Minor Thoughts from me to you

A new article posted on the website of my favorite news magazine, The Economist, wonders whether the International Monetary Fund's new managing director, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, can save the organization from its slide into irrelevancy.

"The organisation’s legitimacy is under increasing attack. Fast-growing emerging economies feel under-represented in an institution where Europe and America still hold sway. Even more worrying, there is a big question-mark over the Fund’s relevance. Its role in rich countries has long been modest. But ten years ago it was at the centre of emerging-market financial crises, acting as the world’s financial fireman. Now that many emerging economies have built up vast stashes of foreign-exchange reserves that role is dramatically diminished. And since the Fund’s income depends on its lending, growing financial irrelevance has also spawned a budget crunch."

What the magazine never bothers to do, however, is ask the more obvious question: If we are coming to live in a world in which there are no fires for the fireman to put out, is it actually a bad thing that the fireman's becoming irrelevant?

It's a little surprising that a news magazine willing to make the brave yet sensical suggestion that Belgium really needs to just go ahead and split into two separate countries lacks the proper perspective on such an issue as this. The main points of the article, to a sane reader, all combine to form a cause for celebration, not a call to action. The IMF was established as a lender to countries in need of money. Fewer countries now need money. The IMF is shrinking as a result. Good.

A better question than "How will the IMF save itself?" would be: should the day come when the IMF is simply not needed, will its administration have the character to kill itself?

Such a day is unfortunately far into the future, but it's a question The Economist, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, and others of their ilk probably should start rolling around their heads now. It would give them a better sense of place, and remind them that organizations are not values in and of themselves.

Even the King is under the law. That's one of the fundamental ideas behind the British and American system of government. No one in power -- not the king, not the president, not the judges -- is allowed to break the law.

That idea has a strong corollary: those who enforce the law are also under the law. After all, who is the king if not the chief enforcer of the law? And if the king is under the law, shouldn't those who work for him also be under the law?

That's why I reacted with anger and outrage when I saw this site. Cops Writing Cops - Where's the Professional Courtesy? Law Enforcement and Police Officers help each other.

This is a site for officers getting traffic tickets that ANY normal civilian could get a warning on, verbal or written. This is a site for cops, about cops, and designed by cops. Needless to say, we are fed up with hearing about this and think something should be done. There's always another ticket down the street. We are all family and maybe someday you may need one of us to get out of our car and save your sorry ass. But odds are you're the cop that doesn't do anything to begin with.

If you are a police officer, trooper, court officer, correction officer, telecommunicator, highway patrol, federal agent, or any other type of police (peace) officer either full-time, part-time or retired that has been disrespected or insulted by another police agency (officer) by not receiving some sort of professional courtesy, please email staff (at) copswritingcops.com with the information.

They have all kinds of nifty features like "DICKS OF THE MONTH", dedicated to exposing cops who have the absolute gall to actually write up another cop for breaking the law. Personally, I think that feature should be renamed "HEROS OF THE MONTH".

The entire idea that cops -- by virtue of their job -- should be immune from "minor" tickets is utterly offensive. They shouldn't be granted special privileges just because their job has a certain element of danger. Despite what they seem to think, they are civilians just like the rest of us. They are no more or no less under the law as a result of enforcing the law.

Many people believe we live in a Christian society. Well, the Bible had some pretty specific things to say about treating everyone justly.

[esvbible reference="Deuteronomy 16:19" header="on" format="block"]Deuteronomy 16:19[/esvbible]

These officers aren't accepting bribes, but they sure are showing partiality. That never works out well for society.

[esvbible reference="Proverbs 11:1" header="on" format="block"]Proverbs 11:1[/esvbible]

A false balance: sometimes traders would have one scale to measure goods and money for friends and another (false) scale to measure goods and money for people they didn't know. What better way to cheat somebody? These officers are cheating society by using one standard for "brothers" and another, harsher, standard for everyone else.

[esvbible reference="Proverbs 20:10" header="on" format="block"]Proverbs 20:10[/esvbible]

I don't like that kind of a double standard. And neither does God. Non-Christian officers aren't expected to follow God's standards -- they're not His, after all. But Christian officers had better beware if this is the standard of justice that they're using.

You don't own your car unless the government allows you to. If I were you, I'd avoid driving through Rockford, Illinois anytime soon.

TheAgitator.com: Turn It Up, Lose Your Car: Comments

A new Rockford, Illinois law allows police to seize the automobiles of owners who play their stereos too loud. But it gets worse:

There is no requirement that a police officer responding to a complaint objectively measure sound levels with electronic equipment or even personally witness an alleged offense. Instead, the ordinance states that "hearsay evidence shall be admissible" and that property will be seized upon the assertion of probable cause.

