A Stitch in Haste

I don't typically rely on Slate for in-depth economic analyses, but one would have hoped that, in an article on how wine has become more "popular" than beer, one might have seen a single occurrence of even one of the following words:

--supply

--demand

--price

--substitutes

--glut (as in "wine glut")

But, alas, no. Not one occurrence of any of those words.

Instead we see gobbledygook terms such as "connoisseurship," "populist," "pastoral," "passion," "refinement," "lifestyles." All of which are, to an economist, eunuch words: impotent and meaningless.

It's quite simple really: The price of wine is going down due to a supply glut; the price of beer is going up due to the agricultural crowding out that has come from the (government-imposed) ethanol mania (a farmer can't plant barley when he's planting corn instead).

There is no real reason to think that the demand curves (i.e., tastes and preferences) for wine and beer are changing — no matter how much wine snobs would like to pretend otherwise. Wine and beer are substitutes — imperfect substitutes, to be sure, but substitutes nonetheless. Therefore, as the price of wine falls relative to beer, consumers will switch to the former from the latter. No sociology (or "connoisseurship") required.

Not every consumption trend has to reflect some deep "the world is changing" phenomenon to be explained by "experts." Indeed, often it is the very fact that things are not changing — that the laws of economics endure over time — that best explains the world around us.

Prost!

The bureaucrats at Amtrak seem to think so:

Beginning this fall, travelers with an extra few days and money to spare will be able to climb aboard seven richly equipped vintage Pullman cars attached to Amtrak trains on three routes.

The promotion is a test of a partnership between District-based Amtrak and GrandLuxe Rail Journeys, an Evergreen, Colo., company formerly known as the American Orient Express.
...
The trips' prices will range from $789 to $2,000 per person for one- to two-night journeys.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. No rational consumer would pay more for a multi-day, not-at-all-scenic train ride than for first-class domestic airfare. That's not a question of subjective tastes and preferences; it's a question of objective "paying more for less" irrationality. And while there may be a handful of rich but irrational consumers (e.g., those with a fear of flying), there will certainly not be enough to make this a viable enterprise. The service will flop, and flop badly.

And besides, isn't the standard bromide of Amtrak's apologists the (no less absurd) postulate that government should underwrite affordable passenger rail? That (non-rich) Americans need, for some reason, an alternative to cars, buses and planes? How, exactly, is "expensive luxury train travel" a public good?

To review: The parts of Amtrak that lose money (i.e., almost all of it) lose money because few use it (i.e., few "need" it). Meanwhile, the tiny sliver of Amtrak that does make money (i.e., the Northeast Corridor) by definition needs neither a $1 billion annual subsidy nor, for that matter, to be run by the government in the first place. Amtrak is its own best argument for its abolition.

Yet instead of acknowledging this basic syllogism, Amtrak's managers and political protectors actually retrogress and sink deeper into the illogical muck of providing a service that nobody wants or that the government has no business being in the business of in the first place.

The mind reels.

--Should a gay bar be allowed to exclude straights? Is this even a problem? ("To regard the gay male patrons of the venue as providing an entertainment or spectacle to be stared at, as one would at an animal at a zoo, devalues and dehumanises them.") (Via Fark.)

--A guest question:

Why would any intelligent person choose a profession where income is guaranteed to fall 30% over the next five years, where your every action is second-guessed by government or health plans, where malpractice suits are a constant worry, and where you are blamed at every turn for the exorbitant cost of care?

(Via Kevin, M.D.)

--Speaking of individual choice, why are so many commenters to this DailyKos post oh-so-relieved to learn that John Edwards "only" favors compulsory national service — but not a military draft? What exactly would cause someone to think that there's any substantive difference between the two?

--Safety warnings for toilet paper rollers? (Via Fark.)

--Compulsory veganism? (Via Arkanssouri.)

Some bizarre, and in a few instances scary, law enforcement and litigation stories over the past day or two:

---

ITEM: The family of a New Zealand woman who was dependent on an oxygen pump claims she died after the electric utility shut off her power over an unpaid $122 bill. Damn greedy capitalist murderers! (Oh wait, it's a state-owned utility — never mind.)

---

ITEM: You may have heard by now about the patently preposterous dram-shop lawsuit by the parents of professional baseball player Josh Hancock, who are blaming their son's 0.157 BAC, "he was hammered, he was speeding, and he was talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend at 12:30 in the morning" (i.e., self-imposed) DUI death on the poor schmucks that he drunkenly missiled himself into on the highway. For a quick and clean summary of the damnably frivolous case, see this excellent analysis from Sports Law Blog. ("The negligence claims ... sound like something from a torts exam.")

---

ITEM: A panhandler in upstate New York is challenging his recent arrest under the state's no-begging law, citing the pesky fact that the law was already declared unconstitutional — 15 years ago. An anomalous mistake by law enforcement? Maybe we should ask the 2,300 other people who have been arrested under the apparently void law over those 15 years. (Related posts here.)

---

ITEM: A blogger is apparently being sued for defamation — over his blogroll. ("I'm reportedly being sued for maintaining a blogroll that links to a site that links to a site that contains some allegedly defamatory third party comments.") Don't worry, I don't understand it either. (And it's Canada, so who cares anyway?) (Via Slashdot.)

---

ITEM: Finally, for those who miss having Mike Nifong around to lambast —

Doug Burns, reigning Mr. Universe, was recently involved in an encounter with Redwood City police while experiencing severe low blood sugar; during the incident, he was handcuffed and clubbed by police who mistook him for inebriated. On May 2, 2007, Doug was arraigned in court on charges of assault and resisting arrest.
...
The District Attorney asserts that based upon current evidence, Doug was not in an altered mental state due to low blood sugar, although Doug has reportedly submitted substantial medical documentation to the contrary. Several diabetes advocacy groups have rallied to support Doug, who hopes that his current dilemma will contribute to furthering education about diabetes and hypoglycemia.

If an epileptic seizure can be a valid criminal defense (and it can), then surely insulin shock can too. (Another account of the events here.) (Via Kevin, M.D.)

NOTE: See Update below.

---

"If the rich could hire others to die for them, then we the poor would all make a nice living."
--Fiddler on the Roof

I'm not sure what to make of this bizarre story from Holland in which a kidney has become a game show prize:

A Dutch TV station says it will go ahead with a programme in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys.

Political parties have called for The Big Donor Show to be scrapped, but broadcaster BNN says it will highlight the country's shortage of organ donors.
...
"The scenario portrayed in this programme is ethically totally unacceptable," said Professor John Feehally, who has just ended his term as president of the UK's Renal Association. "The show will not further understanding of transplants," he added. "Instead it will cause confusion and anxiety."
...
"You can have a discussion about if this is distasteful, but finally we have a public debate," [a Dutch politician] told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

One can draw either of two conclusions from these events:

1. At least there are still some people who recognize the solemnity of the organ shortage, and that not everything belongs on reality TV.

2. On the other hand, if there is so much disgust and outrage over this version of circumventing the status quo, then what chance is there for a sober, non-Simon-Cowell discussion about a less tawdry but no less market-based system of buying and selling organs (which, gasp all you want, would greatly alleviate if not completely eliminate the organ shortage)? This is especially true with kidneys: risky as organ transplant surgery may be, the simple medical truth is that people can donate a single kidney in a way that they cannot donate hearts, lungs, livers and corneas. Why should they not be allowed to do so, and to be paid for their efforts?

If we allowed a "crass" free market for blood rather than insisting upon a "noble"(*) voluntary donation regime, then — crass or not — we wouldn't have a blood shortage. If we allowed a free, or even a semi-free, market for kidneys, then although we might all be less "noble," at least some of us would also be less dead.

---

(*) Obligatory link to my posts on the gay blood ban.

---

UPDATE: The show was a willful, deliberate, premeditated hoax staged by the Dutch network BNN, supposedly to "shock" the Dutch government, and the Dutch people, into action regarding that country's -- and I suppose all of Europe's -- organ shortage. On that, my thoughts above are unchanged.

As for the use of the hoax scheme, some hasty stitches:

1. To the extent that one buys into the view that broadcast media are not "owned" but "held in trust for the public," then BNN clearly betrayed that trust. One wonders how the FCC would have responded had this been perpetrated by a U.S. broadcast network. (The Dutch cabinet expressly rejected calls to block the program as impermissible censorship. Good for them.)

2. I wonder what the fall-out from BNN's advertisers will be.

3. Is it really the purpose of television to lecture its viewers, or just to entertain them? We already have an excess of activist legislators. Do we really need activist network executives as well?

The Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz seems to think so: (W$J; OpinionJournal)

One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty.

"Lively appreciation" is of course not the term I would use for bigot amendments, flag burning amendments, the eradication of the separation of church and state, and all the other ways that social conservatives have waged culture war against libertarianism -- and all that even before any discussion of Iraq or the War on Civil Liberties!

"Conservatism" today (to the extent it is not faux "No Child Left Behind" or "Gonzales v. Raich" conservatism) can be summed up thusly:

Liberty? Sure -- as long as that "liberty" doesn't offend my social-conservative "beliefs" (creationism?), "practices" (anti-gay bigotry?), "associations" (VMI?) and "institutions" (the Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist and Mormon churches?), all of which "form" (indoctrinate?) citizens capable of preserving "liberty" (as long as that "liberty" doesn't offend my social-conservative ...).

One especially obnoxious bait-and-switch from Berkowitz:

A crucial segment of those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 think that the Constitution should be amended to protect the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another crucial segment of the Republican coalition rejects alteration of the Constitution to advance debatable social policy, preferring that states function as laboratories of innovation.

In other words, "conservatism" is so wonderfully diverse that it can embrace declaring an insular minority to be second-class citizens at either the federal or the state level. "We got both kinds -- Country and Western!"

The schism between social conservatives and libertarians within the Republican Party was not a manifestation of "diversity" -- it was political schizophrenia. It was not "celebrated," it was tolerated. And now it's dead anyway -- the social conservatives won; the libertarians were purged. The Grand Old Party was as Grand -- and its ideas as Old -- as ever.

Until it self-destructed under its own hubris.

Now, faced with only half a party, a petered-out "us or the terrorists" hysteria no longer propping it up and an utterly inept president leading it, suddenly Republicans want to rediscover "conservative diversity" and summon back disenchanted libertarians?

Conservatives, facing uncertainty about George W. Bush's legacy, and the reality of their own errors and excesses, have good reason just now to read and ponder [Russell] Kirk, [Friedrich] Hayek and [Leo] Strauss.

Yeah right. You don't uninvite someone to your fraternity party and then re-invite them to help clean up your vomit the morning after. Libertarians are, generally, not that stupid. If they return to the GOP, it will only be on their terms, not Karl Rove's or James Dobson's.

Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice -- ain't gonna happen.

---

Richard Cohen, meanwhile, attacks conservatism from its left flank:

An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.

No, that's an overriding principle of libertarianism; conservatives wanted, and got, a federal command-and-control structure in the schools just as liberals wanted -- but with different command(ment)s and controls. That's exactly what No Child Left Behind proves.

And the fact that libertarians and conservatives don't play well together anymore, in the schoolyard or anywhere else, is precisely why the Republican Party is imploding.

Look at who is running for the Republican nomination:

--The utterly unprincipled "say anything" candidates ("Rudy McRomney").
--The all-too-principled "four more years" radical social conservatives (Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore).
--The nutjobs (Tancredo, Hunter, Gingrich, Paul).

Not a libertarian in the bunch. And who can claim surprise? The GOP has simply reaped what they have sown.

Two items not at all related except for the fact that Washington morons are involved --

---

ITEM: A quick follow-up to the U.S. Attorney firings --

The Bush administration's decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys last year has created a new problem for the White House: The controversy appears to be discouraging applications for some of the 22 prosecutor posts that President Bush needs to fill.
...
David Iglesias, the ousted New Mexico U.S. attorney, said that timing may be a contributing factor, but that the administration is in denial if it doesn't believe there are concerns about low office morale, the ability to remain independent or even the odds of being confirmed by a suspicious Senate controlled by the Democrats.

"The Justice Department is embattled, and people aren't readily applying to be U.S. attorneys because of this dark cloud," Iglesias said.

MY TAKE: How can anyone (outside of the ever-oblivious White House inner circle) not have seen this coming? People come into jobs with expectations -- expectations based both on representations made by the employer and on the past experience of others. Betray those representations, and expectations will be revised. Markets are dynamic -- including the market for U.S. Attorneys.

The infantile blather that USAs "serve at the pleasure of the president" (which ignores the perfectly reasonable expectation by USAs that this expression alwayws meant "you may be fired for cause, but never for politics") turns this market dynamic on its head. But when you kick the market, the market kicks back -- even with the Department of Justice.

Previous posts on the USA firings here.

---

ITEM: Congress remains shocked, shocked, over the gay linguist firings --

Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic language experts because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable specialists go.
...
Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Pentagon is enforcing the law.

MY TAKE: No shill for the military am I, but let's place the current, here-and-now blame for DADT exactly where it belongs: with that very same Congress that considers its own law to be a threat to national security. What, exactly, is the Pentagon supposed to do, other than obey a law that Congress itself enacted (and that a Democratic president signed into law)?

The current grandstanding over the repeal of DADT is all smoke and no fire. Its principal sponsor, Representative Marty Meehan, is leaving Congress, and there (still) remains no companion bill in the Senate to Meehan's Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246) -- especially not one from Hillary "Armed Services Committee" Clinton.

As for the House, H.R. 1246 has languished in committee for two months now. Remind me again who's demanding explanations from whom?

Most recent post on DADT here.

I have little to say about the economics of the increase in the minimum wage that was just stealthily passed by Congress and will be signed into law by the president. I have blogged against the minimum wage before. It is bad economics, a violation of substantive due process, and an exercise in both utilitarian cannibalism and the Broken Window Fallacy.

When it comes to the minimum wage, you either get it or you don't. You either passed freshman economics or you didn't. You either acknowledge the realities of unskilled labor markets or you pine for a delusional fantasy world where the laws of economics can be repealed by a legislature. You either evaluate policies based on their consequences (both intended and unintended), or you evaluate them on the warm fuzzy feelings they stir in your bowels.

That is all old news, and I will not revisit it.

Having said that:

The wage hike was largely ignored, however, during an acrimonious debate over an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war, to which it was attached. The tactic of attaching it to a must-pass bill deflected attention from an issue Democrats hammered at effectively during last year's election. But it ensured that the wage increase and $4.8 billion in corresponding business tax breaks would take effect despite objections from the White House and other Republicans who wanted a larger package of business incentives.

Pardon my uneducated, uninformed political naivete, but what does the minimum wage have to do with the Iraq War?

More to the point, how is it "enlightened statecraft" when politicians -- whether legislators or executives, whether in the majority or the minority -- agree to engage in this dodge-and-parry political maneuvering?

If the Iraq War is so important as an issue, and if the minimum wage is so important as an issue, then why not -- an admittedly brash idea -- vote on each issue separately? Doesn't holding one issue hostage to the other, or piggybacking one issue upon the other, belittle and demean both issues, which everyone seems to insist are so important?

If our politicians were leaders rather than rulers, abominations like this would not happen. Deliberative bodies (of which at least half of Congress is supposedly the "greatest") should actually deliberate, not expend their energy devising Rube Goldberg political contraptions. Identify an issue, debate it, vote on it, move along to the next issue.

Embrace or oppose the Iraq War; embrace or oppose the minimum wage. But either way, acknowledge that the issues each deserved their own vote. And acknowledge that we deserve legislators who accept and implement this basic principle of governance.

But acknowledge also that, since all politicians are, by definition, moral defectives, we don't get what we deserve.

---

Finally, note also that the White House made no mention of the minimum wage in its press release on the passage of the Iraq War funding bill. Go figure.

Posted without much comment, except to suggest that you read this in conjunction with my previous post:

A new law allowing only D.C. residents and businesses to register vehicles in the District has yet to be enforced because it could take up to 80 percent of the city's roughly 6,000 taxicabs off the streets.
...
Lucinda Babers, acting director of the DMV, said the agency has some concerns about [compromise] legislation and that the taxicab industry wants to "continue the status quo."

"I can't blame them," she said at the hearing. "It's a sweetheart deal."

Same question as before: Is this D.C. cab licensing morass the result of Kip's Law, the Guild Conspiracy, or both?

"Danish, dammit! He was Danish!"

--Me, lamenting to David that the Circle Line tour narrator was wrong and that Jonas Bronck, for whom the Bronx was named, was in fact not Swedish.*

Now I may be an anal-retentive stickler for minutiae such as this, but at least I'm not a paternalistic, nanny-stater, anti-capitalist, central planner wannabe:

Philadelphia hospitality officials ... worry that the city's most valuable asset — its history — is being tarnished by unreliable tour guides who mix up dates and spice up the biographies of famous founders like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

The issue has sparked debate and a led to a proposed ordinance to test and license guides.
...
Guides in Williamsburg, Va., must pass a multiple-choice test that includes general Colonial and Williamsburg history. Licenses cost $100 and are good for three years.

In Savannah, Ga., prospective guides are given a 91-page manual to study before taking a $100 test.
...
Jonathan Bari, whose company offers a walking tour of Philadelphia, said licensing fees would most likely be passed on to visitors — and would not guarantee error-free tours.

There are two separate, and not mutually exclusive, reasons that such nonsense as "tour guide licenses" emerge. The first is Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner. Some activist legislator thinks, totally subjectively, that mistakes by tours guides are an insufferable abomination that simply cannot be tolerated in a civilized society — and government must, simply must, do something about it.

The fact that nobody else gives half a hoot about this faux crisis means nothing. The fact that data on "tour guide quality" can be and indeed are provided by private services such as TripAdvisor and Expedia means nothing. To those caught in the trap of Kip's Law, politicians always know best, and government always does best.

The second is the Guild Conspiracy -- attempts to impose occupational licensing and registration that are mere attempts at rent-seeking: Convince (i.e., bribe) politicians to erect unnecessary, anti-market barriers to entry (often under the guise of "quality control"), thereby reducing competition and creating government-guaranteed profits for those in the guild.

There are several unarguable examples of pure, unrepentant Guild Conspiracy. Hair braiding is my favorite; another is selling caskets; yet another recent example here.

I can't go so far, however, as to denounce licensing for the true professions: attorneys, physicians, accountants, etc. In those cases licensing by examination is an economically efficient signaling mechanism, and it facilitates access to the courts in cases of malpractice — which, no offense intended to cosmetologists, is far more important in a case of negligent lawyering or doctoring than in a case of negligent hair-braiding.

In any event, that's a debate for some future blogpost. It is axiomatic that the potential harm of "negligent tour guiding" is so minuscule that calls for "licensing" are of course preposterous and laughable.

For Discussion: Are the calls for tour guide licensing in Philadelphia and elsewhere the result of Kip's Law, the Guild Conspiracy, or both?

Pop Quiz: From the article —

Among the mistakes: Benjamin Franklin had 69 illegitimate children and homes were taxed based on how wide they were.

I can't speak to Benjamin Franklin, but a certain famous city did indeed once tax buildings based on how wide their facades were — with the unintended consequence of course that the buildings were subsequently built very narrow and very deep. Name the city. (Hint: Not New York, but close — in the historical sense of "close").

---

*There is actually some, but not much, debate about whether Jonas Bronck was in fact Danish or Swedish, mainly deriving from the precedent question of whether the Faroe Islands, whence Bronck reportedly came, were properly considered part of Denmark or Norway (and therefore Sweden, which ruled Norway) at that time. But the consensus today is clearly that "Bronck was Danish."

To review:

Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications.

--Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972), quoted in Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982)

Armed with that, let's review the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 1252:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, at wholesale or at retail in an area and during a period of an energy emergency, gasoline or any other petroleum distillate ... at a price that --

(A) is unconscionably excessive; and

(B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.

Under this bill, every participant in the petroleum industry, from the franchisee of the corner gas station to the CEO of Exxon, is supposed to instantly know, under threat of civil and criminal penalties, the exact legal meaning of the following words:

• unconscionably
• excessive
• unfair
• emergency
• unreasonably

Not to mention similar terms deeper in the bowels of the bill: grossly, readily, usual, seasonal.

And if he doesn't know the exact legal meaning? If he takes a non-conspiratorial, non-insidious guess that happens to be wrong? Then too bad so sad: he will incur civil and criminal penalties that make antitrust violations (another hopeless swamp of gobbledygook) look like a parking ticket.

One becomes perplexed as to which approach to take when reading such a demented bill: To damn these politicians for not being economists (i.e., for not expecting them to know better), or to damn them for being lawyers (i.e., precisely for expecting them to know better).

This is not "reasoned statecraft." This is not "legislating from experience." This is not "giving experts the tools they need." This is pandering to the Great Unwashed (and the Great Uneducated). It is the Politics of the Two-Digit IQ.

One last thought:

Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment.

--Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948)

We are not dealing with "men of common intelligence." We are dealing with politicians. That's precisely the problem.

And remind me again why judges should defer to these intellectual and moral defectives?

---

One postscript:

The President may issue an energy emergency proclamation [that] may include a period of time not to exceed 1 week preceding a reasonably foreseeable emergency.

Translation: A merchant can be charged with criminal "gouging" for conduct that occurred before the opportunity to "gouge" even existed — he can somehow "pre-gouge." Kafka would be impressed.

If the Ex Post Facto Clause had any teeth left nowadays, then I would invoke it here. But why bother? Like so many of the Constitution's intended protections, the clause is essentially a nullity today.

---

More thoughts at Reason Magazine, Hodak Value, Econbrowser, Knowledge Problem.

I have long documented the decline and fall of due process and civil liberties in the United Kingdom, from the repeal of double jeopardy and the hearsay rule to the abolition of the right to a jury trial to the near-deification of publc surveillance.

Now, as Tony Blair's swan song, we may witness the capstone of the British anti-privacy state:

Under the proposals, officers would have the right to ask people about their identities and movements and failure to comply could lead to criminal charges or a hefty fine.

Tony Blair and Home Secretary John Reid want to push the legislation through before Mr Blair stands down as PM next month, it has been reported.
...
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are considering a range of measures for the Bill and 'stop and question' is one of them."

At present, officers may stop and search individuals on "reasonable grounds for suspicion" they have committed an offence but have no rights to ask for their identity and movements.

It's crucial to understand exactly what Blair and Reid are proposing: the unlimited ability of police to stop anyone, anywhere, for any reason or for no reason at all, and demand to know, under threat of criminal penalty, one's identity and destination.

This from the nation that once boasted the "birth of limited government." The mind reels.

Meanwhile, it would be tempting for Americans, especially American libertarians, to sit back, wag a finger and conclude, "This is what happens when you don't have a written Constitution and a written Bill of Rights." But, truth be told, are we really that far behind the U.K. on the slippery slope toward totalitarianism?

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

Time to clean out the aggregator:

---

ITEM: There was much buzz around the blawgosphere this week upon the news that the Louisiana Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for a child rapist. The case is unquestionably going to the Supreme Court, which will have little choice but to revisit Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), which held that capital punishment for "mere" adult rape violates the Eighth Amendment but stopped short of banning the death penalty for any and all non-murder convictions. On the one hand we have a clear tendency away from capital punishment (see, e.g., Roper v. Simmons' ban on executing those who were minors when they committed their crimes). On the other hand, we have a newly constituted Court. Stay tuned. The case is Louisiana v. Kennedy. My previous post on Coker here; a good summary of the issue at Sex Crimes Blawg.

---

ITEM: Venezuela sinks deeper into dictatorship. Remind me again how it was "only about oil"? (Note, however, that this time Venezuelans are pushing back. Suddenly the populist isn't so popular? Go figure.)

---

ITEM: Speaking of television, Donald Trump was fired from prime time reality television. Or did he quit? Who cares? All ratings are fleeting. In any case, while Trump's record as an entertainer belongs in the realm of subjective value judgments, his record as a financier is an objectively demonstrable failure. Previous posts here; deep thoughts from The Onion.

---

ITEM: Back to socialism: This week's "socialized medicine rations too" anecdote — waiting a year for skull surgery. Anyone who thinks the Canadian system would be an improvement is a Sicko. (Via Kevin, M.D.)

---

ITEM: Meanwhile, another "socialist dream" cum nightmare —

Across the United States, many cities are finding their Wi-Fi projects costing more and drawing less interest than expected, leading to worries that a number will fail, resulting in millions of dollars in wasted tax dollars or grants when there had been roads to build and crime to fight.

Of course, roads and crime fighting are public goods worthy of public provision and taxpayer financing. Wireless Internet access is not. Too bad that it is has cost $690 million in squandered public expenditures — in just the past two years — to demonstrate such a remedial concept. Previous posts here.

---

ITEM: The FDA has yet again upheld its unjustifiable, and dangerous, ban on receiving blood donations from gay men, even those who test HIV- and who engage in no high-risk behavior. The Red Cross and other relevant organizations are becoming a bit more vocal in their opposition to the ban. My previous posts here.

---

ITEM: Speaking of the shortcomings of the politics of policing health, New York City's infamous smoking ban is rapidly becoming a toothless fiction, as new "smoking speakeasies" now openly defy the rights-infringing paternalism of the ban and, with increasing impunity, dare the city's nanny-state bureaucrats to come and enforce it. Previous posts here.

When my blogger friend David and I went to a stand-up comedy club during his visit from Utah, his naturally curly (but not naturally blond) hair provided some fodder for the comics (e.g., I had to explain to him who the "Greatest American Hero" was and why everyone was laughing).

So as a farewell gesture (parting shot?) now that David has returned to Utah, here is some hair humor via today's Sunday Cute YouTuber — TheGhstWithin:



My adventures with hair, meanwhile, have been far less fabulous and far more expensive.

"If he doesn't like testing, I really don't care. I think it's a wonderful tool. It creates the fear that they could be tested."
--Robyn Tialavela, parent

There are several sad takeaways in this feature article in the Los Angeles Times about the quiet rise of random, suspicionless drug testing of high school students. Increasing questions of test accuracy, increasing questions of the psychological impact on students, no questions whatsoever from the federal government (which is pushing random testing at every opportunity). No discussion of the illegitimate slippery-slope bootstrapping by the Supreme Court from one case ("drugs are especially dangerous to student athletes") to the next ("oh, and to the chess club, too").

But I'm still stuck on stupid — i.e., Ms. Tialavela's terrifyingly oblivious remark.

It's quite simple really: If drug testing is such "a wonderful tool," then why not — pardon my childless impudence — do the drug testing yourself? Home drug tests are ubiquitously available, and remarkably inexpensive. Demand creates its own supply. Yay (?) for capitalism!

It's the "FCC or V-chip" debacle all over again. The entertainment industry, willingly or reluctantly, gave whiny parents the tools they needed to "protect" their children from the big bad television, and still they want the government to do their work for them — and for everyone else too — in the form of broadcast censorship for all. Give these parents a hammer, suddenly they want a carpenter. "For the children..."

So too with drug testing. Some parents think random, suspicionless drug testing of their students is a neat-o idea; some don't. Drug testing kits are not a public good; there need be no free riders. Parents can, on their own time and their own dime, give their children the gift of distrust the same way they can give them a car or an iPod. Leave the schools, and their neighbors' kids, out of it.

(Via CrimProf Blog.)

--Free iPods for bureaucrats?

--Does a "right to health care" include a right to a $400 ambulance ride, to the ER, for a pregnancy test? ("Patient: Well I couldn't go to Walmart in the middle of the night.") (Via Kevin, M.D.)

--Should an otherwise qualified astronomer be denied tenure because he also happens to be a leading advocate of "intelligent design"? (Via Wired.)

--Speaking of confusing science and mythology: Is Bigfoot an endangered species?

--Is it shrewd business policy or foolish "sour grapes" for McDonald's to petition the OED to remove its entry for "McJobs"? (Note: "An unstimulating low-paid job with few prospects"? I thought that was the OED entry for "blogging." Go figure)

Some quick pass-alongs:

ITEM:

Lambda Legal invites you to help us spread the word about ways we are making the case for equality. Join us for Queens Pride on Sunday, June 3, 2007, Brooklyn Pride on Saturday, June 9, 2007 and New York City Pride on Saturday and Sunday, June 23 - 24, 2007.

At Queens and Brooklyn Prides, we will have informational booths where we will be giving out some fun and useful Lambda Legal items! We'll also be educating people about the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). At New York City Pride, we will have a contingent marching in the parade on Sunday, June 24th. We also hope to have a booth on Saturday, June 23rd or Sunday, June 24th.

We especially like to be joined by members and supporters like you who make our work possible. If you want to help out at a booth — or march with us in the New York City Pride parade — please email to pdecandia@lambdalegal.org or call 212-809-8585, ext. 221 by June 1st for Queens Pride, June 7th for Brooklyn Pride and June 21st for New York City Pride. Indicate when you are available. We'll then email you details about where and when to meet us. All volunteers will receive a Lambda Legal T-shirt!

I've never actually marched in a gay pride parade, mostly because the opportunity never really presented itself. I may give it a try this year. Want to join me?

ITEM:

Michael Greenberg Student Writing Competition

The 2007 Writing Competition
Established in memory of Michael Greenberg, former [National Lesbian and Gay Law Association] board member and Philadelphia attorney who died in 1996 from complications of AIDS, this exciting competition is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing outstanding law student scholarship on the legal issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons.

TOPIC: A cutting edge legal issue affecting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and/or Intersex community.

ELIGIBILITY: The 2007 competition will open to students enrolled in an ABA-accredited law school during the 2006-2007 academic year, beginning in February 2007.

Questions? Please contact NLGLA — Law Student Division co-chair Rebecca G. Levin at becca.levin@nlgla.org.

ITEM:

The Annual Allies for Justice Award honors a legal professional who, in their position of leadership, has allied with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community making a noteworthy contribution to the struggle for civil rights and equality before the law.

The award is presented at the popular Allies for Justice Reception held every year on the Friday evening of the American Bar Association (ABA) Annual Conference. The reception is co-sponsored by the ABA Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities, among others.

The Dan Bradley Award is the life-time achievement award presented each year to an LGBT legal professional at the annual Lavender Law Career Fair and Conference to celebrate our successes within the profession.

For more information about these Awards, including lists of past recipients, see http://www.nlgla.org/allies.html.

To nominate individuals, please send an email to info@nlgla.org that includes a brief statement of the individual's contribution to LGBT social justice and your reasons for nominating that person. Please include a description of the candidate's professional background and achievements as well as other relevant activities. You may include educational background, principal areas of practice or teaching, professional achievements, other public service contributions, and other bar association activities.

All submissions must be received by Friday June 8th, 2007.

ITEM: NLGLA's Lavender Law 2007 conference will be held September 7-9 in Chicago.

To review: The pharmaceutical company Merck bought an executive order from Texas governor Rick Perry mandating that all pre-pubescent schoolgirls be vaccinated against HPV, via Merck's expensive and not entirely effective Gardasil vaccine. This despite the fact that HPV, unlike the infamous childhood diseases of generations past, is not casually communicable in a classroom setting (i.e., there are no positive externalities that justify government compulsion).

The Texas legislature undid Perry's despicable rent-seeking maneuver. Which means they did the right thing -- if only for a few weeks:

Fitness guru Dr. Kenneth Cooper of Dallas teamed up with Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, to author legislation that would require schools to monitor students' health to prevent childhood obesity.
...
The wording in the bill that describes the required testing tool mirrors language on the Web site for Cooper's FitnessGram, developed in 1982 to measure health and fitness levels of children.
...
The FitnessGram would cost about $230 for each child when purchased from its distributor, Human Kinetics. The nonprofit Cooper Institute receives $30 from each sale. ... [T]he Cooper Institute will apply to be the vendor.

First of all, "making money from selling stuff" is hardly my definition of "nonprofit" (cf., the scandalously "profitable yet supposedly non-profit" AARP).

Meanwhile, do educrats, school nurses and PE instructors really need a $230/student test to tell them something that a scale and tape measure can't?

I will, however, give Cooper credit for one thing: he is a far slicker huckster than the marketing department over at Merck:

But Cooper said he believes so strongly in the testing regimen that he is willing to put that money back into the program. He also said he will help raise the money to implement the program, which could cost between $5 million and $8 million.

One must admit, it takes a lot of creativity (and chutzpah) to buy a monopoly franchise from a state government and then repackage it as "philanthropy."

You may have heard that the Texas legislature, along with its counterparts in California and Florida, essentially dictate the educational curricula for the entire nation because textbook publishers have little choice but to produce the books that those three states, at 30% of the market, want to buy. This "Fitnessgram" snake oil may well exhibit the same economics. Even if Cooper "charitably" discounts his program or otherwise "gives back" his "nonprofit profits," he will still have bought, from Texas politicians, a market share that will allow him to undercut other providers of such services (see generally, "economies of scale"). And of course he will be able to ("philanthropically") leverage the Texas contract in his marketing: "Used by all Texas schools...." or "The official fitness program of the Texas Education Agency..."

Like I said: chutzpah.

To the extent that a "War on Childhood Obesity" should be waged at all, it might -- somehow -- be the case that more is needed than a scale and tape measure -- I'm skeptical. But surely it -- whatever "it" is -- can be done for less than $230/student every year, and done in a way that doesn't unduly enrich (reputationally if not financially) a single rent-seeking person or firm, no matter how "non-profit" or "philanthropic" they pretend to be.

(Via Junkfood Science -- which peeks under the hood of the "FitnessGram" program and finds it -- to use its own terminology, "underfit.")

Although Hillary Clinton undoubtedly ranks as the most divisive of the Democratic candidates (and perhaps the third most divisive person in America behind George W. Bush and Rosie O'Donnell), one would think -- hope -- that her supporters and detractors could at least agree on some historical absolutes that occasionally bubble up from beneath the unresolved questions of her past:

Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, pointed to previous reports on some of the elements in the [Clinton biographies] to make the point that there was nothing new. "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news," he said. He added: "Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

One of the most astonishing successes of "Clinton 2008" has been her campaign's ability to blank-out the absolute emptiness of "Clinton 2000" and "Clinton 2006." In other words, it is remarkable how everyone, friend and enemy alike, has overlooked the irrefutable fact that Hillary Clinton has never, not once, faced a significant election battle. Until now.

Besides the fact that there are 60% more registered Democrats than Republicans in New York State, do we really need to dredge the archives to recall the crippled, last-minute, slap-dash campaign by Rick Lazio in 2000 and then the pitiful, pathetic and downright painful campaign by Jeanine Pirro in 2006?

Come on, a well-financed border collie could have quashed these two political puffsters, let alone the Clinton Carpetbagger Complex. The 2000 and 2006 Senate elections were, literally, jokes. Once Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer (another remarkable blank-out nowadays), the New York Republican Party curled up under its desk in a political fetal position and has been comatose ever since. As another example, look how easily ultra-liberal (and lifelong Democrat) Michael Bloomberg was able to co-opt and corrupt the New York GOP for the sake of pursuing his own political ambitions.

Hillary Clinton sought out the safest, least challenging, most easily manipulated Democratic electorate in the country to launch this final leg of the proposed Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political vaudeville. That may in and of itself reflect a political savvy of some sort on her part. But it certainly does not reflect any track record of being a skilled campaigner.

Try to guess who said this:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] ... In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
...
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
...
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
...
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
...
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Hint: The candidate in question is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

Libertarians do not invoke history — especially the history of religion — as a justification for anti-gay bigotry or unfair and unequal treatment under law, just as we do not invoke history to defend slavery, coverture, spousal rape, pre-arranged marriages or the divine right of kings.

Libertarians do not pretend that discrimination, the suppression of individual rights or the betrayal of the principles of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are any "better" when they occur at the state level rather than at the federal level. Libertarians understand that "states' rights" is an insolent fiction: individuals have rights; states have powers — powers that they can and do abuse unless properly checked.

Finally, libertarians do not fear the shibboleth of "activist judges" — sorry, "rogue judges." No libertarian fears a judge more than a politician (or bureaucrat). No libertarian fears a federal court more than a state legislature (or city council). No libertarian denies the unarguable historical fact that for over two centuries it has been judges, especially federal judges, who have been responsible for — and have generally acted responsibly in — defending individual liberties against oppression at the hands of the rest of government.

A libertarian does not say such things. A libertarian who disbelieves such things does not say them anyway just to gain or keep political office.

Therefore, the candidate who said these things is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be.

Answer here.

"What kind of fool..."

Barbra Streisand's concert in Rome next month should be cancelled because of excessively high ticket prices, consumer groups in Italy have said.
...
Prices, ranging from 150 euros to more than 900 euros, were "absurd and shameful", the groups said.
...
The 24,000-seat [Stadio Flaminio] "is public property and cannot be used for immoral deals that are shameful to a civilized country", [the groups] said.

This is the mindset of modern socialist Europe: A pop concert is "immoral." A voluntary exchange among competent consenting adults is "shameful." There is a "right to cheap Streisand."

Meanwhile, note the sotto voce implication of invoking the status of the stadium as "public property" (which, of course, it should not be in the first place). What difference does it make whether the Stadio Flaminio is "public property" — unless of course the people willing and able to pay the higher prices are not to be considered part of the "public"? Apparently "public property" in fact doesn't mean "for the public" at all, but rather for a subset of the public only — those too poor, or too stingy, to buy a ticket.

A concert is a scarce good: there are 24,000 seats; they must be rationed. What better way to ration than to have those who value Barbra Streisand the most (as evidence by their willingness to pay) actually pay and go? How would an alternative rationing system (e.g., a lottery) do any better a job at maximizing (the fiction of) "social welfare" better than having those who want to go the most actually go?

Or is the suggestion that Streisand should be constrained in her liberty to charge whatever price she sees fit? Which simply means that it is not the Stadio Flaminio that is "public property," but Barbra Streisand herself — that she is in fact just another "resource" to be "exploited" for the "common good."

Either that, or perhaps the groups simply want the government (i.e., the taxpayer) to underwrite the concert — in which case every person who does not attend the concert, and who doesn't want to attend the concert, toils for those who do. This is what modern socialist Europeans consider "social justice."

"A funny kind of proposal..."

Among the sillier conspiracy theories are those that might be called "profit conspiracies." Among the more popular of such rantings are:

--The reason no one has cured the common cold is because drug companies want to sell symptom relief drugs (e.g., cough syrup, decongestant) forever. (But, for a real conspiracy, see here.)

--Fluorescent light bulbs are deliberately designed to burn out prematurely (i.e., GE has a "forever bulb" locked away in its vaults that it deliberately keeps off the market). (But, for a real conspiracy, see here.)

--Major appliances could be designed (by whom?) to last longer than they do (how?), but the manufacturers rely on "planned obsolescence" to sell more product.

And so on.

The false premise underlying "profit conspiracies" is of course that "business" — and especially "Corporate America" — is a single conspiratorial entity: that Coca-Cola doesn't really compete with Pepsi, that Pfizer doesn't really compete with Merck, that Bank of America doesn't really compete with Wells Fargo, that General Motors doesn't really compete with Ford, that Procter & Gamble doesn't really compete with Colgate-Palmolive, etc.

So how do the "profit conspiracy theorists" explain this?

The first birth-control pill meant to put a stop to women's monthly periods indefinitely won federal approval Tuesday. Called Lybrel, it's the first such pill to receive Food and Drug Administration approval for continuous use. When taken daily, the pill can halt women's menstrual periods indefinitely and prevent pregnancies.

Lybrel is the latest approved oral contraceptive to depart from the 21-days-on, seven-days-off regimen that had been standard since birth-control pill sales began in the 1960s. The pill, manufactured by Wyeth, is the first designed to put off periods altogether when taken without break.

Seems to me the (not small) feminine hygiene industry would have summoned a meeting of the "profit conspiracy" to protect their (not small) profits from the introduction of Lybrel, the same way that the cough syrup companies supposedly suppressed not just coughs but also a cold cure.

If they could have.

But of course, as Lybrel demonstrates, there is no "profit conspiracy." Companies within an industry compete against each other. Industries compete against each other. Even the most disparate and orthogonal products must compete against each other for the finite purchasing power of consumers. "Guns or butter?" is as true as it ever was.

But how does an economy go from "Guns or butter?" to "Guns or butter or Lybrel?"?

Lybrel is just the latest high-profile example of the role of entrepreneurship in economics, and the human condition, and of the urgent need of anti-capitalists to blank it out. Think Lybrel would have been invented in Hugo Chavez' socialized industry Venezuela — or Paul Krugman's socialized medicine America? Would Wyeth have risked millions of dollars on R&D to develop Lybrel if they did not anticipate a demand for it (or if they expected the government to seize it once developed)?

Profits are not a "residual." They are not "stolen" from "exploited" consumers or workers (both of whom are, in a free society, merely willing participants in a voluntary exchange). Profits are the compensation for a service: entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

What is the true motivation of those who seek to blank out entrepreneurship and risk-taking, if not to delegitimize, and then steal, profits? And who would dare suggest that such a worldview reflects a quest for "social justice"?

That is the true "profit conspiracy."

---

For discussion:

--How soon before radical feminists, neo-hippies and other professional anti-progress malcontents decry Lybrel and praise menstruation as a noble, to-be-celebrated part of the "female experience"? (For example: "The danger, from a standpoint of emancipation, is that some of these women won't shut off the bleeding to satisfy themselves. They'll do it to satisfy others.")

--If taxpayers can be expected to foot the bill for other people's Viagra (via Medicare), then how long before demands are made for taxpayers to foot the bill for other people's Lybrel (perhaps via Medicaid)?

--Can you guess what the statute of limitations is for a negligence lawsuit in New York State? (Hint here.)

--Can a student's haircut properly be deemed "disruptive" to the point of suspending him from class? (Via PHB.)

--Can a policy where one property owner's taxes are capped at 3% annual increases but his neighbor's can go up without limit be consistent with "equal protection of the law"? ("My father's property taxes are $2,300 a year, where if I buy the house next door, mine would be $16,000.") (Via Fark.)

--Are text-messaging teens running up huge phone bills just another "life learning experience" or a demonstration of a need to regulate another "greedy" and "manipulative" industry?

--Cicada pie?

Time to clean out the aggregator.

---

ITEM: An Alabama merchant is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that state's ban on selling sex toys. The petition will surely be denied. Recall that Alabama residents are permitted to possess such devices, just not to buy or sell them. Given that the Court explicitly ruled (rightly or wrongly) in Carhart II, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, that "morality" is, somehow, sufficient grounds to regulate commerce, it follows that there is rational basis for the Court to hear the sex toy case, which lower courts have held was, somehow, also a proper exercise of Alabama's ability to regulate "morality." Most recent post here (scroll down a bit).

---

ITEM: Montgomery County, Maryland, has become the first county to ban trans fat, buying into the tripartite lie that such fats are dangerous in any amount, that "perfect" substitutes are available and that controlling the health choices of competent consenting adults is a legitimate function of government. Previous posts here.

---

ITEM: eHarmony.com, the heterosexual-only online dating service founded by a radical Evangelical, is upset that another online dating service is noting eHarmony's straights-only policy in its advertising. The "Christians" running the no-gays site are pressuring television networks not to accept the ad -- which, recall, is entirely accurate. (Via PHB.)

---

ITEM: Speaking of anti-gay bigots, the leading representative of radical Evangelicals, James Dobson, has indicated that he will not support Rudy Giuliani under any circumstances. Some of us predicted as much from the very beginning.

---

ITEM: Another week, another multimillion judgment against the Roman Catholic Church for another boy-rape scandal. Previous post here.

---

ITEM: The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee predicts that Congress will table any and all efforts to address the Social Security and Medicare crises until after the 2008 presidential election. Key passage: "Conrad noted the 2008 presidential campaigns, both Democratic and Republican, were under way early, which could make it difficult to tackle such controversial reforms." So elections should only be about "non-controversial" topics, like $400 haircuts and middle names and who looks better in drag? Pathetic.

Continuing the theme of creative video editing, here's an impressive piece from this week's Sunday Cute YouTuber, edward1337:


Vaguely reminiscent of the video of my least favorite song. But we won't hold that against him.

Meanwhile, he unfortunately seems to have gone on hiatus. Too bad.

One of the reasons I'm on semi-hiatus right now is because I've been hosting a blogger friend who is enjoying his first trip to New York City.

The best introduction to any first-time tourist here is, in my opinion, the Circle Line boat cruise around lower Manhattan -- the protestations of professional malcontents notwithstanding.

I spent this (slightly hungover) morning and afternoon setting some pictures from our cruise to video, borrowing a recited passage from my favorite poem, "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry," by Walt Whitman, courtesy of the Ric Burns documentary, "New York: A Documentary Film."

Enjoy...