A Stitch in Haste

Hilarious:


(Via PoliBlog.)

For Discussion: Compare and contrast to those who insist that they are "defending traditional marriage" (one example here).

To review (and, with the California gay marriage decision, to preview): The Internal Review Code requires all tax-exempt institutions to abstain from endorsing candidates for office as a condition of their preferential status. The restriction does not apply only to churches and does not apply to issue advocacy generally. Only endorsing particular candidates for particular offices is proscribed.

So how is this anything other than a disingenuous stunt aimed at the misinformed?

The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.

"Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation."

The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.

Read that again: "The government can't demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit."

To use the theocrats' favorite jurisprudential stunt: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a "right to tax-exempt status"?

"The First Amendment" is not an answer. The tax-exemption in no way unfavorably* singles out churches relative to other civic institutions. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Nor does it force any such institution, religious or otherwise, to do anything or refrain from anything. Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie. Any church or cleric is free, at any time, to say anything they want about any candidate they want. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status (which, recall, Congress could simply abolish any time it wished). Any assertion to the contrary is an un-Christian lie.

The theocrats (whose Bibles seem to have been miraculously redacted of that pesky "render unto Caesar" passage) appear perfectly willing to completely misrepresent the First Amendment, the Internal Revenue Code, the case law**, and the nature of their record of flagrantly illegal (and un-Christian) abuse of the tax-exempt status that allows them to suck so shamelessly at the taxpayer teat.

Some have suggested that the true purpose of this stunt is to generate a test case in the courts. Yeah right, good luck with that. There is simply nothing to test — because, again, there is absolutely no theory of constitutional interpretation, by anyone of any political orientation, that would dare suggest that there is a First Amendment "right to a tax break." It is beyond absurd.

More thoughts at Americans United, Religion Clause, Wall of Separation.

---

*Indeed, some elements of the tax code actually treat churches more favorably than other civic institutions:

Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS" or "Service") for an advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS.
...
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The Church Audit Procedures Act ("CAPA") sets out the circumstances under which the IRS may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in such an investigation.
--Branch Ministries v. Rosotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)

**Especially Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983):

Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for ... lobbying. We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.

Hint #2 of 3:


(Comments are closed for this post.)

--Who appointed all those liberal, "activist" California judges who just found in favor of same-sex marriage?

--Should it be a crime to lie about having received the Congressional Medal of Honor? (Note: To lie about it to a specific person for a specific purpose — e.g., to get a job — can easily constitute fraud. No issue there. But should the mere act of lying about it, without more, be generally proscribable conduct?)

--A Special Guest Question: "Will Russert offer Libertarian candidate Barr the same Meet the Press platform he gave Nader?"

--Another Special Guest Question: "Why is blackmail a crime?"

--A Special Trick Question: "Who is John Gault?"

Congress has approved, apparently by veto-proof margins, yet another farm bill that yet again benefits rich farmers at the expense of all taxpayers. This while the ethanol mandate mania continues to artificially inflate the price of corn (and, thanks to substitution effects, other crops as well).

Will the chief executive, widely thought to be an illiterate moron, be so easily manipulated by the corn lobby?

Oh, sorry, wrong "chief executive widely thought to an illiterate moron" —


Of course, Robert Graves' Claudius was not an illiterate moron, so perhaps the analogy isn't all that appropriate after all. Still, Hail Bush! for his intended veto of this corrupt, rent-seeking farm bill.

This is not the first time something judicially monumental has happened whilst I was on vacation. I hope you can find enough commentary on the decision to tide you over for a few days.

I won't lie to you: There is no way I am reading 172 pages of California constitutional interpretation here in my undisclosed location. It will have to wait until I get back.

I can, however, offer two hasty stitches:

1. Tim Sandefur asks what's in a name:

The Court begins by making clear that the question is not whether the state can bar homosexual couples from having the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples, but rather whether the state can establish an identical (or nearly identical) set of substantive rights for each, but only confer the name "marriage" on one and not the other. The entire dispute is about the word "marriage.'
...
The only difference is the word the state uses. Do you have a right to a word?

I think on this point, there is room for disagreement, but I would be skeptical. First, if the state were using a word for same-sex marriages that was derogatory or offensive, then there would be a stronger argument that the state was discriminating against them.
...
California simply denominates gay marriages "civil unions." Is that really a violation of the rights of gay couples? If so, is it discrimination to refer to people on AFDC or WIC as "welfare recipients"? Is it discrimination to refer to people in wheelchairs as "handicapped"? I find this an implausible ground for a finding of discrimination.

Sandefur is as fine a libertarian legal mind as you'll find, and no enemy of gays. (Again, he is critiquing the decision, not the concept of gay marriage generally.) So my observation is probably best filed away as a lawyer's quibble, but I think his analysis is utterly untenable for a reason that can be summed up in two "just words" — New Jersey.

A New Jersey straight "married" (just a word) couple can have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A Massachusetts or Canada "married" (just a word) gay couple can, now, have their marriage (just a word) recognized and legally enforced in New York.

A New Jersey gay "civil-unioned" (just a not-quite-word) gay couple cannot have their civil union (just words) recognized and legally recognized in New York. This despite the fact that the New Jersey Supreme Court insisted and demanded that "civil unions" be afforded all (just a word?) the rights and privileges of marriage.

