tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9373856198409668732010-04-29T10:04:36.670-07:00Disloyal OppositionJ.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.comBlogger1130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-41384676756800888812010-04-29T10:00:00.000-07:002010-04-29T10:03:27.080-07:00This is an ex blogWith Blogger ending support for FTP publishing, I've started a new blog, under the same moniker, <a href="http://tuccille.com/disloyal/">here</a>.<br /><br />Come along and join the fun! A good time will be had by all, with appetizers and cocktails served to the first lucky participants. (Whoops! Looks like you just missed the cut-off!)<br /><br />Remember, Disloyal Opposition is now <a href="http://tuccille.com/disloyal/">Disloyal Opposition</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4138467675680088881?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-71018378280521435892010-04-28T14:07:00.000-07:002010-04-28T14:08:16.042-07:00Border guards rough up another Canadian"Was that a threat?"<br /><br />That's how U.S. border guards at the Lewiston Bridge border crossing responded to a Canadian shopper when, exasperated by the abusive treatment afforded to him and his wife, he asked, "what are you going to do? Shoot me?"<br /><br />Moments later, the couple were in handcuffs, with American officials insisting that they'd been threatened and assaulted. Fortunately, the Canadian man -- identified only as "qtronman" on YouTube -- had recorded the incident, and he later uploaded the recording, so we know the border agents are lying.<br /><br />The couple were on their way to a mall in Niagara Falls, in the United States, when they were ordered out of their car by a U.S. border guard -- apparently because they didn't care for the Canadians' impatient tone when they couldn't name the specific stores they'd be visiting.<br /><br />Throughout the exchange leading to the arrest, the Canadian man comes across as exasperated but cooperative -- not out-of-line for a person dealing with other adults he considers to be acting in an abusive and irrational way. He didn't bow and scrape, though, which may have antagonized the border guards.<br /><br />The officials, on the other hand, sound provocative, and even as if they're enjoying their use of authority.<br /><br /><b>Official:</b> "We don't need any grounds."<br /><br /><b>Shopper:</b> "Well, that's ridiculous."<br /><br /><b>Official:</b> "That's the United States. I'm sorry. I don't know what to tell you."<br /><br /><b>Shopper:</b> "You don't need any grounds for your actions?"<br /><br /><b>Official:</b> "Absolutely not."<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEfOKaUIBj0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEfOKaUIBj0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />In related news, Peter Watts, a Canadian scientist and science fiction writer, has been <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2010/04/27/sarnia-border-scuffle-watts-100427.html" target="_blank">fined roughly $1,500</a> by a U.S. court after he was roughed up by U.S. officials at a border crossing in Michigan.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-7101837828052143589?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-42436763156163965142010-04-21T21:21:00.000-07:002010-04-21T21:25:15.766-07:00Arizona poised for anti-immigrant pogromWill she or won't she? Join the nativist frenzy that has infected Arizona, that is. And the "she" in question is the Grand Canyon State's Governor Jan Brewer, on whose desk festers one of the more far-reaching efforts to invoke police-state tactics in the name of persecuting people who just want to be Americans.<br /><br />How nasty is the Arizona immigration bill? Well, the state Senate's own summary is available <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs_caucus-floor.doc.htm" target="_blank">here</a>, and the text of the bill is <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. Among its failings, if passed, the law would require government employees, including law-enforcement officials, to inquire into the immigration status of anybody they encounter "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."<br /><br />What constitute's reasonable suspicion? That's not defined, so it's pretty much up to the petty official on the spot. That makes every trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and every effort to report a crime, a potential immigration interrogation for anybody with a sun tan. Nativist Arizonans like to complain that immigrants don't submit to the various licenses and permits that bedevil modern life. If untrue in the past, that will certainly be true in the future.<br /><br />And immigrant neighborhoods may have to deal with criminals themselves, since a call to 911 will just be an invitation for trouble.<br /><br />The bill also prohibits any effort to restrict government officials from compiling and exchanging information on people's immigration status for even the most petty of reasons. That's <i>anybody's</i> status -- not just aliens. Welcome to the database.<br /><br />The bill turns mere presence on public <i>or</i> private land in the state by an alien into trespassing if that person "is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register." You say you invited them onto your land? Too bad -- it's still trespassing, and a separate charge because you dared to "conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection."<br /><br />Oh, and the bill also forbids hiring day laborers from your car. Really. There must be a union guy among the authors.<br /><br />Cardinal Roger Mahony may have exaggerated a tad when he <a href="http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizonas-new-anti-immigrant-law.html" target="_blank">referred</a> to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques" (Arizona still lags in the areas of forced labor and bullets behind the ear), but the immigration law is intrusive and authoritarian. It assumes that economic activity is a privilege to be allocated by the state and that individuals must submit themselves to inspection by government officials until they have proven the pristine status of their nationality.<br /><br />Perhaps the proposed law's worst sin, aside from its brutal hostility toward people seeking to do nothing more than work hard and make a life for themselves in this country, is the vastly expanded opportunities it creates for government officials to harass anybody they meet and force them to produce documents and demonstrate their innocence of alien taint.<br /><br />It really is nativism as channeled through a bureaucratic police state -- one that's more <i>Brazil</i> than <i>Schindler's List</i>.<br /><br />And that's the mess sitting on Jan Brewer's desk.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4243676315616396514?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-40354841976140638932010-04-20T19:57:00.000-07:002010-04-20T20:01:32.916-07:00Americans distrust government? You don't say ...For any thinking person, it can only be welcome news that the Pew Research Center <a href="http://people-press.org/report/606/trust-in-government" target="_blank">reports</a>, "[r]ather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed." In fact, says Pew, "[j]ust 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century." It appears that perception is finally catching up with reality, and Americans are growing increasingly aware of the monster they've created.<br /><br />By "reality" I don't mean that government is necessarily an unalloyed evil (though a strong argument could be made to that effect). But government's very nature is one that deserves skepticism and mistrust. After all, as an institution with a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence" target="_blank">monopoly on violence</a>," there's no reason to involve government in any aspect of human life unless you're trying to make people do things they don't want to do -- with dire consequences for noncompliance. However necessary that may be, the role of designated arm-twister is one that should come heavily laden with distrust.<br /><br />That's especially true when you consider the actual track record of government, whether federal, state or local. From the use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London" target="_blank">eminent domain to increase tax revenues</a> to <a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-maryland-lawsuit-uncovers-maryland-state-police-spying-against-peace-and-anti" target="_blank">surveillance of politically active organizations</a> to <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day" target="_blank">violent raids</a> and <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story" target="_blank">road-side stops</a> to enforce prohibitions on disfavored intoxicants (and legally mug motorists), government is an intrusive agency at best and an abusive one at worst. Government officials are perfectly capable of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations" target="_blank">violating rights</a> and also <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/01/complaining-of-intimidation-ci" target="_blank">punishing critics</a>.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/DistrustGov-1-754823.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/DistrustGov-1-754820.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />So it's no surprise that trust in government has declined over the years, from a high back in the neolithic era ... errr ... Eisenhower-through-Johnson days to today's rock-bottom low. What <i>is</i> surprising is that trust was ever high. To be honest, government hasn't necessarily changed and become more contemptible since the gray-flannel era -- we may have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Patriot Act now, but back then the powers-that-be unleashed the IRS on enemies of the administration of the moment, deposed foreign leaders and sent boys to die in Vietnam.<br /><br />It's worth noting that Americans expressed their greatest trust in government at a time when media was at its most concentrated and controlled -- dwindling newspapers, a few heavily regulated broadcast networks, a muzzling Fairness Doctrine and no Internet. These days, a handful of politician-friendly editors won't keep government misdeeds from being reported and critiqued far and wide, since even the smallest publications have wide reach online. The result is the graph above, showing a fairly steady decline in trust over the years, offset only by the brief post-9/11 panic.