EFFin’ Unsound

Posted by Robby

So over at (un)Sound Politics, Stefan’s got himself convinced that the fact that some people in Washington didn’t go to work this week because of snow means that no one needs the government.

“Snow shuts down federal government, life goes on”.

That suggests an experiment to test how long different parts of the federal government could be shut down before anybody notices.

The overwrought headline is from the Seattle Times, but even the Times manages to realize that their headline is a little ridiculous. As the Times reports:

So far, the effects have been negligible. Many essential government services are performed at offices around the country, and about 85 percent of federal employees work outside the Washington region anyway. Others were working from home despite the snow. An IRS spokeswoman said tax returns should not be affected.

Stefan’s assumption that DC shutting down indicates the government has shut down as well displays either a profound ignorance about how our federal system works or an incredible willingness to mislead those who read his blog. I’ll leave it to you to decide which it is.

Posted by Robby

Carl Gipson, of the Washington Policy Blog, is beside himself about taxes.  Apparently, employer provided cell phone plans can be taxed, and it’s the end of the world.

Once again the Internal Revenue Service is highlighting just how out of touch it can be when it comes to the convergence of technology and tax policy. Today’s front page of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required, but you can see the synopsis for free) reports that the IRS is considering tightening regulations that consider employer-provided cell phones as a benefit to employees — therefore making it a taxable benefit.

(snip)

It’s absurd to think that these employer-provided devices — often smartphones that incessantly keep track of email, phone calls, contacts, calendar, presentations, etc — should be labeled as a benefit. Especially when more and more people are trying to ditch them (there’s a reason they are called “Crackberries”).

Look, I’m not saying that it’s absolutely essential that cell phone plans be taxed, but it’s pretty clearly a benefit that would otherwise be paid for out of the employees taxable income.  I have an iPhone, and I pay for it out of my own pocket.  That’s right, the same pocket that my taxes come out of.  Also, the idea that “more and more people are trying to ditch them” seems a little ridiculous.  People may not be extatic about constantly being tethered to their desks, but I know plenty of people who own Blackberries, iPhones, or some other smart phone off their own accord.

Posted by Robby

I don’t know what’s been going on lately, but I seem to be a couple of days behind on the news for some reason.  I hadn’t heard about George Tiller’s murder until yesterday, and I’m just reading this morning about the soldier murdered at a recruitment station on Monday.  This post isn’t necessarily in response to anyone on the right.  I just wanted to make sure that we had a statement on the blog condemning both murders.

On Monday, a recently converted Muslim drove by a recruiting station and gunned down to soldiers who had just returned from basic training and were having a cigarette outside. The killer was apparently upset about the mistreatment he fealt America’s military had given to Muslims throughout the world.  Neither the soldier who was killed nor the one who was wounded had deployed.
I would like to point out that, at least to my mind, both murders are symptomatic of the same kind of craziness.  George Tiller was murdered by a fanatical Christian who thought he knew enough about God’s will to take a life.  The murder of the soldier was similar, except that it was a fanatical Muslim instead.

Posted by Robby

Jonathan has some thoughts on gay marriage.  I’m just going to jump right in.

The anti-traditional marriage crowd is trying to intimidate the pro-traditional marriage crowd. (link) (link)

For what it’s worth, the idea of publishing the names of Prop.17 supporters may not have been the best idea ever.  That said, it’s already public information.  All that whosigned is doing is making information that is already open to the public more available.  Nice martyr complex there.

I believe that every child deserves a loving father and a mother. I believe that it is up to the State of Washington to see that children are only born or adopted by married couples, male and female, who will love and raise them righteously.

And I believe that I should spend every evening in the company of several beautiful women.  Unfortunately, you can’t always get what you want.  Additionally, what you want here doesn’t make any sense.  Do you really believe that kids are better of in foster care, bouncing from family to family, then they would be if they were adopted by a loving couple who also happened to be gay?

There is nothing more important to us or anyone than our children.

And Jonathan reaches the pinnacle of his debating skills.  WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??!?!?!?!?!

If you are an evolutionist, you must agree, since it is not the preservation of life that is important but the propagation of the species.

And yet, I don’t.

The homosexual marriage movement (I refuse to call it “gay”) is focused on diminishing marriage until it is nothing more than a selfish contract between two consenting adults. They are trying to destroy the one thing in our society that protects children and brings lasting happiness to justify their perversions of the flesh.

What does he think that matrimony (for no reason whatsoever, I am going to refuse to call it “marriage”) is right now.  As it happens, very few weddings happen for the reasons that Jonathan feels they should.  Also, “the one thing in our society that protects children?”  Screw the police.  All the protection children need can be found in families.  Except when their (usually heterosexual) families abuse them, I guess.

Marriage is much more than a contract. It is a sacrament, a holy ordinance, and a sacred consecration of the entire persons to each other. The reason why man and wife join to become one is not to pleasure each other with the flesh, but to raise up a righteous family built on love. The reason why it is so hard is because unless both the husband and the wife give everything they have into it, unselfishly and without any expectation of reward, they cannot experience success. It takes faith to get married, faith to stay married. Faith that although things are not perfect, they can be perfect if we simply never give up.

So should those who don’t believe in God be prohibited from getting married?  I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but marriage has never been anything but a contract.  That doesn’t mean it’s useless, just that recognizing the utility of the union is important for it’s survival.  Marriage (oops, I wasn’t going to use that word) is a means for society to recognize that two people intend to take care of each other indefinitely and, in most cases, reproduce.  That second part is good and important, but not inclusive.  The first can certainly happen without the second.

There is no other place in any society where you can go to get the kind of love and growth you get in your family. It is the duty of every man, woman, and child to not only support the holy institution of marriage, but become a husband and wife, a mother and father through it. This, and nothing else, will bring lasting, eternal happiness. All is naught compared to what you get in marriage.

I have a friend who would disagree.  His family was an abusive hellhole.  Or maybe he wouldn’t disagree.  He might say that, while his natural family was of no real use to him, he had created a new family of friends.  That family might not involve marriage, but it is just as important.  Family can come in many different shapes, and one of those possible shapes can indeed involve gays.

When my name gets listed at whosigned.org and knowthyneighbor.org, I will wear it like a badge of honor. I am willing to sacrifice all that I can to see that the State of Washington stands up for traditional, holy matrimony. I want to be known as those who are listed are known as defenders of marriage. I want to be insulted and threatened and harassed by those who have lost all sense of good and evil, and pursue evil endlessly.

And what a sacrifice it is.  You mean that Jonathan Gardner, who frequently posts right-wing rants online, is willing to let his name be seen online in opposition to gay marriage?  There are not words do describe the level of sacrifice.

Posted by Robby

I’m sure most of you have heard by now that George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country providing late term abortions to mothers facing medical emergencies, was shot while at church on Sunday.  They have now arrested a suspect and, no surprise here, he had apparently talked to friends about how killing an abortion provider would be “justified homicide.”  Now, I would hardly expect the right-wing blogs I read to praise Tiller, but I found this post by Doug Parris at the Reagan Wing to be particularly repulsive.  Some selections:

Notorious serial abortionist George Tiller was shot to death this morning while attempting to enter Wichita’s “Reformation Lutheran Church,” where he is a “member,” according to the paper.

Aside from the obvious callousness of this post, what stood out to me the most was his putting church in quotes, as if the church that Tiller attended could never be thought of as a true church.  It’s not dissimilar to talk of “real” America. 

The Killer is no longer at large.

But the man who shot him is.

The man who shot the doctor is the killer.  There have been a number of stories posted all over the internet describing the compassion with which Tiller practiced medicine.  My favorite has been this comment at Balloon Juice.  It is clear that Tiller provided a heart-breaking service to families faced with truly impossible decisions.  His assassination represents a true loss to America.

Members of his feckless congregation attempted, aparently(sic), to detain the gunman (thus interfering, for a time, with his “CHOICE”), but stopped when he objected, perhaps utilizing their “conflicts resolution” techniques or deciding that they couldn’t force their morality on someone else.

That last part is just ridiculous.  You can’t contain an armed killer?  Well, you must be “feckless.” 

Posted by Robby

So I realize I’m a little behind on this one, but back on the 21st at (u)SP, Pudge was busily defending Guantanamo Bay:

Let’s be clear: President Obama gives us only one single reason why the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay needs to be closed: because it makes us look bad. Because it is a negative symbol.

That’s it. There’s literally no other reason that he gives us. You might think that’s reason enough, but we’ve never really had that debate, and Obama throws in sufficient fallacious arguments around it to ensure we won’t.

The thing is, image does matter.  Mathew Alexander, an Air Force veteran who, while leading an elite interagation unit, helped track down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has spoken frequently about the recruitment tool that Guantanamo Bay has been for al-Qaeda and other militant groups.  People who believe that America turtures are more likely to hate America, and people who hate America are more likely to try and kill Americans.

I’m not saying that terrorism would just go away if we had never opened Git-mo, just that its a factor.  And if it’s a factor, I don’t see a good reason not to shut the place down.

Posted by Robby
Over on Red County, Tom Forbes has found himself a study saying that recycled grocery bags are bad. Let’s see if anyone can guess who did the study. I’ll give you a couple of hints: 1. it was done in Canada 2. It’s about a issue of interest to the plastics industry. If your guess was the Canadian Plastics Association, you were right. From the Canadian article:

The Canadian Plastics Industry Association hired two independent labs to conduct what it said was the first study of so-called eco-friendly grocery bags in North America, and found 64 per cent of them were contaminated with some level of bacteria.

(snip)

The problem is similar to a situation where bacteria can be transferred from kitchen countertops and cutting boards to foods, and the more waterproof the reusable bag is, the more likely it is to become a breeding ground for bacteria, Summerbell said.

Next thing you know, the tobacco industry will come out with a report saying that cigarettes are good for you.  It always amazes me when people take industry group research at its word.  Also, of course they get dirty.  There made of cloth.  My shirts sometimes get dirty as well.  You know what I do?  I wash them periodically.  This isn’t rocket science.  More on things getting dirty, again from the CPIA report:

The study also warned of other potential health problems if the reusable bags are used to carry gym clothes or diapers in addition to groceries, which could lead to exposure to the superbug called community-acquired MRSA (methycillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).

So I shouldn’t mix my dirty clothes with things I plan to eat later?  Next you’ll be telling me that I should use the toilet instead of my kitchen sink.  Basically, this study shows that people who don’t practice basic hygiene are more likely to get sick.  Let me know if I’m wrong on this, but I don’t think that’s exactly earth shattering news.

Posted by Robby

After the recent nuclear testing by North Korea, Jonathan at FWCon is all kinds of ready to invade:

People are going to die here. Either North Korea nukes Japan, South Korea, United States and Europe, or North Korea falls by force. Negotiation is not an option anymore. There is nothing we can offer to have them back down and honestly come to the peace table.

Now, there’s no surprise there.  Jonathan is a pretty big fan of invading stuff.  Now for a bit of surprise.  If, for some reason, you are standing right now, you should sit down.  I kind of agree with him.  It’s been my opinion for sometime that a war with North Korea is probably going to be unavoidable.  Of course, there’s more to it then that.  Invading North Korea will result in a huge loss of life.  There’s a very real probability that Seoul could be completely destroyed, and it’s tough to overestimate the number of soldiers, both American and Korean, that will die.  The war would be pretty short (North Korea probably doesn’t have a lot of ammunition or the funds to buy much more), but it wouldn’t be like the first Iraq war.  Many, many more people would die.  North Korea has had 50 years to fortify their border with South Korea, and fortify they have.  Even with all of that, I am still, reluctantly, of the opinion that war is likely to be necessary in the not distant future.

Unfortunately, war is not an option that we really have.  Our current military has been hit pretty hard by the last eight years of poor policy.  Iraq and Afghanistan take the vast majority of our resources.  And while Iraq seems to be starting to wind down, Afghanistan is likely to be a majore front for some time.  Years of poor planning and distractions on the part of the Bush Administration have turned what might have been a relatively short conflict into a long-term war that, in my opinion, threatens to become this generation’s Vietnam.  The remaining threat of Al Qaeda and other militant groups will probably require a large American presence in Afghanistan and, potentially, Pakistan for years to come.

And that’s not the end of the problem.  Seven years of some pretty intense non-conventional fighting has resulted, again in my own opinion only, a military that is pretty good at counter-insurgency (COIN in military parlance) warfare but not so well prepared for the kind of conventional, army on army warfare that a war on the Korean peninsula would entail.  We still have most of the equipment, but few of our young soldiers have been trained for conventional fighting.  That is at the very least true in my experience.  My official job in the army is a Korean Linguist.  But after two deployments to Iraq, I am much more confidant providing intelligence for a counter-insurgency then I am providing intell for a more conventional fight.

As much as I hate the thought of war in Korea, I’m reluctantly of the opinion that it will eventually be necessary.  Unfortunately (or, I suppose depending on your outlook), I think that a military option is pretty much off of the table in dealing with North Korea.  Deplomacy may not have been very effective over the last couple of decades, but deplomacy is pretty much all that we’ve got.

Posted by Robby

So, being that I’m quite a fan of Demo Kid’s new acronym, RTRD, here’s yet another example of right-wing dishonesty.  Over at The Reagan Wing, Doug Parris is pretty upset about a new law having to do with annexation.  The law is designed to facilitate the transfer of firefighters from one fire district to another when a city incorporates an area including a fire district.  The part he’s concerned with, right from the bill SB5808, Section 7 (3):

19 (3) If the fire protection district, annexing city or town, and
20 county reach an agreement on the enumerated goals, the annexation
21 ordinance may proceed and is not subject to referendum.

He’s pretty upset because, to him, it looks like this bill has added another way for a city to annex, and then tax, a previously unincorporated area.  From Doug’s post:

However, in addition to concerns about fire districts, section seven of the bill takes a major deviation by addressing a new subject. Prior to this bill, annexation was possible by several methods, all of which involved either a petition by a majority of the property owners or a majority vote of the residents in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). [Emphasis in original]

Except that the bill only says that if you skip the section just above the part he is so worried about.  From section 7(1):

21 (1)(a) An annexation by a city or town that is proposing to annex
22 territory served by one or more fire protection districts may be
23 accomplished by ordinance after entering into an interlocal agreement
24 as provided in chapter 39.34 RCW with the county and the fire
25 protection district or districts that have jurisdiction over the
26 territory proposed for annexation.

So, what does that mean?  As I read it, it means that everything but the transfer of jobs between fire districts remains the same.  All this bill is doing is streamlining the process for firefighters.  The thing that doesn’t get voted on isn’t the annexation itself, it’s the agreement between fire districts for what they will do after/if the annexation takes place.

Posted by Robby

It is no secret that Jonathan hates government bureaucracy.  In his mind, groups like the EPA can do no good.  In fact, it would seem that regulatory agencies have a great deal of blood on their hands.  There’s one paragraph in particular from today that I feel needs to be looked at in detail

Yes, the EPA and other bureaucracies with legislative and enforcement powers have left millions of Americans dead.

What do you suppose the chances of documentation on this are?  My guess is zero, but who knows, he may surprise us.

Dead because they were denied access to a free market that would allow them to experiment with life-saving drugs when their lives were in mortal peril.

Yes, God forbid that the government should put any effort whatsoever into regulating the prescription drug market.  I mean, it’s not like consumers have ever been mislead by snake oil salesman, is it?  I for one am glad that the FDA makes drug makers put their drugs through pretty stringent tests before doctors can prescribe them.  Unless I’m mistaken, the FDA’s role is to ensure that the side effects of drugs are well known before they are authorized for use on humans, and that seems like a pretty decent thing to do.

Dead because of regulations and enforcements that lead people to behave in more dangerous ways.

Because there are so many of those.  Like the government regulation requiring me to jump off tall buildings periodically.  Look, if you want to complain about a nanny state, that’s fine.  I’m not big on requiring drivers to wear seat belts.  Of course, those requirements really aren’t making anyone less safe.

Dead because they have to drive cars that are lighter than the consumer would otherwise want.

Because big cars are currently unavailable in America.  Except for on car lots and in used car ads, it’s almost impossible to find one nowadays.

Dead because of pollution permitted by the EPA, or standards that raise the costs of life-critical goods and services out of the reach of the poor.

My head just exploded.  Which of these two sins is he accusing the EPA of exactly?  Either it over regulates or under regulates, but I don’t see how it could be both.

Jonathan concedes that some regulation is necessary, he just doesn’t want bureaucracies involved in enforcement.  I’m not sure who he thinks should be doing it.  Congresspeople, maybe?  They’re pretty busy with, you know, the writing of legislation as prescribed by the Constitution.  A good pick for the executing of laws and regulations might be, wait for it, the executive branch.  You know the one, it’s the branch with the president and such executive agencies as the EPA.