Scandal

I'll send y'all over to Georgia Sports Blog for the proper introduction to the college football news that just hit the web.







University of Miami's having a bad day. Please, don't take a picture.



.

Follow Up

You remember those girls with the lemonade stand back in Georgia? Well, as of today,

These girls have learned a valuable lesson about small business, big government and the power of publicity.

Aint't that the truth.

.

Moar Thuggery Please!

Those union thugs in Wisconsin are now accused of attacking Tea Party fists with their faces.

Really, though, I'm sure this episode will show up all over right-wingistan as TP types getting "attacked" by union folks. But as a flag owner myself, stringing a flag between two people to cover up someone already standing there is picking a fight behavior. You do not behave that way.

I'm sure we'll hear more. It will be amazing to see what Andrew Breitbart does with any video.

.

The Kitchen Staff

Jay Bookman at the AJC interviews an anonymous restaurant owner whose business is going to be smacked by Georgia's new immigration law. While the anonymous subtext may threaten the credibility of the interview in some people's eyes, as a former member of the service industry caste, the entire scenario is far more than plausible.

Hell, I've had the same conversation with dyed in the wool Republican small business owners. My position on illegal immigration has always been to start with the businesses who hire workers illegally. Sorry. I know it will cause a lot of people a lot of problems. I know a lot of good folks who might go out of business because of the rapidity of change.

But there's political power to be gained by demagouging this populist issue. The problem with an unstable or unpredictable policy is that you can't plan for it. You can only react to the facts on the ground. For a restaurant owner, where margin is everything, you go with the most dependable employee you can get on staff for the lowest price. Guess who fit that mold for the last decade or so?

But that leaves you vulnerable to the politics. A lot of folks have exploited the xenophobia for a long time, without having to actually fix a problem. At the same time, a lot of folks have exploited the marginal lives most illegal immigrants maintain in this country - hidden away from legal protections and workplace laws.

The bottom line as I see it? Illegal immigration hurts this nation's economy, it hurts those who immigrate here legally and illegally, it creates unsustainable economic conditions, it kneecaps development in home countries, and no one has been able to do anything effective about any of it. Now, as the previous status quo changes to a different ineffective policy, you'll have shocking changes full of unintended consequences. Unscrupulous business owners won't really change, they'll just find new and exciting ways to keep cutting corners. Those who try to do right by their employees and keep their businesses afloat are the ones who will get hammered in the middle.

Build all the walls you want, if there are jobs here folks will find a way around them. Deport all the illegals you want, if there are jobs here folks will replace them faster than you can get rid of them. Harass them all you want, you'll only kneecap your own businesses who depend on paying low wages to make their margins. Throw in the added luxury of curbing civil liberties so undermanned and undertrained authorities can participate in enforcement. Hell of a policy we've got going on here.

But the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. As soon as you lose the protection of the developers (and their money and connections) where most illegals were employed during the "boom" years, they're going to come after the agriculture and hospitality industries. As they now will. And they aren't going to go about it out of some deep seated desire for justice - this isn't about respect for the law, this is about winning elections and controlling political donations.

.

High Cost of the War on Drugs

Someday, I hope someone can explain to me why, in a legitimate and compelling way, this is a worthwhile expenditure of tax dollars. I hope someone will explain why that is a priority.

Because I drove over crumbling roads to work in a city filled with blighted houses and at-risk schools in a state where people's homes are being intentionally flooded by the government so other people's homes don't flood accidentally.

And I hope my brother will recognize that this is what I'm talking about when I say that drug policy in this country is an absolute but expensive failure.

.

Small Government at Work

You know why I don't trust the "Small Government" concept of political management? Contractors. If you operate on the premise that you can "run government like a business" and that "government can't manage things correctly," then it makes sense that one of the ways you deliver public services to the community is to set out a bid for a contract, and go with the lowest bidder for the services.

On its face, this appears to shrink the government and save the taxpayers money.

In practice, however, it leads to nonsense like New Orleans' traffic camera fiasco.*

In this case, an external entity has convinced a government officials to purchase their services in an effort to raise revenue for the government budget under the guise of increasing safety. This is an incredibly unpopular program that would likely be voted down if offered up on a referendum, and has been the subject of many lawsuits. To legally administer the program while protecting the city from litigation raised by the program requires measures that have led to the suspensions of high level police officials who were part of the "clean up corruption" regime.

This happens because the program is ripe for corruption, and even the most above-board administration appears dirty when you've got this much money made from a low political risk program that delivers nearly unchallengeable verdicts regarding an almost indefensible crime. (Disclaimer: I've been caught by one of these cameras.)

My problem is that the city shouldn't be making money in this way, and shouldn't be depending on revenue generated. As Mark points out:

Even if you buy into the idea that the cameras are more about safety than revenues, it still doesn’t make sense for a city to rely on revenues from scofflaws. If the cameras DO actually change driving behavior, as proponents suggest, then these traffic camera revenues will decline over time anyway, as people drive more safely. That creates an incentive for the city to install ever more cameras to overcome the decline in ticket funds.

If the program's big proponents are defending it because the city will lose money if it is terminated, then you see the only reason we have this program. And it ain't public safety. It is about a snake-oil solution to a problem no one wants to face politically.

The better idea, it seems to me, is for this city to fix its incredible revenue problems as well as the city's unbelievable spending problems. Because, like most governments, this city has both problems in abundance.

.

* Which is not to be confused with the non-revenue generating New Orleans crime camera fiasco. That wasn't about public safety, either.

.

The Glynn County Life

Finally, someone exposes the bullshit stinking from behind the bench from the Glynn County Drug Court. (HT: patsbrother)

Luckily, like in the Middle East, when cracks first appear in the despot's reign, things start to happen. Hopefully, people will start taking notice and start realizing how much power local authorities have over your life.

.

Feudalism

Lord David describes what it is like to live under a different system of government than that to which many Americans are accustomed.

Don't worry folks, the way things have been going nationally, it is only a matter of time.

.

My Private (Public) Space

Don't worry, northerners. While y'all are busy putting furniture in parking spaces you've shoveled out of the snow, folks down South have to deal with navigating homemade street barricades manned by small children and inebriated adults, or a raft of debris thrown onto public streets to reserve parking spaces during Jazz Fest.

Y'all have fun with that snow.

.

Insufficient Evidence

What has happened, and what still happens, in regards to our generations' "War on Terror," should be a shame on our national conscience as great as that of the Japanese American Internment. I could relate it to many of the historical injustices the people of this nation, through fear or greed, suspended the rights of fellow Americans for purposes that could only be described as illegitimate or lazy. But the Internment is the one that comes to mind the easiest, because that should have been our lesson on fear-based government overreach.

Maybe it would be easier to draw lines to our history if politicians, pundits and cultural harpies didn't spend so much time trying to rewrite or undermine the events and lessons of the past.

For those of you wondering, this is but one of the reasons I will never fully trust the government. I love my country, I respect my government, and I realize that anyone can make mistakes. But I also know that people who make mistakes don't like to admit it, and any human being can make assumptions. If that human being has some form of authority, he can do significant damage with those assumptions if he is able.

If someone in authority thinks you are a threat, and you have limited resources to defend yourself, they will come for you first. Vigilance is always necessary so that such things like this can be called out when the time comes, cynicism is always necessary to make sure you aren't being fed a bunch of bullshit when those in authority tell you about it.

It is also important from a real security standpoint. Behaving badly will always keep them from effectively focusing resources on the more legitimate threats - they will be too busy with the low hanging fruit.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to respond to the politics of fear.

This is also one of the reasons I find it abhorrent and intellectually sloppy to equate all Muslims or Middle Easterners with terrorism in our political discourse, our campaigns, our media and our culture. That helps cover up those in authority who make mistakes, it helps those mistakes make us less secure, and it only increases the ignorance necessary for our population to forget (and thus repeat) the sad lessons of our own history.

This is also one of the reasons I find it ridiculous that interrogations might involve torture, or that individuals can be held by our government for significant periods of time without formal charges being brought. If someone is a prisoner of war, they are a prisoner of war - obey those rules. If someone is suspected of a crime, bring charges against them in a court of law. It really is that simple.

.

A Non-Frivolous Lawsuit

One thing I want to start doing is highlighting lawsuits that matter. I want to do so to counter a popular and dangerous cultural narrative that exists in our society.

