Category: Politics

Imagine the fun of National Healthcare!

I can’t imagine a better story to support my contention from yesterday that the federal government should not be funding medical research than this story:

Federally funded “pregnancy resource centers” are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.

The report said that 20 of 23 federally funded centers contacted by staff investigators requesting information about an unintended pregnancy were told false or misleading information about the potential risks of an abortion.

The pregnancy resource centers, which are often affiliated with antiabortion religious groups, have received about $30 million in federal money since 2001, according to the report, requested by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). The report concluded that the exaggerations “may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.”

It’s not essential to take the specific topic of abortion out of this debate. Like it or not, abortion is legal in America. If the federal government should be funding science, or not funding science for moral rather than constitutional reasons, does it not have the obligation to tell the truth? Or is the truth, as based on evidence, too inconvenient to fit with a specific political agenda? Just like I don’t want my tax dollars paying for circumcisions, religious Americans probably do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. This isn’t a complicated argument. Keep the government checkbook out of science.

I hope Tom Clancy is not a prophet

If Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman paid any attention to national politics, he’d know that Gambling Is Bad and Americans Hate Gambling. But, until the House gets around to outlawing Las Vegas, Mayor Goodman is in charge. And Tom Clancy has him working feverishly to protect Las Vegas from its no doubt imminent economic collapse, thanks to his new “terrorists invade Las Vegas” edition of Rainbow Six:

“It could be harmful economically, and it may be something that’s not entitled to free speech (protection),” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said of the game’s realistic scenes, which he had not personally viewed.

“It’s based on a false premise,” Goodman said, adding federal and state leaders have repeatedly assured him that Las Vegas is “the safest place imaginable” nearly five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the East Coast.

“I will ask … whether or not we can stop it,” Goodman said of the game’s planned November release.

In other news Destroy All Humans has completely turned me off the idea of visiting strange towns filled with stereotypical bumpkins. I might end up dead with my brain stem extracted through mental powers. Or worse, I might end up the victim of mind control and be forced to sing and run around in circles. And I definitely fear being in a hotel when a UFO launches a sonic boom or two at the structure’s foundation, thereby causing it to collapse. Why didn’t someone acknowledge that the game’s makers don’t deserve free speech because the resulting fictitious game might scare me?

As stupid as Mayor Goodman’s comment is, I’m going to happily give (hopefully legally take from, of course) Las Vegas some of my money next month when I’m there on vacation. He’s worrying for nothing.

Source: John Dvorak

Reading more in the question than the subject

I noticed a poll question on Sen. Bill Frist’s new medical/health blog, Medical Matters. Behold:

Do you support S 2754, legislation which supports research to produce pluripotent cells without destroying human embryos?

Yes
No
Undecided

I’m trying to determine if that question is intentionally or unintentionally misleading. I support the talking point aspect of this debate, which is stem cell research. It’s stupid to pretend like every cell ever created that could be a human will be a human. Restricting science from exploring stem cells is anti-progress that will harm people who exist while protecting people who never will. If that was S 2754, sure, I’ll take Yes please.

But if it’s the two specific aspects of S 2754, I must say No. Federal funding would be better spent on legitimately federal tasks. I have little doubt that private companies, as well as research organizations and universities (I’m ignoring the public funding for simplicity), will do the necessary research to uncover whatever potential stem cells hold. All they need is for the government to get out of the way. It’s almost a broken record.

That plays into point number two¹, which is that “destroying human embryos” will encourage politicians to pummel any scientific research that doesn’t meet their agenda. In this case, it’s the fundamentalist Christian ideal that life begins at conception, even when the cells involved could never be a human. After all, S 2754’s sponsor is Sen. Rick Santorum. I’m sure he expects “destroying human embryos” to be interpreted in a particular manner, which may or may not be grounded in science. Science should remain rooted in evidence-based discovery, not political expediency.

In a shameful yet unsurprising probability, President Bush threatened to veto this bill. That would be his first veto in his 5½ years in the Oval Office. Correct decision, wrong reason. I guess by now I should expect that the good things in this administration are mere accidents of circumstance. So be it.

