The New York Times and Cato are right – all the Bill of Rights, applied to the states, on the basis of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not merely through piecemeal a Due Process analysis.
Ruling this way, the United States Supreme Court will reject the nineteenth century mistake made in the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Long overdue.
Eugene Volokh publishes a group blog, of several contributors, called the Volokh Conspiracy. Most of the contributors are law professors, and all are by turns serious and intentionally humorous.
Volokh is sharp, and the arguments he presents inspiring to those committed to individual liberty.
Here’s a description of a video interview with Volokh from Reason.com:
“Reason.tv’s Ted Balaker sat down with Eugene Volokh, professor of law at the UCLA School of Law and founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, to discuss gun rights, free expression, and the Nanny State.
Find out what Volokh thinks the biggest threats to free expression are, and whether today’s muzzlers come mostly from the left or right. Volokh also explains what the landmark Supreme Court case, DC vs. Heller, has done to gun control and whether he agrees with the “more guns, less crime” thesis.
Other topics include: media bias and gun rights, Alabama’s prohibition on selling sex toys, and whether judges can be nannies.
Interview by Ted Balaker. Shot by Alex Manning and Hawk Jensen. Edited by Paul Detrick.
Approximately nine-and-a-half minutes.”
Link: Eugene Volokh on Gun Rights, Free Expression, and the Nanny State more >>
Reason has a video online from John Stossel’s new program. Here’s the description: “On January 29, 2010, Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie appeared on Fox Business Channel’s Stossel to talk about the “food police,” childhood obesity, and the ever-growing nanny state. Featuring a legendary battle between Gillespie and junk-food prohibitionist MeMe Roth.”
Good morning,
Whitewater’s forecast is for a day of patchy fog with a high temperature of thirty-seven degrees.
Whitewater’s Landmarks Commission meets later this afternoon, at 5 p.m., at 5 p.m. in the City Manager’s ultra-plush conference room. Here’s the agenda for the meeting:
I. Call to Order
II.Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda and Possible Rearrangement.
IV. Approval of Minutes of February 3, 2010 Meeting
V. Set date of next meeting Wednesday, April 7, 2010, at 5Old Business
VI. Report from Friends of the Mounds Meeting (Helmick)
1. Garlic Mustard Pull – April 23
2. Wis. Archaeological Preservation events – May 22-AM
VII. Action on Landmark Commission Bylaws (McDonell, Singer)
VIII. Update on Train Depot Renovation (Lashley)
IX. Update of possible moving or demolition of James and Ella Rockefeller House at 837 South Janesville Road (Scott)
X. Report from Indian Mound Task Force Meeting (Christ, Scott)
XI. Discuss possible events and projects for Historical Preservation Month
1. Library display – May 1 through May 31
2. Local Landmarks Tour – May 22 – PM
3. Stone Stable signage dedication and presentation
XII. Report on the New Provisions of Chap.17 (Scott)
1. Discuss establishing criteria for designation
2. List of possible itemsNew Business
XIII. Discuss possible projects and events for 2010
1. Local Landmark Designations
2. Historic Districts
XIV. Future Agenda Items
1. Congregational Church Clock Tower
2. Whitewater Historical Survey Recommendations
3. Leaflets and Educational Materials
4. Certified Local Government Reports (Scott)
XV. Adjournment
Book fairs continue at both Lincoln and Washington Schools. I’m sure there are fine offerings at both schools. There’s no way readers can go wrong with Seuss, whose birthday was yesterday. There’s also a band concert at our Middle School tonight at 7 p.m.
In honor of Seuss, here’s a clip from Green Eggs and Ham:
Link: Green Eggs and Ham
Wonderful, just wonderful, isn’t it? more >>
BigGovernment.com has a roundup of taxpayer abuse at the Pork Report. The latest edition is packed examples of public waste and disregard for private initiative.
See, March 2nd Pork Report.
On a ship, the officer of the deck looks out, and sees storms directly ahead. He makes no mention of it to the captain, or anyone else among the crew. The ship sails directly into the storm, and is tossed about, being badly damaged from high waves and fierce winds. Afterward, the captain confronts the officer about the storm. Did you not see the waves? he asks. Well, yes, captain, I did, the officer replies. Why did you not alert anyone? asks the captain. Well, replies the officer, I was waiting for someone to mention the turbulence, and if one of the passengers had complained, I would have told you.
Whitewater, Wisconsin has a public access cable station, and on that station one finds recordings of our common council meetings. A recent session included discussion of an ordinance to ban drink specials.
Last year, Whitewater’s police chief and city attorney met with certain tavern owners. Afterward, the city attorney drafted an ordinance against flat-fee drink specials.
That session is now online, and it’s a good thing, because one can see what passes for advice to our common council.
Here’s the video of that session:
Link: http://blip.tv/file/3232390.
Well into the session, members of Whitewater’s common council begin to consider the limitations of a proposed ban on drink specials. The text of the draft ordinance, that Whitewater’s city attorney, Wally McDonell prepared, has apparent holes. Some specials that taverns offer would not be covered.
Here’s the city attorney’s comment, beginning around 51:10:
I will say that I thought of issues like that when I drafted it, but, and was going to add language that said, or similar-type specials, but I think that the at this stage of the game all that was requested was the flat all-you can-drink specials and we’ll see how that works and if it’s clear that there is a attempt to go around the spirit of the ordinance, it may well come back for more specifics and an attempt to meet anything that might have a similar-type effect, similar-type effect as a flat fee, but at this stage of the game, this is what’s hear on the table, and what’s here for discussion.
If the council wants something that would attempt to catch other things that are very close to the a flat-fee special, then we could take it back to the drawing board and come up with something like that….
A non-lawyer points out gaps, the city attorney noticed as much himself, but didn’t bother to exercise even that level of non-lawyer’s level of judgment when drafting the ordinance. The theory, I suppose, is that one should only draft what one’s asked.
The confusion in this way of thinking is clear: when non-lawyers do the asking, and one adds no additional effort, the product isn’t an attorney’s thinking, it’s a non-laywer’s level of thinking.
Why bother to have an attorney at all? Even non-lawyers could have drafted as well. Actually, better, because a non-lawyer saw the deficiencies in the draft, too, and would likely have overcome some of those deficiencies just by thinking clearly.
It’s not to a lawyer’s credit to contend that he saw the problems in the draft, but did nothing about them.
It’s actually more embarrassing if that’s the case.
And yet, for Whitewater’s city government, it is the case. more >>
Not long ago, Whitewater’s common council saw a proposal to regulate the drink specials that some taverns in Whitewater offer. After a half-hour discussion of the proposal, the matter was sent to an alcohol licensing committee for further consideration and recommendation to the common council. Not for unfettered consideration — for consideration to propose an ordinance more comprehensive than the one that council initially considered.
I’m not a bit surprised — Whitewater will regulate just about anything that moves, until through application of burdensome
regulation, it stops moving. If you’ve heard that small towns are less regulatory than big cities, then you’ve heard about small towns other than the City of Whitewater, Wisconsin.
Shortly after hearing about the proposal, I published a short cartoon, with an animated dog, teasing about the idea. See, The Debut of Dog X: On ‘Drink Specials.’ I published the cartoon with the idea that the regulation would pass. I’m sure that some version of the ordinance will pass.
(Some have asked about Dog X, and whether he’ll be back again. He will, I wouldn’t wonder. Right now, he’s hard at work on a study oftax incremental financing. He’s got books, papers, calculators, and used coffee cups all over the House of Dissenting Opinion.)
Proposals like regulation of drink specials offer a chance to show how flimsy is the basis for the proposal, how likely disingenuous is the motivation behind regulation, and how easily well-meaning people are swept into a regulation frenzy without any likelihood of solving problems through legislation.
A few quick points, before we begin. I’m not a big drinker, and among the range of those who drink, I would be considered only an occasional drinker. I’m not a particular advocate of alcohol, or a drinking culture. Drinking moderately is the most anyone should probably drink, and there’s nothing funny or interesting about a drunk. Sketch comedy about people pretending to be drunk is invariably dull and tired; there’s nothing humorous about a sloshed rumpot.
Special Pleaders. Take a look at this ordinance, and one finds some tavern owners, meeting with Whitewater’s police chief and city attorney, to talk about a problem. Does anyone really — really and truly — think that binge drinking is the only concern on these owners’ minds? They must also see, if they see anything at all, that a regulation against drink specials will prohibit tavern successful in the offering from out-competing unsuccessful taverns.
This ordinance allows those business that can’t keep up to use a health concern for a selfish business purpose — to use government to pressure more successful taverns.
It’s typical — and shameless — of Whitewater officials to meet a few owners, on the flimsy basis that there’s a health issue foremost in these tavern owners’ minds, and contend that this is all about public health.
That’s not the consequence of a proposed ordinance: that’s less competitive taverns leveraging government regulation so that more competitive taverns lose their advantage in the marketplace.
There’s an absurd argument that drink specials are money-losing anyway, so they should be regulated. That’s nonsense. If drink specials were truly money-losing for a business, the tavern would go under. They’re not money losing for all taverns; they’re just money losing for less competitive taverns.
A New Prohibition. If there’s nothing funny about over-drinking — and there isn’t — there’s also nothing efficacious about most drink regulations. At the least, those who advocate a regulation should be able to show that it will work. The burden should be on those proposing to restrict or prohibit adult activity to show that (1) the activity should be regulated, and that (2) the regulation will work.
America tried, and failed, to restrict alcohol for the supposed betterment of society. We neither stopped drinking nor improved society. Legislation does not make men better; if there were any hope that it would, Prohibition would have made America a better place. It didn’t; people still drank, cursed, showed up late for work, and all the while committed crime after crime in support of an underground drinking culture.
He’s what I’d say, to those who — well-meaning that they are — want to do something to stop binge drinking — this ordinance won’t get you what you legitimately want. Those who want to stop binge drinking will not stop the problem by regulating away drink specials – that small number of those patrons who are binge drinkers will gather privately for the same behavior.
Those who sincerely believe that this is a health issue are, I think, just being used by some businesses in a war against others.
Smearing Patrons. The world would be better off without binge drinkers, but not all of those who enjoy drink specials should be smeared as binge drinkers. These are adults engaging in lawful behavior, and our town has gone on just fine these many years without collapsing from the patronage at these taverns. It sounds like a public health matter, but it’s not — these patrons are not all fiends and scoundrels. Stop pretending that they are — the overwhelming majority are nothing of the kind, no matter how often one repeats the term binge drinking.
I’ve no doubt that this ordinance will pass, in one form or another.
Afterward, our town will be no safer or healthier. We will be, however, a good example of how some businesses use a health concern to legislate against competitors. The only consequence from this ordinance will be the triumph of some businesses against others. We’ll be less competitive and prosperous, but no safer.
Greatest legislator of all time – “get that weak-ass legislation out of my house.”
See, Senator Dikembe Mutombo Blocks Record Amount Of Legislation.
Hat tip to Radley Balko for the link.
Good morning,
The forecast for Whitewater, Wisconsin calls for a day of patchy fog, with a high of thirty-five degrees.
In the City of Whitewater today, there are two principal public meetings — the Tech Park Board meets at 2 p.m., and Common Council meets at 6:30 p.m.
Not long ago, at a public meeting, someone asked about the possible uses for the tech park, and its multi-million dollar office building Innovation Center, and Whitewater learned that it’s possible — wait for it — video games might be designed there.
Admittedly, that’s a big industry. Unfortunately, it’s a big industry in places other than Whitewater. Those other places, of course, have names — names like California, Japan, and South Korea.
I don’t think — even slightly — that the video game proposal was a serious one. Let’s assume, though, that it was. Even as I type, somewhere there’s a sad and dispirited tech park board, wondering how’ll they crack the video gaming industry.
I’ll do my part.
Over at Wired, there’s a story entitled, “10 Literary Classics that Should be Video Games.” Here’s the chance for an educational enterprise. From Wired‘s story:
Dante’s Inferno proves it: Classic literature is a videogame gold mine.
Now that Electronic Arts is finished reimagining Dante Alighieri’s epic poem as an Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 adventure through the circles of hell, the development team’s going to need to find inspiration in other classic literary works.
Game|Life would like to humbly suggest 10 more books that would make totally kick-ass games.
Wired lists Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Kafka’s Metamorphosis, Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, and Melville’s Moby Dick as great possibilities. They even offer an inspirational mock-up of Huckleberry Finn. Here’s a screen shot:
Whitewater’s brighter future is only a few pixels away…
For those from faraway places wondering about animals in this part of the world, we do have coyotes. They’re pesky, too.
There’s an essay online from W.E. Messamore entitled, We’re All Libertarians Now. Of course, we’re not, and Messamore’s not being literal — he’s observing the power of a libertarian message — a message he supports and shares. The libertarian message of limited government and respect for individual liberty is a powerful one, always but especially now.
Messamore observes that
It was only a year ago that President Obama was inaugurated in what some commentators hailed as a sweeping endorsement of socialism: more European-style central economic planning, federal regulation, and entitlement programs. But it would seem that the pundits misread the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2008. America didn’t want more, it wanted less.
Americans wanted change, and change after eight years of George W. Bush did not mean more government spending or involvement in our lives. It meant less unchecked executive power, less military
involvement overseas, less spending, less secrecy, less corruption, less cronyism, and less partisan bickering. To take his victory as a mandate for a more socialist re-ordering of American society may have been a fatal mistake by the fledgling Obama Administration.Just one year later, a majority of Americans (56%) “think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,” according to a CNN Poll published this week. Even 37% of Democrats thought so. CNN reports it as “only 37%,” but think about it: thirty seven percent of Democrats believe that our federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. That’s right, 37% of Democrats sound like radical, right-wing, separatist, tea partiers. (Or conversely, the Tea Party may be more mainstream and less radical than Keith Olbermann lets on.)
One sometimes encounters those who don’t understand libertarians, or those who confuse libertarian-leaning voters with members of the Libertarian Party (LP). Members of the LP are surely libertarians, but so are many Republicans and Democrats. David Boaz of the Cato Institute has written much about libertarian-leaning voters, who are no less than one of every seven Americans. (See, Are Libertarians a Political Force? — full of links to studies confirming libertarian influence.)
The opponents of individual liberty and limited government aren’t likely to grow softer; they’ll grow harder. In my small city of Whitewater, that’s surely true — bad doesn’t get better, it gets worse.
Good morning,
Whitewater’s forecast calls for a cloudy day, with a high of thirty-four degrees.
In the City of Whitewater today, there’s a Park & Rec Board meeting 5 PM.
At Lakeview School and Washington Schools, there’s a book fair today. The Music Parents meet tonight at 6:30 PM in the high school’s choir room.
The New York TImes recalls that on this day in 1932, the Lindbergh baby, infant son of aviator Charles Lindberg and his wife Anne, was kidnapped. See, Lindbergh Baby Kidnapped From Home of Parents on Farm Near Princeton
The subsequent trial, of the Bruno Hauptmann, was billed as the trial of the century. The crime was terrible, but the much century proved so, too, and there were subsequent trials that rivaled Hauptmann’s in notoriety.
Neo-Classic!
From the story in the Epoch Times:
The economy seems to be showing signs of recovery, but people’s faith in capitalism are being put to a test in face of tough challenges such as the current health care reform. Has capitalism stopped working for the U.S.? What is the cure for today’s troubled economy, “laissez faire” or a pro-socialist approach?
Steve Forbes, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Magazine recently made frequent appearances on national TV, talk show programs and speaking events sharing his answers to these questions with his new book How Capitalism Will Save Us. On December 15, 2009 hundreds of members of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia heard his speech on why capitalism has always been and is still the best answer for the U.S. economy. In the 30-minute speech, Forbes discussed the causes of the recession and offered his optimistic forecast of a brighter economy under true capitalism….
Forbes attributed the failed economy to a series of failed monetary, accounting, foreign exchange, and trade policies.
According to Forbes, the first and foremost mistake was the Fed’s printing too much money, thus pumping too much fuel into and flooding the economic engine. Giant government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who owned or guaranteed about half of the US $12 trillion mortgage market back in 2008, were to blame for the burst of the housing market bubble. The SEC (Security Exchange Commission) regulatory accounting policy regulating banks and insurance companies brought even greater disaster to the financial system. In short, the troubled economy was not a result of true capitalism characterized by a free market, but a heavy-handed government meddling with private business….
Forbes described true capitalism as a free market where “if you do well, others can do well too. It is not zero sum game. Our founding fathers understood this.”
Forbes believed that it is the free entrepreneurs, not the government who can “turn today’s scarcity into tomorrow’s abundance and develop the innovation that are the foremost drivers of the economic growth.” He said a free market is the cure of today’s health care problem and “it will turn something that looks like a hopeless liability to the one most exciting dynamic growth the industry has ever.”
Jane Burns of the State Journal interviews Whitewater’s Toppers Pizza founder Scott Gittrich.
See, Executive Q&A: Toppers Pizza founder Scott Gittrich on pie appeal.
