A Stitch in Haste

During the Ron Paul newsletter debacle, I wrote the following:

The worst nightmare of those of us who never drank the Ron Paul Kool-Aid is coming to pass. Those political mainstreamers who do not share in this movement-that-Paul-did-not-create, the liberals and conservatives who prior to this presidential campaign had barely heard of an "isolationist / neoconfederate / 95% of all blacks are criminals / bring back the closet / Lincoln started the Civil War / the WHO invented AIDS / conspiracies everywhere" fervor now have — thanks to Ron Paul — a name for it: libertarianism.

Exhibit A:


(Click to enlarge.)
No, Mr. Kirchick, it is most definitely not libertarianism.

(Via Crossed Pond.)

On the one hand:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

On the other hand:

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

I don't care if people think Barack Obama is the second coming of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln. He is an actively campaigning politician in a tight race. And the only unvarying truth about actively campaigning politicians in tight races is that they will say anything, absolutely anything, to a single-issue crowd to curry their favor.

Gays, particularly gay Democrats, got "Clintoned" once (twice in fact). I think they're smart enough not to get "Clintoned" again by believing anything Hillary says about gay rights. Whether they are smart enough not to get Clintoned again by believing anything Obama says about gay rights remains to be seen.

(Note: I am not passing judgment about those who support, or oppose for that matter, Obama as a "whole candidate" with a whole platform. I'm merely referring to giving especial credence to anything he says about gay rights to a gay audience.)

The EconLog post on why libertarians seem so willing to submit to government excesses and abuses, to which I blogged a reply seems to have legs.

My latest comment entry:

There is of course a third way [as opposed to submission or civil disobedience]: to sue, hopefully before "activist judges" who understand their solemn constitutional duty to thwart the tyranny of the majority.

And

Civil disobedience? We can't even get people to check "No" on the $3 Presidential Campaign Fund box on tax returns.

Also, I would submit (sorry, poor word choice) that the Taser and the increasingly lax standards by which its use is considered appropriate have made traditional 1960s-style civil disobedience difficult if not impossible.

Discuss.

On his supposed dedication to logic and intellectual consistency (from 1983):

I do allow increasingly for what I call the artistic dimension. ... For instance, if you asked me, "Do you believe in assassinations?" I would say no. But if you were to ask, "Do you believe that assassination is the worst crime?" I would say no. "Well, what's worse?" A world war is worse. "Do you believe therefore that there ought to be laws against assassinations?" Yes. "Does that mean that you believe that there ought to be no assassinations?" No. Now, if you can find contradictions in that, go ahead, because I recognize them. I'm simply saying that no statement of my position that fails to permit these artistic exemptions -- and I think they are artistic -- will do justice to what I want to say.

In other words, whenever someone exposes your reasoning (e.g., "the United States does not torture...") as a self-contradictory pile of steaming, malodorous gobbledygook, simply call it an "artistic exemption" and loudly harrumph an indignant "How dare you!"

---

Ross Douthat:

There's no question that Buckley's mid-century moral blindness about race and civil rights -- a blindness shared by most if not all conservatives at the time -- is a significant stain on his record. I tend to think that treating this blindness as the defining aspect of his long career is a serious mistake[.]

To which I commented:

Was Buckley's homophobic proposal, made in 1985 and I-told-you-so'ed in 2005, that all HIV+ people be forcibly tattooed, also a case of "mid-century moral blindness"?

Feel free to "artistically exempt yourself" in the comments.

One percent of the American adult population is now behind bars.

The more pertinent statistic, of course, is the fraction of that fraction who are incarcerated for wholly illegitimate crimes -- most notably drug-related offenders, but there are others.

Another useful statistic would be the fraction who are nonviolent offenders. It is not per se irrational or unjust to imprison them -- "punishment" is just as valid a reason to incarcerate as "protecting society" -- but the staggering prison population (and its associated costs) suggest a re-evaluation of the issue is in order.

One percent. In the land of the free.

It defies comprehension.

NASA has launched (pun intended) a new tool to ensure that people are properly propagandized into thinking that the space agency is both a legitimate public good and just plain neat-o:

NASA has released a clever around-the-house and around-the-city Flash site that details a whole host of common materials that do in fact owe their existence to the space program.

The animations, reminiscent of the Teletubbies' gaudy overcolored domain (and, for those is in the know, the Comet Empire), are obviously geared to children and other gullible types. They identify various everyday items supposedly resulting directly from NASA expenditures.

For example, NASA apparently "invented":

--the guitar ("special vibration analysis equipment")
--the Dustbuster ("self-contained drill")
--baby formula ("algae as a recycling agent")
--cosmetics ("digital image processing analyzer")

Of course, what you won't find anywhere on NASA's website is a list of all the products that were never invented or improved because the R&D money needed to produce or enhance them was diverted to taxes in order to fund NASA and all the other "just plain neat-o" things the government has somehow convinced itself — and others — that it should be doing with taxpayer money. Perhaps they're still exploring outer space looking for them.

---

Explanation of post title here.

Why any sane parent would allow their minor child to spend a year being starved by barbarians halfway around the world is beyond me. Not even the Mormons are that crazy (close, but not quite).

If you're young and want to see the world, join the Navy. If you're young and want to save the world, join the Peace Corps.

And regardless, if you're going to frolic amongst the natives, bring a credit card and a prepaid phone card. Just in case.

Finally, to the parents: Make the kid call you and email you a picture of himself once a month. Just in case.

I was trying to find William F. Buckley, Jr.'s infantile, insulting and insolently inaccurate 1982 column on Ayn Rand's death, when I instead stumbled upon this:

There's nobody more interesting than Ayn Rand, the founder of the Objectivist Order. And she was pretty assertive in the late '50s. She figured that the conservatism that didn't embrace her point of view 100 percent was going to sort of die of malnutrition.

That was William F. Buckley, Jr., in 2003.

Isn't it interesting that "the conservatism that didn't embrace her point of view 100 percent" (i.e., the conservatism of George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, etc.) is indeed now dying, not of malnutrition but rather of gluttony — the gluttony of political megalomania, moral self-righteousness, irrational mysticism and primitive bigotry, all glued together with the stale kiddie paste of mob rule and adorned with the glitter-on-glue of petty hypocrisy?

Movements come and go. Philosophies endure. Buckley founded a movement. Rand founded a philosophy.

Now that both are dead, the real test of whose ideas will win out over whose can begin in earnest.

---

Incidentally, the Buckley column I was looking for is — "Ayn Rand, R.I.P.," dated April 2, 1982 (PDF - 3 pages).

"If you can't fix it, Jack, you gotta stand it."
--Brokeback Mountain

Arnold Kling wonders whether libertarians who "agree" to live in high-tax, high-regulation, anti-freedom regimes aren't a bit like the patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Kling recalls the scene in which the protagonist, Randle McMurphy, is shocked (sorry, poor word choice) — um, surprised to learn that his fellow confinees are self-admitted and can simply flee the cruel, sadistic tyranny of Nurse Ratched any time they like.

Somehow, I thought there was a connection between that scene and libertarians complaining about the decline of the U.S. Constitution while showing a revealed preference for living with the abuses of power that take place.

My response at that blog:

Huh? How is "libertarians don't riot in the streets" (or move to — um, where?) a revealed preference to anything?

The correct analogy would be if Nurse Ratched showed up uninvited at a libertarian's home, ordered him to lose weight, throw out his porn, use compact fluorescent bulbs and pay for her mother's pension and eldercare, and then he said, "Eh, who cares?"

But of course that wouldn't happen. The libertarian would act — because he could.

Compliance at the point of a gun is not "revealing a preference" for being robbed.

Who's right: Me or Kling?

---

Another commenter at Kling's post:

There are some choices that libertarians can make. They can move to places that are more libertarian. Move from New York to Wyoming, for example.

First, New York and Wyoming are hardly perfect substitutes — just ask Matthew Shepard's mother.

Second, why is it the burden of libertarians to "pack up and move" whenever their rights are infringed? A prerogative, perhaps, but not a burden. And how is choosing not to do so an indication of some contrived libertarian "hypocrisy" or "moral failing" or "revealed preference"?

--Why are the producers of "As the World Turns" apparently not allowing the gay couple on the program to kiss on screen?

--Is shouting a profanity at a police dog "animal cruelty"?

--Who's looking for summer interns?

--What did the Supreme Court say about public school districts running "separate but equal" systems?

--Some Special Guest Questions:

Why does a man who received 0.38% of the vote in the last election merit valuable minutes on Meet The Press, not to mention hours of speculation about his candidacy and its effects on the 2008 campaign? Will Tim Russert bestow similar press time to the Libertarian Party candidate — who received a similar number of votes?

"The robbery offense in [the Hobbs Act] is to be utilized only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes."
--Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Manual 9-131.040

We need to keep an eye on this guy:

The effect of our Court's rulings is that every local robbery of a business in the United States is a federal crime. I acknowledge that the Supreme Court has held that Congress intended to include within the scope of the Hobbs Act* conduct that was already punishable under the state robbery and extortion statutes. However, I cannot believe that this is what the Founding Fathers intended. Moreover, I have harbored the hope that the Supreme Court in Lopez was seeking to restore a proper state-federal balance that gives actual meaning to the term federalism. I also hope that the Supreme Court will consider the issue[.]

That from Senior Sixth Circuit Judge Richard F. Suhrenreich on the question of whatever happened to "new federalism" commerce clause jurisprudence, and concluding that his circuit's precedents (which he felt compelled to apply in upholding a criminal conviction -- maybe he's not so "activist" after all) conflict with the landmark Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Lopez** and U.S. v. Morrison***, both holding, in essence, that the federal government should stick to its federal knitting and leave local crime to local law enforcement.