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/SmallGov-799756.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/SmallGov-799754.jpg" /></a></div>So if trust is falling, what's rising? Try anger at government, which has risen from 12% in 1997 to 21% today. And, logically, also rising is a desire for less of what people don't trust: about half of Americans now consistently say they want smaller government.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4035484197614063893?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-27880780101968268512010-04-13T14:56:00.000-07:002010-04-13T15:01:51.826-07:00It passed, but we still can't figure it outI don't for a minute think that our fearless lawmakers are going to let themselves be even momentarily inconvenienced by the mere letter of the legislation they produced all by their little selves, but isn't <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">this a chuckle</a>?<br /><blockquote>In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.<br /><br />For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. </blockquote><br />The congresscritters do have a somewhat credible out, though. Congressional researchers suggest that the law was drafted so unclearly that it "raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service."<br /><br />Hmmm ... Wasn't <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9636625">passing the law supposed to be key to clarifying</a> its contents? Or so said, David Axelrod, anyway.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-2788078010196826851?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-24821339293974928912010-04-06T13:26:00.000-07:002010-04-06T13:56:47.416-07:00Chasing their own anti-racist tailsI graduated from college in 1987. I was there for the initial rise of "political correctness," when the hair-shirt brigades descended on universities to demonstrate conclusively that dedicated lefties could be every bit as humorless and intolerant as the most frigid tee-totaling Methodists. No sex, no jokes, no fun -- and, most of all, no comfort in your own skin.<br /><br />Well, it's good -- sort of -- to know that some things never change. Over twenty years later, that aversion to leaving people at peace to be their own damned imperfect selves comes through in hilarious form in a <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2758198" target="_blank">column</a> from Canada's <i>National Post</i>, after an editor sat in on a four-part Toronto workshop on "Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism." Here's author Jonathan Kay's take on one participant's frenzy of self-doubt about the propriety of sharing her expertise with a class full of students, since that expertise might be the result of race-based advantages.<br /><blockquote>"Should I say yes? Or is it my responsibility to say no?" she said. "But then [my friend] may say, ‘I want you to do it -- because you have a particular approach ...'<br /><br />"But wait! Could it be that the reason I have that ‘particular approach' is that I've been raised to think that I could have that particular approach, that I have the ability, that I am able to access education in a particular way? All these things are in my head, in my heart, not really knowing how to respond. On the other hand, I also recognize that the person asking me has the agency to decide that I'm the right person ... so I say yes! ... But then I'm still thinking ‘I don't know if I did the right thing.' I still struggle with this all the time ..."</blockquote>All of this over whether or not to give a presentation on media arts. As Kay concludes:<br /><blockquote>In private conversation, they all seemed like good-hearted, intelligent people. But like communist die-hards confessing their counter-revolutionary thought-crimes at a Soviet workers' council, or devout Catholics on their knees in the confessional, they also seemed utterly consumed by their sin, regarding their pallor as a sort of moral leprosy. I came to see them as Lady Macbeths in reverse -- cursing skin with nary a "damn'd spot." Even basic communication with friends and fellow activists, I observed, was a plodding agony of self-censorship, in which every syllable was scrutinized for subconscious racist connotations as it was leaving their mouths.</blockquote>Good times.<br /><br />Have you ever wondered why some people don't just kill themselves?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-2482133929397492891?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-36503040283791692742010-04-05T16:03:00.000-07:002010-04-05T16:04:49.713-07:00Prohibition by any other nameProhibition, that long, national nightmare of officially mandated (and popularly ignored) sobriety, ended in 1933, and popular mythology has it that, upon its repeal, we all cracked open a cold one and lived happily ever after. Oh, if it were only so. In fact, the country's ambivalence toward alcohol -- at least as far as lawmakers and regulators are concerned -- continues. Stupid and intrusive laws still hobble the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol -- not outlawing the business but, in fine American fashion, just making it a little more difficult and painful than it ought to be.<br /><br />For one thing, never mind that the cocktail is largely an American concoction, too many of our countrymen object to the idea of blending alcohol with anything that might make it yummier. Reporting on the consequences of a law apparently rooted in the fear that the road to damnation is often taken one bonbon at a time, the <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/05/421877/old-law-inspires-chocolatiers.html" target="_blank"><em>Raleigh News & Observer</em></a> tells us:<br /><blockquote>Savage, a Raleigh chocolatier whose alcohol-spiced chocolates are - make that were - sold as quickly as he made them, has had to get even more creative than usual to keep the flavors his customers covet without the state-forbidden rum, scotch and beer he used as spices.<br /><br />Someone from the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services called him in late March, he said. "They told me I had to cease and desist" selling the most popular creations "because they contained alcohol," he said.<br /></blockquote>Mixing caffeine with booze has also come under fire (was Castro's rise to power sparked by the heady mixture of rum and coke?). <em>Reason'</em>s Jacob Sullum <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/25/caffeinated-alcohol" target="_blank">reports</a>:<br /><blockquote>In November the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned 27 manufacturers that they may be violating the law by selling alcoholic beverages that contain caffeine. Although the FDA allows the use of caffeine in soft drinks, it has never approved mixing the stimulant with alcohol. Unless the companies can demonstrate that this particular use of caffeine is “generally recognized as safe,” the FDA said, they have to take their products off the market.<br /></blockquote>And even bartenders mixing long-proven recipes are at risk from the pleasure cops. In states around the country, it's difficult for bartenders to get components for many traditional cocktails, and sometimes even illegal for them to manufacture their own mixers or to incorporate ingredients regularly used by chefs and pastry cooks -- like egg whites. Reason TV documents the hoops mixologists have to jump through in this interview with Todd Thrasher of the PX Lounge in Alexandria, Virginia.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="263"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2FC00bBDZco&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2FC00bBDZco&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="263"></embed></object><br /><br />But keeping your booze unblended won't keep you out of trouble. In San Bernardino, California, authorities have <a href="http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_14819517" target="_blank">targeted alcohol</a> that's too <em>convenient</em>.<br /><blockquote>Proponents say a new law called a "deemed-approved ordinance" would standardize city rules affecting liquor stores. Enacting this kind of law could make it easier for city officials to clamp down on the sale of "forties" and other single servings of beer and malt liquor that some officials and researchers link to alcohol-fueled crime.<br /></blockquote>Because Heaven on Earth will be at hand when you can only buy your beer by the case.<br /><br />Alcohol remains <em>mostly</em> legal in <em>most</em> places in the United States. But officials seem eternally torn about the wisdom of letting us enjoy our drinks in peace. No, we don't have Prohibition any more. Instead, we get nags and nannies eternally fretting that we may actually be <em>enjoying</em> our booze.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-3650304028379169274?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-50272127472777478392010-03-29T12:26:00.000-07:002010-03-29T12:30:07.389-07:00Score one for Constance McMillenIt's just about the best outcome possible, given the overt victimization of a high school student by the adults in charge of her education. After the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Mississippi canceled the prom rather than let Constance McMillen and her girlfriend attend together, a federal court called out officials of the Itawamba County School District as a <a href="http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/court-rules-mississippi-school-violated-first-amendment-rights-lesbian-student" target="_blank">bunch of bigots</a> in front of a national audience, pointedly affirming McMillen's claim that her First Amendment rights had been violated. <br /><br />It's hard to imagine the mind-set of people who would rather cancel a school event than let a lesbian couple attend, but maybe Itawamba school officials are getting a bit of a reality check after the wave of national support for Constance and her girlfriend: over 421,000 supporters of "Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom!" on Facebook, invitations to proms around the country, media appearances and a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-19-mississippi-prom-gay-teen_N.htm" target="_blank">$30,000 college scholarship</a>. If the tidal wave of public support for Constance hasn't hammered the message home, the yet-to-be-determined settlement to Constance's ACLU-backed lawsuit in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Mississippi might do the trick.