A Stitch in Haste

The Georgia Supreme Court has granted an expedited review of a trial court finding that the state's bigot amendment violates the common and uncontroversial "one question rule" --

Gov. Sonny Perdue called for a quick review by the Georgia Supreme Court and said if the high court failed to rule by Aug. 7 he would call a special session of the Legislature to get another gay marriage ban measure on the November ballot.

Um, why?

Let's review: The trial court decision did not find any right to same-sex marriage — Georgia is not now "the next Massachusetts." Quite the contrary: Georgia's bigot statute (as opposed to its bigot amendment) is still very much on the books, and no defender of bigotry "traditional values" in Georgia need fear the uppity gays any time soon.

So why the rush?

Other than, of course, the fact that there is an election in November, including for Governor Perdue himself. Go figure.

Whatever happened to the warning that hasty decisions make for bad law?

But of course it's never really about good or bad laws, is it? It's about good or bad politics. And in Georgia, bigotry is always good politics.

---

Speaking of "the next Massachusetts," it might well be New York. The state's highest court is hearing oral arguments today over several same-sex marriage lawsuits. Gay rights advocates litigating the case, Hernandez v. Robles, are cautiously optimistic. Details here; my prior posts on the litigation in this chain.

Time to clean out the aggregator. Here are two stories demonstrating the fallacy that nanny-statism is based on objective criteria rather than the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling.

---

ITEM: New Jersey Governor Jon "Just Like Bloomberg" Corzine wants to pump plump you up --

As more than 1 million New Jersey residents look to trim their waistlines in health and fitness clubs, the state hopes to fatten its own bottom line by charging patrons sales tax on annual membership fees.
...
But the proposal has gym owners, patrons and health advocates crying foul over what they say is a short-sighted fix to the state's budget problems.

"We're here to improve our health and our lifestyle," said Hamilton resident Stan Jaquinto, a member of the Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Health and Wellness Center in Hamilton. "Why should we have to pay for something that helps us live a little longer, stay in good shape and cut down on our insurance costs? There are a lot of other things to tax out there besides people's health programs."

MY TAKE: If you really care about the "health care crisis" and the "War on Obesity," then of course you should be arguing for the tax deductibility of gym memberships rather than subjecting them to a sales tax. But if you care instead about finding more and more ways to extract more and more tax dollars from more and more people, then this makes perfect sense. Go figure. (Hat tip.)

---

ITEM: Across the river, a New York City hack politician wants new conscripts in the War on Tobacco --

Young New Yorkers would have to wait until they are 21 to legally buy their first pack of cigarettes if a controversial City Council bill is signed into law.
...
In fact, all tobacco-related goods, including cigars, chewing tobacco, rolling papers and pipes, would be off-limits to people under 21.
...
"We figured, just like the drinking age is 21, the smoking age will be the same," [the bill's sponsor, Joel Rivera of the Bronx] said.

MY TAKE: I've blogged about above-18 smoking laws previously. Both the United States Constitution and New York State law declare 18 the default age of majority. But as gays well know, the rights of perpetual minorities are always susceptible to infringement by the majority, whether in the name protecting "traditional values" or in the name of protecting the minority itself. You can decide for yourself which is the more obnoxious.

By the way:

Rivera is expected to announce another piece of legislation today, which is World No Tobacco Day. His bill would ban all flavored cigarettes -- except menthol and clove -- in the five boroughs.

A perfectly legal product, no more likely to find its way into the hands of minors than other cigarettes, to be banned anyway because one activist legislator is high on the ultimate addictive stimulant -- power. More on flavored cigarettes at this previous post.

"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?"
--Book of Mormon, Chapter 8, Verse 38

Just quick footnote to my previous post on the ongoing abuse of IRS tax-exemption by religious organizations that are politicking for the Federal Marriage Amendment:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has spent millions of dollars campaigning against gay marriage, on Sunday urged members to lobby U.S. senators on the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to being between a man and a woman.

The Church sent a letter to its congregational leaders throughout the United States that was to be read to the congregations Sunday.
...
The letter noted that the Senate was scheduled to vote on the proposed marriage amendment on June 6, and said, "We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."

Read the letter, then try to argue that the Mormon church has not willfully broken the rule against tax-exempt organizations interjecting themselves into legislative debates.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is accurate about one thing: "ye hypocrites" is exactly right.

Via Good As You.

James Taranto, editor of the increasingly embarrassing "Best of the Web Today" feature at OpinionJournal, continues his descent into hopeless unsalvageability:

As regular readers of this column know, we especially enjoy making fun of libertarians. Of course, some people who call themselves "libertarians" are just normal folks who don't fit the "conservative" or "liberal" label because they're on one side on economic issues and the other on social ones. But a true libertarian ideologue is marvelously kooky: relentlessly logical in the service of utter insanity, sort of a cross between Mr. Spock and John Hinckley.

His sole piece of evidence: an economic analysis of airport security waiting times put out by Tim Kern of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Because of course trying to put some numbers on TSA policies and inefficiencies is somehow analogous to trying to assassinate a president.

And of course Taranto can't even get that part right:

[I]n our experience the total amount of time it takes to go through airport security is well under an hour, except when there is a long line (which happens maybe 15% to 20% of the time).

Yeah, so? The cost of the TSA process is of course not the actual wait time for any given flight, but the potential wait time for every flight. Would anyone dare suggest that it is rational not to assume the worst delay but rather the average delay? Especially when the penalty for guessing wrong is a missed flight? Do the airlines and the TSA advise us to "take a shot and take your time," or to "give yourself plenty of time to get to the airport and through security"? If I show up early in anticipation of a lengthy security line and end up breezing through the process, is my time no less wasted?

That's not being a libertarian, that's being an economist — or simply a rational, informed thinker. This is somehow deserving of ridicule? Perhaps Kern's analysis is accurate; perhaps it's flawed. But why exactly should he be dismissed as "marvelously kooky" for even contemplating the issue in the first place?

Call me "relentlessly logical in the service of utter insanity," but I score that round to Kern.

---

Meanwhile, Rolling Doughnut critiques another portion of this same edition of "BOTWT."

''Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator..."
--United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)

I know I'm late to blog about the William Jefferson constitutional "crisis," but you knew that a textualist like me simply could not remain silent on this idiocy:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The key word in the so-called "Speech and Debate Clause" is of course "Arrest." Representative Jefferson was not arrested. End of discussion. (If you simply must have more, then also keep in mind that bribery is a felony, which is expressly excluded under the Clause. Two strikes and you're out.)

How can anyone actually read the plain text of the Speech and Debate Clause and conclude that there is any issue, of any kind, in what transpired in "freezergate"? What possible basis is there for calling this incident — as many are — an unconstitutional violation of "separation of powers"?

The following blather from OpinionJournal is fairly representative of this view, held by large Congressional factions from both parties:

With the separation of powers, the Founders created a system with inevitable tension between Congress and the executive.
...
[T]he Speech and Debate Clause ... arguably includes papers and other material in Member offices that are related to legislating.
...
If [Justice Department officials] really believe Mr. Jefferson is running a criminal enterprise out of his Capitol Hill office, they could always negotiate the parameters of such a search with House leaders.
...
[J]udicial warrants can never trump core Constitutional powers... This willingness of modern liberalism to confer vast new authority on the judiciary is itself a violation of the separation of powers.

And so on. Invoke every possible theory except the easiest and most obvious one: sticking to what the Constitution actually and unambiguously says.

Again, this utter nonsense is being spewed ad nauseum by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. And I do not mean to short-change the Democrats of the smackdown that they too so desperately deserve.

But let's focus on the Republicans in Congress and their apologists like the OpinionJournal editors. These folks are the exact same people who will scream from the rooftops that "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution" (a patently false assertion, incidentally). Neither, they insist, do the words "abortion" or "same-sex marriage" appear anywhere in the text. These same conservatives, who have so successfully purged libertarianism from the Republican Party (not to mention fiscal restraint), who allegedly praise their alleged "strict constructionists" like Antonin Scalia, suddenly treat Article I (not to mention Article II) like Silly Putty to be twisted, pulled and knotted in whatever bizarre way gets them to where they want to be?

What miserable, loathsome hypocrites.

Well, guess what, all you supposed "strict constructionists": The term "separation of powers" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Where is your strict constructionist god now? By what sick reasoning do you elevate a constitutional concept above constitutional text?

Neither is "separation of powers" really a prime concept underlying the intended goal of the Constitution in the first place. It is a mere corollary. The prime directive of the Constitution was not "separation of powers" but rather limitation of powers. The former was intended merely as a means to achieve the latter.

Petty little squabbles like the Jefferson search are not major constitutional "crises." They are, well, petty little squabbles, and in this case one that any high school civics student could figure out with just a casual glance at the Speech and Debate Clause.

But I suppose that any faux crisis that can help Congress and the Executive deflect from the real crises we face — constitutional, fiscal, military, cultural — will be elevated in just this manner. Make no mistake about it: Congress is not indignant about this incident — they are elated. It's just what they needed to burn up a few news cycles — which is increasingly all they care about.

New York's ultra-liberal mayor, Michael Bloomberg — who like all mayors has no business whatsoever mucking around in the gay marriage wars — is of course mucking around in the gay marriage wars:

Should the state Court of Appeals rule that gay marriages are legal, the Big Apple will start performing them, Mayor Bloomberg promised yesterday.

And should the state's highest court — which is to begin hearing legal arguments this week — rule that they're not, the city will lobby Albany to change the law, the mayor vowed.
...
In February 2005, State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that banning those marriages violated the state Constitution. The city appealed, and the ruling was struck down.

Keep in mind that Mayor Bloomberg personally ordered the City to appeal the decision finding a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That was a wholly frivolous act on his part, which could only be exceeded by the far more frivolous act of spending taxpayer money to lobby Albany over a non-local issue that he happens to dislike.

This is somehow responsible governing of the City?

Apparently Bloomberg's paternalistic, philosopher-king desire to save New Yorkers from themselves isn't enough for him. Now he needs to save the courts from themselves and the Legislature from itself. And he wants to do so with our own tax dollars. Because he's just that far above us all.

So to review: Bloomberg is for gay marriage, except when he's against it. And he's against it, except when he's for it. And he's in favor of involving himself — especially when he has no grounds to involve himself — always.

Remind me again how he's not just another decrepit hack politician?

Other thoughts at Pam's House Blend.

Welcome to The Grand Illusion...


Come on in and see what's happenin'


Pay the price, get your ticket for the show.


The stage is set, the band starts playing...


Suddenly your heart is — oh who am I kidding?


Wishing secretly you were a star...

---

Given the fact that this was a Florida - New York game, it turned out that there were almost as many Mets fans as there were Marlins fans — cf., this post. I'm told that the respective records of the two teams might also have had an impact on the fan ratio.

In any case, the Mets lost, 5-1, and most of the game was slow-paced and uneventful. Or is baseball always like that? ;-)

So my friend and I went to the Boca Raton Mall to walk off our baseball-induced hangovers when I spotted the following in The Gap:



These are -- I kid you not -- "Destructed Style" jeans.

People pay retail -- perhaps even a premium -- for brand new jeans that are ripped, er, "destructed." How convenient.

What can possibly be going through people's minds?

On the other hand, the great thing about capitalism is that dumb ideas and dumb product offerings have a tendency to die quick deaths. The same cannot be said of socialist central planning or the bureaucratic state -- the ultimate "Destructed Styles."

Go figure.

"Continental does not require you to call and reconfirm your domestic or international flights."
--Continental Magazine, May 2006 issue, Page 132

Dear Continental Airlines:

First, please note that I am a member of your OnePass frequent flier program.

On May 26, 2006, I was a ticketed First Class passenger on a flight from Newark Liberty International Airport to West Palm Beach, Florida. I had paid for the First Class ticket several weeks in advance directly from the Continental website. I had seat 2E pre-assigned from the time I purchased the ticket.

As late as 11:30p.m. the evening before my flight, the Continental website indicated no issues or concerns with either the flight or my seat assignment.

Upon my timely arrival at the airport, but not until after I checked in using one of your automated kiosks and passed through security, I was informed at the gate that in fact First Class had been overbooked and that I had forfeited my seat because I "was the last to check in" — even though I had in fact checked in more than 90 minutes in advance.

Neither I nor anyone I have asked has ever encountered such a phenomenon. The response has been unanimous: Since when does an airline overbook First Class?

Let me reiterate: I was not flying standby, not redeeming OnePass miles and used no third-party intermediary. I bought the ticket several weeks in advance and paid cash, and checked in on time. At no time was I notified, by either email or voicemail, that First Class was overbooked and that there was now some sort of "race to the check-in line."

The agent at the gate brought new meaning to the term "unprofessional." I was given no explanation and no options, but simply told to wait and that she would "get to me." Her demeanor left no room for doubt: I was not to be treated as a valued First Class passenger or OnePass member, or even as the victim of your breach of contract, but rather as a nuisance to be deflected from her easier tasks as long as possible.

More than thirty minutes passed with not so much as an acknowledgement of my existence, let alone any indication that my situation was in the process of being resolved or even on anyone's agenda. Courtesy, attentiveness and professionalism were nowhere to be found.

I must emphasize that at no time whatsoever did I use any obscenities or profanities, nor did I ever raise my voice. Any impatience or brusqueness on my part was the direct result of the agent's seemingly limitless apathy toward my situation.

Although I did in the end receive an alternative First Class seat from another agent (but only after even the coach passengers had already been boarded), what I did not receive at any point from any Continental employee was an explanation or an apology.

Flying First Class is not simply about a wider seat and free cocktails. It is, or at least should be, about providing comfort and courtesy throughout the entire flying experience.

How does the saying go? Oh yes: "You know that I have a choice in airlines." (As a resident of New York City, that is especially true for me.)

Although I fly at least six times per year, often more, to both domestic and foreign destinations, I rarely fly Continental. After this inexcusable incident, that is highly unlikely to change. Unless, of course, Continental is willing to demonstrate, monetarily, its willingness to make up for its mistakes.

Please let me know what compensation I should expect and when it will arrive.

Sincerely,

KipEsquire

P.S. Please note that this letter will be posted on my blog and indexed to all major search engines, along with any response (or lack thereof) that I receive from you.

cc: Scott McCartney, "The Middle Seat," The Wall Street Journal

I feel like I'm cheating on Diamond:



Meet Tebucky, my friend's cat. Football fans (of which I am not one), may recognize the name.



Tebucky is a very friendly cat, but unfortunately she has to live in a perpetual quarantine, since she has feline leukemia, which apparently is contagious among cats.

More pics of Tebucky:





Vacationing and light blogging continue through the weekend.

The Point Foundation, one of the top three recipients of my charitable giving*, has announced their 2006 Point Scholars:

“Our newest Point Scholars represent the best and brightest in our community, coming from diverse educational fields, genders and gender identities, sexual orientations, racial backgrounds, economic circumstances and geography,” said Bruce Lindstrom, Point Foundation Founder and Chair of the Board of Directors. "Our scholars are chosen for their demonstrated leadership, scholastic achievement, involvement in the LGBT community, and financial need. This year's group of scholars far exceeded our expectations."

As of June 2006, there will be 65 Point scholars currently in school and 12 alumni.

I challenge anyone to peruse the profiles of these remarkable young people and then suggest with a sane and sober tone that they somehow constitute the Others Who Are Ruining America™.

And if any of the Point Scholars happen to be reading this, I have only two words of advice for you:
Start blogging!
And to the rest of you: please consider throwing a few coins at this wonderful organization.

*The other two are Lambda Legal and the ASPCA.

I'm spending the holiday weekend in Florida with a friend, who among other things is dragging me to the Marlins-Mets game.

Serious blogging will be light or nonexistent through Monday, though I will try to photoblog as appropriate.

Later...

Huh?

A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.
...
Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

For once, the outrage that will inevitably follow from the "failure to protect society from a sex offender" will be well-founded.

You can spin this several ways, take your pick:

Perfectly reasonable response #1: If the convict can't survive in prison, then too bad so sad. See you in hell.

Perfectly reasonable response #2: The government has an obligation to run its prisons in such a way as to reasonably ensure the safety of the prisoners. How can a judge simply shrug it off and say, "Prison's too icky for you, you get house arrest..."?

Perfectly reasonable response #3: Slippery slope: Should the wheelchair guy from "Oz" get house arrest? Automatic house arrest for anyone over 60? What about gays? The possibilities for arbitrary and nonsensical determinations of "prison unsuitability" are, unfortunately, endless.

I have blogged relentlessly against the sex offender mania gripping the country. But that doesn't mean I don't think child molesters shouldn't serve prison sentences — lengthy prison sentences.

Maybe it's not a question of whether this convict belongs in prison but rather whether this judge belongs in a courtroom.

More thoughts at Crime & Federalism, Sentencing Law & Policy, Pam's House Blend, CrimProf Blawg.

UPDATE: Backlash.

Just a quick reminder that the equipment that failed along the Northeast Corridor, stranding thousands of commuters from New York to Baltimore, is owned, operated and taxpayer-subsidized by Amtrak, even if some of the actual trains (e.g., New Jersey Transit) are not.

This is what your billion dollar per year subsidy is getting you. Enjoy the ride -- or the stall, as the case may be.

If this had been a private railroad, the class actions would soon be piling up in courthouses everywhere.

Of course, if this had been a private railroad, the failure probably never would have happened in the first place.

---

I was planning to take the train to Newark Airport tomorrow. Now I need to engage in a little game theory and decide which will win out: my risk aversion or my cheapskatedness. I'm thinking the former will win out.

Sign me up!

We are treated to therapy sessions between [Richard] Cohen and 42-year-old "Rob," a gay man who thinks that Cohen can help him become un-gay.

We see Cohen practicing "touch therapy" to recreate a "healthy father-son bond." Call me crazy, but it appeared to be a cunning way for Cohen for be able to get his jollies cuddling up with other men while still claiming that he is now straight.

We then see Cohen engaging in an interesting form of quackery that he calls "bioenergetics," whaling on a pillow with a tennis racket in lieu of his overbearing mother. Frightening stuff. Norman-Bates freaky.

Seriously though, I don't blog much about the so-called "ex-gay movement" because I have no direct experience with it. But I have one observation that I don't see mentioned much by either gays or bigots.

If the party line about "curing" gays is the tired old "absent father, overbearing mother" thesis, then what about all the kids with such parents who grew up to be perfectly well-adjusted heterosexuals? I mean, come on, "absent father" describes just about every American middle class suburban family since 1950 -- even the half that didn't suffer from divorce. (Not to mention all the boys from, say, post-war Stalingrad, London or Dresden. No shortage of "absent fathers" there -- why didn't an entire generation of war orphans turn out gay?) Oh, and what about lesbians? Did they have absent mothers and overbearing fathers?

And if "overbearing mothers" cause homosexuality, then why do all these Anita Bryant / Phyllis Schlafly / Maggie Gallagher types insist that archaic "traditional" gender roles for women are such a good idea in the first place? If a strong mom makes you gay, then shouldn't the anti-gay types want to get her out of the house rather than imprison her in it?

They'd be downright dangerous, if they weren't so incredibly silly.

More thoughts from Ex-Gay Watch (source for the vidcaps), Pam's House Blend.

I, a New Yorker who was born without the "fan gene" on my Y-chromosome and therefore lack any and all interest in any and all spectator sports, will be traveling 1,000 miles to attend...

...wait for it...

...a Mets game!

For the first time in about 30 years.

Fate definitely has a sense of humor.

Details to follow...

"To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."
--IRS Website

The chronic inaction of the Internal Revenue Service regarding the patently illegal political activities of fundamentalist Christian churches and clerics will one day go down as among the great scandals of American governance.

But today is not that day:

The Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has dubbed June 4 “Marriage Protection Sunday,” and is requesting pastors to preach about gay marriage and encouraging Southern Baptists to tell their senators to vote for the amendment.

“Supporters of traditional marriage need to bombard their senators’ offices with e-mails and phone calls,” ERLC President Richard Land told Baptist Press, “and preachers across America need to let the pulpit ring forth in clear and no uncertain terms on Marriage Protection Sunday, June 4, and help create a groundswell of support for this amendment.

Note that these are, by and large, the same sort of people who were so eager to denounce the law schools that dared to challenge the anti-gay Solomon Amendment's threat to their federal funding if they denied access for military recruiters. Since there is no difference in principle between receiving government funding and receiving a tax exemption, how are these bigots anything other than miserable, odoriferous little hypocrites?

If they're so eager to protect their parishioners from the Others Who Are Ruining America™, then these anti-gay "Christians" should have the intellectual honesty and the moral courage to surrender their tax exempt status.

Don't hold your breath.

(Via Good As You. More thoughts at Pam's House Blend.)

Back in February I chronicled an example of the U.N. being, well, the U.N., by allowing a bunch of dictatorships -- and the United States -- to vote to deny consultative status to two international gay rights groups.

So consider this a mere footnote:

A U.N. panel this week barred two more gay rights groups from having a formal voice at the United Nations after blocking two others earlier this year, diplomats said on Friday.
...
The committee, which holds sessions twice a year, this week rejected applications from The Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany and ILGA-Europe, a chapter of the International Gay and Lesbian Association.
...
Voting "no" both times were Cameroon, China, Iran, Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Voting against rejection were Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru, Romania and the United States. India and Turkey abstained.

The notion that wholly illegitimate regimes such as Iran, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast and Sudan -- not to mention America's favorite brutal dictatorship, China -- are even members of the U.N., let alone authorized to pass judgment on -- well, on anyone -- only serves to reiterate Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous description of the U.N.: "a theater of the absurd, a decomposing corpse, and an insane asylum."

Previous U.N. posts here.

I briefly noted previously the bizarre turn of events in the warrantless wiretapping scandal in which the Justice Department was unable to obtain the necessary security clearances to review the National Security Agency's dubious activities. I guess the NSA was worried that the FBI might have links to al Qaeda.

As, apparently, does the FCC:

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will not pursue complaints about a spy agency's access to millions of telephone records because it cannot obtain classified material, the FCC's chairman said in a letter released on Tuesday.
...
"We can't have a situation where the FCC, charged with enforcing the law, won't even begin an investigation of apparent violations of the law because it predicts the administration will roadblock any investigations citing national security," [Representative Edward] Markey said in response to [FCC Chairman Kevin] Martin.

Keep in the mind that Martin didn't even try to open an investigation. He simply assumed that the NSA would not cooperate and shrugged off his responsibilities.

Oh, one more thing:

Martin, a Republican designated chairman last year, worked at the White House and for President George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign before joining the FCC in 2001 as a commissioner.

But I'm sure that had nothing to do with Martin's decision to roll over and play dead, right? The thought of Martin recusing himself from the decision-making process need never have come up, right? Because political appointees never, ever let politics cloud their judgment, right?

In any case, look on the bright side: maybe someone at the NSA will utter a naughty word over its classified eavesdropping equipment and the FCC will swarm down on them then.

Professional bigot Maggie Gallagher actually makes a remarkably lucid point in her most recent screed:

By opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's.

Well of course it does, since McCain is "virtually indistinguishable" from Clinton. Both are pathetic, decrepit hack politicians who have shown time and time again that there is no principle they won't sacrifice in order to garner votes. What's the puny little difference of "R" v. "D" after their names compared to that?

And make no mistake about it: there is no rational worldview for the McCain-Clinton position on the Federal Marriage Amendment. You either advocate bigotry cloaked in mob rule or you don't. There is no principled distinction between constitutionalizing bigotry at the federal level and at the state level. The bromide of "it should be left up to the states" is wholly invalid when the "it" is itself unconstitutional (not to mention spiteful, mean-spirited and fundamentally un-American). The only truthful basis for the McCain-Clinton position is classic split-the-baby political positioning, and not a reflection of any core values. It is an insolent contradiction in terms — which is precisely why politicians like McCain and Clinton are so eager to embrace it.

---

The rest of the Gallagher screed is her typical mediocre bigot gobbledygook: will of the majority, activist judges, persecuted Christians, the Others Who Are Ruining America™, etc. Blah, blah, blah. Read at you own risk (i.e., of getting a headache).

My previous McCain posts here; Clinton posts here. Gallagher posts in the chain below.

Undeterred by the fact that the FTC found no price manipulation — absolutely none — by energy companies in the wake of Katrina, some activist members of Congress are determined to fight it anyway:

Brushing aside objections from the head of the FTC at a committee hearing, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska said his legislation would outlaw price gouging but he still had to decide how to define price gouging.

"We will find a way to define it so that it can be enforceable," Stevens told reporters after a hearing on rising gasoline prices.

Searching frantically for a way to criminalize something that does not even exist. Talk about a bridge to nowhere.

I wonder how long Principal Janet Travis has been on the job?

A Keller [Texas] school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter's elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words "In God We Trust" from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.
...
Keller administrators agreed with the decision, which Travis made in conjunction with a school parents group, district spokesman Jason Meyer said.

Which of course invites the question: Is money itself banned on school grounds as a violation of the separation between church and state?

Now what truly would have been praiseworthy would have been a lesson designed around the yearbook in which students learned the rather silly history of "In God We Trust" on currency, or how and why the motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum," or when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. That way the kids might actually have learned something -- like never to trust politicians and to always be skeptical of politically active religionists.

And remember: the only reason we have these asinine stories is because we inexplicably insist on having the public provision of education rather than the mere public financing of education through vouchers. If there were no public schools, there would be no church-state issues. Go figure.

Via Joanne Jacobs. More thoughts at California Yankee.

In the corporate world, you generally start at the bottom and work your way up.

In the military, you generally start at the bottom and work your way up.

In police and fire departments, you generally start at the bottom and work your way up.

In politics, you generally start at the bottom and work your way up.

And then there's the New York City public school system:

More than half the principals in the New York City public school system have left their jobs over the past five years, opening the way for a remarkable influx of often younger newcomers, some in their 20's and 30's with impressive credentials but little teaching experience.
...
[Schools Chancellor Joel I]. Klein said the school system was simply catching up to the private sector in making room for talent of all ages, and noted Bill Gates's youth when he started Microsoft. "Nobody said he was too young for the job," Mr. Klein said. "If you put artificial restrictions on human resources, you're going to lose good people who are up for the job."

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

There is nothing "artificial" about requiring potential principals to serve an adequate period of time as teachers and assistant principals before being promoted, just as there is nothing "artificial" about requiring a future detective to put in her time as a beat cop first.

What is "artificial" is Klein's asinine analogy to Bill Gates, who is in fact the perfect counterexample to Klein's thesis. Bill Gates was not the Chairman of IBM at 20; he was the chairman of what was then a puny little company that nobody gave two shakes about, and with good cause. He earned his position over time and was not handed his success upfront based on the mere expectations and wishful thinking of government bureaucrats.

Let's call "Shenanigans!" and acknowledge the kindergartnerization of our principal ranks for what it is: pure desperation, resulting from the failed policies of Klein and Mayor Bloomberg (with honorable mention of course to the teacher unions).

Two of New York City's hackier politicians, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Anthony Weiner, are getting all bug-eyed over the way Congress is (not) spending your tax dollars:

The hungry Asian longhorned beetle has turned more than 4,000 city trees into mulch, prompting officials to warn Sunday that Gotham could be stuck with a $2.25 billion bill unless the federal government loosens its purse strings.

That is, the same way lawmakers have done for Chicago, which has gained an upper hand in the fight against the pesky bugs with help from D.C. dollars.
...
Weiner said Sunday that he will introduce an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill to increase federal anti-beetle funding for New York.

It's easy to declare a problem a "national crisis" when it means that federal funds will end up, literally, in your backyard.

Of course, the idea that Chicago should pay for Chicago's problems and New York should pay for New York's problems and that Washington should just leave everyone else's pocketbooks alone, never comes up. Go figure.

Pop Quiz: Which of the following is true of Finland?

A. It has among the highest income tax rates in the world.

B. It has a taxpayer association, opposed to high taxes, with 190,000 members.

C. It has another taxpayer association, supporting high taxes, with 250 members.

D. All of the above.

So much for the nonsense that European socialism represents the will of the masses rather than the will of socialist politicians and bureaucrats, buttressed not by public support but rather by public inertia.

Perhaps the 190,000 and the 250 should have a little chat.

More on egregious European tax burdens from Tax Policy Blog.

Yesterday I wrote:

Remember also: it's not only a crime to work illegally in this country — it's also a crime to employ illegally. So if we're going to give a pass to the illegal immigrants for "their hard work," then shouldn't we also excuse the lawbreaker employers — don't they also "contribute to the economy," as McCain puts it?

Oh silly, silly me:

Among those who will be cleared of past crimes under the Senate's proposed immigration-reform bill would be the businesses that have employed the estimated 10 million illegal aliens eligible for citizenship and that provided the very "magnet" that drew them here in the first place. Buried in the more than 600 pages of legislation is a section titled "Employer Protections," which states: "Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status under this section shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien."

So the Senate bill removes neither the incentives for illegal immigrants to come nor the incentives for employers to hire them. Indeed, the bill increases those incentives by removing perfectly logical and commensurate penalties for such actions.

And this will, the hack politicians of the Senate assure us, somehow reduce illegal immigration.

That's what I get for trying to argue reductio ad absurdum when politicians are involved.

Oh silly, silly me.

I mocked Congress' attempt to stop price gouging by oil companies in this post. As you may recall:

The House-passed price gouging legislation directs the FTC to define price gouging and calls for penalties of up to $150 million for refiners and other wholesalers and $2 million for retailers who violate the law.

Who knew that the FTC would be even more mockworthy than Congress?

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday said it found 15 examples of gasoline price gouging after Hurricane Katrina, though the agency said it has not identified any widespread effort by the oil industry to illegally manipulate the marketplace.
...
For the purpose of the report, and as mandated by Congress, the FTC defined price gouging as "any finding" that the average price of gasoline in designated disaster areas in September 2005 was higher than in August 2005.

Good grief.

So the fact that a major domestic refinery was knocked out during Katrina isn't responsible for higher prices during that month. The fact that transportation channels were disrupted isn't responsible. The fact that local workers in the petroleum industry -- like everyone else in the region -- simply packed up and left isn't responsible.

No, it was price gouging by the "wicked, bad, naughty, evil" energy companies. Yes, you must give them all a good FTC spanking! And after the spanking, the oral testimony (i.e., before Congress or, worse, before a judge and jury for their supposed "crimes").

None of which, of course, increases the supply of oil -- the only effective way to lower gas prices -- by a single drop.

Lovely.

[T]he World War I cases ... put the gloss of "clear and present danger" on the First Amendment. Whether the war power -- the greatest leveler of them all -- is adequate to sustain that doctrine is debatable. The dissents in [those cases] show how easily "clear and present danger" is manipulated to crush what Brandeis called "[t]he fundamental right of free men to strive for better conditions through new legislation and new institutions' by argument and discourse even in time of war.
--Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (Douglas, J. concurring)

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
--New York Times v. United States ("The Pentagon Papers Case"), 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Black, J., concurring)

"I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity.
--Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 21 May 2006

Oh yes it most certainly can be the case. Very easily. Pretty much every Supreme Court case ever to address the issue has made that clear. Unless the actions at issue would put American soldiers (or civilians, presumptively) in immediate and proximate danger of harm, then the First Amendment trumps all else -- including the Administration's Article II "dictator in time of war" gobbledygook.

Telling the Kaiser precisely when and where the doughboys are going to attack may not be protected speech. But telling law-abiding American citizens that their government is spying on them without probable cause is protected, at least from prior restraint (i.e., censorship before the fact) and, one must conclude from Brandenburg, from criminal prosecution after the fact.

Trying to skirt around FISA is one thing. Trying to skirt around the Fourth Amendment is not much harder these days. But if Gonzales or Bush or their apologists think that they can steamroll over the First Amendment with their outrageous and obnoxious legal theories, then they are gravely mistaken.

More thoughts from Crime & Federalism, Glenn Greenwald, ACS Blog.

On March 2, 2004 — hardly ancient history — President Bush signed into law H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-203).

The SSPA was, mostly, a hodgepodge collection of unexciting and unimportant tweaks around the edges of the Social Security crisis, mere Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling sort of changes.

Mostly:

[T]he payment of Title II benefits based on the earnings of any noncitizen would be precluded unless (1) the noncitizen had ever been issued an SSN indicating authorization to work in the United States, or (2) the noncitizen, at the time any quarters of coverage are earned, was admitted to the United States under a B1 visa (for business purposes) or D visa...

In other words, no Social Security benefits for illegal aliens.

How quickly they forget:

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment — even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.

Guess who was among the vocal defenders of granting benefits to illegals?

"We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

I guess Mr. Straight Talk is talking straight to the Hispanic voters he will need to appease when he runs for president.

Suppose an embezzler stashes away his ill-gotten gains in a bank account for a few years before he is finally caught and the funds are seized. Would anyone dare suggest that he is entitled to the interest he earned on those ill-gotten funds while they were in the bank?

Is there any legal principle more basic than that of denying a criminal the benefits of his crime? What could possibly have been going through the minds of the fifty senators who voted to reward lawbreakers (besides "election year")?

---

And just to show that I'm nonpartisan in my contempt of partisans:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said it would be unfair to deny illegals the benefits. "We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts," he said. "That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund."

Huh? Accounts? What accounts? I thought voluntary partial privatization and personal accounts were an evil Republican conspiracy to dismantle "the most successful government program in history" in order to line Wall Street pockets. And don't get me started on the Social Security "trust fund."

Remember also: it's not only a crime to work illegally in this country — it's also a crime to employ illegally. So if we're going to give a pass to the illegal immigrants for "their hard work," then shouldn't we also excuse the lawbreaker employers — don't they also "contribute to the economy," as McCain puts it?

Sometimes the hypocrisy is so thick you could choke on it.

More thoughts at Bent, Area 417.

There must be something in the air:

ITEM: A teacher in Georgia, annoyed at — what else? — a student's MySpace page, has convinced local prosecutors to bring criminal — yes, criminal — defamation of character charges:

Teacher Robert Muzzillo pursued the charges against [Alex Davis] and another student after noticing a profile with his name attached on MySpace.com. The profile talks about Muzzillo liking Michael Jackson and having a "gay old time," like the Fred Flintstone song. Davis said he only wrote that Muzzillo lost an eye wrestling with alligators and midgets.

MY TAKE: Anyone who has thought about the issue for more than 15 seconds agrees that criminal defamation of character — which has been abolished almost everywhere in the U.S. if not quite yet by the Supreme Court — violates the First Amendment. For a history of this archaic concept, see here. A private person may have a justiciable interest (i.e., a civil lawsuit) in wrongful speech against him, but society never does. You don't throw private people in jail for what they say about other private people. End of discussion. (Hat tip.)

---

ITEM: The House Judiciary Committee voted to give the District of Columbia full representation in that chamber, in open and obnoxious defiance of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. (What part of "states" in Clause 1 and Clause 3 can possibly be unclear?) But don't worry, they balance it out by giving Utah another seat, so that makes it okay I guess. My previous posts on the subject here.

---

ITEM: It is well-settled law that a local government, as part of its zoning scheme, is permitted to require that "no more than X people can live in a house" but not "no more than X unrelated people can live in a house" (since there is no safety-related or other legitimate reason to make such a distinction). Someone please tell the hack politicians of Black Jack, Missouri. I blogged about a similar bunch of Constitution-ignoring activist legislators in Manassas, Virginia, here.

---

ITEM: Three of the most rabid apologists for the NSA domestic surveillance program jump the shark by writing a 136-page screed explaining why the President would be entitled to disregard any court decisions (including from the Supreme Court) against the program — or any other surveillance program — during time of war. I guess "separation of powers" and "check & balances" constitute "pre-9/11 thinking." (Hat tip.)

---

ITEM: The House has voted to wilfully breach perfectly legal contracts with private entities. Of course, those private entities happen to be energy companies, so I guess it's alright then:

[T]he House on Thursday approved a measure that would pressure companies to renegotiate more than 1,000 leases for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
...
"These leases were valid legal contracts signed between the government and these companies in good faith," said Representative Mike Simpson, Republican of Idaho. "The Congress and the government should keep their word when they sign a contract."

MY TAKE: How can the government, arbitrarily deciding not to honor contracts, possibly satisfy due process — let alone the standards of good governance and common decency? There is no difference in principle between the government reneging on contracts and defaulting on its debt. The United States Government is supposed to be better than that. Supposedly... (Incidentally, those contracts were entered into by hack bureaucrats during the Clinton administration, not George W. Bush's. Go figure.)

If you don't live in New York City, then you may not have heard of the Roosevelt Island Tram or the fact that it has been having a wee spot of trouble recently.

So how much is "wee"?

The cost, estimated at $15 million...

and who is "we"?

...is to be covered largely by the state, and Gov. George E. Pataki vigorously supports the project, a spokeswoman said yesterday.

Of course, the thought that maybe, just maybe, the less than 0.005%* of New York State residents who actually use the damn thing (as opposed to the the subway line directly underneath it) ought to be the ones who pay, through the cost of the ticket, for its repair and upkeep (pun intended) rather than the 99.995% of us who don't, doesn't come up (pun intended).

The sad part is that the tram was intended to be a temporary operation. Just like rent regulation or the Telephone Excise Tax.

But in politics, temporary often means "forever."

Go figure.

*Population of Roosevelt Island: 9,520. Population of New York State: 19,254,630. And not everyone on Roosevelt Island even uses the tram; the island is accessible by car and subway.

In case you thought women were making any progress in the Islamofascist world:

King Abdullah has told Saudi editors to stop publishing pictures of women as they could make young men go astray, newspapers reported Tuesday.

The king's directive, made in a meeting with local editors, caused surprise as the monarch has been regarded a quiet reformer since he took office in the ultra-conservative country last August.

In recent months, newspapers have published pictures of women — always wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf — to illustrate stories with increasing regularity. Usually the stories have had to do with women's issues. The papers have also started publishing a range of views on causes that are not generally accepted in Saudi Arabia — such as women having the right to drive and vote.

The king told editors on Monday night that publishing a woman's picture for the world to see was inappropriate.

As I explained back during the UAE port scandal, being a "trusted ally in the war on terror," and even being awash in oil, should only get you so far with those of us who actually live in civilized nations.

World "leaders" who act like stone-age goatherders should be treated like stone-age goatherders. "Trusted ally" be damned.

With "allies" like Saudi Arabia's Abdullah, who needs terrorists?

---

A completely unrelated, but no less stupid, idea from the Goatherder-in-Chief: outlawing stock losses. Yeah right, good luck with that.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia peers over the precipice and takes a few steps back:

Scalia on Thursday repeated his strong opposition to invoking foreign law in Supreme Court constitutional decisions — but he said Congress should not legislate against the practice.

"I don't think it's any of your business," Scalia said before a lunch meeting of the National Italian American Foundation that included many members of Congress of Italian descent. "I'll be darned if I think it's up to Congress to tell us how to rule."

Scalia added, "Let us make our little mistakes, just as we let you make yours."

Not bad, not bad at all.

Of course, if he had said, "Let us make our little mistakes, just as we let you make your huge, innumerable, $2.7 trillion worth of mistakes..." then I would have personally sent him a dozen canoli. Oh well...

Baby steps, Nino, baby steps.

In any case, one wonders whether Scalia would feel the same way if a Congressional "mistake" in the form of, say, a jurisdiction stripping statute made its way to the Supreme Court.

One of the last potent tools available to combat expansive and oppressive government is the "vagueness doctrine," the rule that, in order to satisfy due process, a reasonable person must be able to understand what a law actually means. If "X" is illegal, then a reasonable person must be able to determine what constitutes "X." See, e.g., Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (law against "annoying" behavior on sidewalks unconstitutionally vague, among other defects).

So here's a question: can reasonable people understand what "criminal dating" means?

An appeals court on Tuesday ordered a teenage sex offender to warn the parents of anyone he dates about his conviction until he turns 18.
...
The defendant in Tuesday's case pleaded guilty in 2004 to committing a sex act against his 6-year-old half-sister when he was 14.
...
As a condition of probation, the judge in the case mandated the boy to notify the parents of anyone he dates about his conviction until he is no longer a juvenile.

Several lawyers questioned how probation officers could enforce the restriction, because by doing so, they would have to define "dating."

Count me among those "several lawyers."

Given the current sex offender mania, one also wonders what restrictions this young man faces after he turns 18. Because he'll still be an incurable monster who poses a never-ending threat to the community, right? Once a sex fiend, always a sex fiend -- isn't that the current thinking?

More thoughts at Sentencing Law and Policy.

---

Speaking of the "current thinking" --

Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison.
...
In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals.

Read the whole thing.

Without the recidivism argument, the complementary sex offender policies of community notification and red-lining completely implode, and the whole "war on molesters" reduces to nothing more than a particularly virulent strain of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. Hardly a solid foundation for such an extremist public policy.

One of the basic principles of criminal procedure is that rank-and-file law enforcement officials should not be given too much discretion in selecting those against whom a law is to be applied. See, e.g., Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); accord, Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

So, for example, if a highway patrolman sees three different vehicles speeding, then of course he has to pick only one to pull over -- we don't fault him for that. But a law that gave that same patrolman the authority to pull over any "suspicious vehicle" would likely be unconstitutional, because the officer is not competent to decide, without more guidance, what constitutes "suspicious."

Which is why this proposal gives me pause:

Now the TSA is aiming to become less obsessed with scissors and cigarette lighters and focusing more on passenger behavior.
...
Select TSA employees will be trained to identify suspicious individuals who raise red flags by exhibiting unusual or anxious behavior, which can be as simple as changes in mannerisms, excessive sweating on a cool day, or changes in the pitch of a person's voice. Racial or ethnic factors are not a criterion for singling out people, TSA officials say. Those who are identified as suspicious will be examined more thoroughly...

The TSA can say that this program will be objective, race-neutral and closely supervised. But I'm skeptical. And there's also the (two-sided) question of effectiveness. On the one hand, the TSA notes that a trial version of the program has caught people with fake IDs and drugs. What it has not caught is a single terrorist. The TSA has also not disclosed how many innocent people were or will be delayed needlessly by this dubious program. How much earlier are we going to have to arrive at the airport now? The TSA should not be allowed to pretend that there is no marginal cost to this program.

On the other hand, given that everybody, every single person, goes through the real (i.e., technological) security screening, wouldn't it make more sense just to ensure that that program works properly? If you car needs repairs, the solution is to fix it, not to buy a new tricycle.

---

One other hasty stitch:

The TSA will also consider deploying SPOT teams to other transportation systems like train and bus stations.

Because, of course, the possibility still exists that a terrorist may try to fly a bus into a skyscraper.

As we encounter so often in the War on Terror: see only the benefits (no matter how small), and ignore the costs (no matter how great).

One of the most basic principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence is that courts can only act on cases actually brought before them. Unlike an activist politician who can introduce legislation willy-nilly for no other reason than because he thinks it's a neat-o idea (or an activist president who can invade another country because he thinks it's a neat-o idea), a judge is always a mere spectator until litigants actually make their way into the courtroom. So, for example, no judge can decide, "just because," that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional or that a city cannot ban spray paint and markers. He has to wait for a case to reach him. It is by definition impossible for a judge to be truly "activist."

With that in mind, why should anyone give any kind of a damn about this:

Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch said yesterday that at least two of the chief judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance had been informed since 2001 of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Mr. Hatch, a Republican member of a Select Committee on Intelligence panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.
...
When asked whether the judges somehow approved the operations, Mr. Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

There are eleven judges on the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court. All are sworn to secrecy about their caseload (and even ordinary judges rarely talk publicly about their cases or about politics generally). So the fact that two out of eleven were "briefed" about the NSA's program of eavesdropping on American citizens on American soil, and the fact that they said and did nothing about it, means — what exactly? The two judges had no case before them with which to pass, well, "judgement" on the program. And they could not have discussed it publicly even if they wanted to.

So I ask again: Why should anyone give any kind of a damn about this? How does this in any way affect the legality, or the egregiousness, of the program?

Similar thoughts at Media Matters.

---

Speaking about "briefing," the White House is so certain that it did the right thing by "briefing" only select members of the Congressional leadership that it has now completely flip-flopped on the issue:

The administration previously had insisted on briefing only a small fraction of Congress's 535 members, saying larger gatherings were likely to result in leaks of secret information. But Democrats and some Republicans had objected, and Gen. Michael V. Hayden — President Bush's nominee to be CIA director — faced the awkward prospect of a confirmation hearing tomorrow in which he could tell some Senate intelligence committee members, but not others, some details of the administration's surveillance programs. Yesterday the White House agreed to brief all 21 members of the House intelligence committee and all 16 of the Senate panel's members.

So now we see yet again that principles never, ever trump politics. Selective briefing of congressional leaders (an extra-constitutional practice, incidentally) was "essential," but now not as essential as getting the president's NSA scandalmeister confirmed as Director of Central Intelligence — where he may well craft even worse domestic spying nightmares.

So much for what is and is not "crucial to the War on Terror."

Still think that a censored Internet is better than no Internet at all?

A freelance writer was sentenced to 12 years in prison Tuesday, receiving an unusually harsh penalty amid one of China's most severe media crackdowns since the 1980s.

The sentencing of Yang Tianshui on subversion charges was one of a flurry of court actions Tuesday against Chinese reporters. In Beijing, prosecutors filed a new indictment against a Chinese researcher for The New York Times who has been in custody since 2004 on state secrets charges. In southern China, a journalist went on trial and pleaded innocent to extortion charges.
...
China is believed to be the world's leading jailer of journalists, with at least 42 behind bars, many on charges of violating vague security or subversion laws.

As we here in the U.S. mire ourselves in phone privacy scandals, it should be easy to remember that the tools of communication can be used by oppressive governments just as easily -- if not more so -- as they can be used to foster dissent. If your target audience is listening, then Big Brothers -- both established and emerging -- may well be listening to.

Gays have won a very minor skirmish in the marriage wars:

A judge on Tuesday struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriage, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a rule that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked whether to ban same-sex marriages.

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place -- although not marriage," she wrote.

I say "very minor" because the ruling does not mandate gay marriage, nor does it say that no gay marriage ban could ever be upheld. It merely reaffirms the common and wholely reasonable "single question rule" that most states have for voter initiatives.

And of course, Georgia's statutory same-sex marriage ban remains on the books. Moreover, given the demographics of that state, one should not expect much to change there for quite a while.

But here's what I consider noteworthy about this embarrassing if not crippling defeat for the anti-gay factions: If it is so vitally important that bigotry and second-class citizenship be constitutionalized; if the threat from the Others Who Are Ruining America™ is so great; if so very much is at stake...

...then can't you take the time to get it right?

Georgia is not alone in this. There is great concern -- even among opponents of gay marriage -- that bigot amendments in Virginia, Nebraska and Wisconsin also pose not substantive but procedural defects that render them vague or moot, if not unconstitutional. Colorado bigots, meanwhile, were in a such a hurried frenzy to jump on the bandwagon that they actually introduced conflicting proposals for this November's ballot.

This somehow reflects reasoned, consistent support for gay marriage bans?

If I were an anti-gay bigot, I'd probably be less concerned about gays at this point than I would be about the bumbling dolts who have appointed themselves as my representatives and who keep screwing it up so badly. If you're going to speak for the bigots, then at least run your bigotry through a spell-checker first.

Not that, in the grand scheme of things, any of it matters all that much. They are all on the wrong side of history, and their grandchildren will apologize for their actions.

---

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue has announced that the state will seek an urgent review of the decision. "Urgent" not because there is any window of opportunity for Georgia gays to marry -- the state's bigot statute is still in full force even if the bigot amendment has been struck down. No, "urgent" because it's an election year, including for the Republican governor himself. Go figure.

(Cross-posted at Spectrum Bloggers.)