Category: News

Those guys think they’re revolutionaries

Here’s an interesting business lesson:

Apple Computer Chief Executive Steve Jobs has a reputation for thinking different. But now he might be planning a move for Apple that will leave even his biggest fans surprised–becoming a phone company.

It might sound far-fetched, but the pieces are in place for it to happen later this summer. Apple is already developing a hybrid iPod/cell phone with handset maker Motorola. And companies ranging from the Virgin Group to The Walt Disney Co. are proving that a new network model can allow all kinds of businesses to easily enter the mobile market.

Essentially, this entails Apple releasing an iTunes-branded cell phone, with the cellular network leased from an existing company such as Sprint or Cingular. The startup cost is minimal compared to the early days of cell phones because the network infrastructure is already in place. And Apple benefits from popularity currently unparalleled in customer electronics. It seems like a reasonable idea. But why would Apple want to go through the trouble when it could simplify this opportunity with an iTunes application for mobile phones?

But Apple might have a problem getting the devices into customers’ hands. Carriers will probably be loath to sell and support it, since they want to sell their own music downloads–not have customers upload tunes from home. “The carriers don’t like it,” says analyst Rob Enderle, head of The Enderle Group. “They want Apple to change the design so the phone has to sync through their networks, not with a PC.”

Of course the carriers don’t like it. They want to pretend that customers care more about the gatekeeper than what comes through the gates. customers may like the gatekeeper (Apple is the perfect example), but content is more important. Where the carriers go wrong is believing that exclusivity and control of content aren’t important. If customers thought the way carriers believe they think, AOL would still dominate.

Perhaps an example… Last year I decided to switch cell phone carriers. I’d had minor issues with Sprint so I opted to transfer my phone number to Verizon. After purchasing a new phone with exciting features, I impatiently waited for the phone to charge so I could upload my unique ringtones. Reading through the instruction manual, I found no references to uploading ringtones. I searched the internets to figure out how to do it. And that’s when I found out Verizon’s little secret. Despite all the nice features of the phone, I was beholden to their wishes. I could have any content I wanted as long as Verizon sold it. No personal ringtones, no fancy pictures, no diversionary games.

Five days later I returned the phone to Verizon and became a Sprint customer again because Sprint allowed me to use the phone I purchased in the way I wanted to use it. Today, when my brother calls me, a Hokie gobble announces the call.

Customers aren’t always rational, but they’re not stupid. If the customer has an iTunes account, why would Verizon think she wants a middleman to sell her music from iTunes? The existing carriers imagine monopoly powers where they don’t exist. They will learn the lesson, but as the lesson often is for large companies, the lesson probably won’t be pleasant. Competition dictates an adapt or die mentality; Apple understands this better than most.

Although an Apple phone may not happen, some form of an iTunes-capable phone will. It makes too much sense and Apple has the clout to make it happen. In the scenario I imagine, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, and every other cellular carrier should not be surprised when cell phones show up next to iPods and PowerBooks in every Apple retail store.

(Link via Slashdot)

Profit and Proper aren’t mutually exclusive

There have been many stories of potential identity theft and fraud making the news in recent months. (Here’s one of the most recent, just as an example.) An individual’s ability to protect himself is possible, though this ability seems to fade with each new technological advance. The reach of information is almost beyond comprehension. Yet, there is one tool, however primitive, that can be used: the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The FACT Act allows consumers to request one free credit report every 12 months. Right, I’m thinking the same thing everyone is. Nice baby step, but when my data can be stolen by a diligent hacker with little more than an internet connection, how am I supposed to protect myself with that? That’s valid, and the consumer information industry should be doing everything it can to protect us police its business model. If it doesn’t… Okay, even if it does, legislation is coming. But we have to start somewhere and the credit report is the simplest method.

Equifax CEO Thomas Chapman doesn’t like this. Consider:

“Our company felt, and still does … that it’s unconstitutional to cause a public company who has a fiduciary responsibility to return profit to shareholders to give away the product,” Chapman said to reporters following a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on Monday [6/27]. “Most of my shareholder group did not think that giving away our product was the American way.”

Chapman was referring to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which since last December has required credit agencies to provide consumers with a free copy of their credit report every 12 months to check for inaccuracies and fraudulent activity. Chapman said that viewing a credit report once a year wouldn’t protect consumers against fraud.

“That’s like turning on the smoke alarm once a year,” he said.

His point is correct but wrong. Once per year is not enough and it won’t really do much to protect fraud. It will, however, allow individuals to see the information sold, at a profit by companies like Equifax, that could affect whether or not they can purchase renter’s insurance, to name an example that erroneously happened to me. So, even though it won’t likely prevent fraud, it can help to clear mistakes. Except, it’s notoriously hard to “encourage” credit reporting agencies to fix mistakes. But Equifax is now motivated to do the right thing for its business model.

Or does it?

To ward off excessive legislation, Chapman supports the idea of tougher industry standards pressuring companies to encrypt data. He suggested that increased funding for enforcement of data-theft laws would help reverse a trend in which few identity thieves are ever prosecuted.

Chapman also discussed the need to educate consumers about monitoring their credit records on a regular basis and being wary of giving out sensitive information. He noted that during a recent visit to a museum with his grandchildren, the cashier asked for his social security number as well as his home address and phone number when he tried to buy tickets with his credit card.

To ward off excessive legislation. May I offer protecting consumers (your supply) as a worthy goal from the beginning rather than only when something goes wrong? Where business fails to protect in accordance with reasonable standards (and even where it protects, but that’s a different rant), government steps in with regulation. Welcome to America in 2005. And if you think a business subject to high profile “disasters” is going to escape extra scrutiny and governmental “care”, you’re smoking something now regulated by interstate commerce, even when it doesn’t cross state lines. As for educating consumers to monitor their credit records on a regular basis, the technology exists, but you didn’t do it because it didn’t improve the bottom line. I seem to believe that’s why Congress, correct solution or not, passed the FACT Act. And it only gets worse from here, especially if you pursue this line of logic instead of catching up to your real starting point. Just a hunch.

(Consider reading No Place to Hide by Robert O’Harrow, Jr. for more insight into many of the issues surrounding information sharing. There are examples relevant to this story. Also, request a free credit report every 12 months from AnnualCreditReport.com.)

Put it back, Mr. Thomson. The King will remain a tyrant.

A distinct change has taken over America in the last few years (I’ll round it to 4&#189 years, just as a “random” estimation). This change affects how we interact with each other and what we believe is permissible. What really fascinates me, though, is that it affects how we enforce what is permissible. Gone are the days when we called our local sheriff to complain about a neighbor participating in “impropriety”. Today, we call the FBI or our Congressman. This solution might not be as quick as the sheriff, or even appropriate for the determined offense, but it is much more helpful to society as a whole because it’ll impact more than just our own neighborhood. We can save our brother in Cedar Rapids the effort of dealing with his local version of the incorrigible town malcontent. Our best friend’s mother-in-law won’t have to worry about undesirable behavior next to her duplex in New York City. The positive benefits are endless. We all know America is better for this. We are realizing the Utopia of National Conformity Unity.

Since I want to continue our progress, I have an idea. This idea, while appearing quite strange and radical at first glance, will revolutionize the way government happens in America. Society will benefit. America will be stronger. Gridlock will vanish. Creativity will soar. America will drive the new Golden Age of civilization. It will be beautiful.

Before I reveal my idea, I must confess that I don’t think it took as much of an imaginative leap as it might at first seem. It feels more like an extension of our present path. All I’ve done is wipe away the extraneous. But it’s a good cleanse, I think. So, what’s my idea? Are you sitting down? If not, you should; this idea is so stunning and new and spectacular that you just might faint. Have you taken my advice? Are you ready? Good, I’m going to tell it to you now. Beginning in 2008, each presidential candidate must propose, alongside his or her platform, an updated United States Constitution with which he or she plans to govern for the next presidential term.

I know, you can’t believe what you’ve just read. Brilliant, isn’t it? Especially because it’s so simple. And obvious. It really modernizes government, doesn’t it? And humanity, really. I can think of no flaws. None. And I’ve thought about this for at least five minutes.

Even though I know you know it’s brilliant, I’m sure you have questions about how this will work. Since you’ve grasped that the “why” is self-evident, I’ll skip ahead to your question. Each candidate must lay out a framework of the basic principles for the next administration. It can be a modified version of the sitting president’s constitution, or it can be a new version intended to scrap and reverse the old. Either way, the country gets to live under revitalized governance with current thinking injected every four years to shake off the cobwebs of the quaint past.