New Jersey tried, and failed, to make marriage "just a word" —

We will not presume that a difference in name alone is of constitutional magnitude.

It was a Sisyphean nightmare then; it is a Sisyphean nightmare now. Marriage, for better or for worse, is not "just a word" in American jurisprudence. That is axiomatic in the exteme.

Note also that Sandefur's suggested qualifier "derogatory or offensive" has nothing to do with it. Full and equal either obtains or it does not; asking, "Is this derogatory or offensive?" is simply not a robust distinction in this context.

Like I said, this is a just a late-night* nitpick; Sandefur's post is really quite good. Do read it.

(*"Late-night"? Did I just give an inadvertent hint as to my undisclosed location?)

2. So while the heroes of Lambda Legal (aided as they often are by the ACLU) were busy actually doing something for gay equality, what was the Human Rights Campaign doing?

They were busy conflating gay marriage with socialized medicine:

In our national debate on health care — we need to remember that in America, health care is a right, not a privilege. Too often that's not true for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. The absence of federal protections, inadequate state laws and inconsistent hospital policies often result in discrimination and inadequate health care for GLBT patients and their families.

The question of fair and equal (not to mention sane and humane) recognition of gay relationships in the context of medical care has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the gobbledygook of a "right to health care." To equate gay marriage with socialized medicine is to make gay marriage as evil as socialized medicine. It also marginalizes, as unimportant collateral damage, all those gays who dare not to be radical liberal malcontents. It's worse than "win the battle, lose the war" — it's "win the battle, bomb your allies."

I'm not being entirely fair, of course: HRC did find the time and money to "sign on" (their term) to somebody else's (whom they couldn't bother to identify in their press release) amicus brief. How bold of them. And how much, I wonder, are they asking for in donations for "their" (just a word) "victory" (not just a word)?

If your charitable money is up for grabs, then give it to Lambda, not to HRC. (If you want to be utterly apolitical, then opt for the Point Foundation.)

---

The litigtion is In re Marriage Cases, No. S147999 (S. Ct. Cal., May 15, 2008) (PDF - 172 pages).

Once I return from my undisclosed location, I will for the first time ever have earned "elite status" with an airline (Continental). Indeed, my choice of destination was based in small part on the mileage accrual (i.e., the shortest possible flight to make it to 25,000 miles).

Elite status on Continental comes with many perks: priority check-in, priority baggage handling, priority seat selection, priority boarding ...

... and, much to my delight, priority security screening at Newark Airport.

As I've noted before, the notion that there is an "express lane" at security for First Class and elite status fliers stirs indignation among some malcontents.

A New York Times Magazine contributor, for example:

There have always been special queues for first-class check-in and boarding. Those are part of a private transaction between an airline and a customer. But two-tiered security checks are a different story. Airport security, after all, is not a business transaction. It is justified as national defense, mandated by federal law, overseen by the Transportation Security Administration and carried out by either the T.S.A. or a private security service under its ultimate authority. It exists in its present form because of the national emergency of Sept. 11, 2001. It is financed by a "Sept. 11 security fee" that all fliers pay.

The T.S.A., whenever it is called on the carpet (which is often) about the two-tiered system it countenances, responds with the same piece of casuistry. The rich are scanned the same way as everyone else, the T.S.A. insists, but the formation of the queues themselves is not our department. "That real estate in front of the checkpoint is owned by the airlines," one spokeswoman told USA Today in 2006. (The law is not crystal clear. It gives supervisory responsibility for the entire airport to a T.S.A. "federal security director.")

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Just as it was preposterous for Hillary Clinton to dismiss economists (and, therefore, economics itself) as "elitist," so too is it preposterous for this malcontent to dismiss a priority queue at airport security as "casuistry." It ignores the pesky fact that, so long as the TSA staff are kept busy (i.e., not standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a first class passenger to show up), then what difference does it make, from an objective "just keep 'em moving" perspective, how the passengers are sorted? If the screeners are all working continually, then what exactly is the problem from the perspective of "security"? (For an isolated but far better example of the point the author is trying to make, one that help keeps the current debate in perspective, see this old post — but note the differences in the analysis too; they are all-important.)

(And, talking about "casuistry," the notion that an airport's "federal security director" does or ought have authority to impose egalitarianism for its own sake — rather than focusing exclusively on legitimate "security" concerns — is the worst kind of specious, bureaucrat-inspired, Kip's Law sophistry.)

Indeed, the malcontent reluctantly concedes barely a column-inch later that, even if the airlines needed a justification for establishing priority lines at security (they do not), they actually have one:

Although there is no principled argument for segregated airport security, maybe there is a pragmatic one. Elite travelers tend to be repeat travelers. As likely as not, they have had their luggage rummaged through three times in the past week, and the airlines — or their databases — know who they are. If there were some security-based system for speeding their transit, that would be great. Since there is no such system, maybe the rough-and-ready class system is (without meaning to be, of course) fair.

Economic science (in the form of "operations research" generally and "queueing theory" specifically) is, we are told, not "principled" but merely "pragmatic." If it is "fair," then it is so only by accident. The libel of "economists as elitists" strikes again.

One last hasty stitch:

James May, C.E.O. of the Air Transport Association, which represents the big airlines, told a Senate committee in 2006 that money spent on Registered Traveler had been "wasted." The airlines' views are not surprising — after all, Registered Traveler makes available for $100 a perquisite that they have been using to sell $4,700 tickets.

That is a flat-out lie. The airlines opposed "Registered Traveler" (now run by "Clear" and "FLO") because it was poorly designed, not because it would steal their business class revenues. (Indeed, opposition was based in large part because $100 was deemed too expensive, not too cheap.) It is simply absurd to think that huge swaths of the business traveler population will suddenly trade down to coach merely because they can save a few minutes at the security line via paid pre-screening programs.

It is easy for some to couch antipathy for the better off as a quest for "egalitarian fairness." But to sacrifice one harmless scrap of efficiency at what is already one of the least efficient processes in all modernity strips the facade from the malcontents' argument and exposes their underlying sociopathy.

Several recent stories, from reports that over 1% of the American adult population is now incarcerated, to the passing of Mildred Loving, to the imminent gay marriage ruling in California, all remind me of this quest for judicial sanity:


Time to time and place to place indeed...

Previous Kip Clips here.

Hint #1 of 3:



(Comments are closed for this post.)

I am off tonight to an undisclosed location for a brief holiday. Returning Sunday.

I have a few posts already prepared, as well as some of my infamous "Kip Clips" intended to spark lively discussions in the comments (though they never do — reach/grasp/heaven, etc.).

Regular blogging resumes Monday.

Good As You quotes a bigot on bigotry:

"Scratch a homosexual activist, find an anti-religious bigot."
To which I reply:

Denouncing someone, for what you say they are, is bigotry.

Denouncing someone, for what they say they are, is not.

It is for this uncomplicated reason that the term "anti-religious bigot" is of course an insolent oxymoron.

---

Just a pass-along:

The American Civil Liberties Union launched a new version of its Get Busy, Get Equal online activist toolkit, www.aclu.org/getequal . Get Busy, Get Equal now incorporates new technology to make it easier for LGBT people to work for change in their communities. The website offers tools for ending gay and transgender discrimination, making schools safe, and winning recognition for LGBT relationships.

Check it out.

--Is it a proper function of a family court judge to sentence a father to 180 days in jail for failing to ensure that his delinquent daughter successfully earn a GED?

--Who called for making it a crime to serve vegetables out of season? ("I don't want to see asparagus in the middle of December. I don't want to see strawberries from Kenya in the middle of March. I want to see it home-grown.")

--A Special Guest Question: Who's worse for president? (Be sure to note my succinct response in the comments there.)

--In which state is a candidate for the legislature proposing mandating separate restrooms for gay and straight students? (Hint: It is a state all too familiar with homosexual perverts in public restrooms.)

--What did the Vatican just tell Catholics it was now permissible to do? (Hint: It would seem to contradict Genesis 1:26, but who takes the Bible literally, right?)

So a college student decides, as college students often do, to be an idiot:

A college student whose friend was being questioned in a hit and run found himself charged with assaulting an officer with a curious choice of weapons: M&Ms.

Sean McGuire was arrested early Sunday at a convenience store after Drake University security guards noticed the colored candies falling on the ground around the officer. When the officer turned around, an M&M hit his shoulder, according to a police report.

McGuire claimed he threw the candy because he was "sticking up for his friend," who apparently was the man suspected in the accident, the report states.

So a libertarian decides, as libertarians often do, to complain:

Okay, throwing M&Ms at anyone is uncalled for. Throwing them at a cop is just stupid. But, this college student winding up in jail, and having to post a $1,000 bond for throwing candy? What was this all about? Was it really about "assault," or was it a case of "you must respect my authoritah!"

So I decide, as I often do, to leave a comment:

Why does it have to be a question of "respect my authoritah" rather than one of not being a law-breaking jerk by throwing stuff at people?

Last time I checked, respecting people's space and bodily integrity was one of the higher-ranking libertarian tenets. If that's changed, then I didn't get the memo.

I know many libertarians like to pretend that all police are unstable maniacs just waiting for an excuse to don their jackboots and charge up their tasers. And a few are.

But sometimes people simply break the law — sometimes quite stupidly, immaturely or obnoxiously — and if they get caught, they get caught.

Sympathy is a scarce resource, and I don't squander it on fools.

Speaking of squandering, I also note that this is a terrible waste of perfectly good M&Ms. Next time, throw beef jerky or some other inedible product.

---

For the uninitiated:

The New York Times pulled a rather "artistic" stunt in continuing to "paint" malevolence toward the successful as concern over the fiction of "rising income equality" —

Sotheby's estimates it will raise a record $375 million to $477 million. Christie's hopes for $280 million to $390 million, also a record. Both hope to sell paintings at prices once reserved for large corporate jets or small islands: Sotheby's expects to get $70 million for a triptych by Francis Bacon, almost $20 million more than the record for the artist set last year.

Reassuring as it may be to see a least some consumer spending booming, the art world's ever rising valuations are a symptom of a growing imbalance in the American economy: the unprecedented concentration of the spoils of growth at the very top.

How typical of the Times editorial board to confuse business with war ("spoils"?) and to reframe all human transactions as antagonistic "us versus them" confrontations.

In any case, rising revenues can, and likely are, more explained by increased volumes than by increased prices; one triptych does not a market trend make. (Indeed a different "Times" article about the Bacon triptych suggests, contra the New York Times, that the two great auction houses are not doing all that well right now. Go figure.

(Incidentally, the Bacon triptych is currently owned by a Swiss, not an American. How it therefore has anything to do with "rising income inequality in America" remains, like so much contemporary art, a matter of abstract interpretation — i.e., pompous gobbledygook.)

Meanwhile, the fact that there is an increase in art auctioning could just as easily suggest that times are tough for the hyper-wealthy: why sell art unless you need the money? Unlike a truly productive industry, an auction market for pre-existing goods is a zero-sum game: for every buyer eager to spend money, there must be a seller eager to receive money. This would suggest, if anything, distress within the collector class. (Recall that auctioned masterwork art is, to be blunt, "used" art. Would a boom in the used car market necessarily signal good times in Detroit?)

And besides, this is all presumptive speculation anyway. How do we know that all this art isn't being bought and sold by museums and other institutions? Or perhaps in some instances a wealthy collector dies, and the estate is being sold to disperse the wealth among the heirs. (As I've previously noted, haters of American mega-prosperity generally refuse to acknowledge the fleeting nature of American entrepreneurial wealth across generations. Unlike Europe and Latin America, there are in fact astonishingly few multi-generational American business dynasties (unlike political dynasties, which are all too ubiquitous in America).

In any case, the leftist malcontents who continue to bemoan "rising income inequality" continue to ignore that income itself is rising across all demographics (just at an unequal rate), and that the U.S. does not have a caste system: the people in the top 1% of incomes today are not necessarily those in the top 1% yesterday or tomorrow. This phenomenon — call it "turnover" or "churn" or whatever you like — is even more pronounced at the other end of the distribution: the "bottom 20%" of households by income are largely immigrants — who promptly make their way upward and out of the bottom 20%, replaced by new immigrants more than eager to be "victimized" by rising income equality.

It's quite simple really: The best way to care about the poor in America is by not caring about the rich in America.

John McCain recently gave a speech in which he promised, unsurprisingly, to appoint "conservative" judges who would refrain from engaging in "judicial activism."

Of course, "judicial activism" often means protecting the inherent rights of politically disadvantaged insular minorities from the tyranny of the majority. To radical majoritarians like McCain, "judicial activism" is somehow a bad thing.

And, as some of us know, it really is hard being part of a politically disadvantaged insular minority:


Of course, VanFresh is Canadian, and Canada is often better at protecting minorities than the U.S. So he'll probably be fine.

Sunday CuteTuber™ FAQ

I have been accused of being unfair to Arkansas.

I apologize.

Peace offering:

Education in Arkansas (Lewis Black).mp3 | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Few topics instigate as lively a discussion here as my contempt for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of — obviously — Arkansas.

To review: They have, as of yesterday, 17 children (with another on the way and an overtly expressed amenability to having more). Which, somehow, is considered a "warm, happy pre-Mothers-Day story on a morning show" rather than grounds for a child neglect investigation.

For whatever reason (ka-ching!), the Duggars felt a need to whore their kids out on national television yet again. So I felt a need — obviously — to comment on them yet again:

I find it fascinating that the same people who screech from the rooftops that "kids do best with a mother and a father" have no problem with kids being raised with 1/18 of a mother and a father. They'd get more personalized attention at the DMV.

I also wonder how much is in each kid's college fund. Oh wait, they're Evangelical-homeschooled, so college will not be an option. Never mind.

Note also that the older children are conscripted into "chores" that essentially make them full-time surrogate parents. Mowing the lawn and setting the table is one thing; having to serve as a dawn-til-dusk au pair for 10 or more of your younger siblings is child abuse, pure and simple.

The fluff piece shows toddlers packing away groceries and notes that the children must, literally, make appointments in advance to have one-on-one time with Mom. Charming.

There is a point at which "delightful parental love" metastasizes into "decrepit parental narcissism." I certainly don't want to be the one trying to identify that point. I'm reluctant in the extreme to let anyone in the government determine that point as a matter of policy to be imposed on all families in all circumstances.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to pretend that such a point doesn't exist. "I know it when I see it" may be the worst kind of hopelessly sloppy jurisprudence. But it's better than wearing a blindfold.

And did I mention that the Duggars, qua Evangelical Christians, are — obviously — associated with and supportive of rabidly anti-gay bigots?

---

For Discussion: The next Stitch in Haste Podcast will be on "The Fourth Amendment in the Non-Criminal Context." I intend to cover two topics: (1) laptop searches at the border, and (2) the FLDS incident in Texas. I would love to know people's thoughts on the latter. Comment away...

And what, pray tell, is a "Doggelgaenger"?

Simple: Dog + Doppelgaenger = Doggelgaenger

Behold:


This amazingly pretty lass is the "May" entry in my ASPCA calendar.

Remind you of anyone?


Need more "Wow" factor? The other dog's name is "Ruby."

---

Back in August 2007, a loyal reader in Australia suggested that his dog Sioban might also be a long lost cousin of Diamond:


Also super-adorable, but I think Ruby wins the Doggelgaenger prize. Any dissents?

(Carnivalized at Modulator's Friday Ark.)

