Category: News

Behold the power of The Internets

Browsing through the Congressional votes database on the Washington Post’s site today, I discovered a unique and interesting way to review legislative votes. Sure, anyone could think that organizing by party and state. I might even come up with region. But gender? I wouldn’t have thought that overly useful. And baby-boomer status? I guess age could matter. I wouldn’t use that, though. But here’s the Holy Grail (data for vote 618, H.R. 4440):


Astrological sign
Yes
No
Not Voting
Aquarius3311
Sagittarius2412
Taurus2121
Gemini4502
Leo2903
Aries3001
Capricorn3401
Libra4102
Scorpio3000
Cancer5400
Virgo4800
Pisces2600
Total415413

Someone please explain to me when that might ever be useful. Other than the bored hippie constituency, maybe, I don’t get it. Just because technology rocks doesn’t mean we should use it to use it.

Congressman Tackleberry should heed the lesson

The case of the shooting death of Rigoberto Alpizar by air marshals in Miami on Wednesday took an interesting turn. We have the official line, which hasn’t changed:

“He was belligerent. He threatened that he had a bomb in his backpack,” said Brian Doyle, spokesman for the U.S. Homeland Security Department. “The officers clearly identified themselves and yelled at him to ‘get down, get down.’ Instead, he made a move toward the backpack.”

But now this emerges:

Passenger John Mcalhany told The Associated Press on Thursday that Alpizar bumped into him as he ran off the aircraft, and he did not hear him say anything about a bomb.

“The first time I heard the word bomb was when I was interviewed by the FBI,” McAlhany said. “They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, ‘What is the B-word?’ And they were like, ‘Bomb.’ I said no. They said, ‘Are you sure?’ And I am.”
…

Mary Gardner, another passenger, also said Thursday she not hear Alpizar mention a bomb.

Obviously I have no idea which version is true. I’m no less inclined to assume that the air marshals acted properly. However, this is why we investigate these cases. We don’t want cover-ups on mistakes to allow the government to save face. If the air marshals erred in their judgment of the situation or disregarded the reality of the situation with a trigger-happy response, we should find out. We assume they acted properly but leave open the possibility that they did not. Should the shooting turn out to be improper, we need to know why so we can prevent it from happening again.

Just as important, this is why public officials like Rep. John L. Mica should not be so eager with glee that a man died. Unless he wants to imply that we shouldn’t bother investigating this further because the system worked better than we expected. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, though.

Deadly force is encouraged

Everyone knows the facts of yesterday’s passenger shooting at Miami International Airport. I’m most interested in the responses to the shooting. ersonally, I’m inclined to assume the federal air marshal acted properly. Air security is essential and any air marshal must be allowed to act on the facts before him. We need to conduct an honest investigation and learn any lessons on how to improve air marshal response in the next incident. I have no doubt that it’ll occur. What we don’t need is shameful rhetoric.

“This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations,” said Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House transportation subcommittee on aviation. “This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat.”

Rep. Mica needs to shut up. The death of a man is beyond our expectations? How low were they before this incident? I can’t imagine we thought air marshals would just say “Excuse me, but could you please not blow up this plane?” Rep. Mica’s statement is posturing for the law-and-order crowd and should not be tolerated. He’s taking far too much glee in this incident.

Which brings me to Bill O’Reilly. Danielle and I watched the O’Reilly Factor last night because he had part one of his interview with Howard Stern. We wanted to watch and nothing else was on. We should’ve recorded it and fast-forwarded through the propaganda.

During the opening segments, Mr. O’Reilly spoke with a “reporter” at Miami International Airport. During the discussion, Mr. O’Reilly described the shooting as (I’m paraphrasing) “if the suspect doesn’t cooperate, the air marshal is going to blast him.” The rest of the discussion consisted of the “reporter” prosecuting the case and coming to the perfect law-and-order conclusion that any action of force by security forces are justified if the risk of terrorism exists. Rather than facts, we got glee that a man died and the remaining passengers were marched off the plane with their hands on their heads. Oh, and the luggage not belonging to the dead suspect blown up by the bomb squad was just a reminder that we take terrorism seriously.

The entire debacle disgusted me. That many people were watching, absorbing the propaganda as gospel pissed me off.

I don’t always enjoy being right

I wish I wasn’t prophetic when I wrote this:

Is it reasonable to assume that if we rely on racial profiling, terrorists will switch tactics to include racial (and gender) profiles we’re not looking for?

I’m not surprised. Terrorists may be one size fits all, but that’s going to change.

She was the typical girl-next-door _ pretty daughter of a hospital secretary who grew up on a quiet street in this rust-belt town and finished high school before becoming a baker’s assistant.

Years later she was in Baghdad, carrying out a suicide bombing in the name of jihad _ a disturbing sign of the reach of Islamic militancy.

Neighbors say Muriel Degauque, who blew herself up last month at age 38 trying to attack U.S. troops, had lived a conventional life but became heavily involved in Islam after marrying an Algerian.

Muriel Degauque was white. Would racial profiling for young men of Middle Eastern descent have stopped her if she’d blown herself up in the United States instead of Iraq? I reiterate what I’ve written in the past. Police, military, and intelligence gatherers are trained to do a job. They generally do it very well. Relying primarily on something so easily mistake-prone (racial profiling) will give us a false sense of security. That is not what we need when dealing with terrorism. I’d rather trust intelligence info, detective work, and the field instincts of a police offer dealing with suspicious activity. We’re going to win the domestic portion of the war against Islamofascist terrorism because we have those three capabilities. We’d be wise to remember that every time someone promotes racial profiling as essential to the war against Islamofascist terrorism.

Capitalism starves babies (and other lies)

I’ve discussed labor unions and touched on how they’re not particularly helpful to America anymore. In this editorial, E. J. Dionne Jr. discusses the future of American industry and the wrongs labor unions tried to right. It’s an interesting read, although every time I thought he might finally be heading for truth, Mr. Dionne takes an undesirable intellectual detour. For instance:

Decades ago, Walter Reuther, the storied head of the United Auto Workers union, was taken on a tour of an automated factory by a Ford Motor Co. executive.

Somewhat gleefully, the Ford honcho told the legendary union leader: “You know, not one of these machines pays dues to the UAW.”

To which Reuther snapped: “And not one of them buys new Ford cars, either.”

It’s a semi-witty response and one that any company interested in technology should heed. However, Mr. Dionne draws the wrong conclusion from that exchange. Of course the machines don’t buy new cars, but the logic flow does not automatically lead back to “Machines Bad, Assembly Workers Good”. The purpose of a business is to maximize profit. If robotic assembly arms help reduce costs, they’re useful. Finding ways to make the displaced workers productive is the next exercise. However, those unions so determined to “help” workers don’t understand that those displaced workers may be more productive working elsewhere. It’s the “creative destruction” described by economist Joseph Schumpeter, referenced in the editorial.

Mr. Dionne then debates the manner in which the left liberals Democrats progressives should tell the story of unions and labor and looking out for the little guy. He promotes that as more compelling than the story of capitalism told by economic conservatives. Rather than stumble along, leaving the core of the debate to the other side, progressives should discuss how government shepherding of creative destruction can improve lives. Consider:

But this muddle reflects a default on parts of the left and, especially, within the Democratic Party. Because so many Democrats fear that they might sound like — God forbid! — socialists, they are unwilling to challenge the right’s core story. Capitalism, all by itself, would never have achieved the rising living standards that were the pride of the United States in O’Neill’s 1950s and still are today. The rules enforced by the National Labor Relations Board made it possible for Reuther’s union to organize by protecting workers’ rights. Cheap 30-year mortgages, which became the norm because of Federal Housing Administration guarantees, created a nation of homeowners.

As medical costs rise, more Americans will need government help. More employers will need to offload the costs of medical insurance to avoid bankruptcy. Yes, that’s “socialized medicine,” just like Medicare. But don’t tell anyone. The phrase plays terribly in focus groups.

