Another Encroachment Against Freedom

The obligatory link: France Bans Laypeople from Reporting Violence

Ouch. So, if you're not a journalist, you face jail time if you happen to catch real violence on film? Besides being ridiculous, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

"The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday."

Now, if you have a dark sense of humor, you may find the next bit here amusing. What date did the French Constitutional Council choose to unveil this law? None other than the 16th anniversary of the Rodney King beating (captured, of course, on film by an amateur with a video camera).

What are they actually trying to target with this law, though?

During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of "happy slapping," in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker's friends.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call swatting a fly with a nuclear warhead.

Ban Legos For Great Justice!

Welcome, new readers from Adventure Rider's forums!

The obligatory link: L'Eggo My Lego

Honestly, I can't say that I'm surprised by this. Saddened, sure, but not surprised.

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

That's certainly the meat of it. Is anybody else downright sick of the constant stories of teachers at various levels of education heading for indoctrination long before they'll actually head for teaching? We're not talking about college students here, who should be capable of discernment on their own, or even high school students, who we would hope would be capable of the same. No, these teachers are busily trying to strike down the notion of private property in kids aged 5-9. (Scroll down to the section titled "The Investigation Begins" for that information.)

We haven't gotten to the really sickening part, though. After quite some time, the teachers did allow Legos back into the classroom. However, now the kids are talking about them in these glowingly communistic terms:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Somebody pass the barf bag, please. I have a sudden desire to be exceptionally ill.

Anti-Americanism In Comics, Cap, And Escaping To Manga

As many people have already covered, including Brainster (and he's got links to several of the others), Marvel has finally gone and done it. They've killed off Captain America.

I'll admit from the start that I wasn't much of a comics junkie as a kid. Not from any dislike of the medium mind you. It was more of a matter of what was around to read, which was generally more along the lines of Tolkien and Lewis. Still, a friend of mine was, so I eventually got to go through significant portions of his collection.

It's a strange thing, to be at a point in your life where you're just forming your political opinions. It becomes exceptionally clear when people are disagreeing with those views, and what I was seeing in comics certainly counted. Now, it wasn't that I hadn't heard ideas like those voiced before, but I'd always considered fiction, with pictures or without, to be a realm unto itself, and the sanctity that I'd ascribed to it was being violated to an impressive degree.

Simply put, I don't get it. I'm not about to claim that America is perfect, but we've still got the best thing going in the world by such a long shot that it's not really arguable. I can put myself into a mindset where the problems that people like many comic writers exist, but I can't see how they get there from here. The view that this country is bad, evil, and the scum of the earth is so antithetical to reality that the disconnect can only be bridged by a suspension of disbelief more rigid than the one required for reading Crossroad.

Now, I haven't given up on comics wholly, but it's a near thing. Most of the particularly egregious examples that I can recall, and it's tough, since I have read much outside of 100 Bullets and Y: The Last Man in about three years now, are coming out of Marvel's comics lines.

Meanwhile, I've found my own alternative. While Brainster has mentioned that he's gone back to the golden and silver ages of comics (when heroes were heroes, villains were villains, and heroes thumped villains because it was the right thing to do, darn it), I've gone across the Pacific for my fix. Personally, I'm pleased with the results, though your mileage may vary. To me, it's going back to the day when a story was a story, rather than old favorite characters slapped on top of a political diatribe.

There may be something to be said here for the fact that characters in manga aren't forever, like they are in American comics. As I see it, there are only so many times the X-Men can fight off Magneto before a change of pace is needed. Rather than having a distinct starting point, a defined story, and a distinct end, the arcs simply blend and continue. And while there is something nice about having characters with a long history, having that long, involved history makes getting into some characters and stories more difficult. (Hence a lot of the re-launches of characters in the past few years.) So, instead of getting new characters, new villains, and new storylines, we get old characters, old villains, and old storylines, with a couple scoops of the political cause du jour on top to make it look different.

Well, if it sells, it sells, I suppose. Meanwhile, I'll just stick to stories for their own sake, and get my politics from the news sites.

P.S. - In the interest of fairness, there are questions about the presence of anti-Americanism in manga and anime. The best work I've read on the topic is here, at Hontou ni Sou Omou.

At Least Someone's Still Working For Us

The obligatory link: Bill would block credit cards for illegals

Three cheers for Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. It's nice to see at least one member of Congress standing up for what's right, even though it may cost them politically in the future. She's introduced a bill which, as the above link states, would prohibit Bank of America's asinine plan to offer credit cards to people without acceptable forms of identification.

For those who didn't catch the beginning of the story, click here for a refresher.

Campaign Fatigue?

The obligatory link: Will Campaign Fatigue Set In Early?

The link this time is really just for another opinion on the matter. Here we go, by the numbers: Some politicians have been campaigning since late last year. Let's call it four months, for the sake of convenience. We now have approximately twenty months left until the election. So, when this finally winds down to a close, unless every single announced candidate at this point has dropped out by then, we'll have been hearing from some of these people on the same topic (vote for me) for two years.

Now, I can be fairly said to be a political junkie. I pay reasonably close attention to what our elected officials say and do outside of election time, at least, as such things are reckoned now... I can even search up the text of a house or senate resolution, if I really need to. ... ... ... So, having established those credentials, let me say that I'm quickly reaching saturation on this campaign. None of the candidates are telling me anything I didn't already know about them, nor are they saying these things in particularly interesting ways. Instead of the continuous pounding of a hammer, which is (usually) accomplishing something, this seems more like the continuous pounding of a headache. Is there a doctor in the house? Or at least someone with a couple of aspirin I can bum?

This isn't entirely negative, of course. Well, it is in a way, but what campaigning this long does is it gives everyone who jumped out of the gate so early plenty of time to come up lame. Also, it should help anyone who has patience, and who can wait for people to get tired of hearing the same things from the current crop... provided, of course, that this patient person or persons can come out with a strong, articulate message and vision. (It's a bit outside the scope of this commentary, but could it be what's really been missing is a candidate with a grand vision of America as it should be?)

Anyway, wake me up when they start saying interesting things, instead of reading the same old bedtime stories.

How To Shoot Yourself In The Foot

The obligatory link: Immigrants who wire money get help from the Fed

In a way, I feel like this story goes hand in hand with the one earlier about having the IRS go after eBay sellers. Again, we have the government, in a bid to gain extra revenue, doing something that actually holds revenue down. Of course, this has the added "bonus" (if you can really call it that) of tying in with the illegal immigration issue.

Actually, it's a lot like the Bank of America story from a couple weeks back, too... which, not surprisingly at all, gets a mention in the article. It's another way that we could be getting locks on illegal immigrants for deportation, but even though we're spending money to do things like keep National Guard units on the border, easy solutions like this to the problem of finding the illegals already in-country never see use.

Squeeze Every Last Drop

The obligatory link: IRS urged to go after eBay sellers

Sure, some of these people are running eBay-based businesses, turning profits, all that good stuff. My question is simple: So what? The money they make gets into the economy and gets taxed some way or another eventually anyway, so why do we need to create even more red tape for entrepreneurs and other small businessmen? If anybody even says, "Because it's not fair not to tax them", I think I'll just scream. There's nothing remotely fair about the tax code as it stands now, anyway, so what's another little injustice in it, more or less?

It can't possibly be a question of the government needing more money. I seem to recall any number of stories recently about how revenues are climbing, after all. Well, as long as everyone wants their own little government cut, there'll be more calls like this to have the IRS go after this or that group of folks who've found a way to make money.

Punish success more, guys. The outcome, while likely dystopian, will probably be entertaining... in a morbid kind of way.

Brushing Up On The Constitution (part 3)

Up today, we have procedure, and rules regarding holding office (also known as Article One, Sections Five and Six). Previous entries in the Brushing Up On The Constitution series can be found here (part one) and here (part two). As usual, the text of the Constitution can be found on the Library of Congress site here, or on Wikipedia here. That said, let's move right along, shall we?

Sect. 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualification, of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secresy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

A1.S5.P1 - Each house are supposed to pay attention to whether or not the people who have been elected to serve in them are actually qualified to do so (in other words, that they meet the requirements set forth in sections two and three of article one). Also, a majority of members of either the House or Senate is required for them to go about their business (note that not all members are required, just 50% plus one), but fewer than that 50% plus one are required to end business for the day, or to summon members not attending. Now, I'm not certain, but my best guess is that the majority of that 50% plus one would be required to end business for the day. (In other words, with a minimum majority attending, 51 members in the Senate, 26 would be required to adjourn. Like I said, best guess.)

A1.S5.P2 - Very straight-forward. The House and Senate get to decide their rules of operation (further restrictions placed upon themselves beyond what is mentioned in the Constitution), and punish their own members for breaking any of those rules. Also, the House or Senate can expel members upon the agreement of two-thirds of their members.

A1.S5.P3 - Both the House and Senate must keep a record of their proceedings, and these records must occasionally be published and made available to the public. However, they can choose to seal any records that they feel should be kept secret out of necessity. Also, if at least 20% of members request it, the votes of all members in attendance must be entered into the record.

A1.S5.P4 - Neither the House nor the Senate can choose not to meet for more than three consecutive days without the agreement of the other. (If the Senate wants four days off, the House has to agree to it, and vice versa.) The same rule also applies if either body wants to meet somewhere other than their primary meeting place.

Sect. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been encreased, during such time; and no person holding any officer under the United States shall be a member of either House, during his continuance in office.

A1.S6.P1 - The members of the Senate and the House will be paid for their work from the U.S. Treasury. Unless they commit specific crimes (as listed, treason, felony, or a breach of the peace - this last seems to be open to a rather wide interpretation), they cannot be arrested during a session, or on their way to or from a session. Also, they cannot be brought into an court on charges relating to their speeches in the House. (This ties into the concept in section five that the House and Senate can place additional strictures on themselves and punish their own members.)

A1.S6.P2 - No member of the House or Senate may be appointed to a newly created position, or one including an increase in pay, during their span in office. Also, no one serving in another office is eligible to become a member of either body while they hold that prior office.

Next up are Bills, and then it ought to get interesting with the section on the Powers of Congress.

If It Ain't Broke...

The Obligatory Link: Should Maryland Sidestep Electoral College?

The quick answer to that question? Not if they ever want to see a presidential candidate outside of their primary week ever again. Though, with how early everyone seems to want to get started this time around, they'll probably still be sick of it by the time the election happens anyway. There seems to be the thought, though, that this would bring candidates back to states outside of the "battlegrounds". Trick is, though, they go to those battleground states because that's where the outcome is actually in doubt. States that trend steadily one way or another are generally known quantities, and thus would be harder to shift (even for popular vote numbers), even if the candidates did put in more appearances. In other words, a time-versus-money kind of thing.

Really, the whole of this is that people are natural tamperers. To mesh a couple of old sayings together, even though the mousetrap ain't broke, they want to try to build a "better" one. All it would do is scale up the numbers involved and make any potential recount even longer and more arduous. (Think about that idea for a second: A national recount. That's scary, innit?)

Beer In Japan Is Worth Federal Action Here?

The obligatory link: Feds Continue To Assert World Jurisdiction

This is the kind of story that I would've normally missed. Small mercies, going in to work late due to the snow, I suppose. Anyway, the upshot of it is that the Japanese pitcher the Red Sox signed shot a TV commercial in Japan wherein he actually drank a beer. Now, supposedly that's against the rules on this side of the Pacific (for whatever reason...), but, as you can see in the commercial if you follow the link above and let it load up, it's obviously a Japanese-market CM. The post that got Mr. Balko at reason going, over at tothepeople.com, says it best: "If some little-known, nannying arm of the U.S. Treasury Department has any claim to jurisdiction over Japanese advertising that airs only in Japan, that's probably news to the Japanese."

Taking it further, from the Boston Herald article, "Asahi’s beer is No. 1 in overall sales in Japan and the ad campaign, which also features the Yankees’ Hideki Matsui, is nothing unusual for Japan, where athletes are often used in beer endorsements and can be seen drinking on camera. But in the United States, beer cannot be consumed in TV ads and Major League Baseball does not allow its players to endorse alcohol domestically. Those rules do not apply to international markets, however." Seems pretty straightforward to me. Clear, as it were.

It's actually not entirely goofy, for a TV spot out of Japan, I suppose. If you don't know what I mean, try this one on for size... it may well be the most amusing commercial I've ever seen outside of "herding cats".

Brushing Up On The Constitution (part 2)

Welcome back to the Constitution. We're going to deal with the Senate this time, primarily, as well as the rules regarding how often congress must meet.

Sect. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen, by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, ae an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in a the absence of the Vice-President, or
when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall by on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United State is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgement, in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit, under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.

A1.S3.C1 - Senators get to serve six years and are elected by the legislators of the state they represent. Each state gets two senators, regardless of size.

A1.S3.C2 - The senators terms will be split up so that approximately a third of the total number of senators is up for reelection every two years. If there is a vacancy in a state's senate representation, and that state's legislature is not in session, the state's governor can appoint a temporary replacement.

A1.S3.C3 - To be a senator, you must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the United States for nine years, and live in the state which you would be representing.

A1.S3.C4 - The Vice President of the United States will be considered the president of the senate. He has no vote except in the case of a tie. If he is currently fulfilling the duties of the President of the United States, or otherwise absent, the role of president of the senate will be filled by the president pro-tempore of the senate, who is chosen by the senators.

A1.S3.C5 - The senate, like the house, will also choose their other officers as they desire.

A1.S3.C6 - As the house calls impeachment proceedings, the senate tries them. The matter of sitting "by oath or affirmation" is as opposed to, as Wiki has it, "unlike the (house of) lords who voted upon their honor." If the senate is trying the impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside instead of the Vice President. (But, what happens if they're impeaching the VP?)

A1.S3.C7 - The punishments that the senate may inflict for a party being impeached cannot exceed removal from office, and a further ban against holding another office. However, this does not mean that the person in question cannot then be tried in a conventional court under other charges related to their impeachment.

Sect. 4. The times, places and manner, of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

A1.S4 - Each state can choose when, where, and how they go about electing their senators and representatives, but congress has the power to alter all of those possibilities except where senators are chosen. Congress must meet once a year at a minimum, on the first Monday of December, unless they pass a law changing the date. (Oh, if only they'd only meet one day a year outside of emergencies now...)

Next time, we'll be looking into procedure, and the proscriptions regarding holding public office.

Technology That Talks Back

The obligatory link: Talking Urinal Cakes Offer Drinking And Driving Advice

Well, why not? Our cars can talk to us. Our computers can talk to us. Why not talking urinal cakes? Is the fact that the government in New Mexico is wasting taxpayer money on this, compared to people spending their own money on something they want a good enough reason for you? ... Because it sure is for me.

Y'know, I suppose I could try to go the nice road and say that NM is trying an interesting technological solution to the problem of drinking and driving... but I won't. The only people this will stop are the people who still have enough reasoning left after their time drinking to summon up a cab, or other mode of transportation that they don't have to pilot personally. Pretty expensive way to spend 10K$, isn't it... as a back-up for the people who know better?

Brushing Up On The Constitution (part 1)

(Welcome to those linking in from RadioPatriots.)

When it comes to Constitutional scholarship, I'll be the first to admit that I had a very poor childhood. So, in an attempt to brush up on that knowledge, I'm going to do a post or few on the Constitution. If I do it right, it ought to be informative and insightful... and if I do it wrong, you're all welcome to laugh at me in the comments section. (Please remember that I have dictatorial control over that section, however. This is not the Republic of Please Make It Clear.)

The text of the Constitution can be found on the Library of Congress website, amongst other places. If you don't like that version, the one at Wikipedia is more reader-friendly. And if you don't like that one either, Google is always your friend. Anyway, let's start with Article One, Section One, shall we?

Article One, Section One:
ALL legislative powers, herein grated, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sounds simple enough. The document is going to contain specific powers to be given to the House and Senate. The powers in question, then, had to belong to someone or something else before this. In other words, the states, in agreeing to this section, agreed to give up some of their powers to the federal government, while maintaining others themselves.

Moving right along, then...

Article One, Section Two:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by all the people of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be appointed among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to the respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxes, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New-Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantation one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New-Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North-Carolina five, South-Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

The members of the House will be elected by the people of the state which they represent. The second part of that sentence is tricky, though. What it's essentially saying is that any elector allowed by the law of their state to vote for officers for that state's largest legislative body may also vote for their representatives in the House of Representatives. In other words, the qualifications are left up to the states. (Well, by and large. There are a few amendments on down the line that modify those qualifications on a federal level.)

The second portion (clause) of A1.S2 is clear enough, setting limits on who may be considered for election to the House. Basically, that they be of a certain age (25 years), have a certain length of citizenship (7 years), and be a resident of the state for which they would serve in the House.

A1.S2.C3 deals with the number of representatives per state, as well as a means of direct taxation of the states based on the number of people in each state (rather than by any measure of income or production of the state). To quote from the Wikipedia entry, "Under Section Two, the amount of direct taxes that may be collected from any state was tied directly to its share of representatives. On the basis of this requirement, the income tax was found unconstitutional in 1895, as it was not apportioned among the states." The third clause also designated numbers of representatives for each state before a census could be made, and gives a minimum number of people per one representative, but surprisingly (to me, anyway), no maximum value.

A1.S2.C4 makes a straightforward allowance for the state to go about filling vacancies in its representative body. In other words, since these people are there to do the work of the states, it is the job of the states to see that their representative positions are filled.

A1.S2.C5 is another plain statement of the House of Representatives' powers, being that they choose their own officers, and that they hold the power to call impeachment proceedings. About the only curiosity here is that the power to choose their officers and the power to call impeachment aren't included as separate clauses, since I can't see any particular reason to tie them together.

Next time will be the Senate, and Elections. I can tell already that this is going to take quite some time.

Again With The Excessive Regulatory Instinct

The obligatory link: Law Would Ban IPods When Crossing Street

I first read about this one yesterday, and decided instead to go with the Missouri story about the busybody who wanted to make prison trips mandatory for 9th graders. That said, this is just as worthy of attention, because it's a symptom of the same legislative disease. In this case, trying to legislate common sense. More specifically, trying to micro-manage behavior through legislation.

Whatever happened to freedom, anyway? I'd submit to you, the reader, that it primarily went out of fashion around the same time personal responsibility bit the dust. ... Now, I know what you're thinking. "I take care of my responsibilities, so why shouldn't I be allowed the freedoms that go with them?" The simple answer is that too many people don't, or won't, take care of such things. After all, it's easier in many respects to have others do things for you, if you can convince them to. And in this case, there are people who don't need convincing. These, of course, are the legislators, who believe that by taking better care of you (and in most cases, reducing your freedoms at the same time), they stand a better chance of being reelected.

Here's the trick in the whole thing. Carving out specifics so that people who actually want their freedoms keep them, while people who want to be taken care of instead get that is difficult. It would be both actual work, and a pain to get applied anywhere near accurately. The easy solution (and yes, even Congresses federal or state prefer the easy way out of things, by and large) is to just blanket the laws and restrictions on everyone, and as long as nobody cries too loud about it, it works out.

And that brings us full-circle as to why this is worth bringing up, even if it is a day late. New Yorkers who don't like this should rightly raise hell about this, because they're not actually just fighting for themselves, but for the people in all the other states who have easy-way-out protect-the-people-at-the-expense-of-their-freedoms legislators who wouldn't mind doing exactly the same thing, especially with a state ready and waiting to be pointed to as a precedent.

The New Shock Therapy?

The obligatory link: Lawmaker: Shock ninth-graders with prison trips

I recall a time, back when I was still a youngster (certain people can now start laughing at me, since I'm busy reminiscing like an old man), that my Cub Scout... pack, was it? Anyway, that group went to visit a local police station. What shocked most of us, after we got done with the novelty of being in a police station, was the fact that it was brighter and cleaner than we had expected. Too many cartoons depicting incarceration in dank dungeons, I suppose... In any event, it was hardly a life-shaping "I better not be bad, or I'll end up here" kind of experience.

Having said that, this is the kind of meddling that society would be better off without. Far be it from me to turn up on the side of the public school system, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Mandatory contract termination for not abiding with this sounds as downright ridiculous as it is. "Send your ninth-graders to prison or we'll fire you!" Go on, tell me that doesn't boggle the mind. I dare you.

Not only is this proposed law something that goes entirely too far, but if you read down the article, "The Columbia school district already has a system that allows counselors to take a student or student groups on after-school prison tours with parental consent, Barnett added."

So, we have an over-the-top proposal, which may or may not do any good, attempting to replace a similar system already in place and functioning. Meddling, pure and simple. Give me a break...

Jefferson On Government

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of
the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must
become happy." - Thomas Jefferson

Short Shots

There are a few targets of opportunity that I couldn't pass up, so here we go.

The obligatory link #1: Bush sends congress $2.90T spending plan

I took one look at that and thought, "Geez, here we go..." On the second look, though, I think my brain came closer to shutting down as I tried to grasp $2.90T. Taking it another way, let's say that random sports figure A plays for 20 years and makes $20M a year. That's only $400M, after 20 years... we're still off by four zeroes going that route. No, I really can't conceive of that amount of money. Then I remember how much of it they're spending on stuff that they're not actually allowed to under the Constitution... Is that steam coming out of my ears?

The obligatory link #2: Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War

Brainster already hit this, but it made me twitch when I read it, so I'm going to hit it, too. Honestly, this guy is nearly as desperate to talk up his angle on the world as all the media people were to talk up how "there were two black coaches in the Super Bowl". It's this kind of idiocy that I just can't take. I mean, is there any actual thought involved in this? "A rock" sounds too much like Iraq? Give me a break, seriously... These are commercials, produced to run during a game, not during the breaks of a political debate.

All that said, I didn't see a single one of these commercials. Nor did I see any of the game. I know, I know, it's unnatural for a red-blooded American male not to partake of watching football. Oh well, I'm sure I'll survive having missed it. Besides, it's not like I'll be able to make it through the day without someone telling me who won... so, did I really miss anything?

The obligatory link #3: Experts say bundle up

Somehow, I get the feeling that mothers the world over knew this years ago... Still, it's apparently news to the folks who run the Lansing State Journal in Lansing, MI. Maybe global warming kept it warm up there for their whole lifetimes until now? The truth is, though, that they probably bundled up.

Not So Bright

The obligatory link: California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

Sure, it's not federal, but its exactly the kind of meddling that catches on with lawmakers, so ridiculing it now isn't entirely unwarranted. I'm sure there is plenty good to be said for whatever type of bulbs they're intending to push in place of the old-fashioned kind, but y'know, if they're really that much better/brighter/more cost-effective/whatever else, they'll win out in the market without the government ever actually having to lay their hands on the issue. (The obligatory reference to government-mandated gallons-per-flush on toilets, which you can find on pretty much any blog covering this issue, would go here.)

Stepping back from the actual issue for a moment, I'd like to engage in a little invective, to the point of getting in a light-based joke or two. Just how dim is Lloyd Levine, exactly? I mean, it has to take a pretty low mental wattage rating to miss the fact that calling this the "How many legislators does it take to change a lightbulb act" is going to cause people to laugh at him, not with him.

Anyway, here's hoping that this idea disappears in a collective brownout of the California legislature.

State of the Union (my take)

It's the nature of doing something like this after the fact, that I get to pick it apart to my own content. For those who want the speech in its entirety, I got it from whitehouse.gov, here.

Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.

Well, you know, the first part of that is pretty accurate. Of course, it shows more in the fact that more people believe that the Democrats are the small-government party these days than anything else... I wouldn't go so far as to say that there isn't a lick of difference between them, but there probably aren't all that many licks.

Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity(...)

Gag me, please, somebody. Their jobs are enumerated very clearly here and here, in this document. Maybe I'm not reading close enough, but the concept of helping the people build a future of hope and opportunity isn't popping out at me.

In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget.

Brilliant. Let's see it.

First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income.

States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick.

Here comes mean, heartless me, full in my belief that this isn't part of the government's enumerated jobs, either. Really, they'd do better by calling for and offering less tampering, such as getting laws out of the way that would let people actually... y'know... buy the insurance they want, rather than being restricted by legal requirements.

(...)we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists.

As far as it goes, it sounds good in theory. What is left unsaid, though, and is the real crux of this matter, is that it would be extended to people who already broke the law and entered the country illegally. There's a world of difference between people who would like to come in given a reasonable chance, and people who blatantly ignore the rule of law.

Now, I'll grant you, an argument could be made that we don't even need the temporary worker program. Still, if we were in a situation where we had to accept such a thing in turn for it not being applied to those who are already illegal... is that enough to accept it? Or is there a good reason for wanting to throw it out altogether that I just haven't come up with, or happened across?

We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty.

It doesn't take animosity, or amnesty. It takes finding them, picking them up, and dropping them off back in the country they came from. Last time I checked, after all, the word illegal still meant something. Maybe not, though... I suppose it's possible that they pulled it from the dictionary around the same time they removed gullible.

We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

Tell you what: There are a bunch of companies in this country who are in the business of energy. Let's get the government regulations out of their way and let them figure out how to solve our energy problems. I have a great deal more faith in their ability to do such a thing, and I have sneaking suspicions that the cost in dollars and time will be significantly lower, as well.

Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Let me say this right now, as a car guy, rather than a small-government conservative. Get your damned government regulations out of my car. The sludge passed off as fuel they call ethanol only contains 2/3rds as much power per gallon as regular old gasoline. It costs more in money and energy to produce, and it's more inefficient. Frankly, I twitch just thinkin' about it.

And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Why not triple or quadruple it while we're at it?

We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Well, at least it's really one of their jobs. Unfortunately, the likelihood of any action being taken on this resides somewhere in that invisible margin between slim and none.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Can we make more of this, please? It's hard enough to find the good stories as it is, so it's certainly nice to hear about them.

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

Earlier, I made mention of some comments made by Neal Boortz. While a lot of them are well worth reading, this seems to put the lie to the concept that the president didn't properly name the threat in his speech. "Islamist radical (movement)", which one would assume to be made up of Islamist radicals, and so forth.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

I can't understand why people refuse to understand this idea. The alternatives to what we are doing are not any better, and most of them end in scenarios a good sight worse.

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing.

May I have a moment to go bang my head against the wall? ... ... ... Thank you. I don't really feel better, but at least now I can blame the source of my growing headache on the fact that I just banged my head against a wall. Here comes the broken record again: This is not the job of the United States government. There are plenty of private charities who see to this sort of thing, with less bureaucracy, and fewer overhead costs. This may strike some people as a radical idea, but what if government got out of people's pockets to the extent that they're in them to pay for this sort of thing, and we'll see people who have that extra money that they can then give to such charities if they so choose.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people.

What generosity is forced generosity, exactly? If you have no choice in whether or not the money is donated, then is it really generous, or a donation at all?

The stories that the president ended on really are quite inspiring. I would certainly suggest reading them, if you haven't had a chance to do so.

State of the Union

Due to work, I haven't had a chance to go over the speech in full yet myself. However, Neal Boortz has already gone over the text, and has a few insights I wish he didn't have to share, regarding freedom, liberty, security, democracy, and republic.

The obligatory link: State of the Union Speech