The only way to protest the seizure is to prove you weren't driving your car at the time virtually anyone could have lodged a complaint against you. But look at what you have to go through to get it back:

If a motorist believes his car has been unlawfully towed on a Friday after 5pm, he may challenge the taking by "depositing a written request for a hearing in the silver drop box located behind city hall," according to the ordinance. The city must then respond by the following Wednesday. If the registered owner was not driving at the time the car was taken, he will be mailed a letter within ten days. After this time he is given less than fifteen days to request a hearing. The city may then wait another 45 days to schedule a hearing while storage fees accumulate up to $1100.

A hearing officer designated by Rockford will decide under a preponderance of evidence standard whether it is likely the motorist is guilty, in which case the hearing officer's employers will collect the fine and fee revenue from the motorist. If the vehicle's owner does not receive the mailed notice or cannot pay the fees within 30 days, the city will confiscate the vehicle permanently.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Do you think that still applies? I don't. Not when a family can have their car seized and held by the police, before anyone was even convicted of a crime.

Take this story, for example.

The Chicago Sun-Times tells the story of Erasmo Palacios, who, after dropping off his six-year-old daughter at school, was with his wife Rocio and their 22-year-old daughter, all on their way to breakfast when they saw a woman waving her arms. Thinking she was in distress, they approached her in the car, at which point...

...the woman approached their car, parked outside Manolo’s restaurant, leaned in to the passenger side where Rocio was sitting and asked Erasmo if he wanted oral sex for $20 or sex for $25.

The couple laughed, realizing this wasn't a woman in distress after all.

But within seconds, Chicago police swarmed the family car, hauling Erasmo Palacios out in handcuffs. He was charged with solicitation of a prostitute.

His daughter, who had just run in to exchange her coffee for a hot chocolate, screamed, while his wife cried in fear.

Eight hours later, Palacios, who has no criminal record, was released from custody. And weeks later, charges against him were dropped.

The police report improbably charged that Palacios solicited sex from the undercover officer, even as his wife sat in the passenger seat, and his daughter was on her way out from getting a beverage. Makes you wonder how many men have been wrongfully arrested for solicitation who didn't have their wives and daughters nearby to vouch for them. Also makes those websites cities put up posting mugshots of suspected (not convicted) johns all the more invidious.

The punchline: Though the charges were dropped, the city seized the family's car under laws allowing the forfeiture of automobiles used in the solicitation of prostitutes. The city won't return the car until the Palacios pay $4,700 in towing and storage fees.

I've surely got be the world's worst blogger, to have yet written nothing here on Minor Thoughts about the recent kidnapping (and release) of twenty-three Korean missionaries in Afghanistan.

After all, not only have Joe and I always given over the majority of our attention here to politics, economics, and that portion of God's kingdom which extends onto this Earth, the Church, but (a) I personally am living in South Korea right now and (b) have relatives of my own living in Afghanistan. Throw in my own associations with a number of missionaries and one might justly suspect, considering I am that obnoxious kind of people perfectly willing to offer his unsolicited opinion on just about anything, that the hostage situation would receive at least a mention.

But during such crises, there's very little one lone lil' blogger can say that isn't being said everywhere else. The very point of the blog-o-sphere (that's still what the kids are calling it these days, right? I told you I'm out of touch) is, after all, the opportunity it presents to receive alternative perspectives generally unavailable from the mass media - that is, we no longer need to be told by news corporations what your typical man on the street thinks, because the man on the street is basically running his own newspaper, and what he thinks is sometimes far more interesting than previously reported, even if his presentation is inferior. Republican radio shows in the U.S. became popular for the same reason.

The aftermath of the Korean hostage situation suggests far more interesting questions.

That's 'cause, as Reuters has recently noted, the nineteen Korean missionaries recently released by Afghani terrorists haven't exactly received a hero's welcome home. Oh, the Korean people are glad their brothers and sisters are safe, sure, but they still have a bone to pick; their complaint is that twenty-two people foolishly put themselves in an extremely dangerous situation and as a result, Korea itself (and the Afghani reconstruction effort) paid the price - being forced (a debatable term, yes) to deal with terrorists to insure their recovery.

"This crisis [has] raised grave questions about the divide between the country's responsibility and the responsibility of individuals," JoongAng Ilbo, a large Korean newspaper, has grimly muttered.

Indeed it has - but they're questions with fairly obvious answers. As countries all over the world have embraced populism and rejected (if only rhetorically, in many cases) the concept of absolute rule by the few, the notion has naturally evolved that any citizen - and not just royal and government officials - who gets in trouble overseas deserves rescue by his or her government.

On any sensible review, however, that's a ridiculous premise. First of all, making all men equal, one must remember, does not always mean elevating every man to the level of importance once accorded kings; often it means simply knocking the kings themselves down a few pegs, to a lower level on par with their brothers and sisters. Nation-states of old paid high ransoms for captured kings and the like because the citizens of those nation-states believed those people were divinely chosen to rule, or simply were gods themselves. If someone captures a god, it's important to the whole country to get him or her back. The disappearance of one man who knowingly left the safety of his country for private reasons is far less worth negotiations with extremists, especially when those negotations may have real consequences for every other citizen of his country (Koreans are now banned from entering Afghanistan; all of them have lost their freedom to travel there on any business).

Of course, any government employee sent into a foreign country by his or her superiors should rightfully expect as much assistance as possible, should trouble come; such officials are their fellow citizens' official representatives, speaking (or killing, or whatever) in their name. But missionaries arrive at their destinations as representatives only of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Let men and women such as the captured Koreans go forth and spread the Gospel, then, but let them not burden their brothers and sisters - who asked for no part in the holy mission - with the fallout from their actions. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is no compelling reason today why the kidnapping of any citizen should lead to negotiations with the kidnappers. No person is worth it.

Nor can the government - and by extension, every citizen in a country - afford to clean up after the missteps of those who voluntarily risk themselves for religious, political, or personal reasons. Logically, the adoption of that unfair weight should not even be a consideration; it's a mismatch with any government's purpose, which is to supervise the specific, limited geographic area in which its citizens reside.

This brings us to a second point, which is an answer to the obvious moral appeal: "But isn't any life worth saving, even if it's costly, and even if the person brought it on himself or herself? What, should a government just leave someone to die?"

Well, leaving aside the evident fact that many lives would probably not be in such danger if their governments didn't keep negotiating with kidnappers, the harsh but just responses are "no" and "Why should that be the government's job?". We make decisions concerning how much a life is worth every day; if we lowered every speed limit in America to 5MPH, we'd have a lot less traffic-related death, but nobody suggests it would be worth it. And why should the government, charged with representing the interests of all, allow its policies for all to be swerved because of an unnecessary risk knowingly taken on by one of its citizens?

Korea's caving in to terrorist demands was a mistake, as are the preventative measures it's introduced in hopes of never seeing the situation repeated.

The line between personal and national responsibility should be clear: it's the border line.

Toy manufacturers want to regulate toys coming into the United States, looking for dangerous materials like lead paint. But what's the real cause of dangerous toys?

Design flaws, not Chinese manufacturing problems, are the cause of the vast majority of American toy recalls over the last two decades, according to a new study by two Canadian professors.

The study, which looked at toy-recall data going back to 1988, showed that some 76 percent of the recalls in that period involved design flaws that could result in hazards like choking or swallowing small parts, while 10 percent were caused by manufacturing flaws, like excessive levels of lead paint.

The study, written by Hari Bapuji, a professor at the Asper School of Business at the University of Manitoba and Paul W. Beamish, from the Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, suggests that while China's manufacturing troubles were a serious problem, toy companies needed to take more responsibility for the growing number of recalls.

"I'm not saying there is no problem with Chinese manufacturing," Professor Bapuji said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I'm just saying there is a bigger problem with designs."

Sounds like regulation wouldn't help nearly as much as the big companies want you to think it would. But it would still hurt their competitors plenty.

Needless to say, I'm still opposed to the idea.

Mattel, Hasbro, and Lego have figured out how to use the government to hurt their competitors. They'll ask for more government regulation.

Acknowledging a growing crisis of public confidence caused by a series of recent recalls, the nation's largest toy makers have taken the unusual step of asking the federal government to impose mandatory safety-testing standards for all toys sold in the United States.

The toy manufacturers, of course, claim that they're only doing this in the interests of public safety and in reassuring the public before the Christmas shopping season. Of course, they're might be another reason.

Instead, companies would be required to hire independent laboratories to check a certain portion of their toys, whether made in the United States or overseas. Leading toy companies already do such testing, but industry officials acknowledge that it has not been enough.

... Small companies that currently do little or no testing would be required to pay for testing as well.

So, the large companies already do testing. Recent events have proven that testing isn't always enough to catch dangerous toys. No matter. They'll use the cover of recent events to force their smaller competitors to pay for testing as well. This won't necessarily do anything to improve the safety of toys, but it will do a lot to raise the manufacturing costs (and retail prices) of toys from their competitors.

How clever.

You know, if Mattel, Hasbro, and Lego believe in stronger testing, they could start doing it all by themselves, without the force of the federal government behind them. They could then run an intensive ad campaign talking about their new testing system and what they're doing to make their toys safe for children. This would accomplish their stated goals, they wouldn't have to wait for the government to act, and they could probably increase sales as well.

But it wouldn't hurt their smaller competitors like government regulation would. So, they won't do it. Government regulation -- it's just another way to say "legal mugging".

More than two years after Hurricane Katrina, much of New Orleans still lays in ruins. There are those that would blame that on the federal government. They are the same people that blame President Bush for their uncut lawns and unweeded gardens.

Instead, there are two things to consider: one, where are the local leaders who should be stepping up and rebuilding; two, should New Orleans be rebuilt?

There are some leaders stepping up in the city, but they're not from the government.

In Waveland, Mississippi, for example, the manager of the local Wal-Mart worked with the company's corporate officials to open a store under a tent in the parking lot, then later opened a convenient, easily accessible "Wal-Mart Express"-the first-ever store of its type-designed especially for post-Katrina Mississippi.

