ArchPundit

When Lack of Regulation Inhibits Freedom

One of the great mistakes by those who often claim to be for free markets is that they don’t seem to realize that all sorts of market conditions lead to markets not being free.

Example numero uno: Enron

In the brash language that has become a familiar coda to the electricity crunch, Enron traders and others were captured discussing in e-mail messages and telephone conversations how they could profit from the state’s problems.

In one transcript released Thursday, an Enron trader identified only as Bill called it “a good plan” to shut down a small Las Vegas power plant on Jan. 17, 2001, under the guise of “checkin’ a switch on the steam turbine.” Enron employees also suggested that their plans to exploit Western energy markets predated the meltdown of 2000 and 2001, which brought record electricity prices and emergency blackouts.

Being for deregulation often results in less free markets though it is pro-business in terms of the business with the control. Democrats have let this escape as a theme in the last couple years, but the reality is that capitalism requires a referee that can make sure no one is gaming the system.

Describing an unfettered market as free is like describing a state of anarchy as free. That freedom only exists until someone uses a club to create a hierarchy and Enron had that club.

I Love It When a Plan Comes Together

I mean, who could have thought we could create a giant block of Shiite authority right in the middle of the oil producing Middle East?

For those who think it’s pretty cool to show off their purple thumbs, the foreign policy problems created by having a friendly government to Tehran in Baghdad should give you pause.

Even more troubling is that the non-Kurdish Sunnis are certain to be underrepresented. While the grand talk of democracy is great, it might have been a good idea to try and put in a circuit breaker in the institutional design that guaranteed a proportion of seats based on the block of voters in the general population.

You know, like a Electoral College or something.

No one knows where this is heading, but I’m not terribly comforted by the thought of Iran gaining a huge ally in the region at the same time some countries are trying to force its hand on nuclear weapons.

Outing Republicans

The right wing threatened it in the Leader, Petey LaBarbera takes it a step further by ‘outing’ Dan Rutherford. Is Dan gay? Well, we don’t know though rumors have long held that he is. But don’t let that unconfirmed rumor stop you from using him in your attack on gays.

In November, I wrote Mr. Rutherford asking him to answer the widely assumed questions surrounding his sexuality, and he never responded. Here is the text of my e-mail letter to him, dated 11-18:

Dear Sen. Rutherford: There is an awful lot of speculation…

…about you being a homosexual. In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to know if it’s true, so that your constituents and others in Illinois can be better informed about you.

I believe in this day and age, this issue should not be something that is relegated to secret discussions and gossip. Indeed, the other day I had a conversation with Mike Rogers, a homosexual activist in Washington, D.C., who is in the business of “outing” any perceived homosexuals who are NOT sufficiently supporting the “gay rights” agenda (e.g., opposing “gay marriage”). Interestingly, he and his friends seek to expose only those “homosexuals” who are voting or acting publicly IN OPPOSITION to “gay rights.” This strikes me as tantamount to political blackmail, but they are forcing the issue: “homosexual” legislators now know that they could be exposed if they speak out against homosexual agenda goals. Clearly, it is not fair to a legislator’s constituents if, unbeknownst to them, he or she could be subjected to such political pressures from liberal militants.

Even I disagree with the other side’s tactics, it seems that due to an array of factors the days of “closeted” homosexuality are coming to a close. Perhaps this is best given that so many on the “gay” side seem intent on making this such a public matter.

Some time ago, Dem operatives claimed they had footage of Dan coming out of a gay bar. Now, even if such footage existed, it doesn’t make him gay. I suggested that such a move to out him was against the values of the Democratic Party. At the time, I never expected idiots like LaBarbera to pull this kind of crap, but here you go.

Dan Rutherford is smart, ambitious and clean in terms of corruption. He’s more conservative on issues like choice than I prefer, but he’s a decent guy. He deserves every consideration for statewide office. Who he loves is absolutely irrelevant to any of those jobs.

As a side note, I have put off discussing this for some time because I think it’s irrelevant to Rutherford’s public career. Given this move by LaBarbera it seems the dam has been broken and I think the focus should stay squarely on the jackass who brought it up, not on a decent office holder.

