Ranting – Page 7 – Rolling Doughnut

They should pay it in Euros.

This is only in the House so far, so there’s a chance, however slim, for cooler heads to prevail. I’m not counting on it.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.
…

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Before addressing the plan, is the economy “slumping”? On what economic data is everyone falling all over themselves to give away public treasure? On what economic data is everyone reporting that the economy is in a recession (allegedly) requiring government intervention? Speculation rarely makes for good public policy.

Now, about that plan… This is naked welfare. If a “taxpayer” hasn’t paid any taxes, he is not a taxpayer. Under this plan, he will be a welfare recipient. If that’s what Congress intends to do, it should be honest about it. Because politicians are involved, they can’t be honest. Instead, they wrap their redistributionist garbage in “for the children”. Children do not stimulate¹ the economy.

As for subjecting this welfare to an income cap (there is a $3,000 income floor), is there an expectation that lower income non-taxpayers will spend the ~~rebate~~ free money better than others? Are there restrictions on how the money may be spent? Momentarily ignoring income distinctions, there will be a deadweight loss of some portion that will inevitably be spent on unproductive consumption (e.g. beer and cigarettes). There is no concern for the effect of this nonsense, only whether or not it buys more votes.

To those receiving my tax payments, you’re not welcome. To those distributing my tax payments, you’re economically illiterate scumbags.

More thoughts, both specific and general, here, here, and here.

¹ Stealing money from X and giving it back to X can no more stimulate the economy than stealing from X to give to Y. Welfare is an additional problem, but it is not the only problem. President Bush’s preferred “solution” would fail to achieve economic stimulus just as well.

Like all nanny statists, his favorite word is “obey”.

Following on my last entry, via The Liberty Papers, I see that Mike Huckabee is spinning (video here):

On last night’s Hannity & Colmes, Colmes cited Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution and said, “That makes people a little worried. It sounds like you’re looking to have a theocratic state when you make statements like that, talking about changing the Constitution in keeping with your view of God.”

Huckabee responded, “Not at all. On two things. The context is two things: Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And, by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it. Nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform. And it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear… Except for you, Alan. I think maybe you should, maybe you should obey those things.”

Colmes said drily, “Well, thank you for the suggestion.”

Does he really think we’re all that stupid? He didn’t make a mistake in saying what he really meant. He said it with the right words. He’s just not happy he got called on his anti-American, anti-Constitution crap.

But I’ll take him at his revised word, if only temporarily, in order to demonstrate exactly why he’s using selective interpretations of the Bible because he is a bigoted fraud more interested in his codifying his bigotry than in hiding his lying. Remember the Bible passage I quoted in my last entry:

If a man has two wives, …

That is a statement of fact, not a refutation of the idea that a man may have two wives. Will Huckabee’s proposed amendment in order to keep consistent with his God’s law include a provision legalizing polygamy in the United States?

Mike Huckabee is a bigot and a liar. (The two flaws have a “strange” habit of appearing in the same person. Interesting.)

Consumer-unfriendly Software

I’ve used Newsgator as my RSS reader for several years. I’ve generally been happy with how it works because I like the ease with which I can set a structured layout to my folders. The “generally” caveat is necessary because Newsgator has a way of messing with my settings to force me to use its product how it wants me to, even though it continues to give me the option to use it my way. I must switch my settings back after Newsgator changes them every few months. This has been tiresome, but I haven’t liked any other readers I’ve tried. I’ve reluctantly stuck with Newsgator.

No longer. A few days ago the company switched me again to the beta of its newest version. It’s done this in the past, but I’ve always had the ability to switch back. Again, tiresome, but only mildly taxing. This time, though, I have no option to go back to the Classic reader. That’s a shame because the beta version is awful. And in addition to being awful, they forced my settings this afternoon from what I’d chosen.

I’m done with Newsgator forever.

I need to fill the void, of course. I like having a web-based RSS reader. Bloglines is okay, but I don’t like the way it organizes folders, or at least the limited way I’ve been able to figure out how to organize folders. I do not want everything in a big list without sub-folders. Every time I attempt to use Bloglines, I abandon it within a few days.

I’m now trying Google Reader, but Google is trying very hard to lose me. I can log in with no problem, as evidenced by my joint login to my Gmail account. But when I log in to Reader, the page refreshes to the login page every time. I will not use the product if I can’t use the product.

The help section suggests that my cookies are not set correctly. I figured this was the explanation, but when I verified my settings, I am within the range of what Google requires. I will apparently have to open my firewall settings below my comfort zone if I am to use Google Reader.

