The Chicken Whisperer

Cya over at the Kudzu Chronicle

I apologize for the lack of posting. I have been hard at work at my gaming weblog, Nomad Gamer, and in creating the new weblog which I will be working on. And oh yeah, I started new REAL job.

So, sad to say, I am closing up shop here at the Chicken Whisperer. I am starting a group weblog called The Kudzu Chronicle which will be my place to rant about the happenings in the world. Come join us over there. It should be fun.

I will be archiving this site on my hosting service and quitting the typepad service. Typepad has been nice but I need the power (and lower price) of Movable Type (the money is all going to Six Apart either way).

I've enjoyed my year here and I hope to improve the quality of my postings with my fellow Kudzu Chroniclers. Come check us out.

Just When You Think the NY Times Isn't As Bad as Advertised

They go and publish their article on the Pope, which was clearly written ahead of time without a quote from a supporter of JPII. In fact, they printed the web addition with the line "need some quote from supporter" before the pre-canned anti-Pope litany began. I mean, wow. Powerline has more, complete with screenshot.

Good thing he has an Editor

Blogs are often discounted because they/we lack editors. Well, Stephen Green points out a none to minor problem with a line out of Thomas Friedman's latest column. Friedman, mind you, is syndicated nationally and is possibly the most influential columnist from the NY Times (influential because people on both the left and right listen to the guy). Uh, Tom. Texas Hold'em is not the same as Seven Card Stud. They are quite different games. Yep, good thing they have Editors at the Times.

The Terri Schiavo Tragedy

This Terri Schiavo mess is the most tragic political circus I’ve seen in quite some time. I still don’t know where I stand on the issue of removing her feeding her tube (and thus condemning her to a wretched death). It is filled with legal issues that are incredibly complex. It is filled with moral and ethical issues that are equally complex. There is no easy answer here. It have almost no black and white angles to it. It’s just a lot of gray.

Before I step into it, if you are curious what someone smarter than me has to say, I think Krauthammer has one of the more thoughtful pieces on this. If you still want to read more, well, then I have more to say, though I can’t say I have any good conclusions.

Here is what I seem to know about case itself:

• Terri Schiavo does not have a living will. We have no written proof of her desires to be kept alive or not
• Michael Schiavo is considered the legal guardian (by both custom and law). He says Terri’s wish was to have the plug pulled. This apparently came up in a conversation of “what ifs” they had. There were no witnesses to this.
• Mr. Schiavo is unwilling to give up guardianship under any circumstances.
• Mr. Schiavo has since formed a loving relationship with another woman who he has two kids with. He considers her his fiancé.
• There are questions about Mr. Schiavo’s motives of wanting to remove her feeding tube, but any ulterior motive is not provable and the courts recognize his right to speak for her and that he is acting on her behalf, for the best of reasons.
• Terri’s parents wish her to be kept alive and have stated they would like to take over guardianship and pay all her bills. Mr. Schiavo refuses to grant this.
• There is many hours of video tape which shows Terri in a mostly vegetative state with occasional reactions to stimuli, including what appear to be smiles, eye movement, and possible negative reactions to pain. The relevance of these actions with regards to whether they are mental or physical responses is in great dispute, but the courts have decide were physical reactions that did not originate in the brain.
• Congress and President Bush passed a law that required a federal court to rule on the Florida courts’ previous decisions.
• The federal appeals court in question refused to review it.
• This was appealed to the Supreme Court, who likewise refused to review it, presumably for the same reasons as the federal appeals court.
• Terri’s feeding tube has been removed and she is now in the process of starving to death.

The Florida courts have determined the following:

• She is essentially brain-dead and considered to lack any cognition.
• The courts ruled that the responses to stimuli are primarily physical and do not constitute mental reactions that rise to the level of cognition.
• Mr. Schiavo is the legal guardian
• Mr. Schiavo is within his rights to carry out what he considers Terri’s wish: to have her feeding tube pulled.
• Multiple appeals have failed to overturn these basic rulings

Now, all this was a stream of thoughts and there are certainly details I may be missing by a hair or possibly leaving out. But, I think the crux of what I just listed contains the core facts.

Basically, Florida law (and the law of most states) considers the spouse the guardian of a person in a vegetative or comatose state when a living will is not available. This has everything to do with the legal status that marriage has in our society. In short, marriage is supreme. Marriage has traditionally been the realm of the states to regulate.

Moreover, the legal experts brought in by the courts did a pretty exhaustive analysis of Terri’s condition and have concluded that she has no hope of recovery and that right now, she has no brain functions to speak of. She is, if I understand the rational, a shell of a person. However, she is not a complete shell. No one disputes that she is not technically on what we consider “life support.” She is on a feeding tube. She breaths on her own just fine.

So, we have a person that court recognized expert opinion has determined to be brain dead with no hope of regaining cognition, though not physically dead and capable of living for many years to come (possibly into old age I gather). We have a man who is legally her husband (regardless of whether he has properly fulfilled his oath) that refuses to give up guardianship and wishes to pull her feeding tube to end her life (in the desire to end her misery). The parents wish otherwise, but have no legal say in the process.

The U.S. Congress attempted to step in and require a federal court to review the state ruling. All federal courts have refused jurisdiction given the tradition of such matters being decided at the state level.

So, where to begin? Whose right? Whose wrong? Why the hell is this a political issue divided on Republican/Democrat or rather conservative/liberal lines? By no means is each side of the political aisle unanimous in how to handle this issue, but the most shrill comments have certainly come from liberals towards conservatives and vice versa.

Well, instead of essaying this to death, I’m just gonna do a stream of consciousness  bullet point list of thoughts. If we’re lucky I’ll come up with a conclusion when its done.

• The Republicans in Congress and in the White House are big fat hypocrites on this. Sadly, this isn’t entirely a new thing. They have become fair-weather federalists of the nth degree (see “gay marriage, prevention of” as only the most recent example).
• However, as Jonah Goldberg mentions, pointing out hypocrisy is not, in itself, an argument. It may damage the credibility of those Congressmen, but being hypocritical doesn’t mean they are wrong.
• The Republicans in Congress, while hypocritical in the context of what we see as accepted principles of the GOP and conservatives in general, are still acting upon a principle that is not, in itself, bad. They want to protect life. Period. And life to Republicans has a pretty wide range of definitions. Whether its abortion of a zygote or embryonic stem cells, the GOP has for decades treated human life (defined very loosely) as precious. So, that principle is one that the GOP stands by.
• But, as is the case with our modern political climate and the complexities of ruling with a broad coalition, competing principles in our democratic republic will often go head to head. Hypocrisy is not unusual.
• It depends on your priorities when something like this comes up. Does one life rise to the level of damaging the federalist principles and the rule of law that your party has so often held as a stalwart idealogy? That is the crux of the issue as I see it with regards to how Congress and President Bush have acted.
• I take the Constitution pretty seriously. I’m a strict constructionist. I believe the founder’s principles are supreme for the most part. Does that mean their principles can’t be occasionally wrong? Of course not. The genius of our founding fathers is they gave the republic the mechanism for improving on their original vision: the role of the courts; the ability to amend the constitution; the federalist construct of states and local governments having jurisdiction over their own affairs; and people free to vote at the polling place or to vote with their feet.
• So, I probably lean towards the idea that Congress over stepped their bounds here.
• But, that doesn’t make me any less comfortable condemning Terri Schiavo to death. I don’t feel good knowing that a court, following the precedence of established law, has said that one man, who currently is also in a loving relationship with ANOTHER woman, has greater say over Terri Schiavo’s life than the parents who reared her. He has the right to tell other people (her doctors) to kill her. And yes, that is what will happen. She is being killed. Kill is a value neutral term. Just because we don’t like the sound of it does not mean its not the correct word (that’s why we have concepts like murder, which is not value or motive neutral).
• Even feeling comfortable in all the legalities that bring the awful resolution to Terri’s life should not make any of us feel good that the rule of law worked well here, because, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum. This isn’t a choice of the state and its taxpayers taking over her care. There is another option. The parents would take care of her bills. But what about when they die? Then their estate will. And does anyone doubt that the outpouring that this case has created, that all those supposedly rich conservatives wouldn’t create a foundation to see Terri through her final days?
• And on the issue of marriage. I’m OK with the state having jurisdiction over marriage. OK, I’m not really. I prefer little to no jurisdiction by any government authority with regards to marriage. But, things are what they are. And, Mr. Schiavo is both wanting to and is getting to have it both ways. He gets the right to legally act as the husband of Terri while also physically BEING the husband of another woman and the father of her kids. I do not want to ridicule him for his choice to move on to another relationship. It would be an enormous sacrifice for him to stay monogamous. I have a hard time passing moral judgment over his moving onto another relationship and starting a family. But, I do believe the LAW, in this case is being hypocritical. He has not been monogamous. I think he forfeits his guardianship because he moved on. Again, I don’t have a problem with him moving on, but part of “moving on” is leaving behind at least the legal claim to being Terri’s husband and thus her guardianship. I’m certain the law couldn’t get around this technicality, but I think Jeb Bush and his legislators should be addressing that loophole right now. He should not be allowed to have it both ways, while her parents WHO FRICKIN' BROUGHT HER INTO THIS WORLD, have no say whatsoever. That, right there, is the part of this that I find so infuriating. His refusal to give up guardianship, which he no longer has moral rights to in my opinion anyway. And by refusing to give up that guardianship the effect on Terri is quite stark. In fact, it is the starkest of all: Life or Death.
• So much of this case is just so tragic and unbelievable having a bunch of supposedly states’ rights legislators throw federalism out the window to bring it to a better resolution is really just icing on the cake. The hypocrisies didn’t begin with Congress getting involved. No, they began long ago when we decided that a marriage overruled parental rights even in the case of living or dieing.
• And the political angle this has taken is just pathetic. Liberals have suddenly decided that states rights matter even though, as recently as the last election cycle, they still called any mention of “states rights” a code for “lets keep down the black man.”
• This case has exactly what to do with abortion? I can understand why religious conservatives have taken their stance, after all it goes into their every life begins at conception mantra. If a zygote completely reliant on a mother’s uterus can have a soul, then certainly a grown woman who can breath on her own has one. This is totally consistent. But, how have liberals gone the other direction? Pro-choicers have never really argued that life ISN’T precious. In fact they have their own twist on the every life is precious mantra. Every life is precious even if it’s a convicted homicidal felon or a murderous dictator. But, how do they (pro-choice liberals) conclude that keeping Terri alive since we don’t KNOW what her choice would have been somehow sends us down a slippery slope to taking away women’s ability to choose an abortion? Terri is not a zygote attached to another woman’s body. Maybe this is just a new twist on their desire to keep late term abortions legal. Maybe they see this as a REALLY late term abortion. Sorry, that’s a cheap unfunny low blow. And its not like Terri’s mom has a choice in this matter. Still, I fail to see how this battle has become a proxy war in the abortion metagame. It really can’t figure it out. Maybe somebody can help me out here.
• And, yes, while Republicans are hypocritical on the federalist question in this case, it pails in comparison with Democrats sudden love of states rights and Congress not intervening on individual’s behalf. If somebody in Terri’s condition was gay and her life partner couldn’t have a say in the matter, do you think, just maybe the Maureen Dowd’s of the world would ask Congress to intervene? Or at the very least, a FEDERAL court to overrule the state court? I know. That’s not even fair to ask. Because we know the answer. In fact, having federal courts overrule state law has become somewhat of a specialty of the left. Perhaps you’ve heard of the most famous example: Roe v Wade.

Ok, I’ll stop bullet pointing now.  I really think this is just a tragic case with no easy answers. In a perfect world, Mr. Schiavo would have renounced guardianship, gone on to live his life with his new family and Terri’s parents, the Schindlers would have assumed responsibility. And Terri wouldn’t be starving right now. Hell, I have no idea if Terri is even aware of what’s going on. I certainly hope, at this point, that the experts are correct and she does lack cognition. But, I can’t help but think of arguments put forth by the anti-death penalty crowd. The courts have to be wrong only once to make the death penalty an inhumane and unjust state action. And like death penalty cases, all we can go on with this case is what is proven in a court of law. And those courts have by saying Mr. Schiavo has the final say, have condemned her to death. Sadly, unlike death row inmates, Ms. Schiavo’s parents do not have endless appeals in this case.

I should conclude it there, since its got the most biting ending, but I have to note that I am aware that any comparison to a capital crime, like the abortion comparisons, only goes so far. We are a nation of laws, and those laws ultimately have to be trusted. When those laws are determined to be bad, the legislatures involved have the responsibility to fix them, but, there are no easy fixes here unless you want to say marriage isn’t as sacred as our society has previously decided. And given what we’ve heard about Republicans and marriage being the core of our society, having them try to “fix” so that this never happens again, is not gonna happen.

Conservatives are having their own discussion over this and it gets back to what is the priority. Terri Schiavo’s life now or the federalist tradition which effects far more people than Terri Schiavo? Some want to say this is a conservative crack up, even by some right-leaning individuals. But, I don’t think conservatives will be forever divided over this. I do think though, that many people (of varying philosophies) who aren’t all that upset with the removal of the feeding tube are making a common mistake. They think because THEY wouldn’t want to be hooked up to the tube in that state then obviously Terri wouldn’t. But, that’s the whole reason we are here. We don’t know what Terri wants. And, unfortunately we are unable to err on the side of life, to use Bush’s speaking points. We have to let someone else decide. And that someone, whether we like it or not, is Terri’s husband who has chosen to remove the tube and let her die. And I don’t think, as a society, as a land of laws, we can do a damn thing about it. And while the republic is preserved, we are all poorer because of Mr. Schiavo’s decision.

What He Said, volume 11

In response to Bush's appointment of someone whose not particularly fond of the U.N. as the ambassador to the U.N., Mark Steyn has these perfectly put thoughts:

The New York Times wondered what Mr. Bush's next appointment would be: "Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate a new set of Geneva Conventions? Martha Stewart to run the Securities and Exchange Commission?"
    OK, I get the hang of this game. Sending John Bolton to be ambassador to the U.N. is like ... putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam's Iraq chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Or sending a bunch of child-sex fiends to man U.N. operations in the Congo. And the Central African Republic. And Sierra Leone, and Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Kosovo, and pretty much everywhere else.
    All of the above happened without the U.N. fetishists running around shrieking hysterically. Why should America be the only country not to enjoy an uproarious joke at the U.N.'s expense?

Go read the rest. The part about George Schultz is awesome to.

This Apparently is not a Parody

Jayda Pinkett Smith makes the un-PC crime of addressing a group of women as if they all might be heterosexual. In her remarks, she says:

“Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career,” she said. “They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it.”

Apparently, she should have said "...you can have it all - a loving man, or a loving woman, or womyn, or man-womyn hybrid, or both (hell, you can even have a side of nachos!), loving...." 

Because she didn't take lesbians and transgenders into account, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) believes an apology or clarification needs to be issued. Only on a modern American college campus.

As Mickey Kaus, my favorite Democratic writer, points out (look for the post called "Open Book/PC Hell"):

But I'd hope Harvard Lesbians and Transgenders would be made of tough enough stuff to endure it. Part of being a minority in a democratic society with a clear majority is that you don't find yourself validated and celebrated all the time everywhere, no?

Shouldn't be that hard.

Uh...

My friend Geb sends this along. I frankly don't have anything appropriate to say about it.

Kiss Liberty Goodbye if....

The court decides with New London. If you don't have true property rights, you don't have liberty.

I Love Cobb County, Georgia

Yes, we here in Cobb County have had several notorious and stupid policies by our local government (the anti-gay resolution of last decade, and the current attempt by Creationists to put stickers in books to discredit evolution). But, you know what? I don't care. This is a county that continually votes against sales tax increases. Yes, we have schools opening up overcrowded from day 1. Still, our citizens seem to understand that population growth equals increase property values which means increased property tax revenue from the increase values AND volume of citizens and their commercial shopping spaces. So, why do we need a new sales tax? This causes great stress to the Atlanta Journal and Constitution's editorial board, but its a badge of honor. Now, apparently the county commission is proposing another sales tax referendum that would increase our lowest in the state sales taxes. This time for "infrastructure" and a new court house. And, as these reader responses to the an AJC article on the tax proposal indicates, this tax increase may well be headed down in flames as well. Here's hoping that the citizens of Cobb continue to make me proud and ask a simple question! What's wrong with the current court house?

Anti-Home Schoolers are Statist Reactionaries

In case there was any doubt that home schoolers are a threat to the very idea of state control, this political cartoon spells it out in plain site. I don't mean to go all raving libertarian on you, but this cartoon is so full of angry and ignorant stereotypes, never mind the willfull ignorance ot the many abuses that occurs at public schools, it is amazing it got by the editor.

I have no idea of the reputation or political tilt of the newspaper it is printed in, but this speaks ill of it. According to this, child abuse apparently only occurs at home and if we let people home school, then the state can't keep an eye on the children. After all, it takes a village to raise kids. Or something.

If I had a nickel for everytime somebody raised the idea that only religious nutjobs homeschool (never mind the incredible growth of homeschooling by non-religious people) I'd be rich enough to open a private school. Why is it that Andrea Yates is allowed to tar the reputation of all homeschoolers, but I'm not allowed to view Columbine or any of the other school shootings as a black eye towards public schools? Oh, that's right. It's not the schools, its the guns. Then how come I can't point to the hundreds of sexual abuse cases that occur by teachers and gym coaches on an annual basis? Or how 'bout the usual ass whoopin that home schooled kids do on their public school counterparts in that apparently unimportant realm of academics? But only deviants homeschool while the government, through its public schools, is the only safe place for kids to grow up in. After all, we need the watchful eye of big brother of well meaning teachers to prevent child abuse.

My wife and I are the farthest thing from religious nuts, yet homeschooling is one of three options (home, private and public schools) that we view as equal in our choices for our son. But, there I go using that word "choice." We know of at least one political party that views choice as being only something afforded to pregnant women who would like to abort their fetuses. Beyond that, its government knows best.

OK, end rant.

Iraq wasn't just about WMD, For the 188th Time

Normblog reminds that democratizing Iraq wasn't a goal in Iraq that Bush just came up with when the WMDs didn't turn up. It was always part of the plan.

Won't Kerry Just Go Away?

That's not me. That's my favorite Democrat, Mickey Kaus. He's been on a roll lately covering the Eason Jordan affair and the obvious conflict of interesting fo the Washington Post's Howard Kurts. But, his other main subject is on how the Democrats can politely (and not so politely if need be) tell John Kerry to can any ideas of running again.

The Tragedy of Being a Woman

James Lileks has a great take on a Newsweek article that apparently takes the point that because its stressful trying to be a supermom, we need to tax the rich more. Seriously, this appears to be the leap the author takes. Lileks takes apart the article in his typically irreverent way. Normally I'd say to skip past Lilek's initial rundown of his day, but I think he's especially descriptive in this article in order to make his point more thoroughly.

A sample:

I don't dispute that women are stressed, face a variety of conflicting expectations, etc. Welcome to the world. But I cannot take the article seriously when it puts forth a specious thesis like this:

Women today mother in the excessive, control-freakish way that they do in part because they are psychologically conditioned to do so. But they also do it because, to a large extent, they have to. Because they are unsupported, because their children are not taken care of, in any meaningful way, by society at large. Because there is right now no widespread feeling of social responsibility—for children, for families, for anyone, really—and so they must take everything onto themselves.

Imagine that. You have to take the responsibility of your children on yourselves. The day I expect "society" to take care of my child in a meaningful way is the day I give society the right to take her away and do a better job if I don't schedule daily flash-card phonics sessions.

Now, go read the rest. It's not near as anti-woman as it may sound, and his larger point is that the patronizing "oh the tragedy of being a woman" attitude of the article is actually what is anti-woman.

The Eason Jordan Affair, Epilogue

In case you haven't heard about the Eason Jordan affair (and you probably didn't since the media didn't cover the story until after he resigned), the long and short of it is this: CNN Executive Eason Jordan said at the Davos conference a couple of weeks ago that the U.S. military targeted journalists and killed them. He was very popular with the Arab crowd after this remark, but a couple of Congressman in attendance (Democrat Barney Frank, for example) asked him to offer evidence, which led Jordan to back down. After a couple weeks of people asking for a video tape from Davos and with CNN saying he was being misquoted, Jordan finally resigned. All the pressure came from the weblogs and NOT the national media who largely ignored the story of the head of the America's supposedly most trusted news network accusing the U.S. military of assasinating journalist while offering no evidence. If true, it would the biggest military scandal since Vietnam, but of course, he had no evidence. He was probably speaking to the anti-American crowd and wasn't prepared for people on this side of the Atlantic to actually take him seriously.

Anyway, the main stream media has reacted with charges of a witch hunt and all those crazy right wing bloggers being a lynchmob. Of course, it was more of a case of the media elites being pissed that they tried, unsuccessfully, to bury a story of a fellow journalist displaying his anti-American bias on his sleave.

Peggy Noonon at the WSJ has a great epilogue on the whole affair and how the main stream media would be better off getting used to coexisting with the weblogs and appreciating that the weblogs are chasing what the media elites are supposedly after: the truth.

Where Have I Been?

No, I haven't forgotten about the Chicken Whisperer, but I have been involved in getting another weblog off the ground. My friend Geb and I are starting a Video Game and Personal Tech weblog, one that we will try to make a little cash on the side from. So, I've been coding html, learning a little about Movable Type and cgi while Geb did his magic with the graphics. Moreover, I've been researching advertising and associate programs like Google AdSense and Amazon Associates. It's been taking up a lot of my spare time so I just haven't had it in me to post to much here.

Well, today, we went live. If you have any interest in my favorite hobby, video games and PC hardware, check out Nomad Gamer for interesting links and commentary on those topics.

Hopefully, after the initial trial and error stage of "oh crap, this doesn't look right, I need to code this a different way" the backend work on the site will sort itself out and I can just post to it with little other work.

So, by this weekend, I should be back to posting on this site with more regularity. Thanks for you patience.

The Latest Social Security Lie

Rabid lefty Paul Krugman, of the NY Times, had a column that purported that the White House's personal accounts idea was the equivalent of borrowing on margin (i.e. taking a loan out and then investing it in stocks). Donald Luskin torpedoes the lie that this is and notes that the private accounts are merely an opportunity costs. In other words, you forgo a low guaranteed rate of return for the chance at a much higher return. Your opportunity costs is the amount of the low guaranteed rate. Here's Luskin's simple to understand explanation which apparently is too difficult for lefty economists to comprehend:

Here's an example. Suppose you have $1000 in a money market fund earning 3%, and you are considering investing that money in the stock market. The opportunity cost of that investment will be 3%, because you give up the 3% yield of the money market fund. That means you'll only come out net ahead on the stock investment if it returns more than 3% -- just as in proposed Social Security personal accounts. But there's no loan involved here. None.

In this case, your future benefits are analogous to the money market fund. In order to invest in stocks in your personal accounts, you have to give up the future benefits. A simple trade-off. An opportunity cost. Not a loan.

Here's what a real loan would look. You have that $1000 in the money market fund, but you want to invest $2000 in the stock market. So you borrow an additional $1000 from your stockbroker.

Or in the case of Social Security, suppose you are a struggling young African American working for minimum wage. You urgently want to own stocks, so you can start building a nest egg for your family. But you have no money to invest, because Social Security taxes have sucked up anything you could have set aside from your small earnings. So you manage to borrow some money, and you invest it in stocks. That's a loan. That's speculation. And that's what the opponents of personal accounts would prefer for America.

Be sure to read the rest to see the low standards of journalism in action at the New York Times.

The Social Security debate is only going to get nastier. Just remember, that your goal shouldn't be what is financially best for the social security system, but what is financially best for you and your family. Giving you the CHOICE to invest in the private accounts or take the low rate offered by the standard Social Security system is really about freedom to use your tax dollars for yourself. Apparently, this provides to much freedom for liberals, who somewhere around 1965 warped liberalism into something that is decidedly illiberal and anti-choice. Well, anti-choice when it involves something other than aborting fetuses.

Socialism Sucks, in a Nutshell

My friend Rob sends along this article that really sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with the European version of socialism, which differs from its older totalitarian sibling in Russia, because it has merged with the 60's era postmodern moral equivalency to make it really something wacky.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

I mean, oh my God. Now, I'm a rather libertarian sort, so legalized prostitution isn't necessarily something I'm against. But, this is just awful.

Under Germany's welfare laws, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

So, how's that euro working out for ya? Well, we'll leave aside the fact that unemployment continues to climb despite the promises of reunification with the east, despite the supposed economic windfall of the German-France mini-empire, also known as the European Union. Despite all the promises of a better life under  Schroeder's Socialists Party, unemployment continues to go up and away. But, I'm not going to talk about the economic idiocy of socialism, since in 2005 it really should be f*****g self evident.

No, what I want to talk about is the mission creep that is inherent in the 60s liberalism. So, first you have this idea of free love. After all, we are told that Europe is so much freer than the U.S. because they show boobies on TV  and 14 year-olds can put back a cold one without any problems from the authorities. So, naturally, they legalize prostitution. The modern left, though, can't just legalize something. If something is legal, then it must be OK and who are we to judge and all that. Well, if something is ok and we have declared that is not immoral, well, by God, it's a right to do what you want AND have it funded by the government. We have many examples here in the U.S. of this thought process. How many times have proposals to shut down the National Endowment of the Arts been labeled "censorship"? No, we aren't denying you your right to say stupid things or paint obscene pictures. We are merely saying that you need to fund such projects yourself. And just like the feminists desire to not only have legal abortions, but federally funded abortions here in the states, the German left said that if prostitution is legal, then it deserves equal rights at the public trough. So, you have a woman, who turns down a job as a whore, and her unemployment check is going to be withheld. There has got to be something absurdly poetic about having your ability to avoid work funded by the government. I guess if you are gonna be an entitlement whore, you might as well be a good sport and be a real whore as a favor to the economy.

Any Rand would have LOVED this story. I mean, if it's legal, it's not immoral; if it's not immoral, then it's your right, and if it's your right, then we must fund it and make sure it is treated equally under the eyes of the law, or rather the bureaucrats. Rand always said that these baby-steps in socialism would lead to, at best, a benign, yet equally evil tyranny. That when you didn't take complete control over your individuality and therefore take responsibility for it as well, then don't be surprised if the government, in funding your security, might just ask for something in return. In Germany, who knew that what they'd ask for in return would be far more than just a kiss and a thank you (but, they'll gladly pay market value!). I hesitate to use the term "sex slave", but what exactly is it when you are threatening someones ability to feed their family unless they go work for Heidi Fleiss?

(obvious caveats: yes, I know unemployment insurance that gives you a year before requiring you to actually take a job only breeds dependence and that Germany's unemployment problem has everything to do with regulation and the punishment of companies for actually hiring people. And this woman may have been waiting until the very last minute to find work. I understand all that as I noted above. Socialism's problems should be self evident to anyone with half a brain. Still, you can't help but sympathise with this poor woman.)

UPDATE: Loyal reader 40_llamas wonders if this is to outrageous to be true. Couldn't find anything on Google that blew a hole in it and the news source, The London Telegraph, is a big straight arrow newspaper in Britain. It's more respectable than your average tabloid. So, I checked Snopes and they have an article on this and they show its status as "undetermined" which means they don't know whether it is true or not. They say that they found one article in German that says the scenario is technically possible depending how one interprets the law. They seem to think Telegraph article is one that sounds worse when translated than what actually took place, but, again, there's no evidence otherwise. This supposedly happened to a real live individual. It should be easy to follow up on. More if I hear about it. The fact that it is a technical possibility still means my points above still stand.

In Case There was Any Doubt

Iraq is not Vietnam. And we're reminded of this from an old-school anti-war protester, who is a self professed admirer of Lenin (not the one from Liverpool). He's also a stalwart opponent of the Islamic Fascists who are our enemies, so he does have a lot of interesting things to say when he's not spewing socialism, albeit in a usually quite eloquent way:

But perhaps now is the moment to state the critical reasons why there is no reasonable parallel of any sort between Iraq and Vietnam.

To begin with, Vietnam had been undergoing a protracted struggle for independence since before World War II and had sustained this struggle militarily and politically against the French empire, the Japanese empire, and then after 1945 the French empire again. By 1954, at the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu, the forces of Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap had effectively decided matters on the battlefield, and President Eisenhower himself had conceded that Ho would have won any possible all-Vietnamese election. The distortions of the Cold War led the United States to take over where French colonialism had left off, to assist in partitioning the country, and to undertake a war that had already been lost.

There's much more where that came from. I'm not as sympathetic to his rather antiseptic view of the Vietnamese, but I do think his read on the history of the time is fairly accurate, I think. But, his point by point notation of why Iraq situation is the farthest thing from Vietnam is very important to read.

When IP Attorneys Attack

I don't know if I've mentioned my hatred for modern copyright and intellectual property law, but here's an example of how the forces of evil (software companies and the entertainment industry) continue to punish the consumer for fair use and silly people who believe just because they bought it, they have any rights over their own property. But, it's a handy guide for where evil has won and where the next battles are and where the forces of good (like the fine folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation) have prevailed. (Via Virginia Postrel)

What He Said

Jonah Goldberg has a great piece on the elections. While its primarily about the elections effect on history, he finds time to write one of the single best lines about the vapid emptiness that is John Kerry:

John Kerry grumpily says we shouldn't "over-hype" the election, which is just one more grain of sand on the vast beach of reasons why he deserves to remain the junior senator from Ted Kennedy's state.

Now, go read the rest.