In this Information Age, time is almost meaningless as a measure of change. Our old methods sustained us when society encountered evolutionary adaptations and growth. Now our growth is revolutionary, with an idea life-cycle so short as to be beyond meaningless. Under this plan, it’s much more practical than to change based on our current election cycle than to rely on a constitution as old as our existing document. Every four years is better than every two centuries (or more). Who could disagree?

I do suspect that proposed constitutions will not differ for the candidate from the sitting president’s party, but that’s just a guess. Regardless, there will still be a variety of ideas proposed every four years. This can’t be bad.

Again, no restrictions would be placed on the proposed constitution because we want the law of the land to be responsive to ever-changing needs. That’s a good thing. And the proposed constitutions could be debated throughout the election campaign. Glaring inconsistencies or omissions could be rectified. Each candidate can clarify why the most important aspects of the new constitution may not be what seemed obvious. This all leads to election day, when the president-elect’s constitution is ratified according to his or her popular vote. If it makes it easier, think of each presidential candidate’s proposed constitution as his or her second running-mate.

Think about it. It’s a perfect solution. You think marriage should be only between a man and a woman? Vote for that constitution. You think Congress shouldn’t be able to prohibit flag desecration? Vote for that constitution. You think only socialist health care should be available? Vote for that constitution. You think only 14″-wide books should be allowed for novels or that only Toshiba televisions should be allowed for watching cartoons? Vote for that constitution. You think the judiciary is too activist? That worry is gone, too, because you can vote for the constitution that says only Punxsutawney Phil determines whether new laws satisfy the new strictures of the new constitution. How much simpler, not to mention the impartiality, can you get?

Hell, think bigger. Just imagine a world in which an official at publicly-funded buildings is required to read a Curious George book at 4:13 p.m. every day. You don’t think that would win votes? You haven’t thought hard enough, let me assure you. Or think how much the economy could soar with the need to print new constitutions every four years. Timber companies would grow. Or what about the financial benefit from the requirement that all public-school teachers wear a different puffed-paint headband for every lesson. I’m already counting the trickle-down riches, and they’re not just monetary.

Our children and grandchildren will no longer curse or mock us. They can choose their own society when they turn eighteen, unburdened by our antiquated choices. Wow.

If we act today, the magic can begin. Election 2008 is three short years away.

How much will he withdraw from the piggy bank?

Given that many expect Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to retire soon, which, if he does retire, I suspect is delayed to give Justice O’Connor the spotlight, here’s my question: How does two nominations at the same time affect the nomination process? Obviously, the President’s staunch conservative base wants a right-wing nominee, which it will probably get. But if Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, as well, is this possible? Are we more likely to end up with two more moderate nominees, to preserve President Bush’s political capital? Or are we in for two brutal fights instead of one?

I hope it means two moderates, but I’m not counting on it. Your thoughts?

All the cool kids are commenting on it

President Bush remarked on the career of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor today. The part about her tenure on the court is fine, as we should expect. She served the United States for 24 years. Good for her. But reminiscing about the past isn’t interesting. I’m more interested in the coming confirmation process. In his remarks, President Bush said:

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O’Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

There’s the first shot at “activist judges”, but the statement is innocuous enough that I’m not bothered by it. It can be interpreted as a shot against the judiciary and was probably meant that way, but it has no consequence since that line has been used so much that the quiver needs new arrows to be dangerous. So, moving on.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Those last two sentences were not innocuous. No one wants a rough confirmation process, but… okay, the leading Democrats probably do, but they’re stupid. Smart people don’t want a rough confirmation process. But smart people also realize that a non-“activist judge” who is an ideologue hurts the country because the “activist judge” nonsense isn’t meant to apply to conservatives. If we can get a nominee who rests in the middle, who actually represents the ideals that President Bush and Senate leaders use in their rhetoric, confirmation obstruction will be less effective, though probably only a little less vocal and prevalent.

Regardless, President Bush opened the process today.

And dying when you’re not really sick is really sick, you know. Really!

Where to begin on this? Jonah Goldberg‘s recent column for Townhall.com (enough said, some will (correctly) say) begins with an interesting notion, although it foreshadows nonsensical babbling. Consider:

In Washington, conservatives and liberals are quietly loading up on drinking water, D batteries and extra ammo, in preparation for the coming battle over judges. Ralph Neas himself has been seen by the campfire carving notches into the stock of his rifle, muttering, “Pain don’t hurt.” No one knows when the fight’s coming, but everyone knows it is. But while we’re digging fresh foxholes and listening to our Vera Lynn records, waiting for the blitzkrieg, it might be worth taking a step back to look at the big picture.

This is a battle between the forces of life and death, and, as inconvenient as it may be to the marketing efforts of abortion opponents, we are resolutely on the side of death. For we are those who believe the only good constitution is a dead constitution.

Having read that far, he intrigued me. Is he saying we should kill the Constitution and start over? Obviously there are a few things in there that he wouldn’t like, so better to scrap it, I guess. I only had a little information, but I prepared for the inevitable “activist judges” gargoyle to appear, and soon. Sadly, Mr. Goldberg only alludes to it. But it’s there in abundance, which will be obvious in a moment.

Continuing:

We’ve all heard about how great living constitutions are. The most extreme, but essentially representative, version of this “philosophy” can be found from the likes of Mary Frances Berry or the Los Angeles Times’ Robert Scheer. They matter-of-factly claim that without a “living” constitution, slavery and other such evils would still be constitutional. This is what leading constitutional legal theorists call “stupid.” The constitutionality of slavery, women’s suffrage and the like were decided by these things called the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Also, contra feminists, women got the vote not through a living constitution but by the mere expansion of the dead one – via the 19th Amendment.

I get it. Citizens decided that they weren’t happy with the specifics of the Constitution, so they changed it. Brilliant. Why doesn’t everyone who believes in a “living” constitution know that crazy little footnote? But I know, he means to imply that we need to fix the handiwork of “activist judges”. He didn’t say that, but I know it’s coming later on. I’m jumping ahead.

Back to where we were.

This is not to say the “living constitution” is a myth. “It’s alive!” all right, as Dr. Frankenstein might say. Supreme Court justices have found the most interesting things swimming in the penumbras and emanations of the U.S. Constitution. The point is merely that it is batty to argue that constitutional change is impossible unless we view the Constitution as a completely viable life outside the womb of historical context and principled meaning.

There it is. He didn’t say it, but it’s there. Whew. Four paragraphs in is a looooong time to wait for the conservative’s verbal “money shot” first appearance, even if only its shadow arrived. Maybe Mr. Goldberg will stop teasing and just say it already. Let’s see:

The more reasonable arguments for a living constitution revolve around the view that society is changing too fast and the Constitution-as-written must grow to stay relevant. Al Gore said in 2000, “I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

And it’s obviously true that the founders never envisioned a world of embryonic stem cells or retinal-scan cat doors (coming soon!). And there are good answers for what the Supreme Court should do when the Constitution is truly silent on an issue. For example: It should stay silent.

“It should stay silent.” Bingo. So, what Mr. Goldberg instructs is that “activist judges” should ignore their duties when faced with an issue on which they might rule in favor of the liberals misread the Constitution. Better to let Congress act until the citizenry acts (through Congress) to amend the Constitution. Wise.

So what’s the solution in America 2005?

But the problem here is that these arguments are all on the opposition’s turf. Conservatives aren’t merely anti-living Constitution – we are pro-dead Constitution. In order for us to live in freedom, the Constitution must die (Faster, Federalist Society! Kill! Kill!).

The case for dead constitutions is simple. They bind us to a set of rules for everybody. Recall the recent debate about the filibuster. The most powerful argument the Democrats could muster was that if you get rid of the traditional right of the minority in the Senate to bollix up the works, the Democrats will deny that right to Republicans the next time they’re in the majority (shudder).

Remember, we’re in the rule of “with us or against us”. Every decision funnels through a prism of Conservative or Wrong. There are no shades of grey, and definitely no shades of chartreuse, bisque, or fuchsia. Binding rules are perfect for that mindset. We don’t want to reinterpret anything under changing times. It’s better to amend than to understand, I guess. Which leads us to this:

The Constitution works on a similar principle, as does the rule of law. Political scientists call this “precommitment.” Having a set of rules with a fixed (i.e., dead, unliving, etc.) meaning ensures that future generations will be protected from judges or politicians who’d like to rule arbitrarily. This is what Chesterton was getting at when he called tradition “democracy for the dead.” We all like to believe that we have some say about what this country will be like for our children and grandchildren. A “living Constitution” denies us our voice in this regard because it basically holds that whatever decisions we make – including the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments – can be thrown out by any five dyspeptic justices on the Supreme Court. In other words, the justices who claim the Constitution is a wild card didn’t take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in good faith because they couldn’t know what they were swearing to.

