»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog  | »Contribute Online
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 ::

FTC boss can see clearly now 

:: Posted by Skip at 7:18 PM

For all their anti-capitalism bluster, the Federal Trade Commission does seem to like some large businesses, such as LensCrafters. In formal comments to the Tennessee legislature, FTC Chairman Timothy Muris urged legislators to reject proposed restrictions on commercial optometrists in the Volunteer State. The proposed bill, according to Muris, regulates without providing any tangible consumer benefits:

Senate Bill 855 begins with the statement that optometrists "shall be free from any influences that would interfere with their exercise of professional judgment," and that "optometrists shall not be associated with any person or persons in any manner which might degrade or reduce the quality of visual care received by the citizens of this state."

The next section then states: "A manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of ophthalmic materials who leases space to an optometrist shall not, directly or indirectly, control or attempt to control the professional judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist."

* * *

These restrictions would apply to all manufacturers or sellers of ophthalmic materials who lease space to optometrists, thus limiting the relations between optometrists and the optical store in which some may choose to practice.


Muris correctly recognizes that this bill would interfere in the private, voluntary relationship between optometrists and the commercial retailers they work for. On this ground alone, the bill should be rejected as contrary to the principles of individual rights and capitalism. But Muris, of course, is not a capitalist, thus his arguments against the bill are rooted in consumerist thought:

Restraints on competition from optical chains may make consumers better off if such restrictions improve the quality of eye care or lead to other consumer benefits that would not be produced by firms operating in a competitive marketplace. Senate Bill 855 would create net benefits for consumers if the value to consumers of any improvement in the quality of eye care attributable to the Bill is greater than the harm imposed on consumers by the reduction in competition. We respectfully urge the Tennessee legislature to weigh the impact on competition of the prohibitions in Senate Bill 855 against any benefits that the Bill's restrictions might create for consumers.


Muris goes on to cite “empirical evidence” gathered by the FTC which shows the proposed bill’s restrictions are pragmatically unnecessary. In other words, it’s okay on principle to violate private contract rights, but only if you can produce some data which demonstrates some potential “benefit” to consumers.

The “empirical evidence” argument is a hallmark of Muris’ FTC leadership. Superficially, it sounds appealing, as it seems to emphasize the importance of data in assessing antitrust claims. But in reality, the FTC usually treats “empirical evidence” as a series of random concretes which have no underlying concept to tie them all together. For example, in merger review cases, the FTC often manipulates “empirical evidence” to create market definitions that are not supported by objective facts. This happened last year when the FTC went after MSC.Corporation, arguing the software company monopolized a market which consisted entirely of MSC’s own product. The FTC ignored industry analysts—and even MSC competitors—who argued the actual market definition included a number of products arbitrarily excluded by the FTC’s so-called “empirical evidence.”

Indeed, I’m willing to bet that given the FTC’s data on optometry, I could fashion an “empirical evidence” argument in support of the Tennessee legislation. As the old adage goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Iowa's highest-paid drunk 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:56 PM

Larry Eustachy is the State of Iowa’s highest-paid employee, earning about $1 million annually to coach Iowa State University’s men’s basketball team. Eustachy holds a prominent leadership position which requires him to represent the university publicly in various capacities, most notably as a recruiter for the basketball program. Like all coaches, Eustachy must personally sell students (and their parents) on the value of attending Iowa State over other schools, including Iowa State’s various competitors in the Big XII Conference. For all these reasons, Eustachy’s personal integrity is essential to his ability to perform his duties to Iowa State University and, more generally, to the Iowa taxpayers who pay his salary.

This week the Des Moines Register reported Eustachy, on two occasions, attended late-night parties on the campuses of two Iowa State opponents after games. At one such party, held on January 23 at the University of Missouri, Eustachy was photographed drinking with students and kissing several female students on the cheek. That Eustachy did this as a 47 year-old married man with two children is bad from a personal standpoint. That he did so as a representative of Iowa State University is bad from a professional standpoint, given the importance of a basketball coach’s reputation and integrity.

A year earlier, Eustachy attended a party at Kansas State University, like Missouri a conference rival of Iowa State. The Des Moines Register reported this account of Eustachy’s actions:

In January 2002, the coach was at an early-morning fraternity party in Manhattan, Kan., hours after his team lost a game to Kansas State, students told the Register. On that occasion, a fraternity member said he wound up in an argument with Eustachy because he found the coach's arm around his 19-year-old sister.

The woman told the Register that Eustachy walked into the house and complimented her on her appearance, saying that she should be attending the University of Kansas, where the girls are "much hotter."
Under Eustachy’s contract with Iowa State, which runs through 2011, the coach is required to provide "positive representation of the university and the university's athletic programs in private and public." It’s hard to argue Eustachy’s actions at the two parties did not violate this requirement. Eustachy admitted his actions, but earlier today refused to resign.

Eustachy’s defense proved more interesting than the photos in the Register. Eustachy claimed his job should be saved on the grounds that he’s an alcoholic:

"For the rest of my life I will seek counseling for this illness,'' [Eustachy] said. "I have no excuses for my behavior. ... We'll see what happens in the future, but I am looking forward to the future as a sober person.''
Eustachy says he deserves a “second chance” and should not be fired. This is an unfathomable position. By his own admission, Eustachy has coached a college basketball team for several years with the knowledge that he has a drinking problem. Eustachy said he often drinks “10 or 12” beers during the average workday. Who knows how often the coach was actually drunk while on the job. Who knows what image he was projecting while visiting recruits, representing Iowa State at alumni events, or attending NCAA functions.

Any suggestion that Eustachy’s behavior should be excused because he’s an alcoholic is absurd. If a person has a deadly virus and, knowing he’s infected, fails to obtain treatment and then infects other people, such a person could not defend his actions on the grounds that he was sick. While alcoholism is not contagious, the principle still applies. If you know you have a problem and fail to seek treatment, you are responsible for your actions. The only question is whether Iowa State should fire Eustachy for his misconduct.

The university should fire him, and word late this afternoon is that’s what will happen. Iowa State athletic director Bruce Van De Velde suspended Eustachy this morning and, pending a required five-day appeals period, the university’s president will likely fire him next week. This decision should enjoy no serious dissent. To do otherwise would be an approval of Eustachy coaching college students while admittedly drunk. Most college basketball coaches are fired for far less serious offenses, and Eustachy should receive nobody’s sympathy for his disgraceful actions.

If Eustachy placed any value on his own integrity (to say nothing of the university or the state’s), he would have resigned. But he declined to do so, saying that despite his “poor judgment” and “bad decisions,” it was not “my way” to simply resign. Frankly, coach, it was doing things your way that got you into trouble in the first place. Indeed, had it not been for the pictures in the Des Moines Register, Eustachy would probably have continued to ignore his drinking problem. Asking for a second chance when you were caught in the act is disingenuous, to say the least.

As a post script, I would suggest Iowa State consider hiring Eustachy’s predecessor, Tim Floyd, to return to coach the basketball program. Floyd made a mistake when he left Iowa State five years ago to coach a wretched Bulls team. But unlike Eustachy, Floyd’s error is forgivable without having to go through the Betty Ford Clinic.

:: help support this website | link |



 

VMI loses again 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:39 PM

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court declared the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy unconstitutional. As a state-run school, the Court found single-sex admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This past Monday, VMI again found itself in constitutional peril, when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the school’s “supper prayer” violated the First Amendment rights of VMI students. Virginia state officials are now considering a further appeal to the full Fourth Circuit, although such an appeal is unlikely to succeed.

Circuit Judge Robert King, writing for the unanimous panel, rejected former VMI Superintendent Joseph Bunting’s argument that sponsoring a daily prayer during dinner (in a mess hall where nearly all students attend) effectively amounted to a state endorsement of religion. Two VMI students sued General Bunting, individually and as superintendent when he refused to abandon the supper prayer. These two students have since graduated VMI, which raised the issue of mootness before the Fourth Circuit. Judge King’s opinion answered that question as well as the underlying constitutional issue:

Because the Plaintiffs have now graduated from VMI, their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot, and we vacate the district court’s judgment insofar as it awarded such relief. In assessing the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages, we agree with the district court that the supper prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but that General Bunting is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.


It’s surprising VMI even contested the constitutional issue on appeal. Sponsoring an overtly Judeo-Christian prayer is suspect under normal circumstances. In the context of a military academy, which places great emphasis on social conformity and unit cohesiveness, the “supper prayer” was obviously a coercive attempt to inculcate religious values onto students. There is no other public college in Virginia which could ever get away with this, and VMI is certainly not entitled to any special constitutional waiver.

VMI’s only real defense was that the prayer reflected the school’s tradition and values. The Court noted General Bunting’s belief that the supper prayer "is a precious link to our heritage and an admirable practice for a school of our provenience and culture." As to the law, General Bunting’s attorneys cite Marsh v. Chambers, a 1983 Supreme Court decision upholding the right of legislative bodies to open their sessions with a prayer. Judge King’s opinion rejected any legal similarity between Marsh and General Bunting’s case:

General Bunting first suggests that we should view the prayer as a uniquely historical practice, in an approach similar to that employed by the Supreme Court in Marsh. In Marsh, though, the Court was specifically influenced by the fact that, in September of 1789, members of the first Congress voted to submit the First Amendment to the states in the same week that they voted" to appoint and to pay a Chaplain for each House" of Congress. In upholding the Nevada practice, Chief Justice Burger reasoned:"[t] his unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged."


(Note: Judge King incorrectly describes Marsh as dealing with the Nevada legislature. In fact, the case dealt with the practice of Nebraska’s unicameral legislature.)

Marsh applies only to limited circumstances where the Framers’ intent could unmistakably be determined. These circumstances, however, do not include VMI’s supper prayer, for as Judge King notes:

Put simply, the supper prayer does not share Marsh’s "unique history." In fact, public universities and military colleges, such as VMI, did not exist when the Bill of Rights was adopted.


This is the money line of the entire opinion. Although Judge King does not belabor this point, it is nevertheless a critical identification. Many supporters of expanding religious expression in the public sphere—especially government schools—cite their interpretation of America’s founders as amicable towards the intermingling of church and state. Lost in this argument is the simple fact that the government created in 1788 was never intended to include many of the institutions created since that time. Government schools are foremost among these constitutionally illegitimate institutions.

In the absence of government-run schools, cases like this one never occur. Nobody would seriously question the right of a wholly private institution to require prayer, or any other religious exercise, as part of its curriculum. Thus, the VMI case should not only teach us a lesson about the separation of church and state, but a lesson about the separation of school and state as well.

:: help support this website | link |



 

FTC v. Rambus 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:03 AM

Contrary to popular belief, not every company falsely accused by the Federal Trade Commission settles without a fight. Rambus, a California-based technology firm, is currently fighting FTC staff lawyers tooth-and-nail over charges they committed fraud. The Rambus trial opens later this morning before an administrative (i.e. FTC-appointed) judge. Here's a good summary of the case from George Leopold of EE Times:

Rambus Inc. heads to trial on Wednesday (April 30) before a Federal Trade Commission judge as the company digs in to defend itself against antitrust charges brought by the agency last June.

FTC lawyers will argue that Rambus (Los Altos, Calif.) violated U.S. antitrust laws “by deliberately engaging in a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices that served to deceive an industry-wide standard-setting organization,” the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (Jedec).

The group was developing an industry SDRAM standard. The U.S. alleges that during the four years Rambus participated in Jedec's deliberations it concealed patents and pending patent applications involving specific technologies that eventually become part of Jedec's SDRAM spec. The alleged non-disclosure violated the group's rules, and FTC attorneys charged Rambus with violating U.S. antitrust laws.

Rambus has denied it deceived the Jedec group. It has also continued to appeal an adverse 2001 ruling in a federal court brought by other Infineon Technologies AG and has steadfastly refused to settle the FTC complaint prior to this week's trial before Chief Administrative Law Judge James Timony.

“The fact that Rambus's founders believed they had conceived the inventions in question was public information,” the company said in a pre-trial statement. “The inventions were described in detail in publicly available patent documents that were discussed at Jedec and that were closely scrutinized by engineers and lawyers employed by Jedec members.”

In January, a federal appeals panel here reversed a lower-court ruling that Rambus had committed fraud. The decision also reversed a trial court ruling that Infineon hadn't infringed Rambus patents, sending the patent infringement issue back to the lower court.

Shareholders have also rallied on behalf of Rambus, accusing the FTC of harassing the company and urging lawmakers to call off the agency. Those efforts have so far attracted little congressional support.

The FTC trial could last from five to eight weeks.


The problem is not that Jedec doesn't have a debatable claim against Rambus. The problem is Jedec already went to court and lost (at the appellate level) on their claims. The FTC's case is nothing more than an effort by the federal government to interfere with a private breach-of-contract proceeding. If the FTC is successful, you can be sure more businesses in the future will seek FTC intervention instead of going through the normal judicial channels. This is particularly dangerous given the FTC staff's total lack of qualifications to judge industries like Rambus's. It's also a separation-of-powers problem, given that the FTC is attempting to undo a federal appellate court's ruling in favor of Rambus. You may believe the FTC has the better argument, but who should decide these legal questions, an impartial federal court or a politically-motivated group of FTC prosecutors?

I suspect Rambus will ultimately be vindicated, if for no other reason than the FTC's decision is subject to review by a federal court of appeals. The FTC's recent track record before actual judges is pretty bad, and the Article III courts in recent years have been particularly hostile to the FTC's efforts to invent new legal theory. Rambus will no doubt waste thousands on legal fees for the next couple of years, but in the end it's worth it if the FTC is stopped.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 ::

Frist Says Santorum's Post Not in Peril  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:52 PM

Bad news: according to the AP, "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday that Sen. Rick Santorum's leadership post is not in jeopardy, providing the Pennsylvania Republican with an important vote of confidence three weeks after his remarks about homosexuals."

"People who work with Rick day in, day out understand he's a man of caring, compassion and tolerance," Frist said. "Strongly religious, a man of great faith, an effective and strong leader. In terms of questioning his leadership ability or position, it's a non-issue."
Has anyone in the Republican Party actually read Santorum's remarks? Santorum attacked the freedom of all consenting adults to control their capacity for sex unless it fits within his view of the family. This is an appalling view.

Imagine if I was the third ranking Republican in the US Senate, and I said that I thought the state had no interest whatsoever in regulating the sexual activities between consenting adults. Then imagine if I said that the courts, under the Ninth Amendment, ought to protect the individual's right to his life and his privacy, as long as he does not initiate force upon another.

I wonder if Bill Frist would support my leadership position, and my 'strong rationality.' Somehow, I doubt it.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Forest Service Blocks E-Mail Comments 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:08 PM

This AP story came in over the weekend and I haven't had the time to address it. The US forest service says it is going to ignore public comments on proposed rule changes when they come from certain e-mail servers or on preprinted post cards.

A spokesman said the agency is not barring all e-mail — only e-mail that goes through an outside server such as a business or environmental Web site. The agency is also barring other "duplicative materials" such as form letters, printed post cards and lists that include spaces for respondents to check off statements they agree with.

Such comments, whether electronic or on paper, can be overwhelming and provide little useful information, said Forest Service spokesman Joseph Walsh. The Forest Service has counted such comments in the past, he said, adding that the new policy is subject to review.
This is a terrible idea. The right to petition the government is fundamental. A citizen has a right to speak their peace at a regulatory hearing and that opinion taken into consideration. That a citizen’s efforts are part of a coordinated group effort is irrelevant. The government can easily separate substantive comments from non-substantive comments, just like it did for the Microsoft antitrust settlement public comment period, when the government received over 30,000 comments. Hundreds of CAC supports lodged their own comments with the Department of Justice opposing any sanction to be placed on Microsoft whatsoever. CAC's own comments were included in the 30 or so "major comments list," fittingly since CAC has followed the case since its inception. Are comments like these to be made irrelevant because they were part of an organized effort on the part of people choosing to communicate their principles to their government? I think not.

So while I vehemently disagree with most of the comments the Forest Service would ignore (they are mostly the product of environmentalists), I think there are better ways for the government to evaluate these comments than by simply ignoring them.

:: help support this website | link |



 

U.S. Forces Return Fire at Iraq Protest  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:50 AM

Hot from the AP: FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. soldiers opened fire on Iraqis at a nighttime demonstration against the American presence here after people shot at them with automatic rifles, soldiers said Tuesday. The director of the local hospital said 13 people were killed and 75 wounded.

Just imagine if the Germans, after the Nazi surrender in WWII, took to the streets to protest the American presence. With guns.

This is why we can’t have "democracy" in Iraq. The principle of individual rights will have to be imposed by the US, whether the Iraqi people like it or not.

In his recent Ford Hall Forum lecture, America vs. Americans, philosopher Leonard Piekoff argued that the US should not be sqeamish when fighting a war with a mortal foe--the life of Americans must come before the life of the enemy--even enemy civilians. At first, I blanched at Piekoff's argument, which seemed to fall into the trap of fighting the last war. I was impressed with the fact that the US did not have to kill a whole lot of people in order to defeat Saddam. In four weeks of fighting, our solders were able to take control of a whole nation, with minimal loss of life. But now I'm staring to wonder if there is truth the the argument that the US did not kill enough of our enemy during the war. There are just too many instances where our enemies are not behaving like vanquished foes.

I love and respect those Iraqis that greeted our troops with open arms. But those that haven't, well, I don't have much time for them. And I certainly do not want to see the lives of our fighting men and women sacrificed to bring democracy to the liberty hating people of Iraq.

:: help support this website | link |



 

U.S.: Most Spam Contains False Claims  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:10 AM

This just in from the AP: Internet users skeptical of junk e-mails promising easy money, miracle cures and dream dates are right to be wary: The Federal Trade Commission says two-thirds of the "spam" messages clogging online mailboxes probably are false in some way.

Like I really needed the FTC to tell me that it is unlikely that I could make make millions while working at home with a larger penis while capitalizing on secret investment opportunities from ex-Nigerian government officials.

Tell me, why do these people have a budget?

:: help support this website | link |



 

Fun with Surveys 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:54 AM

I have some fun with a Republican fundraising survey at Initium.

I know, shame, shame, shame. But the Democrats don't send me their surveys.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Monday, April 28, 2003 ::

Joey Tabula-Rasa 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:16 PM

David Brooks has an interesting essay in today’s Weekly Standard where he examines the huge disconnect between rhetoric and reality in the Arab world. That’s really not news by itself; we are all quite familiar with Baghdad Bob’s rather tenuous dance with reality and the wake up he and the rest of the anti-American world received after America’s victory in Iraq.

Where the article gets interesting is when Brook examines a fictional 20 year old American college student he calls “Joey Tabula-Rasa.” Brook writes:

Joey doesn't know much about history; he was born in 1983 and was only 6 when the Berlin Wall fell. He really has no firm idea of what labels like liberal and conservative mean. But now he is in college, and he's been glued to the cable coverage of the war and is ready to form some opinions. Over the past months, certain facts and characters have entered his consciousness, like characters in a play he is seeing for the first time.

The first character is America itself. He sees that his country is an incredibly effective colossus that can drop bombs onto pinpoints, destroy enemies that aren't even aware they are under attack. He sees a ruling establishment that can conduct wars with incredible competence and skill. He sees a federal government that can perform its primary task--protecting the American people--magnificently. . .

. . .The American system of government, moreover, is clearly the best system. In Joey's eyes, the United Nations is a fractious debating society. The European Union is split. The French are insufferable, the Germans both hostile and pacifist. The Arab ruling class is treacherous. Billions of people around the world seem to hate us, and while Joey is aware that there are some reasons to be suspicious of the United States, he resents the way so many people are over the top in their resentment, fury, and dislike. In short, Joey does not look around and assume that the world is moving toward some world government or global unity. When the chips are down, there are very few nations you can trust. Joey is both more trusting of America, and more suspicious of the world, than he would have been if he had formed his worldview in the 1990s.

The second great character on Joey's mind is the American soldier. When Joey thinks of youthful idealism, he doesn't think of college students protesting in the streets, he thinks of young soldiers risking their lives to liberate a people. These are the men and women Joey saw interviewed by the dozen on TV. They seemed to enjoy being in the military. They seemed to believe in their mission. They seemed to be involved in something large and noble even at a young age.

In Joey's eyes, the people who get to do the most exciting things are not members of the meritocratic elite--Harvard and Stanford alums who start software companies. They are the regular men and women of the armed forces, or, as he remembers from the days after 9/11, they are firemen and cops. They are people without prestigious degrees and high income prospects.

Joey naturally feels that while those soldiers are liberating a country and talking about duty and honor, all he is doing is preparing for business school. That doesn't mean he necessarily wants to enlist, but he is aware that there is something lacking in his pampered private life. He also sees, in the example the soldiers set, that discipline, neatness, professionalism, and openly expressed patriotism are kind of cool.

