Constant Conservative

I recently read a story to which I will not link. My reason for doing so will become evident shortly.

The gist of the matter was that a horrible crime is alleged. The news organization finds someone else in the same neighborhood (not the alleged victim) who is willing to provide context and reaction to the alleged events. This person provides quite a bit of personal information to the reporter, including name, marital/family status, work schedule, rough address, etc. This person states that she/he is fearful of the possibility of the same type of crime happening to her/him.

If the perpetrator(s) of the alleged crime read this story, they have more than enough data to work from for victim number 2.

I do not understand either the news reporter–who would openly publish such information–or the person–who would freely provide such information with no apparent thought as to its possible use.

Here is hoping that I’m simply thinking too hard about all of this and that nothing untoward happens as a result of the story.

Dell Rapids takes opportunity to turn down bond issue–or not–for the fifth time.

$2.5 million of your money to train people in jobs which will need further subsidies.

Paygo is now in place for federal spending. Change expected to be inconsequential.

Last time, we covered most of Paine’s Common Sense understanding of the need for/origin of basic government. We shall now continue with his conclusions in that vein:

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, ’tis right.

Ahh, “freedom and security.” The “design and end of government.” One could do worse than to see this as the dynamic tension provided by a properly limited government. Of course, Paine defers to “nature and reason” but we can forgive him that since history has shown us that reason, in particular, is insufficient to trump the lust for power intrinsic to the human heart.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.

Though he does not put it in quite so many words, Paine is subscribing to the KISS rule of government. He realizes that there was benefit to the constitution of England, but that it has suffered over time and as he puts it “subject to convulsions.”  I find it interesting to draw parallels here, not with the US Constitution as such, but with the body of law which has been built upon it (and in many cases, along side it). Those laws tend to more and more complexity.

Absolute governments, (tho’ the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

This part rings remarkably true with regard to the recent economic difficulties. The laws governing financial institutions, transactions and taxation thereof have become so complicated that every “political physician” advises a different medicine for the current economic ailments, with some advocating bleeding and others feeding. It would seem as though the troubles which existed in Paine’s time were not confined to that time, at least in regard to the nature of a government to increase its complexity beyond any practical usefulness.

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English Constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new Republican materials.

First. — The remains of Monarchical tyranny in the person of the King.

Secondly. — The remains of Aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the Peers.

Thirdly. — The new Republican materials, in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the People; wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the State.

It is likely that Paine himself was one of those who needed to get over “long standing prejudices” with respect to the flaws in the structure of the English government. He, with many others, would have been taught the supremacy of the English way of doing things from his childhood. After all, this was still during the time when people were imprisoned or killed for objecting to the actions of monarchs–regardless of how accurate those objections might have been.

To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

Paine is stating that power corrupts–and that this weakness (or as he puts it, “disease”) is natural to a monarchy. It would seem that England had tried a system of checks and balances, as we understand the terms today, but Paine is putting forth the argument that while such might have been the goal–the reality a rather different thing.

Previously

Thoughts on Paine’s Common Sense: Part 1, Part 2

ACLU of South Dakota Concerned By Two Bills in South Dakota House That Chill Free Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 5, 2010

Contact:
Robert Doody, ACLU of South Dakota, (917) 385-5702 or rdoody@aclu.org

SIOUX FALLS, SD- The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota is deeply concerned by two bills that have been introduced into the South Dakota Legislature this week. Both bills seek to add serious constraints to websites that allow users to post anonymous opinions. HB 1277 and HB 1278 mandate that websites in South Dakota that allow for unnamed posting of comments, opinions and other speech items must track those who are posting on their web pages and keep records of IP addresses and other potential identifying and private information.

“These bills seek to address issues of defamation on internet websites but do so in a way that is so excessively broad that it suppresses South Dakotans’ rights to freedom of expression and infringes on their right to privacy,” states Robert Doody, Executive Director of the SD Chapter of the ACLU. “Placing burdensome requirements on bloggers, website owners and others who operate internet-based sites that accept anonymous comments chills freedom of expression to its very core,” said Doody.

The two companion bills seek to undermine and discourage freedom of expression while forcing individuals who operate web-based forums to track their users. If HB 1277 passes, individuals would have the right to sue bloggers, website owners and operators, and others to force them to turn over their business records which identify those who post anonymous comments that might be viewed as defamatory. HB 1278 mandates that “content providers,” those who manage and run websites, blogs, and other forms of internet-based media, track and keep records of all identifying information of their website users.

“Defamation is not protected speech, but anonymous speech and the right to exercise your First Amendment rights are at the very heart of our democracy,” exclaimed Pat Powers, author of South Dakota War College, a blog which allows anonymous comments and which discusses political issues in South Dakota. “Blogs, online newspapers, hospitals, your local funeral home, anyone who allows anonymous comments must install tracking software if this law passes,” according to Pat Powers.

“Defamation is not protected speech on the internet or in any other forum; however, the current bills seek to make anonymous speech a virtual liability for any website owner,” according to Robert Doody of the ACLU of South Dakota. “The ACLU is particularly concerned with how HB 1277 and HB 1278 will chill speech about politicians and other public figures. “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority…It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation…” as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

Although HB 1277 and HB 1278 have the express purpose of helping combat defamation, both bills place undue burdens on websites to the point where the ability to make anonymous comments would be curtailed and in turn limit the ability to exercise the First Amendment. “There are other avenues to address online defamation through the legal process besides passing such chilling legislation,” said Doody.

As noted previously, there were rumblings of a bill that would seriously curtail certain anonymous speech in South Dakota (commenting on blogs and other websites). Now, the bill is here. Pat Powers is staying on the situation with his post here (including the full bill) and the follow up (addressing those who would be affected).

Here are a few questions:

1. Where are the circumstances where the lack of this law has resulted in grievous harm to a person or persons? Generally, one passes laws to correct gaps in existing law. It would be nice to know exactly what situation/crime prompted this law.
2. Does this law only pertain to blogs/websites which are hosted in South Dakota or simply those which are written/administered by South Dakotans? For example, if I were part of a group blog with one (or dozens of) other writers–does this apply even if I am the only South Dakota blogger in the group and the blog is hosted in Seattle?
3. Does the hosting company have any legal requirements to ensure that the logs are kept? After all, I might keep the logs, but the hosting provider might remove them to keep me from running out of the space I have rented from them on the server (for example) unless I wish to pay for more space.
4. How long must the logs be kept? If I shut down my blog/website, do I need to store these somewhere for a certain number of years?
5. How would this works for stuff like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Tumblr–where as one user among millions, I don’t have access to the logs? Does it mean that each of these companies is on the hook because some of their users live in South Dakota?
6. And, the most important question: Under what part of the South Dakota  or United States constitution do the sponsors of this bill find legal basis for this direct curtailment of free speech?

I’m sure there are even more questions which could be asked, but this enough for now. Yes, there are times when people take advantage of being anonymous to say unkind things about other people. People do this in large groups at political rallies, at sporting events, etc. People do this on blogs.

Part of being human is knowing that other humans will be unkind. However, when someone is unkind in my house–it is my personal responsiblity to deal with it in the way I deem most correct. Sometimes that means I invite the person to leave, sometimes it means I stop having guests at all. If I want to allow the person to stay and say what they will, I can choose that as well.

This bill is intended to address libel and slander. We already have a number of laws which handle that. Not to mention that the threshold for such findings is (and should be) quite high.

To all the senators and representatives who are backing HB 1278, I appreciate your desire to right the wrongs of public speech–but it really is none of your concern as duly elected public servants. The only thing which is worse than putting no law in place is putting in bad law. Allow me to state, for the record, that I mean no libel or slander against any of the following individuals by any of the above:

Representatives Hamiel, Bolin, Brunner, Carson, Cutler, Deadrick, Fargen, Gibson, Gosch, Greenfield, Hoffman, Hunt, Iron Cloud III, Jensen, Juhnke, Kirkeby, Kopp, Krebs, Lederman, McLaughlin, Moser, Olson (Betty), Schlekeway, Sly, Sorenson, Turbiville, Vanneman, and Verchio and Senators Turbak Berry, Brown, Dempster, and Vehle.

If any of these individuals represent you–please let them know that their representation is lacking.

Megan McCardle starts us off:

To state the obvious, unions negotiate ironclad contracts to cover dozens, hundreds, or thousands of workers.  Once they take effect, those contracts are rarely renegotiated, and they apply to every single worker no matter what the situation.  So unions are always going to be looking for the simplest, least subjective metrics by which to measure their members.  Furthermore, they will be looking for metrics which are not under the control of the other side.  The school board cannot change how many years you have in service, or whether or not you have a degree.  But it can change the curriculum, or the tests.

I  believe that to be true, but I also believe that the problem goes much deeper than that. Pay-for-performance or merit-based pay would force the unions and the school administration (and the teachers themselves) to acknowledge just how many teachers really don’t perform well at all–and should not even be teaching, if the schools were to use objective criteria.

I’ve worked in a variety of industries and for a number of companies across the country. Some were unionized and some were not. My experience with the unionized entities supports the idea that unionized employers are particularly attractive to sprinters. By that I mean that these entities (public or private) are known as places where once one gets in, one is good for life. Therefore, all one needs to do is sprint a bit–fill out the paperwork, take the tests, put on the best possible show, call in any family/friend favors and otherwise take whatever steps are necessary in the very short term to get contract. After that, very little effort is required to remain employed and one can get on with whatever things in life are truly important.

Those who excel (whether teachers or manufacturing line workers or whomever) are not as concerned about getting and keeping a certain job as are sprinters. These people know that they will be able to get ahead based on their inclination toward paying attention and working hard. As a result, unions are not essential for these employees–and are in many ways detrimental to the employees’ anticipated progress in the workforce.

The power of unions is in numbers: the number of union members, and (perhaps more importantly these days) the number of dollars which are provided in union dues.

Teacher’s unions do not like merit pay because it would remove the incentives which tend to increase the power of the unions. And that, as we all understand, is very bad thing for everybody.

Flying baby in fair condition.

Spring is in on the way (and so’s the flooding).

EPA rule on renewable fuels not making ethanol advocates happy.

Who issues the license anyway? State lawmakers unhappy w/federal REAL ID law.

Despite a growing need for sustainable markets for ag products, the old way (direct payment to farmers and agribusinesses from the US Treasury) is still preferred:

The first phase of the program involved payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of renewable biomass delivered to local plants. The next phase will pay farmers to grow the crops in areas close to biorefineries. People have about two months to comment on the proposed rule.

Thune says biofuels can help the U.S. reach energy independence while at the same time creating economic opportunities for growers.

Biofuels might be able to help us–but we’ll never know as long as we continue using taxpayer’s funds to prop up the system, since the incentive to get off such life support is not part of the equation. I’m sorry to see that Senator Thune is pushing this–while understanding that he is very popular with agribusiness and alternative fuels folks for doing so.

The issue is simple: Government has no business taking taxes from one person and then turning around and handing them to another (unless some one has been convicted of a crime and the monies are being used for restitution) no matter how beneficial the activities of the receiving person or entity may be to the community. There are legitimate uses for taxes by a government, but this is not one of them.

When it comes to new uses for biomass, I believe that the market can figure out if it is feasible and viable–without putting the taxpayers on the hook for subsidies which never seem to die.

Here’s more detailed look at the context of the proposed rule (though not the rule itself).

A quick search at http://www.regulations.gov did not turn up the particular rule, though I understood it to be accessible via that site. I’ll look again later when I have more time.

Bill to tag fines to value of poached animals is gutted.

Asking for help from Uncle Sam, ’cause the county can’t handle it.

Tempest over who actually works for the state.

Easier than ever to get money from your neighbors.

Stem cell bill fails to grow enough supporting senators to succeed.

I hit this in one of those tweet thingies, but it really should get a full post. In a recent speech which Dennis Prager made to Republican members of Congress, he included the following remarks:

John Rosemond, who writes books on child rearing, says that the most important vitamin you can give to a child is Vitamin N, his term for the word “No.” You have given America Vitamin N.

America needs it terribly because of another way in which God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness in human history: Every change for good must be constantly renewed, but changes for the worse are often permanent. Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over. That is why every American generation has to be inculcated with American values. But once the change for bad is made, it is close to irreversible. The Democratic attempt to vastly expand the state’s power would likely be a permanent change for the worse in American life. When they’re candid, they admit that the health care bill is their way to get to single-payer medicine and, more importantly, to a government takeover of another sixth of the American economy.

“Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over.” If that’s not a explanation of the struggle against entropy, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one. He’s right on. It is not impossible to change for the better, but it is so very much harder.

If I’m addicted to Vicodin, for example (and no, I am not) it is very easy for me to feed that habit. It is so very very hard for me to break the habit once hooked. There is one thing even easier than feeding that habit: not starting it to begin with.

If the Congress and the President are permitted to hook everyone on universal health care, it will be easy to keep that going (despite all of the damage the addiction will cause to people, the practice of medicine, the economy over all and personal freedoms); it will be very hard to ever break the addiction. Therefore, the much better approach is to not start at all. If that requires massive doses of Vitamin N, then that’s how it is.

Now, just a brief quibble about “how God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness.” God is not the one who brought sin into the world, ensuring that entropy would be with us until the end of time. For that, we can thank our great-many-times-over-grandparents.

HT: Maggie’s Farm

People who comment on this and other blogs are sometimes desirous of remaining anonymous. I do not choose to be anonymous myself, but have no difficulty with others who may wish to do so for a variety of reasons. If a commenter, anonymous or otherwise, turns into a troll, then we all deal with it as well as we can. Some will use the “banhammer,” others will engage and overwhelm, still others will simply turn off the commenting.

Pat Powers at the SDWC is reporting that some South Dakota legislators think we can’t police our own place:

I’ve spoken with several legislators who have signed on, or are being asked to sign on to a pair of bills being circulated by Hamiel who is apparently directing an attack at bloggers. And more specifically, the free speech of commenters.

One of these measures I’m being told directs those hosting or writing blogs to turn over (upon request) identifying information of commenters. I believe the other is with regards to “libelous” statements allowed to remain out on the internet.

There are so many reasons that we should be concerned about this, not the least of which is the bearing on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Go, read and educate yourself on the matter. Should this overreaching by the legislature make it into bill form, I know we’ll be talking about it in this space again.

Sturgis turns down 1800-acre expansion of town.

Somebody in Dell Rapids will not take no for an answer.

More information regarding vaccines and autism.

GF&P close to finishing $2M structure.

SD non-profit organizations to meet with large non-profit entity tomorrow in Pierre.