Religious Objections to Drivers License Photos

Now these exemptions may be bad ideas, especially given the terrorist threats we now face. My tentative view would be to oppose them. But the practices of some of these states might suggest that the Florida woman's religious exemption claim isn't as silly as it might at first appear -- especially given that the Florida legislature, in enacting its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has generally spoken out in favor of religious exemptions.

We got through the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and half the Cold War without any photo ID at all. We can probably survive the WOT.

Note that most photo objectors in the US are Christian rather than Muslim and Muslims (and anyone else) can drive in the US "temporarily" with drivers licenses from foreign countries which may not have any photo or may not have a useful photo.

SECULARIZING PRESSURE

Prof. Volokh discussing private and religious schools:

"Private schools may already be regulated in considerable measure by the government -- lower courts have generally rejected constitutional objections to their regulation, whether or not they get government funding."

Though many religious schools dodge regulation in practice by keeping a low profile and meeting in churches. Regulation of home schools is almost entirely voluntary because of the constitutional challenges involved in regulating in-home interactions among parents and children.

Unless a school markets itself to the general public or seeks some kind of certification, it will be hard to regulate because learning is merely an aspect of religious practice on the one hand and protected 1st amendment reading, writing, and speaking on the other.

The Attack Queers: Liberal Society and the Gay Right by Richard Goldstein

Interviewed by Brian Lehrer on WNYC on Tuesday 25 June. [Episodes can only be listened to for two weeks.]

"All the hot gay writers in the mainstream media are conservative." [Commie women, blacks, and Hispanics in the mainstream media but no commie gays.]

"We grew out of socialism."

In fact, Andrew Sullivan, Norah Vincent, et. al. can more properly be labeled libertarian. Also the usual blather about their success being attributed to being "acceptable" to the mainstream. Though no one hired Andrew to run his blog. He just started writing it (and has lost work because of it). He's not a mainstream writer. If socialist gay bloggers aren't as successful perhaps it's more attributable to socialism than gayness.

Isn't Rosie a successful mainstream gay writer?

On The Pledge...

I'm glad that the 9th Circuit decided that youthful atheists are too delicate to be exposed to the words "under God."

I've got a long list of things that me and my children are too delicate to be exposed to.

Left Wing Tactical Difficulties in the US

I've noted a particular tactical problem that Lefties in the US face that they have not generally faced in other countries.

I was reminded of this difficulty by an exchange which occurred on Wednesday night's The Buzz on WABC radio in NYC. Hosts Malzberg and Bey were arguing about The Pledge case when Bey attempted to pull a switch on right-wing "love it or leave it" rhetoric by suggesting that conservatives who can't accept separation of church and state should be shipped out . Malzberg said, "go ahead and try." [Quotes approximate from memory.]

I feel confident that Malzberg was commenting on the tactical problem faced by liberals who attempt to oppress conservatives in America -- the balance of arms.

The fact is that conservatives (and libertarians) are much more heavily armed than lefties (and even more heavily armed than left-wing radical groups) in the US. Though half the homes in America have firearms, 10% of the population owns over half of America's privately-owned firearms. And what do you suppose the ideology off that 10% is?

Anti-Semitism on Campus

Do you know that it has become a common stunt on campus to set up “checkpoints,” in imitation of Israeli checkpoints? (To be sure, no one is trying to get through with explosives — that would be realistic.) Michael Granoff, a lay official of the Hillel Foundation, says, “Can you imagine if Jewish students attempted to imitate what Palestinians do?”

Easy to do. Just approach the checkpoints with firecrackers and set them off. Certainly an attention getting activity. If concerned about using explosives during the War, substitute water balloons.

Supremes OK drug tests on those participating in extracurricular activities at school.

No big deal.

Anyone who entrusts their children's minds to government teachers has already decided that they don't value those children very much. Minor 4th Amendment losses are the least of their problems.

Supremes decide that mentally retarded are dangerous but that you can't execute them

Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others' reactions. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability.

I'm not sure that this is such a good argument on the part of the court. This implies that the mentally retarded are more dangerous to society than normal people. If so, they could be subject to incarceration under "danger to self or others" principles.

It would be better to "mainstream" the retarded by treating them like any other public school graduate. Make allowances for their limitations but allow them the honor of being treated as moral actors. If the State is into execution, then they should be allowed to participate fully in the process.

Instapundit suggests George is ready to pull the trigger.

Also, if you believe (as many bloggers do) that the Administration was using the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation as a distraction tool while the military buildup took place, this probably means that the buildup is more or less over and that more serious action is imminent.

Fire up Alex Garza's Moon on the old Handspring (a phases of the moon calculator). Note that the dark of the moon in August is the night of Thursday the 8th. In September the night of Friday the 6th. Hmmm.

So some time ago I answered the question Why do Libertarians Dominate Blogdom?

Wherein I used a G.K. Chesterton quote to illustrate why the ideologically organized can produce arguments on the fly -- an obvious survival skill in blogdom.

Here's a demonstration from my personal life. My wife and I are listening to Tuesday's Morning Edition on NPR when up pops a story on a Rock Fish ban on the Left Coast. Apparently Rock Fish stocks are down so 20% of Left Coast fisherfolk will have to shut down. So my wife asks, "How can we handle problems like that?"

Because of my reading and experience, I was able to reply with no perceptible pause, "Government fisheries management has been tried for 60 to 100 years and the stocks continue to decline so it is a demonstrable failure. Protecting fish stocks requires the development of property rights in fish populations or in aquaculture areas (whichever approach works best with different species). Currently, fishermen can only profit by harvesting fish. Property rights will give someone ownership of the capital value of fish stocks which is the best way to encourage their appropriate cultivation."

Now you may well disagree with my remarks but the point is that I was able to generate thoughts and arguments on point in an instant.

Just the capability one needs for blogging.

Now as to why libertarians rather than, say, communists dominate blogging? Later.

Good News About the Geneva Convention

Many have argued that the US Government is bound by the Geneva Convention in fighting the War On Terror (WOT). And they may well be right.

The good news is that you are not. Civilians defending their homes against attack are neither protected by nor subject to the Geneva Convention since they are not signatories and not part of any sort of an armed force.

This means that if some Al Quida member (in or out of uniform) attacks you, or if you just happen to encounter one on the street, you can kill them without having any Geneva Convention problems. You need neither accept surrenders nor take prisoners. You can still be subject to war crimes prosecution and ordinary criminal law but your potential liabilities are somewhat reduced by the elimination of Geneva Convention problems.

If you happen to be a US citizen in the US, the government probably won't extradite you for War Crimes prosecution and US juries are unlikely to convict you of anything for capping an Islamic terrorist (just make sure you've got a real one before pulling the trigger).

Also those unfortunate restrictions like no Dum-Dum ammo don't apply either. So go to town.

Regulatory Searches of Private Land

NPR's All Things Considered had a story about Florida's invasion of homeowner's backyards to kill citrus trees for citrus canker. Hear an 84-year-old woman describe her attempt to defend her 4th Amendment rights against peace officers and tree killers in Florida. A judge later ruled that warrants (or permission) were required to go on to people's land.

It's important to note that courts have generally upheld warrantless regulatory searches of businesses but have been reluctant to do so in the case of homes. Good argument in favor of home-based businesses.

NPR's Phillip Davis reports that Florida's battle to eradicate citrus canker has caught home owners in the middle. State officials have been destroying blighted trees on residential property without permission. Healthy trees within a certain radius have also been destroyed. A Florida judge ruled this was unconstitutional and that officials needed to have permission before entering private property. Citrus canker is a threat to the state's $2.3 billion citrus industry. (4:00)

Protecting Liberty in a Permanent War

A complaint about US citizen POWs from CATO

Note however that there is quite a bit of precedent for holding US citizens as POWs. Lincoln held about 215,000 US citizen POWs (who were wearing gray at the time). In an undeclared war no less.

Also as to duration, we had no idea how long the Cold War would last either -- Harry Elmer Barnes "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" -- and I recall that in 1984, I didn't think that it would end 5 years later. There was also the fear that we wouldn't know when the Cold War ended. In the end, we did. I also recall the Malaysian Insurgency which lasted from 1948 or so until the '90s when the last communist unit got too old and retired.

It can take a while.

The Napoleonic wars lasted around 26 years from '89 to '15.

At this point in WWII, FDR had interned more than 200,000 US citizens and enemy aliens (out of a much smaller population). The max that the US is holding right now is 2K. Not too many yet.

Saw two previews at the local Cineplex over the weekend. Both for slacker films: Blue Crush (a Surf Chick Flick) and 8 Mile (Eminem's debut as Detroit trailer trash living near 8 Mile Road).

The peculiarity of these films is that the making of them contradicts their subjects. The making a modern theatrical release takes the focussed effort of thousands of people over several years. If the film makers emulated their subjects, the film would never be made. So the existence of the film proves that the subjects of the film (in these cases) are pathetic losers who have nothing but themselves to blame.

The Neocons and the Nazis

Why is this easier to see than the same conundrum on the international stage? When a nation starts a war to effect a "regime change," it is engaging in murder on a massive scale. The morality, if anything, can only be worse than killing one's neighbor to prevent an alleged crime-to-be.

Am I afraid of people who mean the U.S. harm? Sure I am. Am I happy about living in a state of fear? Of course not. Do I therefore support blasting at every scary looking person in the world who gives Americans the evil eye? No. That policy is not only immoral, it will achieve the exact opposite of greater security for our children. Either reason on its own is enough for any sane person to reject such a course of action.

Though of course one could overcome libertarian objections by a few simple steps.

1)Privatize the 82nd Airborne.
2)Find an Iraqi property owner to invite the 82nd Airborne onto his land. Or find some unowned (government owned) land in Iraq and homestead it with the 82nd Airborne.
3)Wait for the government of Iraq to "initiate the illegitimate use of force".
4)Blow 'em away.

All perfectly legal in libertarian terms.

BTW, in Afghanistan we were invited in by (one of) the government(s) of the country -- the Northern Alliance. Maybe someone in Northern Alliance territory even invited us in in his private capacity.

The Revolution Will Be All Business, by John T Kennedy -- anti-state.com

I don't know why most of our "target demographic" don't see the obvious truth of your remarks. I've always said that rich, technologically equipped individuals are very hard to push around. Since liberty is merely people making their own choices and money plus electronics gives everyone greatly enhanced powers of choice, liberty is achieved outside of politics (which is the only way it can realistically be achieved).

Those with power are not going to give it up because someone convinces them that it is the right thing to do. Indeed, most significant historical changes were not planned.

See below:

http://technoptimist.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_technoptimist_archive.html#77995115

Thanks to New Zealand's Peter Gutmann for the pointer:

Why identity is useless as a predictor of future behavior.

"When a highway patrolman is sent to his duty, he has to be given the authority to cite traffic violators. This cannot be done explicitly for each violator because at the time that the patrolman is sent to his duty, the traffic violator does not exist, and the identity of the future violators is not known, so that it is impossible to construct individual access rights for the violators at that time. The point is that the patrolman's authority has to do with the behaviour of motorists, not their identity.

- Naftaly Minsky, "An Operation-Control Scheme for Authorisation in Computer Systems", International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Vol.2, No.2, June 1978, p.157.

Notice the case of the Palistinian suicide bombers. As soon as they blow themselves up, Israel IDs them, reports the name of the town they are from, and invades it. This doesn't prevent the bombing because the bombers have no characteristics that distinguish them from non-bombers in the same area.

Trads vs. NeoTrads -- The Differences

Most of today's traditionalists are, in fact, neotraditionalists. They differ in significant ways from the trads of past ages. Here are some of the differences:

Age of marriage - Trads <18, Neotrads >25


[More coming. I'm slow.]

Note to those trying to control events:

The replacement of feudal principalities and city-states by the nation state was not planned. It happened because of the introduction of gunpowder.

The Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution were not planned. They happened because of the printing press.

The mass migrations of the last 30 years were not planned. They happened because of the invention of jet-powered civil aviation.

The recent end of censorship was not planned. It happened because of the reduction in the cost of communications.

PROSECUTION FOR POSTING A STORY ON THE WEB

The same thing happened exactly a year ago in Chappaqua, NY:

"WHITE PLAINS, June 4 — Two male high school students in Chappaqua have been charged with harassment for posting a Web site that listed the names, phone numbers and alleged sexual exploits of dozens of their female classmates, law enforcement officials said today.

The two students were arrested on May 30 after Chappaqua school district officials learned of the Web site and notified the New Castle Police Department. Police officials said they would not release the names of the two students because it was department policy in cases involving youths."

*********

But the DA declined to prosecute for the absence of the "communication" element of harassment.

"Pirro said there was no crime because none of the girls were sent any of the Web pages, and the password meant the males kept the information among themselves."

*********

I'm not sure that the password restriction is relevent particularly since someone outside the group must have seen the pages and reported
them.

Ah for the good old days of Common Law when the tort of infliction of emotional distress required demonstration of physical damage or illness on the part of the victim.

Should Corporations Have Rights?

Great post from Eugene Volokh which raises so many tangential thoughts.

1. Rights of aliens. In the current war, we hear many people say, "aliens have no rights in the US". Which means I suppose that it's open season on them. If they have no rights, then any citizen is free to shoot them down at any time. Rough for the international tourist trade. If the speaker then admits that they have some rights, we are just arguing over how extensive those might be.

2. Non-corporate business forms. A few years ago in SF an apartment building subject to rent control with protected tenants and 24 apartments was bought by 24 buyers as tenants in common. The buyers occupied all 24 apartments and kicked the tenants out. The effect of rent control on property law.

In the case of corporations, lefties have long said that a limited liability corporation is a special creation of the state and thus should be under its control. But modern financial cryptography "using bearer settlement, anonymous voting, secret sharing, and so forth, [allows us to] create limited-liability business entities in software" (Robert Hettinga) and thus dodge this particular form of state control.

Strange but true:

Most Arab residents of the US are not Muslims.

Most Muslim residents of the US are not Arabs.

Have you ever been conscious of a tendancy to avoid certain words because "such things are simply not said these days"? Are you worried that you might have become accidently Politically Correct? There's hope.

Here's how to avoid the dangers of self-censorship in the modern era. Memorize the following list of highly controversial words and work them into your blog or conversation whenever appropriate. (Use an (old) dictionary to look up any that you don't understand.)

he & his (When used to speak of collective persons -- the male includes the female)
little lady
m'am
sodomy
sodomite
lascivious carriage
commie
bastard (When speaking of Madonna's first child, etc.)
leftie
pinko
fornication
traitor
lewd cohabitation
shacking up
nuke 'em
God (with a capital D and an o in the middle)

[Bookmark this post. I'll be adding more as they occur to me.]

Dog Bites Lesbian
In considering the dismissal of murder charges against Marjorie Knoller in the dog-bite death of Diane Whipple you have to keep in mind the concept of Depraved Indifference.

As some of us learned in law school, Common Law murder was, "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice." Malice was defined as, "Intent to kill, intent to do grievious bodily harm, intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony (the Felony Murder rule), or depraved indifference to human life."

The latter concept was usually illustrated by some miscreant shooting into the carriages of a passing train. The actor did not intend to kill but showed what the law chose to call "depraved indifference to human life."

So the question in this case is whether or not -- as a matter of law (since the judge took the final decision away from the jury)-- posession and control of a dangerous dog rises to the level of "shooting into a crowd." Even though fatal dog attacks are rare. And fatal dog attacks involving white supremicist prison gangs, bestiality, dogs named Bane and Hera, and Pacific Heights are even rarer.

DOG BITES BOX OFFICE

Astonishing box-office analysts, the mostly live-action theatrical version of Scooby-Doo took in an estimated $56.4 million to become the biggest attraction at the nation's movie theaters over the weekend, earning more than twice the amount of the No. 2 film, The Bourne Identity, starring Matt Damon, which bagged $27.5 million. Windtalkers, starring Nicolas Cage, was in third place with a disappointing $14.5 million. (The MGM film reportedly cost more than $100 million to produce.) All three films debuted on Friday. The Sum of All Fears, which had held the top spot over the previous two weekends, slipped to fourth place with $13.5 million, to bring its 17-day total to $84.5 million. The success of Scooby-Doo -- it was the biggest June opening in history -- was particularly surprising given the generally poor reviews the film received on Friday and the high failure rate of similar projects that have attempted to convert classic saturday-morning cartoons into live-action features. In reporting on the film's achievement, today's (Monday) Wall Street Journal commented: "Rival studio executives have been snickering for months about the box office prospects for the Warner Bros. movie Scooby-Doo, saying that a film with a B-level cast and based on a cornball 1970s cartoon character stood no chance in a summer of big-budget blockbusters. They aren't laughing now."

Proof (if proof were needed) that representative democracy is an inadequate system of social organization and should (quickly) be replaced with something else.

Dumb Volvo radio ad on WABC this morning.

Theme was "What would you do different if you travelled back in time (in your life). Illustrated by announcer's voice retrograding from maturity to infancy. Various car-related possibilities listed. One being something along the lines of "buy a Next Generation Volvo". This is in keeping with their current ad tag line.

One major problem. If you travel into the past, you can't possibly buy a Next Generation Volvo.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
=========================
"All the great media adventures of the 20th century have been visual. Television, movies, the Internet, they're all visual mediums and I don't think people have time to sit down and read."
-ED NEEDHAM, the new managing editor of Rolling Stone magazine.

Spoken like someone who's never spent all that much time on the Net.

Antiquities Dealer Is Sentenced to Prison

In a case that has been closely watched by the art world, a prominent Manhattan antiquities dealer was sentenced yesterday to 33 months in federal prison and fined $50,000 for his role in a conspiracy to sell antiquities stolen from Egypt.
...
In a stern statement, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan rejected the defense's arguments that Mr. Schultz was unaware of the legal risks and called him "an ordinary thief in every conventional sense of that word."

Yet another example of the modern tendancy to expand the definition of theft to cover a host of bureucratic offenses. Theft was called larceny
at Common Law.

Bouvier's (the Net's favorite legal dictionary) defines larceny as: The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by one person, of the mere personal goods, of another, from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to his, the taker's use, and make them his property, without the consent of the owner.

Well those who violate the antiquities laws of Egypt are not taking the personal property of another. These are administrative regulations which say no matter who owns an antiquity, they can't remove it from Egypt. No common law crime. A mere administrative violation. No moral turpitude attaches. You can't go to Hell. No 7th Commandment violation. No ordinary thief.

In an undeclared war, the US government imprisons a US citizen without trial "for the duration". Illegal? Probably not. Unprecedented? No.

The Union Army in the (undeclared) American Civil War imprisoned some 215,000 Confederate POWs "for the duration". Those prisoners were legally US citizens (that being the whole point of the war).

The Confederacy imprisoned some 193,000 Union POWs who were considered non-citizens of that nation.

So there is certainly loads of precedent for the practice.

[Thanks to the comment by a guy named Bruce (bpbatista@vssp.com) to the most recent Instapundit.com post on the detention of Al Muhajir for this thought]

DCF

Tyco CEO Resigns Amid Criticism

So New York State expects to try the CEO of Tyco for a sales tax violation.

How can they find a prosecutor, judge, or jury to try this case when every single person who is supposed to do those jobs has dodged New York State Use Taxes (the companion tax to the sales tax) and almost no one has ever filed a use tax form?

Is it just to prosecute someone for a crime that everyone in the state commits frequently and does not even consider a crime?

I'm not generally friendly with the FBI but I can't help but note how bad its PR work has been recently.

Those who do support the Bureau have been neglecting their best arguments.

"Why didn't the FBI catch the terrorists before September 11th?"

1) You can't catch terrorists without spying on them.

2) You can't spy on terrorists in America without spying on Americans

3) The FBI used to proudly spy on Americans but then left-wing politicos ordered us to stop.

4) Left-wing politicos now complain that we haven't been spying on Americans enough. They should have let us continue to spy on Americans like we used to.

5) Maybe we should investigate them for giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America. [Just kidding]

Don't Nuke Mecca

As tempting as it might seem to nuke Mecca if a weapon of mass destruction is used in the US by Islamic radicals, there are disadvantages.

Nukes are controversial as is the "terror bombing" of civilian populations. Bad publicity. Lots of innocent people get killed.

Try a spiritual response to a spiritual attack, instead.

Here's a better suggestion -- build a cathedral in Mecca.

You have to understand that it's a major no-no for infidels to even visit Mecca. Only the faithful who have submitted [Islam means submission] themselves to God can enter the holy cities of Al Madinah and Mecca. Islamics are free to build a mosque in Rome but Christians, Hindus, Buddists, etc. aren't free to visit Mecca.

Several precendents would allow us to invade Saudi Arabia, confiscate a small chunk of suburban desert outside Mecca and build a a fortress/cathedral there. First there's the left-wing precedent of the war in Kosovo in which Europeans established a new principle of international law which says that we can invade any country oppressing its citizens. SA is certainly oppressing its citizens. Quite a barbaric legal code and loads of religious oppression. The right-wing precendent is that the US can invade any country that's keeping us from freely doing business with them. [The Marines did it an avarage of more than once a year from 1802 to 1940.] The libertarian precedent is that most Saudi territory is unowned (government) land and anyone (say, the 82nd Airborne) is free to homestead it.

The benefit of this construction is that we can build it without harming any innocent people and all the world's Islamic radicals would be compelled to leave the rest of us alone while they attacked it. Their faith would hardly allow them to bother with building demolition in New York as long as the holiest sites of Islam were being profaned by the (hourly) celebration of the Eucharist. And nothing we could do (including torture and execution) would upset Osama bin Laden more. They would be irresistably drawn into a carefully prepared killing ground and eliminated.

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, the church would have to be Catholic (English, Greek, or Roman). Those denomination's sacerdotal magic (featuring the actual presence of Christ) is much stronger than that of other Christian groups. Shouting Baptists just don't make it for this application.

So then our only remaining question is whether the cathedral should look like this or like this.

Can it ever be moral for a group to do that which is immoral for a member of the group to do?
--RAH

THE FDA MEETS THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Even more problematical than regulatory agencies crackdowns on advertizing are the many past cases of regulatory agencies cracking down on substantive writing and religious practice.

Specifically:

FDA burns the books of the Orgone Press claiming they were illegal labelling for Wilhelm Reich's banned Orgone Accumulator.

FDA bans Church of Scientolgy E-meters.

SEC demands that financial newsletters obtain a government license to publish.

CPSC bans a book (in 1984).

CFTC demands that commodity newsletters obtain a government license to publish.

Buffalo News - State considers strict law to track foreign students

ALBANY - State lawmakers are considering requiring New York colleges and universities to quickly report to police the names of foreign students who enroll to qualify for student visas but then fail to show up for class.

Other states have proposed similar requirements, but the New York bill, still at the committee stage, is believed to be the strictest, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

I trust that it's not the showing up for class that will be tracked but rather the students' academdic standing. I knew lots of people who rarely went to class and passed their courses (including me).

Is Emerson Dicta?

Yet another free law school lecture from Eugene Volokh. If you read these daily, you'll gain a free legal education.

See also:

Abortion Cams

Somebody should collect all of these. I'm waiting for the one on the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Why do Libertarians dominate Blogdom?

Easy. Because not all media are created equal.

As G. K. Chesterton says in Heretics:

The truth is, that it is quite an error to suppose that absence of definite convictions gives the mind freedom and agility. A man who believes something is ready and witty, because he has all his weapons about him. he can apply his test in an instant. The man engaged in conflict with a man like Mr. Bernard Shaw may fancy he has ten faces; similarly a man engaged against a brilliant duelist may fancy that the sword of his foe has turned to ten swords in his hand. But this is not really because the man is playing with ten swords, it is because he is aiming very straight with one. Moreover, a man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope. Millions of mild black-coated men call themselves sane and sensible merely because they always catch the fashionable insanity, because they are hurried into madness after madness by the maelstrom of the world.

So we've got prepared answers to lots of stuff and can therefore handle the posting loads imposed by Blogging. In a column of a number of years ago on the Libertarian Party, George Will thought it unusual that the LP had a plank on the Moon Treaty (surprise, surprise, they were against it).

Then there's the fact that we are People of the book. Blogging is a writing exercise and in order to be a good writer you have to read a lot.

Nelson's battle plan is revealed on scrap of paper

Vanessa Thorpe, Arts and Media Correspondent
Sunday May 26, 2002
The Observer

It may look like a random doodle, but a rough drawing found almost by chance on the back of a scrap of yellowing paper has proved to be our closest contact yet with the mind of Britain's greatest naval hero.

When Admiral Horatio Nelson defeated the French at Trafalgar in 1805, he changed the course of history. Today, following an extraordinary research coup for the historian Colin White, Nelson's lost battle plan is to go on display for the first time in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich.

News of the discovery of the only hand-drawn tactical map of Trafalgar broke this weekend and has excited historians all over Britain.

Here's the real article from the Journal For Maritime Research:

Nelson’s 1805 Battle Plan

and, thanks to the power of deep linking, here's the plan itself.

Here is a detail.

WHY DON'T MORE FATHERS WANT THEIR DAUGHTERS TO BE LESBIANS?

Compared to that, lesbian sex seems much less repulsive, much less of an indignity ... pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases .. less likely to transmit STDs ...In terms of raw physical risk, you've got to prefer the girl.
...
Finally, I'll stress again that this question is in part facetious: I'm pretty sure fathers don't actually devoutly wish for their daughters to be lesbians, and I'm asking this mostly because it's amusing and a bit absurdist to wonder why it isn't this way. But it does have a serious component: Given fathers' notorious sexual protectiveness of their daughters, why don't we see more of the attitude I describe?

I guess that a Freudian could suggest a good motive.

Or a sociobiologist could point out that even though homosexuals can reproduce, a daughter's hetrosexuality maximises the chance that a father's genetic heritage will be passed on to grandchildren. Hetrosexual couples have a higher birthrate than homosexual couples and the female in a hetrosexual couple produces 100% of the couple's natural children. The odds of being the mother are lower if there are two women.

But seriously folks. The main reason is that a majority of (American) people don't think homosexuality is morally right 55% to 38% in the latest Gallup Poll. And I bet that a fair chunk of those 38% who are too chicken to use the term "morally wrong" don't think that homosexuality is a good idea.

Man out of jail after 4 1/2 years on civil contempt

BEAUMONT -- Odis Briggs hugged his attorneys after a Beaumont federal magistrate ordered his release Thursday on $50,000 bond from Liberty County Jail, where he had been held for four years and eight months for contempt of court.

"It's a joy to be released," said Briggs, 63, after making bail. "I'm going first to the altar and pray and then visit my wife's grave."

State District Judge Zeke Zbranek had refused to release Briggs to visit his ailing wife or attend her funeral after she died March 29, 1999.

Zbranek said Briggs "held the keys" to his freedom -- and state appellate courts agreed -- if he would turn over financial records to show what happened to the $120,000 he admits swindling from 18 black families in Chambers County.

Advice to those imprisoned for civil contempt:

They aren't supposed to keep you if you establish that you can't be coerced. So prove it.

Write daily letters to the judge holding you in prison expressing in the strongest possible language that you will never in a million years do what he says.

Include lengthy discussions of whatever personal, political, or religious philosophy motivates you to establish the depth of your convictions. On every letter note how many days you've been imprisoned and how many letters and petitions you've sent.

Attach copies of every one of those letters to Habeus Corpus petitions mailed daily to various state and federal courts around the country.

You've got nothing better to do, have you?

From a Slate piece on the abortion wanted poster decision:

"At issue were a series of Wild West "wanted" posters (a tiny replica can be seen here) and a Web site called the Nuremburg Files. Created in 1995 by anti-abortion activists, the posters featured images of abortion providers, their names and addresses, plus a "reward" of $500 for each doctor who was "persuaded" to stop performing abortions."

So I expect to see Osama wheel on in to federal court to sue George for making a threat against him "wanted dead or alive".

More and Yet More on Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens

A list of articles from northern New Jersey's Record newspaper about aliens, the DMV, and drivers licenses.

Almost no mention of the fact that aliens can drive anywhere in the US using drivers licenses issued by their home countries.

No mention of the fact that drivers licenses were not intended to be a general social control measure but just a safe driving measure.

I've read lots of genuine right wing nuts who used to be opposed to drivers licenses on religious or constitutional grounds complaining about drivers licenses for illegal ailiens. Inconsistant?

If animals are granted rights by humans, will humans have the same rights?

That is, if:

Animals should primarily be given the legal right to demonstrate their natural behavior (dependent on their natural disposition) even if they are found to be harmful and their movements have to be restricted.

Then aren't humans equally entitled to "demonstrate our natural behavior" including things like taking over the world, building nuclear power plants, and launching space vehicles? Not to mention killing and eating animals.

Got 11 Minutes -- Experience the Essence of Totalitarianism

Do you wonder what totalitarianism is actually like? You could certainly read Red Azalea by Anchee Min about growing up in Red China during the '50s and '60s. Or you could listen to the remarkable interview with her on NPRs Weekend Edition Saturday for 11 May 2002.

Warning -- Contains reenactment of a sex scene with dialog written by Mao Tse-tung.

Nominally an interview about the author's new novel Wild Ginger, it explores her life and past writings (ostracism because her parents were teachers, Red Guard member to overcome her social problems by becoming more socialist than anyone, Peasant to improve her purity, Actress portaying Madame Mao because she looked appropriate and they weren't making any other movies or plays, despised fellow traveller when Mao died and Madame Mao was arrested, refugee to America, citizen, patriot, and author).

And you think you've had a rough life!

VANDERBILT AGGRESSIVELY RECRUITING JEWS

I'm not praising, I'm not blaming, I'm just reporting the facts. But as to one item I can't help myself -- "'It dredges up stereotypes and issues we really don't want on the table,' said Jessica Keimowitz, director of college counseling at the New Jewish High School of Greater Boston." Really, Jessica? Is it really true that we don't like this particular stereotype? Tell that to our mothers . . . .

UPDATE: Reader Adam Bonin points out that the Wall Street Journal also wrote about this on April 29.

The WSJ article is accompanied by an interesting table ranking SAT scores by religious denomination. The fascinating factoid is that Jews are not at the top of the list. That honor belongs to Unitarians. Missing from the list are atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. I wonder how those denominations would have done?

Fear of Speaking One's Mind

Great exchange among Eugene, Matt Welch, Eve Kayden, and others on fear of saying unpopular things.

Eve is right that one should focus on the topic of controversial remarks not on a controversial manner of speaking.

I agree with Matt who can't imagine why anyone would worry about saying something. I hang out with neo-traditionalists in NYC who actually say that they worry about such things. As both a neo-trad and a libertarian, I'm unlikely to worry about such things (libertarians never do).

SF author Robert Heinlein's leading character Jubal Harshaw from Stranger in a Strange Land said that he was twice as hard to push around since he was both a physician and a lawyer. That would certainly work. I'm in one of those catagories and certainly have the mouth. I note that the articulate are harder to shut up because others fear a tounge lashing.

Those of us lucky enought to reside in the US have a lot less than most (any?) to worry about in the realm of expression. Even ignoring the 1st, we have an advanced private economy where it is easy for anyone (no matter how deviate) to find a job.

The modern communications environment aids the deviate. While it's true that as primates we crave acceptance by members of our troop, we're not stuck with the small troop we're born into. Even if we don't move to the Big City to find others who share our own twisted vision, we can easily find them on the Nets and communicate with them. Thus social ostracism is much less powerful a control measure than it used to be.

Then since the 60's happened, the opposition can hardly argue that anything you say is violating sacred norms. Anyone who tries to make that argument can be dismissed with a chuckle.

"When I was born, smoking was a virtue and sodomy a vice." Since paganism, sodomy, bastardy, body piercing, and a whole list of behaviors, beliefs, and statuses which were once verbotten are now protected by law, anything goes.

I can easily list [next project] more than 50 things which would once have got one in serious trouble but are now perfectly OK.

Anyone attacked for their deviate behavior (calling for racist tax cuts, for example) can just say "Mine is merely an alternative life style. I understand they're even starting to teach it in the schools.

Car-impound law faces challenge: State court to review action when driver's license is suspended

Relates the sad tale of Washingtonians (the State of) who have their vehicles siezed when they are found to be driving without a valid license.

In the course of the story we find this bit of math:

Of the 178 fatality accidents the state patrol responded to last year, 15 involved suspended drivers. An estimated 340,000 of Washington's 4.2 million motorists are driving with suspended or revoked licenses.

As is usually the case in such matters, no one has done the math to see if these numbers establish that unlicensed drivers are significantly more dangerous than licensed ones:

_15__________340,000
178________4,200,000

8.43%_______8.10%

The power of spreadsheets. So it looks like unlicensed drivers are about 4% more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than licensed ones.

Stop Digital Piracy the DVD Way

In which Jack Valenti argues:

Simply put, theft is theft, whether one pilfers a videocassette from a Blockbuster store, or distributes bootleg software or "knock-off" Pentium chips, or downloads a movie from the Web without any compensation to its creators.

Save that there is a big difference between a legislative grant of privilege like copyright and a common law crime like theft. As some of us learned in Law1 "Theft is the taking and asportation of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive him of same."

Assume that I buy a copy of Lee Greenwood's CD American Patriot, take it to my home, burn a copy on my personal computer, and leave both disks in my computer's two drives. I (may) have committed an offense against the Copyright Act. But is it theft?

1. Taking -- No taking. The original CD and the copy have not undergone any change in posession. I posessed them before the crime and I posess them now.

2. Asportation -- No asportation. The original CD and the copy have not been moved anywhere. They are in the exact same location they were before I committed the copyright offense.

3. Personal property -- The only personal property in the room at the time of the offense -- the computer, the CD, and the CD-R -- is mine.

4. Intent to deprive -- No one has been deprived of anything that they previously posessed so I must have lacked intent to deprive.

Hence no crime of theft.

Theft is malum in se. Wrong in itself.

Copyright violation is classic malum prohibitum. Wrong because prohibited. No moral turpitude attaches.

What's the difference? Well you won't be sent to hell for a malum prohibitum crime. It's not wrong, just illegal.

So those 55 million felons who used Napster don't have to worry about the fires of eternal damnation.

Latest Harry Potter Novel Delayed

LONDON (AP) - Fans eagerly awaiting what happens next to Harry Potter (news - web sites) probably will have to wait until next year.

The fifth installment in the wildly successful series of novels about the teen-age wizard and his friends had been expected to fly into stores this summer, but a spokeswoman for J.K. Rowling said Thursday that the author is unlikely to finish writing before the end of the year.
...
The first, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," published in the United States as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," came out in 1997. The next three followed at the rate of one a year.

So here we have an example of massive cash infusions secured by copyright protection reducing creativity. As history's putatively highest paid author, J.K. Rowling takes more than two years to crank out a novel. As a humble "dole mom" she was a much faster writer. The Supreme Court please note.

Copyright can hurt.

Two articles appearing on the front page of two major national newspapers on Monday 06 May 2002.

U.S. Says It Will Not Support International Criminal Court

In which the New York Times tells us that President Bush has decided to cancel Clinton's signature on the Internetional Criminal Court treaty.

It has been preceeded by and will be followed by much weeping and wailing about US isolationism and so forth.

In the course of this blather, we are told over and over again that individual Americans don't have to worry about being hauled before the ICC for crimes like, say, racist writings.

Meanwhile, a Somali living in Sweden is declared a terrorist financier by the US and the UN and finds his money and his life frozen. It can't happen here, can it?

Crackdown on Terrorism Financing Ties Hands of Businessman in Sweden

Eugene Volokh on the present value of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension

I also argue that the prospective portion of the Act, which lengthens protection for works that will be created in the future, is unconstitutional, though less clearly so. My contention here is that the extra 20 years tacked on to the tail end of a work's life won't give anyone any meaningful extra incentive to create; the discounted value of that protection is so small as to be meaningless. But I realize that that's a tougher argument to make.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act tacked 20 years onto a copyright which already lasted 50 years after the creator's death. So Volokh's argument is that the present value of this future income stream is too tiny to justify copyright (which must be justified because it restricts 1st Amendment rights).

So what difference in income does this extra 20 years make? Assume that the average creator creates his work at (the average age of) 40 and dies at (the average age of) 80. He used to get 40+50 years of protection (40 living and 50 dead). Thanks to Sonny he now gets 40+70=110 years of protection.

Note that I had to use 5 decimal places otherwise the difference at 10% discount was less than one cent.

Also be sure to note that the percent increases in income thanks to Sonny are spread out over 20 years (after the creator has been dead for 50) and are less than 1% for most discount rates.

An economist would also note that the value of income received after death would be further discounted for most people given that they can't spend it.

Eugene Volokh solicits proposed constitutional amendments.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: Here's a completely unrealistic but possibly amusing thought experiment -- imagine that you had the superpower to add one amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Let's call you Amendmentman or Non-Article-V-Woman.) What would it be?

Sky's the limit, no? But remember: All you're doing is adding the amendment; then you're walking away. The amendment will be interpreted and enforced (or ignored) through the normal political process. An amendment saying, for instance, that "All politicians shall be honest and focused on the best interests of the nation" will therefore mean nothing, because it will be entirely unenforceable.

The amendment will also be repealable through the normal process...

So, you want us to design a "Magic Bullet" constitutional amendment.


Actually designing such an animal would take more time than the normal
Blog cycle.


It would have to be really tricky with some kind of stinger buried in it
which would both discourage repeal and weaken the Party of Government.


Ayn Rand had one of her characters drafting an economic derugulation
amendment at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Something like "Congress shall
make no law restricting freedom of enterprise..."


The Liberty Amendment has long been popular in "anti-government"
circles.


Ron Paul introduces it every session. It outlaws the federal income tax
and tries to enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments by restricting
government activities to those specified in the Constitution.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.45:


In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" Heinlein proposed a bi-cameral
legislature with one house solely charged with repealing laws.


In "Utopia, Ltd" Gilbert and Sullivan decided that the perfect form of
government was "dictatorship moderated by dynamite". Rule was by an
absolute dictator moderated by the existence of two "Public Exploders"
who's job it was to blow him up if he got out of line. They in turn
were restrained by the fact that if one blew up the dictator, he had to
become the dictator in turn.


My mother thinks that repeal of the 19th Amendment would do the trick.
That would actually help but the legislatures would probably restore
female suffrage before its absence had time to work.


I would say that in order to do any good, the Amendment would have to
be:


1) Simple and limited (to discourage judges from misinterpretation).


2) Of widespread impact to maximize the damage and make repeal harder.


Taxes would seem to fit the bill. A broad tax measure would give plenty
of people the incentive to take advanntage of the amendment and sabotage
repeal.


Off the top of my head and working at Blog speed, I would think that a
repeal of tax withholding (Milton Friedman's unfortunate gift to the
Internal Revenue Code) would do the most good.


If all withholding (federal and state; income and FICA) for tax purposes
was banned, then the populace would be forced to write big checks once a
year to their rulers (many of which would bounce). This might serve to
educate them on the size of government and its personal impact on their
lives. Tax administration would also become much harder.


DCF

Francis Fukuyama's Wall Street Journal The Fall of the Libertarians basically argues that libertarianism overextended itself and is collapsing because of its lack of a foreign policy (during the war) and its support for cloning.

Fukuyama's piece is not as good as Eugene Volokh's comment in his Blog: FALLING?

Volokh's argument makes good political sense as far as it goes:

The error comes in linking this to some Grand Decline of Libertarianism as a Political Force. To begin with, let's remember that pure libertarianism, or even the 99.44% pure libertarianism of the Cato variety, has never been a dominant political force; the purer it has been, the more it has been on the fringe. To the extent that libertarianism has worked itself into American political culture, it has been as what I call "presumptive libertarianism" -- a presumption that people should be free to choose, and free to keep and use their property, but one that can be rebutted when there are strong enough arguments to the contrary, e.g., national defense, protecting children, and so on. (In fact, that's what I call myself: A presumptive libertarian.)

This approach is obviously much messier than pure libertarianism -- but it's also (1) the only approach that, in my view, is likely to work, and (2) the only approach that is likely to be accepted, even in part, by the public. And presumptive libertarianism has not been weakened at all, either by Sept. 11 or by the cloning debates.

So the only movement that has "fallen" -- pure libertarianism -- had never risen in the first place. And the movement that has risen, presumptive libertarianism, still seems to be as strong as before.

That is a sensible political argument but it doesn't address the effect of the war on the much more significant non-political versions of libertarianism.

That is, both Fukuyama and Volokh focus on politics but neglect what might be variously called the techno-futurist, death-of-the nation-state, crypto anarchist, or historical dialectic branch of libertarianism. The branch in which I place myself.

Since we have never asked for permission in any case (it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission) the views of the public are not a genuine concern of ours. And in spite of what Volokh says, we have been "up". The Dot-Com Boom was an occaision of much overblown techno-futurist rhetoric. And even before the war, the Dot-Com Bust was the occaision of much overblown business-as-usual rhetoric.

So it would be a good topic for discussion. Riding high in '99, the dot-com bust and the war have been a double blow (at least in a rhetorical sense) to this tiny portion of a tiny anit-political movement.

Give me a little time and I'll finally crank out my treatise on the effect of 2001 on the technoptimist movement. Don't hold your breath.

Time to order another round. Canadian researchers establish that drinkers earn more than teetotalers. Drink and Grow Rich. (The title is derived from the self help best seller of the 1950's Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill.

Since Eugene Volokh has seen fit to post Kipling's The Sons of Martha. I decided to retaliate with The Islanders in honor of the war...



THE ISLANDERS

1902

Rudyard Kipling



NO DOUBT but ye are the People—your throne is above the King's.
Whoso speaks in your presence must say acceptable things:
Bowing the head in worship, bending the knee in fear—
Bringing the word well smoothen—such as a King should hear.

Fenced by your careful fathers, ringed by your leaden seas,
Long did ye wake in quiet and long lie down at ease;
Till ye said of Strife, "What is it?" of the Sword, "It is far from our ken":
Till ye made a sport of your shrunken hosts and a toy of your armed men.
Ye stopped your ears to the warning—ye would neither look nor heed—
Ye set your leisure before their toil and your lusts above their need.

Because of your witless learning and your beasts of warren and chase,
Ye grudged your sons to their service and your fields for their camping-place.
Ye forced them to glean in the highways the straw for the bricks they brought;
Ye forced them follow in byways the craft that ye never taught.
Ye hindered and hampered and crippled; ye thrust out of sight and away
Those that would serve you for honour and those that served you for pay.

Then were the judgments loosened; then was your shame revealed,
At the hands of a little people, few but apt in the field.
Yet ye were saved by a remnant (and your land's long-suffering star),
When your strong men cheered in their millions while your striplings went to the war.
Sons of the sheltered city—unmade, unhandled, unmeet—
Ye pushed them raw to the battle as ye picked them raw from the street.

And what did ye look they should compass? Warcraft learned in a breath,
Knowledge unto occasion at the first far view of Death?
So? And ye train your horses and the dogs ye feed and prize?
How are the beasts more worthy than the souls, your sacrifice?

But ye said, "Their valour shall show them"; but ye said, "The end is close."
And ye sent them comfits and pictures to help them harry your foes:
And ye vaunted your fathomless power, and ye flaunted your iron pride,
Ere—ye fawned on the Younger Nations for the men who could shoot and ride!

Then ye returned to your trinkets; then ye contented your souls
With the flannelled fools at the wicket or the muddied oafs at the goals.
Given to strong delusion, wholly believing a lie,
Ye saw that the land lay fenceless, and ye let the months go by

Waiting some easy wonder, hoping some saving sign
Idle—openly idle—in the lee of the forespent Line.
Idle—except for your boasting—and what is your boasting worth
If ye grudge a year of service to the lordliest life on earth?
Ancient, effortless, ordered, cycle on cycle set,
Life so long untroubled, that ye who inherit forget

It was not made with the mountains, it is not one with the deep.
Men, not gods, devised it. Men, not gods, must keep.
Men, not children, servants, or kinsfolk called from afar,
But each man born in the Island broke to the matter of war.

Soberly and by custom taken and trained for the same,
Each man born in the Island entered at youth to the game—
As it were almost cricket, not to be mastered in haste,
But after trial and labour, by temperance, living chaste.
As it were almost cricket—as it were even your play,
Weighed and pondered and worshipped, and practised day and day.

So ye shall bide sure-guarded when the restless lightnings wake
In the womb of the blotting war-cloud, and the pallid nations quake.
So, at the haggard trumpets, instant your soul shall leap
Forthright, accoutred, accepting—alert from the wells of sleep.
So at the threat ye shall summon—so at the need ye shall send
Men, not children or servants, tempered and taught to the end;
Cleansed of servile panic, slow to dread or despise,
Humble because of knowledge, mighty by sacrifice.

But ye say, "It will mar our comfort." Ye say, "It will minish our trade."
Do ye wait for the spattered shrapnel ere ye learn how a gun is laid?
For the low, red glare to southward when the raided coast-towns burn?
(Light ye shall have on that lesson, but little time to learn.)
Will ye pitch some white pavilion, and lustily even the odds,
With nets and hoops and mallets, with rackets and bats and rods?
Will the rabbit war with your foemen—the red deer horn them for hire?
Your kept cock—pheasant keep you?-he is master of many a shire.
Arid, aloof, incurious, unthinking, unthanking, gelt,
Will ye loose your schools to flout them till their brow-beat columns melt?
Will ye pray them or preach them, or print them, or ballot them back from your shore?
Will your workmen issue a mandate to bid them strike no more?
Will ye rise and dethrone your rulers? (Because ye were idle both?
Pride by Insolence chastened? Indolence purged by Sloth?)

No doubt but ye are the People; who shall make you afraid?
Also your gods are many; no doubt but your gods shall aid.
Idols of greasy altars built for the body's ease;
Proud little brazen Baals and talking fetishes;
Teraphs of sept and party and wise wood-pavement gods—
These shall come down to the battle and snatch you from under the rods?
From the gusty, flickering gun-roll with viewless salvoes rent,
And the pitted hail of the bullets that tell not whence they were sent.
When ye are ringed as with iron, when ye are scourged as with whips,
When the meat is yet in your belly, and the boast is yet on your lips;
When ye go forth at morning and the noon beholds you broke,
Ere ye lie down at even, your remnant, under the yoke?

No doubt but ye are the People—absolute, strong, and wise;
Whatever your heart has desired ye have not withheld from your eyes.
On your own heads, in your own hands, the sin and the saving lies !

WHY NOT REGULATE GUNS LIKE CARS? in the Volokh Brothers blog is another good piece on gun control vs car control. One of my particular interests.

In the past, I have liked to point out that those who use the Gun Control=Car Control argument also misunderstand the actual nature of Car Control.

Here is something I've written on that subject:

"We license drivers and register cars, why can't guns be registered and gun owners licensed?"

While I do not support regulating guns like driving (or indeed driving like driving), most gun control advocates ignore the fact that vehicle regulation is not as broad as they seem to think.

The following statements are true:

It is legal to own a car without a driver's license or vehicle registration.

It is legal to drive an unregistered car without a driver's license (on private property, for example).

No permission is required to purchase a car and felons, the mentally ill, children, aliens, those who have renounced American citizenship and those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses can buy cars and most of the above can drive cars on public streets and roads.

You are not required to report the purchase of a car to anyone.

It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US with a license from any jurisdiction on earth.

It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is registered in other states or nations.

It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is owned by and registered to any person or legal entity.

Legal entities can own and register cars and permit anyone they like to drive them.

Note that if we regulated guns like driving, the above would mean that anyone could buy and use a gun on your own property without licensing, registration or reporting.

DCF

The Volokh Brothers

EDUCATION SPENDING: Friday over lunch the question of education spending came up again; and I was reminded of an interesting statistical question -- what is the ratio, adjusted for inflation, of per-pupil spending in, say, 1959-60, compared to 1999-2000?

Whenever I ask this, someone nearly always says "Oh, spending back then was much greater than it is now" (again, adjusting for inflation). Well, if you go to the 2001 Digest of Education Statistics, table 167, you see the answer: Per pupil spending, in 2000-01 dollars, was $2235 in 1959-60, and $7591 in 1999-2000. Spending has risen by a factor of 3.3 in the last 40 years.


In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, one can always assume that government spending on anything has increased per capita (and for all I know per stirpes), adjusted for inflation, and adjusted for anything you can think of (plus 10%).

Yet people rarely mention this obvious fact.

It is particularly amusing to mention this when people are wailing about massive service cuts and you discover that spending next year will be higher than spending this year ad infinitum.

As for education reform:

The Graves of Academe

"AFTER SOBER and judicious consideration, and weighing one thing against another in the interests of reasonable compromise, H. L. Mencken concluded that a startling and dramatic improvement in American education required only that we hang all the professors and burn down the schools. His uncharacteristically moderate proposal was not adopted. Those who actually knew more about education than Mencken did could see that his plan was nothing more than cosmetic and would in fact provide only an outward appearance of improvement. Those who knew less, on the other hand, had somewhat more elaborate plans of their own, and they just happened to be in charge of the schools."
--Richard Mitchell (The Underground Grammarian).

Afghan Deaths Stir Debate on Canada's Role (washingtonpost.com)

Thanks to the friendly fire deaths of 4 Canadians in Afghanistan, we now know the answer to a question most of us never thought of asking:

"How many Canadians died in Vietnam?"

The answer - 78

Canadian troops fought alongside American and other allied forces in the 1950-53 Korean War and suffered 516 deaths. Seventy-eight Canadians died fighting under the U.S. military in Vietnam. The country's forces have since taken part in numerous peacekeeping operations and occasional combat operations, such as the 1999 Kosovo war, in which they ustained no deaths.

The Volokh Brothers

Friday, April 19, 2002

[Eugene Volokh, 12:46 AM]
CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINING MARRIAGE? Jonathan Rauch, whom I admire greatly, argues that conservative opposition to gay marriage is undermining marriage, rather than strengthening it. I'm not an expert on marriage and social norms, so I can't be sure, but I think he's quite likely correct:

Those who worry about the example gays would ing should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. . . . At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they [destroyed?] marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.

It seems to me that Trads are not encouraging lewd cohabitation by homosexuals but rather a choice of either celibacy or going Straight (the Anne Heche option).

I've never observed a Trad advocating lewd cohabitation. I've observed them doing it but not advocating it.

Identification & Citizenship Believe it or Nots

by Duncan Frissell

Last September's attack on the United States vastly increased debate on identification, citizenship, and immigration. For your education and amusement, here are some truly strange facts about these topics.

Unless otherwise mentioned, these statements apply to US law.

1) It is legal (in Common Law countries) to call yourself any name you want, spell that name any way you want, and pronounce that name any way you want as long as you have no intent to defraud.

2) World War II was won by US Army Generals and Navy Admirals who commanded armies, air forces, and fleets and possessed and used all manner of weapons up to and including nuclear bombs -- all without ever having proved their identities to the US government.

3) The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it is legal for Americans to communicate and congregate anonymously and to refuse to identify themselves to government officials (in most circumstances).

4) It is legal to operate a motor vehicle in the US without a license from any government agency (in some circumstances).

5) It is legal to operate a motor vehicle in the US without a license from any US state (in all circumstances -- unless your driving privileges have been specifically suspended).

6) It is legal to issue your own employment ID since one generally has a right in the US to form a business and employ oneself and others.

7) It is legal to issue your own student ID since one has an even broader right in the US to form a school and enroll any students you care to.

8) One is not required to apply for a Social Security Number.

9) One can obtain a US passport with no more than the affidavit of relative, a hospital bill, a baptismal certificate, or an entry in a family bible.

10) Since January 1988, you have been required to enter your Social Security number on a US passport application but the State Department can't refuse to issue you a passport if you don't do so. The IRS can fine you $500 ($50/year for a 10-year passport) for your refusal, but they have never done do.

11) Central European local governments (Communes or Villages) keep so-called Family Books which list all local families and track their births, marriages, and deaths over many years even if they leave the local community.

12) In most European countries, residents are required to register their addresses with the police or local government when they move into a community.

13) You can renounce your US citizenship but if you are native born the US government can't make you stateless by revoking it. If you are naturalized, your citizenship can only be revoked for fraud in the application.

14) In the 1950s, the Supreme Court ruled (in essence) that revocation of citizenship would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment (though executing you would not).

15) Non-citizens are not only permitted to serve in the US armed forces, they are required to register for conscription and serve if drafted.

16) Four million US citizens do not reside in the US.

17) More than 500 million people attempt to enter the US annually (1.3 million a day). Of that number, some 700,000 are refused entry by the INS.

18) The machine-readable lines on your passport (at the bottom of the page that has your picture on it) include space for a National ID number.

19) In the US, you have the right to determine your residence (unless you are incarcerated). Residence is usually defined as the same as the legal concept "domicile". Domicile is established by a person having actual physical presence in a place combined with intent to make it his home.

20) The IRS publishes a quarterly list in the Federal Register of Americans who have renounced their citizenship. Since the end of 1996 (when the listing began) 3656 Americans have renounced their citizenship.

21) It is not a crime to be an illegal alien in the US. It is a civil matter. It is a crime to use fraudulent documents to gain entry. It is a minor offense to evade inspection when crossing the border. But if you overstay your visa, it is not a crime. You can, of course, be arrested and deported but the mere status of being illegally present in the US does not constitute a crime.

-----------
Notes
1-There are no laws, in Common Law jurisdictions, that define what names are legal or illegal and it is common to use pen names and nicknames and aliases.
2-Most US local governments didn't issue birth certificates until after 1900. Most general officers in WWII were born before birth certificates were issued and the military did not use them for enlistment.
3-NAACP v. ALABAMA, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) - Organization can't be forced to disclose membership lists.
BATES v. LITTLE ROCK, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) - Ditto
McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) - Pamphleteer can distribute pamphlets anonymously.
BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) - Police cannot question a person about his identity without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
4-On private land, for example.
5-One can operate a motor vehicle on the public streets and roads of the US with a license from any nation. A state can withdraw your right to drive within it but has to do so explicitly.
6-This should be obvious.
7-This should be even more obvious.
8-Read the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice on the SS-5 Form - http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.
9-Read "Present Proof of US Citizenship" - Here: http://travel.state.gov/passport_obtain.html.
15-This should be general knowledge. Sad if it isn't.
16-At least that many. Should be general knowledge.
17- http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/msrsep01/INSP.HTM.
19-See, for example: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/resident.htm.
20-Read my extensive website on the topic at: http://www.frissell.com/taxpat/taxpats.html.
21-I found a pretty good piece of evidence that the mere status of being unlawfully present in the US does not constitute a crime. First offense visa overstays, for example. Perhaps you are familiar with the great work of the Transaction Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse. Well their TracINS site has a listing of the federal criminal charges brought by the INS in 1998 and before. If you go down the list, you note the absence of a pure status offense for illegal immigration. http://trac.syr.edu/tracins/findings/98/criminal/district/us/uslaw98.html. See also my later post giving examples of categories of illegal aliens who entered the country legally. Needless to say, illegal immigrants can be arrested and deported but, as far as I can determine, are not usually guilty of a pure crime.

20 Questions to Ask National ID Supporters

Here are some questions to ask supporters of a modern "enhanced"
ID system for the United States.

1. Under your system, can one's ID fail online verification for any reasons other than authentication failure (ID is not in the database or biometrics don't match) or expiration? Can a valid ID be cancelled or any reason (beyond expiration)?

2. Does your ID system have protections to prevent legislators and bureaucrats from adding other conditions to ID use? For example blocking ID authentication for failure to pay fines, failure to pay taxes, criminal arrest or conviction, etc.? The drivers licence system currently allows suspension for many such acts or omissions.

3. Will your ID system supply risk assessment services in addition to ID verification services. That is, will it provide a "credit score", "fraud score" or "criminal risk score" in addition to ID. What information beyond ID validity will the system supply to users.

4. If your system supplies risk assessment services, will it accept foreign government criminal, civil, or administrative records and apply them to the IDs of US citizens? If so, how can these records be challenged, how do you assure that the alleged acts would be crimes or civil wrongs if committed in the US (e.g. hate speech), and how do you deal with differing due process standards in different nations?

5. Should government subsidize wealthy financial corporations by supplying them with free or low-cost ID authentication and risk assessment services?

6. How can people challenge the accuracy of these assessments?

7. Will one's ID be the sole ID accepted for any goods or services? If so, which goods or services?

8. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that anonymity and refusal to identify oneself to the police are constitutionally protected actions. Do you favor a constitutional amendment to reverse these court decisions?

9. Four million US citizens are not residents of the US. Since they cannot be denied entry to the US and do not require visas to enter the US, what ID are they supposed to use in the US? They currently use a US passport, a foreign drivers license, and domestic or foreign credit cards.

10. Do you favor the end to the visa waiver program which allows citizens of many OECD countries to enter the US without visas? If so, what ID are they supposed to use in the US? They currently use a foreign passport, a foreign drivers license, and domestic or foreign credit cards.

11. Do you favor the abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other treaties which allow citizens of other North American countries and some Caribbean countries to enter the US without passports or visas? If so, what ID are they supposed to use in the US? They currently use a foreign passport, a foreign drivers license, and domestic or foreign credit cards.

12. Have you warned the American people that once these passport and/or visa waiver programs are cancelled, foreign countries are likely to require passports and visas to enter their countries making international travel (including Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean vacations) much more difficult to prepare for?

13. Passport design is not under US control but under the control of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Do you favor the replacement of the current passport with an "enhanced" identity document? How are poor counties supposed to afford the infrastructure necessary to support high-tech online-verifiable ID documents?

14. If your ID system is based on the state ID system, will any non-residents of the individual states be able to receive the new state IDs?

15. Do you favor cleaning up the existing ID system? Will you require all Americans to reverify their identity to receive the "enhanced" ID? If so, what documents or other proof of ID will they have to present? For example, will entries in a family bible be acceptable as proof of identity?

16. What provision have you made for persons who present themselves for identification but who have no (or inadequate) identification documents and whose biometric identifiers are not yet in the system? [The current system allows the testimony of others to establish identity for such purposes as passport issuance].

17. Do you favor requiring address registration (the requirement that all residents to register their address with police or local government) as part of your new ID system?

18. Will the homeless be able to obtain ID without a fixed address?

19. What do you envision happening to the millions of US residents who fail to qualify for the new IDs (or whose IDS are cancelled) or who refuse to apply for them for religious or political reasons?

20. Does your system envision any controls on false IDs intentionally issued by foreign (or US) governments for intelligence or witness protection purposes?

What's Our National Identity?

Oracle's Larry Ellison and Harvard's Allen Dershowitz have been all over the media recently pitching a National ID Card. One poll indicates 70% public support for the notion.

Most critics of a National Identity Card mention Hitler, police stops, and personal privacy to argue against the proposal. Those are good reasons to oppose a National ID Card, but they miss the idea's worst features.

Proponents of a National ID Card have a responsibility to tell us exactly what the system will do to day-to-day life in America. They are unlikely to do so because most thoughtful Americans would be alarmed at the prospect.

A National ID card is *not* really about identity. It is about authorization.

A modern National ID System will:

* Require Americans to obtain federal government authorization to travel, work, rent or buy housing, obtain medical care, use financial services, and make many purchases.

* This federal authorization could be denied for many reasons including database errors, a suspicious transaction profile, being a deadbeat parent, failure to pay taxes or fines, and any other social control
measures Congress wishes to hang on the system.

* The system will almost certainly create an outlaw class - as large as 10 to 20% of the population - cut off from "normal" life in America. This class will include political refuseniks as well as those whose behavior has caused the system's software to deny their transactions. This outlaw class will sustain the underground economy for the use of future terrorists (and ordinary criminals).

These effects are easy to predict because they've already happened on a lesser scale.

Previous National ID proposals covered such activities as travel, work authorization, national health care, and licensing of drivers. All of these proposed systems were meant to deny access to air travel, work, medical care, and driving to those who were not authorized for these activities. The events of September 11th mean that many more transactions will require a National ID. It is likely that the ID will be required for the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, Rx drugs, firearms, ammunition, knives, fertilizer, flying lessons, or any other goods or services the government considers dangerous. Additionally, in order to track the movement of potential terrorists, the New Improved National ID Card will have to control all transportation including car rentals and
purchases, accommodations and financial services. A large chunk of our lives.

When you present your National ID to complete a transaction, you will actually be asking the Federal Government for its permission. It converts most significant transactions that you make from private ones
to public ones. It creates a government license for all jobs, all travel, all medical care, and many purchases. This is a profoundly troubling departure from American traditions.

Beyond federal licensing there are all the reasons that the system will reject your proposed transaction. A National ID System can't control terrorists or illegals unless it uses software based on credit card fraud detection software to block suspicious transaction and then deny the use of the ID Card and notify the appropriate authorities.

To understand how this will work, you have to understand how modern credit card software works. A credit card authorization system performs a large number of checks to decide whether or not to authorize a
proposed transaction. First, it checks to see if the card is in the system, has not been reported stolen, and has adequate credit for the transaction. But then it goes further. It checks the customer's transaction history, it checks the exact nature of recent transactions and of the proposed transaction to see how they fit the customer's profile and the profile of fraudulent transactions that it has stored in its system. It then produces a "score" which it uses to determine whether or not to authorize the transaction. This is real "profiling".

But even if you are you, the ID card is valid, and your transactions aren't suspicious; your right to travel, work, and buy will still likely be blocked by social control measures added by Congress or the administrative bureaucracy. We know that this will happen because that is exactly what *has* happened with drivers licenses. A drivers license once meant that your state considered you a safe driver. Today, you can be denied a license for failing to pay child support, failure to pay traffic and other fines (including library fines), being a non-resident alien, and for hundreds of other "offenses".

State legislatures could not resist the temptation to leverage the drivers license system to control their populations. Their actions were based on the idea that "driving is a privilege not a right." The future abuse of the National ID Card will be based on the idea that "living is a privilege not a right."

When your National ID Card is denied (for whatever reason), you will find yourself in a very uncomfortable situation. But you will not be alone. In America today, some 20% of the population does not use credit cards or bank accounts because they are unwilling or unable to perform the financial management tasks necessary to maintain such accounts.  Similarly, the National ID card will produce a population of political or life-style refuseniks who will or cannot use it. Such populations do not disappear. They continue to survive as best they can and support a robust underground economy with its well-known negative effects on tax collection, obedience to law, and social cohesion.

As convenient as a National ID card seems for law enforcement, it is an unamerican notion. It comes from a political system explicitly rejected by those men who founded this country. The English language has a word
for a system in which the central government of a country must authorize in advance all of its citizen's activities. That word is totalitarian.

----
Duncan Frissell's Social Security card reads "For Social Security and tax purposes--not for identification."

washingtonpost.com: 19 Terrorists Obtained Social Security Cards

"All 19 terrorist hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks had Social Security numbers, and 13 obtained them legally, government officials say."

When you set up a system that's designed to cover everyone, you should not be surprised that everyone is covered.

SS numbers have been issued to visa holders for quite a while. Students and workers are issued them upon arrival. Only tourists make it in without them. If they impose a National ID card on us, then the terrorists will have one too. That's the whole point.

DCF