The third character Joey sees is the terrorist. He sees the people who blew up the World Trade Center. In Iraq, people like that piled into pickups and suicidally attacked tanks. They wore those black fedayeen gowns. In Israel, they strap bombs to their waists and blow up buses. Joey is aware that there are a lot of people, especially in the Arab world, who are just batshit crazy. There is no reasoning with these people. They understand only force, and they must be crushed.

Joey sees that some regimes around the world are sadistic and evil. They torture and mutilate their own people. They ignore the basic rules of warfare and civilization. Conflict with these people is inevitable. They lurk in the dark corners of the globe, and for some reason they think they should take out their problems on us. You always have to be on guard, because there really is evil about. . .

. . .[N]ew categories are crystallizing in his mind. These categories--who is progressive, who is conservative, who is reactionary--do not comport with the categories in the minds of people who came of age during the civil rights era, or even the Cold War.

Joey isn't one of a kind. There are millions of Joeys, and variations on Joey. Inevitably, then, in ways subtle and profound, the events of the past month will shape our politics for the rest of our lives.
That’s a very interesting neocon view of the youth of America, but here’s my take on Joey: Joey is a kid who is adrift in a sea of contradictions. He has no reliable compass to guide him—he does not understand explicitly how the mind works, and exactly what the requirements for his personal survival and prosperity are. It doesn't mean a lick what Joey thinks about Iraq or the world at large because he’s utterly clueless on fundamentals.

Joey hears lofty statements said about freedom. He also hears lofty statements about sacrifice. He can’t navigate between them because he was never taught how to think in principle. Joey instead operates in a range of the moment expediency.

He sees an America of wealth and abundance, wants it for himself, but is conflicted by what he hears when he goes to church and when he listens to his professors. Now that he’s in college, he sees that it’s the pro-sacrifice, anti-wealth mentality that seemingly makes the consistent argument. But he also sees that these arguments only lead to horror or absurdity. Instead of realizing that ought to reject bad ideas out of hand, he turns off to ideas as such. He has been taught how to be a pragmatist. And it is precisely when the chips are down and the answers are far form academic that a pragmatist like Joey is no ally. Joey will float with the strongest tide, whatever tide that may be.

Where I do see eye to eye with Brooks is that there are millions of Joeys, and variations on Joey. And frankly, that’s what really worries me.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Antitrust news 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:56 PM

Jury selection begins today in Brooklyn, New York, in an antitrust case pitting more than five million retailers against Visa USA. The retailers claim Visa's insistence that stores whch accept Visa credit cards must also take Visa debit cards violate antitrust laws. Specifically, the retailers are upset because Visa debit cards require signatures, a practice which costs the merchants more than accepting cards which only require a PIN number.

The lawsuit, first filed in 1996, also named MasterCard International as a defendant, but this morning the judge presiding over the trial announced MasterCard reached an "11th hour settlement" with the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge John Gleeson ordered the settlement sealed while Visa goes to trial, so the terms of MasterCard's surrender are unknown. Still, it's reasonable to infer the MasterCard settlement is a good sign for Visa, especially considering Judge Gleeson has given the plaintiffs a relaxed burden of proof. According to Bloomberg News, Gleeson "ruled earlier this month that they don't have to prove that credit and debit cards are separate products, a key requirement to establish their antitrust claim. He also said Visa's credit-card market share was so large that one could infer it could force merchants to take an unwanted product."

Of course, "force" doesn't actually mean force. It's doubful the retailers will introduce evidence Visa officials put a gun to anyone's head to make them accept debit cards. Especially given that the plaintiffs include Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, it's hard to believe any of the plaintiffs suffered a true injury. But in the context of antitrust, simply possessing economic power is sufficient. The jury is unlikely to hear much about the difference between economic and political power, i.e. the difference between a true monopoly (such as the U.S. Postal Service) and a successful corporation like Visa. And given the recent string of antitrust jury verdicts, Visa seems certain to lose at trial. Thankfully any appeal will be heard by the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit, a tribunal that has a decent track record of rejecting novel and meritless antitrust claims.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Compromise & Controversy 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:08 PM

Lest we be accused of only pointing out stupid remarks made by Republicans, here’s a sordid political tale from today’s Washington Post:

A senior member of the D.C. Democratic State Committee said yesterday that she plans to ask for the resignation of the city party's chairman, Norman C. Neverson, because he made a provocative statement in a newspaper article that does not represent the philosophy of Democrats.

Barbara Lett Simmons, the party's national committeewoman and a longtime Neverson detractor, said she is appalled that the head of the city's Democratic Party was quoted in the Washington City Paper as saying he would have voted for the three-fifths compromise, in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and apportionment purposes when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

"He has expressed a philosophical position contrary to the Democratic Party," Simmons said. "This is 2003. I don't think we can afford in this upcoming year of trying to reclaim the White House and Congress to have 17th-century-mentality leadership."

Simmons, who has been critical of Neverson since he took over the party three years ago, said Neverson has every right "to think, feel and believe exactly what he expressed." But she said he "can't be my leader, and he can't appropriately represent this Democratic body."

Neverson said he made the comments in an extensive article about his personal life and his political leadership. The article quotes Neverson as saying he would have supported the constitutional clause decreeing that each slave be counted as three-fifths a person because "to produce a republic you have to make sacrifices."

"If it offended anyone, I apologize," Neverson said. "It wasn't meant to say that Norm Neverson supports the three-fifths compromise. It was taken completely out of context. When you don't have all the facts and you don't have all the information, ignorance rules supreme. Get the information."


Now I don’t think for a moment that Neverson, who is African-America, actually supports the three-fifths compromise. He was making a point about political compromises in general. My question is, why didn’t he pick a different example? The Constitution had lots of compromises—such as the different apportionments for each houses of Congress—which would have illustrated Neverson’s point more clearly. Heck, as my friend Tom said to me earlier, Neverson could’ve brought up the Compromise of 1850 to make a point regarding slavery. That would have been a less inflammatory example.

Still, reading the Post article, one gets the clear impression that the move to oust Neverson is less about the specific remarks he made, and more about the internal politics of the D.C. Democratic State Committee. Neverson apparently made the classic error of handing his opponents the rope to hang him with.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Questions of State and Defense 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:46 AM

Skip Oliva takes an in-depth look at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's call for a “regime change” at the U.S. State Department today at Initium.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Sunday, April 27, 2003 ::

'They're doing it to themselves' 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:59 AM

It was amusing to watch Pat Buchanan attempt to defend the bloody self-flagellation of the Iraqi Shi'ites on the McLaughlin Group this morning. His argument: Christians have been doing the same thing going back to the middle ages, and "They're doing it to themselves."

So Buchanan supports freedom when it comes to perhaps one of the most bizarre of religious practices, but not when it comes to things like consensual homosexual sex. How typical.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Saturday, April 26, 2003 ::

Parody: Ye Newe York Times reports on postwar difficulties following victory at Yorktown.  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:38 PM

This is funny.

:: help support this website | link |



 

'From His Cold, Dead Hands' 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:18 PM

Actor Charlton Heston stepped down today after five years as president of the National Rifle Association. Heston, recently diagnosed with symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, was strong enough to raise an 1866 Winchester rifle over his head and deliver his trademark line, "From my cold, dead hands."

Heston was a great champion for the NRA and he gave the group a gravitas it could not have enjoyed without him. While philosophically there are several things I would like to see change in how the NRA presents its arguments, I would never deny the important victories it has won in defense of the Second Amendment under Heston's leadership.

And never mind the Michael Moore interview. Moore took advantage of a man clearly past his prime and used him as grist for his propaganda mill. I think Heston's legacy as an advocate for civil rights and the Second Amendment will easily stand the test of time.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Our man Skip got an Instapundit mention 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:04 PM

Link

:: help support this website | link |



 

Concerned Women for "Federalism" 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:38 PM

Earlier, I discussed Concerned Women for America’s Robert Knight. CWA’s president, Sandy Rios, is now defending Rick Santorum and his anti-individual rights view of the Constitution. In a letter to the Washington Times, Rios replies to Santorum critic David Lampo, an official with the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia:

Now let's consider Mr. Lampo's truly distorted view of the Constitution.

Mr. Lampo contends that Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, erred by noting that the Constitution does not define any right to privacy, which it doesn't. Then Mr. Lampo concedes that "the Constitution doesn't say anything about sex at all." Yes, the framers left such matters largely to the states, which is why it would be a colossal act of judicial tyranny if the Supreme Court strikes down the Texas sodomy law.

Then Mr. Lampo says the Constitution was "meant to restrict government power." He neglects to note that the Constitution was designed to restrict federal power, leaving most matters to the states. If states decide that discouraging sodomy is good public policy based on public health and moral concerns, then it is no business of the federal government to usurp that power.


Rios’ view of the Constitution may have been valid in the antebellum era, but classic federalism was effectively abolished with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. That amendment expanded the principles of limited, constitutional government to the states. Since that time, the mantra of “state’s rights” is invoked mostly by those seeking an excuse to subvert individual rights. Segregation, anti-abortion laws, and voting rights restrictions are just some of the more infamous abuses of state authority.

Furthermore, Rios’ constitutionalism completely ignores the Ninth Amendment’s protection of “unenumerated” rights. The Founders never intended the people to fight every question of individual rights out through amending the Constitution itself. It was presumed that reason would govern society’s definition of individual rights. Instead, rightists like Rios seek to narrow the government’s protection of rights to those practices which only she personally sanctions. In contrast, I doubt the Log Cabin Republicans would use the law to ban heterosexual sodomy if given the opportunity, despite their presumed aversion to the practice.

Nor does invoking the cry of “judicial tyranny” save Rios’ argument. It is not tyrannical for a court to enforce the Constitution over the unreasonable acts of a state legislature. Texas has no right to ban private, consensual sexual acts, and such a ban is factually unconstitutional regardless of a minority’s “moral concerns.” While it would be nice if the Texas legislature repealed the sodomy statute on its own accord, their failure to do so necessitates the intervention of the courts, which were designed to serve as the last line of defense against the tyranny of the government’s elected branches.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Consumers vs. Producers 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:21 PM

Thomas Sowell is one of the best:

Overcoming adversity is one of our great desires and one of our great sources of pride. But it is something that our anointed deep thinkers strive to eliminate from our lives, through everything from grade inflation to the welfare state.

The anointed want to eliminate stress, challenge, striving, and competition. They want the necessities of life to be supplied as "rights" -- which is to say, at the taxpayers expense, without anyone's being forced to work for those necessities, except of course the taxpayers.

Nothing is to be earned. "Self-esteem" is to be dispensed to the children as largess from the teacher. Adults are to have their medical care and other necessities dispensed as largess from the government. People are to be mixed and matched by race and sex and whatever else the anointed want to take into account, in order to present whatever kind of picture the anointed think should be presented.

This is a vision of human beings as livestock to be fed by the government and herded and tended by the anointed. All the things that make us human beings are to be removed from our lives and we are to live as denatured creatures controlled and directed by our betters.

Those things that help human beings be independent and self-reliant -- whether automobiles, guns, the free market, or vouchers -- provoke instant hostility from the anointed.

* * *

The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.

One of the most dangerous things about the welfare state is that it breaks the connection between what people have produced and what they consume, at least in many people's minds. For the society as a whole, that connection remains as fixed as ever, but the welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think of money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations.


This is the philosophy which most federal bureaucracies—such as the Federal Trade Commission—operate under. The FTC believes consumers possess unlimited rights to demand from producers, while producers enjoy not even basic property or liberty rights. In almost every FTC case, the producer is found to "injure" consumers by taking actions to raise prices or reduce output. The fact that the producer is engaging in wholly voluntary trade is irrelevant to the FTC. If a consumer is inconvenienced or unhappy, the FTC immediately accuses the producer of committing a crime, regardless of the facts (or the law.)

:: help support this website | link |



 

A draft everyone can support 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:10 PM

The NFL Draft is taking place today in New York. Approximately 220 recent college football players will be assigned to the NFL’s 32 franchises over the next two days. Many will become instant millionaires, while others will find themselves working to earn a roster spot come training camp. Hundreds of undrafted players, meanwhile, will either give up their NFL dream or seek to get signed as a free agent with a club.

I’ve often heard criticism that the draft is “socialist” because a selected player is prevented from negotiating with any team other than the one which selected him. Superficially, this is an appealing argument, but it ultimately misses the point. Far from being socialist, the NFL Draft showcases the capitalist system at its finest.

First, the draft rewards superior achievement and ability. Higher picks get more money, simple as that. In a socialist system, pay is never based on merit, but rather on an arbitrary factor tied to some egalitarian principle. Take a public school teacher’s union, for example. Teacher unions expect to be compensated solely on the basis of seniority—a largely irrelevant characteristic—and merit is almost never permitted to affect actual compensation. Despite the fact a new teacher can choose which school district to work for, her actual salary will depend on factors outside her control, whereas an NFL player can refuse to sign a contract with the team that drafts him if he does not approve of the compensation terms. Rookie “holdouts” are in fact common in the NFL. A teacher which tried such a tactic would fail, since the union’s interests in paying everyone the same overrules the individual’s needs or abilities.

Second, the draft helps the NFL remain profitable by containing overall labor costs. All player contracts, including that of drafted rookies, must fit with the NFL’s salary cap. The cap is another practice sometimes labeled “socialist.” Again, this is incorrect. The salary cap is nothing more than a budget for player costs. The cap is tied to general league revenues to ensure labor costs don’t outpace teams’ ability to pay. The draft helps this process by preventing teams from overbidding for talented, yet unproven rookies. If every rookie was subject to an open auction, a number of franchises would wreck their cap by “hoarding” college talent at a cost far above actual value. This would be bad for players as well as franchises, since the hoarding teams would likely cut more overpriced rookies after a year or so in order to restore room under the salary cap. The result would be far less labor stability, which in turn drives down salaries while raising overall costs. The draft, thus, prevents labor anarchy while still preserving a merit-based system for allocating rookie players.

(Indeed, the advent of free agency for veteran players proves this hypothesis, as franchises which hoard free agents tend to do so at above-market rates, resulting in a breakdown of the salary cap after a year or two. The Washington Redskins are an ideal example of this practice.)

Finally, the draft itself is a wonderful spectacle. It’s hard not to enjoy the pride on the faces of newly drafted rookies as NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue announces their names and the team which selected them. The whole event has the look and feel of a college graduation ceremony, which in many ways the draft is. And unlike most liberal arts graduates, these players know they will have an opportunity (if not a guarantee) of post-college employment where they’ll be rewarded for their achievement.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Campaign finance hijinks 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:01 AM

Despite the fact lawyers enjoy a monopoly on the practice of law, some of them apparently don’t know basic campaign finance laws:

A lawyer for Tab Turner, the head of a Little Rock law firm under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, suggested Thursday that his client had not been aware of an election law that prevents him from reimbursing employees who contribute to U.S. Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign.

"Mr. Turner learned about the campaign rules due to the media's calls to his office," said Ed Dowd of St. Louis. "Since then, he has been doing all he can to set this matter straight, and he will cooperate with the Federal Election Commission or other officials."

Turner and four legal assistants from his firm collectively gave $10,000 to Edwards' campaign during the first quarter of the year. One employee who gave $2,000 reportedly told The Washington Post last week that Turner said they would be reimbursed.

The Edwards campaign returned the money as a "precautionary" step.
I’m no aficionado of campaign finance laws, but even I knew you can’t “reimburse” an employee for a political contribution. John Edwards, himself a successful trial lawyer, probably knew this too. Mr. Turner had to know that as well. After all, why offer to reimburse your employees instead of just giving Edwards $10,000 outright? Obviously Turner knew there was a limit on individual contributions.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Friday, April 25, 2003 ::

Games cartels play 

:: Posted by Skip at 11:43 PM

OPEC is nervous about the impending return of Iraqi oil to the world marketplace. On Thursday, OPEC leaders (i.e. government oil ministers) decided to cut production by 2 million barrels per day. This move comes as oil prices have fallen to around $25 a barrel, down from a high of about $40 just two months ago. Not everyone thinks OPEC’s move will accomplish much:

"It's not enough to stop a supply glut," said Michael Rose, director of trading for Angus Jackson Inc. He said prices may fall well below OPEC's $25 target, depending on how fast Iraqi exports return.

Given the profits oil producers have raked in this year as the result of high prices, many analysts question whether the cartel will be disciplined enough to stick to its self-imposed limits.

"OPEC often says one thing and does another," Mr. Rose said. "I think they will have a hard time getting all members to actually cut. They have a history of cheating."
Cartels are notoriously unreliable, especially when they consist of government-run oil companies. This is a good lesson for antitrust enforcers: Cartel arrangements may cause consumers a temporary inconvenience via price increases, but ultimately selfish market incentives will lead the cartel to undermine itself.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 7:25 PM

The anti-abortionists are at it again, and this time they are using public outrage over the murder of Laci Peterson in an attempt to federalize the killing of an unborn fetus. According to the AP, today the White House urged Congress to pass the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which would amend the federal criminal code to create a separate offense if a defendant causes the death of, or bodily injury to an "unborn child" during the commission of a federal crime. The punishment for the separate offense would be the same as if the defendant had caused the death of, or injury to, the woman herself.

This is an dangerous proposal. Never mind that the Bush administration sees the need to federalize crimes that the states are more than capable of addressing. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights

By treating the "unborn child" as a separate and distinct victim of crime, the legislation would, for the first time, consider a fetus--and even a fertilized egg--an independent victim for purposes of federal law.

If a fetus, or a so-called "unborn child, at an earlier state of pregnancy, were later deemed entitled to the same legal protections as the woman, it would be impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion without violating the fetus's rights.

If a fetus, embryo, or other so-called "unborn child" is recognized as a "person" under the law, not only would the reproductive rights of women be eviscerated but a fetus--or even a zygote--could seek federal benefits, bring lawsuits, and otherwise claim civil rights.
I think that most murder and manslaughter laws are tough enough to punish those who murder a pregnant woman. And I think the penalty for assault is tough enough to accommodate those who cause the unwanted termination of the unborn fetus by attacking a pregnant woman. Creating special rights for fetuses separate and apart from the rights of the mother would be bad philosophy and bad law. Fetuses have no rights--rights belong only the women carrying them.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Maybe the Fed can lower ticket prices... 

:: Posted by Skip at 5:43 PM

Edward Gramlich, a governor of the Federal Reserve, thinks Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption should be repealed. At a Brookings Institution discussion of baseball’s business model this morning, Gramlich repeated the stock argument that repealing the exemption would not harm baseball, since, after all, antitrust laws don’t seem to harm the NFL, NBA, or NHL.

Gramlich apparently was unaware that all four professional leagues enjoy a separate antitrust exemption to jointly negotiate television rights contracts. In the absence of that exemption, the financial model for major professional sports could collapse, since television rights contracts enable low-revenue teams to remain viable.

Baseball’s peculiar exemption derives from a 1922 Supreme Court ruling holding the antitrust laws were never intended to apply to baseball. This was a sensible ruling, and one modern antitrust investigators should take to heart before expanding the antitrust laws to apply to the smallest, most economically insufficient market. The current exemption, enacted by Congress a few years ago, basically allows MLB to conduct its business free of antitrust second-guessing. True, baseball may be no more deserving of such an exemption than any other industry. But that’s precisely the point: Every industry should be exempt from the antitrust laws.

It’s not like baseball’s profiting unjustly from its antitrust exemption. MLB is doing far worse economically than the NFL and NBA, and Gramlich is correct in asserting that repealing the exemption would do little to improve or harm baseball’s financial picture.

I would add, however, that it’s humorous for a Fed governor to be complaining about monopoly. Not only does Gramlich manage a government banking monopoly, but the Fed Board of Governors itself is little more than a rubber stamp for Alan Greenspan’s presumed aura of infallibility.

:: help support this website | link |



 

CAC pioneers new web technology 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:31 PM

Well, not exactly, but we now have public feedback running for the Rule of Reason. Now our visitors can leave their comments for all to see.

How cool is that? Totally Cool!

:: help support this website | link |



 

Dixie Chicks Redux 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:53 AM

Imagine my non-surprise when I saw the not all that impressive, and strictly rated-G nudity of the Dixie Chicks on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, in an apparent attempt to highlight their plight after the backlash against vocalist Natalie Maines' comments criticizing President Bush at a concert in Great Britain.

The Chicks have now reduced themselves to the level of streakers--those people who use to pull stunts like running across a baseball field 'nekked' in the middle of the seventh-inning stretch. There you are at an event where people are happy and enjoying themselves, and some clown tries to ruin it all by bearing his fat ass in front of everyone.

Why, oh why must we suffer these women?

:: help support this website | link |



 

Misogynists and homophobes first... 

:: Posted by Skip at 11:09 AM

Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, thinks we need to turn the moral clock back to 1912:

This week marks the 91st anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. In the wee hours of April 15, 1912, the great ship slipped into the deep waters of the North Atlantic, sending 1,503 passengers and crewmen to a watery grave.

The vast majority of the dead were men, many of whom stood bravely as they watched lifeboats full of women and children row away from the doomed ship.

During a U.S. Senate inquiry, First Officer Charles H. Lightoller was asked, “You discriminated entirely in the interest of the passengers – first women and children – in filling those lifeboats?” Lightoller replied: “Yes, sir,” to which the senator pressed, “Why did you do that? Because of the captain’s orders, or because of the rule of the sea?”

Lightoller answered simply, “The rule of human nature.”

Another witness, Canadian Army Major Arthur Godfrey Peuchen, described the action at one of the lifeboats: “Only women were allowed in, and the second officer stood there and carried it out to the limit. He allowed no men, except sailors who were manning the boat. I did not see one single male passenger get in or attempt to get in. I never saw such perfect order. The discipline was perfect. I did not see a cowardly act by any man.”

Watching America send some of its daughters to their deaths or capture in Iraq makes one aware of how far we have drifted from the ideal epitomized by the brave men of the Titanic: Women and children first.

More women are facing actual combat because the Pentagon weakened the “risk rule,” which barred the placement of women in areas likely to come under fire. Ever adaptive, the Navy introduced a program a few years ago in which men were conditioned to endure the tortured cries of women captives. Do we really want thousands of men to be indifferent to women’s screams? That’s a recipe for domestic violence and rape.

Not all men have abandoned their role to protect. As Pfc. Jessica Lynch lay wounded, a team of men who would have been right at home on Titanic’s deck boarded choppers. They gambled their lives because an Iraqi man reported that an American woman was being tortured at an Iraqi hospital. Later, our troops freed Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson and other P.O.W.s The mother of a 2-year-old, whose haunted photo reminded us of the cost of putting a woman in the hands of enemy male soldiers, Miss Johnson was rescued and is winging home with a bullet hole in each ankle.

Sending women anywhere near combat is wrong. It is bad enough for children to lose their father, but it is utterly unnecessary for them to lose their mother.

Unlike the sanity and honor that prevailed in 1912, we are not supposed to care that wives, daughters and sisters are killed, maimed or at the mercy of enemy troops.

Women have served honorably in the U.S. military through many wars. Their sacrifices and hard work have contributed mightily. But it is barbarism, not progress, to put women deliberately in harm’s way.

What would the men of the Titanic have thought, watching women kiss their toddlers goodbye, slap on a helmet and ship off to the front? They would say we have not only lost our minds but a good deal of our hearts.
I won’t spend a great deal of time picking apart Knight’s sexist, anti-individualist philosophy, but here’s one obvious flaw in his argument: What about women who are unmarried and without children? Is it moral to send them into a combat zone, or must they too be shackled by Knight’s arbitrary morals? Knight’s argument comes very close to saying women belong barefoot and pregnant, and no other condition is socially acceptable.

Knight’s Family & Culture Instititue is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, a group which, not surprisingly, is vehemently defending Rick Santorum.

:: help support this website | link |



 

More on Santorum  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:45 AM

This from Jonah Goldberg at TownHall.com: "I think sodomy laws may well be constitutional. Since I'm not a big believer in a "living Constitution," the fact that they've been constitutional for decades makes me think they're still constitutional."

Jim Crow laws were along for a long time, and now most people understand that it was proper to renounce those laws as unconstitutional. Yet in defending the constitutionality of the sodomy laws (he later writes that he opposes these laws, but not on constitutional grounds), Goldberg falls into the typical conservative trap--he doesn't argue from fact, he argues from tradition. Intellectually, tradition has no bearing on an issue--either a thing is true and proper by the facts, or it is not.

A fallacious argument, even if held for a long time, is still a fallacious argument.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Thursday, April 24, 2003 ::

Holding Taxol hostage 

:: Posted by Skip at 9:41 PM

You often hear about the costs of developing pharmaceuticals to meet arbitrary FDA regulatory standards. But there’s also lesser known regulatory cost of paying antitrust ransom to manipulative state attorneys general:

[Ohio] Attorney General Jim Petro announced Thursday that Ohio and all other states have resolved an antitrust lawsuit with Bristol Myers-Squibb Co. involving the cancer-fighting drug Taxol.

Ohio, which led negotiations for the plaintiff states, will recover more than $1.5 million for state agencies and hospitals as part of a $55 million settlement to help compensate the state and consumers who overpaid for the drug, Petro said.

"This is a significant victory for Ohio because Bristol Myers-Squibb Co. has agreed to much more than just financial reparations," Petro said. "The company will also provide free quantities of Taxol to DEA-approved health care facilities, provided the recipients meet eligibility guidelines, and will abide by a strong agreement prohibiting anti-competitive conduct in the future."

While the ultimate allocation among the litigating states has not yet been determined and must be approved by the court, more than $37.5 million will be set aside to be divided for this purpose. An additional $12.5 million will be set aside to reimburse consumers for some of their out-of-pocket payments.


How does providing free Taxol remedy an antitrust violation? Shouldn’t compensating the customers who, ahem, “overpaid” for Taxol be sufficient? This settlement seems to send a bad message: If states don’t want to pay market price for drugs, they can simply bring an antitrust suit and force the company to provide the drug for free as part of a “settlement.”

:: help support this website | link |



 

Monopoly v. Monopoly 

:: Posted by Skip at 9:33 PM

Antitrust officials often resort to shameful tactics, but arguing that a lawful company is intentionally “harming” children by acquiring another company is a new low, even for the Justice Department. Yet that’s just what top DOJ antitrust enforcer Hewitt Pate did today in announcing his decision to try and undo an already consummated merger between two dairy companies.

Last year, the Dairy Farmers of America acquired Southern Belle Dairy. Because the acquisition didn’t meet the minimum value required by statute, the merger was not subject to advance review by the Justice Department for antitrust concerns. Congress enacted the threshold (and later raised it) to ensure the DOJ spent their time reviewing only large mergers. Since taking power, however, the Bush administration antitrust leaders decided to ignore Congress’s mandate, and instead target smaller mergers in order to make examples out of certain companies. This seems to be what led the DOJ to the DFA-Southern Belle merger.

The major harm, according to Pate, is that DFA’s acquisition leaves only one milk supplier to about 50 government school districts in Kentucky and Tennessee:

Prior to the acquisition, the competitive rivalry between these two dairies produced lower prices and higher quality service, to the benefit of schools and school children. By acquiring Southern Belle, DFA has eliminated or reduced that competition for many school districts in Kentucky and Tennessee. The [Antitrust] Division seeks to restore this competition.


Pate says DFA’s acquisition “threatens increased prices and poorer services” for these school districts. He cites no evidence in support of this theory, and we’re unlikely to see any such evidence in the future. Even if true, higher prices do not constitute a legal injury to anyone, unless a contractual arrangement is violated, which is not the case here. The DOJ is simply trying to protect school districts from the inconvenience of potentially higher prices, which is not the same thing.

There is, of course, a sick irony in this case. The DOJ claims that DFA’s “milk monopoly” will harm school children, yet nobody at the Antitrust Division thought to point out that the government’s monopoly over local schools is a problem. Nor does the DOJ see the school districts’ status as monopoly buyers to be of any particular concern. Competition, it seems, is only valuable when it comes to milk.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The Greenspan aura lives on 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:51 PM

President Bush will likely nominate Alan Greenspan for a fourth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Greenspan will accept said renomination. This may please defenders of the status quo, but the president’s passive action here will do nothing to help the economy, either in the short term or in the long run.

The theory for renominating Greenspan is stability: Since the economy remains jittery following the Iraqi war, it’s best not to disturb the steady hand at the Fed. This is just plain nonsense. No one man is invaluable to the nation, certainly not Greenspan. We constitutionally limit presidents to two terms without problem, so it’s hard to argue that the Fed chairman must remain in office close to 16 years.

But that’s not the reason to dump Greenspan. The reason is that the chairman’s continued presence forecloses any debate over the function of the Federal Reserve itself. Few institutions have contributed more to the decline of capitalism in America than the Fed. Central banking itself is an inherently wealth-destroying mechanism, as any nation that’s ever dealt with the World Bank and IMF can attest to.

Now, obviously, simply replacing Greenspan is no guarantee of radical reform. Given President Bush’s preference for pragmatism, Greenspan’s successor might prove to be a bigger obstacle. But that said, there is no possibility of meaningful discussion over the Fed’s future while Greenspan remains in power. Washington officials have simply become too deferential to the mythical “aura of Greenspan” to seriously challenge him. It’s nothing personal, really, just the predictable effect of giving one individual too much unchecked power for too long.

Contrary to urban legend, the economy runs itself with or without the Fed’s intervention. The nation experienced plenty of economic booms (and busts) long before Greenspan came along, and it will continue to do so long after he finally is turned out of power. Best to learn that lesson now, before the Greenspan aura swallows what’s left of the current economic recovery.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Press coverage on the Nike free speech case 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:26 PM

This observation from Richard Salsman: Note how the Washington Post put 'free speech' in quotes in the headline of today's coverage of the Nike commercial free speech case.

Considering that the Washington Post Company joined 39 other media companies in support of Nike in an amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court, one wonders why the Post's headline writer saw fit to put the right to economically self-interested speech in scare quotes, but the Post's lawyers did not.

UPDATE: I fired off this letter to the Post in responce:

To the Editors:

In the Washington Post Staff Writer Charles Lane’s Thursday report (“Supreme Court Considers Nike's 'Free Speech' “ Page E02), I was struck by how the Washington Post put 'free speech' in quotation in the headline of its coverage of the Nike commercial free speech case.

Apparently, the Post’s news editors consider corporate free speech to be dubious enough a topic to rate such quotation. Yet considering that the Washington Post Company joined 39 other media companies in support of Nike’s rights in an amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court, one has to savor the irony that the Post saw fit to put freedom for economically self-interested speech in scare quotes in its news coverage, but not in the Supreme Court brief it supported.

Perhaps the right to economically motivated speech is more misunderstood than even a company that makes its living selling news understands.

Yours Respectfully,

Nicholas Provenzo

:: help support this website | link |



 

Rick Santorum's Moral Outrage 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:18 PM

I write about it at Initium.

You know, conservatives are little better than hippies—they just throw you off because they dress nice and stand next to the flag.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 ::

Remember Elian? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:02 PM

Scott Holleran does at Capitalism Magazine.

I think if there was one day that forever changed my view of America, it would have to be April 22nd, 2000.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The gay divide 

:: Posted by Skip at 11:10 AM

Eugene Volokh thinks Rick Santorum's bigotry isn't that big a deal. Arthur Silber thinks it's a very big deal. I'm inclined to go with Arthur on this one.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 ::

Total Bureaucratic Awareness 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:08 PM

The Federal Trade Commission has some sort of vendetta against private trade associations. Last year, they went after the National Academy of Arbitrators and the American Institute of Conservators of Historic and Artistic Works. In the past month, they’ve added the Indiana Household Movers and Warehousemen and the Institute of Store Planners to their target list. Collectively, these groups have about as much economic power as a Starbucks franchise, yet the FTC views their actions as akin to the political machinations of Tammany Hall.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s the FTC annual report on these trade association cases:

The FTC pursued significant investigations involving the rules of conduct for various professional associations. Agreements among professionals that limit competition among themselves, often under the guise of professional association by-laws or codes of conduct, harms consumers much like 'smoke-filled room' conspiracies.


What we’re talking about here are professional ethics codes, documents which are well publicized. In the case of the National Academy of Arbitrators, the ethics code challenged by the FTC was in force for more than 30 years. That’s hardly the product of a “smoke-filled room,” which by inference refers to a conspiracy to keep information from the public. Quite the contrary, ethics codes are designed to alert the public as to common rules adopted by a given profession. Only dangerously unqualified FTC staff lawyers could find a conspiracy in this.

And if you think the FTC staff is intelligent, consider this line from their report vowing to persecute more trade associations in the future:

The FTC is pursuing other potentially harmful restrictions imposed by professional associations, or boards, using means including sophisticated 'spider' software to search the Internet for restrictions of this kind.


Yes, kids, the FTC just said they’re using Google to seek out new antitrust cases. If this doesn’t convince you antitrust is nothing more than a government witch-hunt, nothing will.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Today is Earth Day. . . 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:33 PM

. . .and I don't care.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Sanctioning Santorum 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:23 PM

Leave it to the conservatives to equate the state respecting the rights of consenting adult homosexuals to have sex to the state allowing incestuous sex with minor children.

In an AP interview published Monday, Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was quoted as saying, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

According to the AP, Santorum spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright said the lawmaker's comments were "were specific to the Supreme Court case," that case being Lawrence v. Texas.

Ms. Clayton Wright’s explanation doesn’t help Santorum. The Texas case that she claims his comments were focused on is a case where a state government asserts that it may criminalize activity between consenting adults in the privacy of their home for the sole reason that it believes that activity immoral.

But what is the basis of such a moral claim? Like most religious conservatives, Santorum equates the consistent protection of individual rights with pell-mell anarchy. If the state breaks from the Holy Bible’s prohibition on homosexual conduct and respects homosexual rights, it only follows that men will seek to have several wives, married couples will wantonly cheat on each other, and sex with one's own children will be an everyday occurrence. Throw in a couple lines about the End Times and one can easily see how disconcerting a pro-homosexual outcome on the Texas case would be for religious conservatives.

Yet America is not a nation governed by the Holy Bible. Each citizen is free to live by the moral code of his own choosing, but when it comes to affairs of the state, only the acceptable guide is reason. The religious faith of some citizens, however passionately held, is not a substitute for a rational legal code.

Yet the Texas law is a prime example of irrational law. It does not protect anyone from the initiation of violence or fraud, but instead seeks to impose an antiquated and mystical moral view on a portion of the population despised by people of a certain faith.

A homosexual has every right to use his or her sexual capacity as he sees fit without interference from the state. Homosexuals don’t have a right to “anything,” but they do have a right to their lives, which Santorum does not seem to respect.

Some have called for Santorum’s removal from the leadership of the Senate due to his bias against homosexuals. I call for it due to his bias against individual rights, and his unwillingness to defend simple truths or protect the innocent victims of government abuse.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The indoctrination begins early 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:33 AM

Don Luskin points us to this article by Neal Bortz on how an Easter Egg Hunt was turned into a lesson in wealth re-distribution.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Drafting reality 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:23 AM

There’s an interesting debate in NBA circles over who should be the top pick in June’s draft, Carmelo Anthony or LeBron James. Anthony, a freshman at Syracuse University, recently led his team (almost single-handedly) to a NCAA title. James led his private high school team to an Ohio state championship despite being technically ineligible under state amateurism rules. For almost two years, James has been hyped by various media pundits as the next basketball Messiah, a successor to Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant if you will. Anthony’s NCAA title run, however, may complicate things.

Here’s what gets me. A number of pundits, many of them seasoned NBA beat writers, argue that the team with the #1 pick should select James even if they believe Anthony is the better player. The argument goes like this: James has more hype, so he’s more likely to sell tickets during his rookie season. This conveniently ignores the fact that few NBA players who came directly from high school ever amount to much before their third season in the league. For all the hype, there’s nothing which indicates James is any more likely to have an immediate impact than other now-greats like Bryant or Kevin Garnett, both of whom required several seasons to achieve their potential. Anthony may only have one year of college experience, but that experience showed he could lead a team against top competition. Most knowledgeable NBA scouts (who seem to have less influence than the pundits) would take Anthony over James.

Even the business argument doesn’t make much sense. James may sell out arenas early on as a curiosity, but if he’s warming the bench for a non-playoff team, a likely assumption, his effect on attendance will be temporary. Even Michael Jordan didn’t become Michael Jordan overnight. Heck, Jordan wasn’t even the top pick in his draft year.

Frankly, if I was an NBA owner, and the general manager told me “Anthony is the better player, but we have to take James or the media will rip us,” I would fire that GM on the spot. Anytime you make a decision based on something other than objective facts, you betray your obligation to act in the best interests of your business. When it comes to the NBA draft, that means you take the best player available, period. If that player doesn’t fit your immediate needs, you trade him or trade the pick. You don’t take a player based simply on hype or media acceptability. If businessmen in other fields behaved that way, they’d find themselves hauled before a federal regulatory agency of some kind.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Proclaiming ignorance 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:04 AM

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano doesn't think much of home-schoolers. The governor recently refused to sign a ceremonial proclamation declaring "Home Education Week" in Arizona:

Kevin and Frances Scroggins home-schooled their youngest child, 8-year-old Michael, for two years. They sent him back to a public school this year.

And they have decided to home-school him again next year.

The governor does not agree with that decision. She has criticized programs like vouchers and home-schooling. "While I support choice, I believe choice must be accomplished within the public school system," she said last year in a candidate questionnaire.

Napolitano this year refused to sign a proclamation declaring "Home Education Week." Staff members were concerned that signing the proclamation's timing was "inappropriate," that it might offend other education "stakeholders."

Those stakeholders apparently do not include Michael Scroggins.

The proclamation was not an ideological manifesto. It was perfunctory, just recognizing the excellent job some parents have done with their children, a fact beyond dispute.

"Whereas, the State of Arizona is committed to excellence . . . and recognizes the importance of family participation and parental choice in pursuit of that excellence . . . and individualized preparation for citizenship and life work is provided by home education . . . Now, Therefore, I, Janet Napolitano, do hereby proclaim the week of February 3rd as Home Education Week in Arizona."


It's amazing a politician in this country can say, in effect, "I support choice, but only choices determined by the government," and still hold office. Yet when it comes to education, such a quasi-fascist position is not just acceptable, but mainstream, especially in the Democratic party.

For their part, home educators shouldn't take the governor's snub too seriously. In this case, they should consider it an affirmation that they are putting their children before altruist political concerns.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Monday, April 21, 2003 ::

The Last Word on Augusta? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:18 PM

This from Instapundit who quotes Mark Steyn:

In the last nine months, the New York Times has run 95 stories on Martha Burk and Augusta. So, aside from being outnumbered by police and reporters, Burk's 40 supporters were outnumbered more than two to one by New York Times stories on Burk. Every time the Times mentioned this allegedly raging furor, it attracted approximately another 0.4 of a supporter to her cause. . . .

The Times' carpet bombing of Augusta has proved a pathetic bunker-bust. This is supposed to be the most influential newspaper in America, the one whose front page all but dictates the agenda of the network news shows. And its most fiercely sustained campaign can't fill a single school bus?
Hehehe. Maybe we could turn this into a new show on Fox: "When Leftist Causes Implode."

UPDATE: Alright, I'm having more fun with this than I should. But can you just imagine that guy with the obvious cop hair helmet going, "Martha Burk and her friends at the New York Times thought they had national attention for Martha's little intimidation game, but at Augusta, they play golf, not social engineer."

:: help support this website | link |



 

Nike v. Kasky 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:55 PM

Law.com has an article on the Nike free speech case going into oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. (CAC supporters will recall the Center filed an amicus curie brief to the Court on both the Certiorari petition and the merits stage of this case.) Although Skip Oliva has attended many oral arguments before the Supreme Court, I've never attended one, so I plan on making the pilgrimage with him this Wednesday to hear the argument.

What I'll be looking for is indications that the Court is examining this case in fundamental terms. Justice Thomas threw a bone to the defenders of businessmen's right to free speech when he wrote in his concurring opinion in 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island. Justice Thomas wrote that he "do[es] not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that ‘commercial’ speech is of ‘lower value’ than ‘noncommercial’ speech.” CAC formed its amicus brief to the court on the Nike case precisely along the lines outlined by Justice Thomas.

What also will be interesting is if our challenge to Justice Scalia has an impact with the other Justices on the Court. In 44 Liquormart, Justice Scalia wrote that he wanted historical reports on the practices of the state legislatures in interpreting their own free speech guarantees before he would be willing to abandon the commercial speech doctrine. Typical Justice Scalia reasoning--he's a Supreme Court Justice who hates to think in any principle beyond what others think. In our brief, we directly attacked Scalia's view, arguing that the Ninth Amendment alone provides sufficient justification for the Court to protect the rights of businessmen to self-interest speech.

CAC argued the following:

The yearning for historical context misses the point. It should not be necessary for Nike to prove the existence of its First Amendment rights by identifying specific historical statements in support of “commercial” speech. Indeed, where would one find such “dispositive” evidence? Presumably, not every state legislature—at any given time—holds identical views regarding commercial speech, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other identifiable topic. It has never been necessary in other First Amendment contexts for a challenged party to demonstrate positively that their expressive acts represent a “long accepted practice.” Under such a requirement, this Court would never have recognized First Amendment protections for flag burning, the distribution of adult magazines, or student expression on school grounds.

In short, a lack of historical evidence must not foreclose protection for “commercial” speech. But if evidence were needed, the Ninth Amendment provides it. The amendment provides “The enumeration, in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Historically, the Court has been reluctant to read much into this amendment, choosing to uphold non-enumerated rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments instead. Then, in June of 1965, the Court handed down its radical decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein the Court upheld the unenumerated right of a married couple to use contraception, availing itself of the Ninth Amendment in rendering its holding. In a concurring opinion, Justice Goldberg, joined by Justice Brennan and Chief Justice Warren, wrote:

Nor am I turning somersaults with history in arguing that the Ninth Amendment is relevant in a case dealing with a State’s infringement of a fundamental right. While the Ninth Amendment—and indeed the entire Bill of Rights—originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the “liberty” protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75. 94 – 95.
In the case now before the Court, the Ninth Amendment provides the key to understanding the scope and reach of the First Amendment.
That's right. It’s the Court's job to check the government's role in protecting individual rights and the Ninth Amendment gives them the power to do it. If the Ninth Amendment’s importance is acknowledged by the Court, CAC will have won a major victory.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Is a Fisking of Frist in the air? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:59 AM

With several members on Congress none too happy with Bill Frist's handling of the Bush tax cut in the Senate, it might be says Robert Novak.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Is there a secessionist tide swelling in San Francisco? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:38 AM

Andrew Sullivan notes G. Pascal Zachary's slightly less than tongue-in-cheek whine that their ought to be independent San Francisco in an article in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle. Zachary notes that German computer programers who oppose the Bush administration's stance in Iraq feel plenty at home in San Francisco.

"[Yet,] the views of these Germans -- and my own views of official American power -- are heretical in America, highlighting the wide gulf between the iconoclastic Bay Area and the rest of the United States. This gulf, always present, seems more intensely felt now. There are no American flags waving on my street, or any of the streets I pass each morning when I bring my children to school.
Zachary goes on with the usual Leftist whine: no one outside of the Bay area appreciated the vomit-ins, everyone else in America is a money-grubbing capitalist, only the Europeans understand us, bla, bla, bla, bore, bore, bore. . .

But let's take Zachary seriously for a moment. The thing about a San Francisco secession movement is that there are nice parts to San Francisco that the decent people who built them shouldn't have to give up. I say the lefties should get smart and ship themselves to Europe. Why should poor Mr. Zachary have to suffer being a disaffected San Franciscan when he could easily be a disaffected Frenchman? I can't think of any reason.

I used to joke with friends about the "Go directly to North Korea" fund, a project where the deserving would be offered a one-way ticket to their dream state of a nation. But since North Korea is such a hard sell, even to budding Stalinists, why not just ship them off to France and Germany? We just want them gone, right?

Hey, it could work, ;-)

:: help support this website | link |



 

Media ethics vs. media critic ethics 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:42 AM

Phil Mushnick, the New York Post’s sports media critic, must be gunning for a position on the Federal Trade Commission. He’s certainly mastered the art of taking a fairly trivial event and interpreting it in a wholly irrational light:

WHAT used to be known within TV networks as "standards and practices" forms, must've been turned face-down, stacked in a corner and now serve as scratch paper.

Dick Vitale, ABC and ESPN's lead college basketball analyst, recently revealed that he, along with Louisville head coach Rick Pitino, is the co-owner of a two-year-old thoroughbred, named Awesome Baby.

Of course, this creates both a per se and an outrageous conflict of interest, one that ABC and ESPN surely can't dismiss unless they choose to ignore - or trash - the most basic tenet of broadcasting ethics: You don't do business with those you cover.

But this is 2003, when the indefensible is, at best, ignored, and, at worst, given full approval.
The conflict of interest is not as self-evident—and certainly not as outrageous—as Mushnick proclaims. Pitino and Vitale make their living in college basketball, not horse racing. Vitale is also not a news reporter, but an analyst. In a given season, Vitale can be expected to cover only a handful of games coached by Pitino, whose Louisville Cardinals are hardly mainstays of national television. If there was a conflict, it could be solved by recusing Vitale from covering Louisville games. But there’s not even that much of a conflict. Since, as I just said, Vitale is an analyst, not a reporter.

Consider this: Most colleges hire their own broadcasters for basketball games. These broadcast teams, usually a play-by-play man and an analyst, are expected to provide objective (if somewhat partisan) coverage of games. Applying Mushnick’s logic literally, all of these college-paid broadcasters must resign as a matter of ethics, since their very employment constitutes a conflict of interest. Of course this is ridiculous. In this context, the conflict is irrelevant, since the viewing public is aware of the broadcasters’ employment status. Similarly, the publicity given the Vitale-Pitino endeavor mutes whatever minor conflict exists. It’s just not that important.

Mushnick’s explosive rhetoric further undermines his cause. To say Vitale’s action is a “per se” unethical act is irrational. In legal parlance, “per se” means guilty regardless of fact or context. It’s a favored tool of administrative agencies, like the FTC, which prefer to win their cases without having to actually prove their facts. In Mushnick’s case, it amounts to a smear—a unilateral declaration that no debate or discussion of Vitale’s conduct is permissible, since he’s been found guilty at summary judgment.

Having read Mushnick’s ravings for a few years now, I think his ethical condemnation of Vitale has little to do with any alleged conflict of interest. Consider this passage from Mushnick’s article:

Then again, perhaps ESPN's accustomed to indulging such conflicts. Vitale once had a sneaker deal with Nike, then, when his friend and Nike college basketball influence peddler, Sonny Vaccaro, left for adidas, Vitale switched to adidas, too.

But such a deal would never prevent Vitale from delivering one of his hard-hitting commentaries on the insidious role that sneaker companies and their oily reps play in the continued corruption of college basketball.
Vitale, in fact, has consistently taken the position that players should stay in college, rather than turning professional early. This position puts Vitale in opposition to the sneaker companies, which regularly attempt to influence players to enter the NBA early. Now, while I happen to share Mushnick’s disdain for the sneaker companies in this context, this has no bearing on an ethical discussion of Vitale’s business partnership with Pitino. What this sneaker example actually demonstrates, in my opinion, is Mushnick’s own biases: He’s upset with Vitale for not sharing his viewpoints on given issues, and thus he’s fair game for ethical condemnation on unrelated matters, regardless of actual context. If you ask me, that’s hardly responsible media criticism.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Sunday, April 20, 2003 ::

Olson & Tribe, together again... 

:: Posted by Skip at 7:18 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Nike v. Kasky, the corporate speech case which CAC joined as a “friend of the court” on Nike’s behalf. The argument will take place from approximately 11 a.m. to Noon. In an interesting twist, the case for ruling in Nike’s favor will be presented by Harvard professor Laurence Tribe and U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Tribe represents Nike, while Olson will argue for the federal government in general support of Nike’s position. The last time both men appeared before the Supreme Court together was December 2000 in Bush v. Gore, with Olson representing President Bush and Tribe representing Vice President Gore.

As detailed elsewhere on CAC’s website, this case involves Nike’s right to defend itself publicly against anti-capitalist activists who oppose the company’s labor practices. The California Supreme Court held Nike could be held to strict liability for their statements, while Nike opponents enjoyed categorical First Amendment immunity. Marc Kasky, one of the anti-Nike activists, sued the company under California’s generous definition of standing, which anoints every California resident a “private attorney general” for purposes of consumer fraud actions. Thus, Kasky is the plaintiff despite alleging no injury to himself, nor even a personal knowledge of the facts regarding the truthfulness of Nike’s statements.

Arguing Kasky’s case on Wednesday is attorney Paul Hoeber, a sole practitioner affiliated with the San Francisco firm of Bushnell, Caplan & Fielding. Hoeber is a former law clerk to the late Justice William Brennan, ironically a great champion of First Amendment liberties.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Growth, taxes & France 

:: Posted by Skip at 5:29 PM

The Club for Growth is running ads against Republican senators George Voinovich of Ohio and Olympia Snowe, chastising the lawmakers for opposing President Bush’s full tax cut proposal. The ads feature America’s favorite whipping boy, France:

PRESIDENT BUSH COURAGEOUSLY LED THE FORCES OF FREEDOM.

BUT SOME SO-CALLED "ALLIES" LIKE FRANCE STOOD IN THE WAY.

AT HOME, PRESIDENT BUSH HAS PROPOSED BOLD JOB-CREATING TAX CUTS TO BOOST OUR ECONOMY.

BUT SOME SO-CALLED REPUBLICANS LIKE GEORGE VOINOVICH STAND IN THE WAY.

AMERICA NEEDS STRONG ALLIES ABROAD.

AND PRESIDENT BUSH NEEDS STRONG SUPPORTERS IN THE SENATE.

HEY GEORGE VOINOVICH: JOIN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FIGHT TO CUT TAXES AND FIX THE ECONOMY.


This approach—comparing Voinovich and Snowe to Jacques Chirac—strikes me as somewhat simplistic. France, after all, engaged in duplicity, first promising to support the disarming of Saddam Hussein, then turning against the U.S.-led effort to actually do so. Snowe and Voinovich, in contrast, are politically consistent in their opposition to the president’s tax proposals. Both senators are so-called deficit “hawks” who consider substantial tax cuts too risky. While I don’t support this approach to fiscal policy, I also know that Snowe and Voinovich are not hypocritical or duplicitous in holding their views.

That said, the Club for Growth’s intent is admirable. Lower taxes is supposedly a core principle of the Republican Party, and the Snowe-Voinovich position does politically undermine the agenda of a Republican president. But Club for Growth could have formulated an ad which focused on the intellectual error of their opponent’s position—attacking the notion that lower taxes is the cause of higher deficits, for example—rather than on America’s fleeting disdain of France.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Rumsfeld Stands Tall After Iraq Victory 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:55 PM

Light bloging for today, but the Washington Post has an interesting article on the rise in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Key paragraph:
He now is in position as never before to reshape the U.S. military along the lines he has talked about since taking office, "transforming" it into a more agile and precise force built not around firepower but around information, and willing to take risks to succeed.
Amen!

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Saturday, April 19, 2003 ::

Making a list, taxing it twice 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:31 PM

Human Events, a conservative weekly, compiled a list of the “Ten Worst Federal Tax Laws.” The list was chosen by a prominent panel of judges, including Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Stephen Moore of Club for Growth, and Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist. The estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”) came in at #1, followed by double taxation of dividends, and the alternative minimum tax. There are no glaring omissions that I can see on the list, though I would have given at least an honorable mention to certain federal fines, such as the Hart-Scott-Rodino fee companies must pay as tribute to have their mergers approved by antitrust authorities.

:: help support this website | link |



 

A matter of inches 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:24 PM

Georgia’s efforts to create a new, Confederacy-free flag hit a snag:

Legislation that would clear the way for the new flag is up for a vote Tuesday. The bill does not list specific measurements for the flag, but it does define proportions for three stripes and a blue square that encompasses the state seal and 13 stars.

A historian says those proportions would throw the state flag out of proportion with the standard American flag by making Georgia's a foot longer.

Supporters are afraid to change the legislation because then it would have to return to the Georgia House with just two days left in the legislative session.


It amazes me this is still an issue. No state should be permitted to have the Confederate emblem in their flag, for the simple reason that the Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States government. That the rebellion was, in large measure, motivated by a desire to preserve slavery makes the moral issue that much clearer. Congress, in my judgment, possesses the authority to require the removal of the Confederate symbol from a state flag, pursuant to the federal power to suppress insurrections against the national government.

:: help support this website | link |



 

It's not always about the children... 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:18 PM

For all the unconstitutional laws passed in the name of “protecting the children,” some basic acts of child abuse continue to be legal, as evidence in this report from Pennsylvania:

A woman and her male partner - a psychologist who works with autistic children - do not belong on a state list of alleged and confirmed child abusers for punishing her 13-year-old son by paddling him with a plastic serving spoon, a state court ruled.

Even if the boy suffered bruises and had trouble sitting for a couple days, the injuries did not justify keeping the two on the list, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel said Thursday.
Now, I question the wisdom of child abuser “lists” as a means of law enforcement, but that’s a secondary issue here. The question is whether paddling a child with a spoon constitutes abuse. There’s no question in my mind that it is. If you believe the initiation of force against others is immoral, then you cannot justify harming a child in such a cruel manner. The notion that this is “discipline” is irrational on its face. You do not teach someone good behavior by resorting to a wanton act of violence.

The Pennsylvania court concluded the paddling here was legal because there was “no malicious intent and no evidence of negligence by adults or severe injury to the boy.” None of these rationalizations justifies the paddling. Intentionally harming a child—or any human being for that matter—is malicious regardless of whether you consider the act to be disciplinary rather than punitive. As to negligence, a parent who resorts to paddling her own child, it seems to me, is simply taking a shortcut rather than taking the time to actually teach their child right from wrong. That certainly approaches the line of negligence. Finally, the severity of the injury should not be a determining factor for legal purposes. Is rape not a crime if the woman is not severely injured? Of course it’s not.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Support our Troops. . .  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:01 PM

. . .by paying them a salary worth their commitment, says Al Neuharth in an op-ed in yesterday's USA Today. I agree.

Compared to the money one can make in the civilian world, military pay is peanuts. The pay for a E-1 (Private, Airman, or Seaman Recruit) is $12,776 a year. With a little overtime, someone schlepping at minimum wage does better. Yet it's at the higher ranks where the real pay imbalance is revealed. A four-star general or admiral with over 26 years experience earns only $153,950 in basic pay. You can see the entire pay scale here.

Could anyone imagine paying the CEO of any corporation with 20,000+ employees such a salary, let alone a CEO who is at the top of his profession? And don't give me that line about how military members get food and housing as benefits. Have you ever eaten military chow? Or lived in a barracks? I did for five years as a marine. It ain't no treat.

The military profession demands the utmost from those who serve in its offices. It's time we as grateful citizens reward that commitment with appropriate pay. If it were my call, I'd raise military pay by 50%, and I'd do it in a heartbeat. We can take the money out of the billions of dollars the government wastes on things that don't contribute one iota to the national defense.

Junk like this just ticks me off.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Friday, April 18, 2003 ::

Paging Donald Rumsfeld. Intemperate Diplomatic Gaffe Needed 

:: Posted by John Bragg at 11:42 AM

Link. North Korean statement. The North Koreans are treating these as bilateral talks, and the Chinese probably are too. The North Koreans claim that they informed the US and "relevant countries" in March that they were doing this.

No talks while the North is building nuclear bombs.

:: help support this website | link |



 

North Korea Is Manufacturing Nuclear Fuel 

:: Posted by John Bragg at 11:14 AM

Link. Time for some sabre-rattling. The meeting in Beijing must be cancelled and no meetings held until the North freezes their program.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Thursday, April 17, 2003 ::

 

:: Posted by John Bragg at 7:30 PM

Link. Saudi Defense Minister has filed a motion in the Saudi-9/11 case. (found via Instapundit.)

The old joke, that the Department of Defense exists to defend US interests and the Department of State to sacrifice them...read closely. Treasury and Justice are unhappy at the lack of Saudi cooperation. The best that can be said about State is that they're not moving to dismiss the lawsuit.

Moving down the list, er, Chart. Now, Mr. Khamenei, about that peaceful nuclear program you have, I have a feeling that Allah doesn't really want you to have that. In fact, I'm pretty confident that that nuclear program is going to be gone within a year. I'm pretty sure that Allah wills that. In fact, if the program doesn't go away, fire and destruction will rain from the skies upon it, destroying utterly that which offends and leaving that which is pure untouched. Just a thought.

:: help support this website | link |



 

 

:: Posted by John Bragg at 7:18 PM

Link. Hezbollah seen moving into Iraq.

So that's why Syria moved to No. 1 on the charts. (What list? There is no list. I assure you, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan are not on any list. They are on a chart. That's completely different.)

:: help support this website | link |



 

'All your base are belong to us. . .' 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:41 PM

Something Awful has a moving tribute to the world's favorite ex-minister of information Mohammad Said al-Sahaf.

Hey, if it makes you laugh, you're advancing capitalism. ;-)

:: help support this website | link |



 

Cuban for America 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:44 PM

Hollywood may continue to bellyache about the war, but the sports world is steipping up to the plate: Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has established the Fallen Patriot Fund to provide relief and support for families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Cuban himself will match the fist $1 million in contributions to the fund.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 ::

First in War, First in Peace... 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:50 PM

District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams signed legislation yesterday moving the D.C. presidential primaries from May to the second Tuesday in January, for now making the nation’s capital host to the nation’s first primary.

This power play by D.C. will obviously anger New Hampshire, which jealously guards its position as the nation’s first primary state (Iowa actually chooses their delegates first, but they employ a closed caucus system, not an open primary election.) New Hampshire law, in fact, requires them to go first:

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. – The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.


Now, D.C. sponsors argue that since the District is not a “state,” it need not officially disrupt New Hampshire’s position at the head of the pecking order. But New Hampshire law doesn’t see it that way. The statute’s definition section says that any election which selects delegates to a presidential nominating convention constitutes a “similar election” for purposes of Section 653:9. Therefore, New Hampshire is legally obligated to move their primary to the first Tuesday in January, marking the earliest start ever for the official nomination contest.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Antitrust news 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:49 PM

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has filed suit to block the acquisition of a unit of Bermis Co. by Finland-based UPM-Kymmene. DOJ officials are concerned the deal will lead to improper consolidation of the market for sticky labels. Yes, that’s right, sticky labels.

(This shouldn’t surprise me, given that last month a federal appeals court ruled 3M was unfairly monopolizing the market for generic tape. Adhesives have apparently become the Standard Oil of modern antitrust practice.)

This case is interesting because European Union antitrust regulators—normally a far more anal bunch than the DOJ—gave its blessing to the deal, finding the merged firms would pose no threat to the current sticky label leader, U.S.-based Avery Dennison. The DOJ, however, offers the bizarre claim that a Bermis-UPM merger might “facilitate coordination” with Avery and other U.S. competitors. In other words, the government is afraid sticky label producers will “coordinate” rather than “compete.” Oh, the sheer horror.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The official tournament of capitalism 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:48 PM

In a sad day for local golf fans in the D.C. area, Kemper Insurance yesterday ended their title sponsorship of the Kemper Open, the PGA Tour’s annual swing through Maryland’s Tournament Players Club at Avenel. The event itself will proceed on schedule this June as the “Capitol Open,” until a new sponsor can be found.

Personally, I’d love to rename the event the “Capitalism Open,” but I’m a few dollars shy of the estimated $6 million needed to secure the title sponsorship.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 ::

It's tax time--are you in compliance? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:57 PM

The Tax Foundation says odds are you are not, and yet it is costing you a fortune.

This from their website:

In 2002 individuals, businesses and non-profits will spend an estimated 5.8 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code (henceforth called “compliance costs”), with an estimated compliance cost of over $194 billion. This amounts to imposing a 20.4-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. By 2007, the compliance cost is estimated, conservatively, at $244.3 billion. However, this estimate does not take into account the recently enacted Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001. Taking EGTRRA into account shows that the compliance cost could soar as high as $350.2 billion by 2007.


It costs more than double to comply with the tax code than to liberate Iraq.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Oh, and we've won! 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:36 AM

The Washington Times front page headline this morning: "White House: 'We've won' " The New York Times: "Pentagon Asserts the Main Fighting Is Finished in Iraq."

To our supporters Commander Mike Pease, USN, Capt. Scott McDonald, USMC, and Sgt. Andy Van Fossen, USA, and all the men and women of the US Armed Forces, let me offer my sincerest gratitude for the courage, commitment and professionalism you displayed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

:: help support this website | link |



 

'Axis of Evil' Countries Feeling the Heat  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:18 AM

This AP report should be music to a lot of people's ears.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Casualty of the smoking war 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:07 AM

From the "unintended consequences" department:

NEW YORK—A brawny bouncer at a trendy East Village nightspot was stabbed to death yesterday after he confronted a man who lit up a cigarette in defiance of the city's tough new anti-smoking law, police said.

Dana (Shazam) Blake, 32, of Queens, was allegedly set upon by two Chinatown brothers after one of them refused to stop puffing inside Guernica on Avenue B, cops said.

"My brother lost his life because of this stupid smoking law," said the Rev. Tony Blake, who preaches against smoking and drinking at his Humble Way Church of God in Christ in Queens.

"This is not the end of the violence because of it," he added.


As despicable and unconstitutional as New York's smoking ban is, it did not cause Dana Blake's death. The man who irrationally choses violence in defying the law is responsible. Still, there may be a lesson for manipulative politicians like New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who rammed the smoking ban through): whenever you use the law to control individual behavior, there are always unintended consequences. No regulation ever perfectly accomplishes its goal.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Beware the Ides of April 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:26 AM

Today of course is Tax Day. Ever wonder why taxes come due on April 15, as opposed to, say, June 20? Here's the explanation:

Actually, Congress originally put tax day on the calendar. When the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to institute the income tax, was adopted on Feb. 3, 1913, Congress chose March 1--one year and a few dozen days later--as the deadline for filing returns. Then, with the Revenue Act of 1918, Congress inexplicably moved the date forward to March 15. The next overhaul came in 1955, when buried between tax-code revisions was yet another date change, this time to April 15. According to an IRS spokesman, the move "spread out the peak workload," but there's another explanation. Turns out that as the income tax applied to more of the middle class, the government had to issue more refunds. "Pushing the deadline back gives the government more time to hold on to the money," says Ed McCaffery, a University of Southern California law professor and tax guru. Still, the IRS's rigidity works in your favor: By law, it must mail your refund within 45 days or pay you interest.


This isn't quite as entertaining as the explanation for Election Day—a story I'll tell some other time—but this explanation does make sense.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Tar Heels Tarnished, Part Duex 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:17 AM

I'm disappointed Roy Williams took the North Carolina job. As I explained in an earlier post, the conduct of the University of North Carolina—a government-funded institution—was disgraceful from the very beginning. Williams should have resisted UNC's pleas and stayed at Kansas, where he built his own program into a perennial championship contender. Kansas was Roy Williams' program, and he could be proud of the fact. Now, at North Carolina, he'll be viewed largely as the anointed heir of Dean Smith, who managed to help run his last two successors out of town. Forgive my bluntness, but Williams decision here was an act of emotional cowardice. Williams put the interests and values of Smith and the UNC powers ahead of his own self-interest.

This is not to say every coach who leaves one program for another is a coward or an intellectual traitor. Far from it. The point is, Williams had a better situation at Kansas then he's walking into at UNC, and he knew that. He chose to disregard this fact because of his emotionaol fealty to Dean Smith. In essence, Smith and UNC bullied Williams into taking the job now after Williams had rebuffed them three years ago. According to numerous reports, Smith and UNC basically played the guilt card on Williams, arguing that his decision three years ago forced the Tar Heels to hire an inferior coach—the unjustly fired Matt Doherty—thus setting the program back. Of course, none of this was Williams fault. He should feel no guilt for staying with the Kansas program he built. Yet Smith and UNC played Williams' emotions for all it was worth.

Consider the decision by UNC to fire Doherty the week of the Final Four, where Kansas was a participant. Rationally, UNC could have waited until after the Final Four was over. Instead, they chose to immediately put public pressure on Williams to consider the UNC job, at the same time he was leading his Kansas team into a national championship game. This was blatant manipulation, and Williams in fact recognized it as such. He admitted this, albeit implicitly, in his now-famous postgame interview with CBS' Bonnie Bernstein. When asked, in the immediate aftermath of losing the championship to Syracuse, if he would take the UNC job, Williams twice noted that the people asking those questions "weren't being very sensitive." Superficially, it sounded like he was criticizing the media for asking the question. But, I believe it was a criticism of UNC for firing Doherty when they did. Still, this makes Williams' conduct all the more cowardly: he knew he was being manipulated and he allowed it to succeed.

:: help support this website | link |



 

With malice towards none... 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:46 AM

In the aftermath of Martha Burk's defeat at Augusta, I feel the need to offer some charity. Not towards Burk, mind you, but towards some of her misguided defenders in the media. Specifically Christine Brennan of USA Today, whose initial writings on Augusta's all-male policy caught Burk's attention a year ago. In many pro-Augusta quarters, Brennan has been maligned as Burk's chief instigator. This strikes me as somehwat unfair, especially coming from certain individuals. One such individual is John Feinstein, a former colleague of Brennan's at the Washington Post, who put out this thinly-veiled attack in his weekly AOL sports column:

Burk has been wrong -- factually, philosophically and ethically -- so often since this fiasco began that she has actually managed to turn most neutral parties and even some who agree with her in principle against her. In fact, she has done the nearly impossible: turned the membership of Augusta National, one of the least sympathetic groups of people in America, into sympathetic figures in the eyes of many.

Most women in American -- and most reasonable men -- probably agree with the notion that there should be female members at Augusta National, if only because it would be a symbolic gesture, an acknowledgment because the club conducts a public event once a year it is different than other private clubs.

But almost no one sees the issue as the cause celebre that Burk, The New York Times and one self-promoting columnist at USA Today have attempted to turn it into.


Now, to be fair, there is more than one "self-promoting columnist" at USA Today. I can think of at least three. But in this context, Feinstein is clearly referring to Brennan, who he refers to later in his column as the "look-at-me columnist."

Frankly, this sort of name calling is unnecessary. And Feinstein shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses. He's widely regarded—even among colleagues—as a sanctimonious know-it-all, the stereotypical sportswriter who considers himself a total cognitive authority on all things sport.

There's also the rank hypocrisy. After all, aren't most sports columnists self-promoting by nature? They're trying to sell themselves as personalities, not just writers. Many columnists also write books they seek to sell (Feinstein himself is one of the best book writers out there.) Some columnists even do television, also a self-promotion vehicle. So simply labeling Brennan "self-promoting" says nothing about the validity of her actions or her causes.

Columnists are not news reporters. They are expected to hold strong opinions with the intent of influencing people. In this vain, Brennan did nothing wrong in stating her views on Augusta's membership. No line was crossed there. Burk crossed the line when she resorted to threats and intimidation against Augusta and its corporate partners. To my knowledge, Brennan never participated in those kind of activities. Indeed, if one media reporter sticks out in my mind as violating ethical norms, it's Len Shapiro of the Washington Post, who routinely ignored facts inconvenient to his own anti-Augusta position. It was Shapiro who led a media lynching when Tiger Woods wouldn't morally condemn Augusta (thus demonstrating Woods lacked a "social conscience" in the eyes of Shapiro and colleague Michael Wilbon.)

Now, I've been critical of Brennan myself at times. Some of her arguments against Augusta were purely emotionalist and lacked substantial reasoning. But at the same time, I've always considered Brennan's criticism of Augusta to be well intentioned. She is clearly a golf fan and someone who views Augusta's policies as harmful to the club's image. Burk, on the other hand, is a manipulative figure who set out to destroy the Masters. I've never read any similar malicious intent in Brennan's writings on this subject. Thus, it's patently unfair for Feinstein to single her out for condemnation in this fiasco.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Monday, April 14, 2003 ::

Why is SBC denying condoms to rural America? 

:: Posted by Skip at 10:39 PM

The campus paper at George Washington University contains this disturbing report:

Voices For Choices will hold its second annual Safer Sex Party Tuesday night in the Thurston Hall Piano Lounge from 8:30 to 10: 30 p.m.

Students will have the opportunity to talk to local clinic representatives about safer sex and sexually transmitted infections. Free condoms, food and information will be available.


I'm not one to judge, but personally, I think it's wrong for a telecommunications lobbying group like Voices for Choices to be giving condoms to college students. I know the group is upset the FCC ruled against them in their recent dispute with the Baby Bells, but I fail to see how a "Safer Sex Party" is going to undo the government's decision.

Then again, this article may be referring to the Voices for Choices student group which is the GW chapter of Planned Parenthood...

:: help support this website | link |



 

Liberals triumph over other liberals! 

:: Posted by Skip at 9:44 PM

Looks like the five-day work week will continue in Quebec. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation projects the Liberals have secured a majority in today's provincial elections. Goodbye secessionists, hello socialist status quo!

:: help support this website | link |



 

Hey, it worked for WorldCom 

:: Posted by Skip at 9:38 PM

An immediate problem arising from the end of Saddam Hussein's regime is the issue of Iraq's foreign debt, currently estimated to be at least $60 billion, and in reality much more than that. Treasury Secretary John Snow is trying to gague support from key Iraqi creditors—such as, ahem, France—for forgiving at least some of the debt. However this issue is resolved, it will ultimately involve some political wrangling at the United Nations, not to mention intervention from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, all organizations that contributed to the international debt problem in the first place.

This may sound simplistic, but I have an idea. Let's just put Iraq before a U.S. Bankruptcy Court (perhaps the one in Delaware, which arguably has a better track record in reorganizing indebted corporations than any international institution.) After all, if we can bring Iraqi war criminals before U.S.-appointed military tribunals, there's no reason we can't use U.S. institutions to settle the debts of a deposed dictatorial regime.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Vampire rights 

:: Posted by Skip at 9:27 PM

Atheists are threatening to sue Ventura, California, unless city officials remove a "90-year-old, cross-shaped monument from a hilltop park overlooking the coastal town." The Washington Times reports atheists are suddenly apoplectic over the monument's religous meaning:

"Government establishing a Christian cross on government property treads on their rights and makes second-class citizens of non-Christians," said Charles Wilson, a federal employee from nearby Oxnard and one of three men threatening to sue the city over the cross.

He said the cross is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Stan Kohls, a resident of nearby Somis and another of the men complaining about the cross, said the symbol represents a dangerous intrusion of religion into public life.

"All you have to do is look at Israel or Northern Ireland to see how destructive religion can be when it is brought out in public," said the semiretired special education teacher. "A society that is democratic must be secular as well."


This last statement struck me as odd. After all, secularism qua secularism does not guarantee democratic values. Just look at the Soviet Union, which was an atheist state. And it's also true that a belief in individual rights is ultimately compatible with altruist concepts of religion. But at the same time, a society can respect individual rights while maintaining religious components. The United States is in fact a prime example of this theory.

Furthermore, I disagree with the premise that enacting a cross on government property violates the "rights" of non-Christians. The Constitution only prohbits the establishment of religion, not the incidental endorsement of it. While a cross may be offensive to atheists, the city's decision to permit a cross on government property does not compel an atheist to conform to any particular belief. Unless you're a vampire, the cross's presence does violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property.

Personally, I would not be terribly offended if I saw a cross on government property. Since I am an atheist, I invest the cross with no particular meaning, therefore the mere sight of one produces no negative reaction. Then again, unlike many atheists, I subscribe to a positive belief system rather than simply define myself by what I don't believe in. After all, I don't believe in communism, but I rarely describe myself to others as an "anti-communist."

:: help support this website | link |



 

Profiteering for Iraq 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:07 PM

Among the themes of this weekend's antiwar protests was the call against "war profiteering," which the protesters define as any contract where a U.S. corporation agrees to rebuild-and-provide services for the new Iraqi administration. This, the protesters claim, is yet more evidence of American imperialism and the wretched excesses of capitalism.

But what exactly is the alternative? After all, the corporations are presumably hired because they have expertise and resources to accomplish various tasks, such as setting up a telecommunications network. Would the protesters prefer we leave the Iraqis without such a network, or that we hire some group that's not the best for the job? I suspect the reply would be "we should let the United Nations do it." But the UN is not a business, and it has no expertise in actually building infrastructure. At least not building one efficiently. The UN, like most of its member governments, is a parasitic entity that drains wealth generated by individuals and businesses. Having the UN lead the Iraqi rebuilding would simply make it more expensive and less efficient. But, hey, if preventing corporate profits is more important to you than helping rebuild Iraq, you're certainly entitled to that viewpoint...

:: help support this website | link |



 

He's won more lawsuits than Super Bowls 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:01 PM

Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis is back in court today, this time blaming local government officials for his lack of attendance. Davis is trying to sue his way out of his lease at the Oakland Coliseum (which runs through 2010) on the grounds that the city "promised" him a full house for every home game. Unfortunately, the team's lackluster record in the 1990s made things difficult. Nevertheless, Davis feels that he's the victim.

This is hardly a new act for Davis. He left Oakland in the early 1980s for Los Angeles and—following an antitrust suit against the NFL—proceeded to run the team into stagnation at the massive Los Angeles Coliseum. When Davis couldn't secure a new taxpayer-financed stadium, Davis bolted back to Oakland for his current lease. On top of that, he sued the NFL again, claiming he still maintained "territorial rights" to Los Angeles, a claim which is still being litigated.

The only thing worse than a politician who throws tax dollars at sports owners are the owners who feel entitled to such funds. This is not "capitalism," but another form of wealth redistribution. And should Davis win—and he's seeking $1.2 billion in damages for "lost revenue"—the taxpayers will end up footing the entire bill.

:: help support this website | link |



 

At least they didn't tear down any statues... 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:53 PM

From the "let's be more like downtown Baghdad" department:

The smell of cigar smoke, burning plastic and pepper spray filled the air Saturday night as several hundred people rioted following Minnesota’s men’s hockey team’s 5-1 NCAA championship victory.

In an alcohol-fueled frenzy, rioters smashed windows, burned trash bins and toppled items throughout Dinkytown, Stadium Village and parts of the East Bank campus.

University officials were still assessing the damage when University President Robert Bruininks met with members of the news media Sunday afternoon.

“We don’t really have enough facts,” Bruininks said. “You can be assured that we’re going to turn over every stone to find the people responsible for this.”


The scary thing is, there were riots last year after Minnesota won the title. And some students aren't ashamed of this:

Mark McSherry, an economics senior, said the police presence made the damage worse.

“People burn stuff because the cops keep chasing us and they keep Macing us. We’re going break stuff until they quit chasing us,” he said.

McSherry said this year’s riots were worse because a lot of people, including incoming first-year students, saw riots on television last year and wanted to participate.

“Riots are some of the top three memorable college times of my life. When else do you see all these students come together to do one thing?” he asked.


On the plus side, university officials say they'll now consider a "zero tolerance" policy against future rioting. Hopefully the leaders of this riot won't have made it to exile in Syria by then...

:: help support this website | link |



 

Election Day 

:: Posted by Skip at 2:47 PM

Quebec voters head to the polls today to select a new provincial legislature. The incumbent governing party, the secessionist Parti Quebecois (PQ), is facing a stiff challenge from the provincial Liberal Party, led by Jean Charest, formerly the head of Canada’s Conservative party (don’t ask.) Complicating maters further is a third-party effort led by the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ).

The PQ won the past two elections on the strength of their major issue: secession from Canada and the formation of an independent Quebec. But with tough economic times throughout Quebec and Canada, that message is no longer first on the minds of most voters. Now it’s all about the economy. Ironically, the PQ solution to economic problems is the same as that of English-speaking Canada: more socialism.

Indeed, the PQ’s latest election gimmick is a real doozy: imposing a four-day work week. This means businesses would have to pay employees for a five-day work week, but employees would only have to work four of them. This is supposed to support families, I think.

Maybe it’s the PQ’s new plan to get out of Canada; make the province so economically unproductive, that the rest of the country will ask them to leave. Then again, this being Canada, the four-day work week may catch fire and go national.

Even if Charest’s Liberals can wrest power from the PQ (and the Libs reportedly have a six-point lead in the polls) things won’t change much economically. The Liberals will simply maintain the socialist status quo. Even the ADQ, nominally a “right wing” party, has spent most of the election campaign touting new spending proposals, such as “investing $2.2 billion in families,” whatever that means. On the other hand, the ADQ is touting a school voucher plan that’s annoyed the head of the province’s teacher’s union, who argued vouchers would “set aside social solidarity aside [while] talking about freedom of choice.” So maybe Quebec has some hope.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The most loved professor in America. . . 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:43 PM

. . . is not Nicholas De Genova, according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. De Genova is the now infamous Columbia professor who wished for "a million Mogadishus," a reference to the 1993 battle in Somalia in which 18 U.S. soldiers were killed.

Savor this gem in the Chronicle's interview with De Genova:

Q. Your comment about wishing for "a million Mogadishus" has attracted the most attention. I read your letter in the "Columbia Daily Spectator," which gave some more context, but I have to confess I don't see how the context changes the meaning of that statement.

A. I was referring to what Mogadishu symbolizes politically. The U.S. invasion of Somalia was humiliated in an excruciating way by the Somali people. And Mogadishu was the premier symbol of that. What I was really emphasizing in the larger context of my comments was the question of Vietnam and that historical lesson. ... What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam is that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination.
Communism as a form of self-determination? I'll say the same thing I said to George Washington University philosophy professor Peter Caws when I made the mistake of getting into a debate with him over communism as an undergraduate during his course "Left and Right in Political Philosophy"—it ain't self-determination when the secret police put a bullet in your cranium because you are unwilling to sacrifice your ability to someone else's need.

De Genova gets more credit than he deserves. All that he's done is taken the virulent hatred of America that dominates teaching in the humanities and striped it of its academic language. I wonder how many Ph.D.'s are earned by those saying exactly the same thing as De Genova, but only in the form of a dissertation.

:: help support this website | link |



 

CNN's Access of Evil  

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:45 AM

Franklin Foer, the associate editor of The New Republic that questioned CNN's reporting integrity in Iraq last fall, slams the network in today's Wall Street Journal for Eason Jordan's admission that CNN hid details of Saddam's brutality

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Sunday, April 13, 2003 ::

Martha Burk gets flamed in the Washington Post 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 7:23 AM

The Washington Post has an hysterical article describing radical feminist Martha Burk's fizzled protest of Augusta National Golf Club yesterday. The article describes how Burk's small cadre suffered such indignities as having more press than protestors, being mocked by the "People Against Ridiculous Protests," who planted a sign and walked away, saying it would be "ridiculous" to stay, and being serenaded by an Elvis impersonator, who attempted to woo some of Burk's protestors. And when confronted with the failure of her protest, the article reports that Burk went into total Iraqi Information Minister mode, tossing out a conspiracy theory accusing the Heritage Foundation of buying up seats on her protest buses to reduce the turnout.

What a failure. Maybe if we're lucky, Syria will grant Burk asylum.

:: help support this website | link |



 

What did they say and when did they say it 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:53 AM

The Washington Times details the major media outlets that bungled their coverage of the war in Iraq with unduly pessimistic reports.

But why did so many media outlets get it wrong? When focused on grand strategy, the media coverage of the war was appallingly one-dimensional. For example, much debate was made out of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's push for a more technological, less manpower-intensive military, but little of that debate was useful. While Rumsfeld's critics were a dome a dozen, I recall hardly any interviews from those in favor of Rumsfeld's position outside of the administration. Now that Rumsfeld's team has delivered a smashing victory, one would expect a host of mea culpas? On this topic, I haven't seen one.

I think this a case of classic Red vs. Blue America. Blue thinks Red is stupid, and anything its does is intellectually suspect. After this appalling failure to get the story right, maybe Blue Americans ought to take the time to look at themselves.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Saturday, April 12, 2003 ::

Warning: Simpsons reference ahead... 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:04 AM

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware managed to disgrace himself and the entire United States Congress by successfully sneaking throught the RAVE Act without so much as a minute of debate. Even more disgracefully, Biden's Democratic colleagues—the same group that can't get enough debate over Miguel Estrada—felt no need to speak out against this travesty. Barring a presidential veto, the government will now assume the (unconstitutional) power to seize any property where an individual is using drugs, even if the owner has no knowledge or responsibility for said drug use. And keep in mind, this law will be enforced by John Ashcroft's Justice Department, the same people who executed Mountain Health Care over falsified antitrust charges.

For his "leadership" on this issue, Joe Biden has richly earned a place on my enemies list, right next to Jane Fonda, Daniel Schorr, and Jack Anderson. Oh, wait, that's Richard Nixon's enemies list...

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Friday, April 11, 2003 ::

Mountain Health Care, R.I.P. 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:23 PM

Skip Oliva remembers a victim of antitrust poisoning at Initium.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Support our troops 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:57 PM

Rep. Martin Frost, Texas Democrat, wants to make it easier for non-citizens in the U.S. military to get their citizenship:

The growing ranks of legal permanent residents in our armed forces build on a rich legacy of military service from America’s immigrants. It reflects the tremendous pride and patriotism of our immigrant communities, particularly among Hispanic immigrants.

But right now, U.S. immigration law erects unnecessary and unfair hurdles for these green card troops who want to become citizens in the nation they defend.

Typically, they are among the lowest in pay and in rank, but the naturalization process can cost them thousands of dollars in fees and out-of-pocket travel expenses. And if they’re serving overseas – as many are – the law makes the process even more difficult by requiring legal immigrant servicemen and women to schedule interviews at local INS offices in the U.S. – and to pay their own travel expenses to get here.

Last year, President Bush signed an Executive Order making non-citizens who had been on active duty since September 11th immediately eligible for citizenship. But this does not remove any of the barriers to actually getting citizenship, and it lacks the permanence of statutory law.

That’s why the “Citizenship for America’s Troops Act” is still needed. It waives naturalization fees for green card troops, and allows immigration officials to conduct interviews at consulates, embassies and overseas military installations. It also decreases the service requirement to qualify for citizenship from three to two years.


Sounds good to me.

:: help support this website | link |



 

How to steal money twice 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:51 PM

Lawyers are hardly my favorite profession, but even they have a right to fees they validly earned. Republican senators Jon Kyl and John Cronyn disagree, however, and have introduced the "Intermediate Sanctions Compensatory Revenue Adjustment Act of 2003," a bill which would apply the tax code retroactively to punish lawyers who accept "unreasonable" fees.

If you're wondering why this is a priority for Messrs. Kyl and Cronyn, the answer is contained in the title of Kyl's press release: "Kyl Bill Would Give Billions To States." Specifically, it would give $9 billion to state governments from the notorious federal tobacco settlement that currently belong to private lawyers hired to handle the case. Kyl justifies this by claiming the states really need the money:

“We should not unreasonably enrich trial lawyers at the expense of states suffering severe financial crises. Like any other client, taxpayers in states that participated in the tobacco lawsuits deserve a fair share of the settlement reached. Yet attorneys’ fees in this case far exceed even the most generous standards awarded in other lawsuits of similar magnitude.”


This is all well and good, except the states agreed to pay the lawyers' contigency-based fees, a percentage of the total settlement, and now are Kyl wants to go back on that contract. If the states didn't want to pay such high fees, they should have bargained for a better fee deal before they hired their lawyers.

The bill itself limits attorney fees to 500% of "standard hourly rates," whatever that means, and uses the tax code to punish (i.e. take) compensation in excess of that limit. Once again, Kyl says this is justified because of current state budget shortfalls—the government just needs the money more than the lawyers. At least Kyl can be credited for his honesty in admitting this is about taking private funds for state use.

Then again, the lawyers bear some blame for this. After all, the tobacco settlement itself was not a product of honest legal work, but of government coercion aided and abetted by the trial lawyer profession. In one sense, this is just desserts for the attorneys: money they stole from tobacco companies is being stolen from them. But having said that, the Kyl-Cronyn bill is a violation of contract rights, and it would set a far worse precedent than even the tobacco settlement.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:32 PM

Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, writes in today's New York Times that he was personally aware of the brutality of Saddam's regime, but did not report it, out of fear of recriminations against CNN staff.

"Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard—awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
Jordan goes on to tell a harrowing tale of Iraqi assassination, torture, and dismemberment.

Saddam was so totalitarian that CNN feared for its staff and subjects, yet publicly, it continued to report as if Saddam's brutality did not impact its operation. So much for the press serving as a watch guard against threats to freedom.

The minute Saddam threatened force against CNN, the network should have pulled out of Iraq. CNN should have had the honesty to report that it was impossible to provide provide accurate and complete news inside a totalitarian dictatorship. That would have been important news to know on the concrete level CNN could have provided. Yet instead of reporting relevant facts, CNN knowingly whitewashed for a dictator.

If CNN's judgment permitted it not to tell the whole story in Iraq, one wonders where else it hasn't told the whole story.

UPDATE: This tidbit found on WNYC Radio (dated October 25, 2002):

BOB GARFIELD: I'm sure you have seen Franklin Foer's article in The New Republic which charges that the Western press is appeasing the Iraqi regime in order to maintain its visas -- to be there reporting should a war ultimately break out. What's your take on that?

EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting. We wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would refute the premise of the article.

BOB GARFIELD: Well what is the calculus? In the New Republic article he cites the coverage of Saddam Hussein's birthday by CNN which he deemed to be not a huge news event. Are you tossing bones to Saddam Hussein in order to be there when, when it really matters?

EASON JORDAN: No. I don't think that's the case at all. Now, there is Iraqi propaganda that is news! I mean there is propaganda from a lot of governments around the world that is newsworthy and we should report on those things. Saddam Hussein's birthday is a big deal in that country. We're not reading Iraqi propaganda; we're reporting as an independent news organization.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Thursday, April 10, 2003 ::

Here we go again... 

:: Posted by Skip at 5:22 PM

All of the newspaper boxes have been removed from my neighborhood, which is the Foggy Bottom area bordering the White House and the State Department. The last time this was done was right before the IMF-World Bank protests last year, so I presume today's removal is in anticipation of anti-war protests this weekend.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Antitrust news 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:25 PM

From the "as if the airlines don't have enough to deal with" department:

Dozens of travel agents are accusing major airlines of violating antitrust laws by colluding to eliminate commissions on ticket sales.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the travel agents claim that 21 airlines conspired to ban commissions to agents who sell tickets for the carriers. An attorney for the plaintiffs says the industry, beginning in 1997, reduced 10 percent commissions to 8 percent.

Two years ago, commissions dropped to 5 percent of the ticket price and in March 2002 many airlines eliminated commissions.

A similar suit, which has class-action status, is pending in a federal court in Wilmington, N.C.

The 49 plaintiffs in the San Francisco suit opted out of the North Carolina case.


This case has an amusing premise: the airlines should be punished for making their operations more efficient, thus reducing the need for intermediaries such as travel agents. When you think about it, the entire travel agent profession has been rendered essentially obsolete through the use of Internet-based reservation systems. This is precisely the sort of "consumer benefit" the antitrust laws theoretically won't interfere with, but at the same time antitrust theory always holds the larger company (i.e. the airlines) to be the guilty party in any transaction where another party is unhappy.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Arab Reaction 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:24 PM

The Washington Post has an article on Arab reaction to the liberation of Iraq. Consider this reaction from Diaa Rashwan, a political scientist at Cairo's Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies:

"The Arab street is very frustrated, and to America, I repeat, I repeat, I repeat, the real war hasn't started yet. We have to be careful with such euphoria. It will only increase the feelings of anger in the Arab world. No Arabs want to welcome an occupying power."
Then there is this:
"I hate it," said Ahmed Samir, the manager of a trading company in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as he watched scenes of Iraqis shaking the hands of American soldiers in Baghdad. "It can only mean they hate Saddam more than they hate the Americans."
Yes, Messrs. Rashwan and Samir, perish the thought that the Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone, and thankful that the US removed him.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Some useful advice for Chicken Little 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:15 PM

Philippe de Croy tells us how to succeed on NPR at the Volokh Conspiracy.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Wet Blanket Alert 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 5:42 AM

Leave it to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times to integrate the standard altruist whine into the news of our victory in Iraq.
"What is striking, though, is that after people get through complaining to you about their situation, they each seem to have a story about a family member or cousin who was arbitrarily jailed or killed by Saddam's thugs. They are truly glad to be rid of him. America did good in doing that, so now we must build a peace we can be equally proud of.

"But this is such a broken land. Its spirit was broken by Saddam long before we arrived, and now, because of this war, its major cities and iron-fisted order are being broken as well. Killing Saddam alone will not bring America the thank-yous it expects because Iraqis are not yet feeling free. Only replacing Saddam's order with a better order will do that. "There is no freedom because there is no security," said Dr. Mohammed al-Mansuri, the hospital's director. . .

". . .America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the water doesn't flow, if the food doesn't arrive, if the rains don't come and if the sun doesn't shine, it's now America's fault. We'd better get used to it, we'd better make things right, we'd better do it soon, and we'd better get all the help we can get.

America broke Iraq? We now own the place? And it's our job to fix it? You would have to write for the Times to believe that. It was 25 years of Saddam that broke Iraq--Friedman admits as much--and a big chunk of the Iraqi people allowed it to happen. I'm glad the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets, but truth be told, many of the Iraqi people have a lot to answer for.

Now that the US has dethroned Saddam, we owe Iraq a modicum of policing until an interim government is established. Where people are in immanent danger of death due to the war, relief aid to relive that danger is in order. But that's it. Saddam's boot have been removed from the necks of the Iraqi people. The onus on rebuilding Iraq now properly belongs to the Iraqis.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 ::

Democracy, whiskey, and sexy 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:00 PM

Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream is writing for Al Jezeera. The following is an excerpt of his response to the liberation of Baghdad

"Despite constant discussion of "precision bombing," the US invasion has produced so many dead and wounded that Iraqi hospitals stopped trying to count.

"Red Cross officials have labeled the level of casualties "incredible," describing "dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of women and children" delivered by truck to hospitals.

"Cluster bombs, one of the most indiscriminate weapons in the modern arsenal, have been used by U.S. and U.K. forces, with the British defense minister explaining that mothers of Iraqi children killed would one day thank Britain for their use.

"US viewers see little of these consequences of war, which are common on television around the world and widely available to anyone with Internet access.

Hmmm. Today, the world saw perhaps the most important consequence of the war to date: Iraqis dancing in the streets as a US tank destroyer tore down a statue of Saddam in Baghdad. And it seems a sizable chunk of the population of Baghdad were not the least bit concerned with any of the claims Professor Jenson raised as they chanted "Down with Saddam--God Bless George Bush." One Iraqi man, when asked what he thought the Americans would bring to his country said, with his voice lifting each word to greater prominence, "Democracy, whiskey, and sexy!"

The antiwar movement stands totally discredited, yet they still have their ax to grind and they will use every tool they can muster to grind it. Consider the following expert our good professor gave in an interview about his book:

"After several years of writing dozens of op/eds that expressed very radical ideas (everything from describing the United States as a terrorist nation to sharp critiques of corporate capitalism), I realized I had accumulated a lot of experience and tips about how to take, as the book's subtitle puts it, radical ideas from the margins to the mainstream."

Lots of apologists for dictators draw on the same set of skills, and that's why they are called propaganda artists. The good thing about  propaganda though is once the evidence comes out, life never goes well for the propagandist.

:: help support this website | link |



 

First Class monopoly 

:: Posted by Skip at 5:53 PM

The U.S. Postal Service will freeze their stamp rates until 2006 under legislation passed yesterday by Congress. The bill permits USPS to reduce payments to its employee pension system, which is currently overfunded. The nearly $3 billion saved by this move will be used to help pay down the Postal Service's $11 billion debt. In exchange, first-class stamp rates will remain at 37 cents for at least three more years.

A number of industry groups representing mail-heavy businesses (such as nonprofit groups) obviously applauded this action. Yet there seems to be little call among organized lobbyists for the abolition of the Postal Service's first-class mail monopoly—despite the fact opening all mail services to competition would likely lower costs and improve service in the long term. There is currently a presidential commission studying "reform" of USPS, but given the political pull of postal worker unions, any substantial change in the first-class monopoly appears unlikely.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Faith in education 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:19 PM

Education Secretary Rod Paige offered the following comments to a Baptist news service:

All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith.

* * *

The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system...In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.


Now, it's unclear from this sentence whether Paige meant to say children in government-run schools should be taught Christian values, but not surprisingly, that's how some people took it. Barry Lynn, the leftist head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, immediately called for Paige's resignation, saying the secretary's remarks were an affront to "diversity." These comments were echoed by American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman, who emphasized diversity is "what makes our public schools great."

The problem with Paige's remarks, however, is not his alleged attacks on "diversity," but his declaration of faith as a means of education. You do not "teach" faith to children; you impose it upon them through coercion. Faith is the systematic denial of the reasoning process by which men thrive. Faith is not a valid means of cognition, yet the secretary's remarks clearly state otherwise.

At the same time, it's pointless to call for Paige's resignation. The Department of Education exists largely to provide government schools—and the teacher unions which control them—with a permanent foothold in Washington, and nothing in Paige's remarks threaten this stranglehold. Indeed, the teachers unions are simply another vehicle preaching a secular Gospel of altruism to the 50 million students they currently hold captive thanks to the government monopoly on education. Unless Secretary Paige is prepared to address that reality, it makes little difference what he says or does otherwise in office.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Democracy vs. The Pursuit of Happiness 

:: Posted by The Occasional Blogger at 10:33 AM

“Why doesn’t democracy grab hold in the Middle East? What is there about the culture and the people and so on where democracy just doesn’t seem to be something they strive for and work for?”, asked an exasperated Rep. Christopher Shays (D-CT) after several hours of testimony on U.S.-Islamic relations.

The mother of all polls--the World Values Survey, a series of questionnaires that ask people in 70 countries (over 80% of the world population) about their values and beliefs--may hold the answer. Summarizing the research, survey director Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan writes in Foreign Policy:
Although nearly the entire world pays lip service to democracy, there is still no global consensus on the self-expression values—such as social tolerance, gender equality, freedom of speech, and interpersonal trust—that are crucial to democracy. Today, these divergent values constitute the real clash between Muslim societies and the West.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Victory? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:27 AM

It's starting to look that way.

Update: American troops topple statue of Saddam Hussein in front of jubilant Baghdad crowd, and in front of the world's television sets.

:: help support this website | link |



 

When you absolutely, positively need to defeat the Republican Guard... 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:41 AM

UPI's Martin Walker discusses the importance of the commercial sector in winning the war in Iraq:

But the real genius of the modern American way of war is the way they have combined their logistics with the best of civilian technology, from communications to information technology. It is one thing to marvel at the way the Vth Corps post office in Kuwait delivers 100 tons of incoming mail a day, quite another to see the massed ranks of PCs in the giant hangars at Camp Doha, with GIs e-mailing home and surfing the Web to see what al-Jazeera or the British media has to say about their war.

The supply systems are stupendous, because the U.S. military has applied the technologies of commercial companies such as Fed-Ex and Wal-Mart to track the use of equipment, locate spare parts through bar codes, and start shipping them forward to the combat troops even before they ask for them. German troops froze for months in their [World War II] Russian campaigns. American troops outside Nasariya were able to take hot showers less than 48 hours after they reached the place—despite the worst sandstorm in a decade.

As a result, the U.S. armed forces defeated the best army in the Arab world with one hand tied behind their back. The U.S. Army did not even field its first team. The 4th Division, the most technologically advanced of all, with a computer in every vehicle and TV camera on the helmet of every squad leader sending real-time images back to headquarters, never even arrived on the battlefield.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Vagueness abuse 

:: Posted by Skip at 12:32 AM

A Vermont legislator wants the state to criminalize “emotional abuse” of children. How does one define emotional abuse? This is what the bill proposes:

“Emotional abuse” means the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish by threats, humiliation, intimidation, or other abusive conduct which is intended to demean, frighten, intimidate, or isolate.


This doesn’t exactly clarify matters. Indeed, this bill could easily be twisted to criminalize any conduct towards a child that the child simply finds unpleasant. Calling this proposal vague would be an understatement. One group opposing the bill, the Home School Legal Defense Association, correctly notes: “Under American law, people should be able to tell when they are breaking the law if they are to be punished by it.” Indeed, all states have ample laws prohibiting (and objectively defining) child abuse on the books already, so it’s hard to see any compelling need to expand the definition in such a conceptually imprecise way.

There’s also a gaping epistemological flaw with this bill’s definition of emotional abuse. Emotion, after all, is simply a reaction to one’s perceptions based on a given individual’s set of value judgments. Obviously, a child’s values tend to be less well defined than those of an adult, but most children over the age of three have a fairly well defined sense of self, not to mention the rudimentary ability to conceptualize. Since not every child acquires the same set of basic values, the definition of “emotional abuse” will vary from child-to-child, something which is not the case with physical abuse.

On the other hand, this bill’s vagueness could be used to the advantage of people trying to raise their children as rational individualists. After all, a child raised with a strong sense of self will likely consider attempts by government schools to “socialize” him to be a profound type of emotional abuse. In other words, coercing a selfish child into sacrificing himself to altruism could be considered a crime under a strict reading of the proposed Vermont bill. Somehow, though, I doubt that’s what this legislator had in mind.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 ::

The RAVE Act returns 

:: Posted by Skip at 11:53 PM

From the Drug Policy Alliance:

In an attempt to sneak the “RAVE Act” through the Senate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has just introduced the Act into conference committee as an add-on to the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003 (S151). S151 is a bill about child abduction that has nothing to do with drug policy issues. The “RAVE” Act, in contrast, has not passed a single committee this year. In addition, it was so controversial when it was introduced last year that two Senators withdrew their sponsorship. The “RAVE” Act is a bill that would make it easier for the federal government to punish business owners for the drug offenses of their customers – even if they take steps to stop such activity.

S151 has passed the Senate and House and is now in Conference. If the Democrats are successful in their efforts to attach the “RAVE” Act onto an unrelated bill, it is likely to become law without ever having a public hearing, debate or a vote. Opponents of the “RAVE” Act argue that it would put innocent business owners at risk of criminal prosecution, threaten free speech, be detrimental to public health, and could be used by overzealous prosecutors to target racial minorities or politically unpopular groups.

If enacted, the “RAVE” Act would make it easier for the federal government to punish property owners for any drug offense that their customers commit – even if they work hard to stop such offenses. If enacted, nightclub and stadium owners would likely stop holding events – such as rock or Hip Hop concerts – in which even one person might use drugs. Because of its broad language, the proposed law would even potentially subject people to twenty years in federal prison if one or more of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue.


CAC opposed the RAVE Act when it was introduced last year in the Senate, and the bill is just as bad today as it was then. This is a naked assault on property rights, and it bears little rational relation to any legitimate government objective, and it certainly does nothing about the drug problem. It simply gives politically-minded prosecutors the ability to manufacture convictions against innocent business owners.

The fact that Senate RAVE sponsors are trying to shoehorn their proposal into an unrelated bill demonstrates just how corrupt the legislative process has become. It used to be an ironclad principle of parliamentary law that a bill addressed only one topic or proposal. The U.S. Congress has long abandoned this rule, and indeed both houses of Congress routinely encourage grafting on unrelated amendments in order to escape public scrutiny over unpopular proposals. Regardless of the RAVE Act’s merits—and there are none that I can see—the proposal itself must nonetheless be debated publicly, and not added on in a closed conference committee meeting.

:: help support this website | link |



 

$12 billion buys a lot of cigarettes 

:: Posted by Skip at 11:42 PM

This is just plain despicable:

Philip Morris USA won a victory Tuesday when a Chicago judge Tuesday temporarily blocked part of a multibillion-dollar award it was ordered to pay, which, coupled with comments from another judge, allayed fears the cigarette maker could be forced into bankruptcy.

The downstate Edwardsville, Ill., judge who ordered the award, after finding Philip Morris USA had deceived customers into thinking "light" cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes, indicated he may not force the company to post a $12 billion appeal bond.

"I don't want to put this company out of business. At the same time I'm concerned about protecting this judgment," Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron said during a hearing in Edwardsville, on Philip Morris' request to reduce the bond. He added that he could consider a "guarantee" from Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris's parent, but did not elaborate.

Byron last month ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $7.1005 billion in compensatory damages to smokers and awarded Illinois $3.0 billion in punitive damages.


A $12 billion bond just to appeal a verdict is irrational on its face. Phillip Morris documented that they couldn’t raise more than a $1.5 billion bond, and in fact the entire company was not worth $12 billion. Indeed, the company would likely be forced into bankruptcy if Judge Byron’s unethical (and, in my judgment, unconstitutional) bond order stands. To wage such economic destruction for the protection of an already dubious punitive damage award demonstrates just how irrational portions of America’s justice system are today.

The even sicker part of this is that a number of state governments filed an amicus brief in support of reducing the bond. You may wonder why other states would side with Phillip Morris against Illinois. The answer is simple: if Phillip Morris goes into bankruptcy over the Illinois bond, they would almost certainly miss upcoming payments on the existing national tobacco settlement. At a time when government budgets are in deficit freefall nationally, states cannot afford to lose their hard-stolen tobacco funds. Thus, Illinois effort to steal even more money could create an odd cascade of public financing destruction in addition to the economic disaster which would accompany a Phillip Morris bankruptcy.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Diversity vs. social injustice 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:53 PM

Amitai Etzioni, a George Washington University professor, offers this analysis of the University of Michigan's defense of institutional racism (a.k.a. affirmative action):

Michigan's argument does not pass the smile test: It is not something you can argue with a straight face. True, diversity does add something to an educational environment; however, it comes in many stripes. It would do wonders for the freshmen of our elite universities to have among them more poor whites from Appalachia, a few more diehard Christians and maybe a few more students from Muslim nations such as Iran and Kyrgyzstan.

Indeed, research conducted by Stanley Rothman, professor emeritus at Smith College, indicated that the benefits of diversity in higher education are questionable at best, with diversity resulting in increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and increased complaints by students about discrimination.

The weakest link in Michigan's case is proffered by its law school dean, Jeffrey Lehman: "When we teach our students about difficult issues such as whether it's appropriate for police to be able to use race [sic] profiles, when we ask our students whether it's appropriate to decriminalize crack cocaine, the discussion, the analysis, the learning that takes place is better in a racially diverse classroom."

The implication of Lehman's statement is that a white person cannot make a powerful case against racial profiling—or a black student for it. If this argument is upheld, the law school would need gay students for a discussion of civil unions, mental patients to examine involuntary commitment laws, and so on—a truly nutty idea. Moreover, some of the most strident voices for social justice are lily-white.

Michigan and company would do best if they stuck to "old" arguments. Some social groups suffered—and are still suffering—from gross injustices.


I concur with Etzioni's dissection of the diversity rationale, but I dissent from his suggestion that "social injustice" is a valid defense of the Michigan programs. In the end, he's essentially adopting Michigan's moral principle: people should be treated not as individuals, but as a member of a group. Now, Etzioni would not dispute my charge, as he's a "communitarian," who opposes individualist thinking. Still, it's hard to see how social injustice meets Etzioni's own smile test; the argument is essentially that Michigan must racially discriminate because of overall social injustice, not because of specific injustices committed by Michigan itself. This argument was actually advanced by a number of Michigan students who intervened in the lower courts. Their argument was that Michigan's policies were constitutional because America as a whole was so fundamentally racist that minority students could not otherwise succeed in college.

This is all a wonderful orgy of floating abstractions, but there's little direct evidence to support any of these theories. It also ignores the underlying question: how do we eliminate the stigma of racism in college admissions? The answer, as CAC said in its brief, is to treat everyone as individuals, thus rejecting artificial race constructs altogether. Keep in mind, Michigan's policy does not award bonus points to victims of "social injustice," but to any student who has a particular parentage. It's an automatic bonus derived entirely from genetics.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Maybe they can hire scabs... 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:29 PM

This may be a very short labor negotiation:

NBA commissioner David Stern told WNBA players Tuesday that unless they settle their contract dispute by April 18, the 2003 season for the women's league will not be played.

"We want to get a deal and work with the players," said Stern, announcing at the same time that his league had voted an additional $12 million to subsidize its women's affiliate. "But if that's not to be, it's not to be. We'll know in the next 10 days if there will be a WNBA season."

Calls by The Associated Press to the NBA Players' Association, which represents the women as well as the men, were not immediately returned.

The contract with WNBA players expired last Sept. 15 and negotiations have gone nowhere. The union is demanding substantial pay increases and free agency among other things.


The key word in this is "subsidize." From the beginning, the WNBA has been a money-losing operation, and the future prospects aren't good regardless of how the labor negotiations turn out. The WNBA players may not want to recognize or admit this, but the NBA considers their women's auxilliary league to be little more than a promotional item, something to keep professional basketball going during the summer months while expanding the NBA's appeal to a larger audience. For the WNBA to be independently viable, it would have to cut the number of teams significantly (from, say, 16 to 8) and commit to a longer schedule with less television exposure. That's how other professional leagues grew their revenue bases over a period of many decades. In contrast, there are some WNBA boosters who seem to believe you can say the magic words "Title IX" and instantly become profitable.

Sadly, the WNBA may be a victim of Title IX more than its beneficiary. After all, Title IX amounts to a government-compelled subsidy of women's sports at the collegiate level. But a nonprofit college is in a far different position than the for-profit businessmen who own the NBA. The Title IX generation just doesn't understand that distinction—they've been led to believe their every whim will be met by a society eager to "overcome" its sexist past. Rather then thank the NBA for at least making a good-faith effort at creating a women's professional league, most of the Title IX brigade will likely resort to condemning the NBA for not giving the WNBA players everything they want in this labor negotiation. It's an ironically sexist message: men have to earn their way, but the women should just have things handed to them without condition.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Ontario, the 51st state? 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:15 PM

While Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien maintains his reflexive anti-American position towards the Iraqi war, opposition politicians up north have become increasingly vocal in supporting both U.S. policy and President Bush individually. On March 26, a group called Canadians for Bush was founded to rally for the war and against Chrétien’s Liberal Party government. The group is scheduled to hold a rally this Saturday in Queenston, Ontario, which will feature speeches from Stockwell Day, the chief foreign policy spokesman for the opposition Canadian Alliance party, and several members of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party government. Ontario officials, led by Premeir Ernie Eves, have been especially supportive of President Bush and the war policy.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Harvard education... 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:59 PM

Rep. Buck McKeon, California Republican, thinks Americans pay too much to attend college. Despite the fact McKeon touts himself as a free-market conservative, he is willing to initiate force against those colleges that, in his view, are not “affordable” enough.

McKeon has introduced the “College Affordability in Higher Education Act,” a sweeping new federal mandate that would require all colleges and universities to report their tuition and other attendance costs to bureaucrats at the Department of Education. A school’s costs would then be subjected to McKeon’s “college affordability index,” which he describes as follows:

The college affordability index is a reasonable test to determine if institutions of higher education are keeping their college costs increases within a reasonable rate. For example, a 25 percent increase in tuition and fees is not reasonable, it is scandalous and we can no longer sit idly by and accept such increases as the natural course of things. We can not turn a blind eye to such increases because too many qualified students are not even entertaining the thought of college because they simply can not afford even the tuition of a two year public college.


There is, obviously, nothing “reasonable” about McKeon’s index. After all, a college may have good reason to increase their tuition 25%, such as the need for capital improvements or a sharp rise in labor costs. In any case, it’s not for a government official to decide what’s in a college’s best financial interests to charge students. And the fact that some students can’t afford a particular tuition rate is hardly a national tragedy. There is no “right” to attend a particular school, and certainly no “right” to force a university to charge a particular rate for their services. In the end, McKeon's index is simply the latest in a long line of arbitrary government rules which have little, if any, basis in fact or reason.

McKeon’s bill would trigger “sanctions” against any college that did not comply with his affordability index, sanctions that would bizarrely include declaring the institution ineligible for federal student financial aid programs. Denying loans to students seems an odd way of forcing a college to lower their tuition. Perhaps McKeon also thought sanctions on the Iraqi people would drive Saddam Hussein from power peacefully.

While there are many reasons for the rise in college costs, McKeon should acknowledge that it is the federal government which has caused much of these increases. Government regulation of higher education has dramatically expanded in the last 30 years—think of Title IX—and all regulation brings with it enormous costs which must be born by individual schools. If McKeon had any genuine belief in the free market, he would seek to repeal those rules which impose costs upon colleges before seeking yet another unjustified government intervention into the education market.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Tar Heels tarnished 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:36 PM

Matt Doherty resigned under pressure as head coach of the University of North Carolina men’s basketball team last week. The pressure in this case appears to have come from Doherty’s predecessor, Dean Smith, although before the media school officials have tried to blame UNC players. The popular legend is that UNC athletic director Dick Baddour met one-on-one with several players who criticized Doherty, and subsequent to that Baddour called for Doherty’s resignation in order to prevent multiple players from transferring to other schools. In general, the consensus was that Doherty’s leadership style was far too combative for UNC’s taste.

The facts did not appear to support firing Doherty (and he was effectively fired.) In three seasons, Doherty compiled a respectable 53-43 record. Although UNC did not make the NCAA tournament the past two seasons, Doherty was the national coach of the year in his first season, and UNC was able to recruit a high level of talent in the past year, putting the team in excellent position for next season. Furthermore, Doherty represented UNC well, and there is no evidence of any NCAA or other ethical violations during his tenure. In short, there seems to be little good faith basis for dismissing Doherty with two years left on his current contract.

The most likely explanation for Doherty’s demise was that his mentor, Dean Smith, lost confidence in him. Doherty was criticized, for example, for firing longtime UNC assistant coach Phil Ford upon taking over the program. In reality, however, Doherty simply wanted to bring in his own assistant coaches, something every head coach does, and UNC officials explicitly told Doherty he was free to choose his own staff. Yet Ford’s firing rubbed Smith and other UNC officials the wrong way.

Here’s the problem: With Doherty’s firing, UNC officials are now looking to a number of former Smith assistants to fill the job. In fact, ESPN reports UNC leaders “don't want the Tar Heels to go outside of the Dean Smith family tree.” This obviously limits the coaching search to just a handful of well-known names, such as Kansas coach Roy Williams and NBA coaches George Karl and Larry Brown. This approach also excludes from consideration a number of highly qualified individuals that are available, such as former Illinois coach Lon Krueger.

It would be one thing if UNC were a private institution. But this is a government-run university supported by substantial taxpayer funds. On top of that, the head basketball coach is likely the highest paid employee of the university (Doherty, a relatively inexperienced coach when hired, earned about $800,000 per year.) For the hiring search to be limited to former associates of Smith borders on nepotism, a practice that is illegal in many government programs. At the very least, UNC is tying one hand behind its back in an effort to placate Coach Smith’s desire to perpetuate his particular vision of the basketball program.

Indeed, UNC’s ethical judgment was compromised when they fired Doherty in the first place. To fire a coach with two years on his contract when he had committed no proven malfeasance is highly questionable. UNC’s judgment is even more suspect when one considers Doherty’s claims (unrefuted by UNC) that the school never made any effort to discuss their alleged concerns with him before demanding a resignation letter. For example, Doherty says officials only spoke with players, not with Doherty’s assistants or other basketball staff. Nor did the athletic department every investigate or allege any specific misconduct towards players, despite UNC’s reasoning that it was player discontent which justified the firing.

All in all, this was disgraceful conduct, made all the more outrageous in that it constituted a government action. After all, have you ever heard a case where a professor was fired simply because a handful of students expressed displeasure? Of course not. Most senior professors are granted tenure that insulates them from even justified review. But Doherty was fired without even a chance to complete his contract. It’s hypocritical, actually, when you consider Dean Smith had a 35-27 record in his first three years at North Carolina, a winning percentage nearly equal to Doherty’s. Then again, Dean Smith didn’t have a predecessor who viewed the basketball program as his personal fiefdom either. Hopefully Doherty’s successor will actually be allowed to run the program as he judges best. Both the basketball team and the taxpayers of North Carolina, who are unjustly forced to subsidize the university in the first place, deserve at least that much.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Monday, April 07, 2003 ::

On Pacifism, Nihilsm and the 'Reality Principle' 

:: Posted by The Occasional Blogger at 11:29 PM

From an interview with French philosopher André Glucksmann:
[C]omplacency ... made Hitler possible. This complacency has cost us about 50 million lives. It also worked well for Stalin. ‘Better red than dead!’ Pacifism is a kind of complacency. ...

I could not look at myself in the mirror if Saddam Hussein were still in power because I have been to a demonstration against Bush, and as a result, the people in Iraq had to live in this totalitarian regime for another twenty years.

This interview is so good it has to be read to be believed. "Vive la France!?"

:: help support this website | link |



 

Tyranny vs. Freedom 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:27 PM

CAC supporter Yuen Liang wrote an essay defending the moral case for war with Iraq for AsianWeek.com. Besides being a powerful statement justifying America's right to self-defense, Liang added a poignant personal statement--she dedicated her essay to Capt. Scott McDonald. Capt McDonald is a Marine officer currently fighting in Iraq and himself a great friend of the Center.

Thank you Scott, and thank you Yuen.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Warm Dark Ages May Throw Cold Water on Hopes for Artificial Global Warming 

:: Posted by The Occasional Blogger at 2:42 PM

Man-made global warming would be nice, but Harvard researchers suggest our early optimism (or, more generally, alarmism) may be overstated. According to their research, we have yet to warm the planet to the levels seen during the Dark Ages.

According to the British Daily Telegraph, "Claims that man-made pollution is causing 'unprecedented' global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. ... A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. "

With the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300, one researcher observes, "the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

A comeback for British wine? No wonder the UN wants to fight global warming.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Old Europe is a Senile, Luddite Biddy 

:: Posted by The Occasional Blogger at 12:57 PM

Matt Ridley has a good piece in the British Guardian. Brief excerpt:
If you debate the new genetics in Europe and America these days you get asked the same question in two different ways. The average European says, with dread: "How do we stop people doing x?" The average American says with excitement: "When will I be able to do x?" For x, read "test myself for future dementia risk," "change my unborn children's genes," or even "fill my blood vessels with nano-robots to enable me to live to 150".

To the jaded European palate, the American attitude seems silly and irresponsible. Caution should be the watchword for all new technology. I beg to differ. I think the American optimism is necessary and responsible. It is the European pessimists who are in danger of causing real harm. Caution has risks, too.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Sunday, April 06, 2003 ::

On our way to Ford Hall 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 5:55 AM

No blogging today, as we're on our way to Boston to hear Leonard Peikoff speak at Ford Hall Forum.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Saturday, April 05, 2003 ::

Commerce and kiddie porn 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:49 PM

On March 20, the oft-maligned U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit got one right. The case involved everyone’s favorite topic, child pornography. Actually, the facts of United States v. McCoy describe something somewhat less sinister than an Internet kiddie porn ring:

The facts underlying the charge to which McCoy pleaded guilty arise from a single photograph taken in April 2000. The government does not allege that Rhonda McCoy, or her husband Jonathan McCoy, were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys, the couple had two children: Kala, a ten-year-old daughter, and a twenty-month-old son. The family lived in housing provided by the Navy in San Diego, where Jonathan McCoy served as a Naval Petty Officer. Sometime in April 2000, Rhonda, Jonathan, and Kala were spending an evening at home, painting Easter eggs and taking family photographs. Rhonda, who, according to the presentence report, has a substance abuse problem as well as mental health problems, had substantial amounts of alcohol thatnight. At some point during the evening, Rhonda and Kala, partially unclothed, posed side by side for the camera, with their genital areas exposed. This pose was captured in one photograph.

Approximately two months later, Rhonda left five rolls of film with the Navy Fleet Exchange for processing. Shortly thereafter, Rodd Wilson, a loss prevention manager for the Exchange, contacted the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigation Service and informed it of the existence of photographs that appeared to present a child in sexually suggestive poses. Agents of the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigation Service, in conjunction with the FBI and the San Diego Police Department, responded by conducting a search of the McCoy home pursuant to a federal search warrant, and seizing numerous photographs, as well as the family still camera, video camera, and computer.

In January 2001, the government filed an indictment charging both Jonathan and Rhonda with four counts of manufacturing child pornography by a parent using materials transported in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b). Rhonda was also charged with one count of manufacturing child pornography using materials transported in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).


The statutes in question make it a federal crime to produce pornography using “materials”—in this case, cameras and film—that at one point traveled across state lines. In this case, the government argued that both the camera and film McCoy used to take the picture were manufactured outside their home state of California. Thus, a federal child pornography case was born, resting on a highly dubious assertion of “interstate commerce” jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit didn’t buy it. By a 2-1 vote, the appellate court found that the statute used in this case was “unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed, shipped, or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution, or for any economic or commercial use, including the exchange of the prohibited material for other prohibited material.” The Court’s opinion was authored by Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal circuit judge often considered the Ninth Circuit’s leading radical. In this case, however, Judge Reinhardt was right on the mark.

Constitutional challenges to interstate commerce laws generally turn on the meaning of “interstate,” and this case was no exception. But Judge Reinhardt’s opinion also correctly addressed the meaning of “commerce” itself. In this case, McCoy never intended her photograph to become an article of commerce; that is, she had no plans to sell or provide the photograph to persons outside her family. Common sense tells us that, whatever else her act constituted, it was not one of ordinary commerce. Yet the government argued that this was commerce because even if this photo was never used in commerce, it could theoretically stimulate demand for commercial child pornography.

Put another way, the government argues the existence of any child pornography is subject to interstate commerce regulation, because all such pornography contributes to the overall volume of said materials. This argument is not just speculative, but patently irrational. Applying this reasoning, Congress could ban, say, homosexual sodomy on the grounds that the existence of such sodomy might contribute to an increase in various crimes such as statutory rape or interstate kidnapping. It’s a slippery slope of tyrannical proportions—the total divorcing of factual reasoning from state action.

Given the broad scope of this law, it’s easily subject to abuse, as it apparently was in the McCoy case. To take a more cut-and-dry example, however, consider the potential plight of nudist families. Would a photograph of a nudist family including children be subject to prosecution under this statute? Yes, it would, since intent or context seems irrelevant to the government. This is far removed from what the Constitution anticipated in granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The intent of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause was to give Congress the power to ensure the development of a truly national economic market. The Framers were concerned about, for example, New Jersey slapping a tariff on goods manufactured in New York; the Framers were not all that concerned with what people in New Jersey did once they received their New York-made goods. In this sense, the child pornography law in question here is facially unconstitutional. Congress was not attempting to protect the process of interstate commerce, but rather to regulate private activity under the false pretext that interstate commerce might be somehow affected.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Any willing altruist 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:48 PM

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, a challenge to Kentucky’s “Any Willing Provider” law. What is an Any Willing Provider law? Justice Scalia explains in his introduction to the Court’s unanimous opinion:

Petitioners include several health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and a Kentucky-based association of HMOs. In order to control the quality and cost of health-care delivery, these HMOs have contracted with selected doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers to create exclusive “provider networks.” Providers in such networks agree to render health-care services to the HMOs’ subscribers at discounted rates and to comply with other contractual requirements. In return, they receive the benefit of patient volume higher than that achieved by nonnetwork providers who lack access to petitioners’ subscribers.

Kentucky’s AWP statutes impair petitioners’ ability to limit the number of providers with access to their networks, and thus their ability to use the assurance of high patient volume as the quid pro quo for the discounted rates that network membership entails. Petitioners believe that AWP laws will frustrate their efforts at cost and quality control, and will ultimately deny consumers the benefit of their cost-reducing arrangements with providers.


The specific issue in this case was whether the Kentucky law was preempted by a federal statute, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which regulates national markets for employee benefits, such as health coverage. ERISA prevents states from implementing their own benefit regulations, except that insurance regulation—traditionally a state function—is “saved” from ERISA preemption. Thus, the HMOs asked the Supreme Court to declare the AWP law did not “regulate insurance,” and thus was invalid under ERISA. Kentucky argued AWP does regulate insurance, and thus was saved from preemption.

This case was largely an exercise in statutory construction, and the result was probably correct under the circumstances. Still, the problem with the AWP law is not that it runs afoul of ERISA, but that it runs afoul of the Constitution. Any law forcing individuals to associate in a business context—here, compelling networks to admit physicians—violates the First Amendment, and more generally exceeds the federal and state government’s authority.

The government has no interest or right to initiate force for the purpose of determining marketplace structure or outcomes, and that is precisely the point of an AWP law. Kentucky’s scheme was designed to allow patients to choose their doctor by denying networks the right to choose whom they wish to conduct business with. Imagine if AWP laws were used in other industries; could you see a law firm being forced to give a partnership to any lawyer who wanted it? Or perhaps a college forced to hire any professor that showed up? Yet it’s somehow acceptable to force physician networks to admit members, even when doing so increases the cost of health care to the consumer.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Fun with FOIA 

:: Posted by Skip at 4:47 PM

Back in January, I filed a fairly simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Trade Commission. I asked the FTC to provide the overall budget allocation for the Bureau of Competition, the FTC’s antitrust enforcement unit, and the general amounts spent on seven cases prosecuted by the Bureau last year Last week, I got my reply...well, a partial reply anyway.

The FTC revealed that the Bureau of Competition received $31,704,634 during the last fiscal year, which ended October 30, 2002. As for the specific case expenditures, the FTC would only provide data for five of the seven cases I asked about. Two cases, involving the National Academy of Arbitrators and MSC.Software Corporation, had the information blacked out, or “exempted from disclosure” pursuant to government privilege under FOIA.

What exactly is this privilege? In their letter, the FTC said revealing how much was spent on the two cases in question “would reasonably be expected to interfere with the conduct of the Commission’s law enforcement activities.” I’m unsure what that means. All of the cases I requested information for were matters considered closed by the FTC. Indeed, most FTC cases aren’t made known to the public until after the investigation and settlement process is concluded. And given that they were willing to disclose the amounts spent on five other cases, what made these two particularly prone to compromise? The FTC wouldn’t elaborate.

Generally, the FOIA exemptions are designed to prevent individuals from using disclosure rules to get around the civil discovery process. For example, if you’re a defendant in a proceeding before an administrative agency, you can’t use FOIA to obtain materials collected during the government’s investigation which was not obtainable at discovery. This type of exemption makes sense, but it’s wholly inapplicable to cases where outside public policy groups request budgetary information. My objective in filing the FOIA request was to provide oversight, not to interfere with ongoing FTC enforcement actions. Rest assured, I will appeal the FTC’s decision to withhold this information, if necessary wasting the time of a U.S. district judge in order to get what I asked for.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Friday, April 04, 2003 ::

Attila the Nuns 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:01 PM

The AP reports that a Colorado jury is out on the case of Roman Catholic Sisters Ardeth Platte, Jackie Hudson, and Carol Gilbert. The nuns are accused of breaking into a Minuteman III missile silo site on Colorado's northeastern plains Oct. 6, where they allegedly defaced the silo lid by swinging hammers and painting crosses on it with their own blood.

If convicted, the trio could receive a maximum punishment of 20 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine for obstruction of the national defense.

A Google search revealed that Platte and Gilbert have been in and out of jail and prisons for the last 15 years as a result of their protest actions against the US armed forces. In 1999, they were incarcerated for six months after vandalizing a B-52 bomber on display at the Andrews Air Force Base air show with a hammer and blood.

This is offensive. These crimes are serious. If convicted, offenders like Platte, Hudson, and Gilbert deserve to be punished under the full weight of the law.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Is there any stopping the Fredrik Norman juggernaut? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:24 PM

I hope not. Fredrik adds yet another nation to his Friends of America Network. Bravo!

:: help support this website | link |



 

So just who put the teeth in Iraq's dictatorship? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:25 PM

The Dissidentfrogman says it wasn't the warmongering states. Go figure.

:: help support this website | link |



 

When they talk about "paying" for a tax cut. . . 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:29 AM

. . .you know half the battle is lost. The AP ran a report today titled: "GOP Study Ways to Pay for Bigger Tax Cut."

Politicians and commentators often discuss the "costs" of tax cuts. Such language is not limited to those who oppose tax cuts--the defenders of tax cuts often use the very same terminology as their opponents. For example, some have criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too "expensive." Others having defended them, saying that, relative to government spending, the "cost" of the tax cuts was really very low. What neither side acknowledges is that a tax cut has no "cost"--in fact, it is a pure benefit to the American people. All a tax cut does is return to the taxpayers the wealth that was rightfully theirs in the first place.

The principle that individuals have a right to the fruits of their labors and that taxation is necessary only to finance the legitimate functions of government (i.e. protecting the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) has all but been forgotten in America. Today's conventional wisdom is that the government owns its citizens wealth, but takes on the "cost" of returning some portion of it to them, just as it takes on the cost of subsidizing people whose sole goal in life is to leach off of others and offer nothing in return.

This sad state of affairs is caused by the welfare state, an affront to the Constitution and the principles of a free society. Instead of twisting themselves in to a knot over "paying" for a tax cut, wouldn't it be nice if Congress sat down with tier copy of the Constitution and eliminated all taxes that are not necessary to financing the government's legitimate, Constitutional functions. In doing so, rather than lamenting the "costs" of tax cuts, maybe our politicians would recall that the government is supposed to be the servant of the taxpayers, not their master.

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Thursday, April 03, 2003 ::

Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft news coverage 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 4:35 PM

Here's the AP report, and here's the Reuters.

Update: Here's PC World's coverage.

:: help support this website | link |



 

And in other news. . . 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:42 PM

Artist Bryan Larsen has another painting at the Cordair Gallery in Burlingame, California.

For a 27 year-old artist, I'm impressed with Bryan Larsen. Larsen says the purpose of his art is "to portray the heroic and romantic in human nature and human achievement in a realistic style and a modern setting."

I look forward to his continued growth as a painter.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Reporting live from Richmond... 

:: Posted by Skip at 1:06 PM

This morning I attended the latest round in Microsoft’s never-ending antirust defense. Today’s forum was a hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft. This was actually an appeal of a preliminary injunction issued in the Sun case by Baltimore district judge J. Fredrick Motz (whose wife, incidentally, is a Fourth Circuit judge.) In January, Judge Motz granted a pretrial injunction forcing Microsoft to carry Sun’s Java platform in its future releases of Windows XP. Microsoft produces a competing “middleware” product called .Net. Motz’s order essentially said Microsoft could not distribute its own product unless it distributed its competitors as well.

Today’s appeal was heard by a three-judge panel composed of circuit judges H. Emory Widener, Paul Niemeyer, and Roger Gregory. Although Judge Widener presided over today’s hearing, for all intents and purposes this was Judge Niemeyer’s show. Aside from two brief interjections from Judge Gregory, Judge Niemeyer monopolized—no pun intended—this morning’s oral argument. He was particularly belligerent towards Sun’s counsel, and by the end of the one-hour hearing, I got the impression that Judge Niemeyer planned to catch a train to Baltimore and physically beat Judge Motz with a shovel for issuing his injunction in the first place. In other words, Judge Niemeyer seemed to favor Microsoft’s challenge.

Microsoft counsel David Tulchin presented a simple, straightforward argument: Never before had a court used the antitrust laws to grant a preliminary injunction altering the status quo to benefit a dominant competitor. In this case, Sun’s Java platform is dominant in middleware, while Microsoft’s .Net is a new entrant (a point Judge Niemeyer seemed caught up on throughout the argument.) The district court, Tulchin argued, relied on an unproven “tipping” theory. This means that Sun and Judge Motz believe the injunction is necessary to prevent Microsoft from unfairly “tipping” the market in its favor. This is entirely speculative, and requires one to believe Microsoft’s failure to carry Java while simultaneously distributing .Net will cause an immediate collapse of Java’s market. This would happen, we’re told, because middleware developers will flock to .Net once they realize Java won’t enjoy equal access on Windows-based machines.

But as Tulchin argued—and Sun never refuted—the only evidence presented to Judge Motz proved no such developer exodus was taking place. Indeed, Tulchin noted, Sun’s own internal documents show there are almost 1 million more Java developers today than when Microsoft introduced .Net. Furthermore, three studies presented to Judge Motz stated Java and .Net were equally viable competitors that would likely divide market share equally in the near future. Far from a “tipping” effect, Microsoft’s actions created, as Tulchin put it, “head-to-head competition of the sort the antitrust laws encourage,” or at least are supposed to encourage.

Judge Niemeyer’s questions to both sides expressed clear discomfort with Judge Motz’s “tipping” theory. If anything, Niemeyer said, the preliminary injunction would likely cause a tipping in favor of Sun, since Microsoft would lose its advantage in distributing .Net, a byproduct of Microsoft’s dominance in the operating system market. This led to Niemeyer’s other major concern: was this case about the Java-.Net market or the operating system market? The first problem, Judge Niemeyer explained, was that Sun’s initial complaint was not fully included in the record sent to the Fourth Circuit. For reasons that were not explained, the Court did not have a record of Count One of the complaint, which alleges Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly to the detriment of Sun. This led to Judge Niemeyer’s repeated questions to Sun’s counsel on what exactly they were complaining about. In other words, if Sun alleges monopolization of the operating system market, how does that entitle Sun to a preliminary injunction dealing with the middleware market?

At this point, Sun’s argument became: “Microsoft is evil, and we have to punish them.” Sun said that since another court—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—already held that Microsoft illegally monopolized the operating system market, Sun could now rely on that decision to demand antitrust relief in any other market they competed against Microsoft in, even one where Sun already holds a dominant advantage. Throughout the argument, Sun counsel relied on what Judge Niemeyer deemed “overstatements”; that is, continued reference to Microsoft’s past antitrust defeats, “anticompetitive behavior,” and “monopolistic” actions. The hyperbole was arguably necessary because, as noted above, Sun produced little actual evidence in support of the injunction.

As Microsoft’s Tulchin argued, most of the factual allegations at the heart of Sun’s case deal with Microsoft’s alleged actions “six or seven years ago.” Sun’s case, in one sense, is nothing more than a breach of contract action in antitrust clothing, because Sun’s original problems with Microsoft were settled out of court. But, seizing on the D.C. Circuit ruling in the federal antitrust action, Sun clearly saw an opening to turn a state tort action into a federal antitrust case, no doubt eyeing potential triple damages, not to mention the far broader relief that typically accompanies an antitrust judgment.

At one point, Sun counsel resurrected a bizarre analogy first used by Judge Motz during the injunction hearing: Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan. Sun said that Microsoft, in essence, had clubbed Sun in the kneecaps just prior to the U.S. figure skating championships, thus denying them a chance to compete. Tulchin countered that a better analogy would be to say that Harding injured Kerrigan’s knee (the Java market) but was asking for relief based on an injury to her elbow (the operating system market.) Alternatively, Tulchin suggested that Sun’s act was akin to Kerrigan seeking relief based on a knee injury suffered years earlier, a reference to Microsoft’s previous dispute with Sun.

In the end, Sun’s case for the injunction is meritless. Judge Motz relied entirely on unproven speculation as to what would happen to Sun if Microsoft was permitted to distribute .Net through its Windows operating system. More to the point, Motz impermissibly forced Microsoft to carry a competitor’s product for no reason other than that Microsoft possesses a large distribution network via its operating system. Sun, Judge Niemeyer observed, is trying to get a “free ride” from Microsoft via a preliminary injunction.

It’s obviously difficult to predict how a panel of judges will act, but given Judge Niemeyer’s forceful dissection of Sun counsel (I didn’t even get the name of Sun’s lawyer, as Niemeyer pounced on him before he could even introduce himself to the court) and the lack of serious opposition from the other judges on the panel, one has to believe Microsoft came out of this morning’s argument ahead. And given that overturning a preliminary injunction will not prejudice Sun’s chances on the merits (unfortunately), I would be surprised if the Fourth Circuit did not reverse Judge Motz.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Dirty tricks 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:58 PM

Dirty tricks abound in the debate over the war in Iraq. The latest victim has been Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), whose office e-mail system was hacked. According to the AP, hackers hijacked the Brown-Waite's e-mail and sent a message to her address book disparaging President Bush. Brown-Waite has been a firm supporter of the president’s policies.

This isn't the first time Brown-Waite has been a target of nefarious activity. Brown-Waite proposed legislation that would allow families opposed to France’s stance against America to disinter relatives buried in French military cemeteries for re-interment in the US. In response, a German radio station encouraged listeners to send Brown-Waite rotting chicken bones with the message “The boys are coming home.”

:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 ::

Clone Humans? Let "Science Run Its Course", Says Scientific American Op-Ed 

:: Posted by The Occasional Blogger at 10:58 PM

"It's a horrendous crime to make a Xerox of someone. You're putting a human into a genetic straitjacket." says environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin (apparently forgetting about the environment in human development).

"The very attempt to clone a human being is evil. The assumption that we must do what we can do is fueled by the Promethean desire to be our own creators," claims Duke theological ethicist Stanley M. Hauerwas (apparently preferring--like the vultures--to keep Prometheus shackled).

Says Michael Shermer in this Scientific American op-ed: "[A]llow science to run its course. The soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions."

:: help support this website | link |



 

Antitrust Suit Against Visa, MasterCard Can Proceed 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:14 PM

Law.com: A federal judge Tuesday refused to dismiss an antitrust case brought by 4 million merchants who claim Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. force them to accept their debit cards. More.

:: help support this website | link |



 

About the War and How We Can Win It 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 6:11 PM

Many Objectivists, (the Center's staff included) have been critical of the Bush administration's failure to publicly identify militant Islam itself as a threat to America's security. We have on more than one occasion said, "It's militant Islam, stupid." Our argument says that not to explicitly name the philosophic virtues of America and vices of militant Islam is moral appeasement of America's gravest enemies. Yet that said, I'm starting to see see numerous cracks in the pavement.

Consider, just as one example, this excerpt of a message to families of deployed Marines from Lt.Col. Chartier, Commanding Officer, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division. "If we go into combat it is with a clear mission - we do not want Islamic militants or any government that supports them threatening our cities or hometowns. Nobody wants to relive September 11th, ever."

It seems the men and women of 1st Tanks know what this war is about.

And consider how many times President Bush's line about Islam being a "religion of peace" is used against such a proposition. President Bush's sentiments toward Islam are more often treated as an object of ridicule then as a credible statement of the facts.

So why then, do we have an administration that does not call a spade a spade? It's less about the failure to understand the threat of militant Islam and more about the failure to understand the genius of America.

America is free, secular, and self-interested. But as long as reason and egoism are not firmly entrenched in our culture, and people genuflect toward faith and sacrifice, even as they implicitly practice the opposite in their lives, we will go into battle at least partially disarmed.

Arming America is going to take effort. If I may be so bold, here's a good place to start.


:: help support this website | link |



 

NHSA Increases SUV Fuel Economy Standards 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:41 PM

Yesterday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a regulation requiring auto manufacturers to attain a fleet average for vehicles in the "light truck" category of 22.2 miles per gallon beginning with the 2007 models, an increase of 1.5 mpg over current regulations.

There is only one way to comply with this regulation: build lighter vehicles, which means build vehicles that are less resistant to impact.

:: help support this website | link |



 

April Fools? 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:06 PM

Yesterday, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) took to the floor of the House to demand that the US cease combat operations in Iraq. Savor the irony—Kucinich calls for UN inspectors to resume the search for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, while damning the war as being purposeless.

I don't know about you, but I'll take a motivated Marine Corps Private over Hans Blix any day.

First Trafficant, and now this guy. It must not take a lot of bandwidth to get elected in Ohio these days.

:: help support this website | link |



 

The Wrong Kind of Liberation Story 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:01 AM

This from Instapundit: The violent Earth Liberation Front claims its members attacked the US Navy Recruiting Headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama. ELF's website brags about the attack:

Messages spraypainted included the slogans "Stop the War," "Leave Iraq" and "Stop Killing," clearly indicating the reason this ELF cell targeted the military facility. It was also reported that all cars and vans targeted carried the ELF signature in spraypaint.

This is the first specifically anti-war action carried out by the ELF in North America, though there has been at least one direct action attack on a military recruiting center since the start of the war in Iraq (Edison, NJ - March 18th - claimed by the Direct Action Front).

If true, I hope the direct law enforcement action is swift, the trial of the perpetrators just, and their punishment severe.


:: help support this website | link |



 

:: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 ::

Good News, Bad News, Best News. 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:07 PM

The Good News: The May 2003 Atlantic Monthly has a segment called "Literary Lives" that features Ayn Rand's life in a nine panel cartoon.

The Bad News: Total feet of clay. Makes fun of her marriage, affairs, novels, admirers, and funeral.

The Best News: I've never seen them do this to James Joyce, Upton Sinclair, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, or any other 20th century author.

Sometimes it's good to have enemies.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Diversity, then and now 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:48 PM

Are Asians the new Jews? University of Michigan professor George Bornstein thinks so, at least in how his administration defends its race-conscious admissions policies:

Affirmative action transfers places from Asian-Americans to African-Americans and Latinos. Yet both supporters and detractors cast the debate as black vs. white. The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities.

We will never resolve this contentious issue if we continue to frame the debate in simplistic and misleading terms of white versus black.

Recasting the debate can also help us see why so much of the current rhetoric supporting affirmative action to include minority groups as defined today sounds so much like the rhetoric used earlier in the 20th century to exclude a minority group as defined then -- Jews. Then as now, university administrators wished to control the racial mix (Jews were considered and called a "race" then). Otherwise, they feared their campuses would be "overrun" with members of a small but academically very high-achieving group.

Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, were largely regional campuses. But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students, they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities, they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews while avoiding charges of overt discrimination.

Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public) geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now, administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations mattered as much or more -- character, for example, or obstacles overcome. Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority group to members of other groups.
This would have been a great argument for the two attorneys arguing against the university—Kirk Kolbo and Solicitor General Ted Olson—to have used today when questioned by the Supreme Court justices. I would have particularly enjoyed Justice Ginsburg's reaction to Bornstein's argument, given that the justice is both a woman and a Jew, not to mention a likely vote to uphold the Michigan admissions scheme.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Democrats against dictatorship 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:22 PM

Former Mondale-Ferraro campaign manager Bob Beckel takes his fellow Democrats to task for their continued moral equivalency on the war:

I find it so baffling that so many of my fellow liberals oppose the war against, arguably, the most vicious dictator since Hitler. In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja. Have we forgotten the horrific pictures of distorted bodies in piles? Have we forgotten in that human tyre were the bodies of hundreds of little babies? If so, read the reports out of Basra of Saddam Hussein's secret security force putting guns to the heads of little children to force their fathers to fight, or reports of suspected coalition collaborators having their tongues cut out and left to bleed to death in public parks as a warning to others? Or reports after the last Gulf War of Hussein's thugs rounding up accused spies and forcing them to drink gas in front of their families and then lighting them on fire?

:: help support this website | link |



 

Restoring Olympic glory 

:: Posted by Skip at 6:16 PM

Last week I mentioned the International Olympic Committee's inaction in the face of torture accusations made against Iraqi Olympic Committee president Uday Hussein, son of the dictator himself. Today, the United States once again acted in the face of international trepidation:

The Iraqi National Olympic Committee headquarters was bombed and largely destroyed Tuesday by U.S. war planes, prompting mixed reaction from former Iraqi athletes who said they have been tortured by Olympic committee chief Uday Hussein.

"That's great news, lovely news," said Sharar Haydar, a former national team soccer player.

Haydar claims to be one of many athletes who was imprisoned in a first-floor prison, and punished by Uday, son of Saddam Hussein.

The overnight bombing of selected targets inflicted serious damage on the bottom four floors of the nine-story building in east Baghdad, according to the Associated Press. Walls were blown out, and mangled wire and steel protruded. The building sits in a big complex of housing units, and they appeared unscathed.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Antitrust news 

:: Posted by Skip at 3:39 PM

The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ordered a trial in a class action case against Visa and Mastercard:

A federal judge has denied a request by Visa USA and MasterCard International to throw out an antitrust lawsuit against the credit card giants, clearing the way for a trial later this month.

In a ruling issued Tuesday in Brooklyn, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson rejected defense arguments that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Visa and MasterCard conspired to monopolize the lucrative debit-card market.

"There is evidence, direct and circumstantial, from which a jury could find a conspiracy," Gleeson wrote in a 16-page decision.

The judge also denied MasterCard's demand for a separate trial. He set jury selection for April 21.

Wal-Mart, Sears Roebuck and Co. and other merchants across the nation are seeking billions of dollars in damages in a class-action suit brought in 1996.

The retailers allege the defendants secretly schemed to extend their dominance to debit cards by mandating an "honor all cards" policy, meaning any merchant who accepts their credit cards must accept their look-alike debit cards as well.

The plaintiffs claim excessive transaction fees have cost them more than $15 billion in the past decade - costs ultimately passed on to the consumer. The credit card companies argue that the "honor all cards" rule is necessary to protect consumer choice.
Visa and MasterCard have been a favorite antitrust whipping boy in recent years. Their well-earned dominance of the credit card market (and now the debit card market) has only benefitted consumers by expanding the availability of credit to millions of Americans. This success, however, inevitably makes Visa and MasterCard guilty of antitrust violations.

If a merchant is fazed by the "honor all cards" rule, they have an adequate market remedy: stop accepting cards. Amazing as it seems, businesses can refuse to accept credit cards. I know many local merchants that accept cash-only. Of course, this was force the class action plaintiffs in this case, such as Wal-Mart, to admit that Visa and MasterCard's market dominance—high fees and all—actually benefits retailers, by giving them access to a gigantic credit market.

:: help support this website | link |



 

Transcripts of the University of Michigan racial preference cases 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:01 PM

The Detroit Free Press has posted transcripts of today's oral arguments in the University of Michigan racial preference cases.

Transcript of oral arguments in U of M law school case
Transcript of oral arguments in U of M general admissions

:: help support this website | link |



 

Audio Broadcast of the University of Michigan racial preference cases 

:: Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:00 PM

To hear today's oral arguments in the Michigan affirmative action cases, visit the C-SPAN Radio Web site. C-SPAN says the audio will be available after 12:15 p.m. today.

:: help support this website | link |



 

 

» Recent Posts

» The Saga of Ted Haggard's Anti-Gay Bigotry
» The Scientist and the Preacher: Disintegration v. Misintegration
» The Objectivist Election Controversy (and Its Causes)
» Founders votes with its feet
» A Great Divide
» Please take our totally unscientific poll
» Which is worse?
» Hope for a 'Do-Nothing' Congress
» The Atlas Shrugged movie challenge
» Objectivists and Politics

» RSS Feed

» Archives


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
Send us a comment or ask a question—we want to hear from you!


» Contribute
The Center's advocacy programs are not free—we depend on you to support our efforts. Please donate today.


Blogs We Love:
» Acid Free Paper
» Alexander Marriot
» American Renaissance
» Andrew Sullivan
» ARI MediaLink
» Armchair Intellectual
» Bahr's House of Exuberance
» Best of the Web Today
» Conspiracy to Keep You Poor & Stupid
» Charlotte Capitalist
» Cox & Forkum
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
EnviroSpin Watch
» GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Literatrix
» Little Green Footballs
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Oak Tree
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Political State Report
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Reclaim Your Brain
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Separation of State and Superstition 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Ivory Tower
» The Objective Standard
»
The Primacy of Awesome
» The Secular Foxhole
» The Simplest Thing
» The Truth Laid Bear
»
Thrutch
» Truck and Barter
» Truth, Justice and the American Way
» Washington Re-Post
» Witch Doctor Repellent
» Words by Woods
 

» Link Policy

 


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2006 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Privacy Policy · Webmaster