The case is U.S. v. Baylor, No. 07-3002 (February 26, 2008) (PDF - 5 pages) (Via How Appealing.)

---

*18 U.S.C. § 1951.

**U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (federal government may only criminalize economic activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce).

***U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ("the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims" has traditionally been a state and not a federal matter).

"The people of Alabama sued the state, which means that the people of Alabama — sued themselves..."
--Lewis Black

Government bureaucrats, posing as shareholder advocates, are suing Yahoo!'s* directors for having committed the sin of actually "directing" the company:

The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court on Thursday by lawyers representing Detroit's police and fire retirement system and general retirement system, as well as "all other similarly situated public shareholders."

According to the lawsuit, Yahoo's board is pursuing "value-destructive" third-party deals in an effort to fight off Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft, which on Feb. 1 announced a takeover bid of $31 per share in cash and stock, a 62 percent premium over Yahoo's previous day's closing price.
...
"Yahoo's directors cannot 'just say no' indefinitely to legitimate acquisition offers," the lawsuit reads.

Um, why not?

Directors are not elected by shareholders simply to fetch the highest bid for the company. They are paid to — wait for it — direct. Just because directors take an action with which you happen to disagree, that does not mean you get to sue over it.

On mundane operational matters, shareholders in fact never get to sue over it. That's called the business judgment rule and it reflects the uncontroversial notion that judges are not better equipped to run a company than the people who actually do run it.

On major strategic questions — including being bought out by another company — the legal analysis becomes a bit more complicated, but the common sense analysis really shouldn't. More should be required before shareholders are allowed into court than, "We disagree with the directors." So what?

If the directors are engaging in illegal conduct (e.g., authorizing bribes to politicians), then shareholders should have the right to try to stop it (and they do have that right). If the directors are (literally) looting the company, then shareholders should have the right to try to stop it (and they do have that right).

But this isn't that.

In the absence of bona fide malfeasance, the sole shareholder-based remedies to disagreeing with a corporate board should be: (1) sell your shares (complete with your 62% gain since the Microsoft offer was announced), or (2) launch a hostile bid to oust those directors (which — surprise — Microsoft is doing).

---

Meanwhile, it's interesting that it is bureaucrats managing government employee pension funds who are suing. As I've mentioned previously, such activist shareholders often have their own conflicts of interest to address.

Isn't it ironic that government bureaucrats usually try to block major mergers, while here they're trying to compel it?

---

As for the Lewis Black quote, suppose the directors and officers are held liable for some form of malfeasance. Will that vindicate the shareholders? No. The directors need not worry, since they will have so-called "D&O insurance" to insulate them. And guess who pays for a corporation's D&O insurance? That's right: the corporation itself, which means the stockholders pay for it. Go figure.

---

*What somebody really needs to do is sue Yahoo! — and YUM! Brands — for putting exclamation points in their official corporate names. Do not want.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important Fourth Amendment case regarding the search of an automobile after its driver has been lawfully arrested.

The procedural posture of Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, is a bit complicated. The facts are not:

At the time of the search, Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a locked patrol car, and under the supervision of a police officer. The other two arrestees at the scene were also handcuffed and detained in the back of patrol cars, and the record reflects no unsecured civilians in the vicinity. At least four officers were on the scene. At that point, the police had no reason to believe that anyone at the scene could have gained access to Gant's vehicle or that the officers' safety was at risk. Indeed, one of the officers who searched Gant's car acknowledged at the evidentiary hearing that the scene was secure at the time of the search. Therefore neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car. Absent either of these Chimel* rationales, the search cannot be upheld as a lawful search incident to arrest.

That was the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court [PDF - 28 pages]. The State of Arizona begs to differ.

Arizona is asking the Supreme Court to extend the key case regarding post-arrest vehicle searches, New York v. Belton**, to the Gant fact pattern. That is asking too much:

When the occupant of an automobile is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest, does the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to his arrest include the passenger compartment of the automobile in which he was riding? That is the question at issue in the present case.

That was the very first paragraph of Belton, and it explains, quite succinctly, why that case in wholly inapposite to the Gant case: Gant was simply not an "occupant of an automobile" in any meaningful sense of the word at the time he was arrested.

He had driven up his own driveway, parked, turned the motor off and exited the vehicle before the police even spoke to him. He was eight to twelve feet away from the vehicle when he was arrested. The arrest was subsequent to an outstanding warrant, not to an immediate crime involving the vehicle. Gant had not been fleeing in the vehicle. The arrest warrant was not related to drugs, weapons or any other contraband (i.e., that might have been in the vehicle). And, finally, "the police had no reason to believe that anyone at the scene could have gained access to Gant's vehicle or that the officers' safety was at risk."

The search of Gant's vehicle was a self-serving fishing expedition by the authorities, nothing more. This the police may not do, even to a lawfully arrested individual.

Based on all that, how can anyone possibly conclude that this excessive, unjustified, warrantless search was reasonable and consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

Then again, whoever said Supreme Court Justices are always reasonable -- especially about the Fourth Amendment?

It will be some time before the Supreme Court hears and decides the case. Stay tuned...

Links to case documents available at SCOTUSblog.

---

*Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
**New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)

So let me get this straight...

This picture is somehow problematic:


But this picture is not?


And remind me again why people stupid enough to be duped by this should be allowed to vote?

---

Here's something that is problematic: The website whence I found the Obama picture, the Daily Mail, labeled the picture "BaracKOsamaAP_468x789" — Osama and not Obama.

Just saying...

Barack Obama supports free trade, except when he doesn't:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama assured U.S. trading partners on Sunday that he did not oppose free trade despite making increasingly critical comments about multilateral deals such as NAFTA.
...
Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "supports" is. How someone can "support free trade" while opposing NAFTA (i.e., "opposing free trade") is not clear. What does he think the "FT" in "NAFTA" stands for — "f*ck that"?

Perhaps Obama could be so kind as to clarify?

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

What exactly does he think a "free trade agreement" is if not an agreement that free trade will "apply to everybody"? Does he think a free trade agreement is the functional equivalent of a signing statement? "We agree, except when we choose not to..."

As for the socialist, Naderite "workers not profits" gobbledygook, free trade of course benefits consumers — which, last time I check, both included and outnumbered "workers." A trade agreement that lowers prices and increases variety, for every single person in America, is "bad for America" — how?

And it should not need reiteration that without "corporate profits" there can be no workers. Just ask every heavy industry in America that was "collectively bargained" and "fair trade not free traded" straight into bankruptcy: steel, textiles, autos, etc.

If Obama, or any other candidate, is going to swim in populist tripe, one would hope that they could do so in a way that does not so insolently insult the intelligence of anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics.

---

Speaking of "who outnumbers whom in America," could you imagine if Barack Obama had the intellectual honesty to reword his website such that each of his "Obama will ___" campaign promises to "Obama will force taxpayers to ___" or "Obama will raise the deficit to ___"?

No, I can't imagine it either.

(Via Hit & Run.)

---

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is of course no better. Someone should remind her who signed NAFTA into law.

As the Bush administration turns up the volume on its despicable lies about the purported implications of the expiration of the insolently named "Protect America Act," it has become necessary to review what is and is not still the law regarding War on Terror eavesdropping.

First and foremost: FISA did not expire, the PAA expired. FISA* has no sunset clause; it is in full force until repealed or amended. Administration apologists have been relentless in propagating this lie.

And what does FISA provide?

1. Foreign-to-foreign communications are not protected from surveillance. That has always the case, and is still the case now.

2. When foreign-to-domestic communications are at issue, the government does not have to wait for a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The government can initiate the wiretap and then seek a retroactive warrant from the FISA Court up to 72 hours later. That was the case before PAA was enacted and is still the case after PAA expired.

So again, when National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey insist that

"the delay resulting from this discussion impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information"

what they are really saying is that they themselves refused to comply with FISA's modest requirement that the government return to seeking retroactive warrants from the FISA Court (which, recall, are approved, literally, over 99.95% of the time).

So explain to me again who is putting Americans at risk here?

---

A few reminders, given how brazenly the Bush administration is flat-out lying about the warrantless wiretapping question:

--FISA is not a "Carter-era" law; it is a Bush-era law.

--When Administration officials use the term "terrorist," remember that they are conveniently omitting the words "alleged" or "suspected." This is a subterfuge they also use in another context.

--The original violation of FISA, the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," involved eavesdropping on American citizens on American soil. It defies and defiles every dictionary in the world to label such activities as "foreign intelligence" or "international communications." It was domestic spying, pure and simple.

--The Protect America Act**, meanwhile, is about one thing and one thing only: turning an undemanding, de minimis retroactive FISA warrant requirement into no requirement at all.

---

Meanwhile, the program has resumed, which I suppose means that government has also resumed paying its phone bill.

---

My old fifty-post chain on the warrantless wiretapping scandal here.

---

*Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
**Public Law No. 110-55 (PDF - 7 pages).

Time to clean out the aggregator —

ITEM: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced plans to introduce the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008." The bill is mostly a hodgepodge of (expensive) warm-fuzzy-feeling gobbledygook (e.g., $200 million of taxpayer money for "credit counseling" programs and $4 billion in block grants to politically favored communities), but one ominous provision would allow bankruptcy judges to void liens on foreclosed properties (i.e., turn a secured mortgage into "just another defaulted debt"). Most recent post here.

ITEM: The NFL, facing both widespread public outrage and activist legislators, has abandoned its insistence that churches not show its games on big-screen televisions. My umbrage was more with the unfair treatment of the churches relative to other non-profits under the proposed Congressional response.

ITEM: The State of Florida is facing a financial crisis that may shut down most of its courts for several weeks. I have lamented previously the seeming ability of governments to fund every improper whim of every activist legislator but often can't seem to fund one of the three unarguably legitimate functions of government — courts.

ITEM: Two more states have followed the lead of Georgia and held that convicted sex offenders cannot be forced to vacate their homes to satisfy residency restrictions enacted after they committed the crime and acquired the property. Previous post here (fourth item).

Dear Subaru of New York:

For several weeks now, you have been running, ad nauseum, a series of radio ads touting the superiority of your vehicles during New York winters.

Perhaps your vehicles are indeed superior, in terms of handling in winter conditions, fuel economy, comfort, etc. I neither know nor care.

What I care about is that you end every commercial with the following abomination:

"That's why, in our opinion, Subaru is the official car of New York."

The hypothesis "Subaru is the official car of New York" is a discrete, binary, objective concept. It either is or is not true. There is no room for "opinion." Do, or do not — there is no opine.

"Fuel economy is more important than comfort" is an opinion. "Pink is a stupid color for a car" is an opinion. "People who buy foreign cars are unpatriotic" is an opinion.

"Subaru is the official car of New York" is not, and under no circumstances can ever be, an opinion.

Please change your scripts accordingly. Thank you.

---

Of course, what doubtless is occurring here is that either Subaru of New York, or the City of New York, or both, were unwilling to negotiate a marketing agreement in which Subaru would indeed be declared "the official car of New York." Which at first glance seems odd: it's not like New York City has been unwilling to prostitute itself in this manner in the past — and in a far more controversial context than automobiles.

I wonder whether (indeed I strongly suspect that) Subaru reached out to the city and was rebuked, most likely because it's a foreign manufacturer.* It's no coincidence that almost every police car in America is made in America.

(*Subaru has one assembly plant in Indiana, but it is a Japanese company owned in part by Toyota.)

---

Meanwhile:

[A measure] would salute The Colonel's fried chicken as Kentucky's official picnic food.

State Rep. Charles Siler is sponsoring legislation to honor the late Col. Harland Sanders, the Kentuckian who founded the fried chicken chain that now has 11,000 restaurants in more than 80 countries. The bill singles out KFC's "finger lickin' good" original recipe, which Sanders first served in a Corbin restaurant in 1940, for the designation.

The Colonel's fried chicken deserves the title, Siler said, because of the worldwide attention and the economic benefit it has brought to the state. By approving the bill, he said, the legislature would be helping Louisville-based KFC to market the product.

Of course, it is never a proper function of government to help one politically favored company "market the product" (i.e., compete against alternatives). (And KFC's parent company, YUM! Brands, doesn't appear even to have had to pay any rent-seeking to this activist hillbilly legislature. Go figure.)

And what was I just saying about "politically favored"?

The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals contends, however, that KFC chickens are abused, even tortured.
...
PETA has been involved in a longstanding battle with KFC, and even began a push two years ago to have a bust of Colonel Sanders removed from the Capitol. Sanders became recognizable worldwide after he began marketing his fried chicken.

No doubt the War on Obesity types will also weigh in (no pun intended); cf. this previous post.

(Via Lowering the Bar.)

When I said that February was Coming Out Month here at Sunday CuteTuber™, I didn't necessarily mean "coming out" as gay:


Hopefully anythingannoying won't face too much bigotry from those who object to his alternative lifestyle.

Sunday CuteTuber™ FAQ

This is hilarious:

1943 Guide to Hiring Women
Excerpt:

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls — those who are just a little on the heavy side — are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.
...
8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

This, meanwhile, is not so hilarious:

Attacks Show Easygoing Jamaica Is Dire Place for Gays
Excerpt:

Disapproval of gays is an entrenched part of island life, rooted, Jamaicans say, in the country's Christian tradition. The Bible condemns homosexuality, they say. But critics say islanders are selective in the verses they cite, and the rage at gay sex contrasts sharply with Jamaicans' embrace of casual sex among heterosexuals, which is considered part of the Caribbean way.
...
The country's public defender, Earl Witter, later condemned the violence at the funeral, but he also reinforced the common view that if only gays would be less flamboyant, there would be less violence against them. Speaking to the Mandeville Rotary Club last April, he urged Jamaica's gays to avoid flaunting their sexual orientation. "Hold your corners," he said in the local vernacular, because "it may provoke a violent breach of the peace."

And if Lawrence King has simply abstained from "flaunting himself" at school, he would never have forced a fellow student to blow his brains out.

Down the road, we will of course mock anti-gay bigotry the same way we can mock this silly 1943 guide to employing "girls."

The only questions are how long the road is, and how many bodies will be strewn alongside it.

--Who said, in 2006, that "the era of small government is over"?

--Is hauling construction waste a legitimate public good, to the point where a state can bar private individuals from competing with its monopoly?

--What does it say about America when a black woman proposes involuntary servitude?

--What was the winning entry in the Kip's Law "There Ought To Be a Law" writing contest?

--How's the search for the real killer going?

With all this talk about Barack Obama achieving "creepy" almost cult-like status among at least some voters, while others insist that he doesn't really to stand for anything specific, I'm starting to experience some TARDIS-generated déjà vu:


I am of course not suggesting that Obama is a renegade Time Lord bent on conquering the universe — that would be John McCain.

My point is merely that "voting" and "thinking" are often located on different worlds. Which is why we should be most careful regarding what people actually get to vote on.

---

Or perhaps it's "Obama = Saruman" (and Clinton = Gollum)?

I'm going to resurrect an old feature here at A Stitch in Haste: highlighting noteworthy publications from the Congressional Research Service.

Today's entry is Constitutional Limits on Hate Crime Legislation (PDF - 6 pages).

Summary:

Federal and state legislators recognize the special concerns and effects of hate crimes. Although there is some federal legislation in place, many states have enacted some form of ethnic intimidation law or bias-motivated sentence-enhancement factors in attempts to curtail hate crimes. Several United States Supreme Court cases provide the framework in which states must legislate to ensure the constitutionality of hate crime legislation. After these landmark cases, the real questions for states involve identifying permissible ways to curtail hate crimes without infringing on any constitutionally protected rights. On the federal level, in light of U.S. Supreme Court cases, the question remains as to what extent Congress can broaden the classes of individuals subject to hate crime legislation. This report discusses constitutional considerations facing both individual states and Congress in enacting hate crime legislation. It will be updated as events warrant.

An excerpt:

Generally, the constitutional distinction boils down to the difference between conduct and speech. If the statute's aim is to punish conduct, then it will generally be upheld; however, if the intent behind the statute is to punish speech, thought, or expression, then courts are more apt to strike down the statute. For example in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul*, the Court struck down a local ordinance as being overbroad and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. However, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell**, the Court found that a Wisconsin statute providing sentence enhancement for bias-motivated crimes did not violate a defendant's 1st Amendment right as the statute was directed towards the defendant's conduct and not expression. Most recently, in Virginia v. Black***, the Court found that the 1st Amendment permits a state to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because "burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation." However, in a separate ruling, the Court found that the Virginia statute banning all cross burnings is facially invalid as it impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.

I think Virginia v. Black represents the absolute outermost bound of hate crime jurisprudence: If "intimidation" is a viable criminal offense, then "burning a cross with intent to intimidate" is just another form of "intimidation" and worthy of criminal proscription. But the criminal intent still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything more restrictive than that (e.g., assuming that all flag burnings are meant to intimidate, without a specific showing in a specific incident), cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. (Note also that this is more of a Fifth Amendment due process issue than a First Amendment free speech issue, though the Black court did not actually analyze the issue in quite those terms.)

---

*505 U.S. 377 (1992)
**508 U.S. 476 (1993)
***538 U.S. 343 (2003)

---

Previous CRS Recommendations:
Same-Sex Marriage -- Legal Issues
Saudi Arabia
The National Debt
Restricting Video Game Sales to Minors
Warrantless Wiretapping
Foreign Holdings of Public Debt
China's Internet Censorship
Summary of Rumsfeld v. FAIR

Since I appear to be the only person in the entire blogosphere who didn't post this, I'll make up for it by posting this:

When it comes, it comes, so you have to seize it, tame it or trick it, beat it into submission, break its neck, take it, hang it upside down, gut it, remove its hide, tan its hide, carve out the post from the tanned hide, submit the carved-out post to the Wordpress, hope people like it, and then, if they don't, well fuck 'em.

Yup, that's blogging alright...

--If John McCain is opposed to torture, then why is he urging President Bush to veto a bill banning torture?

--Does John McCain's 2004 vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment mean that he "supports gay rights"?

--Did the McCain campaign promise bankers that, had he failed to win the Republican nomination, he would stay in the race anyway just to get taxpayer money to pay off his loans? (Via Obsidian Wings; see also here.)

--Does anyone remember the Keating Five?

--Who said, in 2000, that he believed John McCain would be too old to run for president in 2008?

--Is it a proper function of government to give $250,000 of taxpayer money to MIT to study the feasilibility of building a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon?

--Special Bonus Question: Is it a proper function of government to build a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon? (Estimated cost: $1 billion; estimated completion: 2025.)

--Which nation is censoring anti-censorship web sites by falsely accusing them of containing child pornography?

--If a college education is a "public good," then why is the private university reducing its average cost by 16% while the public university is raising it as much as 10%? (Via Howling Point.)

--How is Great Britain living up to its socialized medicine pledge never to keep patients waiting in an emergency room for more than four hours before being treated? (Hint: Think "in an emergency room.")

--Speaking of socialized medicine, did a Canadian hospital fire a nurse for sweating too much, or for another reason?

The more things change...

President Hugo Chávez said on Sunday that Venezuela was not planning to halt oil exports to the United States. The statement may ease fears in energy markets over fallout from Venezuela's legal battle with Exxon Mobil over compensation for the nationalization of a large oil project.

Mr. Chávez's conciliatory tone stands in contrast to recent comments made by him and other officials here in which they threatened to stop exporting oil to the United States. They said the Bush administration and Exxon Mobil were conspiring to wreak economic havoc in Venezuela.
...
But the move seemed to be meant more for consumption within Mr. Chávez’s political movement here, which faces growing discontent over corruption charges and food shortages.

...the more they same the same.

Shoppers in oil-rich Venezuela often can't find basic food items in stores but the government of President Hugo Chavez on Sunday turned up a huge stash of milk and chicken in a private health clinic.
...
Chavez has repeatedly complained that private clinics charge too much for services and has threatened to take them over.

Just another day in the glorious socialist paradise.

Apparently some activist legislators in the U.K. think so:

Immigrants who want to become British and settle permanently in the UK will need to pass more tests to "prove their worth" to the country under new plans.
...
The package of measures includes ... Requirements to prove integration into communities[.]

How, I wonder, does someone prove to a bureaucrat's satisfaction that they have "integrated into a community"?

More importantly, why should one have to "integrate into a community" to earn citizenship, in the U.K. or any other country? Why isn't it enough that a potential immigrant not break laws, learn the national language and support oneself and one's family?

---

Speaking of the "U.K. community" —

[T]he archbishop [of Canterbury] proposes to expand the privileges of all religions. It would be better instead to curtail the entitlements of his one. It makes no sense in a pluralistic society to give one church special status. Nor does it make sense, in a largely secular country, to give special status to all faiths. The point of democracies is that the public arena is open to all groups — religious, humanist or football fans. The quality of the argument, not the quality of the access to power, is what matters. And citizens, not theocrats, choose.

I defended Rowan Williams. I will of course not defend the government-established status of his Church of England.

Modern, secular Western democracies should act as such. This is the Twenty-First Century, for goodness sake.

John Cloud, a gay journalist with Time who has previously written controversial pieces about how being a gay teenager is "no big deal," comes out (no pun intended) with a real whopper regarding the Lawrence King incident:

According to another GLSEN survey [PDF - 117 pages] released the same year, only 18% of gay and transgender students said they had ever been assaulted because of their sexual orientation (only 12% -- probably many of the same kids -- said they had been assaulted because of the way they express their gender). And of those who had been harassed or assaulted, more than one-fifth -- 22% -- said the incident wasn't serious enough to report. When they did report the incidents, the response from school staffs was positive about 70% of the time. That's not enough -- it should be 100% -- but it belies the dire picture painted by gay groups in the wake of King's killing.

"Only" 18%?

Could you imagine if "only" 18% of teenage girls reported being physically assaulted at school because of their gender? Or if "only" 18% of black teens reported racial assaults at school (or 18% of white, Asian or Hispanic teens, for that matter)? Not teased or taunted, mind you, but physically assaulted.

But when it's gay kids, an 18% victimization rate somehow warrants the qualifier "only." Go figure.

(One also wonders whether that "only 18%" number takes into account the fact that many gay teens never get assaulted because of their sexual orientation for the pesky reason that they stay in the closet.)

More:

They [i.e., gay teens] are periodically confused and depressed, but what teen isn't?

The academic literature is teeming with studies showing that gay teens, especially males, are far more likely to ideate about suicide, perhaps by a factor of ten, and are also more likely to attempt suicide.

Cloud's own homosexuality notwithstanding, his arrogantly flippant "what's the big deal" approach to growing up gay is not a bandwagon gays (or libertarians) should be jumping onto, one's views on hate crimes legislation generally, the Matthew Shepard Act specifically, or any other gay rights issue notwithstanding.

Regardless of one's conclusions regarding policy, it's never acceptable to be wilfully oblivious to facts, especially such painful facts as suicide statistics.

To review: New York City's random bag search program at subway entrances is unconstitutional because any search regime that is objectively worthless cannot possibly be deemed "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment by any rational judge (irrational judges are another question altogether).

Armed with that:

Amtrak passengers will have to submit to random screening of carry-on bags in a major new security push that will include officers with automatic weapons and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling platforms and trains, the railroad planned to announce today.
...
The new procedures draw heavily on measures being used in the New York City subways, Rooney said. That model has been upheld in court challenges[.]
...
People who are selected for screening and refuse will not be allowed to board, and their tickets will be refunded.

In addition to the screening, counterterrorism officers with bomb-sniffing dogs will patrol platforms and walk through trains, and sometimes they will ride the trains, officials said.

Some hasty stitches:

--Is the difference between blowing up a train and blowing up a train station equivalent to the difference between blowing up plane and blowing up an airport terminal? It's hard to think like a terrorist, but wouldn't blowing yourself up at Penn Station during the morning commute be more effective than blowing yourself up in the bar car on the Metroliner? This security theater does nothing to prevent attacks on crowded commuter terminals themselves, which are the true targets (at least in New York City).