A busy week on the gay rights front --

ITEM: New York's highest court declined, though strictly on procedural grounds, to review lower court rulings holding that same-sex marriages validly entered into in other jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts, Canada) must be recognized even though the gay couples could not have married in New York itself. The high court may hear the case after further litigation of the case in the lower courts. Despite the seeming contradiction, this "valid there means valid here" practice is actually a long-standing policy in New York (and other states) that has been applied to first-cousin marriages, underage marriages, common law marriages and other circumstances. Nevertheless, it does give further incentive to both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage, who share an eagerness to ask, "How can this be?" Most recent post here.

ITEM: A California appellate court, meanwhile

has ruled unanimously that a gay Orange County man who mistakenly thought his ex-partner had registered their domestic partnership is entitled to the same protections covering heterosexual spouses who discover that, for whatever reason, their marriage is not valid.

This was not a particularly inspirational case: one partner tried to exploit the other by claiming that the failure to mail in the domestic partnership form nullified the estate planning documents they had drafted at the beginning of their formalized relationship. Still, fair and equal treatment is fair and equal treatment, in dissolution of relationships as well as in their formation. (A reminder, meanwhile, that California faces both an imminent state supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage and a likely bigot amendment.)

ITEM: Every silver lining must have a cloud --

An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
...
Jessie Olson, an attorney involved in filing the challenge that was rejected by the court Wednesday, said the ruling leaves Michigan "at the bottom of the barrel. We are the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to civil rights for same sex couples."

When bigots insist that their "no nothing never" amendments are "only" about "defending traditional marriage," they lie. Most recent post here.

---

MEANWHILE: Although not quite rising to "Larry Craig" status, one of the most rabidly anti-gay bigots in Congress, New York Republican Vito Fossella, has acknowledged that he had an extra-marital affair* that produced a daughter, now 3 years old.

Fossella, now widely expected not to seek re-election,** voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, the (identical) Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006, the jurisdiction-stripping Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and a D.C. appropriations amendment that would have banned gays in the District from adopting.

He was certainly "defending traditional..." -- well, traditional something.

*The affair was, incidentally, with an air force lieutenant colonel. File that under "morale and unit cohesion."

**Not for the affair, mind you, but for a DUI arrest in Virginia that will likely result in jail time.

(Via Obsidian Wings.)

--Did global warming cause the Burma cyclone?

--Should the Senate summarily refuse to confirm any more judicial appointees by President Bush? ("[T]he Bush administration and its allies have made a politicized judiciary into an art form.") (But recall this old post.)

--A Special Guest Question: "Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?"

--Who suggested that not wanting to use PayPal is the functional equivalent of buying heroin? ("We're not allowing people to offer unsafe choices...")

--How can we simultaneously solve both the food price crisis and the mortgage crisis?

"A building has integrity, just like a man — and just as seldom."
--The Fountainhead

Goldilocks and the triplicate permit forms:

John Jessop earned a cult following among his colleagues after his withering comments were leaked in an e-mail which has been sent all round the country.

After being asked to fill in a "design access statement" for a storage shed on a small farm, he wrote: "The density is like on a farm, the social context is a farm in the country, the economic context is farming in the United Kingdom in 2008 (which is not very economic), the opportunities are to store equipment inside rather than the outside, the constraint is the planning system."

And under a section headed Context Analysis, he said: "The use is compatible with a farm because it is a farm building."

"It is located where it is because it is in the most convenient place, being on the farm and near the farmhouse."
...
"It can not be lower because nothing could be stored in it. It is not made any higher because that would be silly."

But since when did being "silly" stop a planning bureaucrat?

The notion that a farmer needs anybody's permission to build a farming shed on his farming land to store his farming equipment that he uses to earn his farming income shows how far the half-sibling notions of "zoning" and "environmental impact statements" have corrupted what used to be a rationally based concern for negative externalities. In the past, such reviews were cursory, common sense inquiries. Today? Yes, we the central planners have graciously allowed you to call your land a "farm," but that obviously did not mean that we would also allow you to "do farming" on it. We'll get back to you on that after we review your design access statement...

Other gems omitted from the media account:

--"Landscaping: The applicant and pervious [sic] occupants have spent a long time, probably more than a thousand years, making the countryside around the house look like farmland so that everyone can enjoy the pretty English countryside."

--"Access: There is an airport at Bristol which can be accessed by driving your tractor along the road. This gives direct access to warm sunny places all over the world."

--"Appearance: It looks like a typical modern agricultural shed in green profiled metal sheeting because that is what it is, and a great architect once said, 'Buildings should look like what they are'."

Methinks Mr. Jessop has read The Fountainhead.

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

Original 3-page document PDF here. (Via Fark.)

Fascinating case study in theocratic majoritarianism versus secular libertarianism:

In a 7-1 majority vote Monday night the Charles Town [West Virginia] City Council decided to institute a moment of silent prayer, thus abolishing the decades-long tradition of reciting the Christian-specific Lord's prayer before the beginning of each meeting.
...
Charles Town Mayor Peggy Smith, who did not vote on the issue, said she was disappointed in the council's decision but understood why it was made. "I understand why they did what they did after listening to legal advice. We cannot place the citizens in jeopardy with a lawsuit. So I do understand their vote but it doesn't make me happy about it," Smith said.
...
[Geraldine] Willingham, who cast the dissenting vote [and] described Charles Town as a "Christian town" at the council's last meeting, was not pleased by the council's decision to do away with the recitation of the Lord's prayer.

"I think it's a sad day for Charles Town where we cannot start our council meetings off with the Lord's prayer all because of one negative person. That's my comment," Willingham said after Monday's meeting.

Some hasty stitches:

--The "one negative person" was a Jew, not an atheist. Of course, to most hillbilly Christians like Willingham, there's little point in distinguishing between Jews, atheists, agnostics, whatever -- they're all equally un-American and all equally devoid of First Amendment protection (not to mention equally hellbound). Stated differently, there are still people -- elected leaders -- who actually believe, in the Twenty-First Century, that there can be such a thing as a "Christian town" in what was once known as the "land of the free."

--Based on the media account, it appears that the theocrats couldn't even be bothered to engage in the wink-wink of calling their new invocation a "moment of silence" rather than a "silent prayer." The simple, uncomplicated First Amendment notion that maybe, just maybe, a city council chamber ought not be used as a church is simply incomprehensible to these "dedicated public servants."

--Speaking of which, note that these theocrats did not stop their flagrantly unconstitutional* practice out of any moral epiphany. They stopped the practice because their lawyers told them to. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hardly praiseworthy.

(Via Religion Clause.)

---

Elsewhere:

Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
...
Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.

James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman.

This is similar to the observation that too many secular Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and not doing enough to "take back Islam" from extremists who spawn terrorism and violent intolerance in the name of a supposed "Religion of Peace."

To the extent that these non-political Evangelical leaders make noise against the radical anti-Christians in their midst -- especially Dobson (who, recall, is not a credentialed cleric in any church) -- I can only say, "praise be unto them."

(Via Wall of Separation.)

---

*Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (Inapplicability of First Amendment to opening a legislative session with a prayer presupposes that "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.") Note that I of course consider Marsh wrongly decided in that all legislative prayer sessions ought to be deemed facially unconstitutional, and not just those that are both openly and notoriously sectarian and unambiguously hostile to non-Christians -- as the Lord's Prayer unarguably is.)

When word first started to emerge that a major cyclone had hit Burma, the first thought of many of us was, "Here we go again..."

"Again" not only in the context of the natural disaster, but also in the context of the authoritarian disaster:

The death toll from Cyclone Nargis, the deadliest in Asia since 1991, rose to nearly 22,500 with an additional 41,000 missing, even as Myanmar's leaders continued to refuse entry to U.S. disaster response teams.
...
The disaster's scale has drawn a rare acceptance of outside help from Myanmar's generals, who spurned such approaches in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

The ever-escalating death toll from the cyclone continues to be "new news." The paranoid insanity of Burma's military dictatorship is not, as I chronicled after the Boxing Day Tsunami in a piece originally published 16 February 2005:

---

Slate has a Bush-bash piece on Burma essentially asking why we are not effecting regime change in what has been described as the second worst dictatorship in the world.

Nobody in Washington loses sleep over Burma policy. Burma isn't a vital oil supplier like Saudi Arabia, we don't do much trade with Burma as we do with China, and there are no al-Qaida operatives to kill and capture as in Pakistan. Our hard interests in curbing Burma's massive opium production, preventing Burma from becoming a full-fledged Chinese satellite state, and tapping its modest oil and gas reserves are low priorities. Washington is happy to apply economic sanctions on Burma in the name of high-minded principles because those interests are small in comparison to the magnitude of human rights abuses in the country. And, oh yeah, we have other regional headaches, like figuring out what to do with North Korea.

This seems to me to be a case of wanting it both ways — the U.S. is wrong on regime change because we do it at all, and it's also wrong because we don't do it enough? Go figure.

Anyway, I found it utterly stupefying that such a piece could have not one word about the current, and far more important, scandal regarding the international community and Burma — the ludicrous "official" tsunami casualty count of 90 — not 90,000, but 90.

Leave it to a self-described "grassroots" newspaper (and Canadians, no less!) to do the real reporting:

Refusing all international aid, Burma's authorities have not let any international monitors enter its borders, even to assess the damage.
...
The [Burmese junta] SPCD has [a] reputation for downplaying disaster, and for keeping stringent control over outbound media.

Condemned by critics for outlawing fax machines, censoring television broadcasts and taking prisoners of conscience, Burma has been called the most information-starved country on earth. One example involved an attack on the convoy of Nobel Peace Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, during her brief release from house arrest in 2003. Eyewitnesses estimated some 60 dead in the ensuing clash, while the SPDC reported only four.
...
On August 8, 1988, at the height of three-weeks of carnage, junta soldiers opened fire on thousands of unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Yangon. Reporting some 500 dead ... the massacre of 8-8-88 is believed by ambassadorial staffs that witnessed it to have claimed over 10,000 lives — more, that is, than Tiananmen Square.

They claimed 500 dead, it likely turned out to be over 10,000. That's a factor of 20, which would imply not 90 tsunami casualties, but 1,800 — and if you're going to lie by a factor of 20, then why not 200 or whatever number suits your dictatorial fancy?

Not to be a Broken Window type, but the tsunami provided a unique opportunity to make some real progress in ending the Burmese nightmare. The international political community, and the international charitable community, are dropping the ball. Which doesn't stop fools from laying it all at the United States' doorstep.

How very sad.

(I sincerely hope this does not become a regular feature here.)