What if our children and grandchildren don’t like what we do to their country? I’m just saying. Can we really make the Constitution “dead” and the Bill of Rights “living” and expect it to be perfect? Or will we encounter growing pains? I’m just saying.

Mr. Goldberg offers guidance and insight in the form of a quote from Justice Antonin Scalia, of course. Consider:

“What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority,” Justice Scalia wrote this week, “is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that – thumbs up or thumbs down – as their personal preferences dictate.”

Right, because Justice Scalia rules on consistently applied principle and not personal preferences. The First Amendment says what it says and conservatives like Justice Scalia honor the words of our Founding Fathers on this. Just as a
n example.

But I’m not a constitutional legal theorist. Except, no, I really am a Constitutional legal theorist. Mr. Goldberg doesn’t say I have to have a J.D. to be a constitutional legal theorist. I don’t want to read any words into his statement that aren’t there, so I must now reconsider. I’ve written enough about what the Constitution should mean, filling tens of hours of non-financially and non-legally productive time, that I have to have some reasonable term for why. What better title than the simple three word suggestion from Mr. Goldberg. There is the bump that is the fourth word (“leading”) in Mr. Goldberg’s proffered title, of course, that gets in the way, but I think highly of my mind, so there it is. Thus, I now confer upon myself the title of (leading) constitutional legal theorist.

But I’m still stupid.

Inspector Butters is on the case, ma’am

As evidenced by the 2,146,316 flag amendment posts over the last few days, I’m a bit bothered up about it. But as Wendy pointed out in comments last night, there is another legal travesty in the news. In a (not really) stunning decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kelo vs. New London. Here is a summary of the decision:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person’s home as part of a private development project aimed at boosting tax revenues and revitalizing a local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a private development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

I admit that I’m not a lawyer, although I play one on RollingDoughnut.com. Sometimes, such as in this case, I admit that I don’t know as much as I should. I’m only basing my argument on standard, obvious logic. But I know enough to realize that this case is an abomination. However, since there are sufficient commentaries all over the internets, I’m not going to contribute anything other than to point to two of particular interest.

First, consider this New York Times travesty (link via Michelle Malkin – truth is truth, even when it comes from an ideologue):

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence “so long as it might be upgraded.” That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London’s development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

Do you believe that some hack politician being bribed lobbied by a real estate company will make sure that eminent domain is “part of a comprehensive plan”? Right, neither do I. As for “fully compensated”, family history and memories can’t get an appropriate price tag. How does a city compensate a family whose house has eight years of height lines etched into the kitchen door frame? How exciting will it be for a man to take his kids to his boyhood home and point out the nice backyard parking lot where he used to play catch with his dad? Cash isn’t always king.

On a different angle, consider reasoning from KipEsquire:

Wouldn’t it be nice if all those grass-root, “let the voters decide,” Red State, “damn activist judges” types put as much effort into enacting state constitutional amendments limiting eminent domain as they did discriminating against gays? You might think people like that would care more about keeping their own homes than what goes on in their neighbors’ homes. We’ll see.

It’s an argument that some might not like, but he’s right. So, yeah, people can think what they want about social issues like same-sex marriage and flag desecration, but there are more important issues with a more fundamental, long-term impact on the United States.

So, yeah, although five Justices and the New York Times think this decision makes sense, I’m with everyone else. It pisses me off, too.

I’m not giving up on this topic

More thoughts on the Constitutional that passed the House of Representatives Nanny-statists yesterday.

_____________________________________________________________________

When I e-mailed Congressman Loose Cannon&#153, I informed him of my opposition to H.J.Res. 10, which is this:

H.J.RES.10
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (196)
Related Bills: H.RES.330, S.J.RES.12
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 – 130 (Roll no. 296).

Do I need to clarify that Congressman Loose Cannon&#153 is in the list of 196 Cosponsors?

This is the response I received earlier this week to my e-mail. Before I reproduce it here, though, let me remind you that I referenced H.J.Res. 10 because I knew that it was the proposed amendment coming before the full House. I made specific reference to the fact that it would come before the House this week. And he was one of the 196 Cosponsors. So this is what his intern he wrote:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.J.Res. 5, the Flag Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you regarding this important issue.

As you know, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) introduced H.J.Res. 5 in January 2005 at the outset of the 109th Congress. H.J.Res. 5 proposes to amend the Constitution by authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag.

Since its introduction, H.J.Res. 5 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Rest assured I will keep your comments foremost in my mind if this measure comes before the full House for a vote.

Thank you again for contacting my office regarding this important issue. I appreciate you sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on matters of interest or concern.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis
Member of Congress

I’m sure my comments will be foremost in your mind, but only if your mind is in the circular file. At least the pattern of not reading my e-mails for context continues, so that’s a reassurance in this world of change.

_____________________________________________________________________

Here are two more wonderful quotes about the amendment that passed yesterday:

Among the new votes for the amendment is Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who pushed the issue in his campaign and helped recruit co-sponsors. “Out in the country, at the grass-roots level, it’s seen as a common man’s practical patriotism,” Thune said.

Because, you know, it’s about the common man, the country folks. The real people. Not us liberal, elitists snobs on the East Coast. Because I hate America, unlike real, salt-of-the-Earth Americans. But, Sen. Thune, perhaps a suggestion: remove the symbolic flag from the pole before you beat us over the head with it. And take that slice of your mom’s apple pie out of your baseball mitt. But most importantly, please, please make sure you loosen it from around your neck so that you still get oxygen. It’s obvious that it’s wrapped so tightly around you that it’s cutting the flow to your brain.

And…

House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said during the debate that lawmakers “must act with bipartisan dispatch to ensure that this issue is returned to the hands of those most interested in preserving freedom — the people themselves.”

Rep. Sensenbrenner, returning this issue to the people, who hadn’t been clamoring for you to address it the way they have about, oh, I don’t know, terrorism, war, social security, taxes, and other minor issues, is wise in a Republic. Encourage mob majority rule when you’re in power because, you know, your party will never be in the minority again. Well thought out.

Dumbasses.

_____________________________________________________________________

Here’s an interesting article from Eugene Volokh titled “What’s Wrong With the Flagburning Amendment”. Here’s an excerpt, but read the full text.

“Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and the flying of the Confederate flag.”

OK, so that’s not exactly how the proposed flag protection amendment reads — I’ve added the Confederate flag phrase. But this little thought experiment helps show that the flag protection amendment is a bad idea.

After all, burning the U.S. flag and flying the Confederate flag are similar in many ways. Some people argue that flagburning shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment because it isn’t “speech.” Well, burning one flag and waving another are pretty similar on that score. I think both are traditional terms in our political language, and should be constitutionally protected; but if I’m wrong, then both should be unprotected.

Of course, burning the U.S. flag deeply offends many people. But so does waving the Confederate flag, even when it’s done by individuals and not by state governments. Many American boys died defending the U.S. flag — and many of them died fighting against the Confederacy. Burning the U.S. flag is often an anti-American symbol. Likewise, the Confederate flag was a symbol of treason and rebellion against the lawful American government.

Mr. Volokh carries the argument through, building a very strong case against the amendment. He concludes with this:

America is different from most other countries, and even from most other democracies. In America, all ideologies are protected, even those that the majority thinks are evil.

Why is this right? Because the First Amendment was drafted and interpreted by people who intimately understood cultural, religious, and political conflict, and who knew how calls for censorship could launch the most bitter of culture wars.

The [First] Amendment is a truce: “I won’t try to suppress your ideas, if you don’t try to suppress mine.” And the flagburning amendment risks shattering this truce.

(via Instapundit and The Corner)

Artificial intelligence is dumb

To add a little levity to yesterday’s anti-flag desecration amendment entry, while searching for sources, I encountered an interesting ad. Clearly, whoever coded the logic didn’t bother with context. Consider:

Need Flag Burning? Find Flag Burning products and suppliers? Who even knew that there were 650,000 manufacturers of flag burning supplies? And they’re all online? Who knew?

Now, imagine if Congress passes the amendment and it eventually passes thirty-eight state legislatures. Our government will be responsible for putting 650,000 manufacturers out of business. That should sell well at re-election time.