--The very characteristic that makes the New York City subway search so mind-bogglingly stupid is the fact that would-be riders, who are anonymous, can decline to be searched, walk a block to the next entrance (or a few blocks to the next station), board there — and, if a terrorist, do their dastardly deeds anyway. Objectively demonstrable zero deterrence effect. For Amtrak, meanwhile, this wouldn't apply (since people must buy personal tickets as with air travel). So why in this instance also let them "just walk away" as we do on the subways? Why not record their data from the refunded ticket and possibly investigate them further? (I'm arguing here as a devil's advocate, not a libertarian. If you're going to have a dubious warrantless search regime, then at least try to use it intelligently.)

--Deploying sniff dogs on a train itself (rather than on platforms or in baggage areas) comes perilously close to constituting suspicionless dog sniffs of a person's body, an uniquely intrusive form of search that has never been endorsed by any court, and certainly not by the Supreme Court.

--From the article: "Amtrak has received a number of federal grants aimed at boosting security, but officials said there was no specific mandate to implement the changes." That would be on top of Amtrak's $1 billion annual subsidy from taxpayers (i.e., people who don't use Amtrak).

Remember always: The government's approach is that it is better to feel safe than to be safe — or free.

All aboard?

More thoughts at Concurring Opinions.

An astonishing flash of candor from Hillary Clinton's senior counterpart, Senator Chuck E. Cheese:

I think Democrats believe that this is a very good election because we think there are two good candidates as opposed to, "Oh, we have to settle for somebody," and making a set rule now of any type -- each candidate is going to proffer the rule that is in their best interests right now.

Schumer was referring to the question of superdelegates that I have already discussed.

How refreshing to see a "dedicated public servant" like Schumer actually acknowledge so bluntly that all politicians are moral defectives who don't cast votes, support policies or craft speeches based on actual principles, but only and always on whatever happens to serve their own personal agenda at the moment.

---

Later in that same Meet the Press broadcast, pundit Margaret Carlson (almost) makes this very point:

How you see Michigan and Florida and the superdelegates depends on who you're for. The superdelegates, Obama doesn't want to play by the rules as stated, although I doubt many voters understand the superdelegate rule, which is you do what you want and you're supposed to save the party from people who are insurgents. And on Michigan and Florida, he does want to play by the rules because the rules are clear, and there is -- there are lots of statements of Clinton on the record saying, "Yes, Michigan and Florida don't count."

Unfortunately Carlson drops the ball after the first sentence. Obama is in no way arguing for "changing the rules" regarding superdelegates, in the sense that he is not proposing that they be stripped of their voting power or compelled to rubber-stamp the winner of the straight-delegate count or the popular vote. Suggesting (but not demanding) one approach to how a superdelegate ought to vote is not at all equivalent to "doesn't want to play by the rules."

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, cannot say the same. She is unabashedly suggesting that the rules be changed regarding Florida and Michigan (not to mention breaking a campaign pledge in the process). And given that her operatives have already filed one lawsuit seeking to disenfranchise Democratic voters (ones thought to be leaning toward Obama, of course), who seriously doubts that "suggesting" may become "demanding" down the road? Who knows for a fact that Clinton would not be willing, if it became the last card she had left to play, to sue her own party over the two delegations (i.e., "proffer the rule that is in her best interests right now")?

Hillary Clinton wouldn't know an ethical principle if it bit her on the nose (or, in the case of her pervert husband, some other body part). Just ask her biggest fan -- Chuck Schumer.

More thoughts at Crossed Pond.

---

Clinton:

"I've been tested. I've been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises."

The (perfectly rational given that it's the Clintons) reflex response to this is, "What might you (and especially your pervert husband) have done since 2000 that we don't yet know about?"

I have a secondary response: Someone who will be 18 years old in November 2008 was two in November 1992, six in 1996 and ten in 2000. Up that to, say, 25 years old this November and you're still only at nine, 13 and 17.

Given the generally assumed dominance that Democrats have over Republicans in the quest for the youth vote, one wonders whether the Clintons truly have been "tested" and "vetted" to them. Do younger voters really know about Travelgate -- or Vince Foster or cattle futures or Whitewater or HillaryCare 1.0? Would the McCain campaign offer them a primer should Clinton win the nomination?

Stay tuned...

---

As an aside, can someone explain to me how "sorta kinda quoting someone who was sorta kinda quoting someone else" constitutes "plagiarism," as the Clinton campaign seems to think? I've tried to follow the logic, but I'm just not there yet.*

---

*Did I just commit plagiarism? If not, then neither did Obama.

--Which states are people in the U.S. migrating to, which states are they migrating from, and why?

--Which state is using taxpayer money to bribe Disney into expanding its video game studios there? (Hint: It's a state that previously tried to criminalize violent video games.)

--Which company, meanwhile, is rent-seeking $200 million of taxpayer money to promote American tourism? (Hint: See previous question.)

--Is it appropriate for police to taser a handcuffed man locked inside a jail cell "to shut him up"? How about tasering him three times?

--A Special Video Question: "Why Does Bubu's Dad Work So Much?"

(First posted 19 February 2007.)

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it