization, to my knowledge. I’d rather my attorney be able to tell me what precedents and facts mean than I care when a case was decided and in whose favor. Having been a graduate (MBA) student, I’m aware of the lack of understanding from trying too hard to capture every word. My style of learning may or may not be common, but I learned the most in classes where I paid attention. Strange, I know, but it might work for Professor Entman’s students, too. Considering Professor Entman’s students filed a complaint with the American Bar Association that was dismissed might indicate that she knows more than they do about the law.

Of further note is this tidbit:

“If we continue without laptops, I’m out of here. I’m gone; I won’t be able to keep up,” said student Cory Winsett, who said his hand-written notes are incomplete and less organized.

At some point in the 20th century, someone invented the tape recorder. Later in the 20th century, someone invented the digital voice recorder. Is it possible that Mr. Winsett and his fellow classmates could transcribe the class discussion during their post-class studies? Maybe they could take turns or request that Professor Entman offer her class as a podcast.

Of course, if I was in Professor Entman’s position, I might not institute a ban on laptops since that punishes the students who use them responsibly. Instead, I might just make class participation more important in each student’s grade. If the student can’t keep up because of poor note-taking strategy, he or she will adapt or fail. That seems like a reasonable early test for future lawyers.

I make that suggestion with full acceptance that I don’t know how much participation she requires. I assume it’s greater than nothing, but I could be wrong as to the practicality of my suggestion.

Breaking News: Loud music causes hearing damage

I’ve written before about the misguided claim that Something Must Be Done about the potential for hearing damage resulting from unwise use of iPods and similar mp3 players. I didn’t mention any inevitable government busybody involvement at the time because I didn’t think further than the absurd lawsuit. I should have.

More research is needed to determine whether popular portable music players like Apple Computer Inc.’s iPod increase the risk of hearing loss, the National Institutes of Health said in response to a U.S. lawmaker’s request for a review of the issue.
…

The proximity of the source of the sound to the ears can contribute to hearing loss, but “more research is required to determine if a particular type (of earphone) increases the risk,” said James Battey, director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, in the NIH letter.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, sent a letter on January 26 asking NIH to review research to determine whether portable music players are contributing to premature hearing loss as well as to recommend what people can do to prevent it from happening.

Study it. I’m not going to complain too much, but mostly because I know it wouldn’t help. And the findings can be useful in pointing out the obvious helping people better understand the risks in a way that pain and tinnitus from listening too loudly could never accomplish. Of course, it would also be prudent for companies that market mp3 players to study possible effects, since legal liability, rational or not, might be involved. Again, all of that is more good than bad. But Congress can’t contain itself. This next quote portends where this story will end:

“Kids are often more familiar with these products than parents, but they don’t realize how harmful these products can be to hearing,” he said. “It can lead to a lifelong ailment.”

And there you go. Can we please save the money on the research and just write the report and the corresponding legislation now? At least if we’re going to be intentionally stupid, we should be efficient in achieving it.

They were for the Constitution before they were against it

Two interesting tidbits from this story about proposed spending cuts increases cuts before Congress. First, Sen. Arlen Specter impersonating Rep. Tom Delay:

“We’re beyond cutting the fat and beyond the bone. We’re down to the marrow,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who plans to introduce an amendment today to raise spending on health care, education and worker safety by billions of dollars above the president’s request for next year.

I suppose a cheesy smile for the mug shot camera is next up on Sen. Specter’s busy agenda? Here’s a hint: check the Constitution and you’ll find the general guidelines for where Congress should be spending federal dollars. There may be a few unwritten implications since the founders couldn’t possibly have foreseen how significantly the world would change in the first few centuries of the Republic. However, I’m fairly certain they knew about areas such as education. Somehow that oversight probably wasn’t implied. Resume cost-cutting there.

Next, this engaging theory:

Reps. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Calif.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.) plan to unveil legislation today that would raise spending on port security by $801 million a year. That bill nearly equals a bipartisan Senate legislation that would raise annual port security spending by $835 million. Both bills are scheduled for quick action in the House and Senate homeland security committees in the coming weeks.

Proponents of the measures say the government has avoided such spending for too long under the guise of fiscal restraint. Three times since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the House has voted against Democratic efforts to raise spending on port security. But in the wake of a Dubai company’s effort to take over management responsibilities at six major U.S. ports, such opposition appears to be collapsing.

“There simply is no cheap way to be better prepared,” Lieberman said yesterday.

There isn’t a direct connection between port security and spending reductions, but I’m sure a reasonable person could indirectly link over-spending on non-federal issues (and pork barrel madness) with a reduced availability to fund legitimate federal needs like national security. Granted, I don’t have the wisdom of a congressman, so it’s just a thought. I’m just saying that “no cheap way” doesn’t mean we should just throw money around because it makes us feel better. For instance, on health care and education. Maybe if we spent only on legitimate funding needs, we’d stop worrying about cheap and stop focusing on effective.

