Category: Stupidity

The law is for you, not for me.

I guess I’m not surprised that the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that partisan attacks are a one-directional mess aimed at the Bush Administration, but to somehow turn the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence into a profile in non-courage by President Bush is really beyond all intellectual credibility. Reading through the short essay, I shook my head wondering how the editors can consider themselves “conservatives”, as a conservative surely wouldn’t sully the rule of law with excuses, blame-shifting, and a fair dose of language abuse. For instance:

As Mr. Fitzgerald’s obsessive exercise ground forward, Mr. Libby got caught in a perjury net that we continue to believe trapped an innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.

An truthful man needn’t worry about losing track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom. The truth is the truth. If you tell it exclusively, the story never changes. If your story changes, you’ve lied. It’s possible to argue that Mr. Libby did not lie to the grand jury, I suppose. The jury disagreed. The judge disagreed. I’m convinced. He lied.

And President Bush is a small-minded partisan at a time when he claims we need leadership.

Catching Up: Random Links

I’ve been pre-occupied the last few days, so I haven’t caught up on my blogging duties the way I should. Refunds will be processed upon request. To discourage you from seeking that refund, here are a few stories stuck in my queue:

Courtesy of a Robert Novak column from last week:

Addressing a Republican fundraising dinner at the Washington Convention Center on Wednesday night, President Bush declared: “If the Democrats want to test us, that’s why they give the president the veto. I’m looking forward to vetoing excessive spending, and I’m looking forward to having the United States Congress support my veto.” That was more than blather for a political pep rally. Bush plans to veto the homeland security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Better late than never would be how I’d like to analyze that. Unfortunately, we’re mostly discussing a 14% increase versus a 7% increase and a 30% increase versus a 22% increase. This isn’t fiscal conservatism. Consolation from the lesser of two evils, anyone?

Next, government understanding of economics always achieves its predictable unintended consequences:

Beef prices are up. So are the costs of milk, cereal, eggs, chicken and pork.

And corn is getting the blame. President Bush’s call for the nation to cure its addiction to oil stoked a growing demand for ethanol, which is mostly made from corn. Greater demand for corn has inflated prices from a historically stable $2 per bushel to about $4.

Economic laws are inviolable, not suggestions open to the good intentions of government policy-makers.

Continuing on a similar theme, that politicians believe reality is subject to the whims of the United States government and can simply be legislated into existence, this:

“America deserves more-fuel-efficient cars,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington. But she added that “the only way consumers are going to get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress.”
…

“America’s strength lies in our ability to invent new and better ways of doing things,” she said. “The challenge we face now is transforming America’s energy policy — one that is well over 50 years old and too reliant of fossil fuels — to one that will make America a global leader again in energy technology and get us off our overdependence on foreign oil.”

Congress (and the president) can legislate creativity and innovation. And it comes with a centrally planned national energy policy. That should work out well. Just look at corn and ethanol.

Freedom for $1.05 or drugs for $2?

The words leading to the coordinating conjunction in this story’s lede sentence gives the reader more than enough information to know how this will affect drug enforcement policy.

A cheap, highly addictive drug known as “cheese heroin” has killed 21 teenagers in the Dallas area over the past two years, and authorities say they are hoping they can stop the fad before it spreads across the nation.

“Cheese heroin” is a blend of so-called black tar Mexican heroin and crushed over-the-counter medications that contain the antihistamine diphenhydramine, found in products such as Tylenol PM, police say. The sedative effects of the heroin and the nighttime sleep aids make for a deadly brew.

We’re going to get fear to justify more brutal attempts to enforce prohibition. It’s stupid, but typical. And being so obvious, it’s not what warrants the most attention. Better to start here:

“Cheese” is not only dangerous. It’s cheap. About $2 for a single hit and as little as $10 per gram. The drug can be snorted with a straw or through a ballpoint pen, authorities say. It causes drowsiness and lethargy, as well as euphoria, excessive thirst and disorientation. That is, if the user survives.

I expected a multimedia presentation with the requisite pause and ominous drumbeat after that last sentence.

It makes no sense to pretend that something like “cheese heroin” is bad. I’m sure it is. But what evidence do we get to excuse “if the user survives”? After all, we’re told that 21 teens have died in 24 months. That’s an awful statistic, but outside of some other context, it doesn’t tell us anything meaningful.

Authorities say the number of arrests involving possession of “cheese” in the Dallas area this school year was 146, up from about 90 the year before. School is out for the summer, and authorities fear that the students, with more time on their hands, could turn to the drug.

The first statistic we get is an approximation that 236 people were arrested for possessing this drug in the two years in which 21 students have died. I’m left wondering whether these arrests involved teens or not since the article doesn’t say. It does use the academic calendar to measure arrests. That’s a quaint device.

But looking at the numbers, are we to assume that almost 10% of users die? Highly unlikely, for no rational person would believe that Dallas police have arrested every possessor of “cheese”. (I’m sure they’ve tried, mightily.) I’m still left trying to triangulate a rational context for this hyper-fear.

Drug treatment centers in Dallas say teen “cheese” addicts are now as common as those seeking help for a marijuana addiction. “It is the first drug to have even come close in my experience here,” says Michelle Hemm, director of Phoenix House in Dallas.

Without hard numbers¹ it’s difficult to draw concrete conclusions, but I’m guessing the number of marijuana users addicts is high enough that a comparison implying a 10% death rate among “cheese” users is flawed. So the death rate is lower, as a percentage. What percentage are we looking at? Is the level of fear and panic implied in this story justified?

I don’t have the answer, unfortunately. Again, I’m sure “cheese heroin” is nasty, dangerous stuff. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t a message in this story about prohibition?

[Dallas police detective Monty] Moncibais then asked how many students knew a “cheese” user. Just about everyone in the auditorium raised a hand. At one point, when he mentioned that the United States has the highest rate of drug users in the world, the middle schoolers cheered.²

“You know, I know being No. 1 is important, but being the No. 1 dopeheads in the world, I don’t know whether [that] bears applause,” Moncibais shot back.

Decades of prohibition and we’re the best at having people use drugs. A sane policy would not continue pursuing prohibition at all costs. It would acknowledge that people will use drugs, despite a general consensus among fans of prohibition that drug use is bad. Reasonable officials would seek to minimize the damage from that drug use instead of trying to win an unwinnable “war”, even if it meant decriminalization.

But that doesn’t win elections or justify larger budgets. Fear does that.

¹ The next paragraph in the article:

From September 2005 to September 2006, Phoenix House received 69 “cheese” referral calls from parents. Hemm says that in the last eight months alone, that number has nearly doubled to 136. The message from the parents is always, “My kid is using ‘cheese,’ ” she says.

That provides more numbers, but I don’t think they help or hurt my argument.

² At this point in the story, CNN has a video link titled “Watch middle schoolers raise hands, admit they know drug users”. I laughed at the stupid absurdity.

“Congress shall make no law…”

The NCAA kicked a reporter out of the press box for liveblogging a game at the baseball super-regional yesterday. I find that absurd, but the NCAA can set whatever restrictions it wants. What’s amusing is the inevitable reaction from the reporter’s newspaper:

Courier-Journal executive editor Bennie L. Ivory challenged the NCAA’s action last night and said the newspaper would consider an official response.

“It’s clearly a First Amendment issue,” Ivory said. “This is part of the evolution of how we present the news to our readers. It’s what we did during the Orange Bowl. It’s what we did during the NCAA basketball tournament. It’s what we do.”

It’s clearly not a First Amendment issue. The government has played no part in this. This is a dispute between two private parties who agreed to a set of rules. Obviously one party is either misunderstanding or ignoring the rules. But the government didn’t violate any free speech right.

Convoluted hat tip required. Link found at Instapundit, via KnoxNews, which linked from Poynter Online.

Health care economics are not different.

Sebastian Mallaby is correct in explaining that Republicans have embraced economic stupidity surrounding globalization, as evidenced by its stance on immigration. Although the root cause appears to be more xenophobia than economic ignorance, the point is taken. However, Mr. Mallaby quickly loses any credibility when he switches to health care and Rudy Giuliani’s proposal to fix the system. His intro:

Giuliani is also spouting nonsense about health care — a challenge that the nation must address if it is to assuage middle-class anxiety about a turbulent globalized economy. As employers have stopped offering coverage, Americans have discovered that it’s almost impossible to buy decent insurance because the market for individual purchasers is plagued by a vicious cycle. At the start of this cycle, insurance premiums reflect the cost of covering the average person, so healthier-than-average people realize they are getting a bad deal and choose not to buy coverage. That leaves a sicklier group in the market, which forces premiums up, which drives more relatively healthy people to exit, which drives premiums up still more, and so on.

I’d like to see some statistics verifying that claim. I’m a healthy individual insurance purchaser, and I’ve found my premiums to be reasonable enough. That doesn’t mean I think my insurance shouldn’t and couldn’t be cheaper. I do. But I realize that the disincentive to switch to a robust insurance market devoid of a sole reliance on groups organized around individual employers is based on our flawed tax code, not Mr. Mallaby’s absurd theory:

This market failure is a basic fact of health-care economics. But Giuliani is oblivious to it. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, he indicated that he wants to triple the number of people in the dysfunctional individual insurance market without taking the one step that might fix it, which is to force every American, healthy or not, to buy coverage. Depending on whether he understands how dumb this is, Hizzoner is either a coward or a lightweight.

There’s so much to challenge. Most obvious, he trips himself in the beginning. If “health care” economics (economics is a science, remember) states that society will see a race to the bottom where only sick people will have an incentive to minimize their risk through insurance, then how exactly is this adherence to economics a market “failure”? It sounds to me as if the market is behaving exactly as expected. Yes, we have to rely on Mr. Mallaby’s misunderstanding of economics, but in his worldview, market failure cannot happen according to “health care economics” unless insurance companies ignore profit incentives and offer health insurance at a loss. I don’t believe that’s happening, but maybe Mr. Mallaby has evidence to the contrary.

That could be our endpoint, as it’s enough to dismiss his argument. That wouldn’t be any fun. There’s so much more wrapped into one paragraph. Not getting the results we want? Blame the market without looking at all inputs in that market. Ideology over facts!

I don’t know enough about Guiliani’s plan to critique it fairly, but using what I have here, how would expanding the pool of candidates for individual health insurance, which would spread risk further across the client pool for the individual insurance companies, exacerbate the problem? If it would work with employers, what would be different?

The answer is obvious if you look not at intention (affordable health care) and look instead at intended action. Here Mr. Mallaby offers only force. He has no interest in incentives, only playing the role of central planner. His justification is obvious later in the essay:

Instead, the Democratic candidates are focusing on helping the economy’s losers without restricting trade, which is exactly what they should be doing.

Why does he show no concern for why there are economic “losers”? I assume he believes that our benevolent government can’t possibly create losers. That’s capitalism’s fault. Because capitalism is only “I win, you lose”. It’s a fascinating narrative, even though it’s 100% incorrect.

From the rest of that paragraph:

John Edwards, the contender who sounded most protectionist in 2004, seems to have turned over a new leaf. He has admitted that trade benefits poor countries and has declared that arguments over labor standards should not be an excuse to obstruct liberalization. Meanwhile, Edwards has proposed a thoughtful health-care reform that would require everyone to buy insurance. He supports market-minded social programs such as an expanded earned-income tax credit and housing vouchers.

Market-minded social programs is as informative as it is bone-headed. (Mr. Edwards shouldn’t get credit for proposing stupidity.) Mr. Mallaby wants a socialist solution with a few free market curtains to pretty up the proposal. It won’t work in the way he predicts. Incentives matter. You don’t fix a disincentive by encouraging the offending entity to create new misguided incentives.

Hear the wind blowing through his ears.

I’m not ashamed to have voted against Bush for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, but it gets harder every day.

Responding to a question at a bookstore here, John Edwards said he has never heard of PETA, the animal rights group.

“I can honestly say I have never heard of PETA,” said Edwards. “They don’t want people to eat meat? Well I am not in favor of that.”

Can he possibly be that moronic? If he is so unaware of the news to not know who PETA is, he’s clearly not capable of ever being fully informed about our world. We have a president like that now, we don’t need another.

On a more fundamental note, is he really be such a dunce that he thinks somehow meat-eating versus vegetarian/veganism is going to become a campaign issue requiring a public stance? Alright, now I’m a little ashamed.

Link via Elaine Vigneault.

Not Acting Presidential

This lovefest for Democrats and their progressive rebuke of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is fascinating:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, while not a single Republican embraced the idea. Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Right. Allow me to quote Kip:

… If Biden, Dodd, Obama and Clinton are all so yippee-ki-yay to abolish this abomination, then why haven’t any of them actually introduced a bill in the Senate to do so? Recall that the House version already exists (although it is languishing in committee) — all any Senator has to do is introduce the same text. …

That’s obvious, and as Kip also points out, Sen. Clinton is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where such a bill would begin. So why exactly should those of us who think that members of our military should be judged solely on their conduct be happy about this?

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who also works for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, argues, “Iraq and the war on terror have created a whole new narrative around the issue of gays serving in the military.” Advocates of changing the policy increasingly argue that it is costing the military talent and manpower it badly needs.

On the other hand, there are political risks, which Republican candidates hinted at this week. If the Democrats emphasized the issue, even in their primaries, it could seem a distraction from issues that are more important to most Americans, including the war, gasoline prices and health care, said David Winston, a Republican pollster. Beyond that, in the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering.

Why should I vote for a Democratic candidate who can’t figure out that a narrative explaining why booting translators, who are in short supply, from the military during a war in which those skills are most needed is the perfect, impenetrable argument against such nonsense that the war demands institutionalized bigotry? If they can’t understand that, they are idiots incapable of formulating any strategy more complex than basic pandering. If they understand it, they are cowards afraid to challenge stupidity. I’ll vote for neither.

Post Script: Mitt Romney believes that now is not the time to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” because we should not undertake a “social experiment” in a time of war. First, as currently defined, that war is permanent. Quite the convenient catch-22. Second, Romney believes that equality under the law is a “social experiment.” I don’t know which point makes him more unfit to be president.

I don’t gamble online, but I like liberty.

I’m watching today’s proceedings by the House Committee on Financial Services. The subject is “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?”. I’ve already learned that Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus is a moron. I’m paraphrasing until I can find a transcript, but he had the nerve to suggest that Congress should not repeal last year’s anti-gambling bill because the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NCAA have all come out against online gambling. I’m fairly certain that the Constitution matters more than what David Stern and Bud Selig believe is best for America. I don’t recall electing them to any public office.

Also worth noting, there are several witnesses for the Committee. I’m only familiar with Radley Balko. While I’m sure he’ll overwhelm the Committee with something most politicians aren’t comfortable with (logic), I’m pessimistic simply because several members of the committee have already gone out of their way to praise a minister who will testify that his son ended up in jail as a result of his addiction to internet gambling. Good grief.

Also, Rep. Barney Frank is slaying the nonsense of the conservative members when they claim that no one should have the liberty because a few people can abuse that liberty in a way that harms themselves. Bravo. Now, maybe he’ll apply that to his other, less liberty-minded economic ideas.

Update 1: Rep. Frank smacked down Rep. Bachus by referring to our professional sports leagues as “arbiters of absolute moral superiority.” He drew a large chuckle from the tiny crowd.

It’s the lack of protein.

PETA is often absurd and ridiculous, more interested in publicity – no matter how negative the result – than actually furthering its cause. For example:

Citing the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is calling on congressional leaders to give vegetarians a tax break.

In a letter sent Wednesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), PETA President Ingrid Newkirk stated, “[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters.”

The letter added that vegetarians should receive a tax break “just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break.”

The flaws are many and obvious, so I won’t bother with them here. What’s important to remember is that, while every member of PETA is a vegan or vegetarian¹, not every vegan and vegetarian is a member of PETA or agrees with its tactics. Assuming that a dietary choice would automatically align someone with a specific group is intellectually shallow. Just so that’s clear, since some commentary doesn’t.

Link via To The People, with additional commentary at Hit & Run.

¹ The vegetarian/vegan debate is sometimes abbreviated to veg*n to include both without the cumbersome use of both words. I don’t know if PETA has any vegetarian employees or activists, or if everyone is vegan. I assume there are a few vegetarians, which is why I included them.

“Actually, gingervitus is the medical term.”

This story requires the obligatory link to “Ginger Kids“, the greatest episode of South Park:

A shaken family told how they have been hounded out of three homes — for having ginger hair.

Kevin and Barbara Chapman and their four children have been targeted by thugs for three terrifying years.

The youngsters have been verbally abused and beaten up, while vandals have regularly smashed the family’s windows and sprayed hate-filled graffiti on the walls of their council homes.

Only this week, the slogan “Gingers are gay” was daubed across one wall.

I find it hard to believe something like this could happen, so my crap detector is going off. It just seems too ridiculous. But small-minded people will find anything to taunt someone different. That’s not going away.

Wondering whether there’s a disconnect to the typical sort of nonsense directed at redheads in America and a taunt that includes “gingers are gay”, I researched the ramifications of the British slang for ginger. I found this dictionary:

  1. Homosexual. Rhyming slang, from Ginger beer – ‘queer’.
  2. A ginger or red haired person. Pronounced with hard g’s as in goggles.
  3. Carbonated drink, such as cola. [Scottish use]

Who knew? And I didn’t realize that it’s pronounced with a hard “g”. Overall a banged-up mental process to arrive at such a derogatory term, but still fascinating.

For an example, consider this story from December in the UK:

The BBC has upheld a complaint against Jeremy Clarkson, the Top Gear presenter, after he described a car as a “bit gay”.
…

He provoked the ire of the gay community when he asked a member of the show’s audience if he would buy a two-seater Daihatsu Copen, retailing at £13,495. The man said, “No, it’s a bit gay”, to which Clarkson added: “A bit gay, yes, very ginger beer.”

Story link via Fark. “Ginger beer” link via Citizen Crain, where you’ll find good commentary on the free speech implications of this example. Daihatsu Copen here. A better image here.