Obama Speech Voting No On Gonzalez

Floor Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the Nomination of
Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General

Thursday, February 3, 2005
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thursday, February 3, 2005

A few days ago, the world watched as the seeds of democracy began to
take root in Iraq. As a result of the sheer courage of the Iraqi
people and the untold sacrifices of American soldiers, the success of
the elections showed just how far people will go to achieve self-
government and rule of law.

As Americans, we can take pride in the fact that this kind of courage
has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom…by the tradition
of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our
Constitution.

It’s a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law –
and that no one is above it.

That’s why, even within the Executive Branch, there is an office
dedicated to enforcing the laws of the land and applying them to
people and Presidents alike.

In this sense, the Attorney General is not like the other Cabinet
posts. Unlike the Secretary of State, who is the public face of the
President’s foreign policy, or the Secretary of Education, whose job
it is to carry out the President’s education policy, the Attorney
General’s job is not just to enforce the President’s laws. It is to
tell the President what the law is. The job is not simply to
facilitate the President’s power, it is to speak truth to that power
as well.

The job is to protect and defend the laws and the freedoms for which
so many have sacrificed so much.

The President is not the Attorney General’s client – the people are.
And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that
person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the
political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this
nomination the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice
or VA Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard
is simply higher.

I wanted to give Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt when we
began this process. His story is inspiring – especially for so many
of us who have shared in achieving his American Dream. And I have no
question that, as White House counsel, he has served his President
and his country to the best of his ability. But, in my judgment,
these positive qualities alone are not sufficient to warrant
confirmation as the top law enforcement officer in the land.

I had hoped that during his hearings Judge Gonzales would ease my
concerns about some of the legal advice he gave to the President. And
I had hoped he would prove that he has the ability to distance
himself from his role as the President’s lawyer so that he could
perform his new role as the people’s lawyer.

Sadly, rather than full explanations during these hearings, I heard
equivocation. Rather than independence, I heard an unyielding
insistence on protecting the President’s prerogative.

I did not hear Mr. Gonzales repudiate two and a half years of
official U.S. policy which has defined torture so narrowly that only
organ failure and death would qualify. A policy that he himself
appears to have helped develop the dubious legal rationale for.
Imagine that. If the entire world accepted the definition contained
in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what
atrocities might befall our American POWs. How, in a world without
such basic constraints would we feel about sending our sons and
daughters to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture
through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children, and
the children of the world, that America is different, and represents
a higher moral standard?

This policy isn’t just a moral failure, it’s a violation of half a
century of international law. Yet while Mr. Gonzales’ job was White
House Counsel, he said nothing to the President.

He showed no ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then,
and he’s indicated that he still has no intention to speak such
truths now. During his recent testimony, he refused to refute a
conclusion of the torture memo which stated that the President has
the power to override our laws when acting as Commander-in-Chief.
Think about that — the nation’s top law enforcement officer telling
its most powerful citizen that if the situation warrants, he can
break the law from time to time.

The truth is, Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether,
given the choice between the Constitution and the President’s
political agenda, he would put our Constitution first. And that is
why I simply cannot support his nomination for Attorney General.

I understand that Judge Gonzales will most likely be confirmed
anyway, and I look forward to working together with him in that new
role. But I also hope that once in office, he’ll take the lessons of
this debate to heart.

You know, before serving in this distinguished body, I had the
privilege of teaching law for ten years at the University of Chicago.
And among the brilliant minds to leave that institution for
government service was a former Dean of the Law School named Edward
Levi. A man of impeccable integrity who was committed to the rule of
law before politics, Levi was chosen by President Ford to serve as
Attorney General in the wake of Watergate. The President courageously
chose to appoint him not because Dean Levi was a yes man, not because
he was a loyal political soldier, but so that he could restore the
public’s confidence in a badly damaged Justice Department – so that
he could restore the public’s trust in the ability of our leaders to
follow the law.

While he has raised serious doubts about his ability to follow this
example, Judge Gonzales can still choose to restore our trust. He can
still choose to put the Constitution first. I hope for our country’s
sake, he will. To start with, he should take these three steps upon
assuming his new role:

1. He can immediately repudiate the terror memos and ensure that the
Department of Defense is not using any of its recommendations to
craft interrogation policy.

2. He can restore the credibility of his former position as Legal
Counsel by appointing an independent-minded, universally respected
lawyer to the post.

3. And he can provide Congress regular, detailed reports on his
efforts to live up to the President’s stated zero-tolerance policy
toward torture.

Today, we are engaged in a deadly global struggle with those who
would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most
basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those
freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true
direction. The Attorney General is one figure charged with doing
this, but to do it well he must demonstrate a higher loyalty than to
just the President. He must demonstrate a loyalty to the ideals that
continue to inspire a nation, and hopefully, the world.

Carson Daly

I’ll just say I was stuck watching him last night due to Ms. ArchPundit’s Duran Duran fetish.

Who the hell gave this guy a talk show and why? The guest was the guy who plays Lex on Smallville and he kept bailing Daly out since Daly has no personality and thus no reaction.

Hope Fund

Obama started his PAC calling it the Hope Fund.

Obama’s PAC, called Hope Fund, will give Obama more leeway to raise money than he has with his existing campaign committee, said Ron Michaelson, an expert in campaign finance, and David Axelrod, a consultant for Obama.

Gene Callahan, a longtime observer of Illinois politics, said the move signals Obama’s ambition for a larger national role, even while he represents Illinois on Capitol Hill. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman, could not be reached for comment.

Lots of people wring their hands over such moves and make sure to point out that the Senator is keeping an eye out for Illinois.

I think that is a bunch of pretense–I hope to see lots of Iowa and New Hampshire donations on those reports. Probably should wait a reporting cycle or two, but you can never start too early for 2012.

And to Jason Gerwig who complains about it on behalf of the Republicans–such donations also helps one get better committee assignments which does help the Citizens of Illinois.

Ahem, Are We Not Filing Contracts on Time?

Via Capitol Fax is a story from the Washington Times about Hynes refusing to pay the bill for flu vaccines that were never imported (though the last few days everyone in my family have been wishing they had).

But the fascinating bit to me is this:

The signed contract with Ecosse didn’t reach the comptroller’s office until Jan. 24, and with flu season half over. Hynes wants to know why the deal was signed.

Under law, contracts are supposed to be submitted within 30 days. So does that mean the contract was signed between Christmas and the 24th? I doubt it.

Most likely it’s a continuing issue of contracts being submitted late as was documented in December in the Register-Star by Aaron Chambers.

Another Analysis of 3186

From Vasyl in e-mail

As it turns out, I’m the confused commenter on Rich Miller’s site about the gay rights bill. ?Here’s my quickie analysis:

1) The gay rights bill does not amend the exclusion for religious organizations. ?The bill’s language gets codified within the section of the Section of the Human Rights Act that uses a definition of employer that excludes religious organizations (to a limited extent) — so the bill would automatically exclude religious organizations.

2) Here’s how I read the religious exemption, with bracketed material to help organize the language:

“Employer” does not include any religious
? ? [1] corporation
? ? [2] association
? ? [3] educational institution
? ? [4] society
? ? [5] or non-profit nursing institution conducted by and for those who rely upon treatment by prayer through spiritual means in accordance with the tenets of a recognized church or religious denomination

[this exclusion applies] with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, society or non-profit nursing institution of its activities.

3) Once the exclusion is parsed out, it seems that a religious institution can hire only members of its own religion. ?So, a Catholic school (e.g.) can hire only practicing and faithful Catholics. ?Thus (and in accordance with Catholic teachings), a Catholic church must hire celibate homosexuals, but may refuse to hire homosexuals who engage in same-sex relations. ?A religious institution that believes the mere state of being gay is sinful (i.e., you can’t be a member of the religion if you’re gay), could refuse to hire that person.

4) So, why did Carol Ronen say what she said? ?My best bet is that the staff analyst read only the bill, and not the already-existing statute. ?(Btw, that’s the flaw in the Anaclerio memo.) ?So, when Ronen was asked about religious insitutions, she simply answered with her opinion rather than with a legal analysis. ?The opinion got reported in the Sun Times, and LaBarbera goes off on his rant. ?I’d like to see the transcript of the debate before going with the short quotes in the Sun Times article to determine legislative intent.

So, I hope that makes things clearer — or maybe it makes things muddier.

_______________________________________

This is the same as how I read the law and the past restrictions put on who is affected by anti-discrimination laws. My Matt Hale example isn’t meant as satire, but as a real exception to the law that has long been allowed.

For those who insist differently, the same is held true along gender lines or the Catholic Church would be hiring Female priests as would several conservative Protestant denominations that do not allow female ministers.