D.C. gets the government it deserves

I’d planned to go into more detail about Wednesday’s hearing weighing the merits of a proposed flat tax experiment in D.C. I would’ve discussed Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s simple-minded objections and the progressive taxation double-standard she wants to perpetuate. Now that I’m writing the post, I’m unmotivated by the specifics of the issue. All sides are interested in ideological sound bites more than intelligent reform.

Instead, I wish Congress would “experiment” with a flat tax for the whole nation, but I’m paying attention enough to see that Congress has shown no will in recent years to address serious tax reform. If it wants to talk a big game about trying an optional flat tax experiment in the District, that’s wonderful. Maybe then we can see some progress back to common sense. Initially, though, it’s not going to affect me because even the flat tax isn’t enough to make me move into the District, to be governed by its incompetent local politicians.

Instead, this quote is interesting:

Shadow senator Paul Strauss (D), who sat in the audience, said, “They think of us as a state when it comes to federal liabilities.”

“When it comes to federal rights,” he added, “they think of us as a laboratory rat.”

Apart from being the first time I realized D.C. has a shadow senator, I’m amused that Mr. Strauss seems not to have read the Constitution. The Constitution says what it says about D.C. and its treatment. And to think Congress will do anything other than treat all of us the District as more than laboratory rats with deep pockets is simply laughable.

But here’s the key point in this debate. If you don’t like it, move. It’s that simple. Like the residents of D.C., I have a choice of where to live in this region. I choose to live in Virginia. I understand there are good and bad aspects of that. I’ve concluded that the benefits outweigh the costs. Unless there’s some nefarious force enslaving people in the District, I fail to see the causal link.

Work to change the Constitution or move.

Is it better to be a moron than a deadbeat?

This story about a push for men to be able to opt out of financially supporting a child if they don’t want the child is a few days old already and it’s been analyzed to death. I don’t think it needs any deep analysis, since it should be clear that sex can lead to children. Anyone who doesn’t know this shouldn’t be engaging in sex. With respect to this case, it’s possible to argue that the two now-parents had a contract that the woman violated. I have no idea how valid that argument is or how contract law would treat that. What remains as obvious is that if you have sex, you deal with the consequences.

What’s interesting in this story is this:

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay’s case.

“The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn’t want, but it’s less fair to say society has to pay the support,” she said.

This is absurd. This is the same reasoning that traps men into financially supporting children later proven to be another man’s child, just so the child may cared for by someone, anyone with a paycheck. Or, if the parents separate, the courts and state laws default to the idea that the mother is the more qualified full-time caregiver and the father is the more qualified financial caretaker, facts be damned. This is the inequity that should be under attack. When it’s possible for the mother to have custody 90% of the time (or more), yet the father is responsible for 70% of the cost (or more) because he makes a higher salary, something is wrong. I’m not advocating paying for possession of the child, for lack of a better description, but both parents are responsible for conceiving the child. It’s inherently unfair to use “he can afford it” (sometimes he can’t) as a legal basis, yet to pretend that the father is too incompetent to care for his child for more than one or two weekends per month. Still, courts do it all the time.

If a man has sex, he should be responsible. Perhaps some middle ground solution is possible on reproductive rights surrounding wanted vs. unwanted children. It’s “unfair” that women get more control between conception and birth in this situation, but simple biology dictates that more than anything. The practical solution is inevitably going to be ugly. It shouldn’t be stupid after the child’s birth, though, and that’s where these activists need to push legislators and courts to fix the system.

Are we building Ewok Village 2000 2006?

I’m still amazed at how oblivious to logic some politicians can be. Throw in fiscal recklessness and it’s a plan for future disaster. Consider:

President Bush, in his first visit to New Orleans since two reports criticized the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, today urged Congress to approve a $4.2 billion initiative to help Louisiana residents who lost their homes in the Aug. 29 storm.
…

“We’ve all been working together to figure out how to come up with a housing plan that will restore the confidence of the people in this important part of our country,” Bush said. “In order to make sure that housing plan meets its goals, Congress should make sure that the $4.2 billion I requested goes to the state of Louisiana.”

It’s important to ask whether it’s justified to “restore the confidence of the people” in Louisiana through transfer payments from the rest of the country. I don’t choose to live in an area that sees hurricane activity every year, yet I’m expected to pay my share so that families in Louisiana can live happily on the Gulf Coast, without the financial risk equal to their clear exposure. Under his scenario, President Bush should know that any confidence increase in the Gulf region is zero-sum for the United States.

Need further proof why? Behold:

Speaking in front of a broken levee in New Orleans’ hardest-hit Lower Ninth Ward, Bush spoke of a plan that would make as much as $150,000 available to each homeowner.

Since we’re stuck bailing out an irresponsible system, isn’t it reasonable to expect that we’ll rebuild the region’s defenses before we fund other rebuilding? Hurricane season isn’t that far off.