A Stitch in Haste

Lines -- Long and Short, Fair and Unfair, Smart and Stupid (Part Two)

Kip — 2008-05-17T06:05+00:00

As part of the preparations for my trip, I had to make a toiletries run at a pharmacy near my work. Which meant having yet again to do battle with my own personal econo-Grendel:

How can a 11-ounce can of shaving cream cost $1.49 while a 1.5-ounce travel size shaving cream, of the same brand and in the same store, cost $2.49?

All tastes and preferences are subjective. I suppose therefore that there could be a small population of travelers for whom conserving space is all-important — for them, "less" is not just "more" but "a lot more" — and it could be perfectly rational for such people to pay such a high premium for the convenience of travel sizes. But is that population really so large that manufacturers and retailers actually accommodate them? (Again, this is not a hotel sundry shop or a "price gouging" airport newsstand making emergency sales — it's just a plain vanilla pharmacy in midtown Manhattan.)

The alternative explanation is, of course, that people are stupid.

---

So what does this have to do with "Lines — Long and Short, Fair and Unfair, Smart and Stupid"?

Well, I made the logistical faux pas of undertaking my shaving cream quest on the day when the Ben and Jerry's across the corridor from the pharmacy was having its annual "Global Free Cone Day."

But as we all know, there ain't no such thing as a free ice cream cone: the line, which was not moving fast at all, was by my estimate at least 100 people long, snaking all along the underground halls of Rockefeller Center.*

One hundred people or more waiting probably an hour or more for a scoop of ice cream that would normally sell for maybe $2-3. (*And, given that it was Rockefeller Center, a good chunk of those people were probably tourists — for whom the opportunity cost of their time would be inordinately high.)

Two seemingly irrational economic phenomena in the span of a few minutes. It was quite depressing.

And there was more to come:

Lines were so long Thursday [May 8] at some of the 86 Papa John's stores offering a large, pizza for 23 cents that police stood nearby to make sure people didn't get unruly.

The Louisville, Ky.-based company agreed to the offer after a franchisee in Washington, D.C., made T-shirts calling star LeBron James a "crybaby." The shirts referred to James' complaints about hard fouls during a playoff series victory over Washington. The company also will donate $10,000 to the Cavaliers Youth Fund. The 23-cent price is a homage to James' jersey number.

Now again, all tastes and preferences are subjective, and perhaps some LeBron James fans endured the line not just for essentially free pizza but also to inflict economic woe upon Papa John's for their "cavalier" attitude towards fans (a bit like, e.g., attending a Marlins game just to boo them). Point conceded.

But spending (in the strict economic sense) one's time, perhaps several hours, not only "not doing something else" but also spending it in uncomfortable circumstances, just to get a $12 pizza? Sorry, but I'm having trouble not dismissing these people as idiots.

(Via Perfect Substitute.)

For Discussion: Would you have stood in either the ice cream or pizza line if it was already long and slow-moving? What would your rationalization be?

Where in the World is Kip?

Kip — 2008-05-17T06:05+00:00

Hint #3 of 3:

(Comments are closed for this post.)

I'll Take The Sudetenland for $500, Alex

Kip — 2008-05-16T15:05+00:00

Hilarious:

(Via PoliBlog.)

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

Theocrat Clerics to Stage Frivolous Tax Protest Stunt

Kip — 2008-05-16T15:05+00:00

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.

Where in the World is Kip?

Kip — 2008-05-16T14:05+00:00

Hint #2 of 3:

(Comments are closed for this post.)

Questions

Kip — 2008-05-16T08:05+00:00

--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?"

Kip Clip #9

Kip — 2008-05-16T08:05+00:00

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.

California Dreamin', or Jet-Laggin', or Something

Kip — 2008-05-15T21:05+00:00

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).

Lines -- Long and Short, Fair and Unfair, Smart and Stupid (Part One)

Kip — 2008-05-15T15:05+00:00

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.

Kip Clip #8

Kip — 2008-05-15T13:05+00:00

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.

Where in the World is Kip?

Kip — 2008-05-15T13:05+00:00

Hint #1 of 3:

(Comments are closed for this post.)

Semi-Hiatus

Kip — 2008-05-14T16:05+00:00

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.

"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day

Kip — 2008-05-14T15:05+00:00

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.

Questions

Kip — 2008-05-14T10:05+00:00

--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?)

"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day

Kip — 2008-05-13T10:05+00:00

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 Art of the Steal

Kip — 2008-05-12T11:05+00:00

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.

Sunday CuteTuber™

Kip — 2008-05-11T11:05+00:00

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

AR v. AL -- Whoever Wins, They Still Lose

Kip — 2008-05-10T21:05+00:00

I have been accused of being unfair to Arkansas.

I apologize.

Peace offering:

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

"Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day

Kip — 2008-05-10T14:05+00:00

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...

Friday Doggelgaengerblogging

Kip — 2008-05-09T10:05+00:00

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.)