Congress should stamp Return to Sender upon receipt

Couldn’t the Bush administration achieve this through a presidential signing statement? Why go through the established process if executive power is plenary?

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “outrages upon [the] personal dignity” of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts — such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — that fall short of torture.

I’d like to believe that this is a cowardly admission that some of our government’s policies are dishonorable (and illegal), but that’s too optimistic. Instead, I suspect the spin will involve thwarting a plot by activist judges, prosecutors, and politicians (traitorous Democrats, no doubt) to eliminate useful interrogation techniques because those nefarious individuals want our enemies to win. Or something. The president, he knows best. The only consolation is that the administration didn’t let this slide and then offer pardons for anyone convicted before January 2009. (I’m assuming the next president could pardon future patriots convicted of outrages upon personal dignity, since we’re at a permanent conservative majority.) Either way, this is shameful and should be rejected by the Congress.

Just because I like this quote:

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”

This administration has obfuscated enough.

It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.

I’d like to believe that Congressional incumbents should be worried come November, but I’m willing to predict now that the status quo will win. Why, when the polling evidence indicates change may be imminent? Consider:

Most Americans describe themselves as being in an anti-incumbent mood heading into this fall’s midterm congressional elections, and the percentage of people who approve of their own representative’s performance is at the lowest level since 1994, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
…

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative’s performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

History may suggest that such numbers spell doom for the current Congress, but I’m stuck with the 55 percent approval number. Unless I’m mistaken, 55 percent is a majority sufficient to keep incumbents where they are, spending money and legislating liberties away. When the election shows that people are willing to step away from the usual vote for a recognizable name, and away from a vote for more federal “freebies”, I’ll believe that it’s 1994 all over again.

* Title reference here

Popular and expensive doesn’t equate public good

I’m more intrigued by the background of how this case made it to court than I am in the specific ruling:

The park district described the dispute as “a far-reaching issue of great public importance,” while the Bears argued that the real heart of the disagreement was money.

The [Chicago] Bears claimed that the park district, which owns Soldier Field, simply didn’t want to pay the additional cost of having police pat down thousands of fans arriving for games.

The park district refused to conduct the searches last season, and the team hired a private security firm to do it. Fans were searched before the final home game and a playoff game.

I’m a tad confused as to why the park district would sue, so the judge’s ruling that the it lacks standing seems correct. Yet, I’m amazed at how the issue arose. Presumably the Bears have a lease for Soldier Field, and presumably that lease indicates if game security is provided (or not, by omission). Since that isn’t indicated in the story, I’m working under the impression that it’s not stated. If I’m correct, can the Bears possibly be so arrogant as to expect the park district will provide it security services as the team deems appropriate? The public handout of a cheap stadium isn’t enough?

The better scenario is for the team to operate its own stadium, and provide the security it deems appropriate. If the fans deem the search requirement onerous and unfair, they won’t attend. The team can’t search a fan on his couch. If this results in harm to the team, it’s worthwhile to remember that the team is not entitled to any guarantee of revenue or continued existence. That’s a bit like the burden every other business in America faces.

——-

Previous thoughts here, although my opinion has changed since I wrote that entry. I must’ve still been upset by that loss by the Redskins to express the proper skepticism for the searches.

Not so much the Ha-Ha

I’d planned to avoid discussing the mess that is Mel Gibson, but I’m sick of reading this story in all its self-congratulatory incarnations around the blogosphere and want to point out the obvious.

Another talk show host, Joy Behar on ABC’s “The View,” had a more extreme proposal for the actor, whose anti-Jewish tirade during a drunk driving arrest has been a source of incessant talk for a week. “He needs to be welcomed into the Jewish community,” Behar said to whoops of audience laughter, “by a public circumcision.”
…

Behar, who jokingly suggested the circumcision, said in a phone interview later that it’s not just Jews who should be expected to speak. “Any bigoted remarks should be addressed by right-thinking people of all kinds,” she said.

I don’t know the status of Mel Gibson’s foreskin, nor do I care. What’s telling is that circumcision is being used as a sign exclusive to Jews, and it’s clearly intended as punishment for Gibson within the context of the joke. And people are laughing. That somehow makes Ms. Behar’s joke “right-thinking”?

Here’s the obvious. Unless 85% of the American population is Jewish, it’s a tad absurd to equate circumcision with Judaism in America. Jewish? Circumcised. Not Jewish? Intact. It hasn’t worked that way here for more than a century. On that basis alone, Ms. Behar’s joke was stupid. [disclaimer] Yes, I know Gibson grew up in Australia, and his father is an anti-Semite. Both are likely important factors in Gibson’s foreskin status. Again, I don’t think it’s relevant, nor do I care. Ms. Behar wasn’t speaking to Australia. And, yes, I doubt she believes circumcision in America is exclusive to Jews. [/disclaimer]

Seen with the intent of circumcision as punishment, it shows a cruel streak that has no place in this discourse, given the superiority of Ms. Behar’s position with respect to Gibson’s bigotry. Are we to believe that circumcision as punishment has a place in society? I don’t accept that. Of course, I’m biased against the circumcision of non-consenting persons, which I believe fairly explains the basis of the joke’s “humor”. Would people who deem parental choice sufficient to permit routine infant circumcision find circumcision as punishment an acceptable practice? I hope not.

If so, what offenses would constitute sufficient justification? Ignorant speech clearly falls within Ms. Behar’s realm of acceptability, but I wonder what else she (and the people who laughed) would allow. As punishment for masturbation, for example? That’s not far-fetched, given the origins of routine circumcision of infants in America as a preventive protection against the ill-effects of masturbation. So where does it stop? I imagine there’s a line, but I can’t find one that’s civilized in this joke.

Note: I admit that I’m over-analyzing this. It was a joke, said on The View. I get that. But some of those women (and men) watching at home will have kids in the future. Kids will include boys, whose foreskins will be at risk due to irrational adult behavior. Many of those future parents already believe surgical amputation is a valid pre-emptive response to the fear of treatable conditions. We shouldn’t further degrade the public debate with nonsensical jokes that pretend circumcision is funny, or that circumcision as punishment is an intelligent response to bigotry.

A city full of green

What?

Robert G. Drummer has been a lobbyist for a long time. He represents the American Moving and Storage Association and the City of Atlanta. But one thing has not changed since he first left Capitol Hill as an aide in 1995: the number of African American lobbyists like himself has remained remarkably small.
…

But none of these analyses account for the basic, embarrassing fact of the shockingly low number of African American lobbyists.

Count me in the camp who considers this a small issue. I’m willing to concede that the issue of lobbying and lobbyists isn’t so simple that dismissing this fact without discussion is justified. As such, I’ll entertain this:

There will be people who will think it’s wonderful that blacks have been able to stay away from so tainted a vocation. I disagree. Lobbyists are integral to the process that produces our nation’s laws and regulations. When any group is not at the bargaining table, everyone suffers. And like it or not, lobbyists are among the most important folks at that table.

Lobbyists shouldn’t be the most important folks, which is what puts me on the opposite side of seeing this “under-representation” as a problem. Sure, it’s unfair and probably says a lot about the industry. Yet, I can’t get beyond the idea that, if I accept these conditions, then what? What must we do to correct this supposed injustice? What policy implications result, further entrenching feeding at the public trough for issues that have no basis in federal responsibilities other than the made-up interpretations of our Constitution we accept? When any group is at the bargaining table, everyone suffers. That shouldn’t be too difficult to understand.

It doesn’t make sense to reduce the influence of lobbyists while increasing the diversity of lobbyists. Senators and representatives should be interacting with their constituents, not the American Moving and Storage Association. If they stick to their legitimate responsibilities, they’ll have no trouble discovering things to do. That scares me enough. I don’t need extra influence-peddling on top of that.

Flavor Flav teaches economics

By last count Danielle had received more than 800 hits today, thanks to last night’s season premiere of Flavor of Love 2. My highest traffic for one day barely exceeded 100 hits, and that was because a blog with a wide audience linked one of my posts. Most days I slog through issues that matter (subjectively) on a grander scale than a simple reality television show, yet I don’t generate the traffic in a month that one post on Flavor Flav generates. There are various reasons for the disparity, which aren’t necessary for this analysis, but the one constant that remains is a lack of any kind of marketing. Danielle doesn’t link everywhere just to generate fake traffic, a policy to which I adhere, as well. I can only conclude that Google tells the story of the masses. Write what people are interested in and the readership will follow. It’s simple supply and demand.

Post Script: I’ll be watching Flavor of Love 2 from my DVR now, so I won’t piously claim that I’m appalled by the bottom of the entertainment ladder claiming more attention than the top. I just wonder where else those readers are going when they’re done with giant clocks and pretend drama, because it’s not here.

Like making Al Capone your spokesman

I’d like to think that Antigua’s complaint with the World Trade Organization against the United States could encourage the federal government to drop our nonsensical policies surrounding internet gambling (and gambling, in general). It would be great if a quick stroke of the pen could fix our stupidity, but to believe it will is a fantasy. So I put no expectation in the complaint’s prospects. But assuming for a moment that it could change minds in Congress, and acknowledging that normal sanctions by Antigua against the U.S. would be laughable, how does this make any sense?

So the Antiguans plan to ask the WTO for the right to impose sanctions that would hurt — namely, permission to copy and export U.S.-made DVDs, CDs and similar material. Hollywood is not amused.

What kind of connection is that? The U.S. government has an irrational, anti-liberty policy, which it pursues outside the United States, so that entitles Antigua to steal intellectual property from private businesses that have nothing to do with the source of the complaint, other than being (mostly) American? It’s impossible to take their complaint seriously, and I’m on their side. I don’t imagine the fair-minded souls in Congress will care for that recommendation, either. Thanks for standing up for the cause, though.

On a side note, this is amusing:

“Gambling in general, and remote supply of gambling in particular, raises grave law-enforcement and consumer-protection concerns,” the U.S. trade representative’s office said in a legal filing. Attorneys for the trade representative declined to make additional public comments.

Legalizing “local supply” of gambling via the Internets would do a lot to eliminate the “remote supply” concern. I do enjoy that gambling raises grave concerns for law-enforcement before it raises them for the protection of consumers. That’s a good priority list for the government to take. Only the most pro-liberty solution will arise.

Brain rot leaves me ill-equipped

From its assumptions I shouldn’t be able to respond to this with proper analysis, mostly due to the copious amounts of blow I snort off the backsides of my prostitutes (when I don’t get distracted by the room full of monkeys I keep to torment mentally-challenged children for my own amusement), but I’ll give it the old (state) college try:

MTV’s own reticence aside, we can think of another reason not to celebrate the past 25 years. Almost every behavior and image the station’s name conjures up is a reminder of cultural decline.

Think about it. The phrase “MTV generation” is routinely used to connote young people with the attention span of fleas and an insatiable appetite for the next thrill.

Stereotypes and directing blame at the purveyor of “pornography” instead of at the parents of the small minority actually impacted (impacted, not impaired) by the current incarnation of MTV who don’t bother to parent is so much easier. These editors should stop writing, sit on their front porch, and scream “Get off the lawn!” at the neighborhood toughs. Then we’ll finally realize our full cultural decline, leaving every one of us incapable of anything beyond anti-social attacks on the integrity of our upstanding past.

Let’s live in huts and wear animal skins

Ummm, the definition of capitalism is not this:

The deteriorating relationship between the German government and business was underscored on Wednesday when a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union called on the party to shed its “capitalist” image.

“The CDU is not a capitalist party,” Jürgen Rüttgers, state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia and one of the party’s four deputy chairmen, told Stern weekly. “It is a community of values that is not just rooted in materialism.”

Mr. Rüttgers should get his reasoning correct, since capitalism is not as he describes it. I believe the term he’s searching for is consumerism.

Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of equating personal happiness with purchasing material possessions and consumption.

Compare that to capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit. These include factors of production such as land and other natural resources, labor and capital goods. Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” (or corporations) to trade in a free market.

Capitalism, as Mr. Rüttgers should realize, means that individual Germans can decide how much or how little materialism is appropriate in their lives. The CDU’s responsibility is to get out of the way. I’m sure Christian social awareness will survive the purchase of a new iPod or twenty.

Lust for power isn’t a virtue

Inept responses to emergencies are unacceptable but understandable because humans are involved. Mistakes happen. But covering up an inept response is unforgivable. The threat of new attacks means that an honest accounting of our past responses and how we can improve them must take precedence over any concern for public shame or bureaucratic humiliation. As such, this is infuriating if true:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
…

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Tell me why we should grant ever-expanding powers to government over more areas of our lives when government can’t be honest about not accomplishing one of its few legitimate tasks.