This is a terrible implementation by Google. Google wants to market stuff to me. I will consent to being marketed because I retain the option of overlooking that marketing. I will not consent to having my computer invaded so that Google (or others, inadvertently) may market me stuff in a more intrusive manner than having a computer scan the contents of my e-mail or blog entries for keywords¹. My computer hardware is mine.

There really isn’t much of a point here, other than to rant against stupid software design. I don’t know what RSS reader I’m going to use going forward. But I’m not going to accept a poor interface or cumbersome requirements just because the software is free.

¹ Google regularly serves up ads to me recommending circumcision services. It’s technology is stupid.

Professional juries would eliminate the slavery of jury duty.

I’ve been summonsed for jury duty. I am not thrilled.

Forget the inconvenience involved; let’s pretend that I would normally be indifferent to being on a jury. Consider the basic fact of what jury duty offers with respect to wages:

You will be paid an attendance fee of $40 for each day you report to the courthouse.

$40? For a full day of work? Hours of operation for the court are 8:30am-5:00pm. Assuming 30 minutes for lunch, that means the court will pay me $5 per hour. Federal minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. I do not have to agree with a minimum wage law to expect the United States government to honor that law. I will work no more than 6.8376 hours per day. Otherwise, I will sue the federal government.

My other option would be to ignore the summons and take the punishment:

The consequences of not reporting for jury service are severe. You could be escorted to the courthouse by a deputy U.S. marshal to explain to a judge why you did not report. You also could be fined up to $100 or imprisoned for up to three days or both.

At my normal income, it would be more economical for me to accept the full fine of $100 and three days in prison because it would leave me with the other seven days to earn income. Something is very clearly, very extensively broken in that system. Particularly:

Does my employer have to pay me while I serve?

No, but most private employers do pay employees during their jury service. Some pay employees in full, while others deduct your $40 daily juror pay from your regular wages.

I am my own employer. I can put a policy in place to pay myself while I’m absent, but that’s a fairy tale with no validity. There is no one else in my organization to compensate me in a socialist manner by subsidizing my absence. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid. So I’m back to deciding if it’s emotionally worth suffering criminal charges to significantly protect my economic well-being. Something is very clearly, very extensively broken in that system. I’m not buying claims of duty:

In our democratic system, there is no more valuable service a citizen can perform than to be a juror.

In our constitutional system, there is no more valuable concept than recognizing that forcing an individual to work at a job he does not want, for pay that is below even the minimum rate the government mandates for all other employers, with a specific requirement on how he must present himself for evaluation, is a violation of that constitutional system. It is illegitimate to violate my rights to liberty in order to grant another American his right to a trial by jury. Exercising my right to vote can not be morally wrapped in an obligation to submit to temporary slavery.

Being a juror should be a profession, with market wages and the liberty to enter and leave the occupation within mutually agreed contractual terms.

As long as they disagree, a smear is reasonable?

Following on my entry on forced circumcisions in Kenya, I remember that I don’t read Wonkette any more for a reason. Wit requires intelligence. Instead, Wonkette’s writers have decided that mockery without thought makes for better copy. No thanks.

In the comments to that entry, this damning attack:

Let’s see what our homegrown anti-circumcision fanatics do with this item.

In a context where criminals are forcibly circumcising men and boys to leave a preferred ethnic tribal mark, those who oppose such violence are fanatics. Because we see rationally understand that there is no difference in outcome whether it’s imposed (without need) as an attack or it’s imposed without need as a well-intentioned gesture by parents, we’re fanatics. Because we believe in applying individual rights to every person that can’t be violated by a stranger or a relative, we’re fanatics. Because we believe each male (and female) should decide for himself (herself) what should or should not be done to his (her) genitals, even if it means he (she) ultimately chooses genital cutting, we’re fanatics.

In response to multiple comments in the same thread, there is not a focus on every female genital mutilation or rape that occurs every day because every one in the civilized world understands that they’re both obscenely wrong. Those of us who are fanatics simply refuse to accept the discriminatory lack of thought that views gender as a valid dividing line for determining if an act is a violation of the individual. Few people will argue that the rape of a male is acceptable, but a majority mistakenly pretend that it’s acceptable to cut the genitals of males, whether or not he needs or wants his genitals cut. Somehow, age and relationship are deemed criteria for applying basic human rights to the individual male.

I’m not the fanatic.

“Mr. Tilney! Have a care with my name – you will wear it out!”

