News – Page 11 – Rolling Doughnut

Put that on the posters and see how it sells

Updating last week’s post about South Dakota’s new abortion bill, Governor Mike Rounds signed the bill. There’s little surprise there, and nothing really commenting further about regarding the specific topic. Instead, I’d like to highlight a quote from Gov. Rounds:

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Rounds said in the statement.

That’s a great sentiment, but why do so many Americans only support strict interpretations on that theme? Can anyone imagine a day in which Gov. Rounds would issue a statement like this?

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that routine infant circumcision is wrong because children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Rounds said in the statement.

It shouldn’t be such an intellectual leap.

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

This recent story from The Washington Post reflects what I think is essential surrounding reasonable immigration policy.

Five years after African immigrants began flocking to this former mill town, city officials say they still are not qualified for many of the jobs the city has to offer. In response, Lewiston [Maine] is enforcing one of the country’s most aggressive policies aimed at speeding assimilation: Somalis here often must take English classes, or risk losing some welfare benefits.

“ESL,” said assistant city administrator Phil Nadeau, summing up the city’s English-as-a-second-language philosophy, “is everything.”

It’s virtually impossible to argue that English fluency is not essential to success in America. Sure, some may succeed despite a lack of fluency, but that will result from the nature of a closed community, but the opportunity for growth and new ideas becomes limited with a refusal to stretch beyond a non-English speaking group within the United States.

Accordingly, requiring English lessons for immigrants receiving welfare benefits is legitimate. I’m bypassing the “should immigrants get welfare” aspect because it’s not necessary for the point I want to make. Replace welfare with citizenship in the argument, if necessary. On whatever terms, English is our language. Individuals need basic English skills to function in society. Someone who can’t function isn’t likely to stay off welfare for any extended period. That’s not helpful to any community.

Further in, the article presents a voice of doubt on whether the requirement is useful, since some individuals attend only because it’s required, and as a result, don’t bother to learn. I don’t doubt that happens, but I also assume that such any legitimate program would include some mechanism to prove that the student makes progress throughout the course and can pass some level of proficiency at the end. Given how easily that fear could be applied to many American students wasting their time in high school, should we not require students to attend school until adulthood? Regardless, I think the critical view, that immigrants can’t or won’t learn, is absurd. Requiring an immigrant to know or learn English basic English puts the onus on the individual. If the person doesn’t want to help himself, the majority of the community that accepts responsibility for themselves shouldn’t be burdened. Providing support for the deserving poor shouldn’t be charity without expectations.

Smart immigration policy reflects a truth that should be apparent to anyone watching the cultural conflicts around the world in recent months. Multi-cultural societies don’t work. Not multi-racial, for that’s a benign concept for a culture. A refusal to accept multi-cultural means that assimilation is essential. Individuals can retain pieces of their past and useful cultural associations, but it’s essential to understand that America represents the principles and beliefs imparted by freedom and liberty. America includes cultural aspects from nations all around the world, but our ideas and culture are uniquely ours. Immigrants should expect to become Americans, not citizens of separate entities residing within the physical borders of the United States. English is a common bond, and as such, should be expected.

Virginians may breathe a little easier

The proposed statewide “public” smoking ban I wrote about recently failed to muster any support in the Virginia House of Delegates. This is hardly a surprise, but it’s still good news for property rights in the commonwealth. Worth noting are a pair of quotes. The first offers what should be the end of this debate everywhere it’s occurring in America:

“The problem is, I want to have smoke-free restaurants and businesses. But in America, you don’t pass a law to tell a private business owner who is paying rent or mortgage payments what he can and can’t do in his own place,” said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax).

I wish Virginia’s Republicans practiced that throughout the spectrum of potential business activities, but every little bit of retreat from insanity is welcome. Unfortunately, the debate includes a few politicians suffering a shortage of brain power. Our politicians can barely wait to trample on our rights established by both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution, but this bill’s sponsor wants us to respect his rights. Consider:

“The bottom line is that we’re not talking about a smoker’s right to smoke indoors,” said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II. “We’re talking about my right not to breath in 4,000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens that are associated with secondhand smoke.”

Admittedly, if someone is going to ignore rights established in a Constitution so that his agenda can be furthered, it’s not a giant leap to expect new rights to appear which allow him to trample on the rights he dislikes. That doesn’t make it any less objectionable.

I suppose they’re Liberals now

Ignore for the moment the heated nature of the specific topic involved in this story. Instead focus on the contradictory, though not surprising, lack of principle underlying the action.

South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

Like it or not, Roe V. Wade is the law. It may even be appropriate to challenge it, as these legislators are doing. But every legislator who voted for this can never again complain about “activist judges”. Not only are they counting on judges to be activist in accepting their change to accepted law, they’re engaging in activist legislating. There is no other way to explain this action, as they openly accept that it violates current law. They’re counting on the expectation that President Bush stacked the court in their favor with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Roger W. Hunt, offered another interesting perspective on good for me but not for thee:

Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban’s supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by “an anonymous donor.”

If the issue at hand was a liberal favorite, and supporters replaced “anonymous donor” with George Soros, Republicans like Mr. Hunt would be screaming rather than boasting.

Hypocrites, every one of them.

Failed socio-economic policies redux

Sebastian Mallaby’s column in today’s Washington Post is interesting more for the assumptions it proposes than for its specific content regarding President Bush’s looming marketing push for Health Savings Accounts. While mocking President Bush’s term “ownership society”, presumably because he prefers the “social contract” and all it entails, Mr. Mallaby declares these flaws:

A rerun of last year’s [Social Security] debate would show that health savings accounts are harder to defend than personal retirement ones. They are shockingly regressive: Furman’s study shows how a poor family might get a subsidy of $150 while a rich one might get more than $4,000. They have not just a transition cost but a real cost: The tax breaks could widen the deficit by at least $132 billion over 10 years and a lot more after that. And health savings accounts pose a more formidable threat to traditional corporate health plans than personal accounts posed to Social Security. Market forces are already dislodging company health plans; an extra shove could cause an avalanche.

The limited consumer discipline that would come from health savings accounts could not justify these disadvantages. But when you talk to administration officials, they express remarkably few doubts. They believed in the ownership society last year; they still believe in it this year. They believe in individual choice; they distrust collective programs. They don’t worry too much about the risks to the budget. Or to distributional justice. Or to existing safety nets.

Simple administration. Straightforward administration. The Clinton team would never have proposed such a clunker of a policy.

Three paragraphs and I lost count of the intellectual disasters. It’s feasible to argue that Health Savings Accounts aren’t the solution. I won’t argue that they’re perfect, only that something must be done. That doesn’t mean action for the sake of action, of course, which is what I think Mr. Mallaby is partially offering as the Bush Administration’s motive. Anything that fits the ownership society storyline, or something along those lines. To his credit, he challenges the logic of HSAs and offers a suggestion in return. I disagree, but that’s reasonable in such a change with unknown consequences. Unfortunately, his conclusion relies on the assumptions I marked in bold. In order:

Income differences matter only in tax liability. Receiving benefits, if tied to income and the resulting spending differences, must be quantitatively equal or they’re unfair and regressive.
Market forces are dislodging company health plans, violating the social contract. That’s Bad. The central planners know better, so we must halt that trend, not encourage it.
Individual choice is bad. We’re all in this together, so everyone should pay the same (unless he’s poor) and receive the same benefits (unless he’s rich), because the collective nature of ~~government~~ health care is important.
Liberals worry a lot about the budget. That’s why raising taxes to meet Dubya’s irresponsible budget is necessary.
“Distributional justice” is important above all else. If you don’t have enough, however that’s defined, and however much you do to earn it, you should be given what must be taken from others. Progressive taxes are good. Progressive benefits are bad. Regressive benefits are good. Regressive taxes are bad. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Existing safety nets are good. Reform must keep those. Remember, that’s why raising taxes is important. Cutting spending would destroy safety nets. Government is the best provider of safety nets.
The Clinton team would never have proposed such a clunker of a policy. They would’ve introduced a better clunker. It’s important to focus on better, not clunker. That’s why we need national health care, not individual choice. Everyone will like one-size-fits-all coverage. It doesn’t matter if the rich get worse health care. It’s a fixed pie. You don’t want others to be without. Do you? You’re selfish.

I hope it’s clear that I disagree with Mr. Mallaby’s assumptions. In the future, I hope he’ll put his assumptions in the first three paragraphs instead of the last three so that I may decide whether or not to bother reading his suggestions before I read them. That way, I’ll avoid the socialistic noise and read whatever’s left.

Next up, prosecuting all forms of fun

I haven’t been following the alleged gambling ring “scandal” surrounding Phoenix Coyotes (NHL) assistant coach Rick Tocchet and Janet Jones, Wayne Gretzky’s wife, among others. Frankly, I don’t see the big deal. It’s against the law, I get it. But the states involved run lotteries. With such hypocrisy, I don’t need to go further and rely on principles. But since I happen to enjoy principles, why not? Where’s the victim? Without a victim, where’s the crime? I haven’t heard of anything resembling broken kneecaps or even threats resulting from the alleged gambling ring. Perhaps I’ve missed them, but without a victim, and violating someone else’s moral code doesn’t count, the sin police need to get over it. State and federal legislatures need to decriminalize it and move on to real issues.

Now that I’ve finished ranting, this aspect of the case reveals how myopic some folks are:

A handful of NHL players have been implicated in the ring, authorities say, but none has been identified or charged. Strictly speaking, it is not a crime to place a bet, but NHL players would be violating league rules if they wagered on hockey games. There is no evidence of wagering on hockey, according to the federal prosecutor investigating the allegations on behalf of the NHL.

The only people who’ve committed a crime are the people running the ring. Where’s the reasoning in that? He who sucks another into “immoral, destructive” behavior is guilty? Ridiculous. Gambling will happen with or without state approval, as evidenced by the allegations, should they be true. It would make more sense to let that happen in a business that pays taxes than in a business that wastes police resources. Legalize and increase tax receipts. Criminalize and increase expenditures.

Public service may be noble, but it’s far from intelligent, apparently.

Join the revolution, eh

I wrote a few weeks ago that Sirius would not carry Howard Stern on its Canadian service due to decency standards in Canada revolving around the country having no equivalent to our First Amendment. It’s embarrassing that a democracy in the 21st century has no guaranteed free speech, but at least it gives us some perspective on how much worse our situation could be. Unless our courts decide not to be activist or legislate from the bench and allow Congress to pass laws restricting pay content. But I digress. Yesterday, Sirius Canada announced that it would begin airing Howard Stern’s radio show beginning Monday.

“It’s no secret that Howard Stern’s programming is not consistent with the kind of programming you would find on CBC/Radio Canada’s airwaves, but this is a Sirius Canada decision,” said CBC spokesman Jason MacDonald.

The subscription-based network is 40 per cent owned by the CBC, 40 per cent by Standard Radio and 20 per cent by Sirius in the United States.

“Sirius Canada is a separate company,” noted MacDonald.

“Yes, we’re partners and Sirius Canada made the decision that was right for it based on what the market demands.”

This is obviously a triumph for free speech and free markets in Canada, but I don’t know how long it’ll last. Stern said as much yesterday. He was joking, but this makes me wonder:

[MacDonald] said new technology that allows Sirius Canada subscribers to block out Stern if they so choose was a significant factor in finalizing the deal.

Sirius Canada has said it does not expect Stern to run into censorship trouble this time because his satellite show is a pay service.

“It’s really up to the public to decide whether it wants to submit a complaint, regardless of the fact that it’s a service that is purchasable,” says CRTC spokeswoman Miriam Gennaro.

She couldn’t immediately say, however, whether different standards will apply to satellite radio.

I know Ted Stevens, Brent Bozell, and James Dobson would love to implement such a scheme in the United States, but I’m thankful the First Amendment says what it says. Now, if we just convince those non-“activist” judges to read it with the same deference to the text they would apply to any more favored portion of the Constitution. I know that’s crazy talk, but I can dream, right?

Will the First Amendment suffer?

By now everyone’s probably heard about the 8-year-old boy who shot a 7-year-old girl at a Maryland day-care center earlier this week. More details are emerging, mostly surrounding an alleged robbery attempt by the boy. Those details are as absurd as they sound, but this is what most caught my attention:

The prosecutor also said investigators found photographs of guns in the apartment and learned that the boy had access to “very violent video games.” According to a police source, two of those video games are “50 Cent Bulletproof” and “187: Ride or Die.” The Washington Post agreed not to identify the source because the case remains open.

“Bulletproof,” released last fall, depicts rapper 50 Cent in a bloody New York underworld overrun with gangs and crime syndicates. Survival in the game requires shooting nearly anyone who gets in his way. The game costs about $50. “Ride and Die,” an older game with a similar premise, is based in Los Angeles.

Darlene Hall, the boy’s aunt, said her brother has been a positive influence on the boy, who she described as deeply troubled. She said the boy denied that his father taught him how to use guns.

“He beat on the desk and said: ‘No, my father didn’t do that. I learned it from 50 Cent,’ ” Darlene Hall said, describing how the child acted during a hearing on Wednesday that was closed to the public. She was present at the hearing.

No doubt Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are in conference figuring out how to pin this incident on violent video games and the businesses that produce and sell them. It would be too easy to admit that a parent allowing a “deeply troubled” boy access to violent video games is responsible, rather than the game or its availability. Until we learn (which we have no reason to) the 7-year-old girl’s name, I guess the Jane Doe Keep Kids Safe from Violent Video Games Act of 2006 will have to suffice.

Because Liberals like only French food

Speaking at a Philander Smith College audience yesterday, Ann Coulter tried to make the Ha Ha.

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

I’ll just say that, to be considered a joke, it should be funny. How soon before right-wing political pundits blame this on the liberal media?

I have no faith in my fellow Virginians

When the polls close November 7, 2006, I suspect I’m not going to appreciate my neighbors:

The state Senate all but guaranteed on Wednesday that Virginia will hold a November referendum on whether to amend its 230-year-old Bill of Rights to bar same-sex marriages.

The Senate voted 28 to 11 to follow the House of Delegates in approving the amendment. Though each chamber still must pass the measure adopted by the other, their wording is identical and support among the senators and delegates is strong.

There’s nothing new here, of course. Already codifying a ban on same-sex marriage and adding an additional, stricter law against binding personal relationship intentions through contracts wasn’t enough. Fine, Virginia, I get it. I live in a state full of anti-gay bigots who can’t see the reality that allowing same-sex marriage will mean nothing in your life other than a growing respect for equal treatment under civil law. (Hint: no one will force you, or your children, to marry anyone of the same sex. Shocking, I know.) But can’t you fathom the lunacy involved in modifying the Virginia Bill of Rights to impose the will of the majority on the minority? Or is this too hard to grasp:

The state Bill of Rights was last amended in 1996, when voters supported adding a section protecting the rights of crime victims. Although changes to the state constitution are common, the 1996 action was the only time the Bill of Rights has been amended since 1970, when voters ratified a new version of the constitution.
…

“The only place in the constitution to put this is in the Bill of Rights,” said Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg). “There is currently no right in the United States, or certainly not in Virginia, for anything other than a marriage between one man and one woman.”

That’ll look real nice merged into Section 15 of the Virginia Bill of Rights (Qualities necessary to preservation of free government):

That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.

That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth should avail itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their fullest development by an effective system of education throughout the Commonwealth.

From protecting victims to victimizing in ten years. Well done, Virginia.