For 60 years New Dealers and social democrats, liberals and progressives, turned Schumpeter on his head. They insisted that few would embrace capitalism’s innovations if the system’s tendency toward creative destruction was not balanced by public innovations to spread the bounty and protect millions from being injured by change. It’s a compelling story. Walter Reuther knew it well. Too bad it isn’t told very often anymore.

Mr. Dionne can argue that socialist redistribution and intentional economic stagnation are the best policies for America, but I need more proof than the National Labor Relations Board and mortgage guarantees, which don’t amount to proof that the private industry can’t handle those tasks. He can even argue that socialized medicine is necessary because businesses can’t provide it much longer. I’ve mentioned a better solution in the past, but the debate is worthwhile. He shouldn’t pretend that he’s promoting an improved, socialistic version of capitalism, though. Resisting change doesn’t stop it from happening. If it did, we’d still be using the horse-and-buggy and listening to vinyl records Gramophones.

The sky isn’t falling. Even in Texas.

Even though a “traditional” marriage amendment passed in Texas yesterday, and a similar amendment is likely to pass in Virginia in 2006, I’m not distressed. I’m nowhere near last year’s level of frustration because the past twelve months showed that the “losses” in this debate are short-term. Freedom has always prevailed over legalized bigotry and it will again. Instead, I’m inclined to amuse myself with the tangential aspects of the debate. From DailyKos comes this statement:

An anti-gay marriage amendment in Texas passed easily (even though it may hilariously invalidate every marriage).

I hadn’t read the text of the amendment before reading that comment, so I looked it up. The ballot language was this:

“The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

No shocker there, of course, but it doesn’t match any remote idea of a controversial interpretation. I followed the link to the amendment’s text for the answer. Here it is:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Section 2 reads as nothing short of a concession that some legal rights must exist. The obvious question is why Texas won’t set aside the charade that they’ve saved marriage by denying gays and lesbians access to the same civil institution, while allegedly conferring the same legal abilities. But that’s more a head-shaker than anything else. The point of the DailyKos comment is Section 1 (b).

As always, I’m not an attorney, but I understand how the amendment’s wording could lead to a different interpretation from the meaning. The text is awful, but I don’t think this will lead to any nullification of marriage. It requires the reader to insert a bit of context to interpret it the way it’s meant, but it requires just as much to interpret it broadly. With the current judicial activism nonsense, I can’t imagine a Texas judge reading the broader meaning from the text. (How this isn’t legislative activism is an appropriate question.)

An opponent could make the argument that reading the intended meaning out of that text is judicial activism, as well, and I’m inclined to agree. However, I don’t believe that argument will stick, so it’d be an energy expense with little payoff beyond intellectual entertainment. I love those scenarios, but I’m a little strange.

As an aside, if I were a Kossack, I’d be more concerned that the election post carried the title “Weird. We Won. Onward to 2006!”. When your party wins an election, you shouldn’t be surprised. Especially when taking the Governor’s mansion in both elections means handing the keys from the current Democrat to the new Democrat. Being surprised implies acceptance of permanent minority status. That’s not really leadership-oriented thinking, no?

(Source: Balloon Juice)

Economics education should be mandatory

The Senate gets it wrong investigating recent oil profits, and the press exacerbates the problem. Consider:

The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry’s huge profits Wednesday at a Senate hearing where lawmakers said they should explain prices and assure people they’re not being gouged.

There is a “growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage,” Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said as the hearing opened in a packed Senate committee room.

“The oil companies owe the country an explanation,” he said.

Lee Raymond, retiring CEO of ExxonMobil (XOM), said he recognizes that high gasoline prices “have put a strain on Americans’ household budgets” but he defended his companies huge profits, saying petroleum earnings “go up and down” from year to year.

“Huge profits” is also in the article’s title. “Huge” is a relative term; saying profits are huge doesn’t make it so. There are other places to get detailed numerical analysis of the fallacy of “huge” profits, but near the end, the article cites James Mulla, chairman of ConocoPhillips, in pointing out that the company’s $3.8 billion profit is a 7.7% profit margin. How is that “huge”? Just like price, volume factors into the final equation. The article should not say “huge”.