<br /><br />The prom is still off -- parents are reportedly organizing a private event at which Constance and companion will be welcome, so the public school won't be compelled to put the dance back on the schedule. Note that the court didn't <i>order</i> the organizers of the private dance to accommodate Constance. As private individuals using their own resources, they would have the right to be as bigoted and exclusionary as they please, unlike public officials who draw salaries and use resources partially funded by taxes extracted from Constance's family.<br /><br />As it is, Constance's future is looking pretty promising -- and the petty educrats who sought to turn her into a pariah are on notice.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-5027212747277747839?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-14740618342387058012010-03-25T14:17:00.000-07:002010-03-25T14:29:36.083-07:00What's good for the goose ...Many years ago, I had a law school professor who opened his very first lecture by telling us, "law is violence." His point was that any use of the law -- or of government power in general -- involves force or the threat of force. That professor and I disagreed on many issues, but we both knew that to call for the passage of a new law or the enforcement of an existing one is to invoke men with guns, handcuffs and prisons -- and, ultimately, to be willing to kill in order to achieve a desired goal. So it strikes me as absurd to see members of Congress -- professional makers of law -- get their knickers all knotted because some of the people affected by controversial health care legislation have responded with <a _fcksavedurl="http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-members-report-increased-threats-since-vote/" href="http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-members-report-increased-threats-since-vote/" target="_blank">harsh words</a>, <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001197-503544.html" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001197-503544.html" target="_blank">disturbing letters</a> and even <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/vote-unleashes-torrent-of-vandalism-death-threats_2010-03-25.html" href="http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/vote-unleashes-torrent-of-vandalism-death-threats_2010-03-25.html" target="_blank">bricks</a> and <a _fcksavedurl="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/?hpt=T1" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/?hpt=T1" target="_blank">bullets</a>.<br /><br />The apparently unfeigned outrage comes because our legal and political culture largely agrees with Max Weber's old assertion that government is defined by a <a _fcksavedurl="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence" target="_blank">monopoly on the use of legitimate violence</a>. The state may <i>allow</i> others to use force (for self-defense, perhaps), but that's at the discretion of government authorities, who always retain the right to initiate force themselves to achieve their goals, and can expect acquiescence on the part of the public. Basically, that means government officials get to boss us around, and we're not supposed to fight back.<br /><br />So, when people react to legislation that threatens them with fines and arrest, backed by armed men, by tossing a few bricks through windows, they're stepping out of the cozy system in which members of Congress have grown accustomed to operating. Don't they know that the peasants are supposed to just lie there and take it?<br /><br />This isn't to say that threats and vandalism are wise reactions to the passage of the health care bill -- or any other of the many intrusive and oppressive policies that officials from both major political parties have foisted on us over the years. If nothing else, it's playing on the government's home turf, since lawmakers can call on large cadres of people who are trained and paid to smash and kill. It also tends to be bad public relations in a world in which most people drink the same Kool Aid as their political masters. Americans may accept thousands killed by soldiers and police, but they tend to be horrified when individuals smash a few officials' windows.<br /><br />Then again, as legislators engage in violence through legislation, perhaps there's a value in reminding them that not everybody agrees that the state should be unanswered when it pushes people around.<br /><br />And we can hope we'll someday achieve a world in which <i>nobody</i>, not even government officials, gets to initiate force to achieve their goals.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-1474061834238705801?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-26825424948556752932010-03-23T14:44:00.000-07:002010-03-23T14:47:13.986-07:00Criminal questioning of a border guardPeter Watts, a science fiction writer and marine biologist who was <a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2009/12/border-patrol-learns-how-to-make.html" target="_blank">arrested in December</a> after an argument with a U.S. border guard while driving back to his home in Toronto, has been convicted by a Michigan jury of a felony. Watts faces up to two years in prison -- potentially three, if prosecutors succeed in tagging him as a habitual offender over a 19-year-old conviction in Canada.<br /><br />On December 8, 2009, while returning home to Toronto after helping a friend move, Watts was stopped at the border crossing for a random search -- a warrantless intrusion common at the border, where constitutional protections for individual rights are minimal. Watts apparently stepped out of his vehicle to inquire as to the reason for the inspection. An argument ensued, during the course of which Watts was ordered back into his vehicle, beaten and pepper-sprayed -- not necessarily in that order. <br /><br />Several media outlets have reported that Watts was convicted of assaulting a police officer, but that appears to be a misunderstanding; the <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ajxhst45hdwycw55znmfqj55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-81d" target="_blank">Michigan statute</a> under which he was charged is something of a grab-all legal bludgeon, saying "<span id="frg_getmcldocument_MclContent">an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both." In fact, while Watts was convicted under that law, his actual offense revolved around failure to follow orders given by a Border Protection officer, with prosecutor Mary Kelly <a href="http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100318/NEWS05/100318013/1025/LIFESTYLE01/UPDATED-No-verdict-in-Watts-case" target="_blank">comparing his transgression</a> to a refusal</span> to take off shoes during security checks in airports.<br /><br />The statute under which Watts was charged is clearly very broad, and would seem to potentially allow conviction for anything that might rub a law-enforcement officer the wrong way. As Watts <a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186" target="_blank">wrote on his blog</a>:<br /><blockquote>What constitutes “failure to comply with a lawful command” is open to interpretation. The Prosecution cited several moments within the melee which she claimed constituted “resisting”, but by her own admission I wasn’t charged with any of those things. I was charged only with resisting <i>Beaudry</i>, the guard I’d “choked”. My passenger of that day put the lie to that claim in short order, and the Prosecution wasn’t able to shake that.</blockquote>Watts's real crime, he says, is that the law is so inflexible as to ban simple questions.<br /><blockquote>[T]he law doesn’t proscribe noncompliance “unless you’re dazed and confused from being hit in the face”. It simply proscribes noncompliance, period. And we all agree that in those few seconds between Beaudry’s command and the unleashing of his pepper spray, I just stood there asking what the problem was.</blockquote>After the trial, one person claiming to be a juror responded to a news report about the case, <a href="http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b0c58fce-8fca-4dd5-b0af-0347d76641a7&GID=G7pkLGXEKx2tWrHC6ng110DLqilo4/gFoNqkCN4cDDw%3D" target="_blank">saying</a>:<br /><blockquote>As a member of the jury that convicted Mr. Watts today, I have a few comments to make. The jury's task was not to decide who we liked better. The job of the jury was to decide whether Mr. Watts "obstructed/resisted" the custom officials. Assault was not one of the charges. What it boiled down to was Mr. Watts did not follow the instructions of the customs agents. Period. He was not violent, he was not intimidating, he was not stopping them from searching his <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b0c58fce-8fca-4dd5-b0af-0347d76641a7&GID=G7pkLGXEKx2tWrHC6ng110DLqilo4/gFoNqkCN4cDDw%3D#" itxtdid="19166964" style="background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; padding-bottom: 1px ! important; padding-left: 0pt; padding-right: 0pt; padding-top: 0pt; text-decoration: underline ! important;" target="_blank">car</a>. He did, however, refuse to follow the commands by his non compliance. He's not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents escalted the situation with sarcasm and miscommunication. Unfortunately, we were not asked to convict those agents with a crime, although, in my opinion, they did commit offenses against Mr. Watts. Two wrongs don't make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge.</blockquote>Despite these doubts about the wisdom of law-enforcement actions, the juror in the case didn't exercise the right of <a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2009/02/juries-quietly-flip-bird-to-oppressive.html" target="_blank">jury nullification</a> -- that is, to refuse to convict a defendant who may have broken a law that jurors find offensive or wrongly applied. That leaves Watts with a felony conviction -- and facing possible prison time. Prosecutors are trying to use a 1991 conviction for obstructing a Guelph, Ontario, police officer asgrounds for tagging Watts as a "habitual offender" subject to enhanced sentencing.<br /><br />Case details are available via a search at the St. Clair <a href="http://www.stclaircounty.org/DCS/search.aspx" target="_blank">County Court Website</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-2682542494855675293?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-35306030739375675702010-03-16T12:55:00.000-07:002010-03-16T12:59:48.672-07:00Could 'reform' drive doctors out of medicine?The <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> <a href="http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/health-reform-may-reduce-physician-workforce.aspx">cites</a> interesting <a href="http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform">poll numbers</a> on the reaction of physicians to proposed federal legislation that would greatly expand the government's role in medicine. At a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics is predicting 22 percent growth in demand for physicians by 2018, "24.7% of physicians stated that they would 'retire early' if a public option is implemented, and an additional 21.0% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement. This brings the amount of physicians who would leave medicine to a total of 45.7%"<br /><br />In the case of passage of the current health care "reform" bill <i>without</i> a so-called public option, the number of physicians planning to flee medicine drops -- to "only" one-third.<br /><br />The NEJM (which is not known as a free-market mouthpiece) notes that not all docs who express a desire to leave medicine after the passage of unwelcome legislation are likely to follow-up on their threats, but "even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to <i>expand</i> by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system." Demoralization of the remainder could also cause problems in terms of numbers of patients seen and the quality of medicine provided.<br /><br />Why are docs unhappy? Says Medicus, the company behind the survey:<br /><blockquote><b>Over 50% of physicians who responded predict that a health reform would cause the quality of medical care to deteriorate in America.</b> When asked how health reform could affect the quality of medical care, 40.7% stated it would "decline or worsen somewhat," while another 14.4% stated that the quality of medical care would "decline or worsen dramatically". If a public option is implemented as part of health reform, 64.1% of physicians predict that the quality of medical care in general will decline. </blockquote><blockquote>"Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine," states Kevin Perpetua, Managing Partner for The Medicus Firm's Atlanta division. "With an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible. Health reform, and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down." </blockquote>Instead of the proposed legislation, the NEJM says the surveyed physicians have alternative ideas: "Tort reform appeared repeatedly, as did patient responsibility and ownership in their health care and costs. Additionally, many physicians emphasized a need for addressing specific issues with separate legislation, as opposed to one sweeping, comprehensive bill."<br /><br />The survey of a random sample of 1,195 physicians was conducted by The Medicus Firm, which specializes in physician recruitment.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-3530603073937567570?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-65230525228539471722010-03-16T11:31:00.000-07:002010-03-16T11:37:45.305-07:00Forcing everybody into the same public schools is a good idea because ...?All Constance McMillen wanted to do was to attend the high school prom with her girlfriend. Unfortunately for her, she lives in Fulton, Mississippi, a notch on the Bible Belt where the idea of two girls holding hands gives lots of people a bad case of the ickies. One thing led to another, the ACLU got involved, and officials at Itawamba County Agricultural High School (where girl-on-girl action is off limits, but the sheep are nervous) stomped off in a huff to <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-2520459%7EMiss__school_prom_off_after_lesbian_s_date_request.html" target="_blank">cancel the prom</a> rather than let ickiness prevail. Ridiculous as the situation is, it's all too common an outcome when disfavored minorities in public institutions come up against the preferences, prejudices and rank stupidity of the majority who run things.<br /><br />Minorities and individuals believe nasty and stupid things, too, of course, but they are less likely to dominate political institutions. And make no mistake about it: public schools are political institutions that reflect the wishes of whatever faction controls the levers of power -- often representing majority whims, at least on hot-button issues, in democratic systems. In Tucson, Arizona, this means <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2009/09/19/20090919maceachern0920.html" target="_blank">apartheid-ish racial and ethnic quotas</a> for school discipline, in my stomping grounds it means a prevailing disdain for actual learning, and in Fulton, Mississippi, it means hating the gays.<br /><br />You can't escape the prejudices of the people who run the show unless you can escape the institutions that they run.<br /><br />This seems to be the strongest possible argument for decentralizing education and empowering families and students. If Constance McMillen attended a tolerant school chosen and supported by her family, the way they choose their grocery store and their housing, she'd be attending her prom instead of ... err ... being <a href="http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=24625" target="_blank">feted</a> in <a href="http://perezhilton.com/2010-03-16-constance-is-coming-to-hollywood" target="_blank">Hollywood</a>. So, OK, things aren't working out badly for her. But most put-upon teens don't end up with celebrity advocates -- even if <a href="http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner%7Ey2009m6d25-Student-strip-search-unjustified-says-US-Supreme-Court" target="_blank">they win, they battle for years</a> and go through hell in the process.<br /><br />Why should every kid have to joust with dragons -- and usually lose?<br /><br />Every community includes minorities whose lifestyles, religious views and ideologies are sufficiently at odds with those of the majority that they can't be accomodated within institutions controlled by the majority without breeding conflict. Having to pay taxes to support those institutions not only adds insult to injury, but deprives people of the resources they might use to pay for alternatives. That leaves these minorities at the mercy of people who have completely incompatible values.<br /><br />It's odd -- nobody suggests that we nationalize grocery stores and put them under the management of militant vegetarians or Atkins Diet fanatics, yet it's deemed OK to force gay and lesbian students to attend schools run by homophobes.<br /><br />There's no reason to victimize Constance McMillen. She ought to be educated by people chosen by her family -- people who treat her with respect instead of disdain. Then she could attend her prom with her girlfriend without a moment's worry about other people's prejudices.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-6523052522853947172?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-1204037827080904362010-03-11T09:04:00.000-08:002010-03-11T09:05:36.162-08:00The ethical omnivoreanOh sure, we all jump through hoops to cook up the grains and greens when our vegetarian friends pop by, but when the shoe is on the other foot ...<br /><br /><object height="263" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GKTsWjbjQ8E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GKTsWjbjQ8E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="263"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-120403782708090436?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-8576914187760298932010-03-10T12:24:00.000-08:002010-03-10T12:41:57.815-08:00No, mandatory drug treatment is not the answerMost of the drug debate takes place over the clear-cut issues: should the government be telling people what they can put into their bodies or shouldn't it? But beyond overt prohibition -- and with the potential to outlast repeal -- is the vast, mushy middle-ground where the government "helps" those poor souls who just can't handle their drugs. Surely, pushing addicts into treatment to help them with their abuse is an act of compassion, not an authoritarian intrusion. Ah, but who is an addict, and what's abuse? And who is to say we don't <i>all</i> run the risk of a bit of compassion in our lives if we award our would be saviors with the power to intervene?<br /><br />In his guest post, "<a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2010/03/guest-post-mandatory-treatment-for-drug.html">Leave my drugs alone</a>," Denny Chapin, Managing Editor at <a href="http://alltreatment.com/">AllTreatment.com</a>, writes:<br /><blockquote>People will always abuse drugs, always disrupt families, and always harm others in pursuit of a high. And people will always defend their abuse, deny its effects, and bring themselves and others down with them. If we accept this reality, we can still act for a future of change, bring hope to families, and shake the dirt from career drug addicts. And to that degree, we must take action. Never is it 'just their problem'; it's ours.</blockquote><br />Chapin concedes that "many drug users casually use drugs without negatively impacting those around them," but he asserts that the government may have a duty to intervene and force drug users into treatment when their drug use negatively impacts those around them -- particularly children -- and that it "must enforce mandatory drug treatment" when drug use leads to criminal activity. <br /><br />There's truth in what Chapin says -- particularly about the ability of many people to casually use drugs "without negatively impacting those around them." While getting solid statistics about addiction is difficult, <i>Reason</i> magazine's Jacob Sullum <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2003/06/01/h">pointed out</a> in 2003, "A survey of high school seniors found that 1 percent had used heroin in the previous year, while 0.1 percent had used it on 20 or more days in the previous month. Assuming that daily use is a reasonable proxy for opiate addiction, one in 10 of the students who had taken heroin in the last year might have qualified as addicts." By contrast, when it comes to perfectly legal booze, <a href="http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/04_16_2002/story02.htm">according</a> to the National Institutes of Health, "[a]bout 15 percent of those who experiment become alcohol-dependent at some point in life. This compares to a dependency rate of 25 percent in those who experiment with smoking tobacco, and around 4 percent in marijuana smokers."<br /><br />Most users, then, do so without becoming addicted, and Chapin quotes Alan I. Leshner, Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to the effect that addiction is "uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences."<br /><br />Chapin is also correct that abusers often <i>do</i> deny that they're abusing drugs and that their behavior is problematic. Then again, so do people accused of addiction and abuse who are actually just engaging in recreational behavior. The difficulty lies in separating use from abuse and in distinguishing criminal behavior caused by an intoxicating substance from criminal behavior caused by a criminal's innate unwillingness to respect the rights and property of others. For starters, what is drug abuse?<br /><br />That strikes some people as a silly question, but it's absolutely fundamental. And there's no fixed definition of "abuse." Asked whether he thought drug abuse should be illegal, the prominent psychologist, lawyer and drug researcher <a href="http://www.peele.net/index.html">Stanton Peele</a> <a href="http://www.peele.net/faq/illegal.html">replied</a>, "The answer to the question depends on what you mean by drug abuse—whether any use of illicit drugs, extreme or addictive drug use, or illegal behavior associated with drug use or extreme drug use."<br /><br />Chapin seems to flirt with the first definition, suggesting that the mere act of ingesting certain intoxicants is, itself, abusive:<br /><blockquote>Does our government have a responsibility to get heroin out of households? "They're my kids, so what if they see a few needles or a joint around? I'm not forcing them to do anything." This disposition is far more dubious, with the potential to truly harm the future generations of Americans, our youth.</blockquote><br />Does seeing a few needles or a joint really harm kids? If it does, does it really harm kids <i>so much</i> that their parents should be forced by armed men into drug treatment programs? If that's the case, mandatory treatment for drug abuse becomes something of a tautology, with all ingestion defined as "abuse" and evidence of a need for a forcible response. Drug treatment, then, is less of a medical response than an ideological one, and those providing treatment are acting less as psychologists, physicians and therapists than as agents of state policy.<br /><br />But what if we go to Peele's second definition: illegal behavior associated with drug use? And by "illegal behavior" we mean real crimes against people and property. It's this definition that Chapin addresses when he says, "many criminals are forced into treatment programs because their crime was caused by, or related to their addiction, resulting from their uncontrolled, compulsive, and harmful behavior."<br /><br />Since many crimes are a result of drug use, mandatory treatment, we're told, is the obvious response.<br /><br />Peele differs, saying "addicts—or any drug users—should be liable for any crimes they commit, whether committed while intoxicated, in the pursuit of their addiction, or under any other conditions. In this regard, I differ from many advocates for addicts, who may say that—since addicts are out of control of their behavior—they should not be liable for their actions, at least while intoxicated." (Peele, by the way, also <a href="http://www.peele.net/bookstore/resisting.html">takes issue</a> with the way many 12-step programs go about their business, especially with coerced participants.)<br /><br />The idea here is that people are responsible for their actions -- the devil didn't make them do it, and neither did the booze or the methamphetamine. Yes, a criminal may have alcohol or drugs in his or her system when he knocks over a convenience store, but that was the culmination of a series of choices. Treatment might be <i>offered</i> to criminals in the same way as other medical and educational services are offered, as a means of maintaining or improving their health and changing their circumstances. But pursuing drug treatment would have to be the <i>choice</i> of the criminal who is responsible for his or her own actions in all circumstances.<br /><br />Fundamentally, the argument for mandatory treatment comes down to two fundamentals: all drug use is abuse, and drugs make people do bad things they wouldn't otherwise do. But not all use is abusive -- in fact, most drug use is not. And an asshole who does bad things and takes drugs is, at the end of the day, just an asshole.<br /><br />Forgetting those points creates an invitation to the government to intervene in our lives if we simply engage in behavior that rubs officialdom the wrong way -- and it also allows the powers-that-be to let real criminals off easy for their bad decisions.<br /><br />Chapin argues that, with mandatory treatment, "[a]t their worst, an addict won't benefit from treatment, simply going through the motions." But that's not the worst; the worst is that people living peaceful lives will lose their freedom and become subjects of forcible government intervention.<br /><br />If you want to be compassionate toward those who use intoxicants to excess, that's great. Just don't arm that compassion with handcuffs and guns.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-857691418776029893?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-51387579920900921772010-03-09T11:51:00.000-08:002010-03-10T12:27:08.734-08:00Guest post: Mandatory treatment for drug usersAs part of a continuing series that I just started and will repeat whenever I feel like doing so, below is a guest post from a reader who takes a position contrary to my own on at least one topic -- in this case, mandatory treatment for drug users who are perceived to have crossed a line and so necessitated government intervention. The author is Denny Chapin, Managing Editor at <a href="http://alltreatment.com/">AllTreatment.com</a>.<br /><br />Wait with eager anticipation for my response.<br /><br /><b>'Leave My Drugs Alone'</b><br />by Denny Chapin<br /><br />As citizens of the United States, we want two things: first to be protected against the Hobbesian Leviathan of governmental power and second, to be protected by that governmental power when other citizens are threatening our freedom. We ask our government to stay out of matters that don't concern them, while demanding they protect us from irate citizens that diminish our quality of life. <br /><br />In practical terms, we want freedom from government oppression when we want to do something our government does not allow, like taking drugs, and we also want protection from the government when a drug addict breaks into our home to fuel his addiction. The question we must ask is this: when, how, and what actions should our government take to ensure the protection of its citizens? and when is this protection oppressive and negative? How do we weigh these two forces against one another? Is there a satisfying solution, or is will this balancing act always produce argument and dissatisfaction?<br /><br /><i>Real World Example: Drugs</i><br /><br />Alan I. Leshner, Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, defines addiction as "uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health and social consequences." Drug addicts, by their nature, act in uncontrolled, compulsive ways, having a negative impact on their health and the social atmosphere around them. <br /><br />Many drug users desire to be protected against governmental prosecution for using illegal drugs. They say "let me smoke marijuana in peace, it's my body I'm hurting, not anyone else's!" or "I'm less crazy when I take a hit of heroin, otherwise I'd be messing up even more peoples lives". And to a degree, there is some merit to their arguments, since many drug users casually use drugs without negatively impacting those around them.<br /><br />But what about those drug users who cannot--does the government have a responsibility to step in and demand some form of action when an alcoholic completely ignores, or worse, physically abuses their children? Does our government have a responsibility to get heroin out of households? "They're my kids, so what if they see a few needles or a joint around? I'm not forcing them to do anything." This disposition is far more dubious, with the potential to truly harm the future generations of Americans, our youth. <br /><br /><i>Landing in Jail</i><br /><br />In America, many criminals are forced into treatment programs because their crime was caused by, or related to their addiction, resulting from their uncontrolled, compulsive, and harmful behavior. When it gets to the level of incarceration, our government has a duty to intervene, not for the sake of an addict, but for the sake of the people that addict is surrounded by. It is at this extreme degree of action that we must enforce mandatory drug treatment, irregardless of the intentions of the addict. At their worst, an addict won't benefit from treatment, simply going through the motions. But hopefully, at its best, treatment will give them some perspective, showing them a window of sobriety to look through and see the world as they've built it up, and the world they could have.<br /><br />There will never be a satisfying answer. People will always abuse drugs, always disrupt families, and always harm others in pursuit of a high. And people will always defend their abuse, deny its effects, and bring themselves and others down with them. If we accept this reality, we can still act for a future of change, bring hope to families, and shake the dirt from career drug addicts. And to that degree, we must take action. Never is it 'just their problem'; it's ours.<br /><br /><i>My response is <a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2010/03/no-mandatory-drug-treatment-is-not.html">here</a>. </i><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-5138757992090092177?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-53475961477564461682010-03-09T11:16:00.000-08:002010-03-09T11:17:09.479-08:00Judge Jim Gray calls B.S. on drug prohibition"The government has as much of a right to control what I as an adult put into my body as it does what I put into my mind. It's none of their business." So says <a href="http://www.judgejimgray.com/" target="_blank">Jim Gray</a>, who recently retired as the presiding judge of the Superior Court of California for Orange County. A former drug warrior as a prosecutor and then a judge, Gray came to see that prohibition of disfavored intoxicants was a perverse and impractical policy -- and one with serious moral and economic consequences.<br /><br />Gray was unusual among government officials who have turned against prohibition in that he started speaking out <em>while</em> he was on the bench, making public appearances calling for changes in policy, including full legalization, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566398606/" target="_blank">authoring a book</a> making the same case.<br /><br />He presents his arguments in short form in the video below from ReasonTV.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="263"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b6t1EM4Onao&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b6t1EM4Onao&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="263"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-5347596147756446168?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-71919870844700335792010-03-03T20:38:00.000-08:002010-03-03T20:40:54.760-08:00Hüsker Dü -- Don't Want To Know If You Are LonelyApropo of not a goddamned thing, Here's Hüsker Dü's "Don't Want To Know If You Are Lonely." (The video is <a href="http://www.spike.com/video/hsker-d-dont-want-to/2789506">here</a>, and if you can figure out how to embed that, let me know.)<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z6Xlmf6yorU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z6Xlmf6yorU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />A lot of Hüsker Dü fans dismiss <i>Candy Apple Gray</i> -- the album that featured "Don't Want To Know If You Are Lonely." I disagree, finding the album mature, but still angry, and connected to real life. There's a reason I keep coming back to it, again and again. <i>Warehouse</i>, on the other hand ...<br /><br />These guys, the Pogues and the Replacements largely defined my musical life in the '80s. Interestingly, they all continue to sound good to me and multiple albums by each band are loaded on my Sansa Clip. After listening to a lot of jazz and lounge singers recently, I've been turning back to punk, at least partially because my four-year-old has Sinatra on a continuous loop and refuses to listen to "that yelling music." Yeah, really. Maybe we can compromise with Sid Vicious's take on "My Way." <br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDyb_alTkMQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDyb_alTkMQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-7191987084470033579?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-44017240535271596692010-03-01T12:06:00.000-08:002010-03-01T12:11:45.183-08:00Watch out for 'Tea Party terrorists' -- like Paine and ThoreauYou'd think that, after a couple of centuries of major American figures describing government as, at most, something to be tolerated, political pundits would have made their peace with the idea that skepticism toward state power has a core place in American political life. If your toes tingle at the thought of more coercive programs, laws, politicians and bureaucrats, you're the (very) odd duck, not the folks with anti-government views. And yet, we still get the likes of Frank Rich throwing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html" target="_blank">high-profile hissy fits</a> because "the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback," as heralded by ... Andrew Joseph Stack III's Kamikaze-style airborne attack on the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas?<br /><br />For those not in the know, Stack, like many people, had a bone to pick with the I.R.S. and with the federal government. But the <a href="http://www.t35.com/embeddedart.txt" target="_blank">manifesto</a> he left behind also accused drug and insurance companies of "murdering tens of thousands of people a year," charged that poor people get to die for the mistakes of the wealthy, and quoted Karl Marx. Anti-government Stack was, but his ideology, such as it was, doesn't appear to have been coherently right-wing or left-wing so much as ticked-off and populist.<br /><br />Rich does appear to be aware that Stack isn't a very logical stick with which to beat the Tea Party movement that has him and his government-cheerleading chums so knicker-twisted. At least, he concedes "it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a 'Tea Party terrorist.' But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner."<br /><br />Nice how Rich works that gratuitious "Tea Party terrorist" bit in there, eh? But even as he smears his political opponents as guilty by distant and tortured association, he manages to overlook the fact that the anti-government sentiment he so regrets is neither a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party movement and the Right, nor an aberration coughed up every decade or two by by unenlightened neanderthals briefly emerging from the philosophical swamps.<br /><br />Frank Rich is a well-educated man with an Internet connection paid for by a respected news organization that has a vast historical archive of its own, so it's impossible to believe that the <i>New York Times</i> scribbler is unaware that Thomas Paine <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm" target="_blank">wrote</a> in one of the more popular political tracts of the revolutionary period that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." Nor can we believe he's unaware that James Madison hedged on Paine's sentiments only to the extent that he <a href="http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/Madison/index3.htm" target="_blank">wrote</a>, "It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune." And certainly he knows about Thomas Jefferson's <a href="http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_natural_progress_of_things...%28Quotation%29" target="_blank">warning</a> that "[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/Henry_David_Thoreau-768621.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/Henry_David_Thoreau-768618.jpg" /></a></div>And Rich must surely be aware that he's skipping over a bit of context when he drops the overworked Joe Stack connection to shriek in shock that "[t]he Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington -- a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All." Surely, if only in high school, he read Henry David Thoreau's <a href="http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Thoreau/CivilDisobedience.html" target="_blank">open hostility to the power of the state</a>:<br /><blockquote>I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"...</blockquote>The United States of America was founded on anti-government sentiment. The shapers of its institutions and many of its major thinkers have always clearly viewed the state as something like the equivalent of a portable kerosene heater in a Wisconsin winter -- you <i>might</i> need the damned thing, but be <i>very</i> careful.<br /><br />True, the fact that the heart and soul of American political history is thoroughly skeptical of government power doesn't mean that Madison and Jefferson were right and that Rich is wrong. Maybe he and his buddies are correct and we should stop worrying and learn to love big, well-armed institutions that claim a monopoly on the use of force and <a href="http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM" target="_blank">slaughtered 262,000,000 people</a> over the course of the 20th century alone. (It's for the children, don't you know?)<br /><br />But history shows that anti-government sentiment is in the mainstream of American political life, and Rich and his buddies are the out-liers. No shrieking effort to paint skeptics of state power as kamikaze terrorists -- shoe-horning Joe Stack in with Thomas Paine and Henry David Thoreau -- can change that fact.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4401724053527159669?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-58528480632674547972010-02-24T18:29:00.000-08:002010-02-24T18:30:24.943-08:00Judge reads elegy for the Fourth AmendmentLast week, admonishing his colleagues, who had just turned away an important search-and-seizure case, <a href="http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Alex_Kozinski" target="_blank">Chief Judge Alex Kozinski</a>, of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively pronounced the Fourth Amendment dead. After the court signed off on police search of an apartment without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion, Kozinski said, "Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment ... is now gone."<br /><br />In the case of <i>United States v. Lemus</i>, police peacefully arrested Juan Hernan Lemus of Calexico, California, outside his home "before he could fully enter the doorway and retreat into his living room." With Lemus in custody, and without a search warrant for the apartment, police then entered the dwelling for a look around.<br /><br />From the majority <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0850403p.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a> (which is written like a crime novel):<br /><blockquote>Diaz, in the living room, got Detective Longoria’s attention. Wasn’t there something sticking out from the couch? Detective Longoria thought it looked like the butt of a weapon. Since Lemus was a felon, having a gun would be a crime. Detective Longoria lifted the couch cushion to make sure, and confirmed that it was a semi-automatic handgun. It was later determined to be a Sturm and Ruger, 9 millimeter.</blockquote>Unsurprisingly, Lemus's attorneys challenged the search, which was the basis for subsequent charges unrelated to the original arrest. They pointed out that precedent permits search of the immediate area around suspects arrested in their home to assure the safety of the arresting officers, and limited protective sweeps of the full dwelling to make sure no potential allies of the arrestee are lurking in the shadows. But Lemus was already in custody, having been arrested <i>outside</i>. Police chose, on their own, to enter the residence.<br /><br />No problem, said the district court. The majority of judges at the appeals level agreed. "Lemus was arrested in an area 'immediately adjoining' the living room, a limited search of that room was proper without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a protective search incident to the arrest."