¹ Please read the comments for a better discussion of point number two.

More lessons in civics and fewer in social appeasement.

A few days ago, Glenn Reynolds wrote of Tennessee’s proposed Constitutional amendment aimed at protecting marriage from those who believe that individual rights should determine how the government treats the citizenry. Mr. Reynolds and I are in agreement that constitutional amendments for this question are a bad idea, but I mostly added on that last bit as a summary of my own feeling because I don’t care for parts of his explanation. Consider:

…

My own sense is that this sort of thing belongs in the political sphere, and that efforts to insulate it from the political sphere, either by judicial fiat or constitutional amendment, are a bad idea.

UPDATE: This is part of a string of losses for gay marriage advocates, reports Dale Carpenter, who has detail on what’s going on. As I’ve noted before, it seems to me that the big push on gay marriage came before the public was ready. You have to educate first; there’s been good progress on public attitudes toward gays, but it actually seems to go faster when gay marriage advocates aren’t getting a lot of publicity and calling people who disagree with them bigots. (Kaus has noted this, too — scroll down due to lack of permalinks at Kausfiles.) Honey, vinegar, and all that.

My own feeling is that Americans are basically fair, and will come to support gay marriage on their own given a bit of time. And I think that — despite claims that they’re really just opposing “judicial activism” — gay marriage opponents fear that I’m right.

I understand his point, and I believe he’s right that Americans will eventually support same sex marriage on their own. I also think he’s right in describing what will be most effective, given our current political atmosphere in which selling out one group of Americans is an accepted strategy for buying another, larger group. That’s a practical realization of how malignant our political climate remains. We shouldn’t pat ourselves for working within that system, though.

The larger, more troublesome challenge in accepting that thinking is that this flawed climate should invalidate a Constitutional approach to achieving equality. It’s ridiculous to assert that the opinion of a majority of Americans matters in this. Why should a segment of Americans wait for future generations to grant them fundamental rights that should be respected now? We live in a republic based on individual rights, not a land where mob rule should dictate how our courts interpret our Constitution. Judicial fiat or not, the role of our judiciary is to interpret the Constitution, thereby protecting the individual rights of every citizen from government and other citizens. Only in not faithfully administering its duties is a court engaging in judicial activism.

The legislature may be the best location for this fight, but that doesn’t make the courts a bad place for it. The majoritarian mentality consuming the willingness of our elected representatives to uphold the Constitution indicates the fallacy of abandoning the Constitution to meet the mob’s delicate condition that it never be offended by others and that the minority must bow to the majority until the majority is ready. Our liberty doesn’t work that way.

Save our souls (and state monopolies)

Congress: Boo yourself!:

The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn’t a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Work with is a euphemism for force. Anyone still want to claim that Republicans and Democrats are for economic freedom, and liberty in general? I don’t. Paternalism marches on.

I don’t have any more to say on this bill specifically, but I want to savor the stupidity of this quote:

“Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age,” [Jim Leach, R-Iowa] said.

When will Congress act to outlaw citizens from using credit cards to finance a new business? As a business owner, I could lose everything I own. Won’t you protect me?

Ass.

Revising an earlier opinion

During the last presidential election, I suggested that I’d like to see a Kerry-McCain ticket. I had no misunderstanding about Sen. Kerry’s less-than-desirable status as a presidential candidate. Indeed, I voted for him because he wasn’t the other guy. However, I believed that Sen. McCain would be a great addition to the ticket. I was wrong. Now that I’ve had time to better tune my political radar, I realize that John McCain hates free speech. I would never vote for him for president.

A worse nightmare is the “dream ticket” proposed by Andrew Sullivan. I respect Mr. Sullivan, but I don’t get that pairing. Sen. Lieberman’s regular ranting against entertainment companies, most recently in the form of obnoxious threats against video game developers, bothered me when he ran on Gore’s ticket in 2000. My opinion hasn’t changed in the five-plus years since. No thanks.

—

In researching links for this entry, I stumbled on this article from shortly after Gore nominated Lieberman in 2000. It’s mostly a rehash of Sen. Lieberman’s disdain for uncultured speech, but this quote in his defense struck me as absurdly misinformed:

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, told the Freedom Forum Online yesterday that Lieberman’s selection was “good news and bad news.”

“Certainly he would appear to be preferable to anyone on the Republican ticket,” she said. “And we’re pleased he has supported public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and opposed flag-desecration (legislation) in the past, both important First Amendment issues.”

Public funding for the NEA is in no way a First Amendment issue. Reading “Congress shall make no law” as “Congress shall fund speech” is as wrong as the censors who want to stamp out indecency. Every one of us has an unalienable right to free speech. We do not have a right to have that speech funded by everyone. If we did, no publisher would be able to reject an author’s manuscript. No television station would be able to reject a sitcom, drama, or documentary. Absurd.

Even if successful, it’s five years too late

President Bush spoke with Larry King on Thursday.

“When history looks back, I’d rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular,” Bush said.

I agree with his sentiment, but zero out of three isn’t good. Even in the times when he’s correct (recognizing that we have enemies, social security must be eliminated fixed), he doesn’t demonstrate the leadership necessary to solve the problem. Of course, objective criteria aren’t sufficient to conclude what’s correct and what’s merely personal preference. That has a good bit to do with his administration’s flailing effort to satisfy his base’s every unimportant moral whim.

“The president that chases the opinion poll is the president that will have failed policy,” Bush said in an exclusive joint interview along with his wife, Laura, at the White House.

So that’s not why he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment? What was it then? His opinion that recognition and respect for same-sex couples is important? I’m not buying that; there’s too much evidence to the contrary.

On his chosen course, regardless of the issue, history will not be kind. That’s unfortunate. As an American who didn’t vote for President Bush, I want him to be successful in the important tasks he tackles, within our existing principles. That’s the hurdle he seems unwilling to face. His words are correct. Will his actions catch up?

Cover the First Amendment in Whipped-Cream and Pasties

Now that it’s been called on its bullshit, the FCC wants a do-over.

“Today the Commission, supported by the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates, filed a motion for voluntary remand and stay of briefing schedule in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,” the commission said in a statement. “It did so at the request of broadcasters who complained they did not have the opportunity to be heard by the Commission before it issued its decision in its “Omnibus” order in March. Additionally, the remand would allow the Commission to hear all of the licensees’ arguments which is necessary for the broadcasters to make these same arguments before the Court.”

I’ll ask the obvious: does no one understand that “Congress shall make no law” is an absolute? And is it any surprise that an arm of the government granted unconstitutional power by that Congress will somehow abuse that power beyond its own rules? The key lost in this story is that Fox is not one of the networks asking for this “voluntary” remand in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Good. If it sticks this out through to trial, I promise to watch every So You Think You Can [Insert Unwatchable Activity Here]? show its producers can imagine. Just include lots of T&A and swearing when if the court realizes that the bulk of the FCC’s Congressionally-sanctioned nanny-mongering is unconstitutional.

Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis

Exceptions prove the fallacy of majoritarianism

Where to begin today? New York’s Court of Appeals ruled that the state can continue discriminating against same-sex couples. Apparently, a heterosexual oopsy with birth control proves that gays and lesbians don’t need the same rights.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

My interpretation is a slight simplification of the majority’s opinion, but only slight. Because a heterosexual couple can create¹ life because they forget to use a condom, they need marriage rights to help those potential offspring. Even if the couple isn’t married when the child is conceived. Or seeks to stay married. Or intends to ever get married. Nope, doesn’t matter. This decision is crap². Remind me again who is seeking special rights in this debate?

Meanwhile, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld its citizenry-supported bigotry today. I don’t have anything to say about the decision itself. Instead, I’d like to highlight the patronizing majoritarianism of Georgia’s governor:

“We don’t do a referendum very often,” Perdue said. “But when we do a referendum such as a Constitutional amendment, I think we need be very respectful of the people’s voice and listen to that. I think the Supreme Court has done that and I’m very grateful for their action and their affirmation of the people’s voice in overturning the trial court’s opinion.”

The governor also said that he hopes gay Georgians do not feel marginalized by the decision. He said they are free to work and live their lives here – they simply can not marry in the state of Georgia.

I’d like to find a direct quote supporting that second paragraph. If his words verify that summary, does that come with a pat on the head? I can only hope that every gay Georgian says a big “Fuck you” on his or her way out of the state.

For excellent analysis of this decision, read this thread at A Stitch in Haste.

¹ Excuse me. Since we’re now going with majoritarianism instead of science, our bigotry must conclude that a man and a woman cannot create life. Only the monotheistic God our nation’s founders included in our Constitution’s First Amendment is capable of such divine action. And traditional marriage is his conduit.

² Read Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent. It’s not possible for someone who understands our principles defining individual rights could walk away from reading this dissent and still think the supposed majority has any right to deny a fundamental right to anyone in America.

“It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation,” she wrote. “The court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

Majoritarianism can’t accept that. The New York Court of Appeals proved today that it’s an activist court.

Final word on the flag amendment

The flag amendment is toast. Good riddance, although it’s safe to assume it’ll be back. I’m going to guess 2008. I don’t know why, it just feels like it’s on some strange cycle. Anyway, I thought I’d heard every possible stupid remark going into yesterday’s vote, courtesy of Senators Hatch and Specter. Alas, no:

“All rights enshrined in the Constitution have certain limits,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). “There is no such thing as unlimited rights. Although we treasure and value our right of free speech . . . we protect our national monuments,” including the flag.

“Congress shall make no law” is pretty ambiguous about limits, I admit. It’s just strange that protecting our national monuments isn’t in the Constitution. And if the flag is a national monument, does it need public restrooms to meet any federal regulations.

In other burning news, James Taranto chimed in to make his partisan point, even though he pretended to be on the side of common sense. What I don’t understand, and he presents a perfect example, is why so many people hate the New York Times as if its publishers are Hell’s army unleashed on us all? I concede that its reporting is often smug, self-important, ideological crap. My response is to avoid it. I rarely link to its stories because I find better, less-biased reporting elsewhere. Free speech with free markets is a sufficient combination for me to mentally handle any real or imagined offense to public sensibility by the New York Times. Why this isn’t enough for those on the right, other than needing a bogeyman to whip up the masses, is a mystery to me. Seriously, get over it.

That said, I’m amused that Mr. Taranto works a defense in yesterday’s Best of the Web Today aimed merely at attacking the New York Times for its editorial against the amendment. I imagine the effort necessary to navigate to his point was tremendous. Actually, probably not. Practice makes perfect, right? I digress. Mr. Taranto quotes the New York Times, writing about the flag amendment:

With the Fourth of July fast approaching, Senate Republicans are holding a barbecue. Unfortunately, instead of grilling hot dogs and hamburgers, they are trying to torch a hole in the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee by passing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow federal and state authorities to punish flag-burning.

Some things should be out of bounds even in a competitive election year. Messing with the Constitution is one of them.

Seems reasonable, but it’s the New York Times. They’re just a bunch of dumb liberals who don’t realize that the rest of America is patriotic enough to love the flag. So what is Mr. Taranto’s snappy retort?

But the ability to amend the Constitution is part of the Constitution. “Messing with the Constitution” also ended slavery, gave blacks and women the vote, and repealed Prohibition. (OK, that last one is a wash.)

In fact, if the First Congress had refrained from “messing with the Constitution” by proposing the Bill of Rights, there would be no First Amendment. Forget flag-burning; if the Times were true to its principles, it would be against free speech altogether!

Haha! He’s poking fun at the literal interpretation of “messing with the Constitution.” Funny, and damn if doesn’t catch them in their logic failure. Conservatives 1,239,938,839, New York Times 0.

Except, everyone understands that the editors at the New York Times did not mean the actual process of amending the Constitution. Congress followed the procedure exactly. Big deal. The anti-flag desecration amendment violated Constitutional principles, which Mr. Taranto clearly knows, unless he’s blinded by his disdain. I doubt it.

Best of the Web Today is hack journalism at its finest.