A Stitch in Haste

Three items:

1. From Lambda Legal:

Ambassador James C. Hormel, a dedicated philanthropist and long-time Lambda Legal supporter has generously pledged to make a donation of up to $25,000 in support of our work -- but he wants your help. Ambassador Hormel believes that member support of Lambda Legal's work is so critical in making the case for equality for LGBT people and those with HIV that he has presented his gift in the form of a challenge:

Lambda Legal must raise a matching $25,000 from new Lambda Legal members, who join with a contribution of $50 or more. You can help us meet the 2007 Hormel Challenge by asking your friends and family to join Lambda Legal today.

You can join Lambda Legal -- the heroes who brought us Lawrence v. Texas, at this link.

2. Also from Lambda Legal: May 15 is "Clock in for Equality Day" --

On May 15, 2007, thousands of people across the country will do something to support workplace fairness. By coordinating organizations and individuals to take action on the same day, we will:

Educate the public about the harassment and discrimination LGBT people and those living with HIV face at work

Increase support for efforts to win legal protections for LGBT employees

Activate people to fight for the rights of LGBT and HIV-affected workers.

Lambda is also hosting several workshops and panel discussions across the country that day.

3. From the National Lesbian & Gay Law Association:

Lavender Law 2007 – Chicago will feature two dozen workshops on cutting-edge legal issues affecting LGBT individuals and the community, as well as a Career Fair. Topics to be covered include practical litigation skills, constitutional law developments, estate planning and drafting, employment discrimination, HIV/AIDS, immigration, workplace diversity, domestic violence, career development, issues affecting out legal practitioners in large firms and LGBT issues in academe, the military, and the family.

The conference is September 7-9.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

Scientific American presents a survey of studies addressing (but not answering) the question: Do Firearms Kill More People (in the home) Than They Save (in public places)?

But isn't the real issue how many people are killed by guns, period? In other words, while our primate brains automatically focus on dramatic and terrifying events such as this one, if our ultimate goal is the preservation of life, shouldn't we be talking about the overall statistics about guns rather than focusing on whether or not more lax or more restrictive gun control would have averted this disaster?

No, that's not the real issue at all. The real issue is whether gun control laws are constitutional. Data should only drive policy within the context of proposals that would be constitutional if enacted.

And we're still having that debate. So the question of whether gun control laws are "effective" is premature. We first determine whether they are permissible.

It's analogous to the "House seat for the District of Columbia" nonsense: the fact that disenfranchisement may be fundamentally unfair is utterly irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says, and anyone with a three-digit IQ and a scrap of intellectual honesty who considers it must acknowledge that the bill recently passed by the House is patently unconstitutional.

So too with gun control. Maybe such laws save lives in the aggregate, maybe not. Maybe they save innocent lives in the aggregate, maybe not. But that debate can only properly take place after the requisite analysis of what, exactly, government may and may not do under the Second Amendment.

Even the most life-saving gun control law is evil if it violates the Constitution.

New York City has no shortage of activist legislators. One that I have no doubt will grab the headlines more and more frequently is Representative Anthony Weiner (D - Not Manhattan).

Weiner is, like all politicians, ambitious. He has run for mayor in the past. He will run in the future. I'm guessing he'll eventually win, perhaps as early as the next election in 2009.

In the meantime, he lurks among the backbenches of the House Democrats, popping his head up every so often, in a typical whack-a-pol fashion that is matched only by his more senior counterpart, Senator Chuck E. Cheese Schumer, to "denounce this" or "condemn that."

Most recently, and most damnably, Weiner was a field commander in the disgraceful, and unfortunate, War on Wal-Mart that certain collectively bargained malcontents waged mercilessly in this city. Because low prices, wide selection, and lots of potential property and other taxes to be paid by a big corporation would have been just so horrible.

Having won that battle — with every New York shopper as collateral damage — Weiner now needs a new "big, heartless villain" to, well, vilify.

But the pickings appear to be slimming down a bit:

The National Park Service must decide whether Circle Line — often criticized for long wait lines, old equipment and high ticket prices — will hang on to the [Statute of Liberty ferry] contract reportedly worth up to $350 million.
...
But now Weiner is releasing documents from a 2005 inspector-general report critical of the friendly relationship between a former park service director and a Circle Line lawyer[.].

The report found nothing improper, and Circle Line officials are fuming over the timing of the documents' release.
...
Weiner said, "It's not personal," and added, "They've got a lucrative contract, and they'll do anything they can to keep it."

Ah yes, the "dedicated public servant" doing selfless battle against the "evil, greedy corporation." How wonderful to think that Weiner is so eager to save us from Circle Line, just as he helped save us from Wal-Mart.

The fact that nothing improper actually happened is of course irrelevant. As is the fact that "long wait lines, old equipment and high ticket prices" might have more to do with the way the government runs Liberty Island than with how Circle Line tries to run its business.

Meanwhile, one wonders exactly why Weiner is involving himself in this rather mundane matter? Does he have nothing better to do in Washington? Will the terrorists win if Circle Line's competitively-bid contract is renewed?

All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. Sometimes they demonstrate it by taking defective routes from one political office to the next. Apparently Weiner thinks that the fastest route from Capitol Hill to Gracie Mansion is via the Circle Line.

Time to clean out the aggregator:

---

ITEM: The Bush Administration will no longer have political appointees select interns and entry-level Justice Department hires, amid revelations that positions were being squandered on students and graduates from sub-par Evangelical Christian institutions. Previous post here (last item).

---

ITEM: On the other hand, the Bush Administration's "Privacy and Civil Liberty Oversight Board," a hand-picked gaggle of apologists predestined to exonerate the executive branch of any wrongdoing in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, has done just that — to absolutely no one's surprise. The farcical committee's charge was to ensure that privacy concerns are "considered" by the federal government. Not "guaranteed," not "respected," not even "acknowledged," but merely "considered." Mission Accomplished! Previous post here. (Via Threat Level.)

---

ITEM: New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has, as promised, introduced a gay marriage bill to the state legislature. The Senate majority leader, who can keep any and every item off the legislative agenda has, as I unboldly predicted, already declared the bill dead.

---

ITEM: Moving from Albany to New York, the City Council has, as widely expected, overridden Mayor Bloomberg's vetoes of a ban on aluminum bats at high school baseball games and a restriction on so-called "pedicabs."

---

ITEM: The latest idea by a Utah activist politician? Simply declare Satan illegal. ("Satan," of course, being completely synonymous with "illegal immigrants.") One of several previous Utah posts here. (Via Concurring Opinions.)

---

ITEM: This week's "socialized medicine rations too" anecdote — Shouldn't a "right to health care" include a right to anti-blindness medication before the patient actually goes blind? Britain's NHS tells a 76-year old retired policeman: "No, you must go blind first." (Via John Ray.)

---

ITEM: Yet another invitation to Guess What's in the White Box and win a $50 donation to your favorite nonreligious charity.

An alarming excess of disturbing reports over the past few days:

---

ITEM: An 18-year old student in Illinois has been arrested for writing an essay —

Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
...
Disorderly conduct, which carries a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine, is filed for pranks such as pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. But it can also apply when someone's writings can disturb an individual, Delelio said.

MY TAKE: That last statement is, of course, utter nonsense, as the ACLU intends to demonstrate in the case. Mere words, especially written words handed to a single individual, can never be "disorderly conduct" just because they are "disturbing" (i.e., as opposed to "threatening"). But so what? You don't want another Blacksburg, do you?

More thoughts from Threat Level, Slashdot.

---

ITEM: A Canadian national has been permanently denied entry into the U.S. after the government "Googled" him —

[Andrew] Feldmar took his last hit of acid in 1974.

Thirty-two years, however, turned out to be but an instant in the long, unrelenting U.S. war on drugs. Last summer, in an incident that has just come to light, Mr. Feldmar, now 66, was banned from entering the United States because of his long-ago use of LSD.
...
The guards simply looked up Mr. Feldmar on the Internet and discovered his own article about using LSD, written for the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal Janus Head.

MY TAKE: This man had no criminal record (and is now protected by the statute of limitations), and the United States has no grounds whatsoever to suspect him of, well, anything. But keep him out anyway. And that's just over our "almost fanatical position on drugs," [Feldmar's attorney's words] — can you imagine the response to some Google hit relating to the War on Terror? (Via Techdirt.)

(SOMEWHAT RELATED: Not always a First Amendment issue, but the New York Times has an article today chronicling the difficulties law-abiding Arab-American citizens are having crossing the border.

More recent episodes that provoked concern include one in which border agents reportedly Googled the name of an Ohio man and then questioned him about a letter to the editor he had written to The Toledo Blade regarding events in the Middle East.

Maybe it is a First Amendment issue after all.)

(ALSO SOMEWHAT RELATED: A 27-year old would-be teacher had her graduate education degree "demoted" to an English degree, and her pending teaching credentials canceled, on the eve of her graduation after school officials decided she had posted a supposedly inappropriate picture — of her drinking at a Halloween party — on her private MySpace page. She is suing.)

(FUN FACT: You can insert the following simple code into a web page to have it passed over by Google and other search engines --

META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"
Webheads are encouraged to add any other helpful hints in the comments.)

---

ITEM: Is the First Amendment being lynched?

Black lawmakers want police to investigate protesters at a statehouse gun rights rally who held up a banner calling for an opponent to be "hung from the tree of liberty."

Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland, chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, told reporters the banner displayed Tuesday was "an act of racism, an act of hatred, an act of bigotry and a terroristic threat on the life of a colleague."

"No one has the right to call for the lynching of another human being — no one," he said.
...
Paul Estus, one of two men who held up the banner, said during the rally that the lynching tree was "just a figure of speech."

MY TAKE: Bad grammar aside, I have trouble finding "hung from the tree of liberty" to be a literal "terroristic" call for a lynching. Then again, I'm not black. Meanwhile, note that the legislator does not merely want to suppress future incidents (which arguably are protected under the reasoning of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)), but also wants the banner-carriers "investigated." That's scary. Crafting an supposedly "necessary" exception to First Amendment protection is one thing, but using purported violations of such an exception as an excuse to "investigate" wrong-thinkers comes a bit to close to, as someone once said, a high-tech lynching.

---

ITEM: New York's highest court recently played unforgivably fast and loose with the dictionary in the name of "protecting the children" —

In his appeal, [Jeffrey] Kozlow argued that the 1996 state law used against him required throwing out the charges because the statute said the material sent had to "depict" sexual conduct. The law was intended to crack down on pedophiles using computers to lure minors into sexual encounters.

While the Court of Appeals majority agreed that Kozlow did not send sexually explicit photographs to the undercover officer he thought was a 14-year-old boy in e-mails they exchanged, Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. said that didn't matter.

MY TAKE: As the dissent noted, every single dictionary that the judges consulted defined "depict" as, unsurprisingly, pictorial — it's the same word root. If the legislature wants to criminalize knowingly sending naughty text to a minor (which it could undeniably do), then let them (e.g., by using "depicts or describes").

Legislators are elected to legislate — so is it too much to ask that they do it properly and not leave judges guessing? And whatever happened to the lenity doctrine, which demands that any uncertainty about a criminal statute's terms be strictly resolved in favor of the defendant?

A truly disturbing decision — not because the defendant wasn't a sleazeball (he was), but because the court accommodated a sloppy legislature. This courts should never do, and certainly never when the First Amendment is even remotely involved.

The case is People v. Kozlow (PDF - 15 pages). (Via How Appealing.)

For this installment of Sunday Cute YouTuber, we switch from dancing to singing:


Looks a bit like Gale Harold, no?

Of course, if I looked like 00sam7 (or Gale Harold), I probably wouldn't (a) wear a shirt with "HUMBLE" writ large, or (b) karaoke to Christian inspirational country music — somebody squirt that lad some Scissor Sisters!

The answer of course depends on which metric one chooses.

Choosing this metric would not be per se irrational:

Justice Anthony Kennedy ... is having the kind of year most judges only dream about.
...
Kennedy is a robust 31-1 in signed opinions issued since the court began its current term in October. He is 12-0 in 5-4 cases, the only justice in that narrow majority each time in cases concerning abortion, the death penalty and global warming.

Kennedy has been in the majority nearly 97 percent of the time.

The power of the median voter -- fleeting, but robust while it lasts.

(Via How Appealing.)

For Discussion: Is the reason libertarians never seem to make progress in mainstream politics because they ignore the power of the median voter, or because the major parties work so hard to keep libertarians away from the median voter?

--Is providing patently incorrect information, about condoms or anything else, ever a proper function of government?

--Does entering into a same-sex civil union constitute a "Tell" within the context of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? More importantly, suppose a civil union state (as, e.g., New Hampshire will likely soon be) wants to allow gays to serve openly in its National Guard. Does the Defense Department have the authority to say no? (Via Frontlines.)

--Are New York City homeowners really so stupid that they cannot find any credit counselors' telephone numbers by themselves and instead need a taxpayer-funded "foreclosure counseling hotline," which will merely transfer the caller to the aforementioned credit counselors?

--Speaking of homeowners, if a Portland, Oregon, man was assured by the local government that riders of a new tram would not be able to see into his yard, then what exactly is wrong with him placing a large "F*ck the Tram" sign on his roof? (Via Fark.)

Speaking of "not seeing it," a $275 watch deliberately encased in leather so as to make it unusable ("Perfect for the man with no time.") -- high fashion or flaming idiocy? (Via Boing Boing.)

The Dean of Admissions at MIT, Marilee Jones, has been forced out for -- irony of ironies -- lying on her résumé:

Jones has been a popular speaker on the college-admissions circuit, urging parents not to press their kids too hard, and has told students there are more important things than getting into the most prestigious colleges. She rewrote MIT's application to get students to reveal more about their personalities and passions and to de-emphasize lists of their accomplishments.

I'll refrain from critiquing the "more important things than getting into the most prestigious colleges" blather.

Some commentators are, meanwhile, wondering aloud whether it makes sense to fire a successful employee for prior bad acts, especially a prior bad act that seems to have been harmless. For example, law professor Michael Dorf:

But why does the earlier bad act disqualify him from employment now? In the Jones case, it's a bit different because, in her words, she did not "correct" her resume when she applied for the Deanship. I take it this means she repeated the fraud. And perhaps that's enough to explain why she had to go. In the counter-factual world in which Jones had only made the initial misrepresentation, however, it's less clear that this ought to count as a separation offense.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Here is the response that I posted at his blog:

It is not an "earlier" bad act -- it is an ongoing bad act.

Every single day that this Dean showed up for work, she continued -- perpetuated -- an ongoing act of misconduct.

This woman is hardly a Jean Valjean. I have no sympathy for her and applaud MIT for its actions.

Dorf's observation that Jones "repeat lied" by not correcting her résumé when she applied for the deanship misses the point entirely: Every single day that she showed up for work, every single time she collected a paycheck, she committed a fraud. "It was all in the past..." is an absurdity.

Meanwhile, another point is being lost in this discussion: not only was MIT harmed, but also harmed was the person who would have gotten Jones' first job but for her willful fraud. That person is unknown and perhaps unknowable, but he did exist and he was harmed. MIT of course cannot "turn back the clock" and give that anonymous victim the job that Jones stole from him years ago -- but the school can and should, as a ethical (symbolic?) gesture, stop the clock from ticking any further ahead.

Again, MIT was entirely correct, and attempts to downplay the wrongfulness of her actions are misplaced.

That's my ruling -- any dissents?

More thoughts from Dean Christakos.

For Discussion: A similar analysis is applicable to affirmative action. It may be "good for the school" or "good for society" to have a diverse academic environment (the current gobbledygook that the Supreme Court uses to rationalize away its sanctioning of race-based and other discriminatory college admission policies), but it doesn't do much good for the specific student who is denied a specific slot at a specific elite school in order to admit a less-qualified but "more-diverse" applicant. It's the worst kind of sloppy utilitarianism. Discuss.

All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is no different:

In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."

It's quite simple really: Fuck you, Giuliani. Fuck you.

I once asked:

How many radical Evangelical conservatives, or Republicans in general, know that Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York on the Liberal Party ticket and not just the Republican? How many do you think will know it by the time primary season rolls around? (Related: How many radical Evangelical conservatives know that Giuliani was married three times, including once to his second cousin, which he got annulled by the Roman Catholic Church after 14 years?)

Hopefully every Republican will learn that Giuliani is a miserable, decrepit flip-flopper.

Less profane thoughts at Gawker, Liberty Papers, Good As You, Hit & Run, Outright Libertarians, The Gist.


This picture will be displayed on this blog so long as Giuliani is a candidate.

---

UPDATE #1: No surprise here, but McCain too.

UPDATE #2: If you're going to sell your soul, at least get a good price --

Rudy Giuliani didn't score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal ban on "partial-birth" abortion: "I agree with it." He certainly didn't win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. When people ask the Southern Baptist Convention's representative in Washington why the former New York mayor's promise to appoint strict constructionist judges if he's elected president isn't enough, Mr. Land replies: "If he'll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn't lie to you?"

Radical Evangelical theocrats may be misguided, anti-scientific, un-Christian bigots, but they're not stupid when it comes to politics.

Yes, I know, it's been far too long since I posted any pictures of Diamond.

And I've also been far too slow in starting to use my new camera-phone.

So here goes, from the local dog run last weekend:






And for those not familiar with the dog run, here's the classic footage from last year:



Best dog in the world.

(Carnivalized at Modulator's Friday Ark and Mickey's Musings' Carninal of the Dogs.)

--If gays want equal rights, then shouldn't they accept equal responsibilities — like paying their bills? (Via Good As You.)

--On the other hand, should the British police be permitted to bill victims of auto theft for the cost of a forensic analysis once the vehicle is recovered? (Via Fark.)

--Does George W. Bush, qua Commander-in-Chief, deserve a Purple Heart for the "emotional wounds and scars" he has suffered from having to lead us into war? (Via Hit & Run.)

--Should the FDA be in the business of determining what is and is not "chocolate"? (Via Slashdot.)

--Would you go through the hassle of voting just to check a box that says "I choose not to vote"? (Via Fark.)

Allowing "I Choose Not to Vote"?

• Yes
• No
• I Choose Not to Vote

view results

OUTSOURCED ENTRY:

--I have no questions for Sheryl Crow — but Market Power does.

To review, campaign finance jurisprudence, from Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), all the through McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), are collectively on my list of the Ten Worst Supreme Court Cases. The court has crafted a schizophrenic interpretation of the First Amendment — which in this context should need no interpretation. Of all the categories of speech that were intended to be protected, and ought to be protected, by the First Amendment, political speech surely ranks at the top of the list. It should be absolutely sacrosanct.

Nevertheless, the Court has contorted and rationalized its way into an incomprehensible and indefensible set of rules, and rationalizations for Congress' rules, limiting free speech in politics. Most notably among these is of course the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a/k/a "McCain-Feingold."

For example, according to the Supreme Court, Michael Bloomberg's money is "speech" but mine isn't (i.e., he can spend $70 million getting re-elected but I cannot spend one-tenth of one percent of that to oppose him).

That simply cannot be right.

Perhaps the only aspect of McCain-Feingold (and the Court's defense of it) worse than this insolent "money may or may not be speech" gobbledygook is the idea that the First Amendment can apply on some days of the calendar but not others:

"Electioneering communications," under the 2002 law, are ads that corporations and labor unions (including many non-profit corporations) pay for out of their own treasury funds, when the ads run in an area where a federal candidate is on the ballot (everywhere, for presidential candidates), use that candidate's name, and appear within 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election — the "blackout" period. As of now, that period, at least for the presidential campaign, is to start next December, 30 days in advance of the Iowa caucuses.

A "blackout period" is just another term for censorship. That's how far into the abyss we have sunk: Unapologetic censorship of political speech is deemed, by Congress and the Court, as consistent with the First Amendment — as long as it's "just sometimes."

That simply cannot be right.

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to climb up from the muck of McCain-Feingold and dismantle its loopy campaign ad jurisprudence. It is hearing oral arguments today in a case, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969), that presents an as-applied challenge to the blackout period.

Unfortunately, and as is so often the case with Supreme Court litigation, there are complicating issues (in this instance, "mootness") that may result in the Court not even addressing the underlying substantive question. Hopefully that will not be the outcome. Hopefully the (reconstituted) Court will issue a mea culpa and strike down the blackout period, and perhaps all of McCain-Feingold and — wishful thinking — all the Court's embarrassing campaign finance detritus.

Again: It is preposterous — un-American — to suggest that the Bill of Rights applies in November but not December. With each new campaign finance case the Court humiliates itself even further.

It's time to cut through the Gordian knot and bring some sanity back to this process.

More thoughts from Senator Mitch McConnell (as in "McConnell v. FEC") (WSJ-$)

---

One footnote:

In 2003, Sandra Day O'Connor joined the four liberal justices in upholding large portions of McCain-Feingold law. She has since retired and her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, is considered more conservative.

Good outcomes or bad, I'm not particularly looking forward to these "reconstituted Court" cases. They sully the Court's reputation one way or the other.

As I noted yesterday, the trustees of Social Security and Medicare released their annual report on the state of the systems' finances.

Little has changed:

By 2017, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, the trustees said in their annual report. The program's trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2041, one year later than estimated last year.
...
Over time, the programs are expected to consume a growing share of the federal budget. This year, about 7 percent of federal tax revenue goes toward paying Social Security and Medicare benefits. The figure is projected to climb to more than 10 percent by 2012, and 26 percent by 2020, said economist Thomas R. Saving, a trustee.

To keep the programs going, Congress and the president will have to increase taxes, reduce benefits or do both, the trustees said. "Without significant reform, these programs are not sustainable in the long run," Saving said.

It's interesting, and perhaps unfortunate, that the commentary uses total federal tax revenue rather than FICA taxes. The whole point of the Social Security crisis is that FICA taxes, which are over-collected today to fund general federal operations and to understate (i.e., lie about) the true size of the federal deficit, will soon be inadequate to pay for Social Security obligations. The all-important date is not 2041, when the fraudulent Social Security "trust fund" is nominally exhausted, but rather 2017 (only a decade away!) when the "trust fund" will finally and irrefutably be exposed as an accounting (and political) fraud in the first place.

To review: An IOU from myself to myself is worthless. An IOU from the federal government to the federal government is worthless. Calling that IOU a "Treasury security backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government" does not change its worthlessness — any more than would calling it "zoop."

When Social Security runs into deficit starting around 2017, those IOUs will be "cashed in," which simply means that the federal government, which has already spent the money, will have to raise either taxes or the budget deficit (I'm guessing the latter). But there simply are no "assets" for Social Security to redeem. That has been the great lie all these years — to call a promise to raise taxes or deficits in the future a "trust fund" today.

If a private party tried to lie like that, they'd go to jail.

More thoughts at Cato@Liberty.

Having learned nothing, absolutely nothing, from the recent "censor the Internet" cases (all losses) or the "regulate video games" cases (all losses), some hack regulators at the FCC, backed by their teat-patrons in Congress, are now targeting "violence" on television:

The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers -- typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say.
...
The report -- commissioned by members of Congress in 2004 and based on hundreds of comments from parents, industry officials, academic experts and others -- concludes that Congress has the authority to regulate "excessive violence" and to extend its reach for the first time into basic-cable TV channels that consumers pay to receive.

First Amendment experts and television industry executives, however, say that any attempt to regulate TV violence faces high constitutional hurdles -- particularly regarding cable, because consumers choose to buy its programming.

How many times do we need to reinvent this wheel? The terms "excessive" and "violence" are unconstitutionally vague in the context of television programming, just as they are unconstitutionally vague in the context of video games. Moreover, government is simply not permitted under the First Amendment to unreasonably restrict adult access to expressive content -- which unambiguously includes television programming -- merely because children might be exposed to it.

The fact that broadcast frequencies are "publicly owned" is irrelevant: the government may not violate the Constitution on "public" airwaves any more than it can violate it in a "public" courthouse. (and, of course, the FCC is just itching to obtain censorial powers over cable and satellite networks as well, so the "public trust" argument is moot if not schizophrenic.)

Meanwhile, here of course is the real kicker:

[M]any parents don't use V-chip blocking, the technology that Congress in 1996 mandated be built into TV sets to filter programs based on industry-developed ratings -- which in any case are inconsistent, according to a report released last week by the Parents Television Council, an advocacy group that monitors television shows for sexual and violent content.

Cry me a river. First off, the Parents Television Council is a radical social conservative group (headed by one of the most extremist social conservatives ever) that files -- get this -- 99.8% of all "indecency" complaints to the FCC, including a calculated campaign after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl fiasco (but only when they weren't busy demanding that "Will & Grace" be banned for "immoral" homosexual content).

Be sure to process the patently unethical nature of the PTC's intellectual dishonesty: Flood the FCC with baseless and repetitive complaints, then use the rise in complaints as "proof" that "something needs to be done." Or, as the politicians phrase it: Vote early, vote often.

The PTC does not represent, and does not try to represent, "parents," but only radical social conservatives. And, like all radical social conservatives, they lie (including a $3.5 million defamation settlement with World Wrestling Entertainment).

It's quite simple really: There is no "right to have TV babysit your kids." Either use the V-chip, throw the TV out, or -- gasp! -- watch with your kids. Either choose one of those options, or just shut up. Stop being infants and start being parents. Leave the rest of us alone.

Your anal-retentive "outrage" ends where my television set begins.

--Does it make sense to give $2.1 million of taxpayer money to fund anti-obesity programs that studies show don't work?

--Does it make sense for the AARP, a non-for-profit organization, to engage in for-profit businesses like HMOs?

--Does it make sense to stop selling "printers" and start selling "printing"?

--Does it make sense for wireless companies to start offering "push ringers," in which the person calling your cellphone gets to choose the ringtone that you hear when she calls you? (Via techdirt.)

--Does it make sense for British Airways to edit out a cameo appearance by competitor Richard Branson from the inflight version of Casino Royale? Does the embarrassing negative publicity outweigh the benefits (whatever they may be) of excising Branson? (Via Boing Boing.)

Just a reminder that the annual Report of the Social Security Trustees (or, as I call it, "The Doomsday Report") is expected to be released today, although it was delayed for questionable (i.e., political) reasons last year. The consensus is that the projected date for Social Security to go into deficit (at which point the Social Security "Trust Fund" will be finally exposed as an accounting fraud) will be essentially unchanged -- sometime in 2017. The less relevant date of accounting insolvency was 2040 as of last year's Trustee's Report.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are making noise about AMT reform. Too bad it's the wrong kind of noise:

Under a proposal presented last week to Democrats on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, families making less than $250,000 a year -- about 98 percent of taxpayers -- would be exempt from the tax. Those earning between $250,000 and about $500,000 would see lower AMT bills, according to Democratic sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is not final.

To make up the lost revenue, families earning more than $500,000 a year would take a much harder hit from the AMT, as well as other adjustments to the tax code, the sources said.

Of course, the AMT was never designed to ensure that "the rich" paid "more" tax. The AMT was designed to ensure that 155 ultra-rich families paid at least "some" tax. Half a million in income, while nice, hardly constitutes "ultra-rich." And paying "lots" of federal income tax is not the same as paying "no" income tax (as was the case with the original 155 families). The AMT was meant to bring those not paying any tax into the system, not as a "happy lever" that Democrats could pull and push at their whim depending on how generous they feel toward those who are already shouldering the overwhelming bulk of the federal income tax burden anyway.

Bottom line: Expect little if anything, and certainly nothing truly constructive, to be done about either the Social Security crisis or the AMT. The politics of the issues have already metastasized too malignantly to allow real reform.

The two most heart-breaking, and infuriating, judicial defeats regarding same-sex marriage were unarguably the high court losses in New York (Hernandez v. Robles) and Washington State (Andersen v. King County).

Now, twice in as many days, we have (sorta kinda) positive partial developments from each.

In New York, Governor Eliot Spitzer is fulfilling a campaign promise to introduce a same-sex marriage bill in the Legislature. I am no fan of Spitzer, but I will tip my hat to him for following through on his pledge.

Having said that, the bill is of course already dead.

As a reminder, New York — the worst-governed state in America — is essentially a triumvirate. Policy and power do not flow up from individual state legislators to their leaders; it flows down, via pork, perks and privileges. There is no such thing as an independent vote in Albany. Members of the Democratic majority in the Assembly vote exactly the way Speaker Sheldon Silver instructs them to, while Republican state senators unquestioningly obey Majority Leader Joe Bruno. The legislative agenda itself, meanwhile, is directly (and exclusively) negotiated by Silver and Bruno, along with the governor. Rank-and-file legislators have no say in the matter. Nothing, absolutely nothing, comes to a vote in Albany unless all three super-politicians want it to.

And Bruno is on the record as being opposed to same-sex marriage. So even if there were enough hypothetical votes in the Republican-controlled State Senate to pass gay marriage, the vote itself will simply never occur — because Bruno doesn't want it to. So in that sense the bill has already been defeated.

The only way around this would be for Silver and Spitzer to "buy" a vote authorization from Bruno via backing down on some other contentious issue (i.e., throwing Bruno a bone of some kind). The problem is that no such issue comes to mind. Spitzer simply has no card to play in his dealings with Bruno.

Of course, it's always conceivable, in a "West Wing" style dramatic sort of way, that a vote could come. Conceivable, but unlikely.

In Washington State, meanwhile:

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law Saturday a measure to create domestic partnerships, giving gay and lesbian couples some of the same rights that come with marriage.

The law creates a domestic partnership registry and provides enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Okay, well, that's nice — I guess. Certainly better than nothing. I do find it somewhat ironic, however, that gay couples will now get more recognition in Washington at the end of their relationships than at the beginning. But, no pun intended, it's a start.

---

Just as an aside:

The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully branded homosexual marriage an evil[.]
...
The attack by Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was the latest in a string of speeches made by either Pope Benedict or other Vatican officials as Italy considers giving more rights to gays.

Unrepentant anti-gay bigotry by the Catholic Church is one among several reasons why New York State is dragging its political feet on gay marriage.

(Note: The "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" is, incidentally, the successor entity to the Inquisition.)

A few years back I was riding in a taxi that was pulled over for some infraction, probably running a yellow-turning-red traffic light.

The police officer, utterly oblivious to me, asked the cabbie for his log and hack license and such, while I just sat there. After about two minutes, I finally stuck my head out the window and asked the officer, "Hi, do you need me?" He said no, and I promptly left the scene. He could have said that upfront, but at least he left me alone.

Now, shame on me — Mr. "A+ in CrimPro I Bigshot" — but I had no idea whatsoever what the state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was regarding passengers during a vehicle stop. And I certainly didn't have the balls self-confidence to simply leave without fear of provoking the officer. I, like most people, tend to pacify myself around armed law enforcement.

Which is why this statement boggles my mind:

California argues, a passenger in a car stopped in a normal traffic stop ordinarily would not be "seized" because a reasonable, innocent person would have believed he was free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the contact.

Oh really? I have no idea what one can and cannot do under such circumstances, but Joe Sixpack does? Yeah right.

Nevertheless, that is one of several arguments the State of California is making in Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120, which is being argued today before the Supreme Court:

Bruce Brendlin was a passenger in a car driven by Karen Simeroth when she was stopped by a Sutter County Deputy Sheriff. During the stop, the deputy asked Brendlin to identify himself, which he did. After running a check, the deputy learned that Brendlin was wanted for failing to report to his parole officer, ordered him out of the car, and placed him under arrest. After a search incident to arrest unearthed drugs and drug paraphernalia in the car and on Brendlin's person, Brendlin was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine.

Apparently California believes that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to Brendlin because he was never "seized" (i.e., he not only was free to simply walk away, but also knew or should have known that fact without even asking the deputy).

Yeah right. I've seen enough episodes of "COPS" to know that it just doesn't work that way. When a car is stopped, the police never simply let passengers "walk away." To seize an automobile is to seize everyone in it. That's even been true for buses.

(Incidentally, what if the stop occurs on a highway? How is a passenger like Brendlin supposed to "just walk away" then? Is there no such thing as "constructive seizure" under the Fourth Amendment?)

The question of what Fourth Amendment rights a passenger of a stopped vehicle may or may not have isn't what's irking me here. It's the absurd presumption that, whatever those rights are, the passenger is expected to know them and should not be permitted to argue after the fact that he was "improperly" seized, because he was in fact never seized — properly or improperly — in the first place.

Strange how the Court presumes that people cannot be expected to "just know" their (far less complicated) Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights — hence Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). But the far more convoluted Fourth Amendment automobile jurisprudence? Self-apparent, and no warning necessary.

That simply cannot be right.

While this question has never been addressed head-on, California's argument goes against indirect precedent suggesting that "seizing a vehicle" means "seizing the occupants." Hopefully the Court will not only extend those precedents to their logical conclusion but will also impose a Miranda-style requirement that police clearly inform people of their Fourth Amendment rights during vehicle stops.

Wishful thinking, I know.

---

UPDATE: Great minds think alike --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, it wouldn't apply in a taxicab, right? I mean, the cab is driving erratically, the officer pulls it over. If I'm a passenger in the cab, I think I can get out and catch another cab, right?

Justice Kennedy, meanwhile, just plain nails it --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You're representing the State of California and you want to establish the proposition that any time there is a traffic stop in the State of California or I guess anywhere in the United States all the passengers are free to immediately leave, absent some further countermanding officer -- order by the officer. I think that's a quite surprising proposition. Now, we don't have empirical studies and so forth, but at some point the Court takes judicial notice and I think indications from the bench are we just don't think passengers, A, are or, B, should feel free to leave when there's a traffic stop. I just think you have no social or empirical documentation for that position.

Keep in mind that this case has many moving parts and is not just about whether a "reasonable" passenger knows his Fourth Amendment rights in a vehicle stop. That's just the issue that interests me the most in this case.

No time to flesh these out — just a few quick comments:

---

ITEM: I have long been no fan of municipal wi-fi, for the simple reason that Internet access is simply neither a public good nor a natural monopoly. Another reason to be skeptical has just manifested itself in Boston — the wildly popular, and totally innocuous tech blog Boing Boing was (at least briefly) banned by the public wi-fi service, apparently for no other reason than having an embedded Google search link with "safe search" turned off. Hardly a gateway to XXX-rated smut. Remember, he who pays the Internet bill calls the censorship tune.

---

ITEM: Both Utah and Canada currently have activist politicians who are trying to partition the Internet into "clean" and "filthy" parts, "for the children." I can't speak to the Canadian proposal, but in the U.S. any attempt to restrict adult access to Internet content because "children might see it" is unconstitutional — see my previous posts. (Both stories via TechDirt.)

---

ITEM: Speaking of Canada, an Ontario activist legislator has introduced a "cyber-bullying" bill that would allow schools to suspend students who use sites such as MySpace to harass other students — or teachers. Seems to me that schools should be limited to disciplining students for conduct at school or during school functions — not for what the kid does at home on his computer. Or is that Twentieth-Century thinking? (Via Slashdot.)

---

ITEM: Still abroad, Russia has decreed that 50% of all news, likely to soon include Internet-disseminated news, must be "positive." Government manipulation of the media in Russia is, meanwhile, not new news, 50% positive or otherwise. (Via Distributed Intelligence.)

---

ITEM: And, finally, the bittersweet news that the relatives of a victim of China's brutal Communist dictatorship are suing Yahoo! for submissively turning over its data so that the dissident, Yu Ling, could be identified — and neutralized. There's capitalism, and then there's selling your soul. The two are not as synonymous as many malcontents like to imagine. But in Yahoo!'s case they were. Shame on them. Previous post, on Google and China, here.

As promised:


A bit more polished I think than Barcelona — The Movie. I'm getting the hang of the software now. I did, however, forget to compensate for the "YouTube" logo in this embedded version. Oops.

Keywords: Catalonia, Pyrenees, Vic, Queralbs, Nuria, Montserrat, Barcelona, Spain, Europe.

Time to clean out the aggregator.

---

ITEM: The "No More VT's" mania has begun -- Yale bans weapons -- even fake weapons! -- in student drama performances. You don't want another Blacksburg, do you? (Via Political Mavens.) Meanwhile, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief has begun the inevitable process of federalizing mental health.
"No psychopath left behind"?

---

ITEM: The "Voting Rights for D.C." mania continues -- the House has passed a insolently unconstitutional bill granting the District a full seat in clear violation of Article I. The bill is expected to wither in a Senate filibuster; the President has also promised a veto. I guess even a broken president is right twice a year. Most recent post here.

---

ITEM: This week's socialized medicine item -- how exactly will states, such as Massachusetts and California, that are proposing mandatory health insurance, go about enforcing that dictate?

People who refuse to obtain health insurance could be tracked down by the state or a private contractor, enrolled in a plan and fined until they pay their premiums under one proposal Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is considering as part of his vision for covering all Californians.

A "health IRS" hunting down "deadbeats." Welcome to the New Health Order. (Via John Ray.)

---

ITEM: The Texas Senate has passed a bill raising that state's smoking age to 19. I blogged against a similar warm-fuzzy-feeling stunt in New Jersey. The fate of the bill is unclear. (Via Fark.)

---

ITEM: There has been another "anti-gay t-shirt" case, this time in Illinois. I touched upon the previous such case, Harper v. Poway School District, in this post; see also the (much more complicated) "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. This time the message was "Be Happy, Not Gay." And while I don't necessarily agree will all the federal case law on "student speech," I think it was correctly applied in this case. Clearly that message disrupts the classroom environment for gay students, just as a shirt reading, "Be Happy, Not Christian" would disrupt the classroom environment for Christian students. As long as the dress code is viewpoint-neutral, is meant solely to protect other students, and is not patently absurd (cf., the "Tigger socks" case), then educrats should be given the benefit of the doubt. (Via How Appealing.)

---

ITEM: Speaking of gay students, how are the Soulforce Equality Riders doing?

In what is being hailed as the Equality Ride's first victory in the changing of policies discriminating against openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students at Christian colleges & universities across the country, Brigham Young University announced yesterday that they have revised their student code of conduct policies regarding openly gay students and the "advocacy" of LGBT civil and human rights.

One wonders how much (additional) flak BYU and the Mormons will now get from the radical Evangelicals.

---

ITEM: And on the subject of the Soulforce Equality Ride, be sure to enter my "Guess What's in the White Box" contest on YouTube.

In the spirit of The Daily Slap and Half Nekkid Thursday, and in my never-ending/always-futile attempt to make this blog less stuffy*, I am adding a gratuitous feature called "Sunday Cute YouTuber."

As a reminder, you've already met two cute YouTubers here: Johnny "Feed Some Dooks" Durham and Fox "I've Got a Home Brewery" Dougan. They will soon have company.

No rhyme or reason, and no real criteria — except that the Sunday Cute YouTuber must be:

--cute

--a YouTuber

--in a (mostly) G-rated video

And with that, let's meet the inaugural Sunday Cute YouTuber: KingCharlemagne23 —


Ah to be young, uninhibited and non-arthritic..

---

*Or, if you're from Durham, "less stoofy."

When I saw this snippet from Conglomerate:

Yang Guoqiang, is the founder of Country Garden, a real estate development company that went public yesterday in Hong Kong, raising $1.6 billion. Guoqiang gave all of his shares in the company to [his daugher], who is slated to take over leadership of the company in the future.

I clicked through to the relevant New York Times article, thinking to myself, "It'll be there. It'll be there. It'll be there."

It was there:

And then there are the real estate barons, who have often used their political connections to get access to cheap land, only to see land and housing prices soar as the country's increasingly wealthy look to purchase their first homes.

Same as it ever was where China is concerned -- "capitalism" is actually only for the Communist elites.

It's quite simple really: "Market communism" is an insolent contradiction in terms, no matter how often or how loudly China's apologists pretend otherwise.

Care to guess who said this?

"Using economics to influence public behaviour is something this country is built on -- it's called capitalism."

Hint: It was not said by a capitalist, although many foolish people like to pretend otherwise.

It's quite simple really: "Capitalism" ends where "government" begins. Any and all attempts to combine the two will, as a matter of elementary metaphysics, fail miserably.

(Via Greg Mankiw.)

The heroes at Lambda Legal would like you to know that they need even more heroes:

Attorney Positions
Senior Staff Attorney or Staff Attorney
Headquarters, New York, NY

Senior Staff Attorney or Staff Attorney
Midwest Regional Office, Chicago, IL

Staff Attorney
National Headquarters, New York

Job Opportunities
Development/Administrative Assistant
Southern Regional Office, Atlanta

Events Manager
National Headquarters, New York

Information Technology Specialist
National Headquarters, New York

Marriage Initiative Director
Des Moines, Iowa

Media and Online Communications Assistant
National Headquarters, New York

Internship Opportunities
Communications Interns
Education and Public Affairs Department
National Headquarters, New York

Judicial Independence Internship for Law Students
Fall, Spring and Summer
National Headquarters, New York

Outreach Interns
Education and Public Affairs Department
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Dallas

Summer Internships for Law Students, All Offices
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Dallas

Web & Design Internship
Fall, Spring & Summer
National Headquarters, New York

Go ahead, apply for a position. I dare you!

George Will recently had a column critiquing the nationwide 21 drinking age:

18-year-olds have a right to marry, adopt children, serve as legal guardians for minors and purchase firearms from authorized dealers, and are trusted with the vote and military responsibilities. So ... it is not unreasonable to think that they can, with proper preparation, be trusted to drink.

Nothing new there -- although the proposal that 18- to 20-year olds could, after completing appropriate classroom instruction, obtain "drinking permits" akin to automotive learner's permits is new (and sensible) to me.

The illogical and heavy-handed federalization (via highway funds) of drinking age laws serves as a classic libertarian poster child for the nanny state and the warm-fuzzy-feeling elevation of political expediency over rational statecraft. It's also a great recruitment tool to initiate discussions with young people about libertarianism in particular and politics in general. Again, nothing new there.

I on the other hand like to use the federalized drinking age in another way: as an example of how insular minorities suffer under majoritarianism.

The group "18-, 19- and 20-year olds" are fully participating members of our democracy; they have as much access to the political process as anyone else. There are rich 18-year olds, there are educated 19-year olds, there are well-connected 20-year olds.

Yet the group as a whole is and will always be a political minority. They will always be at the mercy of the majority. If the majority acts in a fair, enlightened manner, then of course the group has little to fear.

But that's a mighty big "if."

Which is precisely why unbridled majoritarianism -- "democracy" -- fails groups such as "18-, 19- and 20-year olds." And which is precisely why the admittedly "undemocratic" but no less enlightened check-and-balance of judicial review -- "activist judges" -- is so vital in a society that seeks to be pluralistic, just and free.

Of course, there's an added twist to the specific example of the federalized drinking age: people aren't 18-20 forever. They graduate out of the insular minority. That mitigates the failure of majoritarianism, but it doesn't eliminate it. "You'll be 21 someday..." is not a legitimate response to irrational age-based discrimination.

Now imagine how much worse the inequity is when an individual is permanently part of the insular minority. Imagine how unjust the federalized drinking age would be if some people were 20 forever. In such a world, the failure of majoritarianism, the injustice of irrational discrimination, is neither temporary nor insignificant.

Such is the struggle for gay rights.

Gays are the last unvindicated insular minority. The last group to be casually and insolently dismissed with a curt wave of the populist hand. "The people have spoken." "The will of the majority." "The democratic process in action." Ignorant bromide after ignorant bromide.

This is precisely what judges are supposed to prevent. If nothing else, if no other individual right is to be protected, if government is to be in no other way curtailed, judges are at least to do this much: protect insular minorities from the tyranny of the majority --

There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumpt