The World According to Nick

Flickr Friday - Fall Colors and The Bone Deans!

Nick — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:17:29 GMT

Last Sunday I headed out to Holy Hill in order to see what kind of fall colors were out, and I was not disappointed. Not only was Mother Nature providing a beautiful show, but there was a concert by The Bone Deans on Highway 167...

You can see all the autumn colors in this second slide show:

What Does It Feel Like to be a Libertarian?

Nick — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:05:19 GMT

This essay really hit home... especially I tend to spend a lot of time debating libertarian policies with both liberals and conservatives, neither of which really "get it". Here is an excerpt:

Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.
...
Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Professor Hasnas essay concentrates on the free market aspects of libertarianism (where those who complain the loudest tend to be liberal), but the same problems exist with social libertariaism (where conservatives are the loudest to complain). Read the whole thing. Via Hit & Run.

Sensenbrenner Demands 72 Hours to Review Every Bill But His Own

Nick — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:18:15 GMT

In Jim Sensenbrenner's latest weekly column, my congressman is asking why we can't have 72 hours to review bills before they get voted on:

Legislation is sometimes complicated, dense and lengthy. It’s often dry to read, and can be filled with a lot of jargon. Regardless, I strongly believe that Members and citizens should have the opportunity to read the final version of non-emergency legislation before it is voted on. That is why I am co-sponsoring H.Res 554, the 72 Hour Rule bill, and have signed a discharge petition to move this bill directly to the floor, as it’s being held up by House leadership.

The legislation has two key points:

1) Requires that all bills and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the general public for 72 hours online before it can be brought to the House floor for a vote.

2) Repeals the "last six days" provision in current House Rules, which provides that the opportunity to read conference reports is automatically waived in the last six days of a congressional session.

It all sounds so perfectly reasonable... and it is. In fact, I would argue that 72 hours is not enough. But here's the rub. Sensenbrenner is lying about his desire to have 72 hours before voting on a bill, because when Republicans were in power, he personally pushed through a lot of major legislation, which impacted the lives of Americans substantially with less than 72 hours to review a bill. I'll cite two major examples of Sensenbrenner's hypocrisy.

Example 1: USA Patriot Act

This piece of legislation has been the subject of controversy from day one... so much so that trying to include all sides of the argument into this post would really distract from my main point. However, the mere fact that it has been mired in controversy speaks to the need for 72 hours worth of review at least. While Sensenbrenner tries to account for this by exempting "emergency legislation", he never defines what makes legislation "emergency". In the case of the USA Patriot Act, since it's goal was to protect us from a terrorist attack, wouldn't it behoove us to examine the bill for at least 72 hours to ensure that it would actually protect us, before passing it? You can read it's short legislative history at GovTrack, but the important detail is the timeline... Introduced Oct 23, 2001, Passed House Oct 24, 2001, Passed Senate Oct 25, 2001, Signed by President Oct 26, 2001.

It should be noted that the Patriot Act was really full of a wish list of items that the Justice Department had been wanting since the Clinton Administration, but never had the ability to get passed. When 9/11 struck, so did the opportunity to ram through this legislation. Since it's passage, at least one major provision has been struck down as being unconstitutional. Many of it's other provisions have been used to go after drug dealers and gamblers rather than terrorists. In fact, the Justice Department had the power it needed to get warrants against terrorists prior to the Patriot Act... they just didn't realize it. Imagine what 72 hours worth of debate could have highlighted.

Example 2: Real ID

As I have blogged about numerous times in the past, Real ID has been one of Sensenbrenner's pet projects. It is also a boondoggle of a bill which tramples privacy, violates state's rights by stripping away powers that constitutionally belong to the states, and pushes onto them an unfunded mandate amounting to billions of dollars. Once again, a deep discussion of Real ID itself is beyond the scope of this post, but once again, the fact that it is mired in so much controversy would make one believe that 72 hours to review this bill would be beneficial. Congressman Sensenbrenner thought otherwise. I think everyone can agree Real ID is clearly not emergency legislation.

