Executive Orders and The Outrage Economy

Der Furor made a lot of promises to a lot of different constituencies while clawing his way back to the presidency. If history is any judge, he'll pay lip service to some, slow-roll or ignore others, and go balls-to-the-wall with those that personally enrich him or appeal to his baser instincts.

On his first day in office, Der Furor issued dozens of holy commandments Executive Orders on a wide range of topics. They fall into several categories:

The Silly, such as changing the name of Denali back to Mount McKinley and renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America and "promoting beautiful federal civic architecture;"

The Petty Score-Settling, such as withdrawing security clearances from various retired military and intelligence professionals he thinks have wronged him; 

The Sadistic, such as a crackdown on immigration and asylum seekers, whether legal or illegal, complete elimination of all DEI programs*, and the frivolous and unscientific designation of two sexes**; 

The Dangerous, such as the blanket pardon for violent rioters from the January 6th, 2021 insurrection and the pardon for the founder of the underground Silk Road drug-dealing website, and granting immediate interim (six months) Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearances to White House staff members***; and, 

The Blatantly Unconstitutional, such as the unilateral ending of the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution^†. 

The imperial presidency Republicans wanted is in full swing.

And if one of his goals is to "rescue" an economy he seems to think (in spite of all evidence) is in free fall, Der Furor appears to be doing it by distraction, sleight-of-hand and providing full employment for those in the new Outrage Economy ...

A blizzard of lawsuits has already been filed by states and organizations, pushing back against Der Furor's mean-spirited blitz of useless, frivolous, unconstitutional, petty, dangerous, and sadistic actions. How much time and money will be spent on legal fees and hearings by individuals, organizations, states, and the federal government to litigate them all? How long will the courts will be tied up with lawsuits, appeals, appeals of the appeals, appeals of the appealed appeals, ad nauseam, to the detriment of other important, but routine legal issues? We're already one of the most litigious countries in the world ... we're cementing our place as #1.

How much good could have been done with all that money if it were spent on education, health care, infrastructure, and housing? Instead, we're spending it on Der Furor's Outrage Economy.

Want to profit from the new Outrage Economy? Invest in one or more of the following:

Immigration Law Firms; 

Court Reporting Services; 

For-Profit Prisons; 

Migrant Transportation; 

Construction Companies (specializing in giant fences, prisons, and courthouses);

Companies Manufacturing Advanced Surveillance and Security Technologies; and, 

Cybercurrencies Marketed by Der Furor, His Family and Business Associates (carries no guarantee of return, of course).  

And hurry to get one of those high-paying jobs with great benefits that will soon be available in agriculture, service work, and elder care once the people doing them have been rounded up and deported.

Have a good day. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo 

* The basic idea of DEI is laudable, although a case can be made that many DEI training requirements (for example) were ludicrously overdone.

** I recognize that the issue of sexual identity is a complicated one, but waving a doctrinal wand is not the right way to address it. Besides, according the politically satisfying (to the right) but scientifically ludicrous text of Der Furor's Executive Proclamation, every American is actually female.

*** One should note that Der Furor himself, not to mention a number of his nominees for high-level positions, couldn't qualify for those clearances if they had to conform to the same standards I did.

† "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (14th Amendment, Section 1)

 

Black-Letter Law

In reviewing the story of the Alabama supreme court decision on the status of embryos being stored for in-vitro fertilization (IFV) treatments, I learned an interesting new term: "black-letter law" (also known as "hornbook law"), defined as 

"... standard rules that are generally known and free from doubt. The black letter law on any subject consists of the principles so fundamental in that subject and contained so frequently in hundreds of years of common law that challenging them would be extremely difficult."

This appears to be related to the legal principle, recently shredded by the U.S. Supreme Court, of "stare decisis" ("settled law"), which states that

"... courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions."

Black-letter law may not be as black*, nor stare decisis as settled as we think, for the Supreme Court has also ruled that 

"... stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.”

But who decides whether a prior decision is "unworkable or badly reasoned," and on what basis do they make the decision? 

The waiver of stare decisis has allowed the righteous overturning of disastrous decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson, which sanctioned racial segregation in the United States. Unfortunately, it has also led to more questionable decisions such as the recent Dobbs decision that overturned the protection of abortion rights codified in Roe v. Wade ... the first time** a Supreme Court decision has taken away, rather than granted or reinforced a right. Where one can defensibly argue that Plessy v. Ferguson was "wrongly decided" based on Constitutional guarantees of equal rights (not to mention simple human decency), the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade - like the decision in the Alabama case - seems to have been based primarily on religious arguments of questionable Constitutional validity which replaced factual legal analysis and logic with faith-based theological dogma.

We are approaching a time when "black-letter law" is what the party with political control of the courts decides it is. The current Supreme Court, heavily conservative, is clearly willing to overturn settled law with which it philosophically disagrees, stare decisis be damned. 

Perhaps it is time to stop referring to "black-letter law" and start referring to "gray-letter law." The Scarlet Letter has already been taken, in a different context ... and if the GOP has its way, it may well be back.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* I'm reminded of the wonderfully eerie short story "Absolute Ebony," by Felice Picano, about an artist's search for the ultimate, perfect shade of black ... and what comes with it.

** As far as I know.

There Oughta Be a Law ... Maybe

The US Code has 51 Titles and tens of thousands of pages of laws, but it seems there's always a need for yet another one. How often have you seen something outrageous or objectionable or just downright stupid, shaken your head, and muttered "there oughta be a law" (against that outrageous, objectionable, or stupid thing)? 

I mutter that all the time as I observe our current political cesspool, in which it is more important to score political points than to actually solve problems ... today's Exhibit A would be the hypocritical blowhard Republicans who refuse to take legislative action to solve the immigration crisis, finding it more politically useful to leave a steaming mess on President Biden's desk before the election than to fix the issue through thoughtful and comprehensive legislation*. It's worth noting that the bill drafted by a bipartisan working group gave Republicans virtually everything they asked for and included major policy concessions from Democrats ... and the GOP-led House refuses even to put it up for a vote. The political hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Yes, there oughta be a [rational, Constitutional, affordable, humane, and effective] law, and Congress oughta write it, but it won't ... or, at least, the GOP part of it won't**. And while I'm generally on the side of Congress doing its job and creating legislation that actually solves problems (as opposed to demanding that the President take unilateral action via executive order that they can criticize without taking any responsibility), I don't think there's a case to be made for writing a law just because we seem to need one. Sometimes there are already applicable laws that just need to be resourced and enforced to address the problem. And even when there oughta be a new law, it oughta make sense and be workable. And that's why - if I were a member of Congress*** - I'd advocate the following:

A Law to Ensure

the Constitutionality, Affordability, Adequacy, and Humanity

of Proposed Legislation

Section 1. SHORT TITLE: This act may be cited as the "There Oughta Be a Law Act." 

Section 2. Any member of Congress who, during a crisis, advocates a course of action or, conversely, opposes a course of action being followed by the current administration, will concurrently introduce proposed legislation which:

1. Explains exactly what specific action is advocated (i.e., "bomb Teheran in response to Iranian surrogates attacking US forces in the Middle East," "build an impenetrable wall along the southern border," "reduce illegal immigration to zero," "bomb drug labs in Mexico," etc);

2. Explains how the proposed legislation differs from and is better than actions already being taken by the current administration;

3. Includes the following mandatory elements: 

(a) a legal review that certifies the proposed law is constitutional and clearly explains how it replaces, relates to, enhances, or conflicts with existing laws; 

(b) a risk assessment outlining the foreseeable economic and military consequences of implementing the proposed law; 

(c) an estimated cost of the proposed law over ten years, calculated by the Congressional Budget Office; and, 

(d) identification of a source of funding for the implementation and execution of the proposed law.

Section 3: Advocation of any course of action deemed either unconstitutional or illegal according to existing laws will be stricken from the Congressional Record and considered to be grounds for impeachment. 

Seems reasonable to me ... whattaya think?

Have a good, legally and constitutionally sound day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* As commentator SE Cupp has noted, “A broken immigration system has become too politically profitable for both parties to solve. If you solve it, you can’t run on it, fundraise off of it, fearmonger on it…” 

** Yes, I know the Democrats share blame for allowing the problem to fester for decades, but IMHO, the blatant hypocrisy and shameless political chicanery of the Republicans is far worse because it so obviously uses the crisis for its own purposes.

** Or, Gawd forbid, President.

Who Is an "Officer?"

One of the more bizarre arguments being made on behalf of Der Furor by his lawyers, acolytes, and sycophants in an attempt to shield him from responsibility for prosecution on a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment is that he is not an "officer of the United States" in the meaning of the law. 

Here's the actual text of the 14th Amendment (the italics are mine):

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Now, it seems to me that the President of the United States is pretty clearly the most senior and responsible officer of the United States. Under The Constitution he is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, along with a bunch of other responsibilities (see Article 2, Section 2).  

But does the law actually specify who an officer is? As it happens, it does!

The US Code is the official compilation of the nation's federal laws. It has 50 "Titles" addressing various topics of the law, which are subdivided into hundreds of Chapters and Sections of increasing specificity*. Title 1 (General Provisions) explains the general outline and structure of the US Code; Chapter 1 of Title 1 (Rules of Construction) tells us how to read the rest of the Code; and Section 1 of Chapter 1 (Words denoting number, gender, and so forth) helpfully defines major terms ...

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise [...] "officer" includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;"

Now, that seems pretty clear to me ... but then, I'm not a high-priced lawyer in search of the loopiest of loopholes in service of a desperate client.

Section 1 also helpfully defines other terms useful in today's torture of the law in the defense of the indefensible ...

"... the words "insane" and "insane person" shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;"

and, thanks to the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court ...

"... the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

Yep, Furor, you're an officer of the United States. And you're guilty as hell. Just shut up and go away.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* You might recall that God Almighty only needed ten commandments.

Reforming the Supreme Court

There has been a great deal of discussion over the last year or two about reforming the Supreme Court. Exactly what that means and how it might be accomplished are being hotly debated, and there is - as always - a great deal of misinformation swirling around it. I have my own ideas, which we'll get to presently, but let's look at the history first.

The Supreme Court is established in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution: 

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

There are two points to stress before we move on: (1) The Constitution does not specify how many Judges/Justices the Supreme Court will contain ... only that Congress will decide; and (2) The Constitution does not specify that an appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime job ... it says only that the appointees "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour*." 

So, how did we come to have nine justices on the Supreme Court? The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, with six Justices: 

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum ...” 

Congress changed the number of justices on the Supreme Court several times for various reasons between 1789 and 1869, when the Judiciary Act of 1869 codified the current nine-justice court (a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, with six constituting a quorum). President Franklin Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to add additional justices to the court in an attempt to advance his policy agenda, but this effort failed, and there has not been a serious attempt to change the size of the court since ... until now.

The present push to enlarge the Supreme Court began when Senate Republicans refused even to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the court, then pushed through the appointment of three new deeply-conservative justices** during Der Furor's administration ... including that of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rushed through in that administration's last days in complete and shamelessly hypocritical disregard of the prior Republican justification for blocking the Garland nomination. 

The Court's sudden lurch to the conservative right, reflected in decisions that seemed to ignore both precedent and the evolving social and political environment of the nation, has rekindled the debate over the size of the Court and the tradition of lifetime appointments***. Incoming President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14023 on April 9, 2021, directing establishment of a Presidential Commission to study the Supreme Court and make recommendations for possible changes or reforms, which commission released its draft final report earlier this month. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the political sensitivity of the topic and the present poisonous atmosphere surrounding the court and its newest members, the report identified and analyzed various options for reform and discussed their pros and cons, but did not make any specific recommendations.

I, of course, have my own ideas.

I think we can all agree that the authority and dignity of today's Supreme Court was badly damaged by the actions of Der Furor - whose routine desire to turn immediately to the Supreme Court to get his way on issues reflects his clear belief that the three justices he appointed are beholden to him alone, and not to the Constitution or the American people. The court's independence has also been seriously undermined by Congressional Republicans who bastardized the nomination and confirmation process to deny President Obama's choice, and have already stated that they will block any nomination made by President Biden. 

Given that any changes to the structure and function of the Supreme Court will be very difficult to achieve legislatively and will be angrily and bitterly fought by both sides, such changes are unlikely absent one party's control of the White House and of both Houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities†. Nevertheless, here's how I would proceed if the decision were mine ...

First, keep the court at nine justices. I think expanding it to include more justices working in rotating panels is probably a good idea that would allow more work to be done faster without compromising attention to legal detail, but it's just not worth cleaning up the mess left by all the exploding heads.

Second, if we are going to accept that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, nominees should be required to demonstrate a broad and deep knowledge of constitutional law.

Third, require Supreme Court nominees to be experienced judges who have served a minimum of six years on federal district courts.

Fourth, impose term limits on justices. Some have argued that this will somehow limit judicial independence, but I have yet to see a defensible argument about why that would be the case††. The term limits should be long enough to avoid turmoil on the bench, but short enough to allow each president to have an opportunity to nominate at least one justice in each four-year term. I believe a term limit of 18 years is reasonable.

Another interesting approach might be to rotate justices between the Supreme Court and the district courts, with no justice serving more than a single rotational term on the Supreme Court. This would ensure that Supreme Court justices have a practical understanding of the law as it is being applied by lower courts every day, as opposed how it was applied decades ago when they were appointed.

I believe that any of these measures would be an improvement on the situation we have now. The prospect of an America defined by decades of decisions made by the likes of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas - who have already demonstrated their contempt for precedent and the evolving nature of American society, is terrifying.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* "Good behaviour" is not defined, but I'm sure we all have our ideas of what it means. I'm sure that, for most Republicans in Congress, it would include standing naked on the steps of the Supreme Court and boffing a goat while waving a "Let's Go Brandon" flag. 

** There has also been extensive debate over the qualifications and temperament of the three newest justices (Gorsuch,  Kavanaugh, and Barrett), but that is beyond the scope of the present discussion.

*** Consider that Amy Coney Barrett, the youngest justice, is now 48 years old. If she remains in good health and follows the lead of the oldest justice to serve - Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired at age 90 - she could be on the bench for another 42 years.

† Of course, should those majorities be Democratic, future Republicans will all but certainly refuse to accept the electoral results. 

†† I don't think anyone can argue that the current process limits judicial independence, when Der Furor clearly believes that "his" justices will do his bidding.

Murder in the Digital Age

* Update: I wrote this post several days ago. Yesterday, this story appeared on CNN: Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars after First Fatal Crash of Autonomous Vehicle ... 

One of the stock scenes from old murder mysteries comes when the suspects are all assembled in the library of the old manor house. While a storm rages outside, the detective talks his way through the crime and the clues and - at just the right moment - he whirls about and stabs an accusing finger at the murderer, announcing in his sternest voice that "The butler did it!"

Well, perhaps it wasn't the butler. Maybe it was the maid. Or the gardener. Or the ne'er-do-well son. You get the idea, though.

But the traditional unmasking of the criminal may be very different in the not-to-distant future, when we learn to our horror that the evil villain is not human, or even a trained animal (as in The Hound of the Baskervilles or Murder in the Rue Morgue) ... but a machine.

The idea of murder by machine is not new - Jefferey Deaver's novel The Steel Kiss has the murderer using his computer hacking skills to turn common products into murder weapons. But what if there's no human involved at all?

This is the point of a fascinating article I read the other day titled, When an AI Finally Kills Someone, Who Will Be Responsible?.

If a driverless car runs down and kills a pedestrian, who is at fault?* If a complex power distribution grid managed by an artificial intelligence (AI) program suddenly shuts down power to a hospital and patients die, who is responsible? Is it the programmer? The builder of the AI system itself? The builder of the car or the designer of the hospital systems? Can the AI system itself be held criminally liable for its actions? If so, how would it defend itself? How could it be punished? Here's a quote from the article:

"If an AI system can be criminally liable, what defense might it use? ... Could a program that is malfunctioning claim a defense similar to the human defense of insanity? Could an AI infected by an electronic virus claim defenses similar to coercion or intoxication?"

This is not an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin philosophical discussion, because the need to consider these things is now upon us. As we've already seen with the advent of e-mail, cell phones, and similar things, our laws governing privacy and the criminal use of communication devices are woefully out of date.

As if you didn't have enough to worry about in the Age of Trump.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Supreme Court Takes up the Gerrymander

If you are concerned about the hopeless gridlock in Washington (and you should be), you should also be interested in the announcement from the Supreme Court this past Monday that it will hear arguments about whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution.

One can pretty convincingly argue that a direct line can be drawn from horrendously gerrymandered congressional districts to complete partisan gridlock in Washington. If a congressional district has been drawn to make it electorally safe for one party or the other, the incumbent has no reason to compromise or work with the other party - if he does, the voters will replace him* with another, probably more politically pure and intransigent, member of the same party. This is pretty obvious, at least to me. But is it Constitutional?

As I read the Constitution, guidelines for drawing Congressional districts aren't addressed. Article 1, Section 2 spells out the number of representatives each state is allowed (at least one, but no more than 1 for every 30,000 residents), but there's no guidance on how the districts are to be drawn, unless you squint at this statement in Article 1, Section 4 -

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; ..." 

... and consider redistricting to fall under the heading of "Places and Manner." The only other place the apportionment of representation is addressed is in the 14th Amendment, which says -

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Altogether, that's not very much in the way of guidance, and it's led us to the mess we have today.

Here are the two most outrageously gerrymandered Congressional districts in the country**:

North Carolina's 12th District -

and Maryland's 3rd District - 

In what odd parallel universe do these district boundaries make sense other than for partisan advantage?

As I see it, the appropriate way to set Congressional districts is to have them align with existing county or parish (in Louisiana) boundaries. I suspect, however, that this would be strongly opposed by both parties, but especially Republicans, since their strength is largely concentrated in more lightly populated rural areas, rather than in large cities which tend to vote Democratic and would probably fall into single districts drawn by county.

I hope that the Supreme Court is able to establish some rational guidelines for Congressional districts, although I have my doubts, given that its political divisions mirror that of the rest of the country. Any guidelines will need to be imposed by the court, because no state, regardless of which party is in control, will be willing to do politically neutral redistricting unless there's a guarantee that every other state will do it, too***.

I'll be watching the arguments before the Supreme Court, and will be anxious to read the final decision, whichever way it goes. It's gonna be interesting.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow, when Great Moments in Editing and Signage returns.

Bilbo

* You should read the pronoun as "he or she," "him or her," as appropriate to the context. I don't mean to discount women, but writing "he or she" all the time is cumbersome.

** You can look at the other 8 most-gerrymandered districts and read a good analysis of the gerrymandering issue here.

*** Nuclear disarmament works the same way.

Do Your Job!

The untimely death* of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has had the collateral effect of tremendously enlarging the diameter of the rings of the Congressional three-ring circus. Justice Scalia's body was still warm when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) grandly announced that Congress would refuse to take up any nomination President Obama made to fill the vacancy, citing a supposed policy** that mandates that lame duck presidents are not permitted to make judicial appointments in the last year of their term.***

If we needed any more evidence of the utter bankruptcy of sober statesmanship in Congress, this provided it.

I can understand that Republicans - obsessed with their hatred for President Obama and liberal Democrats - would reflexively oppose giving him the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. But announcing up front - before any nomination had even been considered, much less announced - that Congress would take no action on any nomination until after the election is so blatantly unconstitutional that one wonders why Republican heads don't explode from sheer gall overdose. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, states that "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to ... appoint Judges of the supreme Court." It doesn't state that "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to ... appoint Judges of the supreme Court, except when he's in his final term of office." For those who loudly rail about "original intent" and "strict constructionism," this is some pretty amazing mental contortionism.

I understand the Republican fear that the President might appoint an "activist" judge who would "legislate from the bench." They argue that important issues of policy must be settled in the legislature and not in the courts^† ... we have, after all, an entire branch of government that is supposed to be devoted to legislating, and it's not the judicial branch. This, however, presupposes that we have a functioning legislature ... which we don't. Legislation from the bench starts to look like a reasonable alternative when lawmakers don't execute their responsibility to legislate from the legislature.

A few years back in my office we had a mantra we were fond of chanting when we were faced with intransigent or lazy behavior on the part of other offices ... drawn out and spoken with a deep growl of disgust, it went,

"Dew yer jaaaaahhhhhbbbbb!!"

I'm saying that a lot lately as I observe the clown show where Congress used to be.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Can a death be timely? Discuss.

** The so-called "Thurmond Rule."

*** This is the same policy to which Senator McConnell was inflexibly opposed when Democrats tried to invoke it.

† As it happens, I agree.

I Know You Understand What You Think I Said, But ...

One of the interesting things about the Internet is that it puts all sorts of information at your fingertips that you never knew was there. I often run across a reference in one online article that leads me to another place, and then to another, and then ... well ... eventually you learn something. Often, what you learn is that web surfing is a waste of time. But not always ...

Yesterday I was reading an OpEd article about the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case which referenced something I'd never heard of before - the "Dictionary Act" - as it related to the definition in law of a "person." I googled "Dictionary Act," and - lo and behold! - I was directed to Title 1 (General Provisions), Chapter 1 (Rules of Construction), Section 1 (Words Denoting Number, Gender, and so Forth) of the US Code, which is familiarly known as the "Dictionary Act." It begins, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress*, unless the context indicates otherwise...", and then proceeds to specifically parse a number of words and phrases frequently used in the law. I found these to be of particular interest:

"words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things" (this makes sense to me);

"words importing the plural include the singular" (I can agree with this one, too);

"words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well" (this is, I'm sure, aggravating to many women, who resent the exclusive use of masculine pronouns in official writing, but it does make certain sense ... it saves having to come up with wordy circumlocutions that incorporate both sexes**).

"words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present" (clearly, you want the law you write today to apply in the future ... it's not much good if it applies only at the moment it was written);

"the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." (this is the one I have trouble with, as do many others who are concerned about the implications of decisions like Hobby Lobby and Citizens United. Equating a "corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company" to a person seems pretty ludicrous to me, even if the law can be tortured into declaring that they're the same);

but I think the best part of the Dictionary Act is this one:

"the words 'insane' and 'insane person' and 'lunatic' shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis***." I think that should cover Congress, the Supreme Court, the far right, the far left, and every ludicrous troll that spews venom on the Internet without knowing what he⁺ is talking about.

I'm so glad that the very first part of the US Law Code clarifies that.

Have a good day. Use the right word the right way.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Good luck with that.

** And it could be worse ... how long will it be before the LGBT community decides we need utterly non-gender-specific pronouns, and what should they be?

*** "For real!", as my granddaughter Leya would say.

⁺ Remember, "words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well."

Reading the Fine Print

I know I shouldn't just automatically accept the 7,000-line-super-fine-print user agreements that most of us just click through when we do things online ... but I usually do. And so do you, probably. But do we really know what's in that fine print?

Here's an interesting article about the things hidden in the fine print of agreements from a credit card giant - Capital One Says It Can Show Up At Cardholders' Homes, Workplaces. The newly-updated Capitol One credit card agreements specify (in 0.00000735-point type) that "we may contact you in any manner we choose" and that such contacts can include calls, emails, texts, faxes or a "personal visit," at "your home and at your place of employment."

And speaking of those calls, Capitol One tells you (very quietly) that, "We may modify or suppress caller ID and similar services and identify ourselves on these services in any manner we choose." That means that they can trick you into picking up the phone by pretending to be someone else, someone non-threatening. Nice, eh? And legal, too, apparently.

Do you remember the story from last year about the online retailer that sued a couple for making negative comments about the retailer on a rating website? Apparently, the fine print of the sales agreement they signed had a "non-disparagement clause" that prohibited them from saying anything bad about the company ... and they never read far enough down in the agreement to see it (if they read the agreement at all).

What are some of the other things that might be hiding in that fine print? It wouldn't surprise me to find things like this ...

"Don't make us angry. You wouldn't like us when we're angry."

"In the event of a dispute, you agree to arbitration. We reserve the right to select the method of arbitration, which is cage fighting to the death against a rabid, starving grizzly bear."

"Accounts more than thirty days in arrears will incur a penalty. The current penalty is forfeiture of your firstborn male child. In the event that no male child is available, you may be sold into slavery in the Middle Eastern nation of our choice."

Lots of people nowadays are spun up over what they think horrible Jack-Booted Government Thugs^TM are planning to do to them, but no one seems to worry about all the things that Big, Bad Business is already doing to them with absolute impunity, and usually with their consent, witting or not. Regardless of how you feel about your Government, there are legal and Constitutional limits on its authority, and plenty of people willing to sue The Government* at the drop of a hat over real or perceived transgressions of authority. But who protects us from all the things that businesses can do to us? Big Business contributes vast amounts of money - often anonymously - to political campaigns that allow them to pull the strings on lawmakers. If you don't think there's a Platinum-Plus level of legal privilege and entitlement that applies to those with deep pockets and not to you, you need to lay off the medical marijuana.

You may not get to write the fine print, but you need to read it**. It's not always the Big Bad Government that's out to screw you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Such as Rand Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union.

** Me, too.

Bilbo's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan, Revisited

As we gear up for another year of the useless name-calling and finger-pointing that has replaced good government at the national level, the list of critical problems the 113th Congress will try to avoid is lengthening daily. Fortunately for our elected reprehensives, though, there is one problem they will not need to take up - immigration reform. The reason? (sound trumpets and launch rounds of self-congratulatory back-patting here): Bilbo has long ago solved the problem! Of course, although I sent copies of my plan to the President, my Senators, and my district representative, all I got back was a collection of form letters on handsome letterheads, thanking me for my interest in this critical problem which (insert name of President/Senator/Representative here) is working tirelessly to address, blah, blah, blah.

Don't let the door hit you in the backside on your way out.

But a new year is dawning, a new Congress has been sworn in (and at), and it's time to dust off my plan and send it out again. Those of you who have been reading this blog will recognize this as the plan I first floated in 2008, and have updated a few times since, but I encourage you to read it again and give me your critical thoughts. If you like it, you might even send a copy to your own Congressional delegation. Here we go again ...

First, let's recognize that the nation’s immigration problem has lots of interrelated elements:

- Calling a Spade a Pointy Shovel: No one is willing to say out loud that the problem is not with immigration per se, but with illegal immigration … illegal immigrants and their apologists who insist on their protections under American law conveniently ignore the fact that their very presence indicates a willingness to obey the law only when it is convenient to do so;

- Even if the flow of new illegal immigrants were stopped tomorrow, there would still be millions of illegal immigrants already here;

- Constitutional Rights and Protections: American traditions of Constitutionally protected rights of privacy, due process, and equal justice under the law limit the constitutionality and legality of many actions that might be taken in other countries;

- Race: those who imply that illegal immigration is a problem and that illegal immigrants are breaking the law are often branded as racists (a convenient and over-used ad hominem attack). Organizations like La Raza* protect illegal immigrants purely on the basis of racial and ethnic solidarity, without regard for the negative effect on the much larger population of legal immigrants;

- Economics 1: Illegal immigrants provide a badly-needed pool of cheap, unskilled labor for jobs many Americans don’t want, and help keep business costs and, therefore, prices down by working for minimum or below-minimum wage;

- Economics 2: Illegal immigrants, without proper documentation or status, do not pay taxes and yet are able to take advantage of public services (schools, hospitals, police and fire protection, etc) funded by those who do (and this category includes not just citizens, but legal immigrants as well).

These are just a few of the interrelated issues that complicate any meaningful attempt to reform our badly broken immigration system. Each one is difficult by itself, and when taken together, they imply that the problem is beyond solution. But what if we take a comprehensive approach, and try to devise a solution that addresses more than one element at a time? Consider …

Bilbo's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan, 2013

Congress begins by enacting legislation to create a new category of immigration status – the “Provisional Resident Alien (PRA)” – and designates the status with a new form of identification – let’s call it the “Blue Card.” Anyone who is in the United States illegally on the date of enactment will have a grace period of six months to register for PRA status and obtain a Blue Card without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or deportation on any immigration violation charge. They would, of course, remain subject to arrest for outstanding criminal violations unrelated to their immigration status.

Those registering as PRAs must pay a fine of $1000 per person or $5000 per family (whichever is less) for the privilege of obtaining that status. This fee does two things: it imposes a penalty for having broken the law in the first place, and it partially funds the cost of the new program. This provides something for those who oppose blanket amnesty, because it imposes a financial penalty for the willful violation of the law. Many churches and immigrant rights organizations will object to the fine because they think it’s either unfair or too much for poor immigrants to pay; such organizations may demonstrate their concern and willingness to help by paying the fine for those who are unable pay it themselves.

Once a person has been granted PRA status, he or she will be required to obtain a valid social security number, and will be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and services as other legal immigrants; in exchange, they will be required to obey all laws, pay all taxes, enroll in basic English classes (if they do not speak English already), and otherwise act as responsible members of American society. They will enjoy the protection of labor laws which require payment of the minimum wage and, with a legal status, will no longer be subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

Initial PRA status will be valid for five years. At the end of this period, the individual must report to the immigration authorities with proof of employment and proof that taxes have been paid. If these conditions are met, the individual may either extend the PRA status for another five years, or apply for citizenship. Citizenship is not automatic – it will still have to be earned through the same application and naturalization process completed by many millions of legal immigrants throughout our history, with the clock starting at the end of the current PRA period, regardless of how long the individual has already been in the country. This protects the interests of those who have followed the legal immigration process by preventing previously-illegal immigrants in PRA status from “jumping the line” for quick citizenship.

On the date the grace period for seeking PRA status ends, anyone who has not registered will be subject to arrest and deportation, without the opportunity to appeal. Because the great majority of previously-illegal immigrants will almost certainly have taken advantage of the opportunity to legalize their status by becoming PRAs, the much smaller number remaining in an illegal status can be assumed to be those with criminal records. Immigration authorities can concentrate their efforts and resources on tracking down this much smaller number of scofflaws and dangerous individuals.

Next, amend the citizenship laws to state that children born within the United States obtain automatic citizenship only if both parents are either US citizens, legal Resident Aliens (not PRAs), or a combination of the two**. This will help reduce the problem of “anchor children” used to establish legal residency for people otherwise here illegally.

On the date the law is enacted, most immigration enforcement agents will be transferred to border security duty to crack down on new illegal immigration. Border security will be enhanced and those caught attempting illegal entry will be summarily deported after being photographed and fingerprinted. Facilitation of illegal immigration (whether by “coyotes” who help smuggle illegals across the border or by those who knowingly employ illegals) will be made a felony, as will a second attempt at illegal immigration.

On the date the grace period for PRA registration ends, a set of very steep fines and jail sentences will go into effect for businesses and individuals hiring persons who are in the country illegally (i.e., without a Green or Blue Card). This will help to remove the economic incentive for businesses to support illegal immigration.

Employers will be responsible for reporting to the immigration authorities any change in the employment status of a PRA. A person in PRA status who is fired or laid off from a job and does not get another one within a prescribed period (say, six months ... the period to be adjustable depending on the economy and job market) loses his or her status and must leave the country until otherwise eligible to enter in that status in the future.

This takes care of those who are in the country illegally today. But comprehensive immigration reform must also address the need for a responsible and responsive program to allow unskilled, low-wage workers to enter the country to take jobs that might otherwise go unfilled. PRA status can be used for these persons, too. Businesses would project their labor requirements, and the State Department would make an appropriate number of PRA visas available to meet the need. Immigrants would then apply at the US embassy or consulate in their home country for PRA status covering any period of time from six months to five years, and need only maintain a job, pay taxes, and learn English in order to maintain their status. At the end of five years, they would also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship.

This plan won’t please everyone, but that’s the nature of a compromise, and the ability to compromise is what has been missing from political discourse in this country for too long. The advantages of my plan are:

1. It offers a way to legitimize the persons already here illegally (who, after all, are too numerous and well-protected to be rounded up and deported), but imposes a fine on them as a condition of legalizing their status (i.e., no reward for having broken the law in the first place).

2. It funds itself, in part, through the fines collected from those applying for PRA status.

3. It provides resources for increased border security by freeing up immigration agents who otherwise spend their days fruitlessly hunting down people already in the country illegally.

4. It provides a pathway for low-wage workers to legally enter the country and take advantage of economic opportunities not available to them at home, while contributing to the US economy in taxes.

5. It eases the pressure on public services by ensuring that more people have jobs and are thus better able to pay for their medical care and, through their taxes, for the education of their children.

6. It removes the incentive for businesses to hire and exploit illegal immigrants who cannot seek their rights for fear of exposure and deportation.

I see two downsides to my plan: 

1. The prices on some goods which have been kept artificially low because of the availability of cheap, illegal immigrant labor, will rise. We will, for example, almost certainly pay more for the produce picked by immigrants who are finally being paid a decent wage. But I believe that in the long run, this plan represents a good start toward a stronger America and a better life for those who would share in its dream. 

2. It establishes a requirement for an expanded bureaucracy to administer it, which is anathema to small-government conservatives. While this is true, it is also an example of the need to address a sort of problem that must be addressed at the national level. And, it must be noted, the requirement for PRA applicants to pay a fine does provide at least partial funding for the program.

So, Dear Readers, what do you think? How can this plan be tweaked to make it better? Send me your ideas as a comment, or e-mail them to me at der_blogmeister(at)yahoo(dot)com. Next weekend, I'll send copies of this plan to the usual suspects once again, and we'll see what sort of reaction I get this time.

Have a good day. Think outside the box. 

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The National Council of La Raza (http://www.nclr.org/) - an organization dedicated to the support and advancement of Americans of Hispanic origin.

** This will require revision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A reasonable change might be “All persons born in the United States to parents who are native or naturalized citizens or legal residents of the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

The Decision on "Obamacare"

This morning at 10 o'clock the Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better (if somewhat crudely) known by its detractors as "Obamacare." What will the decision mean to you and I and other Real People?

There has been so much hyperbole, misinformation, distortion, and outright falsehood generated about the law that it's almost impossible for a person who is not a lawyer or an insurance executive to understand what the real issues are and what the implications of the Supreme Court decision - whatever it is - are. How should we assess the impact of the decision?

The Washington Post has published an interactive graphic that helps to cut through the steaming piles of reeking BS that have been heaped on the discussion by all sides. To use it, you answer a few simple questions which result in a thumbnail assessment of what the Supreme Court decision will mean for you under each of the three possible scenarios: the law is struck down (declared unconstitutional); the law is upheld; or only the "individual mandate" is struck down. Check it out. For a longer analysis of some of the questions about the issue, read this article from The Daily Beast.

At one time - not so long ago - you went to the family doctor when you got sick, and the family doctor made you well again. It would be nice if those days could return, but I'm not holding my breath.  Today, your best bet is not to get sick ... and if you do get sick, to die quickly enough to minimize the expense and paperwork.

Two things are sure ... whatever happens, the drama surrounding the political football that is your health care will continue, and we bloggers will never run out of material about which to rant.

Have a good day. Stay healthy*.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Of course, if you stay healthy, you will undermine the fiscal stability of the health care industry ... so it's economically patriotic to get sick, right?

The Constitution: The Judicial Branch

As we've seen, Article I of the Constitution describes the Legislative Branch, and Article II the Executive Branch. Today, Dear Readers, we continue our discussion of The Constitution with a look at Article III, which establishes the third branch of government - the Judicial Branch.

Considering the importance the Founders placed on the importance of the rule of law (as opposed to the whim of a monarch), Article III isn't very long (only three sections) and doesn't say very much. The only court specifically established by the Constitution is the Supreme Court; the rest of the judicial structure that has grown up over the years represents the Constitution's reference to "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" (Article III, Section 1). You can read a very good explanation of the Federal and State court systems here if you're interested (and you should be).

One of the things on which we Americans pride ourselves is the fact that we live in a country in which the rule of law is supreme. We have rights guaranteed by the Constitution, live according to laws drafted by representatives we've elected, and rely upon an independent judiciary to make sure that those laws are equally enforced and upheld. But how independent is that judiciary, really?

The justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life. Judges serving on other courts may be nominated and confirmed, or they may be elected for specific terms of service. The Constitution says only that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." (Article III, Section 1). But what constitutes good behaviour, and how does that relate to the concept of an independent court system?

We've recently seen conservative Republican gadfly Newt Gingrich and other hyperconservative wingnuts rail against activist judges who legislate from the bench and should be required to appear before Congress to defend unpopular decisions. This does not augur well for an independent judiciary equal in power to the Legislative and Executive branches. I would argue that to the extent that some activist judges (whatever that means) legislate from the bench, it's because our elected lawmakers are unwilling or unable to legislate from the legislature. And as far as requiring judges to appear before Congress to defend unpopular decisions (unpopular to whom, one might ask), this is just plain silly: judges write and publish lengthy decisions that document exactly how and why they rendered the opinion they did in specific cases. Clearly, Mr Gingrich can't read.

Should judges be elected or appointed? There are arguments both ways. Judges who run for election need money to pay for their campaigns … and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision means that they can be anonymously bought. On the other hand, judges who are appointed will usually be selected on the basis of their compatibility with the political leanings of the official who appoints them, and not necessarily on their qualifications. Perhaps the answer is to elect judges, but to have their campaigns be publicly funded to a common dollar limit.

When judges must stand for election, they need money to pay for their campaigns. Where does that money come from? Can you and I, as ordinary citizens, really expect that an elected judge can remain totally independent when he owes his election to the money provided by big donors? And beyond that, can you and I afford the same level of Platinum-Plus justice afforded to those who can hire high-powered, ultra-expensive law firms to represent them in disputes?

I've drifted away from a focus on what the Constitution says about the Judicial Branch of government, largely because the Constitution itself doesn't really say very much. In the coming weeks, I'll talk more about the interplay of the three branches of the government and how we, as concerned and involved citizens with a stake in good government, should look at the political linkages that are so important to shaping the country in which we live.

We'll pick up our discussion of the Constitution again next Monday. Tomorrow is Cartoon Saturday, and I have some other things to talk about on Sunday. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts on the three branches of government. I want this to be a discussion ... not just me bloviating like a cheap politician. We are, after all, gearing up for a momentous presidential election season which will pit tremendously differing political philosophies against each other in a contest for the right to define the country in which we live. We've all got a big stake in the argument. Let's think it through.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Papers, Please!

If you thought you just felt the earth shake, you were probably right. I have found something upon which I agree ... at least, in part ... with the Republicans.

Don't tell anyone, okay?

Here's the full story: much has been made in the news lately (see an example here) of efforts - mainly by Republicans - in many states to tighten up on voting eligibility and identification requirements. There are two ways this story is being reported, depending upon the liberal or the conservative orientation of the reporter. To liberals, these efforts represent a heinous and despicable attempt to disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters, primarily minorities, who might be expected to vote for Democratic/liberal candidates. To conservatives, it represents a desperately-needed move to eliminate what they perceive as widespread vote fraud that robs Republicans/conservatives of legitimate victories by flooding the polls with ineligible voters who vote almost exclusively for Democratic/liberal candidates, and limits voting to only those who are authorized by law to cast ballots.

As you might suspect, but as is almost never acknowledged, the truth is lost in the shouting.

I see absolutely no problem with requiring an individual to prove his or her identity when going to the polls. You need to show a valid ID to cash a check, enter a government building, board an airplane, buy alcohol, or travel outside the country. Why should you not be required to show a valid ID to ensure that one of your basic rights as a citizen is protected from abuse? Some people object that this smacks of the old World War II-era movie demand by a uniformed Gestapo agent for some hapless innocent to "show me your papers!", but this is stereotyped caricature of a useful and necessary requirement.

One criticism of some of the new voter identification requirements is that the list of acceptable ID documents is short and the process for obtaining them is too cumbersome or expensive for many citizens, especially those at lower income levels. The process of obtaining a legitimate identification document must be strict enough to prevent abuse, while simple enough that the average citizen is not discouraged - either by bureaucratic red tape or excessive cost - in attempts to obtain one. Modern, secure personal identification documents are not cheap to produce (laser engraving, embedded holograms, and implanted devices to prevent illegal alteration of the space-time continuum are expensive, after all), but neither must they be beyond the economic reach of citizens who need them. This is where state and local governments must exercise good judgment and common sense to ensure that they do not disenfranchise their own citizens ... regardless of how they view the political orientation of those citizens.

Conservatives thunder about the need to curb widespread vote fraud, but repeated studies and investigations have shown that, while such fraud does exist, it is in minuscule amounts generally unrelated to the volume of complaints. You can find a summary of studies of vote fraud at the website The Truth About Fraud, sponsored by The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

So, here's the bottom line for today: I agree with my Republican/conservative friends (and I do have some) that the voting process needs to be protected against fraud, and that there is absolutely no problem with requiring a voter to positively identify him- or herself at the polls. On the other hand, I believe that if we're going to protect our election system from fraud, we shouldn't be looking at making things more difficult for individual citizens, but at securing modern electronic, networked voting systems from illegal intrusion and subversion. The days of rounding up a bunch of drunks and illegal immigrants and busing them to polling places to vote for a particular candidate are long gone ... vote fraud on an election-stealing scale today is more likely to come from those with the skill and motivation to hack into automated voting systems and corrupt the data to their advantage.

And that's all for now. Today is going to be a busy day, as I'll be emceeing the Summer Showcase at Dance Studio Lioudmila this afternoon, so I need to finish my script notes, and make myself presentable and get ready for the big event. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Have a good day, with proper identification, of course. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Good News! The Supreme Court Has Upheld Your Right to Be a Dumbass!

Well, that's not exactly how they said it, but it sounds better my way.

In an 8 to 1 decision handed down yesterday (Justice Alito dissenting), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at military funerals against rights for (or acceptance of) homosexuals. This photo shows a typical selection of the types of protest signs for which the intellectual and moral giants of the WBC are famous:

As with most things, reasonable people can agree to disagree on both the message and the medium by which it is delivered. My personal opinion is that these people are utterly repugnant ass clowns who deserve the condemnation and disgust of decent people everywhere.

But the Supreme Court doesn't agree, and it's correct.

The First Amendment to the Constitution - the very first paragraph of The Bill of Rights - is pretty clear on the subject:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let's see how it applies in this case:

1. Free exercise of religion - check.

2. Freedom of speech - check.

3. Right to peaceably assemble - check.

Yep, it looks as if these people - however detestable their beliefs and their choice of venue for expressing them may be - are enjoying the same Constitutional protection that allows me to publish (and you to read) this blog.

Mike wrote about this topic this morning as well, noting that "...depending on who you talk to it was a good/bad decision. I have a tendency to go with the good right now." I agree.

Nobody needs to defend speech that's popular. If I stand on a street corner and declaim loudly about how gorgeous Scarlett Johansson is, no one is likely to object (unless on the basis of perceived acting talent). But deeply held, yet unpopular beliefs deserve protection, too. There are reasonable limits, of course - the law does, after all, prohibit you from inciting to riot, or starting a panic by shouting "fire!" in a crowded club - but the simple exercise of expressing an opinion must be protected.

If you disagree, you might enjoy living in a civil rights wonderland like Pakistan, where "blasphemy" will earn you a death sentence ... and the streets will fill with otherwise educated and knowledgeable lawyers who will gladly throw the first stone.

I have always believed that everyone should be permitted to express his (or her) views freely. There's a reason we expose dirty laundry to fresh air and sunshine. The unrestricted ability to hear, evaluate, and reject repugnant ideas ensures a vibrant and educated democracy. Of course, there will always be those who will uncritically accept the most bizarre religious and political ideas (a lot of Republicans got elected last November by people who accepted their simplistic economic theories) ... but the ability to hear and debate ideas leads (theoretically, at least) to a better world for all.

Yes, I think the members of the WBC are stupid bigots. But their right to be stupid bigots is guaranteed by the same laws that allow us to protest the things that really matter.

As I'm fond of pointing out, the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. Freedom of smart is, sadly, another thing entirely.

Have a good day. Celebrate the fact that you live in a nation where the highest court of the land protects your right to be a dumbass.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

A Rose Thorn By Any Other Name

Stop the presses!! Iran is pissed off!!

According to this story reported on CNN the other day, the Navy's designation of a particular body of water as the "Arabian Gulf" rather than the "Persian Gulf" has generated an uproar in Iran and among displaced Iranians around the world. The Navy's Facebook page has been bombarded with angry comments, and Al Jazeera waded into the fray earlier this week with an article in which it acknowledged that "The term "Arabian Gulf" has been in casual but inconsistent use by various members of the US navy and government, and by many Arab states, for a few decades now," but went on to huff that "For the record, the body of water in question has been known - in maps, literature and official usage - as the Persian Gulf for more than two millenia."

True enough.

But history also shows a long tradition of changing the names of places to reflect changing political climates.

The South Asian nation once called Burma has changed its name to Myanmar.

In Russia, Tsar Peter the Great's showcase city of Petrograd later became Saint Petersburg, changing in Soviet times to Leningrad, and then back to today's Saint Petersburg. The city now called Volgograd was originally known as Tsaritsyn, and is perhaps best known by its Soviet era name of Stalingrad.

The African nation of Burkina Faso was previously known as Upper Volta, and today's Democratic Republic of the Congo has been known at various times as The Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo-Léopoldville, Congo-Kinshasa, and Zaire.

And here at home, Cape Canaveral, Florida, was changed to Cape Kennedy and then back to Cape Canaveral (home of the Kennedy Space Center), and almost every city of any size has renamed at least one street in honor of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, or both.

The Al Jazeera article linked above cites a UN policy which evidently states that

"...any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilised as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values."

Perhaps. But there is also a long tradition of changing names to reflect changing political and social conditions.

The Iranian thorn would be just as prickly regardless of how its surrounding waters are named. And ever-changing geographical names do help keep cartographers in business and provide opportunities for diplomats to wag fingers at each other.

You say Persian Gulf. I say Arabian Gulf.

Let's call the whole thing off.

Have a good day, whether you call it Thursday or something else.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

How Many Laws?

There was a fascinating article in yesterday's Washington Post that is worth spending a few minutes to read and ponder: One Nation, Under Too Many Laws.

Author Philip K. Howard takes a look at the proliferation of laws in the United States and concludes that there are too many, that justice is ill-served thereby, and that new laws ought to include a sunset clause that makes them expire unless they are specifically reenacted by Congress.

I think this is a grand idea, long overdue, and highly unlikely ever to be implemented.

Consider this: Almighty God provided Ten Commandments as a guide to behavior and ethics. That was "ten," with or without a capital "t." By contrast, no one - except, perhaps, God Almighty, knows how many laws are on the books at the Federal level, let alone at the state and local levels. Best guess: hundreds of thousands. Answers.com took a stab at answering the question in this online article, but concluded that "...there are so many criminal laws, the odds of no one breaking one in a lifetime are so astronomical, it would make DNA odds look like simple math." The article goes on to note that from 2000 to 2007, Congress created at least 452 new crimes, bringing the total number of Federal crimes at the end of 2007 to more than 4,450. Ninety-one of the 452 were contained in new laws that created 279 new crimes, and the remaining were created by amending existing laws. The total of 452 new crimes breaks down by year as follows:

65 for 2000;

28 for 2001;

82 for 2002;

51 for 2003;

48 for 2004;

13 for 2005;

145 for 2006; and,

20 for 2007

Ten commandments seemed to work pretty well for over 2,000 years. Now, we have 452 secular commandments created in just eight years.

What does the proliferation of laws mean? First of all, it means that everyone can probably be found guilty of something if you search the law codes long enough. The US Code alone contains 50 "titles," each containing countless specific laws, amendments, legislative histories, etc.

The proliferation of laws - many of them enacted by Congress in payment of political debts to special interests - leads to confusion and a sense of overwhelming injustice on the part of Real People. When the laws are so overwhelmingly complex and there are so many of them, it cheapens the meaning of those individual laws that are necessary and worthwhile. It's a good bet that many, if not most, of the laws now on the books are unnecessary and could easily be rescinded...if Congress were required to reconsider them periodically.

We have far too many laws. If the Good Lord only needed ten, who are we to say that we need 452 ... in less than ten years ... in addition to the tens of thousands we already had?

And Congress is still at work. Or, given the current situation, whatever passes for work on Capitol Hill.

Have a good day. Obey the law, if you can figure out what it is.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Raise Those Glasses High, Boys and Girls!

Today is December 5th: the 77th anniversary of the date on which Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution (which rescinded the 18th Amendment).

The key sections of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, as ratified on January 16, 1919, read as follows:

"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

"Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The 18th Amendment was a response to the political power of the temperance movement in the United States, which began in the early 19th century. At that time, many Americans were concerned about the adverse effects of drinking, and began to form temperance societies dedicated to the closing of saloons and the elimination of alcohol from American society. The 18th Amendment was enforced by the Volstead Act, which was passed over President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919. The Volstead Act created a special Prohibition unit within the Treasury Department which, in its first six months of operation, destroyed thousands of illegal distilleries (stills) operated by the makers of bootleg liquor. Despite their best efforts, however, federal agents and police did little more than slow the flow of booze, and organized crime boomed across the country to fill the demand for alcohol. Large-scale bootleggers like Al Capone of Chicago built criminal empires out of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol, and federal and state governments lost billions in tax revenue. In most urban areas, and particularly in blue-collar neighborhoods, the individual consumption of alcohol was largely tolerated and drinkers gathered at saloons known as "speakeasies" (because of the requirement to whisper a password to the guard at the door to gain admittance) or brewed often-poisonous "bathtub gin" at home.

Prohibition - a well-meaning attempt to resolve a societal issue through legislation - was a flop. But at least Congress recognized its mistake and repealed it. One has to wonder if anyone in Congress today would have the legislative cojones to admit disaster and move to repeal an ill-considered law.

Being a Member of Congress means never having to admit you're being stupid.

Anyhow, for those of you who are keeping count, because the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, technically there have only been 25, and not 27 amendments to the Constitution. And you are able during this holiday season to enjoy comforting libations like Hot Buttered Rum, the German Feuerzangenbowle (concerning which I have a funny story to tell if you are interested), hot cocoa spiked with Peppermint Schnapps, and the delightful White Christmas (one ounce each of vodka, amaretto, and heavy cream shaken with a handful of ice, strained into a martini glass, and garnished with a bit of grated nutmeg).

Bottoms up!

Have a good day. Enjoy all things in moderation. Including moderation.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo