The Inebriated Arsonist

Philadelphia Passes Stringent Gun Laws Despite Statutory Prohibitions

2008-04-11T12:40:00.002-04:00

Mayor Michael Nutter signed five new gun-related bills into law Thursday, enacting new regulations that contravene standing state laws reserving the power to regulate firearms to the state legislature. The bevy of bills comes after Nutter made promises as a candidate to introduce tough legislation to deal with a rising rate of homicides and other violent crimes, and pledged on the day of his inaugeration to push through major gun law reforms regardless of the opposition. Mayor Nutter likened the actions of the city council and of himself to the signing of the Declaration of Independence (taken from Philly.com 4/11/08):

"Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

The new laws have raised the ire of both Pennsylvania legislators and private advocacy groups. The NRA has promised to work against the bills in court, and other groups are sure to weigh in as Philadelphia attempts to enforce the laws. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have reacted negatively to the laws:

State Representative John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) said through a spokesman that the laws were unconstitutional. House Speaker Dennis M. O'Brien (R. Phila.) did not return a call for comment, and State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.) declined to comment.

Even the city's fiercest proponent of stricter gun laws in the legislature, Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans, offered only lukewarm support.

Evans spokeswoman Johnna Pro said: "No one . . . feels the frustration" of city leaders more than Evans, so he would not criticize them.

But Evans, she said, also is a leader in the House of Representatives and "believes that everyone needs to allow the process to work, even though the process, at times, may be excruciatingly slow and incredibly unresponsive."

The city council passed five bills out of the seven that came before the body for a final reading and vote, choosing the bills the council believed best able to survive a legal challenge. The five bills passed are as follows, in no particular order (all taken from http://legislation.phila.gov/Mattersearch/home.aspx):

Bill 080017 - "Temporary Removal of Firearms of Persons Posing a Risk of Imminent Personal Injury to Self or Others"

-This bill allows for the confiscation of arms and probition on purchasing and/or possessing firearms by anyone deemed to be at imminent risk of harm to self or others.

Bill 080018-A - "Prohibited Possession, Sale and Transfer of Firearms by Persons Subject to Protection From Abuse Orders"

-This bill allows for the prohibition of possession and sales to individuals who are the subject of a protection from abuse order. Persons subject to such orders have 72 hours in which to sell, surrender or transfer firearms out of their possession. Private individuals receiving firearms must not be related to the subject of the abuse order.

Bill 080032-A - "Failure to Report Lost or Stolen Firearm"

-This bill requires police notification of a stolen weapon within twenty-four hours after a weapon is discovered to be missing. After the time limit, a fine is levied. The bill also states that a person who violates the statute again is automatically guilty of a repeat offense, even if a judicial finding hasn't been issued in the first or any previous case.

Bill 080035-A - "Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction"

-This bill sets a limit of one handgun purchase during any thirty-day period, and requires a buyer to both obtain an eligibility report from the police before buying a handgun and send a purchase report to the police once the transaction has cleared. Anyone who attempts to purchase a handgun before the thirty-day limit from a previous purchase has expired is assumed by default to be trafficking in handguns.

Bill 080033 - "Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition"

-This bill prohibits the possession of assault weapons within city limits, defining an assault weapon as any of the following:

1) Any rifle or semi-automatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and has any of the following: a telescoping/folding stock for rifles or any shoulder stock for pistols, a muzzle brake or compensator, a barrel shroud and any pistol grip or thumbhole stock.
2) Any pistol that accepts a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip.
3) Any centerfire rifle with an internal magazine holding more than ten rounds.
4) Any shotgun that accepts a detachable magazine or rotating cylinder.
5) Any combination of conversion kit parts that would place a weapon in any of the above categories.

The bill also prohibits any magazine with a capacity greater than sixteen rounds, defining any larger magazine as a large-capacity feeding device. From the effective date of the law, citizens possessing an assault weapon or prohibited device have thirty days to dispose of their contraband items in one of three ways:

1) Remove the weapon or device from the jurisdiction.
2) Permanently modify or deactivate the weapon or device in question.
3) Surrender any offending weapon or device to the police.

With the exception of the law regarding people judged at risk of imminent harm to either themselves or to others, these laws greatly infringe upon the rights of normal citizens to keep and bear arms for their own defense, as allowed by state regulations and as protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution. The assault weapon prohibition alone constitutes an alarming threat to legitimate gun owners in the Philadelphia city limits, as almost any rifle with a detachable magazine will fail to meet the standard for legal ownership and sets up gun owners for a program of firearm confiscation. Even the federal ban didn't go as far as the Philadelphia ban, as older weapons were at least grandfathered into legality. The limit on handgun purchases also questions the right of legitimate citizens to obtain arms with with to defend themselves, with the state assuming that any citizen who wishes to purchase more than one handgun in a month, for any reason, is a de facto gun trafficker. The city has also imposed an incredibly short period for the victims of theft to report a lost firearm, with a limit of twenty-four hours allowing little time to avoid fines and/or criminal sanctions. The prohibition on firearm possession for the subjects of protection orders also sets a rather dangerous precedent for removing the right to bear arms without a trial.

These laws represent the intent of the Philadelphia government to completely remove any right of citizens to keep and bear arms in their own defense, even in the face of constitutional protections at both the state and federal level.

Assorted Thoughts on the Youtube Debate

2007-07-24T22:16:00.000-04:00

Joe Biden Thinks I Need Mental Help

Apparently Senator Biden questions the sanity of many gun owners:

QUESTION: Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan. To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views.

A valid question, given the anti-gun bent of several debate participants and various members of the Democratic legislature. When asked for a response, Biden replied:

COOPER: Senator Biden, are you going to be able to keep his baby safe?

BIDEN: I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help.

(APPLAUSE)

I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns. I am the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban, that became law, and then we got defeated and then Dianne Feinstein went to town on it and did a great job.

I was unaware that treating an object with care and receiving satisfaction from it's use were grounds for declaring someone mentally impaired. I'd hate to see what Joe would say about people who name their cars.

Nuclear power is still a bogeyman in the Democratic Party

While the world searches for energy sources that don't use fossil fuels, it appears that several of the Democratic candidates will continue to abstain from supporting the expansion of nuclear power:

EDWARDS: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

CLINTON: I'm agnostic about nuclear power. John is right, that until we figure out what we're going to do with the waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that's where American technology comes in. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.

To his credit, Senator Obama stated his support for "exploring" future uses of nuclear power. Still, the stated aversion to a ready source of reliable and non-polluting energy from Clinton and Edwards doesn't make me feel optimistic about our future energy policy.

For Senator Clinton, the truth hurts

When asked if she would use the word "liberal" to describe herself, Clinton replied:

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

Hillary obviously understands that the Democratic Party has sullied the term "liberal," but she is unwilling to change policy to reflect that. And yet, she still claims to be for "individual rights and freedoms," even though her past history would show more than a handful of attempts to usurp said rights and freedoms.

Edit: All quotes taken from the CNN transcript found here.

Great Views, Awful Photography

2007-07-04T21:39:00.001-04:00

For my friends, I'll just post a few pictures from my recent hikes.

Boulder Field at Hickory Run State Park.

A lone tree among the rocks and boulders. Still alive, somehow.

A view of the Lehigh Gap from the eastern side of the Lehigh River.

A view of the Lehigh Gap from the top of the eastern mountain.

Another view from the rocky mountaintop. And, for the curious, the trail goes right over the rocks in the foreground.

The western mountaintop, which I'll soon be scaling.

A Parachronistic Diversion

2007-05-07T11:52:00.000-04:00

Beware the curious historian. Or one with a sudden excess of free time, anyway.

After parting ways with my employer a few weeks ago, I found myself with a great deal of time to devote to my various hobbies. Beyond the normal aspects of unemployment, namely filing for unemployment and looking for new employment, I figured I'd spend some time reading and hitting the nearby forest trails. While tooling around the net in search of new hiking trails, I came across a website offering advice to amateur gold prospectors.

Prospecting for gold seemed rather appealing. I love to spend time in the wilderness, anyway, and what's more important at the moment, amateur prospecting is dirt cheap. The idea of taking a crack at a centuries-old practice and emulating the countless thousands of prospectors that influenced the history of the United States was certainly the most fascinating aspect, and I wondered exactly how I'd stack up against my predecessors.

Just figuring out where gold might be is as important as honing the ability to sift through dirt, so I trolled around the net looking for clues to probable places to find an accessible deposit. Most documents and message boards indicated that glacial deposits are the best bet for someone in Northeast Pennsylvania, and poster pointed to this map indicating where glacial deposits from the correct geological timespan were located. With that information in mind, I found a suitable site in Pike County, shown on this map.

After purchasing a cheap gold pan, I drove up to the state forest and hiked towards one of the nearby creeks. I found a spot where faster flowing water from higher elevations slowed down to form a decent pool, and dug my pan into the dirt. I swirled the mixture of rocks and smaller particles around, using the stream to take away the larger rocks and dirt I didn't want, and eventually ended up with a handful of fine particles.

I sifted through the dirt and found a 1/2 Cm gold-colored flake. Not wanting to get stuck with the wrong mineral, I tried passing a magnet over the flake, which wasn't attracted, leaving me to conclude that the pliable flake was gold. Not bad for a first attempt, I think.

Reading General Opposition as an Ideology

2006-08-19T07:19:00.000-04:00

The American Family Association published an article detailing the findings of a recent study, claiming that, depending upon the type of college or university attended, up to 51% of freshmen who identify as born-again Christians will cease to identify as such four years later at graduation.

While questioning the reasons for such a decline in religious affiliation among college students is certainly an apt activity for the religous-minded members of our society, the AFA makes the mistake of framing the decline as a battle between competing ideologies. The AFA points to the spectre of "liberalism" on college campuses, claiming that ideological indoctrination and curbs on free expression are to largely to blame, citing cases from several university campuses. In the end, the article places religious faith on one side of the debate, with an amalgamation of secular atheism and so-called "liberalism" diametrically opposed, creating a patently false dichotomy.

From the article:

With memories of high school graduation still fresh on their minds, millions of parents will send their children off to college in the coming weeks. For parents, the time is a bitter-sweet milestone. For students, it marks the beginning of a quest for freedom.

But what students and parents don’t realize is that today’s campuses are functioning as an indoctrination into the realm of liberalism. As early as the 1790s, Yale college students were openly disavowing Christ. Despite periods of revival, the denial of Christian beliefs and the acceptance of secularism have persisted and gained strength through the years.

Though the AFA and the article's author might believe otherwise, secularism and a disavowal of the divinity of Christ are not one and the same. The problem lies greatly with individual preferences for the line between the public and private spheres, defined in this instance as the simple difference between behavior when acting as a private individual and behavior when acting in some sort of official capacity, respectively. While many born-gain Christians may regard a delineation between religion and everyday life as antithetical to their beliefs, such a notion is certainly not universal. The AFA treats clashes between such competing notions of public and private behavior as evidence of a sort of persecution of Christians on campuses, and points to the case of Noah Riner as evidence of such problems:

Budziszewski’s claims ring true for Noah Riner, who was the 2005-2006 student body president at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire – a college founded in 1769 to provide Native Americans with a Christian-based education.

Riner delivered the university’s convocation speech last fall. In it, he named Jesus as the solution to flawed humanity and as the ultimate example of character based on His sacrificial love. Riner intended to challenge students to think about what kind of people they would become.

Using a personal story to illustrate a concept for a speech is certainly popular and effective, but it is here that Riner crossed the lines between speech acceptable in a private capcity and speech acceptable in a public capacity. Mentioning personal faith can be a tricky subject, but depending upon the context personal beliefs are quite acceptable for a speech. Unfortunately, Riner decided to blunder straight into a minefield.

“So in talking about that I couldn’t help but talk about Christ. … [and] living for Him and knowing what our purpose as humans is,” he explained. “[After all], what is the purpose of education, if not to use it for Him?”

Bingo. By deciding to not only mention his personal faith, but also use the podium to explain his belief that education is only useful in service to his particular brand of faith, Riner crossed the line between spheres. Riner should have been aware that he wasn't preaching to the faithful crowd at his hometown church, but to a group of people with many different religious preferences, many of whom might take offense at his use of the convocation and his position as student body president to evangelize to the crowd. While Dartmouth might have been founded to evangelize to the native inhabitants of New England, as an Ivy League institution the school is bound to attract students and faculty from all areas of society and virtually all religions.

And his reaction the fallout:

“I definitely knew that a lot of people would disagree with me in terms of calling Jesus the best example of character and also claiming Him as Savior,” Riner admitted. “I didn’t anticipate the reaction being … as passionately opposed to me as it was, though.

“[I]t was hard [for people] to believe that somebody, some educated, intelligent person believed in God, believed in Jesus Christ and was willing to talk about it,” he explained. “I think it represents [that] a lot of people haven’t heard the Gospel – even in our country.”

Riner's explanation shows the how he sees the debate. On one hand sits Riner, who only attempted to speak about his beliefs, and on the other hand sits the university crowd, who so obviously questions his intelligence for having any religious beliefs at all, much less for his willingness to speak openly about them. Given that the article fails to dispute Riner's viewpoint and presses forward with the case for a persistant bias against Christianity, one could quite easily conclude that the AFA and the author of the article must agree on some level.

And his reason for attending Dartmouth:

The need for evangelism in addition to the school’s superior academic reputation is the reason this Kentucky-raised, Baptist-bred home schooler attended Dartmouth – a campus where religion is not taken seriously and where humanism is perceived as the predominant worldview.

“[I] just believed that I could make a difference there,” Riner said. “I think that … our calling that Jesus has mandated is to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. So I think it’s pretty sad when Christians abandon entire areas of our culture, and … I think it’s pretty dangerous to let bad ideas go unchallenged.”

Riner selected Dartmouth because he felt an evangelizing presence was needed on the campus, as required by his personal beliefs. In and of itself, that desire is perfectly acceptable. Dartmouth would have no problem with anyone who peaceably attempts to spread religious beliefs, as would virtually any other institution of higher learning in the United States. When Riner decided to further his goals using the school's podium during a school event, and using his elected position as president, however, he found himself at odds with the Dartmouth community, a community which he knew to hold opinions different than his own. At the end of the day, he and the AFA put the opposition down to some sort of ideological hatred of religion, rather than attributing the outcry against his speech as anger over crossed community standards.

That is not to say that college and university campuses are not bastions of factions normally associated with the generic American Left. All stripes of the left half of the American political spectrum are still thriving in the halls of academia, from various brands of Marxism and Socialism to the numerous groups that make up the Democratic Party. Such vitality, however, doesn't translate into indoctrination, much less a hatred for all things religious. To say that religion is dead in the American left is to ignore large voting blocs who have historically voted for so-called liberal candidates and political positions.

While the AFA has every right to wonder about the decline in religious beliefs among born-again Christian students, looking at the issue as a battle between religion and "liberalism" is not only a waste of time, but a detriment to any person attempting to understand the issue at all.

Technorati Tags: Education Christianity

Still Alive...

2006-08-19T06:23:00.000-04:00

More or less, anyway. I've been working at a lighting manufacturer for the past few months, and I've been too tired out to post much of anything. Hopefully, this dearth of writing will change in the coming weeks.

And, hopefully, I'll find another job, as well.

How to Sabotage Your Election Campaign in One Easy Step

2006-06-04T04:45:00.000-04:00

Want to make a political statement, yet ensure that the public will avoid your name on the ballot come election day? Simply center your campaign platform around ending the Drug War.

Take the three candidates mentioned in this article from stopthedrugwar.org. Loretta Nall, gubernatorial candidate in Alabama, Cliff Thornton, gubernatorial candidate in Connecticut, and Maryland Senate candidate Kevin Zeese have all decided to make drug reform a load-bearing plank in their campaign platforms.

From stopthedrugwar.org's article:

While the odds of any of them actually winning their races are long, all three told DRCNet they are in it to win -- and to show the major parties they risk voter defections if they fail to address growing public disaffection with the drug war. And while none of them are so far being accorded the dignity of having their candidacies measured by major opinion polls, all hope to break that barrier between now and November.

I really have to wonder just how many voters out there want major legal reform to drug laws, and how much of a dent their limited-issue candidacies will make against the two major parties. Between their views on drug reform, their public conduct and their political affiliations all three candidates will have a hard time winning converts from the Republican and Democratic parties.

Loretta Nall (via stopthedrugwar.org):

Although running under the Libertarian banner, Nall doesn't quite fit the mold. "I'm a libertarian, but not a big L one. In fact, I find myself agreeing with liberal Democrats more than anybody. I would say I'm liberal socially and conservative fiscally," she said. "I want our Alabama National Guard troops out of Iraq, and that resonates -- if the rednecks down here are tired of whipping brown skinned peoples' asses [Iraqis], Washington needs to take notice," she said. "We also need to make biodiesel a big issue -- we can't afford this $2.50 a gallon for gas business. And we need education reform and Washington out of our classrooms."

Cliff Thornton (via stopthedrugwar.org):

For Thornton, who has made a career of calling for an end to prohibitionist drug policies, hammering at the issue makes perfect sense. "Drug policy is a big part of my campaign. That's what I'm known for. Cliff Thornton and drug policy do not separate. After all, drug policy is two degrees from everything. Transportation issues and full health care for all in Connecticut are not drug policy issues, but again we're talking about the money. Programs don't happen because we're spending money on the drug war."

Kevin Zeese (via stopthedrugwar.org):

For Zeese, the campaign is much broader than drug policy. "I focus a lot on the Iraq war, the divide between rich and poor, and the corruption of our political system," he said. "I talk about how people feel unrepresented, and I hit my common themes on justice issues, civil liberties, the Patriot Act, and the drug war, but the two big issues are war and peace and rich and poor."

Right from the starting gate, all three candidates have placed themselves at odds with factions within both major parties. Nall might have scored points with the Republican faithful by calling for educational reform to devolve power to state and local governments, but she sure as heck won't see many converts from the Democratic side with that position. Thornton backs expanded medical coverage for all Connecticut citizens, a stance which will definitely turn away fiscally conservative voters from both parties, and especially voters from the Republican side of the aisle. Zeese admits his campaign issues often boil down to class conflict and racial conflict, which will almost inevitably split voters from both major parties. Thornton and Zeese also have the problem of the Green Party's affiliation with their candidacies, which by name alone should deter many a fiscal conservative (and Republicans in general) from breaking ranks and voting for a third party.

Even if any of the candidates manage to score political points with disenchanted voters in the major parties over the marijuana and drug issues, can the candidates really separate their position on drug laws from the rest of their campaign planks? Thornton and Nall readily admit that their various campaign issues are more or less impossible to separate from drug issues, leaving them effectively single-issue campaigns, and held to the mercy of public opinion on the drug issue.

The point about grabbing votes from the Republicans and the Democrats may be moot, however, if the public does not want drugs legalized and/or decriminalized, marijuana included. Polls over the last few years indicate that a sizeable portion of the public still supports retaining criminal sanctions for drug offenses.

Take the February 2001 poll cited here by the PublicAgenda.org. When asked to choose between viewing drug use as criminal behavior or the symptoms of a disease, fifty-two percent of respondents believed drug use to be a disease, with thirty-five percent of respondents siding with drug use as a criminal act and nine percent believing drug use to be both a disease and a crime. Yet, when asked if moving away from mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses was a good idea, only forty-seven percent responded affirmatively, with forty-five percent siding with the mandatory minimum sentences.

A poll conducted in San Diego during late 2005 found similar splits over drugs. Over half the respondents believed that marijuana should not be legalized, including forty-four percent of respondents who admitted to previously smoking marijuana. Marijuana use was also fairly close between Republicans and Democrats, with forty-two percent and fifty-two percent of respondents, respectively.

The numbers provided by the San Diego poll show just how gloomy the outlook probably is for drug reform candidates. Even among people who had previously tried marijuana, much less other drugs, a large portion of people didn't want to see marijuana legalized. If reform crusaders can only stoke lukewarm support among people who have tried marijuana, and more than forty percent of the public believes drug use to be criminal behavior, the chances of gaining election to office, much less succeeding at enacting reforms, are slim at best.

Technorati Tags:
Loretta Nall, Drug Reform, Illegal Drugs

Anti-Gambling Bills Advance Through Both Houses of U.S. Legislature

2006-05-27T05:04:00.000-04:00

Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives have introduced bills designed to update existing anti-gambling laws to cover internet gambling. The two competing bills in the House, HR 4777 and HR 4411, along with S.AMDT.1719 in the Senate, aim to strangle online gambling by preventing US-based financial institutions from transfering money to and from known gambling businesses.

From the Financial Times:

The House judiciary committee on Thursday approved legislation that would in effect outlaw most forms of internet gambling by barring US banks from processing financial transactions involving online gaming. It was the latest in an effort dating back to 1995, when the first online gambling site was launched. So far it has come up short, but that has failed to deter its supporters. The legislation is likely to be passed by the House of Representatives next month, though so far there is no movement on a companion Senate bill and the prospects for approval this year appear slim.

Thankfully, attempts to deal with internet gambling in the recent past have failed, but that doesn't mean the current bills will fail like their predecessors. And the reason for the current legislation?

According to the Justice Department’s interpretation, Americans are already barred from gambling online by a 1961 law that prohibits betting over telephone lines. But prosecutions under the law have been rare, and the courts have been divided over the whether the 1961 law applies to the internet. The proposed congressional legislation would make this clear by barring US banks from processing financial transactions related to most forms of online gambling.

Oh, spectacular. And what about the supporters of these bills?

The issue has thrown up odd coalitions in Washington. Most of the push has come from a variety of Christian conservative groups. They are opposed to all forms of gambling but in particular they are concerned that it has come right into American homes through computers, where it may be easily accessible to children.

Robert Goodlatte, the Republican author of the latest legislation, says online gambling sites, which operate from the Caribbean and other offshore locations, “suck billions of dollars per year out of the US economy, serve as a vehicle for money laundering, undermine families and threaten the ability of states to enact and enforce their own laws”.

So, that's really all it comes down to, tax money and legislating morality.

While previous attempts at legislating morality have failed (just look at alcohol and current gambling laws), I don't expect the Christian Right to ever give up easily in the face of reality. Gambling has been a fixture of American life since the founding of the colonies, in the form of lotteries, card games, dice games, horse racing, you name it, and the popularity of gambling ensures that outlawing gaming will only create a large group of citizen criminals. All attempts to outlaw so-called vices have failed, and in many cases the cure is simply worse than the malady. The prohibitionists fail to understand that forcing gaming out of the legal limelight and into the back alleys of the internet will only have negative consequences, creating numerous opportunities for organized crime and dishonest businesses to excel.

As for Representative Goodlatte's worries about losing money from the US economy and opening avenues for money laundering, he has only himself and the federal government to blame for those problems, not to mention the myriad anti-gaming laws passed by the various state governments. The companies incorporated in off-shore countries due to anti-gaming laws passed by the states and by Congress, so it's not as if the businesses had much of a choice in whether or not to incorporate in the United States. Forcing the companies to incorporate in foreign countries with lax financial laws, as with many countries in the Caribbean, has also created the problem of laundering money through the businesses. The real solution to both problems, i.e. criminal activity and loss of tax money, would be to repeal the current laws in the US banning online gaming. Fat chance of that happening, though.

After all that, still thinking about playing online games on the sly? Well, if you live in Washington state, be wary. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Beginning next month, Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal.

Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Five years in prison for gambling over the internet? How the hell is that justified? I can get less for repeated DUI convictions, assault and battery, burglary...c'mon. Sounds like a bunch of overzealous legislators, yet again.

The Washington law, which upgrades online gambling from a misdemeanor, was an effort to be compatible with federal law, said state Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton.
The law applies to all online gambling.

Gambling Commission Director Rick Day and Prentice, who sponsored the legislation, said the law is necessary, partly to protect the gamblers themselves.

Pull the other one, Mr. Day, it's got bells on. How will a felony conviction protect gamblers, other than ensuring that jailed citizens won't be able to gamble online?

Day said the intent of the new law is not to give agents greater incentive to track online gamblers and throw them in prison. Jailing small-time online gamblers is "not the focus of our work," he said.

But he confirmed that commission agents had gone to the homes of several state gamblers (fewer than half a dozen, he said) about a year ago to warn them that such activity was illegal. No one was arrested.

In fact, no one has ever been prosecuted in Washington -- or anywhere nationally, according to gambling publications -- strictly for gambling online.

Sure, they haven't arrested anyone, yet, but they made it clear they know who's been gambling online. Don't the Washington government and various police forces have anything better to do than go after a bunch of people playing poker from their living rooms?

As for the bills themselves, here are the links (if the links fail, just go here and find the bills either by their number or by their sponsor):

-HR 4411, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, sponsored by Rep. James Leach (Iowa)

-HR 4777, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, sponsored by Rep. Robert Goodlatte

-S.AMDT.1718, an amendment to HR 2862, sponsored by Sen. Kyl

Technorati Tags:
Internet Gambling, Online Gambling

Nationalization and Bolivia

2006-05-02T18:00:00.000-04:00

Following in the stead of Venezuela, Bolivian President Evo Morales decreed on Monday that the Bolivian government will assert control over the domestic natural gas industry. Foreign energy companies are scrambling to figure out what to do next, and several foreign governments have responded negatively to the President's decision.

From the BBC:

Under the May Day decree, private energy companies will have to sell a controlling stake to the Bolivian government and renegotiate contracts.

At the largest gas fields, royalty payments will increase from 50% to 82%.

A thirty-two percent royalty hike could give entire corporate boards heart attacks, not to mention the requirement to divest a fifty-one percent share of company stock to the Bolivian government. The energy companies invested in Bolivia have little choice in the matter, seeing as Bolivia has retained the option of simply nationalizing everything and expelling the foreign companies altogether. The Bolivian government has certainly started negotiations by placing the metaphorical shotgun on the table.

Speaking of the evil foreign energy companies:

But the private gas companies, which have invested about $3.5bn in gas exploration and development since 1997, say it is a worrying development.

A spokesman for Petrobras, one of the largest foreign investors in Bolivia, called it an "unfriendly" action.

Spain's Repsol YPF is also a big player in Bolivia, and the Spanish government expressed "deep concern" at the move.

The US Exxon Mobil Corporation said it was "closely monitoring" the situation.

Other major international corporations operating in Bolivia include the British companies British Gas and British Petroleum and France's Total.

I'm sure the foreign companies are all just dancing for joy at this announcement, not to mention that foreign governments that have a vested interest in the affected companies. While nationalizing the gas industry might have won stirred nationalistic emotions in his supporters, President Morales has most definitely cooled relations with several nations, not to mention likely harming foreign investment in the process. The energy companies, who are potentially on the hook for a total loss of equipment and commidity rights, are now coming to terms with the understanding that the Bolivian government can't be trusted to stick to a contract.

Bolivia, meanwhile, is gearing up to take control of several aspects of the supply chain:

Companies have six months to negotiate new contracts with the Bolivian government. During that time, the Bolivian government says it will carry out audits of each company to determine how much it should pay for a stake of at least 51% in each.

Bolivia's state-owned energy company, YPBF, will take control of the production, transport, refinery, and sale of the gas.

And as to the specifics of the royalty increases:

With immediate effect, gas fields producing more than a daily 100 million cubic feet of gas will retain only 18% of the gas they produce, down from 50%. This is reported to apply to two fields, San Alberto and San Antonio.

Companies operating other fields will retain 40%, local media report.

Nice to see that the Bolivians are feeling generous.

Even though the President's decree gave a time period of six months for the foreign companies to negotiate new contracts with the government, troops and domestic engineers are already on the move:

About 100 soldiers peacefully took control of the Palmasola refinery in the south-eastern city of Santa Cruz, reported the news agency Associated press.

The government said soldiers and engineers were sent to 56 locations around the country.

Now that's negotiating in good faith!

Following up on Monday's display of national pride, the Bolivian government today made public intentions to extend government control to several other industries, with the mining and timber industries the main targets.

On Tuesday, Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said mining companies could face higher taxes and royalty payments and that the government will intensify enforcement of existing laws to break up big underdeveloped land holdings, apparently to turn them over to the poor.

While I can understand cracking down on companies that receive land rights and fail to live up to their development requirements, increasing tariffs and royalty payments on raw goods will probably only hurt Bolivia's export income. The combined weight of high taxes and high royalty payments could very well be the breaking point for raw minerals consumers, who could quite conceiveably look elsewhere for raw goods.

The government also will crack down on foreign timber companies violating conservation laws, Garcia said, and would steer companies to export finished wood products rather than raw timber.

Again, I can understand tightening the screws on companies that ignore conservation laws, but attempting to force a change from raw wood goods to finished wood products might not be easy, much less make economic sense. Bolivia's entry in the World Fact Book fails to mention any domestic furniture industry (harvesting of raw goods, preparation of foods and handicrafts are apparently the main industries beyond agriculture), so a substantial investment in equipment, factories and training would be needed. Given Bolivia's current penchant for nationalization, high tariffs and popular anti-capitalistic fervor, how many companies would be willing to take a chance on investing large sums into the Bolivian economy?

President Morales listened to the will of the people, nationalizing one industry and threatening several others, but will his decisions yield tangible results for the common citizen or will the rest of the world eschew the Bolivian economy? I hope Bolivia can live with the consequences of those actions, both good and bad.

Technorati Tags:
Bolivia, Nationalization, Evo Morales

The Philadelphia Eagles and the NFL Draft

2006-04-29T23:02:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Draft Day, 2006. How will the Eagles screw up their picks this year? Two words: health and character.

Let's start with the first pick, Brodrick Bunkley. Sure, he's a strong defensive tackle, but let's not forget he's been down with an ACL tear and an MCL tear before. Plus, he was dumb enough to get arrested for shoplifting during college. Just what I want to see in a player.

For the second pick, the Eagles selected Winston Justice, an offensive tackle from USC. While health isn't so much an issue, off the field character problems could cause complications down the road. He was arrested twice, once for soliciting a prostitute and the second time for brandishing a fake weapon (via FootballsFutures). Again, his behavior better improve.

As for the third pick, Chris Gocong, who the heck is this guy? Hopefully Andy Reid knows something the rest of us don't.

Technorati Tags:
NFL Draft, Philadelphia Eagles

Of Bored Protesters and Coca-Cola

2006-04-29T20:42:00.000-04:00

Wow, almost a week since my last post. How time flies.

Anyway, while browsing around Fark.com this evening, I came across an editorial from the Daily Bruin questioning the wisdom of recent protests aimed at banning the sale of Coca-Cola products on the University of California Los Angeles campus. Since I had heard about similar attempts at other universities, but didn't exactly know why anyone would bother trying to ban Coke, I decided to read up and do a little digging.

From the Daily Bruin article found here:

When Associated Students UCLA representatives speak at their monthly board meetings, the room is usually relatively quiet.

But at the ASUCLA board of directors' meeting this past Friday, it was hard to hear their voices over the shouts and cheers of about 20 students demonstrating outside Kerckhoff Hall and the muffled murmurs of another 50 or so students gathered on both sides of Kerckhoff Stateroom.

Ah, always a great way to start a debate. Protesting loudly and disrupting proceedings are always a great way to express a point of view.

Representatives from Coca-Cola presented information at the meeting, stating the company's position in a debate over Coca-Cola's alleged human rights violations abroad.

ASUCLA officials said they wanted to use the meeting to understand both sides of the dispute, and eventually come to a decision on whether to continue selling Coca-Cola products on campus, though no decision was made Friday and no specific date for the decision has been set.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Both sides speak and there's plenty of time for the board to come to a decision, if one needs to be reached at all.

The commotion at the meeting was caused by Coke-Free Campus, a student coalition protesting the sale of Coca-Cola products on campus because they maintain the company is violating human rights.

The student organization met with board members at the board's last meeting on March 10 to present their allegations of Coca-Cola's engagement in inhumane practices against its workers at Colombian bottling plants.

Too bad common courtesy apparently didn't make an appearance at the meeting. And what are the alleged human rights violations, you might be asking?

At the last meeting, they claimed The Coca-Cola Company had allowed its workers in Colombia to be murdered, detained and tortured without investigation by their employers.

Interesting, if true. Killercoke.org fills in the details on the allegations:

Isidro Segundo Gil, an employee at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Colombia, was killed at his workplace by paramilitary thugs. His children, now living in hiding with relatives, understand all too well why their homeland is known as "a country where union work is like carrying a tombstone on your back."

A chilling description of Gil's assassination, based on eyewitness accounts, is the centerpiece of a lawsuit filed in Miami in July 2001 against Coca-Cola, Panamerican Beverages (the largest soft drink bottler in Latin America) and Bebidas y Alimentos (a bottler owned by Richard Kirby of Key Biscayne, Fla., which operates the plant in which Gil was killed.

In the lawsuit, Gil's union, Sinaltrainal, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) and the United Steelworkers of America assert that the Coke bottlers "contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilized extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders."

Again, interesting if true. Unfortunately, Killercoke.org didn't bother posting any evidence that actually links the killings to the Coca-Cola management, so for all their allegations the argument is really a moot point. Columbia is a dangerous country, overrun by various paramilitary groups of all ideological colors, and most of them are involved in organized crime and the drug trade. Without hard proof, I'm loathe to point the finger at managers simply because of ideological beliefs. But that's not all the Killercoke people are upset about:

At Coca-Cola’s bottling facility in Kala Dera, near Jaipur, Rajasthan [India], the sinking water table has created water shortages for over 50 villages. Over 2,000 people marched in August 2004 to protest Coca-Cola’s practices.

And there were also allegations of prodcuct contamination:

One of India's leading voluntary agencies, the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) said Tuesday that soft drinks manufactured in India, including those carrying the Pepsi and Coca-Cola brand names, contain unacceptably high levels of pesticide residues.

The CSE analyzed samples from 12 major soft drink manufacturers that are sold in and around the capital at its laboratories and found that all of them contained residues of four extremely toxic pesticides and insecticides--lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos.

"In all the samples tested, the levels of pesticide residue far exceeded the maximum permissible total pesticide limit of 0.0005 mg per liter in water used as food, set down by the European Economic Commission (EEC)," said Sunita Narain, director of the CSE at a press conference convened to announce the findings.

The level of chlorpyrifos was 42 times higher than EEC norms, their study showed. Malathion residues were 87 times higher and lindane--recently banned in the United States--21 times higher, CSE scientists said.

On the other hand, the Indian government tested samples shortly after the CSE report came out, and found that, "tests of samples of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products showed that they conformed to safety standards." So much for that problem.

I'm just not seeing justification for boycotting Coca-Cola products. Coke can't be held responsible for the state of unrest in Columbia, and knee-jerk protesters voicing unlikely allegations about Coke murdering union sympathizers fails to rouse my indignation. As for localized problems in India, so what if one or two plants have bad relations with the locals? That's for the communities and government to deal with.

Some people just have too much time on their hands, I swear.

Technorati Tags:
Coca-Cola, Coke, UCLA, Coke Boycott

Vandals Beat a Dead Horse at ROTC Buildings

2006-04-27T20:50:00.000-04:00

Vandals attacked two buildings used by ROTC groups at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, scrawling spraypainted messages on doors and throwing buckets of red paint on the steps.

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

Vandals staged attacks early Wednesday on the buildings used by the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at N.C. State University and UNC-Chapel Hill, echoing similar assaults on three Triangle recruiting stations last month.

As before, vandals sprayed anti-war slogans and profanity, splashed red paint and claimed responsibility with a mass e-mail message to area media outlets.

Lt. Col. Carol Ann Redfield of the Army ROTC program at N.C. State was caught off guard. "This is the first time I know of that anything like this has happened here," she said. "I certainly appreciate that people have different opinions, and they should be able to express them, but I have a problem when they damage property."

Lt. Colonel Redfield has a fine point, in that the people involved didn't bother to speak their minds in perfectly legal ways, such as protesting on the campuses or starting a letter writing campaign, but preferred to instead make a mess and act like a bunch of idiots. Really, how much respect will a common person accord to a vandal?

The e-mail, from someone calling himself "celest ialbeing" said, "Stop these recruitment centers that target poor people and people of color to fight to maintain the power structure that (literally and figuratively) imprisons us daily."

Now this is one argument that I'm tired of hearing. The military does not focus exclusively on the poor and non-white communities. While military service is definitely a viable option for many people, poor/non-white or otherwise, the military fairly evenly represents the different racial groups in the US.

Demographic information, fiscal year 2004 (see the links or the Office of Army Demographics for more information):

Population Estimates for 2005, Ages 17-19, by Race (From here, page 6):
White 64.6%
Black 14.7%
Hispanic 15.2%
Other 5.4%

Total Active Duty Army Strength: 494,291
White 60.1%
Black 22.7%
Hispanic 10.3%
Asian 3.8%
Other 3.1%

National Guard Strength: 342,918
White 73.6%
Black 14.3%
Hispanic 7.5%
Other 4.6%

Army Reserve Strength: 204,131
White 59.2%
Black 23.8%
Hispanic 10.9%
Other 6.1%

Total Navy Strength: 450,775
White 61%
Black 18%
Hispanic 9%
Other 12%

Total Marine Strength: 216,665
White 65%
Black 11%
Hispanic 14%
Other 10%

Total Air Force Strength: 554,764
White 73%
Black 14%
Hispanic 6%
Other 7%

Active Duty Coast Guard Strength: 39,006
White 80.2%
Black 5.8%
Hispanic 7.8%
Asian/Other 4.2%
Native American 2%

From what I can see, the vast majority of the military is still white, not black, hispanic or any other race. While blacks on the whole are overrepresented in the Army, Navy and Air Force, they are underrepresented in the Coast Guard and Air Force. Hispanics are underrepresented in almost every service, except for the Marines. How is this a minority war, again?

As to the common assertion that the military finds most recruits in the lowest economic classes, there just hasn't been an actual study to determine whether or not that's even true. The military most definitely recruits at all economic levels, as any college student should be able to attest to. This article from the Washington Post has a bone to pick with one half-baked study published by the National Priorities Project:

The Pentagon statement said the Post article used "anecdotal evidence and . . . data compiled by the NPP that were incomplete. The Department of Defense does not know whether the data are right or wrong, but the data are clearly not representative or even appropriate for part of its analysis."

In particular, the Pentagon said the NPP considered "the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting." Though those counties produced an above-average number of recruits, the counties "account for a minuscule number and proportion of total recruits . . . 275 out of 180,000 recruits (less than 0.2 percent). One would be hard-pressed to conclude much about income levels from such a small sample size."

Until further, expansive research is concluded, I'll have to say the jury is still out on that point.

Technorati Tags:
Military Recruiting, Vandalism, ROTC, UNC Chapel Hill, NC State

Is the GOP Well and Truly Broken?

2006-04-19T03:51:00.000-04:00

Given the sorry state of GOP politicians in opinion polls (and around the blogosphere, for that matter) and the upcoming midterm Senate and House elections, questioning the health of the party and the tack party leadership has chosen remains rather pertinent. Aware of possible difficulties in the upcoming elections, Senate Republicans have leaked some of their agenda, focusing on issues important mostly to religious conservatives.

From CNN.com:

Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.

Religious conservatives the foundation of the GOP? Let's not forget that a sizeable portion of GOP members are rather libertarian in nature, myself included. The GOP in most of the latter half of the Twentieth Century was much more libertarian, both economically and socially, than any "core" group of current religious conservatives. What will pandering to social conservatives do to placate the economic and social libertarians?

The House has approved an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning and passed a bill to crack down on the practice of minors' crossing state lines for abortions to evade legal limits in their own states.

Oh, spectacular. Rather than just passing an amendment to ban flag burning, let's just rip up the whole damn 1st Amendment while you're at it. Same thing, really.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, and a possible presidential candidate in 2008, announced early this year that the Senate would consider those and the anti-gay marriage amendment that has failed in both chambers despite Bush's endorsement.

Great, let's waste more time, money and energy on worthless religious arguments over gay marriage. This ranks right up there with trying to outlaw abortion.

The bill to curb abortions among minors has long been on Frist's list of legislative priorities. Legislation imposing penalties on anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion won easy passage in the House last year.

Between South Dakota completely outlawing abortion and attempting to curb abortion rights elsewhere, the GOP more or less guarantees that centrist Democrats will avoid voting for Republican candidates. Great election strategy, guys.

And that, as far as the CNN article goes, is it. Nothing about economic plans, taxation, energy, civil rights, government spending...just the same old pandering to social conservatives. Where's the great plan for the future of the country? What happened to, among other things, the ideals of the Contract With America? Where's the damn vision?

So, in the upcoming elections, I can vote for:

A) The Democrats, a party that shares little with me ideologically
B) The Republicans, a party that only claims to share ideological ties with me
C) A third party, which probably has almost zero chance of getting elected.

If only the damn Libertarian Party would get with the program and seize the opportunity for change. But, no, that's not likely to happen any time soon.

What would I like to see from GOP candidates and incumbents? Simple:

1. Fiscal sanity; reign in the damn deficit and cut useless pork
2. A deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it protects, especially free and unfettered speech
3. A true commitment to lobbying reform
4. An end to the war on science and education
5. An effective energy policy that will promote exploration of oil resources and oil alternatives
6. A firm commitment to dealing with impending spending issues, such as social security, Medicare, that damn prescription drug program, etc.

Somehow I don't think the odds on those issues appearing as GOP campaign planks are very high. Hell, there are better odds on Elvis returning to Vegas alive, slim, and ready to sing.

Technorati Tags:
GOP, Republican Party, 2006 Midterm Elections, Social Conservatives

Methods to Annoy the Tibetan Peasants, No. 148

2006-04-18T03:47:00.000-04:00

The Chinese government, always seeking new ways to glorify their deceased patriarch and plaster over the cracks in their social foundation, have decided to erect a statue in Tibet thanking themselves for invading Tibet over fifty years ago. And here some people think that the United States is efficient at annoying occupied populations.

From the article:

The 35-ton memorial is being built to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the former leader's death.

It is being erected in Gonggar County, near the Tibetan capital Lhasa, China's state-run news agency Xinhua said.

The statue will rise 7m from a 5m pedestal strengthened to withstand earthquakes. Mao Zedong ordered the Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1950.

Ready for the outpouring of public affection? The Communist Party officials sure are:

"Many Tibetan people suggested we should have a statue of Chairman Mao to show our gratitude," a local Communist Party official told Xinhua.

Sure they did. "Please, Mr. Occupying Communist official, build us a statue of the great man who conquered our country and chased our spiritual leaders out of the country! Let us thank Mao for placing us under the heel of his boot!" The only people happy about Mao are the ones who were paid off by the Chinese.

Look at the statue and marvel at Chairman Mao, but try not to remember the Tibetan Uprising of 1959, the decision of the International Commission of Jurists to open up the possibility of refering to Chinese actions in China as genocide, the wholesale destruction of Buddhist temples and monasteries...the list just goes on, and on, and on.

I hope someone blows the statue to pieces.

Technorati Tags:
China, Tibet, Mao

A True Miscarriage of Justice

2006-04-13T21:35:00.000-04:00

Of the few crimes that really makes my blood boil over with anger honor killing ranks near the top of my list. So, when I read on the BBC's website that an honor killer in Germany received less than ten years for murdering his sister I could scarely wonder what the judges were thinking.

From the BBC's article:

A 19-year-old Turkish man has been jailed for nine years and three months by a German court for shooting his sister in a so-called "honour killing".

Ayhan Surucu had confessed to shooting his sister Hatun Surucu, 23, at a bus stop in a Berlin suburb last year.

How is a sentence of nine years and three months a proper sentence for a convicted killer? He admitted to murdering his own sister, not stealing a car or robbing a bank. Nine years in exchange for a life? Absurd.

Her killer, Ayhan Surucu, had told the court he shot his sister because he disapproved of her lifestyle and her morals, but added that he regretted his actions.

He said she infuriated him by saying that she had the right to live as she pleased and to sleep with whom she wanted.

"It was too much for me. I grabbed the pistol and pulled the trigger," he told the court in September. "I don't even understand what I did anymore."

He shot his sister at a bus stop. Although the story doesn't explain whether he had the argument with his sister at the bus stop or at an earlier time, he still leveled his pistol at her and fired with the intent of causing fatal injuries. That is the very definition of murder, and how he managed to deserve a slap on the wrist I'll never know.

I know it's Maundy Thursday, and as a Christian I'm supposed to take stock of my baser instincts, but I still would like to see this guy dead. He snapped and killed his sister over his own concept of honor, and in return he should be taken out back and hanged like the animal he is. At the very least, twenty years to life in prison is a much more appropriate sentence. Instead, he'll walk free in less than a decade.

And what about the message this sends to every other murderous bastard that thinks about killing for honor?

"I heard a young Turkish lady said on a Turkish radio station 'she deserved it because she took off her headscarf'. This is incredible," says Ozcan Mutlu, one of the few Turks sitting on the Berlin city council.

He says the problem has been exacerbated by the German authorities turning a blind eye to it.

"For instance, when a Turkish man beat his wife, he didn't get the same punishment as when a German did it. They tried to explain it with the culture, the traditions, and with the religion.

"That's stupid, you cannot do that. There is no cultural or religious excuse for beating women, and there can be no less punishment for honour killings. But in Germany it was the fact in the past years."

Letting Surucu off with a light sentence will do nothing to stifle honor killing and related crimes.

Technorati Tags:
Germany, Honor Killings, Honour Killings

Biologists, Fear For Your Lives! Or, Maybe Not...

2006-04-12T05:18:00.000-04:00

WorldNetDaily recently ran a story announcing that Cornell University's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology will offer an interdisciplinary summer course on evolution, and will include material covering the idea of intelligent design.

From the article:

The Ivy League school's course "Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?" Â aims to "sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole."

The announcement comes just half a year after Cornell President Hunter Rawlings III denounced intelligent design as a "religious belief masquerading as a secular idea."

At first glance, the excerpt makes the course out to be something out of an Intelligent Design proponent's wish list. The statement from Cornell's current President, Hunter Rawlings, only solidifies that sentiment.

But wait, that's not all!

The university's Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness club said that while it's been on the opposite side of MacNeill in many debates, it has appreciated his "commitment to the ideal of the university as a free market-place of ideas."

"We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness," the group said. "We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged."

Wondering just what drugs Cornell's faculty must have consumed to greenlight a course with ID in the curriculum? Well, breathe a sigh of relief, it's not an actual science course.

From the university's summer session website (see the BIOEE 467 link at the bottom of the page):

This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present. Discussion is the class format.

Really, it's just a course focusing on the impact of evolutionary theory upon both religious and secular culture alike. The course has nothing to do with pushing ID as accepted science, and everything to do with understanding how some people want ID to be an issue at all. WorldNetDaily simply blew this story out of proportion.

Technorati Tags:
Cornell, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Theory of Evolution

Update:

-Changed a bad link
-Reworded the first paragraph
-As suggested by a commenter, a more complete description of the course can be found here, in the Professor Allen MacNeill's blog

The Kansas Board of Education Strikes Again

2006-04-10T05:01:00.000-04:00

Coming this April...from the people who brought you last year's blockbuster "Creationism in the Classroom," comes "Let's Not Teach the Kids About Sex Education," a powerful epic sure to entertain the whole family!

This time around, the Board of Education has proposed mandating all public schools switch to an abstinence only sexual education curriculum.

From the Wichita Eagle:

Supporters of so-called "abstinence until marriage" programs say such programsare the best way to lower teen pregnancy rates and prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

"Abstinence until marriage is the best thing for young people physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually," said board member Kathy Martin, who proposed the change. "It's the best thing for society as a whole, and it's the message that schools absolutely ought to be sending.

If we all lived in magical fairytale land, where everything worked out perfectly, this sort of plan would work just fine. In the real world, however, we all know that kids won't do everything they're told, with abstaining from sexual activity ranking rather high on the list. Yes, total abstinence is the absolute best way to ensure safety from unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases, but that only works for the portion of people who actually do totally abstain from sexual activity. For the rest, the lack of education in sexual matters could do very real harm.

Thankfully, some Kansans are more grounded:

"We don't want our kids to have sex, but unfortunately the reality is that a lot of them are," said Sandy Hysom, health education teaching specialist for Wichita schools. "Therefore, we have to give them accurate information."

Good, someone who gets it. Some young people will have sex, no matter what you tell them, and it's important to give them the proper information for them to at least minimize the risks of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Other parents, however, just won't see it that way:

Gina Copas, whose 16-year-old daughter, Marissa, just joined the "Pure & Simple" troupe, says she agrees with the abstinence-only curriculum.

Other sex-education programs "teach that you have all these choices -- abstinence, condoms, whatever -- and that's not the picture I want my children to have," Copas said.

"I did teach my kids about birth control, and they can choose after marriage when to plan their family," she said. "But what I believe and what I hope for them is that they remain abstinent until marriage."

So, Gina Copas felt it necessary to teach her children about birth control, but doesn't want other children to learn the same lessons? As much as you want your children to abstain from sex until marriage, Ms. Copas, understand that your parental control has limits, and your children will grow up and make their own decisions whether you like it or not, as will all children. Don't harm the lives of others simply because you think your little angels will do no wrong.

State Board Member Mr. Martin thinks along Ms. Copas' line:

"We don't say, 'We know you're not going to fasten your seat belt or go the speed limit, so here's a road over here that you can drive on,' " said Martin, the state board member.

"My belief is, let's actually tell them not to. If we tell kids things, they will listen. We know that kids will live up or down to the expectations we give them."

Yeah, right, keep telling yourself that.

"Study after study shows that if you give students the facts and lay out the consequences, they actually delay sexual activity," Hysom said. "And, truly, that's what we're after."

Keep repeating that message, Ms. Hysom, as many times as you have to until the board relents.

Technorati Tags:
Kansas, Sexual Education, Sex Ed, Public Schools

And the Government Defers to the Street...

2006-04-10T03:58:00.000-04:00

It appears that that the French Government has decided to give in on the CPE issue.

Via the BBC:

French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of protests will be scrapped.

He said the First Employment Contract - or CPE - would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Congratulations, French protesters, you whined, moaned, pouted and tried to shut down the country, and it worked. I hope for the best, but this won't change the current economic path of high unemployment, poor economic growth and mounting immigrant disenchantment.

Previous Related Posts:
The CPE in Economic and Legal Context, Part 1
Paris on the Brink?
France and the CPE, Continued
French First Employment Contract and Econ 101

Technorati Tags:
France, CPE, French Economy, French Labor Law, CPE Crisis

The CPE in Legal and Economic Context, Part 1

2006-04-09T23:07:00.000-04:00

I've blogged previously about the particulars of the CPE law and the need for labor law reform, as have countless other people around the world, but thus far I've found explanations of the French labor system in general to be lacking. Major news outlets carry cookie-cutter explanations of the CPE and a handful of statistics documenting the high unemployment rates and lackluster economic growth plaguing France, all the while remaining silent on the specifics of the original laws the CPE modifies. A clear explanation of the current labor system is necessary for a complete understanding of the ongoing row in France. So, here is a short, simple and hopefully accurate summary of the labor laws the CPE would affect.

Before I go any further, a few notes on my sources:
1) Since I only speak English and German, reading through French texts is a bit of a losing proposition. As such, my research relied upon English translations and documents, so please don't take my comments as the Gospel truth.
2) If you do speak French and would like to see the primary sources for yourself, I would suggest consulting the Code du Travail section at Legifrance. I would appreciate any factual input from knowledgeable people, French or otherwise.
3) I may not be an lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Read the links and the data for yourself!

Summary of Basic Labor Laws Affected by the CPE (as taken from www.investinfrance.org and www.triplet.com)

Contracts and Collective Bargaining

-All employees must be covered under a contract, either one agreed to by both the employee and employer or one of the industry-specific collective bargaining agreements written at a national level. All contracts must not be counter to the collective bargaining agreements or national labour codes.

-Companies may hire employees under temporary contracts, with a term limit of eighteen months, and then only under specific circumstances. Companies are restricted from using temporary contract employees to fill long-term positions.

Staff Representation

-Trade Unions are entitled to organize in any company.

-Depending on the size of the company, staff may either elect representatives to ensure compliance with applicable labor laws or form a works committee to represent worker interests in the company.

Layoffs

-Before laying off any workers, company directors must meet with the resident works committee to discuss termination plans.

-All employees must be given an interview to explain circumstances behind the intended layoffs.

-Layoffs of one to nine employees can only become final a minimum of seven days after the layoff interview. Layoffs above ten employees ratchet up the minimum notice period.

-For Layoffs above ten employees, companies must also submit a formal statement to labor authorities, explaining the reasons for the layoffs and the company's intented benefits for terminated workers

-Calculating severance pay may be quite complicated, though it generally equals 1/5 of monthly salary for each year of work (up to ten years of service), with 1/3 monthly salary for each year after ten. Other factors, such as the age of the employees, may affect the bottom line.

-Triplet & Associates adds:

Redundancies, or lay-offs on economic grounds, are subject to separate and complex procedural and substantive constraints particularly in the case of multiple dismissals.

There are a number of French State Agencies which have a statutory right to be advised of, and in some cases to authorise, proposed dismissals by private sector employers.

Termination of Employees for Misconduct/Personal Problems

-For conduct detrimental to the interests of a company but not actually illegal or
intentionally destructive, employees must be officially warned and given the chance to explain their conduct before any termination becomes final.

-Labor laws and applicable collective bargaining agreements may require that employees be given a notice period before the termination becomes effective; up to two months may be required for employees with two years of experience.

-Laws might require severance pay, and the employee has the option of referring their termination to a labor court.

-On the subject of labor courts:

It is extremely easy and at virtually no cost for an employee to start litigation against his (ex) employer before separate Labour Courts.

Labour Relations Courts (Conseils de Prud'hommes) are generally made up of lay judges who are elected from the ranks of employer/employee organisations.

It is rare that the plaintiff be other than an employee and just as rare that claims be dismissed with no award whatsoever being made against the employer.

Limits on Hourly Work

-The regular workweek is capped at thirty-five hours. For specific information regarding overtime limits, please consult here and pages 5 and 6 of the .pdf file here.

For Further Reading:
-Primary source material available online at Legifrance.com (again, the Labour Code has yet to be translated from French)
-An introduction to French Law sources is available at the Cornell Law School's website, found here.

Previous Posts on the CPE:
Paris on the Brink?
France and the CPE, Continued
French First Employment Contract and Econ 101

Technorati Tags:
France, CPE, French Economy, French labor law

Planning for War with Iran; or, Much Ado About Nothing

2006-04-09T21:24:00.000-04:00

It seems the Sunday Times is indulging in a bit of chicken little-style inflammatory writing, as Sarah Baxter postulates that Bush and the American military are preparing for a military intervention in Iran.

From Ms. Baxter's article:

White House insiders say that Bush and Dick Cheney, his hawkish vice-president, have made up their minds to resolve the Iranian crisis before they leave office in three years time.

They say that military intervention in the form of a massive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is being planned and that Bush is prepared to order the raid unless Iran scraps its nuclear programme.

Of course the military is planning for a strike against Iran. That's what the Pentagon is supposed to do for every potential problem and potential enemy. Countries have prepared for wars by drawing up complex plans for a long, long time. The Pentagon also has plans for invading North Korea and defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, but that doesn't mean we believe that China actually will attempt to invade Taiwan or that we're gearing up for dealing with Kim in 2008.

That said, of course military intervention is a possibility. We would be stupid to keep that option off the table.

American neo-cons had hoped the invasion of Iraq would set in train a domino effect across the region, with the people of Iran and other oil-rich states rising up to demand western-style freedoms and democracy.

Unfortunately the reverse has been true, in Iran at least. Since taking power, Ahmadinejad has openly embraced a tide of nationalism and anti-Israeli and American sentiment.

Reforms take time, Ms. Baxter, especially in countries where free elections are a rather novel idea. There has been progress in Lebanon and Egypt, for starters.

As for Iran, remember that no candidate for the Iranian presidency may stand for election without the consent of the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council has twelve members, six of which are clerics chosen directly by the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Reformers rarely pass muster with the Guardian Council, as the clerics and other members of the council are notoriously hard-line Islamists. The Iranian people voted for Ahmadinejad not because the vast majority stand with him, but because there was little difference between him and the other candidates that squeaked through to run in the election. While I'm sure the nation would rally around him in some circumstances, let's not overstate his popular appeal.

It is a tempting prospect for Bush, who is determined to leave his mark on history as a "consequential president," as Karl Rove, his adviser and guru, once put it. However, there is considerable nervousness among administration officials about the Iranians' potential reaction.

"We're in a state of flux about military action," said a White House insider. "We can bomb the sites, but what then? Will America hold its nerve if events take a sharp turn for the worse?"

IF attacked, there is no doubt that Iran could unleash a wave of terrorism in the West and Israel and destabilise its all-too-fragile Iraqi neighbour. An attack would almost certainly also encourage Iranians to rally behind Ahmadinejad.

Right there's the problem. If Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons, there's not much we can really do to stop them. Bombing a few nuclear sites will only delay the inevitable and turn the Iranian population against us.

As much as Ms. Baxter appears to believe the United States is seriously considering a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, she quotes a few supposed insiders who admit a strike would do little to stop the Iranian government from acquiring nuclear technology and would only serve to cause retaliatory strikes elsewhere in the world.

Unless Ahmadinejad makes serious, overt threats that include the use of nuclear weapons, I just can't see the United States actually attacking Iran. There's just no plausible reason to do so, especially given the effects a strike would have in Iran and the surrounding region. It's not worth it, and the administration most likely knows it.

Technorati Tags:
Iran, Guardian Council

The Ugly Side of Organized Labor

2006-04-09T04:27:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal's editorial website, Opinion Journal, ran a story yesterday, titled "GM, France and Albany," comparing the problems organized labor can wreak upon companies, national economies and governments.

While I admit that labor unions have both a right to exist and a purpose for continued existence, organized labor can cause a multitude of problems for everyone around them when they overstep their boundaries and use their power to fulfill ever higher demands, to the detriment of employers and surrounding economies.

The Opinion Journal, while stating that previous columns have fallen on the side of protecting collective bargaining, argues that entrenched labor organizations are a net detriment to society by undermining economic growth and increasing job insecurity.

The article turns first to the labor crisis in France:

At the national level, the French example is clear enough. While the French private sector is less unionized than America's, it must cope with mandated work rules that make it all but impossible to fire someone; so naturally companies are also reluctant to hire. The jobless rate is double America's, while youth unemployment is 23%. More significant is that the political clout of public-sector unions has blocked all but minor changes in these rules. Public-sector workers account for more than a quarter of the entire French work force (6.4 million of out 24.6 million), and their salaries and pensions made up 45% of the entire state budget as recently as 2003.

For anyone who's read my previous entries on the CPE crisis currently plaguing France, this summary of problems is nothing new. Labor protections in France (among other causes, such as protectionist policies, high taxes and limits on competition) have acted to stifle economic growth. Attempts to change the policies have met with widespread disapproval, with the French trade unions leading the charge to dismantle the law and oust the government that had dared to challenge the beloved labor protections. Even as a relatively small amount of French workers are actually unionized, trade unions may still negotiate binding national labor agreements that certain industries must abide by.

The end result of the furor, if the CPE fails to pass muster, is the continued slow death of the French economy. While the trade unions and other labor forces have secured strong protections against unemployment, their efforts have only hurt national employment rates, as companies are unwilling to hire new workers who may turn out to be a costly liability.

On to Albany:

Here in the U.S., the same burden is slowly crippling New York, once a bulwark of American industry. Power in the state capital of Albany is shared by Republicans and Democrats. But both parties bow before the public-sector unions, especially the teachers, and the health-care workers led by perhaps the most powerful man in the state, Dennis Rivera.

Thanks to his political clout, New York's Medicaid costs are higher than those of Texas and Florida combined; a health-care insurance premium for a young family of four is roughly six times what it is across the border in Connecticut; and high-deductible health-savings accounts that can help the self-employed afford insurance can't even be offered in the state. New York is also a rare state that actually taxes private health insurance, to the tune of about $2.4 billion a year.

Funny how insurance costs can drop dramatically from border to border, eh. Between sweetheart healthcare deals with the larger unions and taxing private health insurance plans (what the hell is that about, really), the government managed to drive up prices for everyone else. Surprise, surprise. The net effect upon the state economy:

Thanks to immigration, as well as America's continuing advantage in financial services, New York City has so far been able to avoid another fiscal collapse of the kind it had in the 1970s. But upstate is a different story, with jobs and young people fleeing to better business climes. New York manufacturing employment fell by 41% between 1990 and 2005, or double the national rate.

New York's policies turned the state into an inhospitable climate for businesses, and businesses reacted by moving elsewhere. And speaking of manufacturers, let's look at General Motors:

But the root of its problem is that it long ago became a corporate version of the welfare state, with the same entrenched union interests. Yes, as a private company it has had to answer to shareholders. But the size of its market dominance going back to its heyday 40 years ago allowed its managers to avoid confronting its uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules even as they saw Toyota and Honda gaining in the rearview mirror.

GM has committed a litany of errors, to be sure. From ugly and uninspired cars to corporate mismanagement and horrible quality control GM has created many of it's own demons. But the current looming problem is the cost of labor. GM is facing stiff competition from foreign car firms that manufacture their automobiles in the US and manage better quality and lower prices than GM can hope to match. Could GM find a way to convince the UAW to reduce worker overhead to compete with other companies?

In 1998, young executive and future CEO Rick Wagoner endured a 54-day UAW wildcat strike at two plants in Flint, Michigan, after GM had tried to change some production rules. The strike shut down most GM production in North America and cost the company some $2 billion. In the end GM caved and the UAW escaped, having made virtually no concessions.

Even now at auto-parts maker Delphi--which is already in Chapter 11--the UAW is declaring it will take a strike that could destroy both Delphi and GM rather than agree to Delphi's proposed job cuts and work changes. As in France and New York, these union leaders would rather sink the company than make concessions that would reduce their own power.

Well, maybe not. For GM to compete in the marketplace, the cost of labor needs to decrease quite drastically. For it's part, the UAW is taking a rather suicidal approach, hoping to string along the company for a few more years before costs reach the breaking point. Hardly the best method to ensure the continued economic security of GM's workers.

While the argument put forth by the Opinion Journal may be rather simplistic (yes, I understand this is just an editorial, not a full-blown study), I agree that on a general basis organized labor can quite definitely cause more harm than good. Through heavy restrictions on layoffs unemployment, costly deals for healthcare and required funding for bloated salaries and pensions organized labor can cool economic growth and fuel unemployment rates.

Cuffs for McKinney?

2006-04-03T19:41:00.000-04:00

Capitol Police have requested an arrest warrant for Representative Cynthia McKinney from the office of the District of Columbia's U.S. Attorney. If the U.S. Attorney agrees, the police may then request a judge to issue the arrest warrant.

McKinney's spokesman had this to say (from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution):

Coz Carson, a spokesman for McKinney, said the requested warrant should be dismissed if "this is a prosecutor who's not a politician."

"Any prosecutor with any sense can look at this thing and understand that it's not something that should be blown out of proportion any further," Carson said.

If McKinney didn't want the situation to be "blown of proportion" she shouldn't have held so many press conferences to repeatedly cry racism and denounce the Capitol Police. While the incident certainly made the headlines, her handling of the situation has only inflamed matters.

Speaking of press conferences, here are three videos, the first showing Cynthia McKinney responding to the uproar and the second two showing several supporters speaking on her behalf (all via youtube.com):

Video 1: Fox News coverage of McKinney denying the charges against her and stating her belief that racism is behind the whole mess.

Video 2: Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte come to the aid of McKinney; Belafonte admits he knows nothing about the merits of the case against the congresswoman.

Video 3: Several McKinney rally to her cause; one supporter believes McKinney is the victim of a frame-up.

Previous:
Representative McKinney Vying for the Middleweight Title?

Local Prohibitionists Strike Again!

2006-04-02T19:09:00.000-04:00

At least for my township, stupidity seems to know no bounds, as neo-prohibitionists come out of the woodwork to protest a cafe's intentions to sell beer.

The owners of a local supermarket chain intend to intend to remodel retail space adjoining one of their stores into a sandwich shop, probably in the same image as other supermarket chains that have successfully attracted customers with an in-store shop. While the cafe hasn't yet been built, the owners have already applied for a license to sell beer, which is by no means an easy task under Pennsylvania's strict laws.

From the Morning Call's article:

Weis Markets, which owns the store on Route 873 in the Schnecksville area, wants to add a cafe, separated from the grocery area by a 4-foot-high display case, and hopes customers can have a beer there, take home up to two six-packs, or do both.

For anyone who isn't from Pennsylvania, current laws prohibit bars, bottle shops and licensed restaurants from selling more than two six-packs to a single customer in one transaction. If you want more, you have to leave the premises and come back in again. Beer distributors (you can't buy beer in grocery stores or liquor stores in Pennsylvania) don't have these restrictions.

Weis officials said the cafe is an amenity that customers want in a fast-changing and competitive industry. Curtin said strict controls would be in place to prevent sales to underage customers.

So, in a fit of capitalistic ardor, the owners saw an opportunity to attract customers and one-up the competition at the same time and went for it. Customers like having a beer with their meals, just ask any bar owner who's open for the lunch and dinner crowd. The owners also state that they're going to make damn sure minors won't be served alcohol. But that's not enough, apparently:

But opponents contend that adding another beer outlet in the township, and one in a grocery store that could be frequented by minors, would increase the potential for youths to get alcohol.

Let the whining begin.

'You're making it easier'' for underage drinkers to get beer, despite Weis' best intentions, [township supervisor] Stoudt said.

''My heart says no,'' said [supervisor] Stahley, who, along with [supervisor] Heintzelman, shares concerns about underage drinking. ''But if we turn it down, they'll certainly appeal it to court. It's a very complex issue, and we're trying to do our homework on it.''

Oh, come on. Any kid will tell you that the easiest way to obtain alcohol is through a straw buyer who is of legal age to purchase it. The only way to stop underage drinking completely is total prohibition of alcohol, and that's assuming that nobody will make illicit booze (contrary to historical and contemporary evidence). The company, nevertheless, has a plan:

To prevent sales to minors, customers would be required to slide their drivers' licenses through an electronic age verification machine, similar to debit-card processors, which automatically reveals the person's age, Curtin said.

Customers would be able to pay for beer only in the cafe. And closed-circuit TV cameras would monitor transactions at a check-out counter within the cafe, separate from the grocery-store registers.

Open containers would not be allowed in the supermarket area, Curtin said. And Weis would hire no one younger than 25 to work at the cafe check-out, Curtin said, even though the law allows those as young as 18 to do so.

Sounds good to me. There is little any store can do to prevent minors from obtaining alcohol beyond checking for a valid ID and preventing open containers out of the sight of staff. Company spokesman Dennis Curtin responds to the criticism:

Curtin countered that Weis proposes nothing more than what's already being done at other bars and restaurants in the township where beer is served.

''This is something that is legally permitted, and we intend to abide by all rules and regulations,'' he said.

Bingo. The supermarket is simply being singled out for special treatment at the hands of busybodies.

David McCorkle, president of the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, said ''a number of stores'' have adopted the practice of beer sales in grocery-market eateries, though he wasn't sure how many. ''It's not common, but there have been a few,'' he said.

''My understanding is, this is the beginning of a wave,'' said Slamon, the lawyer representing opponents of the Weis plan. She said the Sheetz convenience store chain is seeking a beer-only license for a store in Altoona in a case that is tied up in court.

There's the real point. Pennsylvania businesses can either innovate and ride the wave of prosperity or do nothing and watch customers go elsewhere.

Will the Neuros III be an iPod Killer?

2006-04-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

I've been trolling around the internet looking for a good digital music player, and I think I might have found what I've been looking for in the Neuros 3.

While the iPod family of digital music players might be rather trendy, the iPod just doesn't offer the features I want, namely support for numerous file formats (both lossless and lossy), integrated FM broadcasting and audio recording, a high quality audio pathway and S/PDIF outlets. I really don't care about watching videos, so what does the iPod offer that I want? Nada.

The N3, on the other hand, will offer (most likely) everything above and more. And, let's not forget that Neuros Audio has opened up their firmware to the public with previous projects, and fully intend to make the N3's firmware open source. With a whole community of programmers at work, I can damn well expect a few nice changes to the firmware.

Too bad for me the N3 is still in the design stages...hurry up, guys!

Representative McKinney Vying for the Middleweight Title?

2006-04-01T20:11:00.000-05:00

Georgian Democratic Representative Cynthia McKinney has apparently been taking some boxing lessons lately, as she reportedly struck a Capitol Police officer.

From FoxNews.com:

According to the sources, McKinney was walking into the building at about 2:30 p.m. EST and went around the metal detector, which is customary for lawmakers.

The police officer apparently did not recognize McKinney and asked her to stop and walk through the metal detector. McKinney ignored the officer's requests more than once, the sources said, and the officer placed his hand on McKinney's shoulder.

The sources said that McKinney then turned around and hit the officer in the chest with her cell phone.

Striking a police officer is always a smart move, virtually regardless of circumstances.

After Rep. McKinney attempted to bypass the checkpoint and was stopped by the police officer, she had two main options:

1) Stop and respond to the police officer's request.

2) Keep moving and respond with force if the police officer persists.

One option is legal and shows evidence of common courtesy and sense, while the other option is illegal and belies an angry nature and an overdeveloped sense of self-importance. Sadly, McKinney went with the latter option.

CNN.com sheds more light on the confrontation:

Members of Congress are allowed to bypass the metal detectors and security checkpoint. They are supposed to wear a lapel pin that identifies them as lawmakers. McKinney acknowledges she wasn't wearing one when she was stopped, but concurred with Myart that police should know who she is.

So, according to McKinney herself, she attempted to bypass a police-staffed security checkpoint without the necessary credentials. I'm not sure how a pin can ensure the identity of a lawmaker, but that's besides the point. Hundreds of other lawmakers understand the rules about the security checkpoints, but McKinney decided she was special. She tried to disobey the rules, and responded violently when a lowly police officer tried to do his job. If and when the Capitol Police decide to file assault charges Rep. McKinney might actually have to take responsibility for her actions.

But wait, the story doesn't end there!

While the police have been mulling over their option to press charges, McKinney has been busy attempting to spin the encounter as a tale of racial bias and attempted assault by the Capitol Police. From CBSNews.com:

Her lawyer, James W. Myart Jr., said, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin."

"Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black," Myart said. "Congresswoman McKinney will be exonerated."

Oh, of course! McKinney was stopped simply because she was black, and therefore suspicious, not because she declined to wear her identifying pin. And what about her violent response to the officer touching her (from CNN):

During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."

Oh, good grief.

Myart said McKinney would seek a criminal investigation against the officer, and a civil lawsuit against both the officer and the Capitol Police is being explored.

Of course. She has to push ahead full steam with her excuse and try to make everyone else pay for her stupidity.

Myart further called the incident racial profiling and said there was "no excuse" for Capitol Police not recognizing his client, and Raffauf said she was stopped solely because of her race, gender and politics.

I find the charges of racial, gender and political profiling rather unsubstantiated, Mr. Myart. Your client acted impetuously when she decided to slug a police officer, plain and simple. This has absolutely nothing to do with race, gender or political beliefs, and everything to do with someone who decided to play by her own rules.

(Edit: Forgot a block quote)

Apparently Someone Noticed I Exist...

2006-03-30T01:45:00.000-05:00

It was bound to happen sometime, I guess.

Anyway, Torie Bosch included my March 19th entry on France and the ongoing CPE crisis in a roundup of blog stories. While it's nice to be noticed, it's a bit less nice to be misconstrued.

Here's the relevant excerpt from her post:

Conservative bloggers are mocking the students for what they see as another case of French laziness. At the opposite-of-Francophile Libertyblog, the editor scoffs that the students are "defend[ing] their right to be half-assed workers." On The Inebriated Arsonist, the blogger, a "semi-employed Pennsylvanian Libertarian Republican" is confused about the fuss. He believes that the new laws are necessary. "I don't understand how the CPE could be a barrier to employment. If anything, the CPE will reduce potential liability costs for buying unnecessary labor and encourage employers to risk hiring new workers," he conjectures.

I didn't remember actually mocking the students for laziness, so I read over my entry a few times. At no point did I even use the word "lazy," much less state that the students were a slothful bunch who wouldn't get out of bed if the sheets were on fire. In fact, I even stated outright that the majority of students were peaceful, and that a small minority of idiots were responsible for the mayhem. Not the most mocking of sentiments, I think.

Secondly, I wasn't confused with the French protester's grasp of social policy (I know damn well that the French have quite the cultural attachment to vast protections against unemployment, come hell or high water) so much as I questioned the apparent ignorance of simple economic principles. One of the protesters quoted in the BBC article believed that the CPE would act as a barrier to employment, an assertion that I and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development cannot agree with.

Feel free to quote me all you wish, Ms. Bosch, just strive a little harder for accuracy, please.

National Buy a Gun Day and the Carnival of Cordite

2006-03-29T23:04:00.000-05:00

First off, happy anniversary to the Carnival of Cordite! The new edition is now up and running, with two parts: the first, a retrospective featuring a high point from each of the previous editions, and the second part following the regular format.

Also, let's not forget that April 15th is National Buy a Gun Day! If you're half-broke, like me, at least think about buying some ammunition or donating a small amount to a pro-2nd Amendment group.

Philadelphia and Gun Control

2006-03-28T16:49:00.000-05:00

A bill currently before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives proposes limiting all state residents to the purchase of one handgun a month.

The Daily Pennsylvanian, the University of Pennsylvania's "independent" student newspaper, published an online editorial calling for state representatives and senators to back Bill 871. From the Article:

The epidemic of gun violence is reaching epic proportions, and yet Philadelphia is unable to act because the state government has tied its hands. Philadelphia cannot control the flow of handguns on its own streets because cities within Pennsylvania cannot enact stricter gun-control ordinances than those created in the state gun-control laws.

Philadelphia already has strict laws on firearms, and yet the laws are never strict enough.

These current laws allow unlimited purchasing of handguns. This means that "straw purchasers" can legally purchase handguns in bulk and then unlawfully and lucratively transfer the weapons to gun traffickers or other criminals who would not have been able to pass a background check to buy the handgun in the first place or who want to avoid detection. Bulk purchases of guns go unchecked, creating an ample, steady and inexpensive supply of illegal guns for trafficking -- 46 percent of guns used in crime come from these illegal transactions.

First off, buying a handgun with the intent to resell them illegally is, well, illegal, and such criminals should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law. As for believing that a purchase limit would impede the flow of guns to criminals, don't kid yourself.

Under the "One Handgun Per Month" legislation, individuals will only be able to purchase a handgun once every 30 days, providing exception for parties with a need for more guns each month, like gun collectors and law-enforcement agencies. This should ensure that unfair restrictions are not placed on anyone needing multiple guns each month for legitimate reasons.

Strange how the legislation doesn't include "self-defense" as a legitimate reason to buy more than one handgun at a time. Beyond that, the legislation punishes the rest of the state at the whim of Philadelphia politicians.

This legislation does not represent an attack against the right to bear arms. It gives cities in Pennsylvania the ability to control the flow of illegal handguns on its streets, not to deny individuals the right to own a handgun.

The hell it isn't an attack on the right to keep and bear arms. The law will do little to stop gun violence, and only make it more annoying for legitimate citizens to arm themselves.

Paris on the Brink?

2006-03-28T00:02:00.000-05:00

It seems all sides are gearing up for today, as students continue to sit out of school and the trade unions are calling for a nationwide general strike. Demonstrations are planned for cities across the country to protest the enactment of the First Employment Contract (CPE, in French) law, which allows employers to hire workers below the age of twenty-six under the terms of a special temporary labor contract, bypassing current restrictions on firings and layoffs.

The police in Paris, after dealing with a whole month of rioting and general insanity last fall and with the memory of the latest labor riots still fresh in their memory, have already called up four thousand policemen to prepare for whatever today's demonstrations might bring (BBC). Considering that troublemakers have already attacked policemen, burned cars and damaged local businesses, the possibility for violence to break out is very, very real. While the majority of protesters and striking workers obviously do not wish to inflict significant damage upon local businesses and attack policemen, even a small miniority of idiots have the potential to wreak havoc.

French university students, meanwhile, have continued their general strike against attending courses and have apparently taken over the grounds of many universities and schools:

The movement has taken the form of huge rallies joined by trade unions, with another day of marches and strikes due on Tuesday.

But students have also taken vigorous, direct action by blockading hundreds of universities and schools across France. It is in these revolutionary microcosms that the uprising is being hatched.

At Jussieu University in Paris - the focus of many past student revolts - insurrectional excitement is palpable.

"We are in our fifth week of blockade," Marie Gombeaud, a 19-year-old biology student, says proudly.

She has put aside laboratory work for the time being, and is mobilising students, administrating an internet forum on the protests and staffing checkpoints around the Jussieu campus.

Ah, such pride. Remember, kids, the point of attending post-secondary schools isn't to learn a trade or expand educational horizons; you go to college in order to protest laws and seize educational institutions and prevent any sort of learning from taking place.

The main entrance is chained and barricaded by a clutter of overturned chairs, rubbish bins and desks. At side entrances, Ms Gombeaud and other students are restricting access to a few chosen activists.

Lelio Stettin, 23, the local leader, currently exerts more authority over the campus than the vice-chancellor, who has so far refrained from calling in the security forces.

Seriously, though, how the hell could university administrators just sit back and let students take control of the campus grounds and let the insurrection continue, unabated, for five whole weeks?! The students most certainly do not own the university grounds, nor do they have the right to choose who is allowed to access the grounds. Lelio Stettin, however, might have his mind on educational priorities:

"So many things need to be done: we have to prepare for another general assembly, leaflets have to be written and printed, we need placards for Tuesday's marches.

"Megaphones, sound systems and vans also have to be arranged. Excuse me, I must take this call."

Well, maybe not.

As I finish this entry, the first wave of workers has begun to walk off the job. Rail service across the country has been affected, as over half the long-distance trains stand idle. Other transport industries have also been hit, as the Paris underground system grinds to a halt and the air traffic controllers take an extended coffee break. Looks like today will be an interesting day.

Previous Posts:
French First Employment Contract and Econ 101
France and the CPE, Continued

The US Debt Grows Again

2006-03-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise, the national debt will continue to grow, now that President Bush has signed into law a bill raising the debt limit to $9 trillion.

From the article:

The bill means the government can borrow a further $781 billion and stops what would have been a first ever default of Treasury notes.
In addition, it permits the US to pay for the war in Iraq without increasing taxes or making domestic cuts.

Ah, the "put it on credit" approach to fiscal solvency. We can't keep spending like drunken sailors on a one-night shore leave and expect to have a healthy economy. But what do I know, I'm one of the few people I know without any personal debt.

The debt increase, the fourth since Mr Bush came to power, comes as the budget deficit reaches near record levels.
An additional increase in the debt limit next year is likely, the Associated Press news agency said.

Ah, the glory days of a burgeoning debt load are upon us. Both of the major political parties are responsible for this ongoing fiasco, though I'm more inclined to wag my finger at the Republican Party. I voted for candidates who promised to be fiscal conservatives, and instead I get spend-happy Republicans in name only. Thanks, guys, I really appreciate your attempts to screw me and the rest of the country over. It's time to stop building useless bridges and to start limiting spending and pork.

The new chairman of the Federal Reserve System is worried, too:

Mr Bernanke warned persistent deficits need to be curbed, particularly as an ageing population will raise pressure on government spending.
Widening the deficit would put future living standards at risk, he added.
"As a result, I think it would be very desirable to take concrete steps to lower the prospective path of the deficit," he said.

Keep repeating that message, Mr. Bernanke, as loud and as often as possible.

It's not all gloom and doom, however. Tom Abate, writing the in the San Francisco Gate, believes that our current financial position isn't the problem, it's where we'll stand around 2010. From his article:

Nonpartisan budget watchers say the current debt load isn't the problem. They worry about what happens after 2010, when retiring Baby Boomers begin placing demands on Social Security and Medicare.
"It's not where we are. It's the trajectory we're on,'' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who just stepped down as head of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.
As his last official act, Holtz-Eakin sent Congress six scenarios that look at federal spending and debt through 2050. All six assume that Social Security benefits will be paid as required by current law. The differences lie in how much inflation occurs in Medicare and Medicaid; higher or lower levels of taxation; and whether, or how deeply, Congress curbs spending on defense and other programs.

So, should we get to work on the problem while there's still time?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Foreign Law

2006-03-20T04:05:00.000-05:00

Justice Ginsberg has recently stated her displeasure with a handful of Congressional proposals designed to limit the ability of the Supreme Court of the United States to consider or cite foreign laws when deciding on cases. From the article:

While emphasizing that the rulings and reasoning of non-U.S. courts are not "controlling authorities," she told the South African audience that foreign law can be a useful source of common standards of fairness. The Supreme Court's citation of them shows "comity and a spirit of humility" toward other countries, she said.
On the Supreme Court, Ginsburg's view is backed, to one degree or another, by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter.

On the other hand, both Alito and Roberts have objected to the use of foreign law to construe the U.S. Constitution, and Scalia has stated on the record that foreign law should only be used when deciding cases involving treaties with foreign nations. Almost sounds like the opposing groups will meet at the school flagpole to settle their differences, eh?

If you're interested in looking further into the debate, try watching the following two videos:

Video 1: Justices Scalia and Breyer speaking to a group of law students at American University. The video is over an hour long, but it's definitely worth watching.

Video 2: Justice Scalia speaking at the American Enterprise Institute. Slightly shorter than an hour long.

And, for the record, I agree with Scalia.

(update: fixed the useless video links, so they should work now)

France and the CPE, Continued

2006-03-19T22:41:00.000-05:00

Unless you've been under a rock the past few days, you may have noticed that the protests over the proposed First Employment Contract (CPE) have graduated into small-scale riots. I watched coverage of the Paris rioters throwing paving stones, bricks and flares at the police lines for at least an hour. I know most of the protesters were peaceful, but suffering a bunch of idiots and professional troublemakers rarely helps a cause.

Back to the CPE. Most of the protesters and interested parties quoted by the BBC continue to advance the opinion that the reforms would somehow create higher unemployment rates, rather than work to reduce joblessness. From this article:

Civil servant Nicole Beauregard, who marched with her teenaged daughter, said: "Young people are less well-armed than we are to defend themselves.
"Getting into the workforce is already hard enough for them, and now they are putting up another obstacle."

I don't understand how the CPE could be a barrier to employment. If anything, the CPE will reduce potential liability costs for buying unnecessary labor and encourage employers to risk hiring new workers. The real obstacles to employment are laws that restrict employers from responding to market forces in a quick and efficient manner.

From this BBC interview, with university student Judith Duportail:

It is wrong to make it easier to hire and to fire people here in France.
I know it is the case in other countries, but there you don't have to wait months and months, perhaps even years, to get another job like you do here. I agree we must be flexible, but not like this."

The restrictions on firing workers is one of the factors contributing to a dearth in new hires. I'm no economic genius, though, so let's consult with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Why does unemployment remain so high and participation so low?

The unemployment rate is currently 10% and has not been below 8% for twenty years, even at the cyclical peak of the late 1990s. There is room for discussion about the precise quantitative effects of strict employment protection and the minimum wage. But these effects, combined with the uncertainty over the cost of dismissal to the employer, and the fact that the minimum cost of labour exceeds the potential productivity of a number of low skilled workers, appear to be responsible for a large part of the high level of structural unemployment, especially among certain groups, such as youth and the long-term unemployed. These policies are intended to place part of the responsibility for income protection and security of employment on employers. Over the years the response of employers to these increases in labour costs has been to reduce the demand for labour even though reductions over the last decade in social insurance contributions for low paid workers have increased employment prospects for the low skilled. High employers' social insurance contributions have the same effect on the demand for labour at wage levels where these reductions no longer have an impact. On the other hand, the interaction of taxes, social security contributions and social benefits also leads to poor labour market performance by tending to reduce the supply of labour.

I suggest reading the entire article at the OECD, along with the full Economic Survey of France that covers other aspects of the French economy and labor troubles.

In short, the CPE is just one of many sorely-needed reforms necessary for the French economy to prosper.

Of South Park and Scientology

2006-03-18T17:44:00.000-05:00

Perhaps you've read about the imbroglio involving the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, as well as Isaac Hayes, Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology.

I don't want to delve into the Church of Scientology's system of beliefs, the storyline of the South Park episode in question, or rumors that Tom Cruise used his influence to have the rerun of the Scientology episode pulled. Other bloggers and news outlets have already commented on those points, and I don't have any real experience with Scientology to speak of, beyond knowing a little of L. Ron Hubbard's life history and reading through a few websites dedicated to the religion. Instead, let's quickly examine the larger issue of 1st Amendment protections and attempts to outlaw religious blasphemy.

The troubles across the world stemming from the publishing of cartoons in a Danish newspaper gave momentum to political parties, religious zealots and weak-kneed politicians who seek to impose criminal sanctions on speech deemed to be blasphemous towards a particular faith or generally irreligious in nature. The European Union already has several member states with such laws on the books (the United Kingdom and Italy, for example), and Turkey seeks a Union-wide blasphemy ban. Proponents of the ban argue that restricting blasphemous speech will raise respect for opposing faiths and reduce cultural and religious conflicts.

Far from offering beneficial effects, banning irreligious speech can only harm a society. No person, group or faith may be above reproach, lest they become empowered to freely disobey laws and act with complete impunity. No religion is perfect, and abuses of power and trust must be allowed to see the light of day, rather than hide behind speech restrictions. Without the protections offered by the 1st Amendment, who would speak about the Roman Catholic hierarchy covering up cases of child abuse, who would alert society about abuse in Jehovah's Witness congregations, who would decry using the Koran as justification for honor killings?

Regardless of whether or not the Church of Scientology is indeed guilty of any sort of abuse or criminal act, Matt Stone and Trey Parker had every right to speak about the church's beliefs and drag Scientology into public discussion.

Blasphemy laws the world over should and must be opposed at all costs.

In the interests of blogger transparency, I found the Scientology episode was one of the best from the entire series. I generally like South Park, though Matt and Trey have had their share of misses over the years.

Goodbye, Terrell

2006-03-18T15:49:00.000-05:00

For any football fans out there, the Cowboys have announced the signing of Terrell Owens to a $25 million dollar deal. I'm sure the Dallas fans will just love having TO around, after he continually provoked them with endzone celebrations and dancing on the Cowboy star symbol in the middle of the field. Happy Trails, hehe.

What are the Vegas odds on his next blowup, I wonder?

Free Stuff Alert

2006-03-18T04:30:00.000-05:00

It seems Microsoft is using the incentive of free pen drives to spread information about their licensing system for Windows. While I don't feel a lot of love for Microsoft, I'm no fan of software piracy, so spend two minutes reminding yourself about software licensing and grab a free pen drive for your troubles.

Oh, and I think I know what's going on my pen drive when it finally arrives.

French First Employment Contract and Econ 101

2006-03-17T15:18:00.000-05:00

I'm having a hard time finding sympathy for the protesting French students. Sure, receiving the pink slip is usually an unhappy experience (though the last day of a tedious and backbreaking summer job usually feels like Christmas). Hamstringing employers into retaining unnecessary labor with an eye towards avoiding instant unemployment, however, is a horrible way to respond.

Let's put this in terms of a simple, imaginary small business, shall we?

Meet Jack. Jack, a recent college graduate and ever the budding young businessman, decides to open a donut shop. He owns shop space and has all the necessary equipment and ingredients needed for the tasty treats, and his last step is to hire some workers. Jack is rather new to the business, so he figures he needs three workers besides himself: a cashier to run the register and deal with typical customer issues, a person to mix the ingredients together and someone to cook and glaze the donuts.

Soon enough, Jack’s donut business is booming, doing well enough that he decides to take a chance and extend his business hours. Since his employees are already working a full 40-hour schedule, and Jack is pulling almost double that himself trying to keep everything running smoothly, he knows he will need more workers. So Jack hires three more workers and a manager to take some of the load off of him.

After a few weeks of extended hours, however, Jack notices that customers tend to drop off during the middle of the second shift, at times leaving his employees with little to do. In order to maximize profits, Jack decides to cut one of the workers from the second shift, of course choosing the least productive employee of the bunch.

To me, and to a lot of businessmen out there, Jack’s decision to lay off a worker shows good business sense. Keeping the extra worker around wasn’t worth the amount of labor that worker provided, and thus Jack trimmed the fat.

Now, let us return to reality. French university students and young workers have been protesting the passage of the First Employment Contract (Contrat Premiere Embauche), which allows businesses to hire workers below the age of twenty-six under the terms of a temporary contract, mandating that employers have the right to fire any such worker without prior notice. For normal, non-CPE labor, the law apparently mandates one 1 to 3 months notice before the end of actual employment. (BBC)

The French Government is in a bind. Average unemployment is 9.6%, with unemployment among 18 to 25-year-olds greater than 20%. (BBC) Job growth has also been poor. The Government needs to do something to ease unemployment, but decades of strong labor protection have turned public opinion against sweeping (or, in this case, marginal) changes to the system. The CPE was designed to boost job growth among businesses that require little formal training, jobs that 18 to 26-year-olds tend to inhabit.

Back to Jack. In the story above, Jack was operating under the auspices of at-will employment, meaning he could hire and fire at any time, for any reason. He could add or subtract workers depending on his situation, and could react quickly to market or labor forces. Under the pre-CPE system, however, Jack wouldn’t be able to make those decisions at will. The national labor laws would potentially require Jack to retain the extra employee for months beyond Jack’s decision to fire him, costing Jack profits on buying unnecessary labor, not to mention taxes and other fees imposed by French government. With the potential for problems resulting from unneeded labor, Jack might never have hired the second shift in the first place, deciding that the opportunity costs might not make expansion worth his while.

Much is the same among the businesses in France. Government protections on labor stymied job growth, as many businesses don’t want to be saddled with the costs of employing unnecessary labor. By protesting the CPE the students are working against their own interests, ensuring a sluggish labor market and a continued dearth of jobs for their age set.

Fresh Meat for the Grinder...

2006-03-17T04:04:00.000-05:00

Welcome! I'm just screwing around for the moment, so please, don't mind the mess.

Wheee.