My Favorite Time of Year

Not only is school over, but Supreme Court opinions are coming out nearly every day now!

Wishes for a happy retirement to Justice Souter.

Valete,
Poplicola

More Questions for your Congressional Delegates

When you call your representative and senators, ask them if they have actually read the entire cap-and-trade bill. The Enterprise Blog reports that the sponsors tacked on another 300 pages last night, increasing the size of the bill by 25%. I can't imagine how anyone could have possibly read the new additions in time for today's votes in the House.

This reminds me of the stimulus, which no one bothered reading either.

Poplicola

Smoot-Hawley

Jim Lindgren over at the Volokh Conspiracy explains how the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade energy bill is the worst and most dangerous piece of legislation since the Great Depression. Disclosure: the next two paragraphs are heavily borrowed from Jim's post.

A quick refresher: Smoot-Hawley was passed in 1930 as a backstop to sliding US domestic production. The bill imposed huge tariffs on thousands of foreign products, in order to make US goods more competitive. Other countries struck back by imposing their own tariffs. In the end, gross US international commerce was cut in half, and global trade suffered. It is likely that this bill helped deepen the recession. By removing many of the comparative advantages of manufacturing between countries, the bill reduced global efficiency, which had enjoyed substantial gains during the 1920's as trade boomed.

Waxman-Markey effectively does the same thing. By rationing handing out emissions credits to favored companies, it makes US goods more expensive. Realizing this, the bill's sponsors included a provision which approximates the cost the bill would have on a foreign good if it had been produced in the US and assigns it a tariff of that amount. Not only will the US engage in a new tariff war, but the country will also ship the remnants of its industrial sector overseas. The result: Americans will be poorer and less competitive. Even worse, domestic emissions reductions will be almost insignificant on a global scale, since states like China, Brazil and India are only beginning to industrialize.

EDIT: I speculate that in the short-term, this bill might actually increase America's dependence on foreign oil, because the US will be discouraged from using coal, which is dirtier, though domestic and abundant.

If you're interested in trying to stop this bill from making it through Congress (after which Obama will undoubtedly sign it), here are some talking points for our Senators and Representatives:

1. If you live in a farm state, explain how Waxman-Markey will be the death knell of the agricultural sector.
2. If you live in a manufacturing state, explain how the bill will kill the industrial sector.
3. For New Jerseyans and others with large refining capabilities, like Texas, explain as above. Also mention that the bill continues federal support for ethanol subsidies, strengthening an anti-environmental practice while depressing traditional gasoline demand.
4. Talk about Smoot-Hawley and your concerns for the successful recovery of the US and global economies.
5. EDIT: Pennsylvanians, talk about the coal industry!
   

Good luck! If anyone tries this, please comment below to let me know how it went.

Everyday Freedom

Just a moment ago, I was searching for Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom on Amazon (I've borrowed the book and want to add it to my personal library). I suddenly realized, while clicking through pages filled with anarchist pamphlets and libertarian treatises, how wonderful freedom of expression and freedom of belief are. It pains me to think of the dictatorial suppression so prevalent in the world. Still, with the power of social networking tools like Twitter becoming more apparent every day, perhaps Prof. Friedman's dream of a free world will be realized some day. Here's to a desperate wish...

In allegiance with the freedom fighters in Iran, and around the globe,
Poplicola

Does this count as self-plagiarism?

Gizmodo points out that Ahmadinejad may be using cheap Photoshop tricks for propaganda purposes. I'm not really surprised, but the raw chutzpah of this photo is just unbelievable.

Perhaps this is an act of desperation? Is the regime nervous?

Paternalism for Parents

According to the always insightful and often entertaining scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, habitual swearing in the presence of a child is a crime under Title 9 of the New Jersey code.

9:6-1. Abuse, abandonment, cruelty and neglect of child; what constitutes...(d) the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language...

Since the law considers this act a crime, Title 2A allows the removal of the child from the home should the "health and safety of the juvenile [be] seriously in danger." This provision is in addition to the standard penalties for a criminal infraction, including fines, jail time, etc.

While the adjacent provisions in Title 9 use a phrase along the lines of "endangering the morals of the child" to define a test for the application of the rule, the legislators do not give a similar hint in item (d). Thus, it is difficult to know why exactly this law of censorship was included.

Barring other leads, I speculate that the legislators feared children would also be corrupted by foul language, as well as the laundry list of acts listed in Title 9. Now, assuming that this fear can actually be substantiated with an independent, scientific study, how far should that state go to protect children from obscene acts and media, and when should it do so? Should children be banned from buying 50 Cent's new album? How about buying explicit or gory videogames? EDIT: Or rather, should parents be banned from interacting with those media while there are children in the vicinity?

A commentator at the Volokh Conspiracy points out that, luckily, these questions may never come up. The restriction on free speech endorsed by Title 9 may be in violation of the 1st Amendment (incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment). In Cohen v. California the Supreme Court ruled that the display of expletives cannot be prosecuted without a reason beyond disturbing the peace. Furthermore, the majority opinion stated that it is not incumbent upon the states to fashion 'civil societies.' Wikipedia summarizes the decision:

Harlan’s arguments can be constructed in three major points: First, states (California) cannot censor their citizens in order to make a “civil” society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Thirdly, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas—no matter how radical they may be.

Legislators would be required to balance the protections of the 1st Amendment against the state's (limited) obligation to advocate for minors.

Let it be noted that my dear friend Warren E. Burger dissented in Cohen v. California. Maybe he should have sent every American a pair of fuckcrapshit-proof earmuffs.

Valete,
Poplicola

This pwns LOLCAT

Aw....

Valete,
Poplicola

Publius Valerius Publicola, at your service

Now that everyone has proceeded on to Twitter, I figure that there will be more room in the blogosphere for me. I will soon begin filling the intertubes with all sorts of pithy posts.

Valete,
Poplicola