<br /><br />But Kozinski <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/18/08-50403.pdf" target="_blank">objects</a> (PDF):<br /><blockquote>The panel's fig leaf for this clearly illegal search is that "at most Lemus was only partially outside" of his living room door when the officers seized him. Lemus, 582 F.3d at 963. So what? Under Buie, Lemus’s location at the time of arrest is irrelevant; it's the location of the police that matters. Buie authorizes a search incident to an in-home arrest because being inside a suspect's home "puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary’s 'turf,' " ...</blockquote>Frankly, the majority's reasoning seems to suggest that police can conduct a full, warrantless search of your home if they arrange to arrest you within reach of your front door. Not that they would ever game such a legal rule, of course ...<br /><br />Judge Kozinski points out the startling implications of the appeals court's decision to let the lower-court decision stand.<br /><blockquote>This is an extraordinary case: Our court approves, without blinking, a police sweep of a person’s home without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion and without exigency -- in other words, with nothing at all to support the entry except the curiosity police always have about what they might find if they go rummaging around a suspect’s home. Once inside, the police managed to turn up a gun "in plain view" -- stuck between two cushions of the living room couch -- and we reward them by upholding the search. ...<br /><br />The opinion misapplies Supreme Court precedent, conflicts with our own case law and is contrary to the great weight of authority in the other circuits. It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.<br /><br />Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment after Black is now gone. The evisceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl.</blockquote>Very well reasoned. Very strongly worded.<br /><br />But the majority decision in favor of the "fish bowl"still stands.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-5852848063267454797?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-80927322153183855192010-02-23T09:23:00.000-08:002010-02-23T09:24:31.762-08:00Pieces published elsewhereIn line with my <a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2010/02/late-colin-ward-showed-that-liberty.html">recent post</a> on the passing of British anarchist Colin Ward, I have a piece up at the interesting group blog, <i>When Falls the Coliseum</i>, on my <a href="http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2010/02/22/im-becoming-more-of-an-anarchist-every-day/">increasingly black-flag-y sentiments</a> (and I ain't just talking Greg Ginn).<br /><br />At the same site, I have an unrelated piece on the <a href="http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2010/02/08/once-a-profession-writing-is-becoming-a-social-activity/">changing nature of the writing biz</a> (I can say "biz" can't I?).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-8092732215318385519?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-33021996833868892962010-02-18T08:22:00.000-08:002010-02-18T08:36:33.315-08:00The late Colin Ward showed that liberty isn't a Left/Right issue<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/colinward-701099.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.tuccille.com/blog/uploaded_images/colinward-701097.jpg" /></a></div><i>Reason</i> magazine's Hit & Run blog has a <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/17/colin-ward-rip">post up</a> noting the passing of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ward">Colin Ward</a>, a British left-anarchist. I'm especially sorry that this is my first encounter with Ward, since he apparently was best known not for looking to some utopian future, but for examining the here and now, as well as the past, for examples of real-life voluntary, cooperative alternatives to state institutions. His aim was to not just argue that an authoritarian state is immoral, but to demonstrate that it is and has been unnecessary.<br /><br />People like Ward interest me not only because of his practical interest in applied voluntarism, but also because he -- a man who was as critical of social democrats as he was of Margaret Thatcher -- was a living, breathing exemplar of the principle that the <i>real</i> political divide isn't between Left and Right, but between liberty and authority. This may be a tough sell in the simple-minded world of Team Blue/Team Red America, but it's apparent that there are believers in liberty on both the Left and the Right, and that these people have more in common with one another than they do with their supposed comrades who are more interested in top-down control than in freedom.<br /><br />The connection is especially apparent among out-and-out anarchists like Ward and, say, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman">David D. Friedman</a>, the anarcho-capitalist (and son of Milton). When you remove the coercive power of the state from the equation, not only are their criticisms of authoritarianism largely complementary, but their hyphenations (left- and -capitalist) become little more than expressions of how they would like to arrange their personal affairs, not something they want to force on one another.<br /><br />As you move away from anarchism, the introduction of some degree of state power complicates things by raising the likelihood that somebody will be coerced to do things they don't want to do. But it's notable that <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-01-01/news/50-years-of-pissing-people-off/">libertarian-socialist</a> Nat Hentoff, after losing his <i>Village Voice</i> column, <a href="http://www.cato.org/people/nat-hentoff">found a home</a> at the libertarian Cato Institute, which is often accused of being "right-wing." It's also worth noting, on the other hand, that Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein, supposed cross-aisle rivals, so frequently seem to find common cause on <a href="http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Organizations/BCFE/limit2.html">odious</a>, <a href="http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0146.html">authoritarian</a> legislation.<br /><br />Whatever the details of their differences, advocates of liberty really <i>do</i> have more in common with one another, as do advocates of authority. The real connections cut across the artificial Left/Right divide.<br /><br />The challenge for liberty advocates, whether of the supposed Left or Right, is to look beyond supposed allies who mouth their favorite platitudes while forever increasing the power of the state over their lives -- and to get past unfamiliar terminology to find allies they didn't know they had.<br /><br />As the late Colin Ward demonstrated, Left and Right don't matter; liberty and authority do.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-3302199683386889296?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-20549408255076130232010-02-16T10:22:00.000-08:002010-02-16T10:25:37.220-08:00Tagged and tracked by your own cell phoneLast Friday, federal attorneys told the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals that government officials should be able to track the location of Americans by following their cell phone transmissions -- without having to get a warrant. While the FBI and state and local officials have already obtained logs from mobile phone companies that reveal the locations of customers' telephones, the practice has never formally been endorsed by the courts. The latest federal arguments -- and rebuttals by civil liberties organizations -- give the courts the opportunity to either support or repudiate federal claims that Americans have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" so long as they carry cell phones.<br /><br />In a lower-court <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/criminalapplicationorder_finalopinion.pdf" href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/criminalapplicationorder_finalopinion.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a> (PDF) regarding an ongoing drug investigation, now being appealed by the federal government, Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan warned:<br /><blockquote>[T]he location information so broadly sought is extraordinarily personal and potentially sensitive; and that the <i>ex parte</i> nature of the proceedings, the comparatively low cost to the Government of the information requested, and the undetectable nature of a CSP’s electronic transfer of such information, render these requests particularly vulnerable to abuse.</blockquote>Lenihan determined that the information sought by the Justice Department should be available only if the government could meet the usual probable cause standards necessary for a warrant -- a standard the Justice Department claims to find too burdensome.<br /><br />Responding to the federal government's position that signing a cell phone contract implicitly gives the state the right to know your whereabouts, the American Civil Liberties Union <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/cell-phone-users-your-privacy-risk" href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/cell-phone-users-your-privacy-risk" target="_blank">says</a> the government "should not be forcing the nation's 277 million cell-phone subscribers to choose between risking being tracked and going without an essential communications tool."<br /><br />In a <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/Filed%20Cell%20Tracking%20Brief.pdf" href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/Filed%20Cell%20Tracking%20Brief.pdf" target="_blank">friend-of-the-court brief</a> (PDF), the ACLU, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, support Lenihan's refusal to allow federal access to what Justice Department attorney Mark Eckenwiler calls "routine business records held by a communications service provider." Since those records reveal people's locations, the civil liberties groups argue that they were properly withheld, and that their disclosure raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. Specifically, they agree that revealing such information should require a warrant.<br /><br />Lenihan's opinion was signed by four of her colleagues in a show of solidarity that seems, from records of the proceedings, to impress the appeals court judges. The civil liberties implications of the Justice Department move also seem to impress the judges; at one point, Eckenwiler was asked from the bench:<br /><blockquote>There are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are, or have been. For example, have been at what may be happening today in Iran, have been at a protest, or at a meeting, or at a political meeting. Now, can the government assure us that -- one, it will never try to find out that information, and two, whether that information would not be covered ...?</blockquote>It's unclear, however, whether that's an omen of the final result.<br /><br />The full oral arguments are <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/ListArgumentsAll.aspx" href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/ListArgumentsAll.aspx" target="_blank">available online</a> in audio format at the court Web site (see files beginning with 08-4227)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-2054940825507613023?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-40003854856156105362010-02-16T08:47:00.000-08:002010-02-16T08:54:22.416-08:00Hail Caesar ... err ... the PresidentWhether you call it Washington's Birthday (the <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/5/III/E/61/I/6103" target="_blank">official federal holiday</a>) or Presidents Day (the common name and a holiday recognized in many states), the third Monday in February is set aside to honor the person in whom the executive power of the United States federal government is vested. That's reason enough to be leery of the day, offset just a bit by the happy fact that many Americans are spared a day of school or work as part of the celebration (not to mention the sales!). I say "leery" not just because of the particular individual who holds the office -- however disappointing the guy may be, he's hardly the worst of the bunch -- but because the office itself is so suspect, bloated with more power and expectation than any individual can handle, and any free society can survive.<br /><br />Jimmy Breslin might have put it best when he said, "The office of president is a bastardized thing, half royalty and half democracy, that nobody knows whether to genuflect or spit."<br /><br />Half of us might be willing to spit at any given moment, but usually only when the other side's guy has power. The rest of the time, we're busy genuflecting and larding the presidency with vast power to ... well ... <a href="http://www.aei.org/article/23600" target="_blank">wage wars unilaterally</a>, hold <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302371.html" target="_blank"><strike>enemy combatants</strike></a> terrorism suspects <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/detention/index.html" target="_blank">without trial or charges</a> -- and subject them to <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/29/holder-under-fire.aspx" target="_blank">torture</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042700872.html" target="_blank">seize control</a> of private companies, engage in <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/06/court.domestic.spying/index.html" target="_blank">domestic espionage</a>...<br /><br />And, while he's doing all this, the president is also supposed to act as an <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/03/obama_makes_surprise_trip_to_r.html" target="_blank">example for our children</a>, spokesman to the world, spiritual leader and national <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/denmark.olympics.obama/index.html" target="_blank">recruiter for international sporting events</a>.<br />As Gene Healy, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Updated-Dangerous-Executive/dp/193399519X" target="_blank"><i>The Cult of the Presidency</i></a>, put it:<br /><blockquote>The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He--or she--is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.</blockquote>This is insanity, of course. Only a thoroughgoing egomaniac could even want such an impossible job. Which may be why we get the presidents we've been getting.<br /><br />It wasn't supposed to be this way. The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html" target="_blank">Constitution</a> mentions the presidency only <i>after</i> describing the powers and structure of Congress. While urging the adoption of that document, James Madison assured Americans in <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed48.asp" target="_blank">Federalist Number 48</a>, " the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power." Presidents before Woodrow Wilson didn't even dare deliver the State of the Union address to Congress in person, fearing that was a <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php" target="_blank">bit too monarchical</a>.<br /><br />The presidency didn't assume its current, monstrous, proportions through a coup. It gained greater power and prestige, slowly at first, and then rapidly through the twentieth century. Frankly, many Americans seem to <i>like</i> it that way, preferring a king to a president when all is said and done.<br /><br />Maybe, deep down, most humans like doffing their caps and quaking in the presence of a mighty chieftain. Hiring and firing temporary administrators just isn't sufficiently majestic.<br /><br />So enjoy your Presidents Day/Washington's Birthday. Just don't get carried away with the celebration.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4000385485615610536?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-76253738624192220732010-02-08T07:37:00.000-08:002010-02-08T07:40:19.399-08:00Audi, the Schindler of our eco-totalitarian futureIf you're like me, Audi's Green Police ad during yesterday's Superbowl was sort of a high point of creepiness -- and not just for its boomerific revival of a classic Cheap Trick song. No, the celebration of the <i>right</i> car purchase -- a "clean diesel" -- as a get-out-of jail-free card for a totalitarian eco-state sort of ruined car shopping for you while also hinting a bit too strongly at the direction in which the world is inching in its intolerant, lemming-like way.<br /><br />Our friends in Britain already have to worry about government snoops <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216680/Council-spies-dressed-hoodies-rifle-residents-rubbish-waste-analysis.html" target="_blank">pawing through their garbage </a>and <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece" target="_blank">forcing their way onto private property</a> to make sure residents of that unfortunate country are separating their glass from their plastic and doing business in officially approved ways. Maybe ... just maybe ... we're not that far off from the day when buying the the "correct" brand will count as a pass at roadblocks staffed by armed recycling fanatics.<br /><br />I guess the only question is whether Audi thinks this potential Brave New fluorescently lit World is a <i>good</i> thing, or whether the company is warning us that it, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/" target="_blank">Schindler-like</a>, is our only hope.<br /><br />The <strike>Audi advertisement</strike> glimpse of our eco-conscious (or else) future is below.<br /><br /><object height="263" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wq58zS4_jvM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wq58zS4_jvM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="263"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-7625373862419222073?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-937385619840966873.post-48182759200750893782010-02-05T07:45:00.000-08:002010-02-05T08:02:28.092-08:00I can see clearly now (my light bulbs are gone)Who doesn't like being bossed around and told what to do -- for our own good, of course? Take, for example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs" target="_blank">incandescent light bulbs</a>. Already banned in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6378161.stm" target="_blank">Australia</a> in favor of more energy-efficient alternatives -- in particular, compact fluorescent lamps (cfl) -- traditional light bulbs are also on their way out in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-bulb.html" target="_blank">Europe</a> and due to be <a href="http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html">banned in the United States</a> starting in 2012.<br /><br />Nevermind that the more-expensive bulbs deliver cost-savings to users only if people change their light-using habits and leave lamps on for relatively uninterrupted periods (Britain's <i>Daily Telegraph</i> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/6122459/Lifespan-of-energy-saving-bulbs-reduced-by-repeated-switching.html" target="_blank">reported</a> in September 2009 that "[t]he lifespan of energy-saving light bulbs can be reduced by up to 85 per cent if they are switched off and on too often.")<br /><br />Nevermind that the new mercury-laden bulbs have to be <a href="http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/index.htm" target="_blank">disposed of <i>carefully</i></a>.<br /><br />And nevermind that some people just don't like the light the damned things throw and would rather stick with the tried-and-true old bulbs. We've all been drafted into the latest social crusade to save energy.<br /><br />Well ... Maybe some of us <i>don't</i> like being bossed around.<br /><br /><i>Reason</i>'s Nick Gillespie has an interesting take on the world-wide Noble (whether you like it or not) Light Bulb Experiment below.<br /><br /><object height="263" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hojEjXnuYxA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hojEjXnuYxA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="263"></embed></object><br /><br />And beware this (tongue-in-cheek) warning from the future: "<a _fcksavedurl="http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2010/02/05/future-headline-boy-7-in-critical-condition-after-light-bulb-raid/print/" href="http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2010/02/05/future-headline-boy-7-in-critical-condition-after-light-bulb-raid/print/" target="_blank">Boy, 7, in critical condition after light bulb raid</a>."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/937385619840966873-4818275920075089378?l=www.tuccille.com%2Fblog' alt='' /></div>J.D. Tuccillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11090102465618653590noreply@blogger.com4