Peace: "Not just another top-heavy bureaucratic organization..."

Saddam cheerleader and my district's Representative Jim McDermott has an op-ed today championing Dennis Kucinich's "Department of Peace" proposal.

Essentially, it's a catchall department for universal gun control, socialism, appeasement of foreign dictators, K-12 social engineering - things which apparently "represent[] the ideals on which this country was founded."

(That those "founding ideals" would no doubt come as a shock to the individual-liberty minded signers of the Declaration of Independence doesn't seem to interfere with any of this high-mindedness. I think Rep. McDermott could use a few more civics and history classes...)

Let's take a look at some of the more amusing/troubling highlights:

"In a world torn by conflict, I can't think of a better time, or a greater need, for America to act as a force for good at home and around the world."

By implication, of course, this means we haven't been a force for good either at home or abroad, at least not in recent memory. Riiight. If only we were as benevolent and helpful as France and Russia.

"The legislation, which I am co-sponsoring, would fund, support and coordinate programs already in existence -— in schools, prisons, police departments, educational institutions, charitable organizations and elsewhere -— that are proven to reduce domestic and international violence and enhance the security and health of all Americans."

Schools, prisons, police departments, educational institutions are Constitutionally the province of the states. The federal government already has far too heavy a hand in these plenary powers, and to what end? Success? Improvement? No! Why do we want MORE federal control? Does McDermott, who no doubt is among those fools who thinks Bush is basically Hitler without the dashing mustache, seriously want the President directly in charge of local police departments, schools, and prisons? And government funding and "coordination" of private charities means they aren't private charities any more. It's not like government will make them more efficient. No thanks.

"In my years as a congressman and as a physician in the U.S. military, I have recognized repeatedly that the interests of the one cannot triumph over the interests of the many; that the security concerns of the United States are best served by diplomacy and cooperation rather than brute force."

Yet another way to say, "interests of the one" is "individual liberty." Again, I think the founders would be shocked to discover that their founding ideals included stamping out individual interests. This is nothing more than a call to socialism. And rejecting "brute force" so completely requires the belief that we should have "cooperated" with Hitler. At least he didn't imply he's a Vietnam veteran this time.

"It will create a Peace Academy, on par with the Military Service Academies, to train civilian peacekeepers and the military in the latest nonviolent conflict-resolution strategies and approaches."

Ah, yes - because the UN's success with "peacekeepers" has been so profound. Is there a single example of them actually being successful without a prior military success? Maybe if we had a few Peace Academy graduates to try out their nonviolent conflict-resolution strategies on the animals slaughtering their countrymen in the Sudan, they'd be singing Kumbaya by the end of the year... The sight of a battalion of USPA graduates massing in great strategic drum circles is surely enough to bring dictators, warlords, wife beaters, and terrorists to their knees!

"I've learned there's something about the human spirit, about the spirit of Americans everywhere, that strives for cooperation rather than domination. We all yearn for peace, and for the prosperity that peace brings. We all yearn for a better world for our children and our children's children. We want for them the best education possible; health care that encompasses and embraces everyone; a retirement secure from the plagues and worries that come with inadequate income and support; a healthy environment; and a world freed from the horrors of war.

"By reducing the immense costs of violence both domestically and internationally, a U.S. Department of Peace will help secure these essentials. It will demonstrate to our citizens and to the world that the United States is committed to using its great strength in partnership with all peoples to work for, and champion, peace. And, it will provide a beacon of hope for everyone that the peace we yearn for is not an unachievable dream, but an obtainable reality."

All for just $8 Billion dollars. It's so easy! If only we had thought of it earlier. For $8 billion, we can have universal health care, fix Social Security, implement socialism, and eliminate war and crime forever! Brilliant! If only Bush wasn't standing in the way of this wisdom...

Unfortunately, many humans ARE motivated to dominate and conquer, not to "cooperate." The enemy we fight has no ambition to get along with Christians and Jews, they want us either converted, subjugated, or dead. The only way to achieve "peace" with a group with such ambitions is to kill them, scare them off, or surrender to them. I know which option I prefer. I think McDermott could save the $8 billion and simply surrender now. I'm sure his wife wouldn't mind "cooperating" by putting on a burqua. And the upside is that a more peaceful law enforcement system wouldn't be so darn mean to him when he violates federal wiretap laws.

Stand by for more good ideas. We can have a "Department of Fairness," a "Department of Niceness," and a "Department of Sharing." We can outlaw crime and it will magically go away! We can have a "Department of Un-Biased Media" that will ensure we're only exposed to the correct, fair, and peaceful ideas - Dennis Kucinich would LOVE that! Or we could form an umbrella organization simply called the "Department of Good Things." That would save even more money by covering it all under one (how did Jim put it) "a uniting framework for existing organizations scattered throughout the U.S. currently working to bring peace to our communities and the world."

