A Stitch in Haste

To review: The distinction between economic freedom and political freedom is a fiction. They are merely two sides of the same coin. There is no such thing as a "semi-totalitarian" regime where one can have individual rights without property rights, or vice versa. The best recent example of this principle has of course been China, with its preposterous claims to be a "market-based" Communist dictatorship.

But, as some of us predicted, Hu Jintao now has some competition:

President Hugo Chavez has imposed a ban on alcohol sales during Holy Week in an attempt to reduce accidents and crimes, prompting a run on liquor stores.
...
The sudden, unprecedented measure confused many Venezuelans who raced to stash up before Friday, thinking that would be their last chance to buy for more than a week.

"People are desperate, above all because the majority found out at the last minute," said Jose Manuel Fernandes, a liquor store owner in Caracas, as he struggled to meet the demands of dozens of customers yelling for bottles and cases of their preferred drink.

Remind me again how banning alcohol has anything to do with "socialism"? Apparently "freedom from economic oppression" includes freedom from the ability to buy a bottle of wine on a Friday night. Viva La Revolucion!

It's quite simple really: Create a dictator and he will eventually begin dictating. Power corrupts -- especially the corruptible.

Meanwhile, one wonders what arbitrary, capricious, make-people-desperate decree Chavez will issue next -- in the name of his "glorious socialist revolution."

But look on the bright side -- at least he didn't ban trans fats.

To review: A major reason that bigots were so desperate to enact as many gay marriage bans as they could, as quickly as they could, was not just the short-term conservative-theocratic political maneuvering in the 2004 election.

There was also the awareness by these same social conservatives and theocrats that, despite their insistence that they were a broad, wide and deep — and enduring — majority, age-based polling clearly shows that young people simply do not oppose gay marriage the way their parents and grandparents do. As some have phrased it, "Twenty years from now no one will understand how states could have passed such amendments."

But perhaps 20 years is not the correct number. Maybe it's 46.

1961:


2007:


Twenty years or 46, it really is a matter of time. Or, to corrupt Churchill: This is not the end of the beginning, it's the beginning of the end.

---

Note that the "Boys Beware" video is a much-edited version. The complete 10-minute video can be viewed here. Note also that it was jointly produced by a local police department and public school district — presumably with taxpayer dollars.

---

Note also that I am of course not a fan of the "Alan Shore theory of pharmaceutical economics." But that's another blogpost.

The other last refuge of pseudo-intellectuals, besides the art community, is of course the college campus:

Last fall a group of Columbia University student thugs violently prevented a speaker from the Minutemen, a group concerned with illegal immigration, from finishing a talk that he had been invited to give by a campus organization. They invaded the auditorium and forced him off the stage.
...
Their punishment? According to the student newspaper, "they were charged with simple violations of the University's Rules of Conduct. The resulting warnings ... will be notated on students' transcripts and remain there until the end of 2008."
...
If you think the punishment does not exactly fit the crime, the students involved entirely agree: "It's a light punishment, it's a slap on the wrist," said one of them, Monique Dols, a graduate student. "It's a victory for free speech and anti-racism."

No punishment at all for the violent suppression of free speech at an institution supposedly dedicated to it is a victory for free speech? George Orwell, call your office.

And Franz Kafka, check your Blackberry.

I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Campus speech codes have long been a bizarre, mutant, self-contradictory phenomenon that have never made sense and have always been used selectively to enforce political correctness. Nothing new there.

But when there is flat-out, undisputed, video-documented violence, the wink-wink hypocrisy of censorship codes simply must yield to basic, universal principles of law that transcend the boundaries of the campus. Assault a person -- go to jail. Riot and incite to riot -- pay a fine. Force a heckler's veto -- pay restitution. And, one would hope: Use violence to disrupt your college -- be expelled.

Not even private universities have the authority to convert their premises into islands of anarchy, where invited visitors can be physically endangered by marauding gangs of thugs. This Columbia may not do.

Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg -- who claims to care so much about the health and well-being of the people under his philosopher-king care -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.

Or perhaps the accreditation boards -- whose raison d'être is to certify that colleges meet the basic requirements expected of institutions of higher learning -- will intervene against Columbia. Unlikely, but conceivable.

Or perhaps these students will simply grow up. Unlikely, and inconceivable.

Slow news day, so I'm reduced to blogging about chocolate naked Jesus:

A life-size sculpture of a naked Jesus made out of chocolate has angered a Roman Catholic organization and forced a Manhattan art gallery to reconsider exhibiting it during Easter week.
...
"This is an assault on Christians during Holy Week," said Kiera McCaffrey, director of communications for the [Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights], which describes itself the largest U.S. Catholic civil rights group.

"They would never dare do something similar with a chocolate statue of the prophet Mohammad naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan," she said.

I'm not so sure of that. Never underestimate the capacity of abstract artists to create sick, disgusting garbage.

Meanwhile — "Catholics for civil rights"? That certainly wins the "Oxymoron of the Day" award.

News flash: "Civil rights" includes freedom of artistic expression. If some jackass "artist" wants to mold a chocolate naked Jesus, then "Catholics for civil rights" ought, one would think, to at least abstain for throwing a conniption. Perhaps the Catholic League could clarify precisely which "civil rights" it cares about and which it considers offensive?

And as a matter of pragmatics, what does holding news conferences and calling for boycotts accomplish other than to give the jackass artist the attention he, like all jackass artists, so desperately craves? This stupid idea, like most modern recently created art, would have come and gone with little fanfare had the Catholic League not declared war upon it. Go figure.

I meanwhile, would be far more interested in asking whether this jackass artist received any taxpayer-funded grants. There is a vast labyrinth of bureaucracies that wouldn't think twice about squandering tax dollars to fund chocolate naked Jesus. It is the only way these jackass artists endure. Stated differently: The reason there are so many "starving artists" is because most artists suck.

At least this one can eat his junk art when he's finished displaying it.

---

POST SCRIPT: Any contradiction in Catholics getting uppity about showing, in chocolate or otherwise, Jesus' genitals when they themselves celebrate the Feast of the Holy Circumcision?

---

For Discussion: The jackass artist apparently wants the public to eat the sculpture upon the close of the exhibit. Would you munch on some Chocolate Savior? (Catholics of course would never eat ... oh, wait.)

---

UPDATE: That was fast — the exhibit has been canceled by the hotel that houses the gallery that was to display it. The gallery's creative director has resigned in protest. Remind me again who has a greater commitment to "civil rights" — him or New York's Cardinal Egan, who led the Catholic League's protest against the exhibit?

--Is it a proper function of government to tax some people in order to bribe other people, via gift cards, into taking their medicine? (Note: Owners of Target stock are not allowed to answer!)

--Is the United States military destined to eventually become 100% gay?

--Should an ex-husband be relieved of his alimony obligations simply because his ex-wife undergoes a sex-change operation? If the answer is "no," then is it correct to say that "two men were married"? (Note: This question is now pretty much answered, at least by one judge.)

--Exactly how much criticism does the NAACP deserve for its conferral of an award to, among others, openly bigoted actor Isaiah Washington? Does your answer change if you learn that the award was determined by an American Idol style mass vote, and not by the earnest consideration of NAACP leaders? On the other hand, should those leaders have somehow disqualified Washington?

--Finally, JohnnyDurham19 would like to ask a question: Have you performed a random act of kindness today?

The best idea since Carl Sagan Day:

This is a little blog swarm being put together ... for Easter weekend, April 6th through the 8th. The idea is simple. Just post something related to, and in support of, the separation of church and state each of those three days. Something big, something small, artistic, musical, textual or otherwise. The topic is your choosing. Whether your thing is stem cell research, intelligent design/Creationism, abortion rights, etc., it's all good. Separation of church and state impacts so many issues and is essential.

The host, "Blue Gal," has emphasized that gay marriage is an appropriate topic as well.

All bloggers with similar viewpoints should participate. I will be vacationing during Easter weekend but will repost a selection from my archives on each of the three days. :-)

(Via Republic of T.)

---

In case you missed it, Carl Sagan Day was on December 20.

Yet another new feature here at A Stitch in Haste: KipLine!

KipLine is a free voicemail number connected to my AIM account. If you don't feel like typing a comment or email, then just record a voicemail instead.

The number is 646-386-9964. It's an offline voicemail, so feel free to use it anytime, day or night.

Get you own free voicemail from AIM here.

And a reminder that you can IM me at username "kipesquire" via AIM, Yahoo or GoogleTalk. I can even receive AIM and Yahoo IMs from my cell phone!

EOM

To review: On November 4, 1979, a gang of armed barbarian thugs, falsely and obnoxiously calling themselves "students," committed an undisputed act of war by invading United States territory, in the form of our embassy in Tehran. They broke every principle of international law (and of civilization), kidnapped 66 American citizens, many of them civilians, and held 52 of them hostage for 444 days in order to make whatever contrived gobbledygook statements they wanted to pretend the world gave any kind of a damn about hearing.

Now, 27 years later, this same gang of armed barbarian thugs, falsely and obnoxiously calling themselves "leaders," is doing exactly the same thing: committing an undisputed act of war by invading another nation's territory, in the form of Iraqi sovereign waters, kidnapping 15 British sailors, and holding them hostage in order to make whatever contrived gobbledygook statements they want to pretend the world gives any kind of a damn about hearing.

How can anybody claim to be surprised?

Hopefully Great Britain will not make the same mistakes the United States did. Hopefully we are not in for another 444 days — or worse:


Armed barbarian thugs.

"After the conversations we had with David you could see all he wants to do is get home. If any of you put yourself in David's situation ... most of you would be pleading guilty to something just to get out of the place."
--Terry Hicks, father of Guantanamo detainee David Hicks

Apparently it's not only Australian detainee David Hicks who may be willing to "say anything" to get out of Guantanamo, but also the Australian government itself:

The government would be powerless to reduce any sentence served in an Australian prison by a Guantanamo Bay detainee who this week admitted to aiding al-Qaida, the [Australian] attorney general said Thursday.
...
"The arrangement provides for enforcement of the nature and duration of any sentence, so that the Australian government could not unilaterally shorten or dispose of any such sentence," [Philip] Ruddock told Parliament.

Granted, I'm venturing far outside my comfort zone on this subject, as I know little nothing about Australian civil rights law, post-conviction remedies or separation of powers doctrines, not to mention the law of war, extradition law or the Geneva Conventions.

But I do know that courts, including Australian courts, can void contracts.

Speaking strictly in the abstract, all David Hicks need do once he's in Australia is file their equivalent of a habeas petition -- or any other action that gets him into court -- and simply claim duress. A contract entered into under duress is voidable. End of discussion.

Alternatively, he can simply claim unconscionability, which also voids a contract.

Surely a contract that requires the use of the Australian penal system must be subject to review by Australian courts. And it is of course those same Australian courts that will decide whether the courts (i.e., they themselves) are bound by this contract in the first place.

Stated differently, the Australian courts can simply rule that they were not a party to the contract and need not be bound by it, even if Hicks nominally is. In the U.S. at least, the Justice Department cannot simply "contract away" the jurisdiction of federal courts (though I suspect the Bush Administration wishes otherwise).

Finally, whatever rules of due process Australian citizens enjoy may very likely trump the particulars of this plea bargain. In the U.S., it is well-settled law that criminal defendants cannot waive their rights casually or haphazardly; very rigorous standards of due process must still be met.

Keep in mind that it's not like Australia would then send him back to Gitmo, and would certainly not just set him free. He would presumably get a regular Australian criminal trial, or at least a proper (i.e., uncoerced) sentencing hearing.

Again, Hicks is very likely guilty of -- something. Point conceded. But even the guilty have rights, and have some entitlement to basic human dignities -- including not being subjected to kangaroo court plea bargains (no pun intended).

Hopefully the Australian courts will concur and disregard Hicks' questionable plea deal.

---

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is inviting Congress to initiate discussions on how to eventually close Guantanamo. Which invites the question: If it ain't broke, why shutter it?

Possibly of interest --

Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents
in the United States

by

Gary J. Gates & M.V. Lee Badgett (The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law) and Jennifer Ehrle Macomber & Kate Chambers (The Urban Institute)
An excerpt:

Currently half a million children live in foster care in the United States and more than 100,000 foster children await adoption. States must recruit parents who are interested and able to foster and adopt children. Three states currently restrict GLB individuals or couples from adopting. Several states have or are considering policies that would restrict GLB people from fostering.

Recent government surveys demonstrate that many lesbians and gay men are already raising children, and many more GLB people would like to have children at some point. We estimate that two million GLB people have considered adoption. Since prior research shows that less than one-fifth of adoption agencies attempt to recruit adoptive parents from the GLB community, our findings suggest that GLB people are an underutilized pool of potential adoptive parents.

The three states with restrictions against gay adoption are Florida (no homosexuals whatsoever*), Mississippi (no same-sex couples) and Utah (no unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation). Only Nebraska forbids gays from serving as foster parents (Utah forbids all unmarried couples).

As I've blogged previously, the anti-gay bigots hit quite a remarkable roadblock when they attempted to bootstrap their string of state constitutional amendments into a push for bans on gay adoption. Score one not only for gays, but for the kids too.

But that doesn't tell the whole story:

However, one third of agencies would reject a gay or lesbian applicant, either because of the religious beliefs guiding the agency, a state law prohibiting placement with GLB parents, or a policy of placing children only with married couples.

Furthermore, the discretionary power of social workers in many agencies probably results in some finding that individual GLB parents are unsuitable because of their sexual orientation, even in the absence of a public prohibition.

Clearly, anti-gay adoption bigotry remains. Moreover, adoption is repeatedly used as a canard by theocrats to assert, falsely, that equal rights for gays "undermines" freedom of religion (even though an adoption agency is not a church).

Meanwhile, the children continue to languish in foster care.

What kind of ignoramus could possibly conclude that life in foster care is better than life with a qualified gay individual or couple? How is that consistent with "Christian" compassion? It boggles the mind.

The full 43-page PDF report is available here.

---

(*There is currently a campaign to repeal the "no gays never" adoption policy in Florida.)

"I don't support the ERA because it is a totally unnecessary, repetitive document that will achieve nothing — except to give a lot of bad female politicians a tool to work with."
--Ayn Rand, 1982 (paraphrased)

Apparently there is a push to revive the Equal Rights Amendment:

The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women's Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.
...
Legal scholars debate whether the 35 state votes to ratify the amendment are still valid.
...
Even backers of the amendment such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) expect a legal battle on that question. They are reintroducing the amendment in Congress and hope to start the ratification process again from scratch.

To review:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

As a matter of reality-based jurisprudence, the abstract impact of the amendment would be straightforward: Judicial review of gender-based discrimination by government would be elevated from intermediate-level scrutiny ("substantially related to an important government interest") to strict scrutiny ("narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest").

As a matter of normative statecraft, Rand was right. How sad it would be if we needed to "re-ratify" the unambiguous text of the Fourteenth Amendment: Shouldn't it be obvious to anyone that "equal protection of the laws" includes gender neutrality? How could we have strayed so far that the Fourteenth Amendment is now essentially a blueprint for unequal treatment under the law: Racial minorities get "very equal" protection, the minority gender (and illegitimate children) get "sorta kinda equal" protection. Pretty much everyone else — including the gay community, as we all know — gets bupkes protection.

Madness. Sheer madness.

And of course, ratifying the ERA would cement this exactly-backwards Fourteenth Amendment paradigm: "Surely 'equal protection' can't mean equal protection for everyone, or else why should we have 'extra-equal protection' for women?"

On the other hand, perhaps a ratified ERA would give courts new license to revisit heightened scrutiny for gays — the last of the unprotected insular minorities. Courts have been nearly unanimous, year after year and case after case, in ruling that "sexual orientation discrimination" is not "sex discrimination." Perhaps an ERA would give judges the opportunity to sweep aside all that precedential detritus and revisit the issue and do the right thing, once and for all. An unclean victory to be sure, but a victory nonetheless. (Note that none other than Phyllis Schlafly herself is arguing against efforts to revive the ERA, screeching that it would mandate same-sex marriage.)

I've often said that the one constitutional amendment we most need today is a simple codicil to the Ninth Amendment, adding in bold italic: "And we mean it!" The ERA represents exactly the opposite: Appending a horrific "Or maybe not..." to that other Great Amendment, the Fourteenth.

Congress and the States should let the well-intentioned but ill-conceived ERA remain stillborn.

My vision of Hell is being falsely accused of a serious crime and being offered a plea bargain to a lesser offense.

It's easy to insist, in armchair-quarterback fashion, that you would never, ever, accept a plea for a crime you didn't commit -- that principles always trump pragmatics. Especially when you are typically required, as a part of a plea bargain, to admit in court, publicly and under oath, that you are in fact guilty and to describe, in detail, how you committed your crime. I'd rather be defecated upon.

But prison is an ominous -- in some cases lethal -- proposition. It is not irrational to conclude that anything -- anything -- is better than prison.

And the only thing worse than prison is Guantánamo:

[David] Hicks is the first to be charged under the tribunals which have been revived by Congress after the previous system, created by President George W. Bush, was declared illegal by the US Supreme Court.

And Hicks is now the first to plead guilty, an outcome that the US administration will see as something of a victory.

But Hicks's plea, coming after more than five years in detention and after more serious charges were dropped, may only bolster criticism that the tribunal process and the Guantanamo camp represent a "law-free zone" that breaches fundamental human rights.
...
While the Bush administration has called the detainees at Guantanamo the "worst of the worst," even prosecutors did not portray Hicks, a former kangaroo skinner, as a big fish or "high value" suspect.

Remember, Guantanamo is such a terrible experience that, when coupled with the possibility, if not probability, of spending the rest of your life there, several detainees have been driven to suicide. The only thing worse than a nightmare is a nightmare that may never end.

Is Hicks guilty of -- something? Quite possibly. So his reality-based nightmare is not quite the same as my hypothetical one. But it's still a nightmare that he almost certainly did not deserve.

And he's one of the lucky ones.

Previous post on Hicks here.

More thoughts from Outside the Beltway:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "confessions" have been widely disregarded worldwide, since everyone is pretty sure that he was tortured. Hicks' confession will likely be treated with the same level of skepticism. If their confessions are true, then worldwide skepticism of those confessions is only going to hamper counterterrorist measures and bolster the strength of our enemies.

PoliBlog:

While it is likely that Hicks is guilty, the fact that it has taken this long to get to this point, coupled with the ongoing serious controversy about Guantánamo and detainees in general, has cast a serious shadow on whatever outcomes the system produces.

Balkinization:

The brilliance of Hicks' plea is that rather than spending months of additional Guantánamo incarceration contesting this point before a tribunal biased against him, he can quickly pursue his claim in U.S. and Australian civilian courts more committed to the rule of law.

ACSblog:

Chief Prosecutor Col. Davis was more willing to speculate about what a plea deal might include than the defense. He said at last night's press conference (I'm paraphrasing) that if he were a betting man, the odds were that Hicks could be in Australia by the end of the year.

Maybe Guantánamo isn't Hell after all. Maybe it's only Purgatory.

Remember, you read it here first — over two years ago, in this post.

---

Just when you thought San Francisco couldn't get any more pathetic:

San Francisco may become the first city in the nation to charge shoppers for grocery bags.

The city's Commission on the Environment is expected to ask the mayor and board of supervisors Tuesday to consider a 17-cent per bag charge on paper and plastic grocery bags. While the goal is reducing plastic bag pollution, paper was added so as not to discriminate.

"The whole point is to encourage the elimination of waste, not to make people pay more for groceries," said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste.

Environmentalists argue that plastic bags jam machinery, pollute waterways and often end up in trees. In addition to large supermarkets, other outfits that regularly use plastic bags, including smaller grocery stores, dry cleaners and takeout restaurants, could eventually be targeted.

Officials calculate that the city spends 5.2 cents per bag annually for street litter pickup and 1.4 cents per bag for extra recycling costs.

Of course, the cost of street litter pickup is not 5.2 cents per bag, but (essentially) zero cents per bag, since the streets would be cleaned anyway. (We all remember the difference between marginal cost and average cost from Econ. 101, right?)

And did you notice that little "cigarette tax" maneuver — they want to reduce waste rather than raise money? Then why not just ban plastic bags outright? Provide those free cloth "shoppers' bags" (a la free recycling bins for every home). Of course it's about the money — it's always about the money.

I hope they pass the stupid tax — I'd enjoy seeing the black market that arises, especially among San Francisco's (quite ubiquitous) beggar population: "Psst! I got primo bags right here buddy, straight from Sausalito — just 10 cents! Oh, and you ain't no plastic bag cop, are ya? Cuz you gotta tell me if you're a cop, or that's entrapment..."

Eventually we'll even have special episodes of "COPS: Bag Patrol." Or some third-rate sitcom will rip off the (two-part) Seinfeld episode where Kramer and Newman try to smuggle 5-cent cans into a 10-cent state.

Laugh so you don't cry.

---

Fast forward to the present: The plastic bag ban passed 10-1.

San Francisco supervisors and supporters said that by banning the petroleum-based sacks, blamed for littering streets and choking marine life, the measure would go a long way toward helping the city earn its green stripes.

First off, I'm not sure "earning green stripes" (whatever that means) is a proper function of government. The purpose of government is to protect individual liberties and provide public goods. Forcing people into "correct" choices ("correct" to whom? by what standard?) based on wild supposition (i.e., mere guesses) over de minimis issues (plastic bags are simply not a global catastrophe) is warm-fuzzy-feeling nanny statism at its worst.

Second, to borrow a phrase: Plastic bags don't litter, people litter. Why not just up the fines for littering (i.e., punishing those who actually do wrong)? Is that too archaic a doctrine for "enlightened" San Francisco?

Third, paper and plastic are not perfect substitutes. The fact that some people prefer one over the other proves that. Very very close substitutes, perhaps -- but not perfect. So banning plastic bags is not costless -- it destroys utility and consumer welfare. But it is of course the calling card of politicians to see (or imagine) only the benefits but never the costs of their legislative actions. Plus ça change...

Fourth, if there are objectively demonstrable negative externalities to plastic bags, then the original stupid idea the city considered -- a bag tax or deposit similar to bottle deposits -- would have been (marginally) less stupid than an outright ban. But when it comes to activist legislators, apparently it's "In for a penny, in for a pound..."

More thoughts from Hit & Run

I guess this isn't covered by McCain-Feingold either:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to help one-time candidate Tom Vilsack, who endorsed her on Monday, as he seeks to retire a campaign debt of more than $400,000.
...
"There was no quid pro quo," [a Clinton spokesperson] said.

No, of course there wasn't. Why should anyone suspect such a thing? Surely the principle of "looks-walks-quacks like a duck" has no relevance here. Right?

Just like how there was no quid pro quo when Marc Rich bought for $1 million received via no quid pro quo a pardon from Clinton's pervert husband, literally in the last hours of his administration.

Could you imagine the entire federal government bought and sold administered by Hillary Clinton as though it were the Lincoln Bedroom? Could you imagine health care — all health care — being turned into her personal plaything?

All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives — though some are clearly more defective than others.

--Does McCain-Feingold (which is five years old today) apply to putting politicians' pictures on baseball tickets during an election year?

--Does the inapplicability of the First Amendment to child pornography also apply to merely discussing child pornography?

--Should the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit be allowed to compel a deposition from a defendant that a "five minute Google search" shows is the wrong person? Would your answer change if you learned that the plaintiff is the RIAA and the defendant is a 10-year old girl?

--Why should "driving while texting" be an explicit traffic offense but not "driving while slurping"? Is "such a bill would never pass the state legislature" a legitimate answer, as one activist legislator seems to think?

--Will Eliot Spitzer, who as New York Attorney General never met a business he wasn't willing to sue, be as aggressive as governor and go after consumer-cheating Saratoga Spa State Park, a government entity that, along with the private contractor it retained, has been deliberately mixing ordinary tap water into its famed mineral baths for twenty years? (Via Consumerist.)

To review, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, that challenges a longstanding antitrust rule banning any and all "retail price maintenance" as constituting an illegal "anticompetitive" practice.

To libertarians, this rule -- known as the "Dr. Miles rule" from the 1911 case that the Court is now being asked to overturn -- is facially befuddling, and even damnable. Two private parties -- a manufacturer and a retailer -- ought to be able to enter into a private contract for mutual benefit. If a consumer has a problem with it, then she is perfectly free to have no part of it (i.e., to harrumph at home to her heart's content). End of discussion.

But freedom of contract -- "economic substantive due process" -- has been dead ever since the New Deal (and even before that in the case of antitrust law). Instead, the government -- both legislatures and courts -- take a utilitarian/consequentialist view. Infringing economic liberties, they reason, is perfectly hunky-dory if it can be argued -- not proven, but merely argued -- that "consumers" (arbitrarily defined) might -- not will, but might -- benefit (somehow).

This is what passes for enlightened statecraft in the Twenty-First Century.

And yet, even by that haphazard divining process, retail price maintenance should still be allowed, or at least presumptively allowed. There are powerful economic arguments explaining why allowing retail price maintenance can benefit consumers. But at least one of the Justices, Stephen Breyer, arrogantly dismissed "counting economists" as invalid folly.

Ironically, Breyer's pompous position contradicts another disturbing trend by judges, including at the Supreme Court: the increasing prevalence of excessive judicial deference (abdication?) in the form of both substituting rational basis review for heightened scrutiny and, worse, redefining rational basis review into a new policy of absolute deference to the legislature (whether Congress or a statehouse).

This is an untenable contradiction: Why should judges be so willing to defer to legislators but not to the market? If legislators are the "experts" on matters of public policy, then aren't capitalists the "experts" on matters of economic policy? Who is better equipped to determine what maximizes "consumer welfare"? Politicians (most of whom have never been businessmen and have little or no economics training), or entrepreneurs -- whose very existence is perpetually dependent precisely on maximizing consumer welfare (i.e., by giving the customer what he wants, in order to maximize his own profits)?

No single person, and no assemblage of people, can know the market better than the market knows itself. No policy can maximize consumer welfare more than letting those people who are creating consumer welfare go ahead and create it. If "judicial deference" is the proper orientation, then so be it -- defer to the market, not to Congress and not to the archaic and repudiated reasoning of a century-old precedent.

More thoughts at SCOTUSblog, Distributed Intelligence, Truth on the Market.

Mitt Romney, who initially boasted about his campaign fundraising successes, suddenly feels a need to debase his volunteer currency:

Participants in "Students for Mitt" will get 10 percent of the money they raise for the campaign beyond the first $1,000. While candidates often offer professional fundraisers commissions up to 8 percent, campaign experts believe the Massachusetts Republican is the first to do so with the legion of college students who have historically served as campaign volunteers.

"For the kids that [sic] want to get involved in a political campaign and they don't want to spend their summer painting houses, they can help the campaign and themselves at the same time," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Others take a dimmer view. "It may very well succeed, but I'd like to think that he'd approach young people and college students based on their commitment to the country, not because they want walking-around money," said Steve Grossman, a prominent Massachusetts fundraiser and past chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I think all volunteer political activists, regardless of age or party, are schmucks -- and disingenuous ones at that. You want to show "commitment to the country" by volunteering? Work in a soup kitchen or a pediatric ward, not a telemarketing phone bank. So I'll recuse myself from the Democratic infighting.

But what about the Mormon angle? As I understand it, young Mormon lads who go on "missions" don't get paid for it. Their lives are quite spartan while they're away. Their reward is not worldly; they're expected to just do it because -- well, because they're expected to just do it.

I would have thought the same should be true for young "missionary" politicos: The reward is supposed to be the fact that your candidate wins, not movie money (or the free video iPod for the top collector).

Or perhaps it's all about the rewards (i.e., ka-ching!) to Romney and not to the idealistic (naive?) kids.

Thoughts?

So first we learn that the NYPD is sending covert agents, not only outside New York City, not only outside New York State, but even outside the country to collect data on law-abiding citizens engaging in law-abiding activities.

Now we learn that even car rental agencies and mortgage companies are playing the pawns of Big Brother:

The Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of "specially designated nationals" has long been used by banks and other financial institutions to block financial transactions of drug dealers and other criminals. But an executive order issued by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has expanded the list and its consequences in unforeseen ways. Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area to be issued today.

"The way in which the list is being used goes far beyond contexts in which it has a link to national security," said Shirin Sinnar, the report's author. "The government is effectively conscripting private businesses into the war on terrorism but doing so without making sure that businesses don't trample on individual rights."

Because of course there's always the risk that al Qaeda will fly a sub-compact — or a mortgage — into a skyscraper.

And it is of course not al Qaeda whose transactions are blocked. People with partial name matches get flagged, and the penalties for firms that "do business with terrorists" are so draconian that it makes more sense for them to simply decline the business rather than risk a run-in with the government.

Implementing a (hopefully) reliable system of keeping "suspicious" (defined how?) individuals off commercial airliners is not per se irrational. Keeping "not truly suspicious" people from renting a car or getting a home equity loan is per se irrational — as is conscripting private businesses to do to the government's work.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that even before the War on Terror, utilities could and did gleefully turn over customer records, on the (preposterous) Supreme Court reasoning that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone or electric bill. One must also assume that the same reasoning would apply to pay-per-view purchases and DVD rentals.

It is still unsettled as to how private one's library usage may be. And we were also just told that the FBI has been so slap-happy with its use of National Security Letters and FISA warrant applications, that even they can't calculate exactly how many times they've broken the law.

So I ask again: Is there anyone who isn't spying on us?

The terrorists want to destroy our way of life. They are succeeding.

Two activist legislators in New York seem to think so:

Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Harlem) and state Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island) announced Sunday that they have reintroduced The Renter's Tax Credit which would provide a $300 credit to individual renters who earn less than $43,000 a year and families who earn less than $75,000.
...
"For too long, the renters of this city have long felt the sting of rising housing costs, because they don't qualify for any of the tax benefits that come with homeownership," she said yesterday.

Some hasty stitches:

--The proposed "renters rebate" mirrors the $300 property tax rebate that New York City homeowners receive. To which my response is: Two wrongs don't make a right.

--Isn't this a case of New York City elitism? Why shouldn't lower-income renters in Poughkeepsie, or Ithaca, or Binghamton, or Buffalo receive the credit too? Are they less important, or less worthy, than New York City's working class?

--If "rent is too high," then why craft a tax provision that encourages people to stay as renters? Shouldn't the policy, if there's going to be a policy, be to encourage renters to become owners instead? Would you give tax credits for cigarettes in order to enable lower-income smokers to afford nicotine patches?

--A related point, courtesy of introductory economics. If you instantaneously double everyone's income and wealth, then prices, for everything, will simply double (net of some background noise). The effect of a universal tax credit is not quite so dollar-for-dollar (due to demand elasticities and other factors), but the direction of the vector is the same: Give every lower-income renter an extra $300 per year, and they will simply bid up the price of their rentals. Perhaps not by $300 per year, but by some amount. This move would enrich landlords as well as renters -- perhaps more so. The laws of economics are not subject to repeal by any legislature.

--It may do little good to say it again, but the purpose of taxation ought to be to raise revenue, not to manipulate people's lives, reward them for "correct" behavior or penalize them for "incorrect" behavior. ("Correct" or "incorrect"? To whom? By what standard? Blank-out.)

These warm-fuzzy-feeling maneuvers are much like the person who, faced with a wobbly table, keeps sawing off too much of another leg, until there's no table left. While the obvious alternatives escape them:

1. Keep taxes low for everyone, and fairness will take care of itself.

2. Get out of the way, repeal all the various laws that making building in New York City next to impossible, and let real estate developers actually develop -- including housing. Demand creates its own supply -- except when government gets in the way.

A sad example that gays can indeed be just like everyone else -- including sometimes being petty and narcissistic:

[Sara] Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent.
...
Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request.

The couple's relationship later soured.

Bottom line: Sara is now suing to exclude her ex-partner from the child's life -- on the grounds that gay adoption is illegal in Georgia. She is willing, indeed eager, to sacrifice the entire gay community in order to pursue her own irrational agenda.

Some hasty stitches:

--Sara insists, "it's about motherly rights." Utter nonsense. And, admittedly, it is not (directly) about "gay rights" either. The only permissible consideration here is the best interests of the child. What kind of ogre would seek to exclude a loving, competent adult from a child's life? This is parental narcissism of the most odoriferous kind -- on a par with the worst child custody battles of the heterosexual world.

--Sara insists, "since nothing in Georgia law specifically allowed gay adoption, the adoption should be tossed out." Also utter nonsense. See OCGA § 19-8-3. Furthermore, the impossible-to-ignore gaggle of bigot amendments, including of course Georgia's, warrant the polar opposite of Sara's position: If it's not explicitly banned, then it's presumptively legal. Isn't that among the most basic premises of "the American way"?

--Respect for judgments and decrees is a critical element of the rule of law. What a dangerous precedent it would be if courts could start "de-adopting" people who don't wish to be de-adopted -- or "de-marrying" people who don't wish to be de-married. Even the bigots in Massachusetts are not willing to go quite that far in their mean-spirited attempt to overturn the Goodridge same-sex marriage decision in that state.

Sara has lost at both the trial court and intermediate court level. She is now seeking a hearing before the Georgia Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

Was anyone really naive enough to think that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez would stop at "evil, greedy, foreign" ExxonMobil?

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that his administration plans to create "collective property" as part of sweeping reforms toward socialism, and that officials would move to seize control of large ranches and redistribute lands deemed "idle."
...
"It's property that belongs to everyone and it's going to benefit everyone," said Chavez, who vowed to undermine capitalism's continued influence in Venezuela.

At this point I think it's fair to reclassify Chavez, not as a socialist, but as a communist. We'll make it "small-c communist" to distinguish him from the Soviet-era (and Chinese) totalitarians.

Stealing a pizza from a rich man and declaring it "collective food" does little good after the collective has eaten it. Stealing a pizzeria from a rich man and declaring it "collective property" does little good after the collective realizes it doesn't know how to cook a pizza. They'll trip and stumble, producing ("inexplicably" in their minds) fewer pizzas than the pizza man did. What few pizzas are produced will be seized by the government, to be handed out to "important" elites.

Soon supplies will disappear, to be diverted to the black market. Perhaps the collective will have to try baking pizzas with no gas, electricity or oil, after the government allocates ever-dwindling energy supplies to "more important" industries. Eventually the members of the pizza collective will simply eat the raw dough, drink the tomato sauce, watch the oven rust into junk metal -- and then starve to death. All the while blaming the pizza owner, or the pizzeria down the street, or the bank, or the United States. But they, in their own minds, will have remained noble, pure, and untainted by "greedy" capitalism. All the way to an early grave.

Don't believe me?

The government has been forced to import food amid shortages of staples such as meats, milk and sugar.

This -- in one of the most oil-rich nations on earth.

Behold the socialist communist paradise. Same as it ever was...

--Is it really necessary for the College Board, which administers the AP exams, to inject itself into high school curricula, in the form of approving AP classes? Shouldn't it be enough for the body to just give the tests, and let those who pass pass while those who fail fail?

--Is it really necessary for the Securities and Exchange Commission to restrict the First Amendment rights of a hedge fund, by not allowing it to post truthful information on its website? Especially when, by law, only so-called "accredited investors" are allowed to invest in the fund anyway? (WSJ - $)

--Is it really necessary for the federal government, via the antitrust laws, to forbid a manufacturer from requiring, as part of its mutually voluntary sales contract with retailers, from restricting retail prices? Stated differently, is it really necessary for the government to ignore not only the most basic principles of freedom of contract, but also a century or more of economic science? (Note that the Supreme Court will be asking those very same questions this morning.)

--Is it really necessary to put mug shots of deadbeat dads on pizza boxes? What exactly is it supposed to accomplish, other than generate some warm fuzzy feelings for some activist bureaucrats?

--Is it really necessary for the Missoula (Montana) County Commissioners to vote on whether a referendum recommending that police ignore minor marijuana offenses was "misinterpreted," based solely on the County Attorney's "gut feeling" (his term)? Especially when the referendum (which passed with 52% of the vote) was explicitly "advisory" to begin with? What message does the 2-1 vote to "rewrite" the already-passed initiative send to voters — especially young voters? (Via Slashdot.)

The Brooklyn Public Library has queued up an innovative new idea:

In what would be a first in the United States, the Brooklyn Public Library hopes to team up with Netflix to deliver DVDs and videos to anyone in the borough with a library card[.]

The price would be unbeatable — free.
...
Asked why the company would agree to a deal that might cut into its own subscriber base, [a library official] responded: "We'd be paying them to do something. They'd be the provider of a service."

That's certainly an interesting idea. But I have an even more interesting idea: Let people pay for their own damn Netflix subscriptions!

A DVD is simply not a public good. A DVD rental service is not a public good.* The very existence of Netflix (and Blockbuster and all the other services) is proof that there is no need for government provision of free DVD rentals.

And make no mistake about it, the Brooklyn Public Library is the government: 91% of its revenue — $88.6 million every year — comes from taxpayers. Not all of whom live in Brooklyn, not all of whom use the Brooklyn Public Library, not all of whom would use its "free" DVD service and plenty of whom are already paying for their own DVD purchases or rentals. BPL is about as "private" as Amtrak (less so, in fact — at least Amtrak doesn't let people ride for free).

Incidentally, who's going to decide which titles would be offered for "free" and which wouldn't? Does anyone seriously doubt that activist legislators would start imposing censorial restrictions on R-rated titles? On films that contain smoking scenes? Would religious films trigger First Amendment concerns? The can of worms could be bottomless.

Similar issues have arisen with another faux public good: municipal wi-fi. First the local government crowds out the private service providers, then suddenly the "free" service comes with ominous strings attached: no porn, no privacy, etc. No thanks.

Meanwhile, a curious denouement:

Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey said he knew nothing about a possible partnership with the library and seemed surprised by the news.

Wouldn't it be nice if this all turns out to be a figment of some library bureaucrat's imagination? Stay tuned.

(Via Consumerist and Gothamist.)

---

*Libraries themselves are arguably not public goods. But I leave open for now the premise that a repository of basic reference volumes and periodicals might generate enough positive externalities to qualify. But most public libraries cross way over that line these days, spending taxpayer money on offerings and services that certainly do not qualify by any standard as "public goods."

I am on record as having an intensely strong preference for symmetry in architecture. All tastes and preferences are subjective, but symmetry is both less expensive to construct and hard-wired into our brains. It is, all else equal, a good thing.

So my first thought at seeing this building was, "The architect better have had a mighty good reason for such a silly design."

He did:

The design strategically maneuvers within the highly regulated building environment to maximize the full potential of the site[.]

In that context, what can one say except: Bravo!

But symmetrical would have been better — and undoubtedly cheaper. Too bad Singapore's hyperactive government has no appreciation of that aesthetic.

(Via Boing Boing.)

"You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you."
--Larry Kramer*

To review, a very stupid person wrote a very stupid thing:

"The caricatures of the left notwithstanding, there is no substantial conservative constituency which is hostile to homosexual indidividuals [sic]."

Let's review some of those recent "caricatures."

---

ITEM: The city manager of Largo, Florida, has been fired for being a transsexual —

The City Commission voted 5 to 2 to dismiss the man, Steven B. Stanton, after a six-hour hearing in which he and his supporters argued that he could do his job just as well once he became a woman. Some commissioners said they had voted to fire Mr. Stanton not because he wanted to become a woman, but because he had violated their trust and caused a major disruption.

Utter nonsense. A sex-change operation is more disruptive than, say, maternity leave? He was fired out of bigotry, by the "no substantial constituency" that loathes gays, transsexuals and other "not hated" "indidividuals."

Stanton had repeatedly received favorable reviews and had just gotten a raise — his firing is almost on a par with the U.S. Attorney scandal. Except here the "no substantial constituency" is being far more overt in their actions.

"Employment at will" is all well and good, but public servants, whom the Largo City Commissioners claim to be, should act in the public interest. Firing a fully competent individual with a better-than-acceptable record, out of petty hatred, fear and ignorance, is simply not "the public interest."

Finally, note that Stanton's plight has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gay marriage. When they say "it's all about marriage," they lie. It's all about hate.

Previous post here (fourth item). More thoughts from Pam's House Blend.

---

ITEM: How are the Soulforce Equality Riders doing?

We ran into police intimidation in Clinton Mississippi. Prior to leaving the town of Clinton Mississippi the Equality Ride bus was confronted three times by the same police officer who told the Equality Ride bus driver to "go on and get out of town." The final time the officer interacted with the bus driver he threatened to arrest him if he did not follow his order.

The group has filed a formal written grievance with the Mississippi Attorney General for the apparent police misconduct, and six national gay rights organizations have written a complaint to the mayor of Clinton.

So if there is indeed "no substantial constituency" that hates gay "indidividuals," one wonders how the incident happened in the first place, and how swiftly action by Mississippi's "public servants" will follow.

And again, note that the Equality Ride is not about gay marriage per se, but merely about attempting to open a dialog about gay issues on college campuses officially unwelcoming to gays. (Such colleges — and there are many — also apparently comprise "no substantial constituency." Go figure.)

---

ITEM: Finally, exactly what would qualify as a "substantial constituency" hostile to homosexual "indidivuals"?

What would you think of a country that spends most of its time arguing over whether a man can marry a man and do to each other what is despised by 99.9 percent of humanity from the beginning of time until now? Because make no mistake about it: 99.9 percent of humanity despises this behavior because they do not want to go down that road, and they know it's the road of death.

That was Michael Savage, explaining why Islamofascists want to destroy the Western way of life. Not because of fundamentally different religious texts, not because of perceived incursions into their lands. Not because of oil. Not because of a comprehensive opposition to modernity, individuality, equal treatment under the law, and capitalist egalitarianism.

No, they hate us because we don't hate gays enough. So we need to start catching up — to "99.9% of humanity" — by hating gays even more, so maybe the terrorists will leave us alone.

Michael Savage is the third most popular talk radio personality in America, with an estimated audience of eight million listeners.

Who apparently still don't qualify as a "substantial constituency." Neither, apparently, does "99.9% of humanity," if we are to believe Savage.

---

More from Larry Kramer:

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred?

Good questions all. Perhaps some "substantial constituency hostile to homosexual indidividuals" will someday be able to answer it. For now, unfortunately, remember: no such "substantial constituency" even exists.

---

*Source for the Kramer quotes here, via here. You can listen to a lengthy recent Kramer speech with much the same text at this podcast.

Note that I do not agree with much, perhaps most, of Kramer's ultra-left political leanings, especially his absurd theories of pharmaceutical economics, his revisionist history of ACT UP's importance in the 1980s and 1990s, and his sloppy flip-flop equating of the "gay" and "HIV+" communities, which have neither identical constituencies nor issues. Overlapping, yes to some extent, but not identical — and the differences are important. Still, his view on contemporary gay politics — especially contemporary gay Democratic politics — is spot on.

Time to clean out the aggregator.

---

ITEM: More data debunking the oft-repeated lie that the U.S. has "worse" infant mortality rates than other nations, especially those with socialized medicine schemes:

In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. When you consider the disparate definitions of live births it is easy to see why the United States would not compare favorably — particularly when other countries are using definitions that lower their infant mortality rate. Due to the wildly varying definitions of what constitutes a live birth and reporting requirements, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Which of course doesn't stop advocates of "universal health care" — especially politicians — from doing exactly that. (Via Kevin, M.D.)

---

ITEM: Meanwhile, this week's socialized medicine anecdote