Category: Stupidity

Do I have a need for liberty?

Whatever the other guy doesn’t like, that’s what you don’t need to do. It says so in every central planner’s happiest fantasies. So, you say you want your high-performance BMW to push 100 miles per hour for the occasional track day, but you just haven’t realized that you’re threatening someone’s life every moment you’re not on the track. Is it good that someone wants to decide that for you?

SPEEDING is the cause of 30 percent of all traffic deaths in the United States — about 13,000 people a year. By comparison, alcohol is blamed 39 percent of the time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But unlike drinking, which requires the police, breathalyzers and coercion to improve drivers’ behavior, there’s a simple way to prevent speeding: quit building cars that can exceed the speed limit.

It’s hard to pick what else I should excerpt from this horrible opinion piece; every sentiment in it is execrable. Where the obvious point that technology enables society to go much further than the suggestions mentioned is surprisingly ignored, I’d like to pretend that it’s because the author possesses even a tiny bit of concern for actual rights. I’d like to, but the author provides reasons to trust that no concern for rights exists. Consider:

Most cars can travel over 100 miles an hour — an illegal speed in every state. Our continued, deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices has no real precedent. We regulate all sorts of items to decrease danger to the public, from baby cribs to bicycle helmets. Yet we continue to produce fast cars despite the lives lost, the tens of billions spent treating accident victims, and a good deal of gasoline wasted. (Speeding, after all, substantially reduces fuel efficiency due to the sheering force of wind.)

I’m amazed the writer thought he could sneak the line I italicized through the reader’s crap detector. I could throw my computer through the windshield of my neighbor’s car, damaging his property. That would break the law. I could potentially do it. Let’s ban computers under a reasonable weight the average person could lift with ease so that we can preserve all the car windows of the world?

It continues:

Despite all this, we Americans insist on the inalienable right to speed. Imagine, for a moment, if E-ZPass kept track of exactly when each car entered one toll booth and exited another, which would allow local governments to do some basic math, dividing distance traveled by time spent. If this calculation showed you to be a speeder, the authorities would send you a traffic ticket. Lives, money and oil would be saved and proof of wrongdoing would be undeniable, but the public outcry would be deafening.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and the rights implied – is the correct approach, of course, because that allows everyone to use products with the potential for danger, as long as they use them responsibly. Do no harm and remain hassle-free. Harm and do not remain hassle-free. It’s not complicated.

In the author’s E-ZPass example, I’d toss mine in the garbage the moment such a plan passed the legislature. Should I assume the author would then demand mandatory E-ZPass usage? GPS tracking in every car? Is there any intrusion too far? It’s usually irrational to believe there isn’t, but nothing irrational is too irrational for central planners.

This should be comedy gold. Instead, it’s just scary.

Sen. McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. Interesting.

So now that the election’s outcome is now longer in doubt, I’m looking for the partisan nonsense suggesting otherwise. I found it at The Corner. Every piece reminds me why I don’t bother to read NRO, not for mockery and certainly not for information. A few winners from today, in no particular order…

First:

A Little Dubya Love [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Readers heard Palin say “nucular” and wonder …

Given his track record, let’s imitate Bush’s shortcomings. Brilliant.

Next:

Hope and Change—for McCain [Victor Davis Hanson]

The brilliant timing of the post-Obama speech/kick off Labor Day weekend in the appointment of the anti-pork, middle-America charismatic Palin … The 72-year old McCain is still running behind the Messiah, and who knows whether the sudden 3.3 GDP good news on the economy, the stability in Iraq, and cooling off of gas price spikes will hold or play a role. …

Alaska is middle America? But poor geography skills are minor in the face of clear delusion.

Next:

Why Sarah Palin is No Dan Quayle [Peter Robinson]

… But whereas Dan Quayle never actually did anything for Bush, Sarah Palin has helped McCain in two important ways: She has cut short the attention the press would otherwise have lavished on Obama all weekend, limiting Obama’s bounce. This has solved McCain’s most immediate tactical problem.

Forgive me for thinking a candidate should choose a running mate on credentials rather than political (mis)calculation.

Continuing:

… And she has thrilled the GOP’s conservative base, which can now in good conscience give itself to the McCain candidacy with enthusiasm—not feigned enthusiasm, real enthusiasm—for the first time since the senator entered the race. This has solved McCain’s worst strategic problem.

Give itself? That’s just icky. But thank God only the Democrats are looking for a messiah.

Finally, my favorite:

Jubilation, Cont’d [Peter Robinson]

A reader:

The surest sign Palin has fired up the base is the high volume of Corner posts on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day—and the fact that I am deliriously hitting refresh every 5 minutes.

This is why the “Stupidity” tag had to beat down the “Propaganda” tag for primary category honors on this post.

If you lie down with communists, you wake up without rights.

Now this is an issue, as we reach the closing ceremonies?

Ambassador Clark T. Randt Jr. pressed the Chinese government on Saturday to immediately release the Americans, the statement said. U.S. officials would continue to raise concerns about the detentions with senior Chinese officials, it said.

“We are disappointed that China has not used the occasion of the Olympics to demonstrate greater tolerance and openness,” the statement said.

It urged China to show respect for human rights, freedom of speech and religion.

It is a savage view that believes the best individuals should hope for is to be tolerated by a government.

The blunt criticism came just hours before the end of the Games, which have largely followed the plan of China’s leaders for a smooth-running event that would increase the country’s international prestige.

And the world played the willing dupe, despite the Communist government’s well-known lack of respect for human rights. Somehow, participating in the games would convince the rights-abridging propagandists to not be rights-abridging propagandists?

Under pressure to address human rights and free speech concerns, China said it would allow protests during the Games in three designated areas. But none of the more than 70 applications to demonstrate was approved, and some people were arrested as they sought the permits, rights groups and relatives said.

“We found it unusual that none of these applications have come through,” [IOC president Jacques] Rogge said at a news conference Sunday.

Unusual? What part of rights-abridging propagandist makes arresting people seeking permits to protest – an infringement on at least two rights – in any way unusual or unpredictable?

Similar thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

I’m sure I’m on the No Fly List now.

I had a post planned to mark today’s fifth anniversary of Rolling Doughnut. I tossed that idea after a bit of fun morning travel. An encounter at the airport, rather than boring platitudes about writing and obstacles, reminded me why I love what I’ve built here and why I will continue (despite recent appearances to the contrary). The ability to say when something is not right and what should be done to make it right matters, however small my reach. So.

I flew to Buffalo this morning. Everything was fine until I reached the security checkpoint at Dulles. A TSA employee approached me with a strange device strapped to his arm. Allow me to roughly quote our conversation:

TSA: We’re testing a new device that scans for liquid explosives. Do you mind if I scan your bag? It will only take about 20 seconds.

Me: Do I have a choice? Can I say no?

TSA: Yes.

Me: Then I’m saying no.

First things first. I worded my question with the same careful consideration TSA – all law enforcement, really – used to craft theirs. If they could search my bag just because, they would’ve demanded rather than asked. I’ve watched enough episodes of Cops to be wise to the game. Anyway, I already knew the answer to my question. But initially playing dumb makes sense because authority has a tendency to get mean after realizing it’s been out-smarted. Also, it’s more fun.

After I said “no”, the TSA employee walked away. I watched as he returned to the security desk rather than moving on to people behind me and began a conversation I could not hear. I knew what it was, though, because our national security-at-all-costs mindset is so predictable. I also saw what happened in front of me. I reached the front of the line and handed my boarding pass and ID to the next TSA employee. He eyed me a moment too long, then looked at my ID. He carried this on for several cycles, apparently trying to stare me into submission. Another TSA employee had also stepped in front of the line and held everything up. Crisis management with manufactured crisis.

The TSA employee with my boarding pass and ID handed them back. I stepped forward and another TSA employee, flanked by two more employees, motioned me aside from the other passengers and away from the metal detectors. The two extraneous individuals stood behind her, one looking over each shoulder. Our conversation:

TSA 1: Sir, is there a reason you refused the scan of your bags when we asked?

Me: Yes. I asked if I had a choice. He said yes. So I said no. I don’t see how that gives you a reason to pull me aside now.

TSA 2: You do understand why we do this?

Me: I have rights. I’m exercising them. Are we done?

TSA 1: Yes.

I proceeded through security with no more trouble, which was a nice surprise. Still, the TSA’s policy approach to security is clear. Submit. Don’t question. Stand up for your rights, or even mere logic, and we will make your life hell, even if it’s only in this inconvenience. You don’t want another 9/11, do you? But who feels better knowing that the full attention of at least seven TSA employees focused on one man exercising his rights? That’s nothing more than security theater.

It was an interesting way to celebrate Rolling Doughnut’s fifth anniversary and to remember why I’ll be here for another five and beyond.

Update: I just opened my checked bag. Everything had been searched thoroughly and haphazardly, or perhaps maliciously. My toiletries bag was unzipped, a pocket in my suitcase was unzipped, and the car charger case was unzipped. All three were zipped when I finished packing my suitcase this morning. And my clothes were stuffed back in.

Monkey Smile Jamboree

In three minutes, this video neatly summarizes much that is wrong with the American mindset surrounding infant male circumcision.

After a bit about “what is circumcision”, we have this exchange:

Teen: “Does it hurt the baby?”
Adult: “It doesn’t feel good, but they don’t remember it.”
Teen: “Yeah, but it doesn’t matter the memory of pain, it matters the pain or not.”

The teen has a natural, reflexive push for simple logic. She gets it entirely correct. As I’ve argued before, following the “he won’t remember it” angle could justify anything short of murder. Something else (ethics, medical need) must get in the way, rendering “he won’t remember it” irrelevant. He will experience it. That matters.

Continuing on through the video, the adult pushes to replace logic with emotional conditioning. One of the teen girls asks why all (circumcised) men have “an awkward scar around their penis”. After laughter and a bit of disbelief, the adult responds:

“He’s talking about probably the separation from the shaft and the head, okay?”

This is ignorant. A scar results from every circumcision. It may be at the separation of the shaft and the glans, although it’s usually further down the shaft than that. (Not much, unfortunately, since there are nerve endings in the now-excised foreskin.) But there is a scar. No circumcised male is unique in being free of this inevitability. Any person who’s seen a circumcised penis, or even the result of another surgery, knows this if he or she is willing to acknowledge reality despite its interference with preferred fantasy.

Next comes the low point of the discussion from the adult:

“You want your husband or boyfriend or whoever… your husband, yeah, there we go, to be circumcised.”

If I told my (fictional) son that he wants his wife or girlfriend or whoever to be large-breasted, implying that he shouldn’t be with a smaller-breasted woman because their natural bodies are defective, you would consider me a piggish ass. Rightly so. Forcing one person to conform to the opinion of another is wrong. Including when it involves surgery. Especially when it involves children.

We all remember our economics, right? All tastes and preferences are subjective. Even if I ignore the preferences of the male subjected to circumcision so that he will presumably please his future partner’s aesthetic preference, as this woman does, what about the subjective tastes and preferences of these females? They’re entitled to their own opinion, as long as it’s the adult’s opinion that foreskins are gross? Conformity for all? That is wrong.

Apart from witnessing how the development of a young mind is perverted by an adult’s careless lack of curiosity, this video is instructive of how males are not the only people injured via circumcision. We expect conformity among females. They just get less unlucky in this debate. We achieve their conformity through manipulation rather than mutilation.

Human Resources Award Winner

As if I needed another reason to hate the Party Before Principle mentality that pollutes politics, this:

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors, according to an inspector general’s report released today.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, said investigators, who interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other job seekers at Justice. Sampson developed a system to screen immigration judge candidates based on improper political considerations and routinely took recommendations from the White House Office of Political Affairs and Presidential Personnel, the report said.

Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs: “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” the report said. One former Justice Department official told investigators she had complained that Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion, according to the report.

A novelist wouldn’t write something so ridiculous because no reader would believe it, yet this too-stupid-for-make-believe mindset is how the Bush Administration tried to rebuild our justice system. Permanent majority and all that. I’ll pass.

Not that I think Democrats will not be ridiculous in their own way when they regain control in November. Hopefully they won’t appoint a new Monica Goodling. But if they do, no doubt he or she will be an economist. “What is it about the profit motive that you most distrust?”

Life Lesson of the Day

I thought everyone knew this by now, but microwave ovens and metal containers do not mix. I’ve known this for twenty-five years. I also have second-hand experience proving this. I witnessed a beef sandwich quickly appear as its flaming foil wrapper melted away one evening while working fast food as a teenager. Yet, there I stood today in my office pantry, smelling the remnants of some food item burning inside an aluminum foil bowl inside the microwave. The fun was over before I arrived, but I established a mental note in the front of my mind to always know my location with respect to the nearest fire exits in my building. It appears I will need them at some future date.

As you were.

At least the stock is up today.

The latest news in the proposed Sirius-XM merger is too similar to recent demands to be anything other than caving to someone’s rent-seeking, so only a quick summary is necessary:

FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, wants the companies to cap prices for six years and make one-quarter of their satellite capacity available for public interest and minority programming, among other conditions.

If the companies agree, Adelstein told the AP that he will support the deal.

Let’s ignore the death reality the merged company would face if it agrees to cap prices for six years and the government continues to contribute mightily to inflation. Why bother with concerns that expenses for the company could increase substantially in six years? Forget¹ that. And let’s also ignore how the influence is being peddled here to benefit Adelstein. It’s offensive, but I do not care more now than my already high libertarian frustration with our unnecessary, unwise regulatory scheme. Hopefully his vote won’t be necessary because two commissioners have already announced support, with a third, Deborah Taylor Tate, expected to support the merger. (She, like the commissioners who’ve decided to vote “Yes”, is a Republican.) Instead, I’m more cynically amused by Adelstein’s concern:

“It’s critical that if we’re going to allow a monopoly, that we put in adequate consumer protections and make sure they’re enforced,” Adelstein said.

The government dictated the existing market when it determined exactly two companies would offer satellite radio services. It is irrational to now complain about unacceptable market conditions. If we humor Adelstein’s fears, a duopoly is hardly better than a monopoly, yet years of experience have shown that satellite radio is not able to price itself as it pleases, or offer limited entertainment choices as a cost-saving measure. Customers began flocking to Sirius when Howard Stern joined the company. I suspect they will flee when he retires. The range of entertainment choices is too large. The executives of Sirius and XM know this, so they seek to stay competitive with a merger. The members of Congress and the FCC are the only people under the delusion that the merged company will gain monopoly power.

Adelstein has an interesting, if unsurprising, solution:

Adelstein also wants to set up an enforcement regime to make sure the companies adhere to the conditions, something that was not outlined in the previous voluntary offer.

So it’s not okay for a merged Sirius-XM to have (the perception of) monopoly power, but it’s necessary for a new regime to have monopoly power to enforce the FCC’s limitations. A government enforcement regime would be benevolent in ways that Sirius-XM would be inherently incapable of acting. Obviously. Would a central planner mislead you?

When the companies announced their proposed merger in February 2007, I’d hoped they could complete the merger in time for me to receive part of the 2008 baseball season on Sirius. I’m now doubting I’ll experience any of the 2009 season on Sirius. I will not thank the FCC for its awful effort at looking after my interests as a consumer.

¹ <cynicism>Obama won’t let that happen!</cynicism>

The leftists can defend themselves.

Via a friend’s tip, a few anti-gay bigots are protesting McDonald’s for some reason or other. Sometimes the idiocy – something about exposing McDonald’s sinful bowing before the Homosexual Agenda&#153, I think – is so ridiculous that it just isn’t worth my time to investigate closely. As evidence, consider the statement by the protest’s organizer, Peter LaBarbera, as reported by Good As You:

“The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group.”

Wow. I see that LaBarbera has been so busy investigating the Homosexual Agenda&#153 that he doesn’t understand a few things about vegans. One, I have a family, although I’m about as indifferent as I can be to any concern over whether Peter LaBarbera thinks I’m a good family person. Especially if being good means hating people for who they are, as opposed to liking a person who chooses to be an ass.

Two, some vegans might hate America, but those vegans do not hate America because of veganism. But if LaBarbera took a quick (non-gay) stroll around Rolling Doughnut, he’d figure out have all the information necessary to know that I love America and its ideals. Not enough to endorse everything America does, which naturally makes me a pinko, I know. Still, I love it enough that it’s hardly plausible to lump me in with people who hate America. If I want to be embarrassingly stupid, I might suggest that LaBarbera is an America-hating terrorist because his dietary choices match those of Osama bin Laden. But I won’t because I’m not a complete moron.

Three, “fringe” is a very subjective term. I would think that, of course, since if I thought veganism was wrong, I’d change. I don’t because I think I’m right. Many fringe opinions in American history have become the norm. So, fringe doesn’t mean bad. Also, forgive me if I don’t take my ideas from the popularity contest view of what is acceptable rather than a reasoned consideration of principles.

Four, McDonald’s is not exactly vegan-friendly. The french fries aren’t even vegetarian. The key difference, though, is that McDonald’s ignores me because I am not in it’s large, core market. I am on its fringe, but it doesn’t feel compelled to express complete contempt for me. I didn’t think that was noble, but LaBarbera makes me wonder if I set the bar too high.

Post Script: I suspect I belong to at least one other group LaBarbera despises as part of the “anti-American fringe”.

Headline of the Day

Yesterday, actually, but I’ve been busy.

Democrats See a Need for Further Economic Stimulus

This should probably be filed under “Duh”, if I had such a category. I’ll assign “Propaganda”. But let’s consider the idea.

“We ought to see how the first one works,” Mr. Bush said. “Let it run its course. I’m an optimist.”

Oh, wait, that’s considering the issue. That’s not how politicians work. (That President Bush was complicit in the first round of Free Money and will inevitably sign the second round is noted and irrelevant for my purpose here.) Instead, they seem to believe they can do nothing wrong. Forget that some checks from the first round of Free Money haven’t been mailed. It’s not working. It’s not not working because it’s a stupid idea. Of course. No, it’s not working because it’s not enough. So, Free Money is good. More Free Money is better. Who doesn’t realize that $1,200 (or whatever figure the Congress invents as necessary) is better than $600? I’d raise my hand, but my opinion doesn’t count. I was ineligible for the first $600 of Free Money that I will nevertheless have to repay.

I’m realistic without being cynical about the value of our currency. That position is getting harder to maintain. For example, I’d love to have a contract to supply the paper the government uses to print all the new money it keeps imagining. And I’m honestly thinking of how fascinating the loop will be when the Fed has to raise interest rates to pay for the money Congress prints. At least the worthless paper will earn high returns!