The legislative history to Real ID is actually quite complex, but you can read the original bill at GovTrack. You will notice that the original bill authored by Congressman Sensenbrenner passed in the House but was never taken up for a vote in the Senate. One of the concerns in the Senate was the aforementioned unfunded mandate. However, that did not stop Jim. Instead, he got it attached as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief bill. What is interesting here is that Real ID does not appear in the bill as passed by the House, nor does it appear in the text of the bill as it was originally passed by the Senate. That's because it wasn't added until the Conference Committee met after its passage to iron out the differences in the bill. Apparently to Congress, "ironing out the differences" means adding entire unrelated pieces of legislation which are unrelated to the original bill. The conference committee bill is here, and was completed on May 3rd, 2005. It was passed by Congress just two days later. Once again, 72 hours was never allowed to discuss a significant addition to a bill.

This brings up an important point with one of Sensenbrenner's caveats in his newly proposed bill. He wants to exempt "emergency bills" from the 72 hour requirement. And low and behold, Real ID was attached as a rider to a bill with the word "Emergency" right in. So perhaps he feels vindicated, and that he's not a hypocrite. But allow me to ask you this. What would Sensenbrenner now say if the current Health Care Reform Bill failed to pass Congress, but then was attached as a rider to an "emergency" Afghanistan spending bill without any time for debate?

Summary

So if I agree that 72 hours to review a bill is vital, why am I going after Sensenbrenner so much? Isn't it counter productive? The first reason is that I believe that providing any exemption to a 72 hour review period is not a good idea, and Sensenbrenner's own behavior is a prime example as to why. Secondly, I think Sensenbrenner is using the idea of a 72 hour review for purely partisan purposes, and doesn't actually believe in it. He knows this bill will likely not pass, and that he will never be bound by its terms, and so he is using it's non-passage as an attack against the Democratic leadership, when he has done no better in the past.

All legislators, Republicans and Democrats, need to be held accountable for passing poor legislation without review. Not only do we need 72 hours for review before legislation is passed, we also need partisan hacks like James Sensenbrenner to get voted out of office so that power can be restored from the political elite (like Sensenbrenner) and returned to those who have a right to it... the individual citizens of this great nation.

Mwahaha

Nick — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:29:58 GMT

Ha ha ha ha! Via ROFL Razzi

Rest in Peace Patrick

Nick — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:17:18 GMT

As most of you have now heard, Patrick Swayze passed away yesterday after a battle with cancer. While most people are remembering his roles in Dirty Dancing ("Nobody puts Baby in a corner") and Ghost ("Ditto"), my brother-in-law Randy reminded me of a skit he did for Saturday Night Live. So for my female readers... I give you this:

Thoughts on Obama's Education Speech

Nick — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:08:43 GMT

I know I seem to start a lot of posts like this, but... I find the reaction to Obama's speech to be far more interesting than the speech itself. On the one hand you have a lot of folks on the right who are worried that this is all about "indoctrinating" our children. On the other side of the aisle you have folks talking about the times with George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan made similar speeches to school children. At the time, Democrats complained loudly and even held Congressional hearings. Republicans didn't seem to think it was a big deal. Now that the parties are reversed... so are the opinions.

So my question to both sides is... Were Democrats right then in saying it is inappropriate for a President to speak to children and Republicans wrong... or are Republicans right now in saying it's inappropriate and Democrats wrong. As I see it, there are really only two explanations for why people on both sides of the aisle are reacting so differently based on who is doing the speaking. The first possibility is that they could all be a bunch of partisan hacks. The second possibility is... ummmm... you know what... I'll get back to you when I think of another possibility.

My personal reaction is two fold. First of all, I actually don't think it's all that wrong for a President to take the time to speak directly to children, at their level. Most political discourse happens around children, and at a level as well as on issues that are just outside their bounds. Having the President of the United States (an office we should theoretically have respect for), speak to children on rather bland and generic ideals we all pretty much agree on (finish school and do good things) isn't terrible.

The idea that a President... any President... would be stupid enough to "indoctrinate" children at any level is kind of silly really. The blow back from any "true indoctrination" would be so huge, that it would be nearly suicidal. Hell... even Newt Gingrich seems to agree with me. Of course, there are those who object because this sort of grand standing by any President elevates his importance higher than it ought to be. I understand that idea... but not enough to understand the kind of reaction people are having.

With that said... I do have issues with the idea that the Dept. of Education passed along suggested materials to be completed by students with regard to the speech. I have issue with it, not because of any one suggestion being "too political" (though I think there are good arguments that the materials were in some cases). I have issue with it because it's an unconstitutional role for the Federal government. Hell, the entire Dept. of Education shouldn't exist. Classroom materials are created and prepared with approval by local school boards, where parents of the children will have the most say in how their children are educated.

Parents and teachers are smart enough to create their own lesson plans based on the speech without the "help" of the Dept. of Education. Let them do their job. That's what the Constitution mandates anyway.

Welcome to the Family Logan

Nick — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:40:50 GMT

Those of you who don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook might not know that Ally and I have a new addition to the family... an Australian Shepherd mix named Logan:

He was surrendered to the Elmbrook Humane Society, and we were lucky to snap him up so quickly. He's a fantastic dog! Of course, we took him off the to vet to make sure he was in good shape, and not surprisingly... they wanted a stool sample. So on our walk today, he did his business, and we walked by the veterinary office on the way home to drop it off. All of this of course is a lead up to this Scrubs episode I was reminded of:

Enjoy your weekend everyone!

Politicians Aren't Public Servants

Nick — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:33:16 GMT

To date, I really haven't commented on the death of Ted Kennedy. Now that he has been buried, its a little bit easier to examine what people are saying about him, and reflect on who he was. What bothers me in general about the commentary regarding Kennedy's death are the references to how we need to thank him for his "sacrifice" and "public service". In fact, this is a common phrase that is echoed whenever someone who has spent a great deal of time in politics has died... and is even used when a major political figure simply retires to private life. Their "public service" must be honored and praised.

Politicians, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on, deserve no honor for "public service". They are elected, and compensated, for doing a job. They rarely, if ever, "sacrifice" themselves in that job. In fact, they are compensated far too much, and take from the public for their own individual needs far too much. All politicians do this, Ted Kennedy among them. They also create rules for themselves which other people who are not members of the ruling class do not enjoy. They receive benefits for what they do that are far more lavish than the average person, and make sure that the rules are written in such a way that it is difficult to get them out of politics until they choose to leave.

He became Senator, not because of any specific sacrifice on his part, but because he had a rich and privileged father, and two brothers who had made waves in politics before him. And while in office, he never sacrificed of himself. Politicians never do. Favor is curried to them by anyone who wants a bill passed, and they take from those people whatever they want for their own personal enjoyment. Whether it's killing off a wind farm because it will obstruct your vacation home's view, or avoiding scrutiny in the death of a woman. He had power, and he used it. He enriched himself at the expense of all of us... and took from us not only money, but freedom.

Exhalting politicians for their "sacrifice in public service" is an insult to real public servants who truly do give of themselves or the benefit of others. Those who serve in the military, firemen, and those police officers who choose not to allow themselves to be corrupted, truly sacrifice themselves for the greater public good. Not only should what they do be held up more as an example, but we should not diminish the term "sacrifice" by claiming others do it when they clearly do not.

How Easy Is It To Manipulate a Breathalyzer?

Nick — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:11:21 GMT

This is a pretty scary video if it is accurate:

It shows how easy it is for a police officer to manipulate the results of a breathalyzer, simply by putting his thumb over the output port on the device. In fact, the results were dramatic... it double the reading! That means that someone with a .04 with a normal device would register as legally drunk if the device is tampered with.

What is even more scary about this method, is that it does not permanently alter the calibration on the machine, so another blow (if not tampered with) would be accurate again, making it impossible for the accused to prove what happened.

Via Schneier on Security.