One of the first industries the looters went after in Atlas Shrugged was, of course, oil.

And who is better at looting than politicians?

U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski said it's time for America to stand up to the big oil companies and shout out, "We've had enough."

Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, was in town Monday to announce his introduction of House Resolution 5800, the Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008. The bill, introduced on the House floor April 15, would allow the federal government to tax windfall oil and gas profits resulting from historically high oil and gas prices that average Americans struggle to afford, he said.

Kanjorski said industries yield windfall profits when earnings exceed what a Reasonable Profits Board determines is rational, as laid out in the legislation.

Rational profits? As determined by a Reasonable Profits Board? Would Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe be eligible to serve on it? (If not, then perhaps Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, is available.)

The futility of pointing out, "reasonable to whom, by what standard" is not lost on me. The impermeability of the blood-brain barrier between politicians and reasonableness is common knowledge.

Also not lost on me is the futility of pointing out, yet again, that "big" oil companies actually consist of numerous small shareholders, either directly as individuals and households (such as those that the "reasonable" Representative Kanjorski putatively serves), or indirectly — as employees (whose pension funds own oil company stock), small business owners (who retirement accounts include index funds that include such stock), students (whose college endowment funds own such stock) or anyone else who indirectly benefits from "obscene" oil company profits.

Equally futile would, I suppose, be asking where one goes to apply for a seat on the Reasonable Taxation Board:


(Click to enlarge.)

Via Tax Policy Blog.

(For the uninitiated, Directive 10-289 here.)

Some defenders of a tort reform program implemented in Texas since 1995 try to pull a fast one:

Savings from reduced damages awarded by juries and fewer lawsuits filed against large businesses since the mid-'90s has created a climate in which medical and insurance companies can expand, the study states. Across Texas, the reforms have resulted in nearly $113 billion in additional annual spending, almost 500,000 new jobs and $2.6 billion a year in increased state budget resources.

As I commented over at Kevin, M.D., where I saw this sleight-of-hand:

Um, no.

This is what economists call the Broken Window Fallacy.

You are only seeing the macroeconomic benefits achieved (for insurance companies and defendants). You are not seeing the macroeconomic benefits foregone (for affected plaintiffs).

The additional money meritorious plaintiffs would have received but for tort reform would also have "stimulated the economy" in one form or another.

The net effects may tilt one way or the other -- there's little way to know for sure. But evaluating a policy -- any policy -- based only on the gross effects ("what is seen") while ignoring the offsets ("what is not seen") is an fundamental logical error.

Unfortunately, it is a fundamental logical error that permeates almost every aspect of American factional politics -- including health care policy generally and tort reform specifically.

I am fully aware that Texas was a unique situation in which fundamental legal injustices were reportedly occurring against malpractice and product liability defendants in civil lawsuits. Point conceded. But tort reform for the sake of better legal outcomes (i.e., more "fair and just" outcomes) is altogether different from tort reform for the sake of economic growth. That way madness lies.

Access to the Bastiat-betraying report here. My old chain on asbestos liability here; on Vioxx liability here.

There are certain axioms, certain fundamental pillars, upon which this blog is based. One is that all politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. Another is the ubiquitousness of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. Another is Kip's Law.

Yet another — one you have seen repeatedly here — is that the laws of economics are no more subject to repeal by a legislature than are the laws of physics.

Perhaps it's time to add a flying buttress to that last pillar: No truth, including economic truth, can ever be "elitist" —

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal, using a term that has dogged rival Barack Obama in recent weeks.
...
"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

"We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans," said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

When Clinton or a member of her family becomes sick or injured, does she rely on "elite" physicians for care? If she becomes president, will she dismiss the "elite" pilots who fly Air Force One? Why does she need Air Force One at all — the only thing stopping people from flying around like Superman are the "disadvantageous" views of "elite" physicists.

Economics does admittedly lie in a twilight zone between the metaphysical certitudes of the hard sciences and the subjective gobbledygook of the humanities. Point conceded.

But an economic truth such as, "all resources are scarce and must somehow be rationed" is closer to a physics-based law of conservation than to a humanities-based pronouncement that "everyone has a right to..." An economic truth such as, "people respond to incentives" is closer to a physics-based "for every action..." than to a humanities-based "from each according to..." A graph containing a supply and demand curve — and the distortions government policies impose on them — is closer to a Grand Unified Theory than to a piece of indecipherable "abstract art."

To call economists "elitist" is to call economics "elitist" — which is also to call science, logic and reason "elitist."

More thoughts from — heck, too many people to cite.

Obsidian Wings, critiquing John McCain's health care not-quite-reform not-quite-proposal, relays an anecdote:

Shirley Giarde of Walla Walla, Wash., was not prepared when her husband, Raymond, suddenly developed congestive heart failure last year and needed a pacemaker and defibrillator. Because his job did not provide health benefits, she has covered them both through a policy for the self-employed, which she obtained as the proprietor of a bridal and formal-wear store, the Purple Parasol.

But when Raymond had his medical problems, Ms. Giarde discovered that her insurance would cover only $22,000, leaving them with about $100,000 in unpaid hospital bills.

Even though the hospital agreed to reduce that debt to about $50,000, Ms. Giarde is still struggling to pay it — in part because the poor economy has meant slumping sales at the Purple Parasol. Her husband, now disabled and unable to work, will not qualify for Medicare for another year, and she cannot afford the $758 a month it would cost to enroll him in a state-run insurance plan for individuals who cannot find private insurance.

To which I relayed a comment:

Perhaps the problem isn't so much with health insurance as with Ms. Giarde's "Purple Parasol" business model. If her business can't produce enough income for her to pay her bills, then she's in the wrong business.

Debate a "right to health care" all you like, but don't claim that there is a right to run an unprofitable, sub-mediocre business and then get taxpayer-extracted health insurance on top of that.

P.S. What exactly was the back story of Mr. Giarde taking a job with no health benefits in the first place? Because I have no doubt that there was in fact a back story.

It's bad enough seeing starving (i.e., crappy) artists demand — and receive — forced taxpayer purchase of their "art" through public funding. Are we now to see the equivalent of forced consumption of bridal gowns (among countless other services) from inadequately profitable (i.e., badly run) bridal shops (among countless other services), through the money laundering socialist concept known as "universal health insurance"?

I hate it when the last thing I read at night is something mind-bogglingly stupid:

A suspected pipe bomb exploded at the federal courthouse in downtown San Diego early this morning, shattering a glass entryway and damaging the lobby, authorities said. No injuries were reported.
...
"It's too early to tell if it's terrorism-related," [FBI spokesman Darrell] Foxworth said. "It does not appear to be right now."

Huh? How can "bomb + courthouse" not equal "terrorism"?

News flash for the FBI: Anyone with a bomb and a target is a terrorist. End of discussion.

Good night.

And who, you might be wondering, is Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey?

She holds the prestigious position of "random interviewee on the street" — and now seeks the higher office of your mommy:

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy's burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a "constructive suggestion."

A spokesperson for the governor, however, told CBS 2 on Wednesday: "The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax."
...
"I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods," said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.

Of course, why anyone should give any kind of a damn what Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, thinks about whether fast food (defined how? by whom?) should be taxed (to what extent? with revenues deployed how?) — or about anything else, for that matter — remains unanswered. As does the precedent question of what basis a free society has in the first place for using taxation to control behavior rather than solely to raise revenue to fund legitimate public goods.

Because to nanny-staters, no such reason is required. Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, has an opinion, damn it. The fact that her opinion is baseless, uncorroborated, un-American, anti-freedom — not to mention mind-bogglingly stupid — in no way changes the fact that Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, has an opinion, damn it. What right do you have to mock it? And, more importantly, what right does a politician have to ignore it?

She is, after all, Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey!

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

Via Fark. More thoughts at QandO.

Time to clean out the aggregator --

ITEM: The Supreme Court, in a 3-3-3 trifurcation, upheld Indiana's voter ID law. The divide was essentially "constitutional this time" plus "constitutional almost always" (six votes total) versus "unconstitutional" (three votes). As I have blogged previously regarding other states' voter ID laws, I tend to fall into the (controlling) "constitutional this time" camp, based in large part on the precondition that government-issued photo IDs be made available for free. I also continue to insist that the far greater voter fraud danger is so-called "snowbird voting" — the same voter fraud that almost allowed Al Gore supporters to steal the 2000 election from George W. Bush. The Indiana case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., No. 07-21 (April 28, 2008).

ITEM: Shareholders of Wells Fargo overwhelmingly defeated an anti-gay advocacy group's proposal to "inform" the directors and officers of Wells Fargo that

While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.

In other words, Wells Fargo should not include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policies. I have blogged previously about the utterly humiliating defeats these bigot proposals encounter (at the hands, incidentally, of "greedy capitalists"). (Via Good As You.)

ITEM: Two newspaper executives are suing everyone's favorite hack sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, along with the county attorney, for issuing an unconstitutional subpoena for information on the paper's online readers. Previous post here.

ITEM: A federal appeals court has upheld a Department of Agriculture ruling blocking Tyson Foods from labeling its chicken "raised without antibiotics" on the grounds that the (truthful) label implied that the chicken is safer or healthier than other chicken (it is not). I blogged about similar litigation over the labeling of "hormone-free milk" here.

ITEM: Amtrak will spend $2.2 million of taxpayer money to sponsor "National Train Day" in order to convince people that it needs even more taxpayer money than the $1 billion it already receives annually. Most recent post here.

ITEM: Union leaders in the U.K. are demanding a ninth paid holiday, under the guise of providing a "Community Day" for volunteerism. As I explained previously, there is in fact no such thing as a "paid holiday."

ITEM: Cumbria County, England, has won a European Union decree granting it the exclusive authority to market "Cumberland" sausage. This follows similar Eurocrat decrees regarding "Champagne" sparkling wine, "Parmesan" cheese and the infamous requirement that a vineyard actually be within sight of a castle to label its vintage "Chateau."

ITEM: A senior executive at Lionsgate Studios appears increasingly committed to making Atlas Shrugged into a two-part motion picture epic starring Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart (although Brad Pitt appears uninterested in the role of John Galt). I am on record as being skeptical about the potential commercial success of such a project. (Via Cato@Liberty.)

As the presidential campaign switches focus from the Iraq War to the economy, the candidates increasingly remind us about the importance of the availability, not just of jobs, but of "good jobs."

And, when it comes to jobs, the country is certainly suffering: