Doesn't this article -- Spousal Benefits for Gays at U.N. Challenged -- suggest another reason we might have to eliminate gay marriage and partner benefits?
A U.N. bulletin outlining Annan's new policy says: "A marriage recognized as valid under the law of the country of nationality of a staff member will qualify that staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members." It also asserts that "a legally recognized domestic partnership" will qualify U.N. staffers for similar benefits.
The United Nations has recognized polygamy, a common practice in the Islamic world, as a legitimate form of marriage and permits employees to divide their benefits among more than one wife. But the decision to expand that right to same-sex partners has fueled intense opposition.
Iran's representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, speaking on behalf of the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said there was "no justifiable basis" for awarding benefits to same-sex couples. He demanded that the United Nations clarify its position in writing and suggested that a compromise be hammered out among the 191 members of the U.N. General Assembly. The OIC is "seriously concerned about extending the scope of the family definition for the purposes of entitlements," he said.
Wouldn't such actions upset Al Quida? I mean, if we're supposed to surrender to these people, to find out what upsets them, and to change our policies to conform to their desires then I guess we'll just have to give up this whole gay marriage thing. We wouldn't want to upset them would we?
Monday, March 22, 2004
$270/hour worth of luxury
The hospital was run down. The city was a working-class city in the Northeast. The patient was there for 6 days. He paid one visit to Radiology. He was not receiving IV fluids. He had a few blood tests. He was given Tylenol and iron pills. The stay was over a holiday weekend and he saw few doctors. The power failed on the floor for 2 hours. He acted as his own Case Manager to remind the nurses to take blood, tell a doctor that a biopsy had been cancelled, and get the specialists together to agree to OK his release. The bill totaled $270/hour.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Why I became an Engineer
Not me but my native informant.
Some years ago, when I was building nukes (the power plant; not the bomb) I worked with an older engineer who told me the story of how he came to practice his profession.
After The Big One -- WW2 he was working road construction in Oklahoma. In that less advanced era there was still a lot of manual work involved and one day he found himself spreading asphalt in temperatures that rose above 100 degrees F. Long about noon, a big car pulled up to the worksite. It attracted the crew's attention because its windows were closed which said only one thing -- this was one of the very rare cars in that era equipped (at vast expense) with auto air conditioning. Out of the vehicle stepped some civil engineers who spent a few minutes looking at the progress of the job. Then one of the group remarked, "That's enough, let's go to lunch." They got back into the car and drove away.
At the end of the day, my friend told the foreman that he was quitting to go to engineering school.
Some years ago, when I was building nukes (the power plant; not the bomb) I worked with an older engineer who told me the story of how he came to practice his profession.
After The Big One -- WW2 he was working road construction in Oklahoma. In that less advanced era there was still a lot of manual work involved and one day he found himself spreading asphalt in temperatures that rose above 100 degrees F. Long about noon, a big car pulled up to the worksite. It attracted the crew's attention because its windows were closed which said only one thing -- this was one of the very rare cars in that era equipped (at vast expense) with auto air conditioning. Out of the vehicle stepped some civil engineers who spent a few minutes looking at the progress of the job. Then one of the group remarked, "That's enough, let's go to lunch." They got back into the car and drove away.
At the end of the day, my friend told the foreman that he was quitting to go to engineering school.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Mel's Milllion Stories
HERE COME THE MEL'S MILLION STORIES [Tim Graham]
The Washington Post reports today that Gibson could make hundreds of millions off 'The Passion.' The story has also been promoted as a feature of Thursday's 'Entertainment Tonight.'
PS: The Post adds Gibson told ABC Radio that there were several 'R-rated' Old Testament stories that 'fired his imagination,' most notably the tale of the Maccabees, who overthrew an idol-worshiping Syrian king in 164 B.C. 'They stood up for their beliefs and made war and came out winning,' Gibson said. 'It's like a western, you know.' "
Of course this wasn't said to "ABC Radio" but to talk radio host Sean Hannity in this long interview posted on Sean's website. Start at about 27:00 minutes if you want to find the money quotes.
The Washington Post reports today that Gibson could make hundreds of millions off 'The Passion.' The story has also been promoted as a feature of Thursday's 'Entertainment Tonight.'
PS: The Post adds Gibson told ABC Radio that there were several 'R-rated' Old Testament stories that 'fired his imagination,' most notably the tale of the Maccabees, who overthrew an idol-worshiping Syrian king in 164 B.C. 'They stood up for their beliefs and made war and came out winning,' Gibson said. 'It's like a western, you know.' "
Of course this wasn't said to "ABC Radio" but to talk radio host Sean Hannity in this long interview posted on Sean's website. Start at about 27:00 minutes if you want to find the money quotes.
On Hearing that Spain Has Capitulated to the Terrorists
Classical verse on World War IV.
First read Frederick Turner's original here at Tech Central Station.
Then if you're interested in the author's many references to Spain's millennium of war with Islam, read my annotated version of the poem here.
All annotations are my responsibility.
First read Frederick Turner's original here at Tech Central Station.
Then if you're interested in the author's many references to Spain's millennium of war with Islam, read my annotated version of the poem here.
All annotations are my responsibility.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Ted Turner is an MCP
Just ask the little woman:
Fonda, 66, said she had had to take a back seat in each of her three marriages.
"Behind the closed doors of my marriage, I would give up all my power. I would silence my own voice to be accepted," she said.
"My whole life was about pleasing my man."
Fonda's last marriage was to Ted Turner, the billionaire media mogul who set up satellite TV service CNN. They married in 1991 but divorced 10 years later.
Fonda, 66, said she had had to take a back seat in each of her three marriages.
"Behind the closed doors of my marriage, I would give up all my power. I would silence my own voice to be accepted," she said.
"My whole life was about pleasing my man."
Fonda's last marriage was to Ted Turner, the billionaire media mogul who set up satellite TV service CNN. They married in 1991 but divorced 10 years later.
What Martha Should Teach You
Poor Martha! She didn't know that Title 18 USC 1001 makes it a crime to lie to "Federal Investigators". But her sad experience has a great deal to teach the rest of us:
1) Don't lie to federal investigators. Sure they can (and in many cases are professionally required to) lie to you but since they are your social superiors, you can't return the favor. You are not even allowed to merely say you didn't do it. In Brogan v. US, the defendant falsely answered "no" when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called "exculpatory no" doctrine, which excludes from Sec. 1001's scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing. The Supremes upheld his conviction. So one simple no is enough to send you to the Big House.
By the way, even if you didn't lie but the jury thinks you did, you can go down so keep the next point in mind:
2) Don't talk to federal investigators. Since one word can hang you, you shouldn't have any words with federal investigators. And this advice applies whether you're the target of an investigation or just a witness. As Martha now knows, innocence of the offense you're lying about is not enough to get you off on charges of lying to federal investigators. So if you happen to go to your newsstand tomorrow and buy a paper from the new owner who you recognize as Osama, don't tell the Fibbies. You're not required to and any communication with them opens you up to 1001 liability.
Unfortunately, federal investigators have been known to make errors in their questioning of witnesses and targets so:
3) Don't be alone with federal investigators. Most interrogations are not recorded and investigator's notes can contain errors. So you should try and avoid spending any time alone (or much time at all) in the presence of federal investigators. Just say "I have nothing to say" (oops, that may be a lie!) and leave.
But it's not just federal investigators:
4) Don't talk to or spend time with any federal employee. Any lie to a federal employee can be punished under Sec 1001:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
And as we all know, any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, covers a multitude of sins these days. So it's safer not to communicate with or be in the presence of any federal employee. Rough if you happen to be married to one.
The advice may seem extreme but broad criminal statutes often lead to perverse results. See for example Prof. Volokh's article Duties to Rescue and the Anticooperative Effects of Law discussing the effect of laws mandating the rescue of victims and the reporting of crimes on people's willingness to help others. He writes, When a law turns people into outlaws, even only modestly punishable ones, it naturally makes them less likely to cooperate with the legal system that is threatening to prosecute them, especially when their cooperation can alert the legal system to their misdeeds. This is an inevitable cost of using the threat of force to coerce people's conduct; while it may often have to be paid, it ought not be ignored, and for some laws, such as duty-to-rescue/report laws, it may be dispositive.
1) Don't lie to federal investigators. Sure they can (and in many cases are professionally required to) lie to you but since they are your social superiors, you can't return the favor. You are not even allowed to merely say you didn't do it. In Brogan v. US, the defendant falsely answered "no" when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called "exculpatory no" doctrine, which excludes from Sec. 1001's scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing. The Supremes upheld his conviction. So one simple no is enough to send you to the Big House.
By the way, even if you didn't lie but the jury thinks you did, you can go down so keep the next point in mind:
2) Don't talk to federal investigators. Since one word can hang you, you shouldn't have any words with federal investigators. And this advice applies whether you're the target of an investigation or just a witness. As Martha now knows, innocence of the offense you're lying about is not enough to get you off on charges of lying to federal investigators. So if you happen to go to your newsstand tomorrow and buy a paper from the new owner who you recognize as Osama, don't tell the Fibbies. You're not required to and any communication with them opens you up to 1001 liability.
Unfortunately, federal investigators have been known to make errors in their questioning of witnesses and targets so:
3) Don't be alone with federal investigators. Most interrogations are not recorded and investigator's notes can contain errors. So you should try and avoid spending any time alone (or much time at all) in the presence of federal investigators. Just say "I have nothing to say" (oops, that may be a lie!) and leave.
But it's not just federal investigators:
4) Don't talk to or spend time with any federal employee. Any lie to a federal employee can be punished under Sec 1001:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
And as we all know, any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, covers a multitude of sins these days. So it's safer not to communicate with or be in the presence of any federal employee. Rough if you happen to be married to one.
The advice may seem extreme but broad criminal statutes often lead to perverse results. See for example Prof. Volokh's article Duties to Rescue and the Anticooperative Effects of Law discussing the effect of laws mandating the rescue of victims and the reporting of crimes on people's willingness to help others. He writes, When a law turns people into outlaws, even only modestly punishable ones, it naturally makes them less likely to cooperate with the legal system that is threatening to prosecute them, especially when their cooperation can alert the legal system to their misdeeds. This is an inevitable cost of using the threat of force to coerce people's conduct; while it may often have to be paid, it ought not be ignored, and for some laws, such as duty-to-rescue/report laws, it may be dispositive.
Martha's Jurors -- Were they paying attention?
ProfessorBainbridge.com: Yin spots a problem
One of the jurors in the Martha Stewart trial told reporters that the panel felt Stewart's background as a stockbroker played a part in the verdict and decided early on the second day of deliberations that she was guilty. "She should have known her moves were illegal," he said.
And yet another. At 0800 hours this morning the ABC Radio news carried a juror's comment along the lines of: it was obvious that she was guilty of perjury.
Now the difference between perjury (lying under oath) and a Title 18 USC 1001 violation may seem merely rhetorical but it's another example of jurors not paying attention to their instructions. Andrew Sullivan made (and corrected) the same mistake over the weekend. Likewise, the word perjury was repeated by a guest on the Bob Brinker "Money Talk" radio show hosted by Larry Kudlow. The guest (whose name escapes me) works for the Chicago tribune.
One major difference between perjury (one of Clinton's sins) and a 1001 violation is that the speaker has fair warning that she should tell the truth. The other difference is that oath breakers sin against God and can suffer the fires of eternal damnation for it. Slightly beyond the federal sentencing guidelines.
Now non-believers may not worry about such punishments but oath breaking was also considered the most serious crime that a man could commit under many traditional legal systems (a lot worse than mere murder). It's important to maintain the distinction.
Why do jurors (and commentators) have problems with details?
One of the jurors in the Martha Stewart trial told reporters that the panel felt Stewart's background as a stockbroker played a part in the verdict and decided early on the second day of deliberations that she was guilty. "She should have known her moves were illegal," he said.
And yet another. At 0800 hours this morning the ABC Radio news carried a juror's comment along the lines of: it was obvious that she was guilty of perjury.
Now the difference between perjury (lying under oath) and a Title 18 USC 1001 violation may seem merely rhetorical but it's another example of jurors not paying attention to their instructions. Andrew Sullivan made (and corrected) the same mistake over the weekend. Likewise, the word perjury was repeated by a guest on the Bob Brinker "Money Talk" radio show hosted by Larry Kudlow. The guest (whose name escapes me) works for the Chicago tribune.
One major difference between perjury (one of Clinton's sins) and a 1001 violation is that the speaker has fair warning that she should tell the truth. The other difference is that oath breakers sin against God and can suffer the fires of eternal damnation for it. Slightly beyond the federal sentencing guidelines.
Now non-believers may not worry about such punishments but oath breaking was also considered the most serious crime that a man could commit under many traditional legal systems (a lot worse than mere murder). It's important to maintain the distinction.
Why do jurors (and commentators) have problems with details?
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Jet Set
Eugene Volokh writes: JETSETTING: I was just thinking about this word, and how much things have changed. Once upon a time, flying a lot on airplanes -- no, not just airplanes, but jets! -- was expensive and thus exclusive and glamorous; hence the word. Nowadays, being in the literal "jet set" is not something most of us would want . . . .
Just to put things in context.... My wife wanted to go to Europe in 1963. Pan Am's 707 service out of Idlewild (IDL) to London cost about $625 (one way). She went Third Class on the Queen Mary for $125 instead.
Just to put things in context.... My wife wanted to go to Europe in 1963. Pan Am's 707 service out of Idlewild (IDL) to London cost about $625 (one way). She went Third Class on the Queen Mary for $125 instead.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Datapoint on SSN Regulation
Those of you who might be concerned about the dedication of the US authorities in SSN enforcement will be happy to know that (so far) the IRS has ignored
26 US Code 6039E which provides for a $500 fine for those who decline to enter their TINs on their Passport Applications.
I know many people who've declined to include their SSNs/TINs on their passport apps and no one's been bothered. One good reason to do so -- the Feds are supposed to yank the passports of those owing more than $5K in child support. Lack of an SSN makes it a little harder to match.
26 US Code 6039E which provides for a $500 fine for those who decline to enter their TINs on their Passport Applications.
I know many people who've declined to include their SSNs/TINs on their passport apps and no one's been bothered. One good reason to do so -- the Feds are supposed to yank the passports of those owing more than $5K in child support. Lack of an SSN makes it a little harder to match.
Somethings Trads can do about Marriage
Trads who are upset about Homosexual Marriage (or governments screwing up marriage in general) can actually take direct action to fight the problems. I can think of at least two steps they can take:
1) Refuse Civil Marriage. Unmarried Trads who plan to marry can have a religious wedding but refuse to apply for a marriage license and use their church wedding certificate as proof of marriage. Married Trads can obtain a civil divorce and continue to live as husband and wife. Most churches do not oppose divorce merely remarriage after divorce.
The opposition can hardly force Trads to marry and they can hardly refuse to recognize Trads religious marriages when they recognize a host of other much less formal relationships. Trads can call civil marriage "Queer Marriage" and their marriages "God's Marriage". This will serve to "personalize" their opposition to government action on marriage just as gay weddings have "personalized" the other side.
Back in the 18th & 19th Centuries when the new Nation States were feeling their oats and taking over the Law of Domestic Relations from the churches (who had heretofore controlled it) it was predictable that they would screw it up. And they did. While established monopoly churches are not a good idea, there is nothing wrong with returning Dom Rel to such private institutions that compete freely. They can enforce their decrees with disfellowship and economic retaliation (job loss for example). That was Christ's preferred method of jurisprudence; see Matthew Chapter 18 verses 15-17.
2) Fun test cases can be run in Mass. and SF. Trad lawyers can find (unmarried) brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters and a host of other relationships on The Table of Kindred and Affinity and have them apply for marriage licenses. If granted -- publicize. If turned down -- sue.
Remember, it's not a sin to apply for a marriage license when the couple is within the prohibited relationships, it would merely be wrong to actually marry.
1) Refuse Civil Marriage. Unmarried Trads who plan to marry can have a religious wedding but refuse to apply for a marriage license and use their church wedding certificate as proof of marriage. Married Trads can obtain a civil divorce and continue to live as husband and wife. Most churches do not oppose divorce merely remarriage after divorce.
The opposition can hardly force Trads to marry and they can hardly refuse to recognize Trads religious marriages when they recognize a host of other much less formal relationships. Trads can call civil marriage "Queer Marriage" and their marriages "God's Marriage". This will serve to "personalize" their opposition to government action on marriage just as gay weddings have "personalized" the other side.
Back in the 18th & 19th Centuries when the new Nation States were feeling their oats and taking over the Law of Domestic Relations from the churches (who had heretofore controlled it) it was predictable that they would screw it up. And they did. While established monopoly churches are not a good idea, there is nothing wrong with returning Dom Rel to such private institutions that compete freely. They can enforce their decrees with disfellowship and economic retaliation (job loss for example). That was Christ's preferred method of jurisprudence; see Matthew Chapter 18 verses 15-17.
2) Fun test cases can be run in Mass. and SF. Trad lawyers can find (unmarried) brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters and a host of other relationships on The Table of Kindred and Affinity and have them apply for marriage licenses. If granted -- publicize. If turned down -- sue.
Remember, it's not a sin to apply for a marriage license when the couple is within the prohibited relationships, it would merely be wrong to actually marry.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Automation killing jobs
With all the attacks on international trade as a job killer has anyone noticed something interesting?
For more than 200 years, agoraphobics have argued that technological advances will kill jobs. As late as the '60s or '70s of the last century this whine was still being heard.
So where are we now. The last 20 years have featured the fastest technological advance in human history and the US workforce has increased dramatically in size. Oops!
For more than 200 years, agoraphobics have argued that technological advances will kill jobs. As late as the '60s or '70s of the last century this whine was still being heard.
So where are we now. The last 20 years have featured the fastest technological advance in human history and the US workforce has increased dramatically in size. Oops!
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Subpoenas for Antiwar Protesters
Judge: School must tell feds about war protest
DES MOINES, Iowa - In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered Drake University to turn over records about a gathering of antiwar activists.
In addition to the subpoena of Drake, subpoenas were served last week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.
I've wondered how subpoenas work in the modern era. A subpoena is an order to show up at a particular place and time (usually a courthouse). But the modern high security era raises a possible defense of impossibility to such orders.
If one happens not to possess any photo ID, one can't enter any public buildings (including courthouses). If one has never obtained or destroyed photo IDs and the precursor documents used to obtain them, it is possible that you will not be able to obtain such ID.
I guess you could contact the party ordering you to show up, inform them of the problem, and ask them to solve it. They might have to escort you into the building.
Of course since you won't have ID to show them, they might not have any way of knowing it's you.
DES MOINES, Iowa - In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered Drake University to turn over records about a gathering of antiwar activists.
In addition to the subpoena of Drake, subpoenas were served last week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.
I've wondered how subpoenas work in the modern era. A subpoena is an order to show up at a particular place and time (usually a courthouse). But the modern high security era raises a possible defense of impossibility to such orders.
If one happens not to possess any photo ID, one can't enter any public buildings (including courthouses). If one has never obtained or destroyed photo IDs and the precursor documents used to obtain them, it is possible that you will not be able to obtain such ID.
I guess you could contact the party ordering you to show up, inform them of the problem, and ask them to solve it. They might have to escort you into the building.
Of course since you won't have ID to show them, they might not have any way of knowing it's you.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Hayek on gay marriage
Virginia Postrel in the Boston Globe -- Hayek on gay marriage
The real Hayekian question is not "WWFD?" (What Would Friedrich Do?) but when and how social institutions should change, and when and how the law should reflect that evolution. In a 1996 article in Reason (I was editor of the magazine at the time), Gillespie pointed to employers' recognition of domestic partnership benefits as an example of Hayekian evolution. State and local policies, as well as competing religious standards, offer similar models of decentralized experimentation and discovery.
I didn't realize that "State and local [government] policies" were an aspect of libertarian decentralized experimentation and discovery. I thought that voluntary interactions alone constituted libertarian decentralized experimentation and discovery.
State seizure of the law of domestic relations from the church was part of the unfortunate power grabs by that institution during the 18th and 19th centuries. The law of domestic relations should be under private control -- since it covers the most private (intimate) aspects of human existence.
The real Hayekian question is not "WWFD?" (What Would Friedrich Do?) but when and how social institutions should change, and when and how the law should reflect that evolution. In a 1996 article in Reason (I was editor of the magazine at the time), Gillespie pointed to employers' recognition of domestic partnership benefits as an example of Hayekian evolution. State and local policies, as well as competing religious standards, offer similar models of decentralized experimentation and discovery.
I didn't realize that "State and local [government] policies" were an aspect of libertarian decentralized experimentation and discovery. I thought that voluntary interactions alone constituted libertarian decentralized experimentation and discovery.
State seizure of the law of domestic relations from the church was part of the unfortunate power grabs by that institution during the 18th and 19th centuries. The law of domestic relations should be under private control -- since it covers the most private (intimate) aspects of human existence.
Cubicle Culture Not Created Equal
I gather that those of you who are less than about 1.9 m tall have a different experience working in the cubicle farms of the Modern World. You can't see over the walls and thus avoid the claustrophobia involved, can you? I wonder how you stand it.
I've always found it very difficult to understand the world view of those who are shorter than I am.
I've always found it very difficult to understand the world view of those who are shorter than I am.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
USATODAY.com - Science panel urges universal U.S. health insurance by 2010
USATODAY.com - Science panel urges universal U.S. health insurance by 2010
One path to universality:
• Requiring individuals to obtain coverage and providing tax credits to help them pay for it.
I wonder how the enforcement mechanism would work on this one? Cops pulling you over and checking your health insurance card in addition to your driver's license and auto insurance card?
One path to universality:
• Requiring individuals to obtain coverage and providing tax credits to help them pay for it.
I wonder how the enforcement mechanism would work on this one? Cops pulling you over and checking your health insurance card in addition to your driver's license and auto insurance card?
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Avoiding bureaucracy by Shopping Around
Don't like privacy invading regulations -- go elsewhere.
Here's a heart-warming story from the Big City.
Recent graduate. First "real" job. Finds job on Monster, sends CV, gets interview, gets second interview, gets job. Small firm. Deals directly with owners. Hired based on CV and interview alone. No references, no transcript, no blood test, no urine test, no credit check, no criminal records check. Shows up for first day of work. Fills out W4 form (this is not Heaven.). No mention of I9 form. No ID check.
Here's a heart-warming story from the Big City.
Recent graduate. First "real" job. Finds job on Monster, sends CV, gets interview, gets second interview, gets job. Small firm. Deals directly with owners. Hired based on CV and interview alone. No references, no transcript, no blood test, no urine test, no credit check, no criminal records check. Shows up for first day of work. Fills out W4 form (this is not Heaven.). No mention of I9 form. No ID check.
Print This Story and Give it to Your Daughters
Two Arrested in Woman's Fall From Balcony
KAANAPALI, Hawaii Jan. 14 — Two California men were arrested in the death of an 18-year-old New Jersey cheerleader whose naked body tumbled from the ninth floor balcony of a Maui hotel.
This is what happens to you if you run with a bad crowd. So watch it!
KAANAPALI, Hawaii Jan. 14 — Two California men were arrested in the death of an 18-year-old New Jersey cheerleader whose naked body tumbled from the ninth floor balcony of a Maui hotel.
This is what happens to you if you run with a bad crowd. So watch it!
Jonah Goldberg on Doing Something About ...
In an interesting column about Bush's La Migra proposal (He's not upset about it) Jonah Goldberg of NRO has an aside about The Homosexual Question:
To me, it's actually a bit like the gay-marriage issue. Conservatives very often talk about homosexuality as if it were a problem coming down the pike rather than something that's been here for decades or centuries. If you start from the premise that, for the foreseeable future, gays aren't going anywhere -- that they are going to continue to do their thing, live their lives, form their relationships, go to their jobs, make their political demands your policy options -- legal or cultural -- become extremely limited. You may oppose gay marriage -- as I do -- but you still need to answer the question of what should be done about gays. Because saying nothing will only result in your having nothing to do with the answer. Same goes for saying they should just keep to themselves or disappear from the radar screen. You have to talk about things inside the realm of the possible.
I wonder why? As a member of a number of very small and very deviate social groups (see list to left in the frame of this Blog), I am not disturbed that there is no government policy to deal with those groups and, hence, with me. I'm damned glad. I would hate to be dealt with.
Government agencies do attempt to deal with me in only two aspects of my life -- as a motorist and as an international traveller*. I wish they would neglect me a bit more there, I do not enjoy the experience.
It must take a truly bizarre and twisted soul to actively seek out interaction of some kind with a coercive bureaucracy. There are many worse things than neglect.
*Spelling fans - That's my preferred British spelling.
To me, it's actually a bit like the gay-marriage issue. Conservatives very often talk about homosexuality as if it were a problem coming down the pike rather than something that's been here for decades or centuries. If you start from the premise that, for the foreseeable future, gays aren't going anywhere -- that they are going to continue to do their thing, live their lives, form their relationships, go to their jobs, make their political demands your policy options -- legal or cultural -- become extremely limited. You may oppose gay marriage -- as I do -- but you still need to answer the question of what should be done about gays. Because saying nothing will only result in your having nothing to do with the answer. Same goes for saying they should just keep to themselves or disappear from the radar screen. You have to talk about things inside the realm of the possible.
I wonder why? As a member of a number of very small and very deviate social groups (see list to left in the frame of this Blog), I am not disturbed that there is no government policy to deal with those groups and, hence, with me. I'm damned glad. I would hate to be dealt with.
Government agencies do attempt to deal with me in only two aspects of my life -- as a motorist and as an international traveller*. I wish they would neglect me a bit more there, I do not enjoy the experience.
It must take a truly bizarre and twisted soul to actively seek out interaction of some kind with a coercive bureaucracy. There are many worse things than neglect.
*Spelling fans - That's my preferred British spelling.
Should you answer when Cops ask?
Here is a canned answer you can give when questioned by cops or anyone in (government) authority:
"Sorry, I'd like to help but if I answer you I could later be found liable for obstruction of justice whereas if I say nothing, I avoid all possible liability for obstruction of justice. I, therefore, choose to say nothing."
"Sorry, I'd like to help but if I answer you I could later be found liable for obstruction of justice whereas if I say nothing, I avoid all possible liability for obstruction of justice. I, therefore, choose to say nothing."
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Monday, January 12, 2004
TRAC: IRS - New Findings on Tax Collection and IRS Criminal Enforcement
Good news from the invaluable Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse. TRAC: IRS - New Findings on Tax Collection and IRS Criminal Enforcement says:
Criminal enforcement of the nation's tax laws by the IRS has plummeted to an all time low, according to an analysis of very timely Justice Department data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
Tax prosecutions brought as a result of IRS investigations currently are running at about half of what they were only ten years ago. (See graph.) This sharp decline has continued at the same time that the nation has been swept by a flood of reports about corporate crime studded with such names as Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Adelphi Communications and Health South.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is the invaluable service which obtains actual Federal investigatory and litigation databases (sans target names) and makes them available to the public.
Not much action on the tax enforcement front.
Criminal enforcement of the nation's tax laws by the IRS has plummeted to an all time low, according to an analysis of very timely Justice Department data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
Tax prosecutions brought as a result of IRS investigations currently are running at about half of what they were only ten years ago. (See graph.) This sharp decline has continued at the same time that the nation has been swept by a flood of reports about corporate crime studded with such names as Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Adelphi Communications and Health South.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is the invaluable service which obtains actual Federal investigatory and litigation databases (sans target names) and makes them available to the public.
Not much action on the tax enforcement front.
Last Wounded (US) Veteran Of World War I Dies
Last Wounded Veteran Of World War I, Alfred Pugh, 108
Alfred Pugh, the last known combat wounded U.S. veteran of World War I, died Wednesday. He was 108.
Pugh, who often told visitors the key to a long life is “keep breathing,”joined the Army in 1917 and fought in France during World War I with the 77th Infantry Division. In 1918, he was wounded during the Meusse-Argonne offensive, one of the war’s bloodiest battles.
He spoke French and was used overseas as an interpreter until the battle in the Argonne forest, when he inhaled mustard gas that left him unconscious and with chronic laryngitis.
I guess that even weapons of mass destruction are not 100% effective! I wonder if he smoked as well?
Alfred Pugh, the last known combat wounded U.S. veteran of World War I, died Wednesday. He was 108.
Pugh, who often told visitors the key to a long life is “keep breathing,”joined the Army in 1917 and fought in France during World War I with the 77th Infantry Division. In 1918, he was wounded during the Meusse-Argonne offensive, one of the war’s bloodiest battles.
He spoke French and was used overseas as an interpreter until the battle in the Argonne forest, when he inhaled mustard gas that left him unconscious and with chronic laryngitis.
I guess that even weapons of mass destruction are not 100% effective! I wonder if he smoked as well?
Spelling on the Net
So when I was preparing my previous post on an anti-Catholic sculpture, I encountered the eternal spelling conflict. I spell a bishop's hat 'mitre' while Prof Volokh and Blogger's spell checker prefer 'miter'.
So I fire up the spell checker called Google. I Google mitre and get about 767,000 hits. I Google miter and get about 415,000 hits. I Google "bishop's mitre" and get about 1,560 hits. I Google "bishop's miter" and get about 741 hits.
The American Heritage dictionary (which I use for my modern dictionary) has the usual weasel words about mitre "Chiefly British -- Variant of miter." But then its entomology entry says:
Middle English mitre, from Old French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin mitra, headdress of the Jewish high priest, from Greek.]
This suggests that mitre is closer to the word origin.
The online Catholic Encyclopedia prefers mitre.
The OED likes mitre as well.
So I guess it's mitre for me.
So I fire up the spell checker called Google. I Google mitre and get about 767,000 hits. I Google miter and get about 415,000 hits. I Google "bishop's mitre" and get about 1,560 hits. I Google "bishop's miter" and get about 741 hits.
The American Heritage dictionary (which I use for my modern dictionary) has the usual weasel words about mitre "Chiefly British -- Variant of miter." But then its entomology entry says:
Middle English mitre, from Old French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin mitra, headdress of the Jewish high priest, from Greek.]
This suggests that mitre is closer to the word origin.
The online Catholic Encyclopedia prefers mitre.
The OED likes mitre as well.
So I guess it's mitre for me.
Friday, January 09, 2004
Lawsuit over anti-Catholic sculpture
Prof Volokh points to a controversy regarding an allegedly anti-Catholic sculpture on a state college campus in Kansas. The statue is a bust of a slumped over bishop wearing a mitre resembling an (uncircumcised) penis.
[T]he caption says "The artist says, 'I was brought up Catholic. I remember being 7 and going into the dark confessional booth for the first time. I knelt down, and my face was only inches from the screen that separated me and the one who had the power to condemn me for my evil ways. I was scared to death, for on the other side of the screen was the persona you see before you.'"
I suggest that the artist is being a bit artistic with the truth. I seriously doubt that he ever had his confession heard by a bishop much less a bishop dressed in full bishop's regalia. It's just not done.
And unless he was born before 1950, I doubt that he's spent much time in confession. That sacrament has declined quite a bit since Vatican II. I suggest that the artist (like many today) is in rebellion against an image rather than an institution. Images of the Church, of Social Aristocracy, of WASP culture persist as objects of rebellion long after they have disappeared in reality.
If Mods admitted that there were no Standards to rebel against, they'd be forced to justify their acts on their own terms rather than referentially.
[T]he caption says "The artist says, 'I was brought up Catholic. I remember being 7 and going into the dark confessional booth for the first time. I knelt down, and my face was only inches from the screen that separated me and the one who had the power to condemn me for my evil ways. I was scared to death, for on the other side of the screen was the persona you see before you.'"
I suggest that the artist is being a bit artistic with the truth. I seriously doubt that he ever had his confession heard by a bishop much less a bishop dressed in full bishop's regalia. It's just not done.
And unless he was born before 1950, I doubt that he's spent much time in confession. That sacrament has declined quite a bit since Vatican II. I suggest that the artist (like many today) is in rebellion against an image rather than an institution. Images of the Church, of Social Aristocracy, of WASP culture persist as objects of rebellion long after they have disappeared in reality.
If Mods admitted that there were no Standards to rebel against, they'd be forced to justify their acts on their own terms rather than referentially.
Illicit Drug Transaction in the Big City
I wandered into an independent pharmacy in the Big City, today, in search of relief for mild symptoms of rough throat. Among the items tendered for sale, I spotted (Original) Strepsils. Although at $7.95 the 24 lozenges were about twice as expensive as the Strepsils I usually bring back from the UK, they were here and this season has greatly diminished our smuggled supply so I took it up to the counter.
"Imported directly from the UK?" I asked the clerk. "No, they contain some unapproved antiseptics," she said. "We obtain them from another pharmacy."
As the official Strepsils site says: This site is intended for residents of the UK only.
Perhaps the "unapproved antiseptics" are why I've always found them more effective than US throat lozenges. Transaction completed.
"Imported directly from the UK?" I asked the clerk. "No, they contain some unapproved antiseptics," she said. "We obtain them from another pharmacy."
As the official Strepsils site says: This site is intended for residents of the UK only.
Perhaps the "unapproved antiseptics" are why I've always found them more effective than US throat lozenges. Transaction completed.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Gender Discrimination at the NYT BR?
Boy, Girl, Boy by Cynthia Cotts: The New York Times Book Review overwhelmingly favors books and book reviews written by men, according to a new study from Brown University. Over the course of a year, the study reveals, 72 percent of all books reviewed in the NYTBR were written by men, and 66 percent of all reviews also carried a male byline....
As for the attention to male authors, he explained, "more books are written by men than by women".
Men write more books than women? Caplan and her co-author searched for evidence to support that claim, but found none. When asked for a source, McGrath did not reply.
Here's one. Just count the Amazon.com 100. I did this recently and got 73 men, 25 women, and 2 other (the World Almanac & a dictionary). Tracks the NYT percentages pretty well. Unless the NYT BR author population is dramatically different, I suggest no gender discrimination. This is just at the review level, of course -- publishers and book buyers may still be guilty of invidious discrimination.
Since book reviewers are almost always authors themselves, the numbers point to a lack of gender discrimination in the selection of reviewers as well.
As for the attention to male authors, he explained, "more books are written by men than by women".
Men write more books than women? Caplan and her co-author searched for evidence to support that claim, but found none. When asked for a source, McGrath did not reply.
Here's one. Just count the Amazon.com 100. I did this recently and got 73 men, 25 women, and 2 other (the World Almanac & a dictionary). Tracks the NYT percentages pretty well. Unless the NYT BR author population is dramatically different, I suggest no gender discrimination. This is just at the review level, of course -- publishers and book buyers may still be guilty of invidious discrimination.
Since book reviewers are almost always authors themselves, the numbers point to a lack of gender discrimination in the selection of reviewers as well.
They've finally gone too far...
The NYC smoking ban doesn't only ban smoking (or holding burning smoking materials) it even bans possession of ashtrays. See this article on Chris Hitchen's latest article in Vanity Fair.
Here's the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act (Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the New York City Administrative Code) on the topic:
§10-11 Ashtrays.
(a) Ashtrays offered for sale. Ashtrays shall not be used or provided for use in any smoke-free area. Ashtrays which are offered for sale in a smoke-free area other than a retail store shall be kept within a display case or in an area visible but not otherwise accessible to a customer (such as a shelf behind a cash register).
(b) Ashtrays in hotels and motels. Ashtrays are prohibited in all smoke-free areas of hotels and motels, except that ashtrays may be placed immediately adjacent to hotel and motel public entrances and elevators.
Where can I buy some plastic ashtrays to leave around?
Here's the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act (Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the New York City Administrative Code) on the topic:
§10-11 Ashtrays.
(a) Ashtrays offered for sale. Ashtrays shall not be used or provided for use in any smoke-free area. Ashtrays which are offered for sale in a smoke-free area other than a retail store shall be kept within a display case or in an area visible but not otherwise accessible to a customer (such as a shelf behind a cash register).
(b) Ashtrays in hotels and motels. Ashtrays are prohibited in all smoke-free areas of hotels and motels, except that ashtrays may be placed immediately adjacent to hotel and motel public entrances and elevators.
Where can I buy some plastic ashtrays to leave around?
Monday, January 05, 2004
Hawaii State Flag at Risk
High court will weigh Muslim's flag suit
Lower courts rejected religious argument
By JACK ELLIOTT JR.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JACKSON - The U.S. Supreme Court will discuss Jan. 9 whether to hear arguments in a case in which a Muslim claimed the Confederate battle emblem in Mississippi's flag is actually a Christian symbol.
Lower federal courts had rejected John Ellis Briggs' argument that the Mississippi flag contains the St. Andrew's Cross and that the symbol represents state endorsement of a particular religion.
If this case succeeds, there goes the Hawaii State Flag since it definitely includes the Union Jack which definitely includes the crosses of St Patrick, St George, and St Andrew.
Thanks to SCOTUS Blog for the pointer.
Lower courts rejected religious argument
By JACK ELLIOTT JR.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JACKSON - The U.S. Supreme Court will discuss Jan. 9 whether to hear arguments in a case in which a Muslim claimed the Confederate battle emblem in Mississippi's flag is actually a Christian symbol.
Lower federal courts had rejected John Ellis Briggs' argument that the Mississippi flag contains the St. Andrew's Cross and that the symbol represents state endorsement of a particular religion.
If this case succeeds, there goes the Hawaii State Flag since it definitely includes the Union Jack which definitely includes the crosses of St Patrick, St George, and St Andrew.
Thanks to SCOTUS Blog for the pointer.
Friday, December 19, 2003
Padilla vs Rumsfeld
Is this because he was arrested in the ZI (Zone of the Interior) instead of Afghanistan or Iraq? Presumably you would not have required a status hearing for the 210,000 US citizens detained during the American Civil War (because they were Confederate Soldiers). I assume that some of those POWs were arrested off the battlefield by civilians when attempting to escape and evade after a defeat.
The court seemed to establish a bright line between a foreign battlefield and ORD (where Padilla was arrested). Is that bright line sustainable when 70%+ of the combat casualties suffered in this war were suffered in Zip Code 10048 one mile from where I'm sitting right now? Isn't NYC a battlefield in this war? And isn't the civilian air transportation system (including ORD) a battlefield?
Got.net narcing out its customers
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, [the famous] Tim May wrote:
> It happened in one of the "movies" groups (rec.arts.current-movies),
> when the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality
> of making DVDs of movies.
>
> I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my
> favorite current movies.
>
> A couple of "nyms" went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my
> "admissions" to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail
> time, oh my!
>
> Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for
> "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal"
> admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!),
> and so on.
I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the Betamax
case. Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on the
state of IP law.
This is one of several times that the readers of Tim's posts have reported
him to the authorities. I recall the Santa Cruz sheriffs's office call of
the early '90s occasioned by a simple admission that Tim legally possessed
weapons at home.
I'm constantly amazed by the things that people think are illegal that
aren't.
Reporting people to the authorities is such an impolite thing to do. In a
less enlightened era it would have led to an unfortunate breach of the
peace. If you have a problem with someone's behavior speak to him nicely,
first. And make damned sure that he's doing something wrong before you
complain.
Remember -- "Since Sodomy is a Virtue, can anything be a Vice?"
> It happened in one of the "movies" groups (rec.arts.current-movies),
> when the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality
> of making DVDs of movies.
>
> I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my
> favorite current movies.
>
> A couple of "nyms" went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my
> "admissions" to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail
> time, oh my!
>
> Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for
> "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal"
> admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!),
> and so on.
I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the Betamax
case. Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on the
state of IP law.
This is one of several times that the readers of Tim's posts have reported
him to the authorities. I recall the Santa Cruz sheriffs's office call of
the early '90s occasioned by a simple admission that Tim legally possessed
weapons at home.
I'm constantly amazed by the things that people think are illegal that
aren't.
Reporting people to the authorities is such an impolite thing to do. In a
less enlightened era it would have led to an unfortunate breach of the
peace. If you have a problem with someone's behavior speak to him nicely,
first. And make damned sure that he's doing something wrong before you
complain.
Remember -- "Since Sodomy is a Virtue, can anything be a Vice?"
Friday, December 12, 2003
Leviticus and the Law
Jim Davila fisks David Klinghoffer's Beliefnet article on Leviticus and homosexuality.
What bothers me is his arguing for a political goal on the basis of assumptions many citizens of the polity don't share...
He seems to be saying that, not the whole Mosaic law, but specific parts of it that he has seized on (using poor and inconsistent exegesis even on his own terms - see above) are so important to God that if we don't follow them we can expect the downfall of our civilization: God will "disgorge" us. The implication is that Americans must make - or refrain from making - their laws on the basis of Klinghoffer's version of biblical morality and his beliefs about biblical authority or else they're doomed. The argument isn't internally consistent in the first place and it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't share his religious presuppositions. It amounts to wanting the state to make political decisions on the basis of a narrow interpretation of a particular scripture, which strikes me as a very bad idea.
Mr. Klinghoffer, if you want to convince anyone who doesn't share your starting assumptions, you need to try again.
One might wonder if Davila would make the same argument against Marxists or Republicans who base their political arguments on premises most people don't share or indeed anyone else. Aren't all arguments made from presuppositions everyone in the polity doesn't share or else there would be no argument.
As for the application of parts of Mosaic law and not others (no on sodomy, yes on eating unclean animals) this is long established Christian Theology. See for example Article 7 of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion:
VII. Of the Old Testament.
THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.
Pretty standard stuff. As is Klinghoffer's belief that chunks of Jewish Ceremonial and Civil Law is in suspense pending the rebuilding of the temple. One cannot offer sacrifices in a building that doesn't exist.
Religious believers are just like everyone else. They get to use their beliefs for political arguments just like communists, environmentalists, or others.
And unless one spends a lot of time attacking almost everyone for making stupid arguments based on personal assumptions, to concentrate on religious believers suggests unwarranted discrimination. There is a thread of belief on the Left (which I don't know if Davila shares) holding that religious beliefs have little or no place in politics or governance. But they should actually be treated like any other beliefs.
What bothers me is his arguing for a political goal on the basis of assumptions many citizens of the polity don't share...
He seems to be saying that, not the whole Mosaic law, but specific parts of it that he has seized on (using poor and inconsistent exegesis even on his own terms - see above) are so important to God that if we don't follow them we can expect the downfall of our civilization: God will "disgorge" us. The implication is that Americans must make - or refrain from making - their laws on the basis of Klinghoffer's version of biblical morality and his beliefs about biblical authority or else they're doomed. The argument isn't internally consistent in the first place and it doesn't work for anyone who doesn't share his religious presuppositions. It amounts to wanting the state to make political decisions on the basis of a narrow interpretation of a particular scripture, which strikes me as a very bad idea.
Mr. Klinghoffer, if you want to convince anyone who doesn't share your starting assumptions, you need to try again.
One might wonder if Davila would make the same argument against Marxists or Republicans who base their political arguments on premises most people don't share or indeed anyone else. Aren't all arguments made from presuppositions everyone in the polity doesn't share or else there would be no argument.
As for the application of parts of Mosaic law and not others (no on sodomy, yes on eating unclean animals) this is long established Christian Theology. See for example Article 7 of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion:
VII. Of the Old Testament.
THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.
Pretty standard stuff. As is Klinghoffer's belief that chunks of Jewish Ceremonial and Civil Law is in suspense pending the rebuilding of the temple. One cannot offer sacrifices in a building that doesn't exist.
Religious believers are just like everyone else. They get to use their beliefs for political arguments just like communists, environmentalists, or others.
And unless one spends a lot of time attacking almost everyone for making stupid arguments based on personal assumptions, to concentrate on religious believers suggests unwarranted discrimination. There is a thread of belief on the Left (which I don't know if Davila shares) holding that religious beliefs have little or no place in politics or governance. But they should actually be treated like any other beliefs.
Monday, December 08, 2003
"Historically driver's license prove(s) citizenship"
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 12/1/2003 5:37 PM
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- A senior homeland security official said Monday that if states continue to issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, the country will have to re-think the way licenses are used as de facto identity cards by government and the private sector.
"Historically, we've looked at it that (applicants for a driver's license) ought to be able to prove citizenship, because we've relied upon those driver's licenses," Homeland Security Administration Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Asa Hutchinson told reporters. "If the states are going to change the historical context and say they don't need citizenship ... then we have to change our whole reliance upon them."
I don't know what history Asa grew up in. I remember a history in which licenses were issued in many states by AAA offices without proof of anything. In which they were merely a form of taxation of drivers. Then ID started to be required to prove age. Citizenship was never an issue. Then they started testing drivers for driving skills -- again, citizenship was not an issue. Finally they started to require ID to get ID and some states required citizenship or legal residence. I know for a fact that as recently as 20 years ago California didn't require citizenship for DLs since I helped an Iranian tourist get a license. They wanted proof of age and identity. Her passport worked fine.
The citizenship requirement (which has never been universal) is a recent innovation. One cannot use tradition to justify it. It is not a tradition. It's merely another example (as with the SS#) of a system devised for one purpose (paying for highways) being mangled to serve another purpose (security). And all because our rulers lack the courage to advocate internal passports. They should be chicken of course because internal passports would be resisted.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
'Gay' as a bad wurd
Eugene Volokh on school behavioral intervention for talking about homosexuality:
"Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."
I think, though, that to fully understand this, you need to look at the forms themselves, which the ACLU has put up here and here. It's just shocking, seeing the words there, not just in the teacher's own writing, but worst of all in the poor little boy's own (obviously prompted by the teacher). They can think whatever they please about homosexuality -- but what kind of schoolteacher and assistant principal would take this out on a seven-year-old, for heaven's sake? Utterly shameful.
Now you know how a Southern Baptist child feels in a New York City public school. Lafayette is the "Capital of Acadiana" and full of Cajuns and Creoles who have their own "cultural heritage".
The incident is a good argument against government schools but doesn't prove much else.
America's government schools are much more likely to preach against and punish Christian children or conservative children than the children of homosexuals. Banning religious expression by children, teaching earth worship, promoting left-wing political letter writing by children, teaching left-wing economics goes on every day in schools throughout the US without causing much negative reaction.
Why is all of that worse than this?
"Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."
I think, though, that to fully understand this, you need to look at the forms themselves, which the ACLU has put up here and here. It's just shocking, seeing the words there, not just in the teacher's own writing, but worst of all in the poor little boy's own (obviously prompted by the teacher). They can think whatever they please about homosexuality -- but what kind of schoolteacher and assistant principal would take this out on a seven-year-old, for heaven's sake? Utterly shameful.
Now you know how a Southern Baptist child feels in a New York City public school. Lafayette is the "Capital of Acadiana" and full of Cajuns and Creoles who have their own "cultural heritage".
The incident is a good argument against government schools but doesn't prove much else.
America's government schools are much more likely to preach against and punish Christian children or conservative children than the children of homosexuals. Banning religious expression by children, teaching earth worship, promoting left-wing political letter writing by children, teaching left-wing economics goes on every day in schools throughout the US without causing much negative reaction.
Why is all of that worse than this?
Friday, August 29, 2003
Separation of Church and Times?
Good news for Christians -- He lives!
Today's New York Times confirms the Historicity of Jesus on the front page no less (registration required):
Today's New York Times confirms the Historicity of Jesus on the front page no less (registration required):
Jerusalem Holy Site a Tense Crossroads Again
By JAMES BENNET
...Known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, the holy site had been closed to non-Muslims since September 2000, when Ariel Sharon, then a candidate for the post of prime minister he now holds, paid a visit there in the company of hundreds of armed policemen.
That visit, and the riots that ensued, provided what Palestinians consider the provocation and Israelis consider the pretext for the Palestinians' uprising, the Aksa Intifada. It is named after the mosque on the 35-acre plaza, which is framed by imposing stone walls built by Herod the Great in the decades before Jesus walked there....
Fox Searchlight Pictures: Thirteen
So tell me. Does a photo of two young ladies showing their tounge studs
encourage movie patronage? I'm sure that their great dedication to
performing fellatio on men (to the extent of body modification) would be
interesting in a clinical setting; but would it in an entertainment setting?
http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/thirteen/
encourage movie patronage? I'm sure that their great dedication to
performing fellatio on men (to the extent of body modification) would be
interesting in a clinical setting; but would it in an entertainment setting?
http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/thirteen/
Religious Numerology
Has anyone noticed that the Alabama Ten Commandments monument weighs the
same number in pounds as there are feet in a mile -- 5,280 in both
cases. Does this mean anything?
same number in pounds as there are feet in a mile -- 5,280 in both
cases. Does this mean anything?
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Jury of One's Peers
Eugene Volokh on a Jury of One's Peers:
Jury of one's peers: One hears a lot about how people are entitled to "a jury of their peers," and how this-and-such trial is unfair because the jurors weren't really the defendant's peers in some significant way (race, class, or what have you). What does the law really say about the right to trial by jury of one's peers?
Well, U.S. law actually uses this phrase pretty rarely -- it doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or statutes -- and for good reason. In England, the phrase apparently referred to a right of nobles to be generally tried by nobles, and commoners by commoners.
Dan Klerman, who teaches law at USC and who is an expert on (among other things) English legal history, puts it this way, ":Basically everyone got jurors from the same pool, except members of the House of Lords ("peers"), who were tried by the House of Lords itself."
The concept does make for great drama in Dorothy L. Sayers' novel Clouds of Witness. Here, her detective - Lord Peter Wimsey - defends his brother - The Duke of Denver - who has been accused of murder and faces a trial in the House of Lords.
Jury of one's peers: One hears a lot about how people are entitled to "a jury of their peers," and how this-and-such trial is unfair because the jurors weren't really the defendant's peers in some significant way (race, class, or what have you). What does the law really say about the right to trial by jury of one's peers?
Well, U.S. law actually uses this phrase pretty rarely -- it doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or statutes -- and for good reason. In England, the phrase apparently referred to a right of nobles to be generally tried by nobles, and commoners by commoners.
Dan Klerman, who teaches law at USC and who is an expert on (among other things) English legal history, puts it this way, ":Basically everyone got jurors from the same pool, except members of the House of Lords ("peers"), who were tried by the House of Lords itself."
The concept does make for great drama in Dorothy L. Sayers' novel Clouds of Witness. Here, her detective - Lord Peter Wimsey - defends his brother - The Duke of Denver - who has been accused of murder and faces a trial in the House of Lords.
Friday, August 08, 2003
TWIC Cards
MAXIMUS Awarded $3.8 Million Smart Card Project by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration
RESTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 9, 2003--The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has awarded MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS) a five-month, $3.8 million contract to assist TSA in field testing various technologies that will lead to a common and universally-recognized Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) that could potentially be used by 12 million transportation workers at seaports, airports, and land transportation hubs.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Radicals Pleading Guilty
Glenn Reynolds on the Sherman Austin case:
You can't protect cowardly radicals from pleading. This happens a lot in political cases. See the case of Jim Bell or the case of Michael Milkin or the case of Bill Gates.
In these political cases, it's quite common for the defendants to plead and in some cases get longer sentences than they would have got with a straight conviction.
You also see in this case the way in which threats of "terrorism" are allowing prosecutors to extract plea bargains in dubious cases. One consequence is that when the Justice Department gets a plea bargain, you can't automatically assume that it's proof the underlying case was especially good, just that the accused was afraid to roll the dice.
You can't protect cowardly radicals from pleading. This happens a lot in political cases. See the case of Jim Bell or the case of Michael Milkin or the case of Bill Gates.
In these political cases, it's quite common for the defendants to plead and in some cases get longer sentences than they would have got with a straight conviction.
The "Right to Discriminate"
David Bernstein on The Volokh Conspiracy
I don't know why Prof Bernstein is hiding the fact that libertarians believe that enactments such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are major human rights violations. That's certainly what I argued back in 1964 during a 7th grade class debate. I think that those who look to the Constitution for validation of this view (rather than to Natural Law) could point to the 5th, 9th, 10th, & 14th Amendments; the Contracts Clause; and the principle of Substantive Due Process.
Indeed, since discrimination is a fundamental aspect of the application of human intelligence and that of the lesser creatures (this is food, that is danger); genuine outlawing of discrimination would be madness.
I must admit, for example, that I practiced many forms of invidious discrimination in the selection of my wife.
Hmm. I don't know of anyone in the Federalist Society orbit who advocates a constitutional right to discriminate, as such. Richard Epstein advocates a constitutional right to liberty of contract, a right that would include the ability to discriminate, among many other things. Eugene has vigorously argued that much of the "harassment" part of antidiscrimination law conflicts with, and is a violation of, the First Amendment. And my forthcoming book (which I know Judge Calabresi has seen, and I hope got his attention), argues that the scope of antidiscrimination law must be limited so that it does not conflict with vigorous protection of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, expressive association, and the right to petition government. But none of this is the same as supporting a "right to discriminate."
I don't know why Prof Bernstein is hiding the fact that libertarians believe that enactments such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are major human rights violations. That's certainly what I argued back in 1964 during a 7th grade class debate. I think that those who look to the Constitution for validation of this view (rather than to Natural Law) could point to the 5th, 9th, 10th, & 14th Amendments; the Contracts Clause; and the principle of Substantive Due Process.
Indeed, since discrimination is a fundamental aspect of the application of human intelligence and that of the lesser creatures (this is food, that is danger); genuine outlawing of discrimination would be madness.
I must admit, for example, that I practiced many forms of invidious discrimination in the selection of my wife.
Federal Protections and Responsibilities
Sign the Petition || MillionforMarriage.org
Whoa! If there are that many federal protections and responsibilities the Feds have way too much power. They're mucking about with too many things they shouldn't be. Personally, I try and avoid as many federal protections and responsibilities as I possibly can.
There are more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities denied to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples because they cannot legally marry in this country.
Whoa! If there are that many federal protections and responsibilities the Feds have way too much power. They're mucking about with too many things they shouldn't be. Personally, I try and avoid as many federal protections and responsibilities as I possibly can.
Monday, August 04, 2003
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
In honor of the 74th General Convention of the Domestic and Foreign
Mission Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA:
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
by Rudyard Kipling
I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of
Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out
in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes
would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.
Mission Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA:
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
by Rudyard Kipling
I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of
Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out
in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes
would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.
Unregulated Surgery
I'm shocked and appalled that the Feds are not protecting us from rogue surgeons. From a New York Times feature on how to develop a new surgical procedure:
Surgeons who want to try something new have a great deal of leeway, because new operations, unlike new drugs, are not regulated by the government. As a result, many surgical techniques have simply been brought into practice by doctors who invented them, started using them and then taught them to colleagues.
Surgeons who want to try something new have a great deal of leeway, because new operations, unlike new drugs, are not regulated by the government. As a result, many surgical techniques have simply been brought into practice by doctors who invented them, started using them and then taught them to colleagues.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Government Services
As an inveterate reader of the popular press, I understand that many
people approach public institutions and request services. I find this
hard to believe.
I approach public institutions rarely and resent most of those few
contacts which are forced in some fashion.
I suppose the Post Office is the only public institution I regularly
patronize.
Every four years, I apply for a driver's license (whether I need one or
not).
Every year I register my vehicles (whether they need it or not).
When I cross international borders, I chat with La Migra and Customs.
Every 10 years I renew my passport.
I drive on "public streets and roads" when that it the only way to get
somewhere.
I consciously avoid seeking out the services of peace officers, fire
fighters, and public hospitals.
I would no more send my child to a government school than I would mail
that child to California via Parcel Post.
That's about it.
So why do others feel the need to approach government with their begging
bowls out? I don't get it.
people approach public institutions and request services. I find this
hard to believe.
I approach public institutions rarely and resent most of those few
contacts which are forced in some fashion.
I suppose the Post Office is the only public institution I regularly
patronize.
Every four years, I apply for a driver's license (whether I need one or
not).
Every year I register my vehicles (whether they need it or not).
When I cross international borders, I chat with La Migra and Customs.
Every 10 years I renew my passport.
I drive on "public streets and roads" when that it the only way to get
somewhere.
I consciously avoid seeking out the services of peace officers, fire
fighters, and public hospitals.
I would no more send my child to a government school than I would mail
that child to California via Parcel Post.
That's about it.
So why do others feel the need to approach government with their begging
bowls out? I don't get it.
Seabiscuit
The Book
The Movie
The PBS Documentary
The Race (Seabiscuit vs War Admiral in Real Audio)
The Story of Seabiscuit, 1949 (starring Shirley Temple)
The Movie
The PBS Documentary
The Race (Seabiscuit vs War Admiral in Real Audio)
The Story of Seabiscuit, 1949 (starring Shirley Temple)
New Legal Argument
Since the Supremes have spoken on the topic of Sodomy, they have birthed a brand new legal argument.
In future conflicts over public policy, whether practical or theoretical, anyone who cares to will be able to say:
Well the Supremes have elevated [insert Anglo-Saxon phrase for anal intercourse here] to the status of a Constitutional right; so how can you possibly tell me that I can't do X?
Very convenient! The opposition will have to argue that X is more worthy of regulation than [insert Anglo-Saxon phrase for anal intercourse here]. Public interactions will become livlier.
In future conflicts over public policy, whether practical or theoretical, anyone who cares to will be able to say:
Well the Supremes have elevated [insert Anglo-Saxon phrase for anal intercourse here] to the status of a Constitutional right; so how can you possibly tell me that I can't do X?
Very convenient! The opposition will have to argue that X is more worthy of regulation than [insert Anglo-Saxon phrase for anal intercourse here]. Public interactions will become livlier.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Preview of The Order
Saw a preview of The Order last night. Usual Vatican-centered conspiracy of rogue priests seeking world domination plot. Behind the disguise of good hides the soul of evil. Seen it all before. I've got a hot plot idea for Hollywood. How about a conspiracy of Marxists to achieve world domination under the guise of helping the downtrodden. Seems unlikely but stranger things have happened.
At that the preview was better than the feature The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Never see a film "based on the graphic novel by ...". And when even the hoity toity Hollywood Reporter observes that the League "includes no gentlemen and one questionable lady" you know you've got trouble.
I don't like SF or Fantasy sans logic, plot, and respect for just a few physical laws.
At that the preview was better than the feature The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Never see a film "based on the graphic novel by ...". And when even the hoity toity Hollywood Reporter observes that the League "includes no gentlemen and one questionable lady" you know you've got trouble.
I don't like SF or Fantasy sans logic, plot, and respect for just a few physical laws.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
DIA Beacon
The Volokh Conspiracy's Tyler Cowen on the new DIA museum in Beacon, New York.
Let's not argue about the art, the point is simpler than that. If a large number of intelligent viewers (listeners, etc.) find that the stuff moves them, in a deep and lasting way, doesn't it have to be good? If not objectively good (whatever that means), at least 'pluralistically or relativistically good enough not to be knocked down in objective terms' good.
Esthetics is, of course, a branch of philosophy. There are a host of other philosophies out there. One would not generally say, for example:
"Let's not argue about the politics, the point is simpler than that. If a large number of intelligent people find that Marxism moves them, in a deep and lasting way, doesn't it have to be good? If not objectively good (whatever that means), at least "pluralistically or relativistically good enough not to be knocked down in objective terms" good."
One still has to defend one's philosophical or esthetic choices straight up rather than simply counting noses.
I listened to the WNYC piece on the new museum and I thought that I might preder the aritechture to the art inside. I'll have to see.
DCF
Let's not argue about the art, the point is simpler than that. If a large number of intelligent viewers (listeners, etc.) find that the stuff moves them, in a deep and lasting way, doesn't it have to be good? If not objectively good (whatever that means), at least 'pluralistically or relativistically good enough not to be knocked down in objective terms' good.
Esthetics is, of course, a branch of philosophy. There are a host of other philosophies out there. One would not generally say, for example:
"Let's not argue about the politics, the point is simpler than that. If a large number of intelligent people find that Marxism moves them, in a deep and lasting way, doesn't it have to be good? If not objectively good (whatever that means), at least "pluralistically or relativistically good enough not to be knocked down in objective terms" good."
One still has to defend one's philosophical or esthetic choices straight up rather than simply counting noses.
I listened to the WNYC piece on the new museum and I thought that I might preder the aritechture to the art inside. I'll have to see.
DCF
Wired News: Gaming the Safeway Club Card
Libertarians who have been concerned about those who provide false information to obtain shopper's discount cards (or swap the cards or barcodes after obtaining them) can relax. At least as far as Safeway is concerned, there's no contractual breach. A spokesman with apparent authority to bind the Corporation has informed us that Safeway doesn't mind how creative its card users get:
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59589,00.html
For its part, Safeway isn't concerned about Cockerham's project and shrugs off any Big Brother accusations. "It's an odd sort of prank with not any significant impact at all on the operation of our card business," says Safeway spokesman Brian Dowling. "We work hard to protect the privacy of our customers, and don't believe there is any sound rationale behind what (Cockerham's) doing. But he can do whatever he wants."
One can assume (in the absence of contrary evidence) that other companies share the same attitude towards their customers. So I don't want to hear any more lectures about how we have to provide truthful info on card applications or forgo the discounts.
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,59589,00.html
For its part, Safeway isn't concerned about Cockerham's project and shrugs off any Big Brother accusations. "It's an odd sort of prank with not any significant impact at all on the operation of our card business," says Safeway spokesman Brian Dowling. "We work hard to protect the privacy of our customers, and don't believe there is any sound rationale behind what (Cockerham's) doing. But he can do whatever he wants."
One can assume (in the absence of contrary evidence) that other companies share the same attitude towards their customers. So I don't want to hear any more lectures about how we have to provide truthful info on card applications or forgo the discounts.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Airlines use Soundex to match passengers with terrorists
The SF Chronicle reports that airline res systems use an ancient name indexing system that guarantees masses of false positives.
No-fly list ensnares innocent travelers
Soundex is well known these days to genealogical hobbyists. Here is an article laying out the Soundex coding scheme:
The Soundex code for my last name is F-624.
Here is an automatic Soundex calculator.
It was a great system when one had to index long lists of names by hand. It was designed to group large sets of names together to reduce workload. It's madness to use it in a modern computer system to check for matches with the names of terrorists.
No-fly list ensnares innocent travelers
"SORTED BY SOUNDS
Many airlines rely on name-searching software derived from "Soundex," a 120- year-old indexing system first used in the 1880 U.S. census. It was designed to help census clerks quickly index and retrieve sound-alike surnames with different spellings -- like "Rogers" and "Rodgers" or "Somers" and "Summers" -- that would be scattered in an alphabetical list.
Soundex gives each name a key using its first letter and dropping the vowels and giving number codes to similar-sounding vowels (like "S" and "C"). The system gives the same code, L350, for "Laden" and all similar-sounding names: Lydon, Lawton, and Leedham."
Soundex is well known these days to genealogical hobbyists. Here is an article laying out the Soundex coding scheme:
"Every soundex code consists of a letter and three numbers, such as W-252. The letter is always the first letter of the surname. "
The Soundex code for my last name is F-624.
Here is an automatic Soundex calculator.
It was a great system when one had to index long lists of names by hand. It was designed to group large sets of names together to reduce workload. It's madness to use it in a modern computer system to check for matches with the names of terrorists.
Friday, June 13, 2003
Public Employee Productivity
Star Search
Course if the Feds would let all of us play with explosives, maybe we too could come up with more efficient ways to kill people. For free. Open Source munitions anyone?
But JDAMs weren't the brainchild of crack scientists toiling in some defense contractor's generously funded skunk works. The person most responsible for their development was a 57-year-old Department of Defense program manager named Terry Little. ..Smart bombs, it turns out, require smart people.
Course if the Feds would let all of us play with explosives, maybe we too could come up with more efficient ways to kill people. For free. Open Source munitions anyone?
Thursday, June 05, 2003
Down with Love
Boy, it's sure easier to make a 50's/60's sex comedy set in Manhattan since the WTC was removed from the skyline.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Thinking about the liquidity trap
Worried about that old Devil Liquidity Trap? Want to stimulate the economy without cutting taxes, increasing spending, or cutting interest rates? There is a 4th way. And best of all it's free.
Radical Derugulation. If you want more economic activity, just stop outlawing it. Every reg from NYCs rent control, to every town's taxi monopoly, to land use controls acts to outlaw some economic activities. With the regs in place, some economic activity that would otherwise have happened won't. You want more economic activity -- then legaliz it.
Radical Derugulation. If you want more economic activity, just stop outlawing it. Every reg from NYCs rent control, to every town's taxi monopoly, to land use controls acts to outlaw some economic activities. With the regs in place, some economic activity that would otherwise have happened won't. You want more economic activity -- then legaliz it.
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Sins of Freedom
Is there no limit to the crimes for which globalisation must be held to account? Not only does it oppress the consumers of the rich West, undermine the welfare state, emasculate democracy, despoil the environment, and entrench poverty in the third world; we knew all that already. In addition, we now find, it is a utopian scheme for global ideological conquest—like Stalinism, minus the compassion. Truly, the idea that people should be left free to trade with each other in peace must be the most wicked and dangerous doctrine ever devised.
--The Case for Globalization from the Leader to the Economist's Survey of Globalization published September 29, 2001.
--The Case for Globalization from the Leader to the Economist's Survey of Globalization published September 29, 2001.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Religious vs Secular Expression in Schools
Religious vs Secular Expression in Schools
Saw Eugene's performance and it was good in spite of difficulties getting O'Reilly to understand the difference between official and unofficial prayer. I'll have to read the case because I wondered how they handled the age question. I thought prayer restrictions only applied in secondary and primary schools and not tertiary schools (college). After all Congress is allowed to do it.
I also thought I'd take the opportunity to complain once again about the jurisprudence of the issue. The courts in these case are saying that official prayers are banned but anything else goes. This means that state schools are perfectly free to have their students sing Internationale, the Horst Wessel Song, the Earth Scout's Induction Oath to Mother Earth, etc. So government schools are free to form Hitler Youth brigades but can't say so much as "2003 A.D." This doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.
Not that I think anyone should send their kids to government schools so it's a moot point.
[Eugene Volokh, 8:50 AM]
O'REILLY FACTOR: If all goes as planned -- and in the news biz, it's impossible to predict -- I should be the O'Reilly Factor today, defending the Fourth Circuit's decision holding that the Virginia Military Institute supper prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
Saw Eugene's performance and it was good in spite of difficulties getting O'Reilly to understand the difference between official and unofficial prayer. I'll have to read the case because I wondered how they handled the age question. I thought prayer restrictions only applied in secondary and primary schools and not tertiary schools (college). After all Congress is allowed to do it.
I also thought I'd take the opportunity to complain once again about the jurisprudence of the issue. The courts in these case are saying that official prayers are banned but anything else goes. This means that state schools are perfectly free to have their students sing Internationale, the Horst Wessel Song, the Earth Scout's Induction Oath to Mother Earth, etc. So government schools are free to form Hitler Youth brigades but can't say so much as "2003 A.D." This doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.
Not that I think anyone should send their kids to government schools so it's a moot point.
Vast Sunni Conspiracy
You can learn something from (or while) watching cable tv.
Two weekends ago, I was watching an interview with a foreign policy wonk from Brookings on Fox News. He mentioned the problems the Iranians were having with Taliban refugees hiding out with the Baluchs in north-eastern Iran. They were hiding out there because they were all Sunnis.
It then hit me -- our true Islamic foes are all Sunnis. The Taliban, Osama, The Saudis, various Egyptians, and Saddamm, are all Sunni. So maybe we should form a strange alliance with our Shiite friends against the Sunnis.
Two weekends ago, I was watching an interview with a foreign policy wonk from Brookings on Fox News. He mentioned the problems the Iranians were having with Taliban refugees hiding out with the Baluchs in north-eastern Iran. They were hiding out there because they were all Sunnis.
It then hit me -- our true Islamic foes are all Sunnis. The Taliban, Osama, The Saudis, various Egyptians, and Saddamm, are all Sunni. So maybe we should form a strange alliance with our Shiite friends against the Sunnis.
A Dip in the Manperson Pool
Many years ago during the flowering of the Women's Movement, a notice of some sort was posted on my law school bulletin board.
I forget what it was about but it contained a fascinating word construct -- manperson pool.
I'm assuming that the author meant to create the word personpower, instead, to avoid the sexist horrors of the word manpower.
Failure was no doubt caused by lack of contemplation. A common failure of the coiners of new words (other than words like technoptimist, of course).
I forget what it was about but it contained a fascinating word construct -- manperson pool.
I'm assuming that the author meant to create the word personpower, instead, to avoid the sexist horrors of the word manpower.
Failure was no doubt caused by lack of contemplation. A common failure of the coiners of new words (other than words like technoptimist, of course).
Monday, May 26, 2003
Important anniversary today!
Many will fail to remember that today is the second anniversary of George Bush's replacement of Bill Clinton at the Arlington Tomb of the Unkowns wreath-laying ceremony after eight horrific years of having to watch him.
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Ministry of Truth at the PO
I love these little historical lies we are always being told.
USPS Notice 107, December 1998
Title - Some Things Were Never Meant to be Mailed
Included on the list -- ammunition.
And yet tons of ammunition was mailed over the years with perfect legality via the PO. What they really mean is that their current employees are unable to safely handle such cargoes so they can't accept it any more. But they need the security of a false historical claim to mask their contemporary incompetence.
USPS Notice 107, December 1998
Title - Some Things Were Never Meant to be Mailed
Included on the list -- ammunition.
And yet tons of ammunition was mailed over the years with perfect legality via the PO. What they really mean is that their current employees are unable to safely handle such cargoes so they can't accept it any more. But they need the security of a false historical claim to mask their contemporary incompetence.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Judicial Theology
It's been a while since I read the major Conscription/Conscientious Objector case from the Supremes -- UNITED STATES v. SEEGER. I had forgotten the Court's use of then modern liberal theology to decide that conscientious objectors to military service didn't have to believe in God but could get away with meeting the following test: "[D]oes the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?"
From Justice Clark's opinion:
I guess it will be OK then to quote Robert P. George when arguing future cases on gay marriage.
From Justice Clark's opinion:
4. Moreover, we believe this construction embraces the ever-broadening understanding of the modern religious community. The eminent Protestant theologian, Dr. Paul Tillich, whose views the Government concedes would come within the statute, identifies God not as a projection "out there" or beyond the skies but as the ground of our very being. The Court of Appeals stated in No. 51 that Jakobson's views "parallel [those of] this eminent theologian rather strikingly." 325 F.2d, at 415-416. In his book, Systematic Theology, Dr. Tillich says:
"I have written of the God above the God of theism . . . . In such a state [of self-affirmation] the God of both religious and theological language disappears. But something remains, namely, the seriousness of that doubt in which meaning within meaninglessness is affirmed. The source of this affirmation of meaning within meaninglessness, of certitude within doubt, is not the God of traditional theism but the `God above God,' the power of being, which works through those who have no name for it, not even the name God." II Systematic Theology 12 (1957). [380 U.S. 163, 181]
Another eminent cleric, the Bishop of Woolwich, John A. T. Robinson, in his book, Honest To God (1963), states:
"The Bible speaks of a God `up there.' No doubt its picture of a three-decker universe, of `the heaven above, the earth beneath and the waters under the earth,' was once taken quite literally. . . . ." At 11. "[Later] in place of a God who is literally or physically `up there' we have accepted, as part of our mental furniture, a God who is spiritually or metaphysically `out there.' . . . But now it seems there is no room for him, not merely in the inn, but in the entire universe: for there are no vacant places left. In reality, of course, our new view of the universe has made not the slightest difference. . . ." At 13-14.
"But the idea of a God spiritually or metaphysically `out there' dies very much harder. Indeed, most people would be seriously disturbed by the thought that it should need to die at all. For it is their God, and they have nothing to put in its place. . . . Every one of us lives with some mental picture of a God `out there,' a God who `exists' above and beyond the world he made, a God `to' whom we pray and to whom we `go' when we die." At 14.
"But the signs are that we are reaching the point at which the whole conception of a God `out there,' which has served us so well since the collapse of the three-decker universe, is itself becoming more of a hindrance than a help." At 15-16. (Emphasis in original.)
The Schema of the recent Ecumenical Council included a most significant declaration on religion: 4 [380 U.S. 163, 182]
"The community of all peoples is one. One is their origin, for God made the entire human race live on all the face of the earth. One, too, is their ultimate end, God. Men expect from the various religions answers to the riddles of the human condition: What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of our lives? What is the moral good and what is sin? What are death, judgment, and retribution after death?
. . . . .
"Ever since primordial days, numerous peoples have had a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events that make up the lives of men; some have even come to know of a Supreme Being and Father. Religions in an advanced culture have been able to use more refined concepts and a more developed language in their struggle for an answer to man's religious questions.
. . . . .
"Nothing that is true and holy in these religions is scorned by the Catholic Church. Ceaselessly the Church proclaims Christ, `the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' in whom God reconciled all things to Himself. The Church regards with sincere reverence those ways of action and of life, precepts and teachings which, although they differ from the ones she sets forth, reflect nonetheless a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."
Dr. David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture Movement, states in his book, Ethics As a Religion (1951), that "[e]verybody except the avowed atheists (and they are comparatively few) believes in some kind of God," and that "The proper question to ask, therefore, is [380 U.S. 163, 183] not the futile one, Do you believe in God? but rather, What kind of God do you believe in?" Id., at 86-87. Dr. Muzzey attempts to answer that question:
"Instead of positing a personal God, whose existence man can neither prove nor disprove, the ethical concept is founded on human experience. It is anthropocentric, not theocentric. Religion, for all the various definitions that have been given of it, must surely mean the devotion of man to the highest ideal that he can conceive. And that ideal is a community of spirits in which the latent moral potentialities of men shall have been elicited by their reciprocal endeavors to cultivate the best in their fellow men. What ultimate reality is we do not know; but we have the faith that it expresses itself in the human world as the power which inspires in men moral purpose." At 95.
"Thus the `God' that we love is not the figure on the great white throne, but the perfect pattern, envisioned by faith, of humanity as it should be, purged of the evil elements which retard its progress toward `the knowledge, love and practice of the right.'" At 98.
These are but a few of the views that comprise the broad spectrum of religious beliefs found among us. But they demonstrate very clearly the diverse manners in which beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their possessors, may be articulated. They further reveal the difficulties inherent in placing too narrow a construction on the provisions of 6 (j) and thereby lend conclusive support to the construction which we today find that Congress intended.
5. We recognize the difficulties that have always faced the trier of fact in these cases. We hope that the test that we lay down proves less onerous. The examiner is furnished [380 U.S. 163, 184] a standard that permits consideration of criteria with which he has had considerable experience. While the applicant's words may differ, the test is simple of application. It is essentially an objective one, namely, does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?
I guess it will be OK then to quote Robert P. George when arguing future cases on gay marriage.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Wireless Internet Cri de Coeur
Way back in 2000, I had a (circa) 128kbps wireless internet connection for an all-you-can-eat price of about $70 a month. It was the late, lamented, Ricochet service which is back in operation in a few cities after being bought for a pittance after Metricom's bankruptcy (August 8, 2001). One would think that after three years I would easily be able to buy an even faster, more widely spread, and more convenient wireless internet service -- but one would be wrong.
Every time I've checked since August 8, 2001, my Ricochet modem shows 3 or 4 poletop radios still going strong. Still sucking juice. Someone could easily have made $1470 from me since then just by enabling my connection and charging me $70/month (I had two accounts). I still look at the poletop units around my office and at the end of the street where I live. But I can't use them.
Current services from the major wireless voice companies are expensive, slow, and inflexible. They expect you to use them on your phone. All of the wireless modems are PC Card devices. The thought that you might like to use your desktop machine with a wireless internet service hasn't occurred to anyone. (Ricochet had USB modems available.) The companies don't promote these services and you have to dig deeply even to figure out what they are called. One has to hunt around on web sites (usually on the pages targeted at business users) to find anything.
Why can't anyone supply a wireless network that's:
- widespread,
- fast enough (128kbps+),
- cheap enough (>$50/month flat rate),
- easy to use (multiple connection PC card, USB, or Ethernet),
- usable with handheld, laptop, and desktop computers, and
- actually marketed (so people know about it)?
For the benefit of the 2 readers of this blog, and to give me an easy place to click, here are the current names, urls, prices, and speeds(ha!) of the major services. I'm ignoring equipment costs and only listing the monthly cost of the plan that lets you send and receive the most data.
AT&T
Mobile Internet
http://www.attws.com/mobileinternet/bus_plan.jhtml
$99.99/month for 100MB ($0.0010/KB thereafter) - $49.99/month Unlimited for their Blackberry service
Verizon
Express Network
http://www.verizonwireless.com/express_network/
$79.99/month Unlimited
Speed - 40kbps -140kbps
T-Mobile
T-Mobile Internet
http://www.t-mobile.com/tmobile_internet/rates.asp
$99.99/month for 200MB ($2.00/MB thereafter)
Sprint
PCS Vision (PCS Vision for Laptops and PDAs)
http://www.pcsvision.com/bconnect.html
$80.00/month Unlimited
Note: You actually have to look at the bottom of this page to get a hint that Sprint offers genuine mobile internet service.
Every time I've checked since August 8, 2001, my Ricochet modem shows 3 or 4 poletop radios still going strong. Still sucking juice. Someone could easily have made $1470 from me since then just by enabling my connection and charging me $70/month (I had two accounts). I still look at the poletop units around my office and at the end of the street where I live. But I can't use them.
Current services from the major wireless voice companies are expensive, slow, and inflexible. They expect you to use them on your phone. All of the wireless modems are PC Card devices. The thought that you might like to use your desktop machine with a wireless internet service hasn't occurred to anyone. (Ricochet had USB modems available.) The companies don't promote these services and you have to dig deeply even to figure out what they are called. One has to hunt around on web sites (usually on the pages targeted at business users) to find anything.
Why can't anyone supply a wireless network that's:
- widespread,
- fast enough (128kbps+),
- cheap enough (>$50/month flat rate),
- easy to use (multiple connection PC card, USB, or Ethernet),
- usable with handheld, laptop, and desktop computers, and
- actually marketed (so people know about it)?
For the benefit of the 2 readers of this blog, and to give me an easy place to click, here are the current names, urls, prices, and speeds(ha!) of the major services. I'm ignoring equipment costs and only listing the monthly cost of the plan that lets you send and receive the most data.
AT&T
Mobile Internet
http://www.attws.com/mobileinternet/bus_plan.jhtml
$99.99/month for 100MB ($0.0010/KB thereafter) - $49.99/month Unlimited for their Blackberry service
Verizon
Express Network
http://www.verizonwireless.com/express_network/
$79.99/month Unlimited
Speed - 40kbps -140kbps
T-Mobile
T-Mobile Internet
http://www.t-mobile.com/tmobile_internet/rates.asp
$99.99/month for 200MB ($2.00/MB thereafter)
Sprint
PCS Vision (PCS Vision for Laptops and PDAs)
http://www.pcsvision.com/bconnect.html
$80.00/month Unlimited
Note: You actually have to look at the bottom of this page to get a hint that Sprint offers genuine mobile internet service.
Monday, May 12, 2003
Free Those Vectors!
Re Jacob Levy's latest on the topic:
Jacob Levy seems to spend a lot of time criticizing people as homophobic or racist. Is this useful politically? Since neither of those views is inconsistent with libertarianism (in the absence of the initiation of force), wouldn't it make more sense to criticize the views of people who believe in things like government schools, taxation, or even vector control districts? Those ideas are inconsistent with human liberty and more dangerous than racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, ageism, ad infinitum.
And Prof. Levy replies in a nice long juicy Volokh Conspiracy post:
Read the whole thing it's worth it.
In the course of quoting my original note, Prof. Levy queried my use of the phrase vector control districts [?? JTL].
I can't tell if the question was "What's a VCD?" or "Why put VCDs on a list with taxes and government schools?"
It was on the list for humorous juxtaposition.
As libertarians, it's important to note the exact design of our chains. A VCD is a local agency that controls disease vectors (rats, skeeters, etc.). It's one of those classic public goods that people are always beating up libertarians about not supplying in their social non-designs.
Later, in a follow-up post Prof Levy discussed his correspondence on the subject:
[John Derbyshire] may not advocate sodomy laws, but his obsessive denigration of gay folks surely rivals that of the most devoted Leviticus-thumper. But still.
Then along comes a clear reminder that there are people it's simply indecent to even be in a broad-tent coalition with, that even in 2003 the most unreconstructed kind of southern racism is still out there. There are bounds of decency to be observed in every political direction; and everyone who hopes to be effective in politics has to engage in complicated and probably-unsatisfactory balancing acts.
Jacob Levy seems to spend a lot of time criticizing people as homophobic or racist. Is this useful politically? Since neither of those views is inconsistent with libertarianism (in the absence of the initiation of force), wouldn't it make more sense to criticize the views of people who believe in things like government schools, taxation, or even vector control districts? Those ideas are inconsistent with human liberty and more dangerous than racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, ageism, ad infinitum.
And Prof. Levy replies in a nice long juicy Volokh Conspiracy post:
... [F]irst of all, I don't measure my writing against the standard of whether it's useful politically in some general way. (Useful to whom?)
Second of all, I do think that it *matters* for political effectiveness that one draw some boundaries. ...
Third: extended argument about the rights and wrongs of one or another kind of state action require, well, extended argument. ...
The mainstream conservative movement learned this a long time ago; William Buckley knew that conservatism couldn't be effective without drawing clear lines between itself and, say, the John Birch Society. ...
[P]reserving some bit of shared common ground about decent public discourse has some priority. For similar reasons, procedural norms have a priority in politics that they don't have simply morally. Everyone in politics has an obligation to monitor their own side as well as the other side for rulebreakers, violators of procedures, those who pose some threat to the stability of democratic institutions or to the rule of law, and to take action against such rulebreakers-- ...
Read the whole thing it's worth it.
In the course of quoting my original note, Prof. Levy queried my use of the phrase vector control districts [?? JTL].
I can't tell if the question was "What's a VCD?" or "Why put VCDs on a list with taxes and government schools?"
It was on the list for humorous juxtaposition.
As libertarians, it's important to note the exact design of our chains. A VCD is a local agency that controls disease vectors (rats, skeeters, etc.). It's one of those classic public goods that people are always beating up libertarians about not supplying in their social non-designs.
Later, in a follow-up post Prof Levy discussed his correspondence on the subject:
[Jacob Levy, 9:04 AM]
"Vector control districts": Several people have written in to tell me that "vector control districts" are Californian administrative districts that have as their purpose the controlling of disease vectors, i.e. rats, mosquitoes. Some correspondents thought of them as yet another in the endlessly-proliferating number of pesky, slightly-intrusive, slightly-expensive Californian agencies and levels of government. Others thought their services obvious public goods. My original correspondent, the one who had listed them alongside taxes and state schools, writes: "It was on the list for humorous juxtaposition."
Residential Picketing
Eugene Volokh:
Isn't this misleading?
Doesn't Frisby v. Schultz (1989) just permit ordinances that bar "focused picketing" in front of the target's house. As long as picketers march up and down the block they can't be banned completely.
"We reject this suggestion. Our prior holdings make clear that a public street does not lose its status as a traditional public forum simply because it runs through a residential neighborhood. In Carey v. Brown - which considered a statute similar to the one at issue here, ultimately striking it down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it included an exception for labor picketing - we expressly recognized that "public streets and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods," were "public for[a]." 447 U.S., at 460 -461. This rather ready identification virtually forecloses appellants' argument. See also Perry, supra, at 54-55 (noting that the "key" to Carey "was the presence of a public forum")."
But...
"The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech. Thus, the "evil" of targeted residential picketing, "the very presence of an unwelcome visitor at the home," is "created by the medium of expression itself." Accordingly, the Brookfield ordinance's complete ban of that particular medium of expression is narrowly tailored. "
As to your comment:
Counter demos and armed householders are self-help options that are easier for targeted individuals to employ than obtaining protective legislation would be.
Cities are also constitutionally allowed to bar even peaceful residential picketing (the Supreme Court so held in Frisby v. Schultz (1989), which involved anti-abortion protesters), but to my knowledge Los Angeles doesn't have such an ordinance.
Isn't this misleading?
Doesn't Frisby v. Schultz (1989) just permit ordinances that bar "focused picketing" in front of the target's house. As long as picketers march up and down the block they can't be banned completely.
"We reject this suggestion. Our prior holdings make clear that a public street does not lose its status as a traditional public forum simply because it runs through a residential neighborhood. In Carey v. Brown - which considered a statute similar to the one at issue here, ultimately striking it down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it included an exception for labor picketing - we expressly recognized that "public streets and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods," were "public for[a]." 447 U.S., at 460 -461. This rather ready identification virtually forecloses appellants' argument. See also Perry, supra, at 54-55 (noting that the "key" to Carey "was the presence of a public forum")."
But...
"The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech. Thus, the "evil" of targeted residential picketing, "the very presence of an unwelcome visitor at the home," is "created by the medium of expression itself." Accordingly, the Brookfield ordinance's complete ban of that particular medium of expression is narrowly tailored. "
As to your comment:
"To my knowledge Los Angeles doesn't have such an ordinance."
Counter demos and armed householders are self-help options that are easier for targeted individuals to employ than obtaining protective legislation would be.
Friday, May 09, 2003
Modern Sin
KURTZ ON SANTORUM AGAIN
Of course the "doctrine of the liberal democratic state" is also not a sufficient reason for legislation and coercion. Those who object to the imposition of religious doctrine on the heathen have a point. But they lose that point when they choose to impose their legal regime on non-believers (the faithful).
So if you want persons who hold traditional religious views on sin and proper behavior to do their own heavy lifting instead of using the State to do it for them then you can't outlaw traditional methods of religious moral expression. The Church used to be in charge of domestic relations law, blasphemy, Sabbath keeping, etc. There's no reason that the churches couldn't do it again. I think that the takeover of such areas of law by the nation state during its growth phase was very unfortunate.
But if they are to do so you can't outlaw actions by believers designed to discourage sin which don't initiate force. You can't outlaw picketing of abortion clinics. You can't outlaw positive discrimination in favor of the righteous (the Christian Yellow Pages), economic boycotts of heathens or sinners, and a patriarchal family organization.
So out go antidiscrimination laws (which are major human rights violations in any case). Believers must be free to fire heathens or sinners, refuse to hire them, refuse to rent to them, etc. Picketing can't be punished with RICO suits. Churches must be allowed to defend their buildings and communities from attacks by their enemies. Thus communists or other leftists who attack churches must be held as "outlawed" (unprotected by civil law) while they are on church property. Churches and their members must be able to recognize only marriages which meet their standards and discriminate against those not meeting those standards. Since disfellowship will be their major means of moral promotion, churches and their followers must be allowed to discriminate economically against the heathen and they must be able to forcefully exclude the heathen from their religious services and properties. An independent legal regime of sorts. That status for religious properties has a lot of traditional support.
You must also either end Public Education, or at least compulsory education, or allow believers trapped in that unfortunate system to protect their children from the godless atheistic communism of educators. They must be able to exempt their children from sex education, earth-worship, secular ethics, and much of the rest of the curriculum. Unregulated private schooling and home schooling must be explicitly legalized.
The State can't both fail to protect the rights of traditionalists to lead traditional lives and at the same time prevent them from themselves protecting their right to lead traditional lives.
I have no objection to Catholicism identifying sodomy as a sin. I'm not Catholic, and it's a mistake for an outsider to critique religious doctrines on the grounds that they insufficiently resemble the principles of a liberal democratic state. On the other hand, the religious basis for a set of political views provides no immunity against their being criticized by non-believers, and indeed invites a new line of inquiry as to whether the line between the civic and the religious is being maintained in the right place and the right way. It's not bigotry to remind a politician of the truth Eugene's been emphasizing in his Ten Commandment posts-- that it's also a mistake to treat the internal doctrines of one's religion as sufficient reason for legislation and coercion, that it's a mistake to criticize the liberal democratic state for insufficiently resembling one's own church.
Of course the "doctrine of the liberal democratic state" is also not a sufficient reason for legislation and coercion. Those who object to the imposition of religious doctrine on the heathen have a point. But they lose that point when they choose to impose their legal regime on non-believers (the faithful).
So if you want persons who hold traditional religious views on sin and proper behavior to do their own heavy lifting instead of using the State to do it for them then you can't outlaw traditional methods of religious moral expression. The Church used to be in charge of domestic relations law, blasphemy, Sabbath keeping, etc. There's no reason that the churches couldn't do it again. I think that the takeover of such areas of law by the nation state during its growth phase was very unfortunate.
But if they are to do so you can't outlaw actions by believers designed to discourage sin which don't initiate force. You can't outlaw picketing of abortion clinics. You can't outlaw positive discrimination in favor of the righteous (the Christian Yellow Pages), economic boycotts of heathens or sinners, and a patriarchal family organization.
So out go antidiscrimination laws (which are major human rights violations in any case). Believers must be free to fire heathens or sinners, refuse to hire them, refuse to rent to them, etc. Picketing can't be punished with RICO suits. Churches must be allowed to defend their buildings and communities from attacks by their enemies. Thus communists or other leftists who attack churches must be held as "outlawed" (unprotected by civil law) while they are on church property. Churches and their members must be able to recognize only marriages which meet their standards and discriminate against those not meeting those standards. Since disfellowship will be their major means of moral promotion, churches and their followers must be allowed to discriminate economically against the heathen and they must be able to forcefully exclude the heathen from their religious services and properties. An independent legal regime of sorts. That status for religious properties has a lot of traditional support.
You must also either end Public Education, or at least compulsory education, or allow believers trapped in that unfortunate system to protect their children from the godless atheistic communism of educators. They must be able to exempt their children from sex education, earth-worship, secular ethics, and much of the rest of the curriculum. Unregulated private schooling and home schooling must be explicitly legalized.
The State can't both fail to protect the rights of traditionalists to lead traditional lives and at the same time prevent them from themselves protecting their right to lead traditional lives.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Towers' Strength Not Tested for a Fire, Inquiry Suggests
Towers' Strength Not Tested for a Fire, Inquiry Suggests
The article spends a little time discussing whether or not full scale fire resistance tests were performed on some of the design elements. The answer to this question is "no one knows". They do mention in passing the question of whether the lack of testing contributed to the collapse.
Completely undiscussed are questions like:
- Were full-scale fire tests of building designs standard engineering practice in the 1960s when the WTC was designed?
- Are full-scale fire tests of building designs (not computer simulations) standard engineering practice today?
- If no full-scale tests were done, does that mean that the Towers did not meet NYC fire codes in effect at the time?
- If no full-scale tests were done, does that mean that the Towers' design was dangerous?
- Should the tests have been performed with the originally-specified asbestos insulation in place, with the substitute insulation used on 100% of Tower 2 and 60% of Tower 1, or with modern insulation?
- Can we borrow the Empire State Building to crash a fully-fueled 767 into it to see how a traditionally-designed skyscraper survives the experience?
Federal investigators studying the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, say they now believe that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government agency that built the towers, never performed the fundamental tests needed to determine how their innovative structures would perform in a fire.
The preliminary finding, if it holds up, will undermine decades of public assurances by the Port Authority that the twin towers met or exceeded the requirements of New York City's building code, and therefore would be structurally safe in a large fire. The codes are based on tests of each building component in furnaces that subject the structures, and the fireproofing insulation that protects them, to the harsh conditions of a major fire.
"At this point, we don't know why the tests were not done," said Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the eight-month-old investigation at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. But Dr. Sunder added, "To the best of our knowledge, they were not done."
The article spends a little time discussing whether or not full scale fire resistance tests were performed on some of the design elements. The answer to this question is "no one knows". They do mention in passing the question of whether the lack of testing contributed to the collapse.
Completely undiscussed are questions like:
- Were full-scale fire tests of building designs standard engineering practice in the 1960s when the WTC was designed?
- Are full-scale fire tests of building designs (not computer simulations) standard engineering practice today?
- If no full-scale tests were done, does that mean that the Towers did not meet NYC fire codes in effect at the time?
- If no full-scale tests were done, does that mean that the Towers' design was dangerous?
- Should the tests have been performed with the originally-specified asbestos insulation in place, with the substitute insulation used on 100% of Tower 2 and 60% of Tower 1, or with modern insulation?
- Can we borrow the Empire State Building to crash a fully-fueled 767 into it to see how a traditionally-designed skyscraper survives the experience?
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Priority of Taboo Maintenance
Yet More on Gay Marriage
Jacob Levy on Stanley Kurtz of NRO fame:
Traditional sex regulation is not absurd on its face. It was a broad based regulatory scheme that sought to control sexual behavior and channel it into heterosexual child-focussed marriage. Thus fornication, adultery, sodomy, and bigamy were outlawed as was prostitution. Because the authorities recognized that such behaviors were tough to control through the operation of the criminal law because of proof problems, they also banned lewd cohabitation (living in sin) and lascivious carriage (being in a compromising physical position with another) since these were easier to prove.
Now we as moderns may reject their desire to promote marriage and mixed-gender, monogamous-couple, child rearing but it's disingenuous to claim shock at the tradition. It's been around for a long time. Moreover, I can name hundreds (thousands) of modern regulatory inventions that are absurd on their face and represent significant violations of our traditional liberties: smoking bans, stock parking bans, outlawing discrimination against transvestites, requirements that home builders install wide bedroom doors, bans on private ownership of Kevlar vests ad infinitum.
Jacob Levy on Stanley Kurtz of NRO fame:
His [Stanley Kurtz's] panic at the thought of legalized gay marriage has always struck me as absurd. ... It's wrong; and it doesn't even try to make a case for the priority of taboo-maintenance over the moral concerns on the other side.
Traditional sex regulation is not absurd on its face. It was a broad based regulatory scheme that sought to control sexual behavior and channel it into heterosexual child-focussed marriage. Thus fornication, adultery, sodomy, and bigamy were outlawed as was prostitution. Because the authorities recognized that such behaviors were tough to control through the operation of the criminal law because of proof problems, they also banned lewd cohabitation (living in sin) and lascivious carriage (being in a compromising physical position with another) since these were easier to prove.
Now we as moderns may reject their desire to promote marriage and mixed-gender, monogamous-couple, child rearing but it's disingenuous to claim shock at the tradition. It's been around for a long time. Moreover, I can name hundreds (thousands) of modern regulatory inventions that are absurd on their face and represent significant violations of our traditional liberties: smoking bans, stock parking bans, outlawing discrimination against transvestites, requirements that home builders install wide bedroom doors, bans on private ownership of Kevlar vests ad infinitum.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Surely this statement by Orin Kerr can't be true:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap numbers are reported annually. Here's the latest one covering 2001. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has a complete set of reports on this page.
Now, wiretaps of communications outside the US aren't under FISA but those conducted in the US are supposed to be.
The 2002 Wiretap Report is now out ... . Keep in mind that the report covers only wiretapping performed in criminal cases, and does not include wiretapping in national security cases. Those numbers are classified.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap numbers are reported annually. Here's the latest one covering 2001. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has a complete set of reports on this page.
Now, wiretaps of communications outside the US aren't under FISA but those conducted in the US are supposed to be.
The Pro Market Party vs the Pro Sodomy Party
Casting the Dems as pro privacy, pro protection of intimate relations, and pro sanctity of the home is disingenuous. Any party that claims the right to design your toilets and the width of your bedroom door for you [and imprison you for disobedience] can hardly gain absolution from charges of tyranny by permitting you some forms of sexual intercourse.
Consider a list of things the Democrat Party won't let you do "in the privacy of your own home.":
* Install high-water-volume flush toilets.
* Install narrow residential doors (must be wide enough for crips in chairs).
* Eliminate smoke/CO2 detectors.
* Hire/fire/teach/trade/earn/profess (with other consenting adults) as you please.
* Possess firearms (in many cases).
* Worship with others (zoning).
* Keep your own money and keep your own financial affairs secret.
In fact, the whole panoply of state regulation and taxation extends into the home. If the Feds can design and mandate your toilets, that is certainly "government regulation of an intimate association".
But what about the Democrat Party and issues of sexual behavior. I see little evidence that their position is preferable to the Republican position -- and it's arguably worse. Republicans consist of religious conservatives, BoBos (bourgeois bohemians), and libertarians. Those groups differ in specifics but not even all religious conservatives believe that intimate relations should be controlled by the criminal law. On the other hand, the Democrat Party is pretty monolithic in believing that certain forms of intimate sexual relations should be controlled by government.
Sodomy yes -- Modesty no!
There are many forms of intimate sexual (or gender) behavior that the Dems seek to suppress. Here are a few:
* Patriarchy (note that Patriarchy is a form of gender preference that should logically be protected if other sexual and gender preferences are).
* Modesty
* Sexual Restraint
* Innocence
If you seek to pursue traditional intimate relationships, the Dems will try anything to stop you including criminal punishment. Teachers will attempt to destroy the innocence of your children (if you send them to government schools). The various "Children's Services Divisions" in the states will invade your home and arrest you if you deviate from modern approved child-rearing techniques. (I've often wondered why those who are criticized for spanking or other forms of domestic discipline don't defend themselves by referring to it as Bondage & Discipline.) The law will prevent you from controlling or even knowing about the medical treatment of your children. Massive taxation combined with massive wealth transfers will destroy the ability of a husband to support a wife and children and have the effect of replacing patriarchy with state tyranny.
As between someone who believes that all non-heterosexual-marital sexual activity ought to be criminalized and someone who does not believe that, there's a difference in kind, one I have trouble commensurating with the tax difference [between Republicans & Democrats].
Casting the Dems as pro privacy, pro protection of intimate relations, and pro sanctity of the home is disingenuous. Any party that claims the right to design your toilets and the width of your bedroom door for you [and imprison you for disobedience] can hardly gain absolution from charges of tyranny by permitting you some forms of sexual intercourse.
Consider a list of things the Democrat Party won't let you do "in the privacy of your own home.":
* Install high-water-volume flush toilets.
* Install narrow residential doors (must be wide enough for crips in chairs).
* Eliminate smoke/CO2 detectors.
* Hire/fire/teach/trade/earn/profess (with other consenting adults) as you please.
* Possess firearms (in many cases).
* Worship with others (zoning).
* Keep your own money and keep your own financial affairs secret.
In fact, the whole panoply of state regulation and taxation extends into the home. If the Feds can design and mandate your toilets, that is certainly "government regulation of an intimate association".
But what about the Democrat Party and issues of sexual behavior. I see little evidence that their position is preferable to the Republican position -- and it's arguably worse. Republicans consist of religious conservatives, BoBos (bourgeois bohemians), and libertarians. Those groups differ in specifics but not even all religious conservatives believe that intimate relations should be controlled by the criminal law. On the other hand, the Democrat Party is pretty monolithic in believing that certain forms of intimate sexual relations should be controlled by government.
Sodomy yes -- Modesty no!
There are many forms of intimate sexual (or gender) behavior that the Dems seek to suppress. Here are a few:
* Patriarchy (note that Patriarchy is a form of gender preference that should logically be protected if other sexual and gender preferences are).
* Modesty
* Sexual Restraint
* Innocence
If you seek to pursue traditional intimate relationships, the Dems will try anything to stop you including criminal punishment. Teachers will attempt to destroy the innocence of your children (if you send them to government schools). The various "Children's Services Divisions" in the states will invade your home and arrest you if you deviate from modern approved child-rearing techniques. (I've often wondered why those who are criticized for spanking or other forms of domestic discipline don't defend themselves by referring to it as Bondage & Discipline.) The law will prevent you from controlling or even knowing about the medical treatment of your children. Massive taxation combined with massive wealth transfers will destroy the ability of a husband to support a wife and children and have the effect of replacing patriarchy with state tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)