World. Problems. Solved.

That this un-serious perpetual adolescent is an elected US representative who is routinely reelected with 75% - 80% of the vote is shameful. Is there seriously not a single grown-up Democrat in the entire 7th District Seattle could send instead?

Posner on Trans Fats

Judge Posner commented on the trans fat ban in his blog today. His analysis was much more of a cost-benefit analysis than was my look at the issue a few days ago. His conclusions stated "My cost-benefit analysis is, necessarily, highly tentative. However, it inclines me to a sympathetic view of the trans-fats ban. I anticipate strong opposition from libertarians."

I have one quick comment on his analysis. He states that "no one wants his restaurant experience poisoned by having to read a menu that lists beside each item the number of grams of trans fats it contains." He quickly disregards this option while I feel that it may be the best option available.

I do not think that this statement is necessarily true. The presence of trans fat does not have to be so intrusive. Many restaurants do use an asterisk to indicate that something is spicy. Some similar universal symbol could be used for the presence of trans fats. I do not think the precise number of grams needs to be stated on the menu (although it should be available upon request). This will not "poison" the restaurant experience. It will get people thinking about the issue and will cause some change.

Posner's Comments

Banning Fat

New York City recently decided to ban the use of trans fats by restaurants in the city. While some have equated this move with the smoking bans being passed around the country, I think that the issue deserves individual treatment.

While the lay person may cite saturated facts as the most dangerous type of fat, the fact is that trans fats are actually more dangerous. Trans fats, commonly found in such foods as margarine, Crisco, potato chips, peanut butter, etc., are made by passing hydrogen through the fact. As a result, the fat can stay in a solid state at room temperature. As one doctor described the effect of the process: "It's not good for body to digest; it's like eating plastic." The FDA even concluded that the recommended daily allowance of trans fats is 0 grams (for comparison, the RDA of saturated fats is around 20 grams). As a result of this, I have avoided trans fats since high school and feel that this has helped improve my health.

Now, the same dangerous side effects can be said of smoking (which I am against banning). However, the case for a ban of trans fats is stronger for three reasons: (1) people unknowingly ingest trans fats; (2) people are not privy to the health problems related to the trans fats; and (3) there are already alternative fats available that do not significantly affect the taste of the food (albeit with a slightly higher cost due to their lower availability at this time). With smoking, everyone is aware of the health issues and individuals consciously make the decision to smoke. At restaurants, trans fats are often used without the customers knowledge. Even if one knows that they are used, few people know about the health concerns related to their ingestion.

While I think that the personal and social cost of trans fats are high and that they ought not to be eaten, I think an all-out ban is too much at this point. One of the reasons that trans fats are used is because they are cheaper and, for the time being, more readily available than comparable fats. By banning their use, the government is forcing a cost on the restaurant. In addition, many companies have complained that transitioning to a substitute fat has been difficult. The individual no longer has the option to make a choice of being cheap food now and paying for it down the road with higher health costs. The problem with the current situation is that individuals are not making informed decisions because they are not aware of the presence of trans fats in their foods. This would be ameliorated by a labeling requirement. Restaurants would be given the option to continue to use trans fats so long as they notified the customers.

The FDA imposed a labeling requirement on groceries that went into effect January 1, 2006. Now, products must state the quantity of trans fats contained in them. While the regulation has its flaws (products can state "0g trans fat" or "trans fat free" even though they contain small amounts of trans fat per serving), it has served to entice companies reduce and eliminate trans fats in their products. For instance, a couple of years ago, few potato chips were made without trans fats. Now many brands are trans fat free. Labeling has also helped raise public awareness of the issue. While the case is stronger for a ban, requiring restaurants to merely notify customers of the presence of trans fats would help serve the same ends as a total ban without the extra costs imposed on business and individual freedom. If someone wants a Big Mac soaked in trans fats, let them have it. It should be their choice so long as they know whats in it.

Justice O'Connor's Disappointing Speech

Saturday night I was lucky enough to have been selected in the lottery to hear retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speak to honor the Gates Public Service Law Scholarship. Sadly, while her speech was quite good in a technical sense (entertaining, geared towards her audience, not interminable), the content was surprising and disappointing.

Because the entire point of the event was to push a public service scholarship program, she tailored her remarks to that subject. That in and of itself is commendable - all too often a famous speaker will simply give their stock speeches and not take the time to consider the people who have come to hear them.

But Justice O'Connor spoke of encouraging public service as a civic virtue, and that we should be doing everything we could to get more people to work for the government. She lamented that so many law students are "forced" to go work for firms because of their overwhelming student loans. She cited numbers that showed the average law student graduates with a loan burden of around $15,000, and then said she thought that was low because her law clerks were looking at closer to $50,000. She even suggested that it was too bad the non-profits were stealing the talent away from the public sector.

I was frankly shocked. I kept thinking, "How is this a Ronald Reagan appointee?"

With due respect to the Justice, it's just wrong that government jobs are the only - or even the best - way to serve the public. Frankly, more people in government is the LAST thing we need! Private attorneys do mountains of charitable work, mostly in the form of providing pro bono legal services. As Bill Gates, Sr. himself proves, one of the ways to have the biggest impacts is to make a boatload of money in the private sector first, and then get all charitable with your time and money. And even the stingy and selfish in the private sector do more to help the public than they were given credit for, just for the fact that they create jobs, help our vibrant economy grow, and aren't relying on the taxpayers for their salaries and health benefits.

With the possible exception of public defender's offices, I find it hard to believe that any government legal positions are really that hard up for applicants. The pay may not be as good, but the benefits and job security are unmatched, and most public sector attorneys work much saner hours than those who slave away at firms.

And as tough as they are, law school loans - especially at our low cost school - are just not an unreasonable burden considering the return-on-investment a J.D. provides. You just don't see a lot of attorneys living in vans down by the river. Even a career public defender can (with some smart investing), live and retire quite comfortably.

The one government/public service sector that was notably absent from her comments was military service. It's also notably absent from the Gates Public Service Scholarship winners, and I have a feeling it will be overlooked in the future, too. Why is a commitment to public service shown more in liberal activist groups like "California Peace Action," abortion advocacy organizations, or the ACLU than after a tour in Afghanistan? Which person has actually had a more significant impact on world peace and justice, humanitarian efforts, and introducing democracy - and at greater personal risk than suffering an extra few years of loan repayments? I have a feeling it simply never crossed the committee's mind. And that's sad.

The man giving the intro spoke strongly about the Justice's commitment to "justice," citing her protection of affirmative action, expansion of substantive due process, and making "principled" decisions as opposed to the ones she was "supposed to make." But whatever the virtues of those policy goals may have been, I wished she'd pursued them in a legislature where they belong. Our ideas of what make a principled jurist are clearly different.

I've always felt in reading Justice O'Connor's opinions that, while I agree with her votes more often than not, she's always been a policy maker on the bench. Saturday's speech drove that point home perfectly. I'm glad she was able to make the time to come speak, and that the event planners made so much room for law students - it's always fascinating to hear what such a powerful person has to say (not to mention the phenomenal food!). But I'm equally glad Justice Alito has replaced her on the High Court.

Getting rid of street drunks

Seattle Times: State liquor board OKs expanding alcohol-impact zones in Seattle

The democrats in Seattle are at it again. First they ban smoking in bars and now they ban the sale of certain types of alcohol in various neighborhoods throughout Seattle. Malt liquors and fortified wines can no longer be sold in Capital Hill, the University District, Downtown, and several other neighborhoods. The most cited reason for the ban is that homeless individuals will drink these cheap liquors and urinate on the sidewalks. Many of these individuals suffer from alcoholism. Banning the sale of drinks in certain areas will not magically cure their alcoholism. One of three things will result:

A) They will be forced to spend even more of their limited money on alcohol in order to purchase such high-priced items as PBR. As a result their welfare will be worse and the public urination will continue; or

B) By some fate of God their stop being alcoholics and start drinking water instead. Low and behold, they still have to urinate. Without a home, they still piss on the street corner; or

C) They will buy their alcohol at a store outside of the restricted zones. If this happens, the amount of street drunks will not be decreased; they will only be urinating in different neighborhoods or bring their alcohol back to the same neighborhood.

The most likely result is (c). In fact, a study of a similar ban put into effect in Pioneer Square showed little improvement on the situation. Rather than cure any problems, it just hides the problem of homelessness and alcoholism in new neighborhoods. While liberals and democrats debate often about the best policy to reduce homelessness, I think both can agree that hiding the problem is not the right answer.

On a side note: A good argument about hippies for Orrin

More on Being Pro-Pharmacist-Choice

Our very own Professor Jay weighs in today against the freedom of pharmacists to not dispense medications they find morally objectionable.

We've had this one out on this blog before. And I like Professor Jay, who's been good enough to participate in our events in the past. But at the risk of my grade next quarter in Free Expression (kidding), I think a rebuttal is in order.

Professor Jay argues that the administrative board responsible for such things didn't have the authority to issue that kind of regulation because of I-120, an initiative that had little or nothing to do with contraception - it was an abortion bill. Frankly, I think the characterization of I-120 in the article is misleading. The only mention of contraception in I-120 is a policy statement saying people should be allowed to have access to it, which, of course, they still do. Here's the actual initiative as enacted. It's codified in RCW Chapter 9.02.

Interestingly enough, I-120 specifically envisioned the freedom of people to not engage in what they feel as immoral actions:

No person or private medical facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the performance of an abortion if such person or private medical facility objects to so doing. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of the person's participation or refusal to participate in the termination of a pregnancy.

RCW 9.02.150. If "monopoly" is defined as the entire group of private businesses that fall under medical regulations, private medical facilities could be considered at least as much of a "monopoly" as Professor Jay considers pharmacies in his article. But they are still allowed to listen to their conscience and limit their services accordingly under the law, which is as it should be.

His argument is this:

Discrimination occurs when a neutral regulation is adopted with the intent of singling out a specific practice for adverse consequences. The proposed rule, which has grown out of a desire to deny women access to Plan B, clearly discriminates against women under I-120.

This is a completely unfair characterization. There are certainly some people who would like to ban Plan B. But the desire of the Board was to find a balance between allowing businessmen to act according to their principles while allowing those who wish to use Plan B the ability to get it. The desire is to allow pharmacists to operate their business with freedom and conscience. Plan B is still widely available, and there is nothing to suggest that a woman who wants it can't get it within 24 hours. Despite this lack of evidence or support, Professor Jay says:

The Legislature certainly could enact such a misconceived privilege but it will first have to listen to the growing number of women turned away by pharmacists who think they are laws unto themselves.

I would like to hear from one single woman forced to have a baby because she could not get Plan B in time because of this new regulation. Anywhere. Even Professor Jay doesn't go that far - he only says they are being turned away. He doesn't say whether they go to the next pharmacy a block away that still does offer the emergency contraception, an omission that I think matters greatly.

Right now, pro-choice people can get all the Plan B they want in a timely fashion. Pharmacies are on practically every block and in almost every grocery store. There are 816 in the Seattle area alone. Pharmacists who don't think it's morally right can sleep at night without having to choose between their job and their conscience. Ones who don't have a problem with it get more business. Everyone wins.

The only reason to oppose this common sense compromise is to force people to conform with the pro-choice agenda - an irony if there ever was one.

CPS - Looking Out For You Whether You Need Them Or Not

There's a lot to scoff at about a family who names their kid "Starchild," and when he gets sick rejects conventional cancer treatments and send him to take herbal supplements in a Mexican clinic.

But should it be illegal? Is it neglectful? Is it child abuse? Is it the government's role to step in?

Virginia CPS and a state judge says it is. Shame on them.

The boy is 16. He has already attempted conventional therapy, and it wasn't working for him. He and his parents made an intelligent, knowing, and informed decision, weighing the risks and making the decision together. Now, it's not the decision most of us would have come to. In fact, I'm not afraid to call it a painfully stupid decision that only a South Park episode can adequately mock. But in a free society, we should let him make that choice.

This isn't a case where a 2 year old is dying from an easily curable condition, but religious fundamentalist parents let her die because they only believe in the medicine of prayer. Even then, I'm troubled that a parent's good faith efforts to do what they think is best for the child's physical and spiritual well being within the tenants of their religion (even if it's not what I would do) is so easily dismissed. But here, had he waited another year and a half to make the decision, it would have been totally legitimate. He is old enough to participate in the decision making process. And it's not like the conventional medical will guarantee his health. His wishes, and those of his parents, should be respected.

If he shot and killed someone, Starchild surely would be would be tried as an adult, and held responsible for those actions. Why can he not make decisions concerning his health?

Surely, there are plenty of cases in Virginia where actual abuse, parental drug use, and neglect is going on. Surely, CPS is not overburdened with social workers just lounging around the office with not enough to do. In Washington State, 45 children within the CPS system have been murdered since 2001 by someone in their foster home. Has Virginia solved all of those problems? Is this really the best way to be using Department of Social and Health Services resources?

I am currently working largely within the juvenile justice system, working with dependency cases where abuse and neglect have been found. I've worked with those parents and those children. I've seen what abuse and neglect are. This isn't it.

I've also worked with enough social workers to be frustrated with what only can be described as their "busibodiness." They work with enough deadbeats to think that's the norm, and as a result their default position is to step in. I've learned how fine the line really is between genuine social conscience and smug, self-righteous paternalism. And as if state paternalism wasn't bad enough, it's totally inconsistent paternalism. I've seen the State declare washing a child's mouth out with soap "abuse," and then pish-posh a child's reluctance to return home to her mother because, "she stopped the pot smoking and pill popping months ago." It can be frustrating. But nothing I've seen approaches this story's absurd level of state overreach.

The tragedy is that the kid will be dragging his feet with the treatment, lessening its impact. And it will divert medical resources from other people who need - and actually want - the help of a modern hospital. The court's order doesn't help the child, the parents, or the community. In the State's attempt to rescue people from themselves, they have made everyone worse off and less free. And that, in a nutshell, is why Big Government, whatever its intentions, should be avoided whenever possible.

Good faith decisions made by parents, especially when done with the input of a near-adult who is fully capable of participating in decisions that will affect his life and health, should be respected. If the state can make this decision for this family, there is no longer any true family or home sanctity.

There is a side irony that's interesting, though. A family of hippies having trouble with Big Government. Hmmm....

Freedom Up In Smoke

I'm incredibly disappointed that I-901, the state anti-smoking initiative, passed by such a wide margin. (Unlike California or NYC, you can't even smoke on the sidewalk in front of the bar within 25 feet.) This is another blow to concepts like personal property rights and individual responsibility, and a win for the nanny state. I'm not a smoker. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I don't like the way my clothes smell after a night in a dive bar. But then, no one has ever held a gun to my head to make me go to a dive bar.

I don't buy that employees have no choice, either. I would bet any amount of money that if you only let vote bar employees and waiters/waitresses who work at the few restaurants left that allow you to smoke, the ban would fail miserably. This would be especially true if people actually knew the facts - that no study has ever shown any significant causal connection between ill health effects and second hand smoke.

The worst, though, are these latest TV spots - the ones with the scary puppet kids who eat dead, maggot-ridden roadkill and then try to make out with another scary puppet. "Kissing a smoker is just as gross." I've kissed smokers before. And while I've never shoved a dead crow in my cake-hole, I can tell you which I think is more disgusting by a factor of a bajillion.

When you lie to 11-14 year olds about this kind of thing (their target audience) they won't believe ANYTHING adults tell them about drugs, alcohol, or any other thing that really can harm them. And who's paying for it? We are, of course, from the unconscionable billions extorted from the tobacco companies by our current Governor that was supposed to go to offset the harm already caused to our health care system caused by RJ Reynolds' lies. It's ironic (but not surprising) that the people most self righteous about the tobacco companies' lies are so willing to do it themselves - and at our expense.

Smoking is a choice. Anyone who started after about 1950 and still didn't know it was bad for you is so stupid that they probably would have won a Darwin Award anyway. For the rest of 'em, they're exercising their right to control their own bodies and own risks as a free adult should, and any attempt to control that should be met with universal scorn in a free society.

Strippers, Choice, and Freedom

These guys have been hanging out around campus lately to get people to sign their petition to overturn the City Council's ban on lap dances. The mayor signed the new rules into effect last week that require a 4 foot spacing between the dancers and customers, waist high railings around the stages, and lights that would be more at home in a Wal-Mart than in a seedy night spot.

Anyone who's ever had to plan a bachelor party in Seattle should be outraged. And frankly, anyone who believes in freedom, women's rights, or property rights should be too.

It's interesting that a council that no doubt would react with abject horror and a lecture about "respecting the rights of women" to a proposed ban on abortion don't see the hypocrisy in a de facto ban on women choosing to dance in a strip club. Why is one more worthy of protection than the other? If pro-choice activists see abortion regulation as an effort by the Religious Right to criminalize the sexuality of women, then where are those same activists now? Either women are adults who can and should be trusted to make their own choices, or they're not. One thing is for sure - if the Mayor was an avowed Christian who stated publicly that he thought stripping was an abomination to God, you can bet that we'd see major protests and all kinds of references to the council as no better than an American Taliban.

I'm not saying that strip clubs can't or shouldn't be regulated, even if those regulations are abjectly stupid. But it's worth noting that these particular rules will almost without question force the clubs to close (there are other options not too far out of town) and put dozens of people out of their jobs, and that it's done for no other reason except either (a) prudishness or (b) a blind adherence to some particular sect of feminism that says women should be free to choose and follow their own path - unless the feminists don't approve of the path, of course.

If the petitioners are unsuccessful and the gentlemen's clubs are forced out of business by the rules, I hope the owners sue the city for compensation for the taking of their livlihoods. It's a shame that our local government is so disinterested in personal property rights.