I’m not surprised, though, because even our senators seem oblivious to basic business knowledge. If Sen. Domenici really wants an explanation, he can read the financial statements for every public oil company, just like investors do. Here’s a quick test for the Senators: Is ExxonMobil priced correctly at $57.84 per share? How about ConocoPhillips at $66.90 per share? Like profits, one piece of information is all you need to know the answer, right?

Ding dong ding dong .. mmmkay

By now everyone knows that Denver residents approved Initiative 100, legalizing possession of up to one ounce of marijuana within the city limits. This is, of course, mostly symbolic since state laws against possession will still trump Initiative 100. We all know how the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” nanny statists will view this, so shock at continuing arrests and disregard for this message from the voters would be pointless. Remember, it’s all about the will of the people unless the will of the people don’t do what’s in their best interests. The people don’t get to offer input into what’s in their best interest, either, but no matter. “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” continues.

Personally, I agree with the gist of the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” message, although I’d change it to reflect that I merely don’t get the fascination with drugs, or even alcohol. That doesn’t mean I expect to deny it to you. As long as you don’t endanger me, I don’t care, so I think drugs should be legal and would’ve voted for Initiative 100. With all the issues facing our society, prohibition laws make no sense. Possession of one ounce of marijuana is trivial when considering other dangers. Legalize all of it and end the nonsensical battle.

While in Blacksburg over the weekend, I read the student newspaper, The Collegiate Times, for a bit of nostalgia. I always do this and I’m always amused at how bad it is. It was awful when I was a student. A reporter interviewed me for a story on a student organization I was involved in at the time and misquoted me after I e-mailed my response to her questions. Seemingly everyone involved was some combination of lazy and/or incompetent. Now, more than seven years later, nothing has changed. From Friday’s edition, this editorial tackles the passage of Initiative 100 in Denver. Consider [sic’s everywhere]:

News of such a measure brings about issues of legalizing marijuana in general. Denver should not have allowed such a measure to pass, even its mayor and the state of Colorado agree with that. The new procedure essentially stops people in Denver from being punished for carrying small amounts of marijuana. State law still allows for fines and speaks nothing to buying, selling or smoking the drug that has been known as a gateway drug to other addictive ones.

By passing such a procedure, the city of Denver may have gotten more than it bargained for. Then again, perhaps they really are attempting to become the next Amsterdam. If possession of marijuana becomes legal, what is to stop arguments of legalization of prostitution, heroin or any other illegal drugs?

In a country full of people who cannot even handle alcohol, legalizing marijuana is ludicrous. The United States arguably has some of the strictest laws pertaining to alcohol; however, drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries, if not all.

What all of this boils down to is this: Making a vice more accessible, even legal, only ensures that it will become more harmful. Allowing people in one city to carry less than an ounce of marijuana literally removes the deterrence of carrying drugs in general. Not only that but a measure such as the one that has just passed in Denver, push the movement of legalizing marijuana in general.

That seriously could be the only reason something such as this has happened. In Telluride, Colo., the same measure as in Denver was narrowly turned down. It seems as though the purpose of introducing these procedures in localities that are so close to one another can only be to eventually challenge the state law itself.

The United States simply isn’t ready for the legalization of marijuana. This country cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, how can citizens expect to be able to handle marijuana? While it seems as though state law may trump the measures being taken in Denver, the overall effects of such things are the real problem. Legalizing possession in Denver pushes the movement towards general legalization in Colorado and basically paves the way for legalized marijuana all over the United States. Without a doubt the road the followers of this movement are headed on must be stopped.

I’m ashamed that poorly reasoned, grammatically ignorant screeds pass for thinking at Virginia Tech. There are so many lapses of logic that it’s hard to decide where to begin. Is it the ridiculous notion that government officials are a better arbiter of standards than the governed? Could it be that the editors invoked the “slippery slope” argument without providing any justification for how that would happen, or even why it’s a “bad” outcome?

No. It’s the low level of intelligence needed to believe that “strictest laws pertaining to alcohol/drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries” forms a strong pretext to criminalize drugs more until the people finally get it that drugs. are. bad. and they can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so Thank God the government is looking out for them. The editors provide no support for their generalizations. No statistics, no theories, no anecdotal evidence. They offer nanny statism at its core: if we give you freedom, you’ll only fuck it up, so trust us that we know better. No, thanks.

Yet, the editors don’t stop there. Somehow America cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, so how can citizens be able to handle marijuana? First, prove that Americans can’t handle alcohol. I might agree generically, although I come to the conclusion that allowing Americans to drink earlier, where parents and society can teach moderation, would be more effective than “protecting” them from themselves with strict laws. I don’t agree, though, that a blanket statement of fact is sufficient in this argument. Prove it with at least one fact. Surely one is available.

More importantly, the editors failed to prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol. Again, prove it. State at least one fact indicating that legalization of alcohol is reasonable but legalization of marijuana is not. It can’t be the gateway drug nonsense, either, unless you prove that, too. Wishing it so doesn’t it make it true. Cause and effect.

Finally, what kind of government do the editors believe we have? Granted, that’s mostly rhetorical because the clear implication in that editorial is that the federal government mandates best. But consider the federal part of federal government. Isn’t it reasonable to allow a locality to decide that it wants to try this experiment? If it doesn’t work, it’ll stop and presumably won’t spread to other places. If it succeeds, the next locality has proof that it can be done without destroying society. In that regard, the editors are correct in assuming that it could spread all over America, but that’s not a bad outcome if the experiment proves a success. But that’s just my crazy notion that I’ll err on the side of freedom unless the facts reveal that as unwise.

Basic competence used to be an assumption

I mentioned this scenario last week when I wrote that I’m against the death penalty.

A death row inmate escaped from a county jail after he obtained civilian clothing and a fake ID badge, authorities said.

Charles Victor Thompson, 35, of Tomball, was being held Thursday in the Harris County Jail after he was resentenced last week in the 1998 shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend.

“He had changed out of the orange jumpsuit that inmates ordinarily wear,” Harris County sheriff’s Lt. John Martin said in the online edition of the Houston Chronicle. “He may have been taken out of the cell block and put in the attorney booth in the guise of having an attorney visit.”

The facts of this case don’t change my opinion. That’s not a huge leap because this prisoner escaped from a jail after a resentencing and not a maximum security prison, but I stand firm that death row inmate escapes indicate a need for better security, not a quicker, more determined execution schedule. If nothing else, this example shows that we have stupid people in law enforcement. Presumably the legal system is better staffed, but I seriously question whether or not the jury box is. Even leaving the moral question aside, until there are reasonable assurances (professional juries, for example?) that this tendency for mega-foul-ups is accommodated, forget it. My belief stands.

Can Children’s Services invoke Eminent Domain?

You’re going to be shocked, but I have an opinion on this story:

A Roman Catholic high school has ordered its students to remove their online diaries from the Internet, citing a threat from cyberpredators.

Students at Pope John XXIII Regional High School in Sparta appear to be heeding a directive from the principal, the Rev. Kieran McHugh.
…

Officials with the Diocese of Paterson say the directive is a matter of safety, not censorship. No one has been disciplined yet, said Marianna Thompson, a diocesan spokeswoman.

It’s a private school, so no civil rights are being abused. That doesn’t make it right. It’s not even the most appropriate response a learning institution could pursue. Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation offered this, which is too logical and obvious for the school, I suppose:

“But this is the first time we’ve heard of such an overreaction,” he said. “It would be better if they taught students what they should and shouldn’t do online rather than take away the primary communication tool of their generation.”

The real issue for me in this is the likely reason the school believes this is within its bounds. The parents who enroll their kids in Pope John XXIII Regional High School probably signed something giving the school the ability to make this decision for their children. But why do parents feel this is good parenting? Better to learn early that parents own children.

This is a high school, where the “kids” are within a few years of adulthood. Sooner rather than later they’ll be making decisions on their own, involving themselves in relationships and activities with the same potential consequences that the school aims to protect with this policy. Shielding them from the world before turning them loose is an abdication of a basic purpose of education. Parents signing this away is worse.

I’d say I’m surprised, but I’ve written enough about that concept to know that it shocks only the foolish.