Category: Ranting

Like a President Bush veto threat, only more ridiculous

If Rep. Tom Davis wants to be involved in baseball so badly, he should retire from Congress and apply for a job with Major League Baseball or one of its teams. Instead, we’re stuck with more meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with him or his supposed authority to conduct hearings anywhere on any topic he wants.

The Virginia Republican, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, spoke to a crowd in front of RFK Stadium, where elected officials from across the region gathered to denounce Comcast’s refusal to carry the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, the regional network created by Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos and Major League Baseball.
…

Comcast, which currently carries Orioles games on Comcast SportsNet, sued [Orioles owner Peter] Angelos, contending that he improperly terminated the Orioles’ contract with Comcast. A Montgomery County, Md., judge dismissed the lawsuit, but Comcast is appealing.

Davis said his staff would meet with officials from Comcast, Major League Baseball and the Orioles in the coming days to try to resolve the problem. But he warned that congressional hearings might be necessary if informal talks fail.

Why might they be necessary? Explain to me why the House Government Reform Committee feels that a dispute between two television networks and a baseball team falls under its jurisdiction. Show me how this isn’t a power grab or indulging in a fetish. I’m waiting.

The President gets candid

Speaking on the Medicare prescription drug benefit today, President Bush defended the early missteps with an amazingly candid piece of logic:

“Anytime Washington passes a new law, sometimes the transition period can be interesting,” the president said.

It’s a good thing that “any time” doesn’t apply to the PATRIOT Act. We wouldn’t like the implications of that much. Nope, not at all. Those of us who care about the Constitution, at least.

Put that on the posters and see how it sells

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

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

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

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

It shouldn’t be such an intellectual leap.

Hate is not a family value

I’d planned to blog about Wisconsin’s proposed amendment to include discrimination in its state constitution, but I’ve decided not to add anything. I still have plenty to say, of course, as I’ve demonstrated with Virginia’s similar disgusting betrayal of liberty, and I’m sure I will discuss this again as the election year progresses. For today, I recommend Kip’s post at A Stitch in Haste about the shameful Wisconsin amendment. He says everything as perfectly as I could’ve hoped to say it.

I suppose they’re Liberals now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrites, every one of them.

I’m corrupting my own mind

This isn’t shocking, but the FCC is back in the nanny business:

The Federal Communications Commission plans to levy fines against broadcasters or their affiliates for violating decency standards in about a half-dozen cases, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

One incident involves Nicole Richie saying “shit” on Fox’s broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards. The first obvious response is to state that it was the Billboard Music Awards. Nobody was watching. For those few who were, I’m going to guess that they’ve heard the word “shit” before. They’ve probably even uttered it once or twice. Our society still exists. Somehow.

Another case involves the unsurprising conclusion that Janet Jackson’s not-really-revealed breast during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show violated decency standards. I have nothing else to add about the specific incident beyond what I’ve already written. Instead, I’ll point out that human creativity provides me with uncensored radio, in spite of the decency cops at the FCC (and Congress). They may be violating one Amendment, but they haven’t figured out how to violate all of them. Yet.

Until then… Suckers.

That laissez-faire stuff is for losers.

When I wasn’t self-employed, I would’ve been a little more diligent in verifying my wages if I’d been non-exempt. After the first paycheck missing overtime pay, with insufficient resolution by the employer, I would’ve quit. But why be logical when lawsuits (free money!) could be had:

Large employers around the country, from retail giants Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Lowe’s Cos. to tech firms IBM and Electronic Arts Inc., are being hit with state and federal lawsuits alleging that they systematically failed to pay overtime to hundreds or even thousands of employees.
…

The suits stem from state and federal laws that require employers to pay time-and-a-half to workers who put in more than 40 hours a week. Salaried managers and independent contractors are exempt — unless their salaries fall below a certain threshold. Exempt categories are carefully defined to prevent employers from simply using the titles for workers to avoid paying overtime.

But the market won’t work without government intervention. Or will it? At my last employer, I received overtime pay despite being employed in an exempt position. My employer only paid me at my average hourly rate instead of time-and-a-half, so maybe the government should’ve saved me from my own stupidity of accepting more than the law required. It definitely should’ve saved my employer from paying more than the law required. What was the Department of Labor doing while I was being exploited?

I have no faith in my fellow Virginians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeat after me: activist legislature

Do you think Maryland Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel) asked this with a sincere concern for the children showing on his face?

Dwyer also sought a legal opinion on the procedure he would need to impeach Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock [ed. note: for her ruling that same-sex marriage restrictions violate the Maryland Constitution]. The attorney general’s office advised that the process is available only “for high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These are the kinds of people voters elect to lead them. Somehow, I’m not swayed away from my appreciation that we’re a republic and not a democracy. At least it impedes the bigots, even if only a tiny bit.

I was much angrier last night

Last night I tried to put a few songs onto my iPod. Unlike every other experience, last night’s attempt became a debacle. iTunes refused to transfer any songs until I’d installed the latest firmware update to my iPod. I downloaded the update (iPod Updater 2006-01-10) and installed it as recommended. Unlike the intended effect, Apple’s update hosed my iPod’s hard drive. Outstanding. Now, not only do I still have to transfer those few songs I’d intended to transfer last night, I have to transfer every song that was already on it since I had to reformat the hard drive to make my iPod work again.

Today’s lesson: Do not install iPod Updater 2006-01-10. It will corrupt your iPod’s hard drive.