Down the road in Bay St. Louis, I spoke with resident Alicia Cool, who told me she reopened her flower shop because "without business you can't have people wanting to come back and stay here." Despite the devastation all around her, her perseverance paid off. Her sales went through the roof.

One example is Doris Voitier, the superintendent of the St. Bernard Parish Schools. Voitier became something of a local hero when she realized that functional schools were critical to getting residents to move back to the parish. She decided she'd figure out a way to open them, bureaucracy be damned. ... For her heroic efforts to reopen her schools, Voitier would later be investigated for misappropriation of federal property.

Neighborhood associations are a good example. LaToya Cantrell, who by day works for an education non-profit, turned the 75-year old Broadmoor Improvement Association into a leading example of how to organize a neighborhood to rebuild. ... The neighborhood association wants to open a charter school in an abandoned school building. The parish school board, fighting further the decay of its authority, is doing everything it can to prevent them.

Get the government out of New Orleans and residents might be able to accomplish more. But we should also ask whether it's even worth rebuilding New Orleans.

The Democratic debate over the future of New Orleans somehow passed over the instructive example of Valmeyer, Ill. In 1993, the town of 900 was swamped, not for the first time, by a rain-swollen Mississippi River. It hasn't been swamped since, because it's not there anymore. Rather than remain in a vulnerable spot, the residents voted to relocate their village to a bluff 400 feet above the river.

But no one wants to suggest similar discretion in Louisiana.

The cost of the levee system envisioned by Sen. Clinton is tabbed at $40 billion. Restoring other infrastructure would increase the cost. The question is whether that's the best use of our resources. For $40 billion, you could give more than $61,000 to every Louisianan displaced by Katrina -- nearly a quarter of a million dollars for a family of four.

Here's the question that ought to be considered: Would those people prefer that the money be spent shoring up dikes around a natural lake? Or would they rather get the money themselves and decide whether to stay or migrate to less soggy terrain?

Living in soggy terrain is expensive. It's expensive to keep out the water and it's expensive to rebuild after the water forces its way in. Many residents are finally starting to see that cost.

The extensive damage done by the storms of 2005 has sharply raised the cost of homeowners' insurance in the region, for those who can find a policy at all. Those costs have become a major impediment to recovery.

"It makes it very difficult for people, particularly those of marginal means, who want to come back, to rebuild," said Lawrence Ponoroff, the dean of the Tulane University School of Law here. "It is very tough on institutions and on attracting new business to the area."

The higher premiums have made buying a house -- or selling one -- here more difficult, said Lynda Nugent Smith, who has been selling real estate here for 34 years. "All of a sudden your insurance goes from $2,000 a year to $6,000 a year," Ms. Smith said. "It's just that cherry on top that makes the whole pile of ice cream and whipped cream fall over."

New Orleans residents should make the decision to stay or go for themselves. But they should do so with a full understanding of the costs and risks inherent in staying. It is not the responsibility of the other 49 states in the Union to rebuild New Orleans every time it floods. Nor is it a constitutional right to live in a flood plain and have your home rebuilt each time it floods.

I'm glad to see local leaders stepping up and helping to bring life back to New Orleans. They're proving their commitment to the city by working on the city. But I'm also glad to see insurance prices rising. Those that stay in the city should bear the costs of doing so, not push those costs onto you and me. Insurance is just a way of making those costs visible. It would be criminal to attempt to hide those costs or force others to shoulder them.

It used to be that DUI citations were given out for actually driving while under the influence of alcohol. Increasingly, they're being given out for simply being "under the influence". This strikes me as a gross violation of civil liberties. Since when did it become illegal to simply have alcohol in your system?

The first story comes from Hamburg, New Jersey.

A New Jersey appellate court yesterday upheld the principle that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can be imposed on individuals who were not driving. David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him. The officer had opened the door of Montalvo's truck to rouse the man and insist that he take a breathalyzer test. Montalvo refused.

For his attempt to follow the law and drive responsibly, David Montalvo now owes the city more than $4000, plus legal fees. Punishing people for doing the right thing in an effort to motivate them to do the right thing. I think New Jersey has discovered an entirely new principle of human behavior.

Next up, Rochester New Hampshire. Dover man arrested for taping his DWI investigation

A 48-year-old Chestnut Street man was arrested early this morning for wiretapping for allegedly recording police while they were investigating him for driving while intoxicated.

Police say they were patrolling the downtown area at 2:54 a.m. when they discovered Christopher A. Power of 52 Chestnut St. sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle with its motor running at the Rochester Common.

After speaking with Power, police began investigating him for driving while intoxicated and arrested him. During the arrest an audio recording device was discovered.

Not only is it apparently illegal to sit in a parked car while alcohol is in your blood, it's also illegal to record police in the performance of their duties.

Err, since when? They work for the public, in the public good. Shouldn't the public be allowed to monitor that that's actually what they're doing? What are the police trying to hide? I thought the government line was that only criminals should be afraid of surveillance. Are the New Hampshire police hiding something?

Panel Votes to Allow Regulation of Cigarettes - New York Times

A Senate committee approved legislation that would allow federal regulation of cigarettes for the first time.

Bravo for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. There's just one little problem. Regardless of how long I pore over Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, I can't find anything granting Congress the power to regulate cigarettes. Nor do I found -- anywhere in the Constitution -- anything granting Congress the authority to grant itself more authority.

Quite the contrary. The Constitution grants Congress a very limited, specific, and well-defined list of powers.

If Congress does ultimately start regulating cigarettes, who's disobeying the law? Those that ignore the new regulations or the Congress that illegally passed the regulations in the first place?

Do you feel safe about taking a flight? Do you think that another 9/11 style attack couldn't possibly succeed? Do the TSA regulations and onerous security procedures make you feel safer? If they do, they shouldn't. We're just as much at risk as we were six years ago.

Hot Air > Blog Archive > A Pilot on Airline Security

At this moment, there are roughly 5000 commercial airliners in the skies above you. There will be 28,000 flights today, and 840,000 in the next month -- every month. The U.S. fleet consists of some 6000 aircraft -- almost all of which will be parked unattended tonight at a public airport. We will carry almost 7 billion passengers this year, the number increasing to 10 billion by 2010, barring an exogenous event like another 9/11.

There is simply no deployable technology that has a prayer of keeping a motivated, prepared terrorist out of the system every time -- even most times. TSA misses more than 90% of detectable weapons at passenger checkpoints in their own tests, and it is not their fault, because of the limitations of technology and the number of inspections they must conduct. This doesn't count several classes of completely undetectable weapons like composite knives and liquid explosives.

What is TSA's fault is their abject failure to embrace more robust approaches than high visibility inspections, and their accommodations to the Air Transport Association's revenue interests at the expense of true security, while largely ignoring the recommendations of the front-line airline crews and air marshals who have no direct revenue agenda and are much more familiar with airline operations than are the bureaucrats (remember government ignoring the front-line FBI agents who tried to warn them about 9/11?). Deplorable amounts of money have been wasted on incomprehensible security strategies, while KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid] methods proven to work have been ignored.

...

Almost six years after 9/11, it is inexcusable that -- in an environment where TSA misses more than 90% of weapons, RON aircraft are not secured, and ground employees are not screened -- fewer than 2% of our airliners have a team of armed pilots aboard, fewer than 5% have air marshals, and the flight attendants have no mandatory tactical or behavioral assessment training. $24 billion dollars later, we are not materially safer, except in the areas of intelligence that prevent an attack from getting to an airport. Once at the airport, there is little reason to believe the attack won't succeed.

...

I know I've gotten pretty far afield of your topic, but I want to give you the sense that RON aircraft are just one small piece of a multilayered security system wherein every layer leaks like a sieve. The problem is much, much bigger than any single element.

In the end, we should be starting with defending the smallest spaces -- the cockpits and cargo compartments, and working outward to the limits of our resources; instead of starting with the airport perimeter and working inward, ignoring the actual defense of those spaces that are actually the terrorist targets. And we should be using the resources already in place to the greatest extent possible, instead of trying to bring new, untried methods into play, then waiting to find out they don't work nearly as well in reality as they do on paper.

Given that Congress regulates air travel and air security, you can blame them for that. Just one more reason Congress has earned its 14% approval rating.

If you want to demand change, the issues raised in this article would be a great place to start.

Congratulations, you paid off your mortgage. Do you really think that you own your home now? Actually, you don't. Sorry. The government can still find ways to take it away from you.

That's what Kermit and Dolores Atwood discovered .

Proponents for NFL retiree benefits get say before Congress

Advocates demanding improved benefits to retired NFL players will have their say Tuesday before Congress.

Increased attention the past few years about the medical and financial plight of some former players finally prompted Congress to look at the perceived problem. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing Tuesday at the Rayburn House Office Building.

I must have missed the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that gave Congress oversight of the NFL. How is this any of their business? I get that NFL retirees have a lot of medical and financial problems. I just don't get where Congress has the responsibility to fix it. That responsibility properly rests with the NFL.

The players union is pretty powerful, the league is rich, and the league loves to have a squeaky clean image. Let the league take care of the problem.

If you'd as recently as yesterday pitched me a story told through diary entries about love between two citizens of a collectivist government set in the distant future - a future in which the very word "I" is no longer remembered - I would have naturally assumed you were talking about Ayn Rand's Anthem, a novella she published in 1938.

As it turns out, the premise and general thrust of the book was undoubtedly pulled from another novel, written and published in Soviet Russia fully six years before Ayn Rand herself would immigrate from the USSR to America: We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

I discovered this by accident; I was flipping through my mother's copy of a book entitled 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, skimming the chronologically-listed entries, when I stumbled upon We's description:

"We is a prototypical dystopian novel... The novel consists of a series of diary entries by D-503, a mathematician and a thoroughly orthodox citizen of the authoritarian, futuristic state to which he belongs. The diary sets out as a celebration of state doctrine, which dictates that happiness, order, and beauty can be found only in unfreedom, in the cast-iron tenets of mathematical logic and of absolute power. As the diary and novel continue, D-503 comes under the subversive influence of a beautiful dissident... He finds himself drawn towards... the anarchism of a private love. He no longer identifies with 'we'..."

The writer of the entry declares it "not a straightforward denunciation of communism, but a moving, blackly comic examination of the contradictions between freedom and happiness that state socialism produces."

The parallels to Anthem are obvious and too close to be coincidence, especially considering the two respective authors hail from the same country. And I'm not, as it turns out, the only one who's noticed; [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella) lists the similarities and differences between the two.

The question is of course begged, then, as to whether those similarities listed constitute a case of plagiarism. Ms. Rand being my favorite modern author for the last decade, I'm certainly biased, but my general understanding of creativity leads me to answer in the negative. Beginning from the same premise as an already-published work, even knowingly, is not plagiarism if a story proceeds to explore different possibilities allowed for by that base. This, even Wikipedia agrees Rand does.

Really, Rand couldn't help but do so; We _is a story about Collectivism gone as far as it can possibly go, but its conclusions as to where "as far as it can possibly go" is don't mesh with Rand's own beliefs. _We involves a society's evolution to the point of colonizing new planets; Rand cannot imagine that a collectivist state would ultimately result in anything but a new age of barbarism, so the collectivists of her Anthem are, many centuries after their ancestors built skyscrapers, technologically capable of manufacturing only candles. We is a comedy; Anthem is clearly frustrated, even enraged. We declares communism to be reasonable but ultimately monstrous; Anthem objects that there is anything reasonable in communism. Finally, We results in the protagonist's "reeducation", which is to say his demise; Anthem results in his triumph.

This last detail should not be overlooked as simply an arbitrary difference in plot. Involving any other two writers, it very well could be taken as such, but an important principle of Rand's Objectivist philosophy is the impotency of evil. The triumph of the hero in her books is a statement regarding the nature of the universe, which she believed "benevolent" (the only exclusion being her character Kira in We The Living, who's controversial death still makes Rand's followers uncomfortable).

Both books are anti-collectivist and involve several sci-fi propositions, but each proclaims a very different worldview - justification a-plenty for two separate stories.

Or even more, maybe, because I learned one more surprising fact from Wikipedia today when I looked up the book; _Anthem _entered the public domain in 1966, after Ms. Rand failed to renew its copyright.

Anybody have a good idea for an Anthem-based story?

A few days ago, I wrote about government regulators preventing progress. You may be interested in another example.

My mother was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. By itself this fact is not particularly exciting. But, when I was younger, I learned about the burning Cuyahoga River. Once I realized what had happened, I never lost an opportunity to tease my mother about her hometown.

Recently, I learned the rest of the story. It turns out that excessive government regulation bears a large amount of the blame for the fire.

Incomes were rising and concern about industrial wastes was mounting. Pollutants were corroding sewage treatment systems and impeding their operation. In another part of the state, the Ohio River Sanitation Commission, representing the eight states that border the Ohio River (which runs along Ohio's southern border), developed innovations to reduce pollution. The municipalities and the industries along the Ohio began to invest in pollution control technology.

Unfortunately, this progress soon ended. The evolving common law and regional compacts hit a snag in 1951 when the state of Ohio created the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board. The authorizing law sounded good to the citizens of Ohio. It stated that it is "unlawful" to pollute any Ohio waters. However, the law continues: ". . . except in such cases where the water pollution control board has issued a valid and unexpired permit."(3)

The board issued or denied permits depending on whether the discharger was located on an already-degraded river classified as "industrial use" or on trout streams classified as "recreational use." Trout streams were preserved; dischargers were allowed to pollute industrial streams. The growing tendency of the courts to insist on protecting private rights against harm from pollution was replaced by a public decision-making body that allowed pollution where it thought it was appropriate.

Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes, who helped draw attention to the Cuyahoga fire, criticized the state for letting industries pollute. "We have no jurisdiction over what is dumped in there. . . . The state gives [industry] a license to pollute," the Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted him as saying (June 24, 1969). Stokes was not far off the mark.

...

In sum, the Cuyahoga fire, which burns on in people's memory as a symbol of industrial indifference, should also be viewed as a symbol of the weaknesses of public regulation.

It's worth reading the whole thing, if only to see what I left out.

Regulation will always be "captured" by those who have a vested interest in the regulations. Rather than strictly controlling an industry, the regulatory agency will soon be controlled by the industry. This is what is happening (has happened) to the FDA and this is what contributed to the Cuyahoga River fire.

Whatever you do, don't put your faith in a regulatory agency. It will only let you down.

Quick -- how do you increase the wealth of a nation and improving living standards for everyone? I'll tell you how. First, create a stable system of laws that apply to everyone and make sure that everyone knows what they are. This creates a level playing field where neither income nor social status prevent justice from being served.

Second, allow individuals to produce goods and compete for buyers in a free and open market. Producers will compete for buyers through price, quality, and quantity. Producers will diligently strive to gain in edge in one -- or all -- of these categories, in an effort to draw more buyers and earn more profit. As each producer gains a temporary edge, other producers will rush to imitate the innovation. What starts as an innovation by one producer will quickly become the norm for an entire industry.

This cycle will repeat over and over and over again in each sector of the market. Electronics (iPod vs Zune), automobiles (American vs Japanese), furniture (getting nicer all the time), homes (getting bigger all the time), lighting (incandescent bulbs vs compact fluorescents), and more. What once was inconceivable quickly becomes the new base line standard.

At least, that's the way things normally work. Every so often, a spanner gets thrown into the works. The story of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef provides a nice illustration.

The U.S. Agriculture Department tests beef for mad cow disease. However, the USDA has a limited budget and Americans eat a lot of cows every year. As a result, less than 1% of all slaughtered beef is actually tested for mad cow disease. Creekstone Farms sells a premium grade of beef. They'd like to offer buyers another incentive to choose their beef over their competitors. They decided to gain a competitive edge by testing all of their beef for mad cow disease and certifying every cut mad-cow-free.

This would have given Creekstone Farms a decided advantage in the market for premium beef. Their competitors were worried about losing buyers to Creekstone. Rather than compete with their own innovations, they lobbied the USDA to crack down on Creekstone's innovation. The USDA ruled that no beef producer could perform more testing than the U.S. government performed.

Creekstone is fighting the ruling in court, for their right to innovate and compete in a free market.

For the moment, the forward progress of wealth and living standards has been stopped by the U.S. government. Companies that would rather lobby than innovate control the regulatory system. Do you still believe that government regulation makes the world a better place? I don't.

(Hat tip to Coyote Blog.)

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from a friend:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I know the liberals are screaming over this ... and I understand why -- but please for the love of god explain to me why this is in ANY WAY good from your point of view. Yes yes, I know easier way to help in situations of disaster, but I can see this being overly abused, how should one branch of the gov't be able to completely over rule every other branch - it just seems ripe for abuse! My tin foil hat is buzzing.... please prove me wrong.

Glady.

A quick trip the Democratic Underground ("Because we can't function above ground") and Daily Kos ("We're nuts, so you don't have to be") revealed that liberals are certainly buzzing over the new National Continuity Policy. Apparently, they're afraid that Bush will use any "emergency" -- big or small -- to declare himself a dictator.

Let me give you a preview of the first thirty minutes of the Bush dictatorship:

10:00am: My fellow Americans, to ensure the successful functioning of the U.S. government through 2009 and beyond, I am pleased to announce that I will be continuing as President indefinitely.

10:05am: Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill of impeachment against President George Walker Bush, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Wherefore he is ignoring the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stated...

10:07am: The Bill of Impeachment passes, by a vote of 400-35.

10:12am: The Senate will now convene to hear the case of the People of the United States vs George Walker Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts...

10:20am: The Bill of Impeachment is sustained by a vote of 95-5...

10:30am: Mr. President, as Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it gives me great pleasure to arrest you for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it, crisis averted. Does anyone seriously believe that men and women of the United States Armed Forces would support a President who ignored the Constitution in such a blatant manner? Or that Congress would ignore a dramatic usurpation of their rights and powers? Even the Republicans in Congress would be falling over themselves to condemn such a move.

For more on why the Kos Kids and DU nuts shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, read on.

The Continuity of Operations Plan is designed to ensure that the American government can continue to operate in the event that the government is decapitated. We have had such a plan, in one form or another, since the end of World War II. Earlier this month, the Bush administration decided to revise the existing plan. Here's the relevant snippet from the end of the COOP:

Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

In other words, the plan that the Clinton administration established is going to be replaced by the Bush administration's plan. The Clinton plan supplanted the Bush '41 plan, which supplanted the Reagan plan. No big deal here.

Now, for the specifics.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President

This is a change. Formerly, the effort was coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Here's why one of the Kos Kids is worried:

So like I said, am I over reacting? Never said this was gospel. Some say yes, some so say, personally I am not a Constitutional Law lawyer, and wording in this directive just seemed oddly vague. And vague directives can lead to some pretty wild interpretations.

So can being off of your meds. Which seems to be the case here. Here's what the COOP says:

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator ... will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), ... The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

So, the directive is vague because it ain't the actual plan. The actual plan is still to come. This is just the outline of the project scope and requirements. Also, it's not like the Clinton plan was a model of specificity. It was just as vague. And the finished plan was never actually released to the American public either. This month's directive is just business as normal.

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So basically, when the next 9-11 or Katrina hits, the National Essential Functions goes into effect. But what about economy? Say the other international shoe drops and they change the petro dollar to the petro euro, does that count as a catastrophic emergency? What if China calls in our debt, does that count?

No, you dope. We've had one of these things for years. It's never gone into effect for such silly reasons before, even when we had gas lines and soaring inflation.

d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

So, another Class-5 hurricane comes to town, and this time it's looking at Miami, and snarling. This directive will go into effect.

Again, nope. This is a directive to ensure that we have a working government when the existing government has been decapitated. Hurricanes attacking Miami ain't gonna cut it.

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

The President will lead all three branches? Really? Sounds like an emperor to me. And if you don't think that this cleverly worded paragraph does not mean that, think about the latest antics of one Alberto Gonzales.

Come on, please. Coordinate means coordinate. Not rule. Somebody's gotta take the lead in coordinating and since the executive branch already has the day to day responsibility for managing the federal government, it only makes sense that they take the lead.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

That is just a little bit disturbing. To say the least.

Why? The government is most likely to be decapitated by a suitcase nuke, detonated in Washington D.C. Given that reality, it only makes sense that the APHS/CT be the National Continuity Coordinator.

As the Washington Post points out:

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order.

Not as the Democratic Underground thinks, taking out Congress. (Really guys, was the pharmacy out this week?)

I have to admit, I feel silly even responding to conspiracy theories this inane. But, you ask, I answer.

It looks like the State is getting behind the Wisconsin goat industry:

State officials are putting their support behind Wisconsin's growing goat industry.

About 260 farmers, processors, state officials and lenders are expected to attend a conference - "Focus on Goats: Milk and Meat Production in Wisconsin" - on Thursday in Barneveld.

... The program is an extension of the Grow Wisconsin Dairy project, which has put an emphasis on high-quality dairy products. "Goat cheeses and other goat products are really becoming more popular," [Jeanne Meier, a spokeswoman for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and a leader in the dairy goat initiative] said. "There's great demand in the U.S."

Based on the article, it sounds like the goat industry is really taking off. Lots of farmers have already made big money with goat cheese, goat millk, and goat meat. Many more farmers are eager to get into the industry. Here are the questions that the article raises in my mind: why does the State need to help out the goat industry? Why do Wisconsin tax payers need to pay for an already successful industry to become even more successful? At a time when Governor Doyle wants to tax the oil industry for being too successful, why is his administration paying for another industry to become more successful than it already is? At a time when the state faces a $1.6 billion deficit, why are we spending scarce tax dollars to help businessman who apparently don't need help?

Police officials in North Platte, Nebraska are moving dangerously close to an act of pure insanity:

In response to a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General about the dangers of second-hand smoke, local police officials report they are preparing to crack down on drivers who expose their children to second-hand smoke.

The report shows second-hand smoke is particularly harmful to young children whose developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Second-hand smoke can cause a number of life-threatening childhood illnesses such as asthma.

"With that in mind, we are researching to determine whether law enforcement has probable cause to arrest anyone exposing children to second-hand smoke inside a vehicle," Gutschenritter said. He added the police department is working with the county attorney to determine if smoking in a vehicle with children present would be considered child abuse.

Child abuse in Nebraska is punishable by a year in jail and / or a $1000 fine. Failing to buckle-up your child is punishable by a $25 fine.

Says Michael Siegel

Do you mean to tell me that to prevent the mere risk of some ear infections and respiratory infections, the Lincoln County Tobacco Coalition is willing to support the imprisonment of parents, removing them from their kids for a period of up to one year? You can't be serious. It is far more devastating, to be sure, for children to have a parent removed from them, than for the child to be at increased potential risk of an ear or upper respiratory infection.

There's no other way to put it. If the North Platte police department goes ahead with this, they will prove themselves to be complete idiots. Second-hand smoke is nowhere near as dangerous as these "experts" make it out to be. I should know. My parents are not smokers, but my aunt is. Some of my fondest childhood memories involving going outside with my aunt, while she smoked. She smoked while driving me around town on many occasions. My lungs have suffered no ill effects. Whatever risk of heart disease I may face is due to my weight -- not to her cigarettes.

It is (or should be) absolutely unbelievable that her behavior is worthy of either an immense fine or jail time. "The land of the free" is being destroyed by these hysterical public health "experts". How else do you describe a country where you have the freedom to do anything except for that which might possibly harm you in some ill-defined manner?

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens (supposedly a Republican) seems dedicated to wasting money -- he's setting aside Federal money for the development of baby food made from salmon. I'm not sure why this is a Federal issue. Millions of children have grown up without the benefit of baby food made from salmon. I do know that it's just one more wasteful use of my tax dollars. If you want to know why my wife and I complain about losing $600 a month to the Federal government -- this is one of those reasons.

Senator -- if you believe in the project so much, please put your own money into it. Don't put my money into it and then try to tell me that you're doing it for my own good.

(Hat tip to Radley Balko.)