Congress legislates against fixing a problem it created.

What is the government qualified to do?

Stored in such places as the vacant land near an airfield in Hope, Ark., an industrial park in Cumberland, Md., and a warehouse in Edison, N.J., are the results of one of the federal government’s costliest stumbles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — tens of thousands of empty trailers.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency hurriedly bought 145,000 trailers and mobile homes just before and after Katrina hit, spending $2.7 billion largely through no-bid contracts. Now, it is selling off as many as 41,000 of the homes, netting, so far, about 40 cents on each dollar spent by taxpayers.

FEMA cannot sell unused mobile homes directly to the public because of legislation passed by Congress in October at the industry’s urging. Instead, the agency must now go through a time-consuming process of trying to donate them first to federal, state and local agencies and public service groups, according to the Manufactured Housing Institute’s Web site.

Remind me why I should be enthusiastic about government-managed health care or schools or . Every process becomes politicized and designed to protect he who lobbies hardest and with the most cash. This is not the fault of the money. Politicians are corrupt. They should not be allowed near any task that isn’t in the Constitution.

“While FEMA has 8,420 brand new, fully furnished, never-used mobile homes in a cow pasture in Hope, Arkansas, they refuse to provide the people from Desha, Back Gate and Dumas counties with help. This is crazy,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.). “If this is the new and improved FEMA, I don’t want any part of it.”

Fair enough, but if it worked as Rep. Ross wants, I wouldn’t want any part of it. That’s the point of not having the government meddle in things it’s not capable of doing. Someone will be abused. Keep out, expect people to be responsible, and let the private market take care of those who can’t or won’t. It’s rough, but it can’t be worse than the mess we have now.

Received in the Mail Yesterday

Coinciding painfully close to Kip’s recent entries on web merchant scandals, I’ve found myself in the midst of similar stupidity on the part of a brick and mortar¹ merchant. Last August, while in Seattle, Danielle and I rented a car from Alamo. We landed close to 1:00am at SeaTac. When picking up our rental car, Alamo’s reservation system was down. As such, they couldn’t verify my credit card. The clerk wrote my credit card information on the rental agreement to charge later. All good, I thought.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Alamo that I haven’t paid my invoice. The letter said this [emphasis in original]:

Dear Sir or Madam

RA#XXXXXXXXX AMOUNT DUE $410.91

You have not been invoiced for this rental.

This is your FINAL NOTICE. If we do not receive payment immediately, your account will be placed with an outside collection agency for further action. In addition, you will not [sic] longer be eligible to rent from Alamo Rent A Car or National Car Rental. Any further attempts to rent will not be honored.

To avoid this action, send payment in full in the enclosed envelope today.

Sincerely,

Alamo attached a copy of the original rental agreement with this friendly note. I quickly figured out that the clerk at SeaTac wrote the digits from my street address in place of the last four digits of my credit card number. Fascinating, but what should be clear is that this was not my error.

I’ll probably resolve this easily enough by sending them my correct credit card number. I’ll first verify that their system didn’t charge my credit card using the correct digits I entered when renting the car, but the solution is clear. It sucks to get hit with a $410 charge now when I’d assumed I already paid it. But whatever.

In response to this letter, though, Alamo need not worry about honoring any future attempt from me to rent a car from them. None will be forthcoming. The same applies to National.

I can understand an error. But do not sit on this for more than 6 months and then, in your first communication to me on the matter, threaten me with collection action. Implying that you’ll damage my credit because you’re too stupid to write down my payment information and too stupid to send me a letter for more than 6 months brings out my inner Mr. Garrison Mr. Hat: “You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!”

¹ I know Alamo isn’t a brick and mortar company in the context of that term, although I think it qualifies. But I figure if that’s what their employees have where brains should be, the term fits well enough.

“Well, that and a nickel’ll get you a hot cup of JACK SQUAT!”

Spoiler alert: I talk about the three most recent episodes of Lost, divulging “plot” points in the process. Read at your own risk if you haven’t watched one or both of those episodes.

I’m a fan of Lost. While I don’t quite fall into the extreme of fans who are angry and disappointed, I get the frustration. I blindly gave the show a free pass during the first part of season three last fall. I’m simple like that, but I also have faith in J.J. Abrahms. After last night’s episode, I’m thisclose to bailing on the show and catching up on DVD, even if it means I hear spoilers about what happens. There’s nothing I hate more than spoilers.

Like I need to be concerned. Long ago, Lost stopped answering questions. The producers might argue that they are answering questions. Okay, conceded. But the questions they’re answering are either stupid or unimportant. They’re trapped on an island that basically eats people. The producers think that finding out what happened to the stewardess will placate me? I’m supposed to care? I don’t remember the friggin’ stewardess. Either she died, or she miraculously showed up on the island like the 487 other new characters we’ve been introduced to since the beginning of season two who miraculous survived undetected. She is so unimportant to my enjoyment of the show. Either reveal enough to make me understand that she might matter or don’t waste my time.

Last night’s episode exemplified the show’s current failings in being anything interesting. Consider this story on Lost’s troubles with hyping more than it delivers (link via Fark):

The episode’s a good one, the first in a long time devoted to spending time on the beach with the entire cast (save Jack and The Others), with a flashback spotlight on fan-favorite Hurley. But it’s also a lighthearted affair — the main plot has Hurley and Jin trying to fix a VW Microbus — while the ads are selling it as a thrill ride that everyone will be talking about the next morning.

“This was one of my favorite episodes of this run of the season,” says Benson, “and the reason for that is it actually took me back to season one of ‘Lost.’ It had the intensity, it had the emotion, it had everybody together on the beach again, it had some lighter moments. This is what we struggle with: How do we create a sell for an episode that captures all that you get in a show like this in 30 seconds? It’s really, really hard.”

I disagree, so let me tell you what happened last night. The show was reminiscent of season one, because it might well consist of the footage left over from the first time we learned Hurley’s secret misfortune with the island’s numbers. We’ve already been there. The show should move further along instead of reminding everyone what it used to be able to do. If I want to see season one again, I’ll rent the DVDs. Every week the show squanders what little sympathy I have left by offering cold leftovers.

I get the fact that the curse, and therefore the destiny presented by the island, are illusions. The characters have the power to overcome their situation. Wonderful. That’s the basis of good fiction. But I’ve seen it so many times that I don’t need to have it hammered into me. I, who figures out fictional mysteries and makes connections slower than your average newborn chimpanzee, figured out from the superb Desmond episode two weeks ago that fate is a bitch, but the characters have the ability to change that. Duh. Charlie isn’t doomed to die. He might die, but he has the power to change that. Or his fellow castaways have the power to change that. Of course. If not, just blow up the island now and end everyone’s misery.

By extension, the same goes for Hurley. He’s not cursed if he refuses to accept it. Got it. I’d already figured it out. So don’t pummel me slowly with that point. The van ride was good, and a useful device. Forty-two show minutes to get there was thirty too many. I’d dozed off leading up to that because I was bored. That’s what the producers want?

Basically, the producers of Lost should stop writing the show until they’ve watched every episode of Heroes. The comparisons are being made because they both have huge mysteries lurking in the story. The difference is that Heroes is exploring some of the mysteries it exposes. The characters investigate and learn, so we learn through them. Lost just asks us to admire all the pretty colors it’s thrown against the wall in hopes that some useful information will stick long enough to develop a goal. They should at least watch Monday’s episode of Heroes to uncover how to answer questions that matter.

I’m not going to talk about the insulting crap the producers tried to pass off as a dramatical shocker at the end of last night’s episode. I’ll just get angry.

P.S. Title reference courtesy of Matt Foley.

Unacceptable Notions

The United Nations is concerned:

More parents are turning to medical clinics to perform genital mutilation, wrongly assuming that it spares girls physical and psychological damage, a U.N. agency warned Monday.

The U.N. is specifically concerned about girls because it’s full of hypocrites. I’ve discussed that before, so no need to rehash it here. Yet, looking into its concern is informative. In this context, the United Nations is worried that parents are making female genital mutilation (FGM) more palatable by turning it into a clinical procedure. What the U.N. now fears for girls sounds painfully similar to the basic history behind the growing acceptance of male circumcision (MGM) in America. Physicians became the new priests. The technique improved, but the logic didn’t.

The practice leaves lasting physical and psychological scars, in addition to the risks it generates during childbirth, the U.N. Population Fund said.

The comparison between each procedure leaving physical scars should be obvious enough, although far too many people believe the circumcision scar(s) that remain on the penis are somehow normal. As for psychological scars, the only difference I can decipher is that female genital mutilation is often performed on girls old enough to understand what’s being done to them, whereas male genital mutilation in “civilized” countries occurs primarily on those too young to consciously remember the surgery. Many tout this aspect as a benefit.

Obaid also warned that in some nations parents were subjecting “younger and younger” girls to the practice to avoid refusals to participate. Girls generally undergo the rite before the age of 10, often without anesthesia.

If children remembering the surgery is what the U.N. is concerned with, it should cheer these parents for sparing their daughters the memory. Instead, the U.N. correctly gasps at such an obscene development. But why the disparity? Why should girls be protected, yet when the same fact pattern occurs in boys, it’s wise medical practice? In some parts of the world, males are not circumcised until they approach puberty. They’re old enough to remember the anticipatory buildup. Even then, when the comparison is particularly direct, the United Nations (and other organizations) never fail in remaining quiet. Why? I’ve argued before that basic human rights require more than a clean operating room and good intentions. Surely gender does not fall into that realm of more.

In related news, the Population Reference Bureau declared today the 4th International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Cutting (pdf), complete with a symposium. I don’t link this here to indict their work. I’m sure it’s useful and any effort to end medically-unnecessary genital cutting on unconsenting individuals will generally get my support. But the glaring omission that the other half of the population is equally at risk must be highlighted. At the symposium I attended in August, the organizers focused on non-consensual genital cutting. Boys and girls deserve equal protection from unnecessary surgery.

Throwing a Hail Mary in the First Quarter

Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst knows a lot and is proposing a plan clearly designed “for the children”. Evidence (and rights) be damned, of course.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican, is proposing a sweeping mandatory random testing program in public schools for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

“It will save lives. That’s the whole purpose,” Dewhurst said. “I’m convinced steroid use in high schools is greater than people want to admit.”

“You can’t put a price tag on a young person’s life,” Dewhurst said.

Thankfully Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is willing to admit it. And he has a plan. And money to solve this “problem,” thanks to Texas’ $14.3 billion budget surplus. It’s there, and the kids are “at risk”. That’s enough, with logic like this:

Dewhurst said schools should be willing to go along if the state pays the bill.

Oh, that solves it. The state will pay, not the schools or the taxpayers in the school districts who send the money to Austin. And it’s for the kids, so no sensible person could possibly oppose the expense.

That could be brilliant logic, if it weren’t so obviously stupid. The rest of the article is worth a read, just to comprehend the scare quotes and the “we’re not violating their rights” guarantees. There’s an argument there, I guess, because participating in school sports is voluntary, but the motivations expressed by those quoted are discouraging because they so resemble every other well-intentioned boondoggle that only gets more severe and expensive as it proves ineffective to the extent originally promised.

It’s a safety concern. Think of the children.

Robert Eberth appealed and won his battle against Prince William County, in Virginia, and its practice of ticketing parked cars for expired state inspection stickers. I’m slightly deflated because Fairfax County ticketed my car under this same scenario a few years back, and I paid it without a fight¹. Regardless, good for Mr. Eberth for forcing counties in Virginia to abide by the law. It’s a miraculous concept. We should all aspire to win such an appeal in our lifetimes.

Naturally, Prince William County is responding as any libertarian would expect.

In the meantime, county attorneys in Prince William are scrambling to draft legislation for the General Assembly that would authorize ticketing of parked cars with expired stickers.

The county can’t simply stop ticketing parked cars. That would decrease revenue permit potentially unsafe vehicles from being on the road. I’m sure there will also be an update of the provision that Mr. Eberth fought, which is that the county went onto the lot of his apartment complex to ticket his vehicle. Under the court’s ruling, the county can’t do that. Want to bet its proposed legislation will include such a feature? I’ll take yes, you can have no.

Finally, I don’t know if this just comes off poorly in print, but this quote is not a ringing endorsement for leadership oriented to considering citizens.

Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, said: “We thank him for pointing out this error. I’ve got to hand it to him — he’s got determination. I hope he’ll get on with his life now.”

Mr. Eberth wins a victory indicating that Prince William county steals more than $150,000 per year from its citizens, and that’s what the county chairman has to say? He pointed out the error for six years. Prince William only listened when the Appeals Court told them the same thing. And the Stewart’s last line, why not just tack on an explicit “Go eff yourself” for good measure?

¹ I might file an appeal with Fairfax County requesting a refund. I know it would be fruitless because I did not contest the ticket at the time, but it might be fun to waste their time. And any response letter would no doubt create much amusement.

An Execution Chamber in Every Courthouse

Anyone want to read that Texas is considering the death penalty for repeat sex offenders and suggest that capital punishment serves any other function greater than revenge?

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who won a second four-year term, has led the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters, calling for a 25-year minimum sentence after the first conviction when a victim is less than 14 and the death penalty option for repeat offenders.

“The idea is to prevent these kinds of crimes,” said Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons. “It sends a clear signal and maybe these monsters will think twice before committing a crime.”

Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, said Texas is a “tough on crime” state and he’s open to tougher penalties, including the death penalty.

From the article, the plan is obviously in its initial stages, and there appears to be some resistance. But this is what counts as resistance.

“We support the intent,” said Torie Camp of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. “We’re concerned about the unintended consequences.”

This is a brilliant move for covering against looking weak in the “war on crime”. “Kill ’em all, except it might create situations we don’t like.” Why is institutionalized murder acceptable when a punishment without revenge killing will serve just as well? It’s perplexing because offenders murdering their victims is the feared unintended consequences. Admittedly, if someone must be murdered, it should be the offender, but it’s a fool’s intellectual blindness that believes murder must occur for justice to prevail.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst should provide evidence that capital punishment offers any deterrence. Note, of course, that this is the same type of rhetoric that suggests sexual offenders are powered by uncontrollable urges that almost guarantee they’ll sexually assault another child. Otherwise, why would we have sex-offender registries and restrictions on how close to schools such persons can live? Isn’t this almost like guaranteeing that Texas will execute people under this proposal, if they’re right? And if they’re right, why not make capital punishment available on the first offense? At least then we could save all of the children who might will be harmed after the sex offenders first jail term is finished.

Capital punishment does nothing more than satiate the public’s thirst for the blood of the bad men.

Source: Fark.

Catching up on events

I’ve been busy over the last week or so, which meant that I didn’t have enough time to give blogging enough mental energy. That’s over, so it’s time to catch up on a few interesting stories before moving to new stuff. Without further delay:

Kudos to Sen. John Sununu for challenging the unhealthy, anti-consumer partnership between content owners and the FCC known as the Broadcast Flag. (Source)

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) has just announced that his office is working on legislation that would prevent the FCC from creating specific technology mandates that have to be followed by consumer electronics manufacturers. What’s his target? The broadcast flag.

Television and movie studios have wanted a broadcast flag for years. The flag is a short analog or digital signal embedded into broadcasts that specifies what users can do with the content. It would most often be used to prevent any copying of broadcast material, but there’s an obvious problem with the plan: it requires recording devices to pay attention to the flag. Because no consumers wander the aisles at Best Buy thinking, “You know, I would definitely buy this DVD recorder, but only if it supported broadcast flag technology,” the industry has asked the federal government to step in and simply require manufacturers to respect the flag.

Exactly the right analysis. The FCC should not be restricting innovation before any potentially illegal action can even occur. The onus should be on the businesses to engineer solutions that meet their needs, not regulation. That’s dinosaur thinking and should not be reward.

Next, just ponder this photograph’s implications. It’s posted in London, so there’s no concern for the United States, except there is concern. We move closer to this mentality with every newly brushed aside civil liberty. (Source)

Next, sometimes a cheap shot is easier than analysis. From Glenn Reynolds:

A CITIZEN’S ARREST BY PAUL HACKETT: A pro-gun anti-crime Democrat — I’m surprised the party didn’t get behind him.

Just like claiming that there’s a war on crime, this requires little thinking and says more about the writer than the facts. Who honestly believes that Democrats are not “anti-crime”? Not tough enough crime, we could argue. But it’s posts like these that prove Glenn Reynolds is little more than a Republican with some libertarian leanings. That’s not surprising, but this is an unflattering proof.

Next, North Korea has a hunger problem. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that this has as much to do with the country’s political structure as anything. Socialism doesn’t work, and can never provide for everyone’s needs. When the failure extends to famine, this moves from oppression to murder. But the North Koreans have a solution, courtesy of a German breeder (Source):

An east German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs has been asked by North Korea to help set up a big bunny farm to alleviate food shortages in the communist country. Now journalists and rabbit gourmets from around the world are thumping at his door.

It all started when Karl Szmolinsky won a prize for breeding Germany’s largest rabbit, a friendly-looking 10.5 kilogram “German Gray Giant” called Robert, in February 2006.

Images of the chubby monster went around the world and reached the reclusive communist state of North Korea, a country of 23 million which according to the United Nations Food Programme suffers widespread food shortages and where many people “struggle to feed themselves on a diet critically deficient in protein, fats and micronutrients.”

Any reasonable analysis would point out an obvious point of why this will fail to alleviate suffering.

“I’m not increasing production and I’m not taking any more orders after this. They cost a lot to feed,” he said.

The rabbits apparently feed eight. How much food will be used to feed the rabbits until they’re ready to become that one-time meal that feeds eight? How much land that could be better used to grow crops for North Koreans will be used to grow feed for these rabbits, as well as house them while they grow? This is a central-planning solution at its ugliest.

Next, religion will continue getting a free pass for unnecessary medical procedures under a socialist health system.

The NHS should provide more faith-based care for Muslims, an expert says.

Muslims are about twice as likely to report poor health and disability than the general population, says Edinburgh University’s Professor Aziz Sheikh.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, he called for male circumcision on the NHS and more details over alcohol derived drugs.

Leaving aside the obvious questions of whether or not routine/ritual circumcision of children should be allowed, it’s an unnecessary medical procedure that drains resources. As an ethically-questionable procedure, it’s also unacceptable to force taxpayers to fund such surgeries. This is why current U.S. funding under our relatively free market system is objectionable. This call from Britain just seeks to double the mistake. It’s absurd.

Because the system isn’t bureaucratic and dysfunctional enough already, Democrats want to allow unionization by TSA employees. That won’t end well.

Behold the Annual Hall of Fame Post

Should I write something new about Dale Murphy being bypassed by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America for the ninth time? Probably not, since it would be the same entry I wrote in 2004 and 2006. I’d lament how stupid it is to discount players from the 1980s because their statistics do not match the statistics of players from the 1990s. Following on that, I’d also question how voters can keep Mark McGwire out of the Hall of Fame because his greater statistics are allegedly steroid-enhanced, yet continue to dismiss the lower statistics from players like Dale Murphy, who we know was clean. Then I’d quote the only sane writer, ESPN’s Jayson Stark. I might use this quote:

Murphy’s stats may not look so dazzling stacked up against the numbers of today. But in his heyday — the decade of the ’80s — Murphy got more hits and scored more runs than anyone in the National League, tied Mike Schmidt for most RBI and was second to Schmidt in homers. He was also a back-to-back MVP, a five-time Gold Glove winner, a proud member of the 30-Homer, 30-Steal Club and a big enough star to lead the entire sport in All-Star votes in 1985. So he sure deserves to be getting more than 56 stinking votes.

This year, 50 voters marked Murph on their ballot, which is fewer than 10%. Shame on the writers, but I shouldn’t be surprised given that two writers didn’t even deem Tony Gwynn or Call Ripken worthy, casting blank ballots. The process needs to change, or at least waive Murph’s remaining eligibility and send his candidacy to the Veterans Committee. That’s his only chance to claim his rightful spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

But, no, I’m not going to bother with a post this year to express my outrage. That would be redundant.

The scalpel will not teach responsibility.

This editorial is a mess, so it’ll be easiest to just jump in:

In inner Sydney it has been estimated that between 10 and 18 per cent of the homosexual population are HIV/AIDS-affected, similar to the UN’s figures for parts of Africa.

In NSW and Victoria, the rate of diagnosis of infectious syphilis doubled between 2001 and 2005, “almost entirely through increased numbers of cases among homosexual men”.

Alarmingly, the NSW Government has failed to take the smallest step toward preventing the spread of AIDS and syphilis, though still parading its support for the homosexual community’s annual orgy of self-celebration, the mardi gras.

You know where this is going, right? I’ll get to that in a moment, but it’s impossible not to also highlight the implication of “the homosexual community’s annual orgy of self-celebration” as an important facet in this essay. It will return. But let’s get back to what is the painfully inevitable nonsense masquerading as a strategy:

The step that NSW Health Minister John Hatzistergos won’t take is the adoption of circumcision as a routine surgical procedure.

His health department describes the removal of the foreskin as “social circumcision” and not to be performed in the state’s hospitals unless a clear clinical need is established.

Last month, the World Health Organisation (WHO) established such a clear clinical need. It stopped two large clinical trials it was conducting in Kenya and Uganda because it felt the results were so overwhelmingly positive for the circumcised group it could not ethically proceed without offering those in the uncircumcised control group the chance to get snipped.

The writer of this essay, Piers Akerman, made the illogical leap from it being unethical to not offer circumcision to the still-intact adults in the study to demanding that the New South Wales Health Minister adopt circumcision as a routine surgical procedure¹ for infants. The WHO’s conclusion included the two key words Mr. Akerman is now ignoring, as well as buried-but-appropriate warnings that circumcision is not a magic bullet. As such, there is not a “clear clinical need” for sexually-inactive infants.

Continuing:

The NSW Government is in politically correct self-denial, as is Sydney’s homosexual community.

While spokesmen such as The Sydney Morning Herald’s cultural commissar David Marr and High Court judge Michael Kirby make gay marriage their gay issue of choice, their cohorts are dying because governments see no mileage in doing more than promoting so-called safe sex.

This at a time when a group within the homosexual community has been identified as promoting high-risk sex and actively pursuing infection or passing it on in a macabre practice known as “bug chasing”.

Mr. Akerman is woefully misinformed if he believes that circumcision will prevent HIV infections among those who are “bug chasing”. Circumcision is not immunity from infection. It will still be possible to become infected without trying too hard. But it’s easier to lambast gays as a group for the irresponsibility of a few than to focus on irresponsible behavior by individuals, gay and straight. The consequences should fall on those who are irresponsible, not infants.

Despite what came before the conclusion, it takes a strained thought process to propose this:

Reckless indifference to safe sexual practices by members of the homosexual community is responsible for most of the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Australia.

State governments need to get off their politically correct hobby horses and prescribe the operation to all male infants to give them a better chance to avoid this plague.

This is ridiculous, as should be clear by the two statements I’ve emphasized. Some gays will behave irresponsibly. This warrants circumcising all male infants, the majority of whom will not be gay? Unless we can identify which infants will be irresponsible when they become sexually active, routine infant circumcision is not the answer. Even then it wouldn’t be acceptable, but until that discussion is warranted, routine infant circumcision as an HIV preventative is little more than a universal punishment for potential future irresponsibility that only placates Mr. Akerman’s apparent animosity towards gays.

Update: For a refreshing look at common sense overtaking the bigotry and stupidity, read the comments at Mr. Akerman’s blog entry for his published essay. They started out badly, but recovered well.

¹ We’re discussing socialized medicine here, with the procedure paid by the taxpayers through the government. Parents in Australia can still circumcise their male children for any reason on their own dime.