Legal Ramblings

So, the Republicans are for small government, are they?

I think not.

Battle Brews As Porn Moves Into The Mainstream

From the article:

Another self-described former addict is Phil Burress, head of a Cincinnati-based conservative group called Citizens for Community Values.

Like many conservatives, he had hopes that the Bush administration would reverse Clinton White House policy and step up prosecutions of adult-porn obscenity cases as well as child porn cases. Thus far, Burress is disappointed.

"Five years into this administration, they get an F," he said.

Still, Burress is encouraged by the recent formation of an FBI anti-obscenity squad and the appointment of Brent Ward, a former U.S. attorney who combatted porn in Utah, to head an obscenity prosecution task force.

The Justice Department defends its record, saying it has indicted dozens of people on obscenity charges since 2001 and suggesting the pace will increase. But with a vast array of potential targets, and many other priorities, prosecutors must choose their battles carefully.

One pending case involves obscenity charges against a California couple whose company sold pornographic videos depicting simulated rape and murder. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 50 years in prison plus $7.5 million in fines.

___________________

Okay, folks.  Morality is all well and good, and if you choose to keep yourselves pure in word and deed, you have my support and admiration.  But quit imposing your puritan code on the rest of the nation.  As a matter of personal preference, I find pornography rather dull and unexciting (erotica, on the other hand, may have its place) and would rather spend my hard earned pennies on other forms of entertainment.  That is MY choice.  I do not presume to force any other person to make that choice for themselves.  And nor should the federal government.

FBI Anti-Obscenity Squads and Obscenity Prosecution Task Forces, paid for out of OUR tax dollars, is precisely why I cannot take anyone seriously when they claim that the GOP will reign in spending.  Of course they won't - they just have a different shopping list.

Delightful Story

Found online:

Boy's pancake breakfast delayed the end of WWII

Apparently, the youngster entrusted with delivering a message to President Truman concerning the Japanese surrender dallied on the way to carry out his assignment.  As the article notes:

Unaware of his cargo's import, the boy, in cavalier teenage fashion, put work on hold to eat pancakes at a diner, hang out with his friends and flirt with waitresses.  Later, he left his pancakes to complete the job only to be pulled over en route to the White House by a police officer, who berated the boy for making an illegal U-turn.

It would never happen these days, of course, with all the high tech accoutrements of civilized living.

The picture in the top left hand corner

That handsome looking picture at the top of my blog is a caricature of yours truly, commissioned by my wonderful kid sister for my last birthday.  Just imagine, were I to practice my craft in the United Kingdom, I could dress like a 17th Century buffoon for real !

Leaving no stone unturned in search of cheap political points

Representative Cynthia McKinney behaved perfectly dreadfully in striking a law enforcement officer guarding the Capitol.  She deserves investigation, prosecution and, if adjudicated guilty, sanction under the law.  This does not, however, excuse plumbing the depths of political discourse in a partisan attempt to extrapolate a general disdain for security issues from the aberrant actions of one rather out-there party member.

Typical right-wing blogpost on the issue

In the linked post, Captain Ed concludes that:

One fact is for certain: now we know what the Democrats think of security in general.  To quote Nancy Pelosi, it's no big deal.

For shame, Captain, for shame.  We can all take statements out of context in the scoring of cheap political points, but we should resist the temptation.  Yes, I know it's rather fortuitous to be able to point to what is clearly reprehensible behavior that tars, by association, the party to which the miscreant belongs.  But it's hardly a "fact" that we know for "certain" that this inexcusable incident is representative of the Democrat party's policy stance on national security.

The Youth of France is Revolting

It seems that President Chirac is exhibiting more of the valor and courage for which his odious nation is known, and backing away from a sensible approach to a pervasive and damaging problem in the nation he leads.  Turns out that French youths have rather more difficulty than they might wish in finding gainful employment, giving rise to an unemployment rate of around 25% towards the younger end of the demographic spectrum.  The French decided to implement the eminently reasonable policy of at will employment for young workers, allowing employers to hire pimply French youths without fear of being landed with an unsackable worker should the new hires turn out to be typical whiny French youths.

Predictably, said youths were less than pleased that they might actually have to perform a satisfactory service to ensure continued employment, rather than being safe and secure in the knowledge that any old lacklustre attempt at productivity would garner a paycheck.  They expressed their distaste for this notion with customary vigor by taking to the streets and protesting.  So what does President Clouseau do?  He caves - reducing the impact of the necessary reform in a baby-splitting exercise likely to mollify precisely no-one.  For the full glorious story, see here.

French President makes concessions on job law.

Now, true at will employment still jars with yours truly (wherein employers are allowed to fire the great unwashed for any and no reason without notice or an opportunity to be heard) but there has to be a sensible middle ground.  It is economic suicide to allow a bunch of young hooligans to derail a policy essential to economic growth and prosperity.  One more reason I'm glad that I am not French.

For an interesting collection of quotes and commentary, see this post at Michelle Malkin's blog.

Hugh Hewitt

Another tired old partisan hack pimping his vital and essential meanderings in an attempt to fleece as much cash out of the rightward inclined masses as possible.  Interesting chap, this Hewitt.  Professor at a 4th tier law school *and* host of a particularly smug radio show skewed to the GOP party line.  Might be worth taking a look at the book when it hits the remainder bins.  I particularly enjoyed the amusing suggestion that a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate might promote "spending control."  Rather flies in the face of the fact that spending has proceeded apace under a Republican majority.  I would expect the same sort of spending control exhibited by a horny and thirsty sailor on shoreleave shortly after payday.

Hugh Hewitt singing the praises of a book by the esteemed writer, er, Hugh Hewitt

I also find it rather amusing that Mr. Hewitt considers himself "center-right" in political orientation.  He is clearly a partisan republican from a squarely right wing camp, and there is little centrist about the positions he takes.  Centrist implies openness to consensus and compromise on issues upon which reasonable people might agree.  Mr. Hewitt wishes, instead, to enshrine a perpetual Republican majority in government, which is almost as scary a thought as a perpetual Democratic majority (or a Green majority, or a Constitution Party majority, or a majority held by a party enshrining the views of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps).  Such unending  domination leads to complacency, stagnation, dogmatism and intolerance, and is inevitable harmful to the body politic.  A constant need to seek election and risk losing if one does not inspire the electorate is beneficial to a political party, keeping it grounded and heading off the risk of extremism.

As for the center-right issue, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.  Back in the land of my birth, I would be considered center-right myself, having been a sometime supporter of Blairist Labour, Kenneth Clarke Conservatism, and currently find myself drawn to the reenergized Tories of David Cameron.  However, over here I have been accused of *liberalism* by many with whom I have discussed issues of moment.  Over here, I see good and bad in each of the two hegemonous parties, and tend to refrain from partisanship in favor of an issue by issue, candidate by candidate approach.  The Democrats are generally too soft on crime, flaky on anti-terrorist measures, tolerant of repressive codes of political correctness, and prone to over-regulation.  The Republicans are generally too quick to impose their own narrow codes of morality on the rest of the populace, in love with (and in bed with) corporate special interests, and overly susceptible to placing symbolism over cold hard policy (flag burning, freedom fries and ten commandment displays, anyone?).  Both parties spend too much, both parties pay too much attention to the political proclivities of judicial nominees when they should be focussed on professional excellence, and neither party cares enough for freedom of speech and individual rights.

I'd support libertarians more if they weren't so darn dogmatic.  I suppose I'm an irredeemable overthinker, who puzzles and worries over issues before I come down on one side or another, and I am utterly unwilling to cede responsibility for my public policy preferences to a monolothic political construct.

UPDATE

Just scored a copy of Mr. Hewitt's book on half.com for $9.00.  I never pay full price for any book these days, and - more importantly - refuse to line the pockets of authors with whom I have an ideological disagreement (and hence always buy on the pre-owned market).  I shall await its delivery by media mail and read with relish (and likely amusement)