I've heard a lot about "frivolous" lawsuits recently, both on talk radio and through chain emails. I'm sure it has to do with the Taco-Bell-Not-Serving-Beef litigation (a suit I do not consider frivolous), which came about the same time some woman who walked into a water fountain while texting attempted to sue the mall she was in for her accident (which I do consider silly).

But the "frivolous lawsuit" comes from a longstanding cultural narrative that America is a too-quick-to-sue culture. The narrative continues that these lawsuits are the fault of trial lawyers (who, we are constantly reminded, robustly support Democratic Pary with donations) and drive up costs for all services and goods, especially in the field of medicine. Every time you see a warning label on a product, we are told to remember that such a warning exists because someone filed a ridiculous lawsuit sometime somewhere someway. The focus driving this narrative is always the initial filing, or initial finding - I do not believe a cultural understaning exists to check on whether any of those cases get dismissed or have an outrageous award reduced on appeal.

Thing is, you rarely hear about the necessary lawsuits. You rarely hear about those lawsuits constantly required to keep big business or government overreach in check. You rarely hear about those lawsuits that fall under the guise of a "redress of grievances" that take years to come to a conclusion, that take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars from filing to final verdict. You would be hard pressed to find widespread circulation of how damaging a "loser pays" system would be for those individuals who attempt to right some wrong.

Part of that is because following legal minutiae is boring, part of it is because of the cultural narrative that leads us to believe most lawsuits are frivolous.

.

Two Weeks Notice

This is just another example of why we so desperately need tort reform in this country. Courts declaring that energy monopolies have less than 14 days to repair or restore an excavation on a street with high pedestrian traffic is unreasonable in expectation.

If we keep allowing our courts to make such decisions, they will kill the business of every energy monopoly that cannot complete infrastructure repairs in under two weeks! These companies will pack up and leave America for nations that actually like having energy monopolies, and the services and jobs they provide.

Who is John Galt? Will we never learn?

Onward we march towards the Big-Government nanny state, where businesses get punished for success. Won't anybody stand up to the liberal, activist judges who continue to place chains on the free-market idea of competitive energy monopolies?

< / sarcam >

.

The Mess

Combine government over-reliance on contractors, kickbacks from contractors to politicians to ensure said over-reliance, and the fact that few individuals pay attention to what is actually going on in their local governments and how it affects their lives and finances.

What do you get? This.

If you're ever wondering why our national, state and local governments never seem to get much return on investment for our tax dollars they are "investing" in contracted services, there are rather simple reasons.

.

Trivial Crimes

Live by the jury, die by the jury. As Americans, for good or ill, we don't just make policy at the ballot box.

Whenever a jury turns loose an alleged murderer, I never blame the jury - I blame the prosecutor. I blame the lack of trust in the criminal justice system and the police. But most of the time the case gets made, even on circumstancial evidence. I'd wager far more juries convict people than turn them loose, even if our popular culture makes it seem the other way around.

Back in the day, juries were compromised, and routinely fixed by the laws of the time. Minorities could not get a fair trial with an all white jury and the prejudice of the day. It was problematic when juries would throw out the facts and decide cases based on prevailing racial attitudes. (#KilledMockingbirds)

But sometimes, a jury's behavior might surprise you. Like the time that jury in Montana refused to even hear a prosecutor's case because of the small amount of marijuana involved in the defendant's arrest.

By not even hearing the case, they didn't hear about the defendant's full criminal history. But he wasn't on trial for his prior deeds, he was on trial for a 1/16 ounce of controlled substance. Hearing the charges, the jury didn't see fit to waste their time on the matter, leaving a stunned prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge even as they voted themselves out of the courtroom en masse.

.

The O'Connor Hit

The other day on Facebook, I got called out for linking too often to sites like Slate to explain my political opinions on a topic. When I write, I try to link to the analysis, and not drive the pageviews to the websites I find absurd. But doing so somehow allows my "conservative" family and friends to dismiss as hyperbolic fantasy when I quote things right-wingers actually say and write or when I explain how certain statements and positions support a larger, already existing narrative.

So, when I came across this Slate article exploring how the noise machine is going after retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I knew I'd have to provide the links and give it to y'all in their own words. Because, hell, I could barely believe it. All these links, and a lot of this material, originate from the Slate piece.

Apparently, you just can't advocate for alzheimers research and reform of the judicial selection process these days without a nefarious liberal agenda. Since real conservatives can't possibly hold positions different from those of the right-wing punditocracy, Carrie Severino of the National Review is ready for O'Connor to sit down, shut up, and stop playing the patsy for meddlesome "liberal" groups:

Retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor is now done remaking federal law from the Supreme Court, which frees her up to dabble in state court issues. She has particularly devoted herself to a crusade against judicial elections, and was in Iowa this week as part of a panel rallying support for Iowa’s judicial selection system and the three justices whose retention elections are making headlines.

Ed Whelan of the same fine publication just raises questions regarding the legality, ethics and conflict-of-interests involving O'Connor doing part time work as a federal appeals judge while getting involved in judicial selection reform.

Just questions, you know. These questions don't cause other opinion makers to cite raised questions as fact and issue sweeping indictments like:

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has violated the Code of Conduct for United States judges.

Meanwhile, the video splicers and setup artists over at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website hired some guy named John Bambeneck to write this howler of a column about O'Connor's desire to kneecap the freedom of Americans to govern themselves:

Part of the controversy is interesting since federal judges are required to refrain from political activity (for good reason) and appearing in a robocall clearly is political activity. There was, of course, the stunt of scheduling a modest number of robocalls at 1am to ensure massive media coverage of the proposition that might otherwise go unnoticed. It’s clever, really. Generate a moderate amount of controversy to bring attention to your candidate or cause, it’s been done before.

The interesting part of that story isn’t that she was doing robocalls (though that is a problem). The interesting part is what this proposition would entail. So-called “merit selection” of judges is simply a euphamistic way of saying “we’re going to take away the right to vote for judges from the citizens and give it to politicians and special interests.”

Sandra Day O'Connor: subverting traditional American government so that liberal interest groups and illegal immigrants can keep hard-working Americans from electing judges. Why does Sandra Day O'Connor hate America?

(As an aside, you know what state has elected judges? Louisiana.)

.

Your Small Government, Constitutionalist Authoritarians

Y'all remember when the most egregious political thuggery had to do with Georgians stealing political signs and covering themselves in fox urine? How we are wont to pine for those days.

I saw this news story pop several days ago, but like a lot of flashes in the pan of divisive elections, I always want to give something "controversial" a few days to settle down. Most of the time, the story isn't as bad as it first seems, or the video ends up being from the Andrew Breitbart film studios or whatever.

But the story of Joe Miller's bodyguards just keeps getting worse.

For those of you not following this one, here's the long and short of it:

If it's not completely intolerable to have active-duty soldiers handcuffing American journalists on U.S. soil while acting as private "guards" for Senate candidates, what would be?

Miller is Palin's candidate, the Tea Party choice. Their selling point is small government and Constitutionalism. On one side of the country, Christine O'Donnell is demonstrating that these folks may not actually know the principles of the United States Constitution; over in Alaksa, Miller is demonstrating that lack of knowledge in practice. That's two candidates of the same political group, on a Senatorial slate, with similar rhetoric, in very different states on different sides of the country. They are the inheritors of the Party that brought us the PATRIOT ACT and the last decade of hyperventilation and hyperbole.

And part of their political narrative is that President Obama and the Democrats are the illegitimately elected, secretly socialist activists who will lead us down the path to police state and government control.

Because if Miller was a Democrat, and this had happened, you'd be hearing plenty about OMG KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL DICTATORSHIPS!!

There is another video donwpage that shows just how hairy things are getting out there in the political theatre. I wonder how much the hyperbole is affecting the way these people act?

But make no mistake, thugs exist on all sides, and should not be tolerated.

.

"Not the State, Not the King"

Your marching towards feudalism link for the day: Foreclosure Fraud Endangers Capitalism & Western Civilization.

As we noted previously, esteemed economists such as Hernando de Soto have identified that the respect for title, proper documentation, contract law and private property rights are the underlying reason capitalism works in Western nations, but seems to flounder elsewhere.

We cannot have free market capitalism without this process. So what does it mean if banks have been systemically, fraudulently and illegally undermining this process?

Of course, questioning the banks might cause trouble for the already troubled economy, which we all know was caused by Democrats, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and not banks at all. Really.

Though it is funny to hear White House staffers balk at a foreclosure moratorium because it may have "unintended consequences." #isntitironic #dontchathink

HT: Jeffrey

.