Revising an earlier opinion

During the last presidential election, I suggested that I’d like to see a Kerry-McCain ticket. I had no misunderstanding about Sen. Kerry’s less-than-desirable status as a presidential candidate. Indeed, I voted for him because he wasn’t the other guy. However, I believed that Sen. McCain would be a great addition to the ticket. I was wrong. Now that I’ve had time to better tune my political radar, I realize that John McCain hates free speech. I would never vote for him for president.

A worse nightmare is the “dream ticket” proposed by Andrew Sullivan. I respect Mr. Sullivan, but I don’t get that pairing. Sen. Lieberman’s regular ranting against entertainment companies, most recently in the form of obnoxious threats against video game developers, bothered me when he ran on Gore’s ticket in 2000. My opinion hasn’t changed in the five-plus years since. No thanks.

—

In researching links for this entry, I stumbled on this article from shortly after Gore nominated Lieberman in 2000. It’s mostly a rehash of Sen. Lieberman’s disdain for uncultured speech, but this quote in his defense struck me as absurdly misinformed:

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, told the Freedom Forum Online yesterday that Lieberman’s selection was “good news and bad news.”

“Certainly he would appear to be preferable to anyone on the Republican ticket,” she said. “And we’re pleased he has supported public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and opposed flag-desecration (legislation) in the past, both important First Amendment issues.”

Public funding for the NEA is in no way a First Amendment issue. Reading “Congress shall make no law” as “Congress shall fund speech” is as wrong as the censors who want to stamp out indecency. Every one of us has an unalienable right to free speech. We do not have a right to have that speech funded by everyone. If we did, no publisher would be able to reject an author’s manuscript. No television station would be able to reject a sitcom, drama, or documentary. Absurd.

Satan hates our Constitution

In 1706 crazy people in Ms. Sherwood’s village decided she was a witch, so they tied her up and threw her into the Lynnhaven River. Since she floated, she was apparently a witch. Fascinating. So, which angle should I take on this news?

The Witch of Pungo is no longer a witch. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine on Monday gave an informal pardon to Grace Sherwood, who 300 years ago became Virginia’s only person convicted as a witch tried by water.

“I am pleased to officially restore the good name of Grace Sherwood,” Kaine wrote in a letter Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf read aloud before a re-enactment of Sherwood’s being dropped into the river.

“With 300 years of hindsight, we all certainly can agree that trial by water is an injustice,” Kaine wrote. “We also can celebrate the fact that a woman’s equality is constitutionally protected today, and women have the freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams.”

It’s nice to know that our state’s commonwealth’s governor can find time for an extra kooky publicity stunt in which to babble about a woman’s constitutionally-protected equality. We’re so much more enlightened now than ever before. Except when we’re not, of course. We can’t take this as a clear lesson that the citizen mob can go bonkers and adjust our civil protection of liberty further. Nope, that’s too obvious. So here’s what I propose: Ms. Sherwood’s guilt should be maintained forever. After all, the will of the people is most important. Besides, there’s a long tradition of prosecuting witches. Who are we to question the wisdom of that history? It’s older than our republic!

Long live traditional defenses against magic.

Politicians will find new ways to be hacks

Tim Lynch has an interesting position on term limits, reinforced by the news that Tom DeLay considers himself a Virginian now that he’s “retired”.

One of the best arguments for terms limits is that we have reached the point where members of Congress are no longer “representatives” of their districts. The latest evidence of that came in this morning’s newspaper, which says Tom Delay will be on a Texas ballot in an upcoming election even though he has now declared himself to be a Virginian. …

Mr. Lynch concludes that term limits are necessary to prevent the next generation from assuming “that this is all perfectly normal and appropriate.” I think the current generation accepts that. I don’t, however, think that calls for term limits.

We have the power to vote. We know what our representatives are doing, especially now with the pervasive access to information. We possess the power to demand local access and accountability within our individual districts. Yet, we rarely choose to exercise that power. Some polls suggest we might collectively seek change this year, but I’m not convinced. It’s too easy to see that (R) or (D) on the ballot and punch the corresponding button because that’s what we always do. The name almost doesn’t matter. Term limits won’t fix partisanship.

Abuse by our representatives is inevitable, but we have the power to stop it. It is our responsibility to do so. The founders designed our Constitution to protect us from the coercive power of government without providing for explicit term limits. As an extension of our now-accepted idea that unlimited presidential terms is bad, I might entertain term limits for Congress. But that’s a different approach. Using the “Tom DeLay is a Virginian” argument for term limits seems to offer little more than protecting us from ourselves.

Even if successful, it’s five years too late

President Bush spoke with Larry King on Thursday.

“When history looks back, I’d rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular,” Bush said.

I agree with his sentiment, but zero out of three isn’t good. Even in the times when he’s correct (recognizing that we have enemies, social security must be eliminated fixed), he doesn’t demonstrate the leadership necessary to solve the problem. Of course, objective criteria aren’t sufficient to conclude what’s correct and what’s merely personal preference. That has a good bit to do with his administration’s flailing effort to satisfy his base’s every unimportant moral whim.

“The president that chases the opinion poll is the president that will have failed policy,” Bush said in an exclusive joint interview along with his wife, Laura, at the White House.

So that’s not why he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment? What was it then? His opinion that recognition and respect for same-sex couples is important? I’m not buying that; there’s too much evidence to the contrary.

On his chosen course, regardless of the issue, history will not be kind. That’s unfortunate. As an American who didn’t vote for President Bush, I want him to be successful in the important tasks he tackles, within our existing principles. That’s the hurdle he seems unwilling to face. His words are correct. Will his actions catch up?

The difference is not so different

Today is the first I’ve ever heard of breast ironing:

Worried that her daughters’ budding breasts would expose them to the risk of sexual harassment and even rape, their mother Philomene Moungang started ‘ironing’ the girls’ bosoms with a heated stone.

“I did it to my two girls when they were eight years old. I would take the grinding stone, heat it in the fire and press it hard on the breasts,” Moungang said.

“They cried and said it was painful. But I explained that it was for their own good.”

“Breast ironing” — the use of hard or heated objects or other substances to try to stunt breast growth in girls — is a traditional practice in West Africa, experts say.

Normal anatomy puts the child at risk. The incorrect question, which is the only one asked, is not unique. Do the potential benefits of physical alteration (avoiding sexual harassment and rape) outweigh its harmful effects (physical damage, future health complications)? Is that reasoning familiar? How about this?

“You ask me why I did it?” said Moungang. “When I was growing up as a little girl my mother did it to me just as all other women in the village did it to their girl children. So I thought it was just good for me to do to my own children.”

African girls and American boys aren’t that different. Both seem to be the property of their parents, the integrity of their bodies at the mercy of the flimsiest whims of their parents. Subjective standards allegedly justify a bizarre cultural practice, and as such, allow its imposition. It’s considered normal. Good, even. As outsiders, we condemn it for the unjust violation it is, while ignoring the equivalent violation in our own hospitals. Or we feel it’s not our place to say something because who are we to force our beliefs on another culture?

Meanwhile, the mutilations continue.

Cover the First Amendment in Whipped-Cream and Pasties

Now that it’s been called on its bullshit, the FCC wants a do-over.

“Today the Commission, supported by the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates, filed a motion for voluntary remand and stay of briefing schedule in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,” the commission said in a statement. “It did so at the request of broadcasters who complained they did not have the opportunity to be heard by the Commission before it issued its decision in its “Omnibus” order in March. Additionally, the remand would allow the Commission to hear all of the licensees’ arguments which is necessary for the broadcasters to make these same arguments before the Court.”

I’ll ask the obvious: does no one understand that “Congress shall make no law” is an absolute? And is it any surprise that an arm of the government granted unconstitutional power by that Congress will somehow abuse that power beyond its own rules? The key lost in this story is that Fox is not one of the networks asking for this “voluntary” remand in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Good. If it sticks this out through to trial, I promise to watch every So You Think You Can [Insert Unwatchable Activity Here]? show its producers can imagine. Just include lots of T&A and swearing when if the court realizes that the bulk of the FCC’s Congressionally-sanctioned nanny-mongering is unconstitutional.

Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis

Exceptions prove the fallacy of majoritarianism

Where to begin today? New York’s Court of Appeals ruled that the state can continue discriminating against same-sex couples. Apparently, a heterosexual oopsy with birth control proves that gays and lesbians don’t need the same rights.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

My interpretation is a slight simplification of the majority’s opinion, but only slight. Because a heterosexual couple can create¹ life because they forget to use a condom, they need marriage rights to help those potential offspring. Even if the couple isn’t married when the child is conceived. Or seeks to stay married. Or intends to ever get married. Nope, doesn’t matter. This decision is crap². Remind me again who is seeking special rights in this debate?

Meanwhile, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld its citizenry-supported bigotry today. I don’t have anything to say about the decision itself. Instead, I’d like to highlight the patronizing majoritarianism of Georgia’s governor:

“We don’t do a referendum very often,” Perdue said. “But when we do a referendum such as a Constitutional amendment, I think we need be very respectful of the people’s voice and listen to that. I think the Supreme Court has done that and I’m very grateful for their action and their affirmation of the people’s voice in overturning the trial court’s opinion.”

The governor also said that he hopes gay Georgians do not feel marginalized by the decision. He said they are free to work and live their lives here – they simply can not marry in the state of Georgia.

I’d like to find a direct quote supporting that second paragraph. If his words verify that summary, does that come with a pat on the head? I can only hope that every gay Georgian says a big “Fuck you” on his or her way out of the state.

For excellent analysis of this decision, read this thread at A Stitch in Haste.

¹ Excuse me. Since we’re now going with majoritarianism instead of science, our bigotry must conclude that a man and a woman cannot create life. Only the monotheistic God our nation’s founders included in our Constitution’s First Amendment is capable of such divine action. And traditional marriage is his conduit.

² Read Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent. It’s not possible for someone who understands our principles defining individual rights could walk away from reading this dissent and still think the supposed majority has any right to deny a fundamental right to anyone in America.

“It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation,” she wrote. “The court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

Majoritarianism can’t accept that. The New York Court of Appeals proved today that it’s an activist court.

Digital Lefts Management in France

Two things interest me in this story explaining Apple’s possible response to French legislation requiring that songs purchased online be playable on any mp3 player. Personally, I think the choice is simple: Apple should close shop in France. When citizens in France are still walking around with the latest iPod every time Apple releases a new product, the government will have its answer on which the French consumer values more. Capitulation to the French central planners would only encourage other central planners in Europe. I suspect Apple pulling out of France would lead to the same nonsense surrounding region-encoded DVD players, preventing online purchases of non-compliant players. Permit central planners to invade on the small things and they’ll control the big things, too. So Apple should leave France.

More intriguing is this:

Members of the activist group Free Software Foundation have staged protests this summer outside of Apple stores across the country, with members dressed in colorful toxic waste suits and carrying signs that rate digital rights management software such as Apple’s as “Defective by Design,” the name of the group’s campaign.

Henri Poole, a Free Software Foundation board member, said that such software restrictions infringe on consumer rights and are designed to protect “antiquated business models.”

“We purchase [songs] and we think we have the same rights we had two years ago, but those rights are being eroded and the [digital rights management] rules can even be changed after you’ve purchased,” he said.

I agree that excessive DRM is indeed “defective by design.” However, as I’ve said before, I’ve come to accept that with the iPod and iTunes. I knew going into the deal exactly what Apple expects, what it will license to me. As such, I won’t argue that my rights are being eroded. Perhaps they are, but if I value something else more (convenience, functionality), that’s my choice. I don’t need a central planner to tell me how I’m supposed to enjoy my iPod. I want it to have Sirius functionality, but I’m not going to ask Congress to require it.

Of course, economically, I’m still discussing the French, so I leave open the possibility that French consumers believe it’s better to have nothing than something if that something is “exploitative”. If so, c’est la vie. I’m not the boss of them.

Have you paid your buck-oh-five today?

Being Independence Day, I want to put thoughts together about our liberty and what’s most important to remember. Had I sat down to write something myself, I hope it would’ve turned out like Timothy’s post at The One-Handed Economist. Every word but one is true, and that one word is only a quibble of hyperbole.

It has come to pass that we obtain freedom too cheaply, and thus we do not value it. Unlike generations before us, unlike our forefathers, and unlike many in much of the world today, we’re born with liberty and face no great struggle in keeping most of it. Or at least keeping enough to go about our daily lives without too much hassle. And parts get neglected, or we don’t feel too bad about giving up things at the margin: flashing an ID here, filling out a form there, being searched without cause this other place…. And each transgression taken individually perhaps isn’t that much, but taken in sum the results are disastrous. To simply enter into an agreement with a private party to hold our money, we must show two government pieces of identification. To move from one state to another by air, we must show ID and walk barefooted through the airport. It’s come to the point where we are not even secure in our homes. Liberty dies slowly while nobody is watching.

I’d change “nobody” to “everybody,” but yeah, what he said.

Who will care for the children?

Reading Andrew Sullivan’s response to James Dobson’s nonsense about why the Federal Marriage Amendment is still necessary, maybe more now than ever, I had a thought. If the Defense of Marriage Act is so wonderful and “federalist”, would the logic that a state doesn’t have to recognize another state’s civil marriage if it offends its citizenry’s sensibilities hold regarding adoption by same-sex couples? Would an adopted child’s parents have no parental rights if they move from California to Florida, for example? Would the state take the child, in the child’s best interest, of course? Is there anything different between respecting marriage and adoption as conferred by civil law?

I could be way off in my logic (I don’t think so), or marriage amendment supporters could argue that my scenario proves why the FMA is necessary (they’d still be wrong), but it seems that support for ignored marriages equates to support for ignored adoptions. That’s not a trend I think we want in this country. The naked bigotry included in Virginia’s proposed Constitutional amendment isn’t what we should want, either, but I expect that to pass in November. The battle for reason is uphill. That doesn’t mean I have to like it or respect the thinking of those who refuse to accept individual rights.

P.S. I find it amusing that Dobson laments the media’s conspiracy to thwart “traditional” marriage by writing about it at CNN. Yep, those crazy liberals, always trying to shun Christians.