James Kirchick’s article revealing the many instances of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic commentary in Ron Paul’s newsletters over the last two decades is damning. I’m willing to consider the possibility that these were ghostwritten without his input, although the best conclusion is that he has very poor skills in exercising judgment and oversight. Those are not winning attributes for a president. Regardless, since I haven’t supported Rep. Paul’s candidacy, I feel no need to justify or defend him further. I’m more interested in the larger issue.

From Radley Balko, at Hit & Run:

Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul’s campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come.
…

I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.
…

Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I’m not so sure. If this new audience’s first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul’s campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

From an Andrew Sullivan reader:

The backlash from all of this will be harsh, no doubt. It might even leave a long-lasting mark on libertarian conservatism. I think we deserve it.

Sensible libertarians do not deserve any such backlash. I have not run wild promoting Rep. Paul just because I wanted to see what I value reflected in his campaign when it was never there. Maybe it’s a cynicism I’ve developed from looking at how government works and how people with illiberal, anti-liberty positions manipulate the government that made me skeptical of Paul. I’d say it’s probably more a wonkish desire to know details. I can’t claim perfection there because I do have a filter. But when a candidate like Paul espouses ideas that are flawed so close to the surface, I’m not willing to set aside critical thinking in favor of enthusiasm and hope.

I don’t think the problem has been libertarians supporting Rep. Paul. We all make compromises at some point. But we must be honest about them. We should talk about ideas, and when something makes them more possible to discuss in public forums, we should seek to use that opportunity. Still, labels matter. With even a cursory look at his positions, it was always clear that Rep. Paul is not a libertarian.

So now the careless have hitched our principles to an unstable vehicle of political expediency. Why? We knew that we weren’t getting a libertarian president in November, even if Rep. Paul was a libertarian. We’re often accused of being too rigid in adhering to how little government should do. There is no justification for abandoning that rigidity at the first whiff of minor success in the public consciousness. First impressions.

Now I’m angry at being forced into guilt-by-association. Thanks.

P.S. Title reference here.

The individual will be discarded in November 2008.

While not automatically opposed to a presidential candidate giving sermons, Mike Huckabee scares me. Giving a guest sermon at a church in New Hampshire yesterday, he said:

“When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ,” Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.

That mindset will reverse the push to Christianize the United States Military. I’m not interested. I don’t have a problem with religious soldiers, but our military must remain secular. We’re already too close to destroying that. Huckabee is not a step away from the brink.

“When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go,” he said. “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”

Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said “there is suffering in the conditioning for battle” and “you obey the orders.”

Huckabee’s economic populism reflects this. Citizens sign their lives over to the state so that the state may save them, including those who don’t vote for Huckabee. Even if it doesn’t reach into religion, the state knows better what you should and shouldn’t do.

Claiming victory is not the same as earning victory.

I stumbled upon an interesting list today at a site claiming to offer “News and Information on all aspects involving
Male Circumcision”. I was already aware of the site and its irrational support for infant male circumcision, so I’m not particularly surprised by this new-to-me list. I will not link it directly, but feel free to peruse the stupidity (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html#anchor13r) encompassed within the full list. It’s tilted “DEBUNKING THE MYTHS AND LIES MADE BY THE ANTI-CIRCUMCISION CULT”. Judge for yourself how well this pro-infant circumcision site debunks anything other than the pretense that its author is a credible sources of fact.

Allegation 13: Infant circumcision violates the (human) rights of the the [sic] child since it is done without his consent.

From the day that a child is born until it is old enough to make its own decisions, it is the responsibility of the parents to look after the welfare of their child. This means making decisions that they believe will be in their child´s best interest. If parents are convinced that circumcision will benefit their child, they have the legal and moral right to make this decision for him. … [emphasis in original]

Why refer to the child as “it”? “It” is clearly a “he” in this discussion. Do not disassociate the truth that the child is a person from the discussion of what will be done to him by others. Treating him like an independent person with his own opinions may lead to a different outcome. This is why many pro-circumcision advocates seek to circumcise infants. They know most males will opt against circumcision if they’re left with their choice. If advocates have to force an action onto someone for it to persist, the action is most likely illegitimate.

Of course his parents are responsible for his welfare. They can’t refrain from feeding him, or sheltering him, or any other standard of humane treatment. However, intervention outside of daily necessity requires that he have an underlying medical need. When circumcised, his foreskin is healthy. There is no medical need. Circumcision is beyond the realm of reasonable decisions parents may make for a healthy infant.

The troubling part of this attempted debunking is the final sentence I’ve excerpted. Look at the standard. There is nothing beyond parental intent. The parents merely need to be “convinced” about circumcision’s potential benefit to the child at some point in his unknowable future. This is a pathetic attempt at logic. This same unexamined trust in the wisdom of parents would permit female genital cutting, as well. Again, the parents only need to be convinced that it will succeed at achieving some nebulous outcome at some point in the future. Evidence – the standard for science – is absent.

This argument fails to surprise, of course. Parents determined to ignore the evidence of their ~~child’s~~ son’s healthy genitals will happily nod at an excuse that claims to validate their (illegitimate) legal and (alleged) moral rights. There is no regard for the boy’s natural human right to remain free from unnecessary harm. As long as he is healthy, circumcision is a violation. If his foreskin becomes a problem, circumcision is only valid if no less invasive solutions will work. Outside of that rare scenario, any surgical intervention on a child’s genitals is an unethical, immoral perversion of the parent-child hierarchy.

Parents are guardians, not owners. The child retains his rights.

There is no right to designer children.

Via multiple sources, but with public commentary from Rogier van Bakel, here’s a maddening story with at least one comparison I will make.

DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.

Ballard’s stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities.

A clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist.

To fit in better with the family lifestyle. The similarity to permitting parents to surgically alter the healthy genitals of their male children for any or no reason is exact. Harming the child – and cutting off healthy bits of his genitals or deliberately selecting an embryo because she will be deaf is harm – so that he or she meets the parents’ expectations of valid physical characteristics is immoral. It should not be allowed.

As Mr. van Bakel wrote¹:

For about two seconds, I tried to apply some libertarian gloss to the situation — parents making up their own minds about their offspring, how bad can that be? — but it just wouldn’t stick. Um, what about the right of the child to be normal (no, that’s not a pejorative word) and healthy?

Indeed. In a world of individual rights, the child matters first and only.

He continues:

These people are truly a bunch of, hell I’ll say it, immoral imbeciles. They want a child with a deliberately-bred disability because junior would “fit in better with the family lifestyle”? Great. It follows … that we should defer to legless parents who decide to have their obstetrician snip a couple of limbs off the foetus.

As one commenter at Nobody’s Business noted, we already (irrationally) defer to parents who decide to have their doctor² snip the healthy foreskin off their newborn son. There is an obscene, ongoing precedent for such abomination.

The ability to vote does not qualify the voter as an entrepreneur.

Consider this another reason I neither live in the District of Columbia nor have my business registered there.

The District could become the second U.S. city to require employers to provide paid sick leave to all workers, a move advocates say could protect employees from having to choose between keeping themselves healthy and keeping their job. Opponents say such a law could prompt businesses to reduce benefits and lay off workers.

The D.C. Council is scheduled to vote on the measure Jan. 8 after several months of negotiations.

Under the bill, large businesses, defined as having 51 employees or more, would have to provide up to seven days of paid leave. Small businesses — those with 10 or fewer workers — would have to offer up to three days. Two other categories of employers would fall in between, and part-time workers would get half the number of days.

What makes the D.C. city council so confident that it knows better how to run the businesses in its borders than the owners of those businesses? More importantly, what makes it believe that it has the right to dictate its opinions on proper compensation packages?

Employers would pay an average of $10.35 more a week per employee to be in compliance, said Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, which studies the District’s finances. “It’s not nothing, but it’s not huge,” he said. “It’s not as big and scary as they think.”

Does the business owner think $10.35 more per week per employee, with no increase in productivity or revenue, is not huge? She bears the cost. Her opinion should matter exclusively, in anticipation and response to what her employees demand.

To put this in perspective, we must consider what that $10.35 means in practice, not in subjectively judged theory. Assume the minimum business required for full compliance, 51 employees. The cost is expressed as $10.35 because it appears insignificant. But the first thing the business owner will do is multiply $10.35 times 51 employees times 52 weeks. The result is a $27,448.20 increase in expenses for the employer. What could $27,448.20 buy instead? I’ll guess employee number 51 in my scenario, although the logic holds whether we’re talking about employee number 51 or employee number 63.

The first city to engage in this:

The D.C. measure falls short of a law on sick leave in San Francisco, which became a pioneer when 61 percent of voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative to require that employers of 10 or fewer workers provide five days of paid leave and that larger employers give nine days. The law went into effect in February.

How many of those 61 percent of ~~voters~~ malcontents run a business? Mob rule (allegedly) seeks to raise everyone up to a higher standard, but serves little purpose other than to bring everyone down to a base level. Aside from its illegitimacy, it is cruel. I doubt seriously that the employee who might’ve earned $27,448.20, or the customers who will now be asked to pay the expense, would prefer the sympathy over the money.