There is a proposal kicking around the Senate to ban texting while driving.  Michael Denton disapproves, and I agree with him up to a point.  It is difficult – okay, frankly impossible – to see how the federal government has any power to implement this ban.  I dislike the method by which Congress gets around its lack of constitutional lack of authority: namely, withholding federal highway funds if the state refuses to comply with the federal mandate.  This is tantamount to legal extortion.  There is at best a tenuous connection to interstate commerce, though I suppose there have been worse applications in the past.

And then there’s the fact that Chuck Schumer is one of the people who introduced the ban.  Anything that Chuck Schumer proposes is automatically suspect.

All that being said, this is one of those rare instances where the government does possess reasonable justification in acting.  Studies, common sense, and lived experience all demonstrate that driving while texting is incredibly dangerous.  One would think you wouldn’t need to actually write a law to prevent people doing something so manifestly stupid and dangerous.  Furthermore, a texting driver is putting other lives at danger.  If government exists for any reason at all it is to prevent citizens from being able to kill other citizens.  This is kind of basic.

We’re not talking about something that is merely stupid.  There is barely any difference from driving while texting and driving while drunk.  Both activities severely impair one’s driving abilities to the point where you are a menace to other people on the road.  On the talk shows and other blogs I keep hearing the slippery slope argument.  “Well, if they can ban this, why not fiddling with the radio, eating, or picking one’s nose?”  While I am sympathetic to slippery slope arguments and do believe that every expansion of the government’s powers makes the next extension more feasible, we could make such arguments about practically anything the government does.  At some point we should be able to employ common sense and distinguish between rational and irrational uses of government power.  Texting while driving is clearly something different than just tuning the radio – though indeed the latter can be dangerous if one becomes too engrossed.  But I think pushing the up channel button involves a little less brain power than typing out a text message on one’s phone.

I have no problem with such bans.  Just let the 40 or so states that don’t already have such bans get around to it on their own.

(Cross-posted at CC)

Writing at the First Thoughts blog, Joe Carter argues that the tendency of libertarians to take the side of Prof. Gates in his recent dustup with law enforcement may be more a matter of demography than reasoned judgment:

Although we’d prefer to believe that we adopt our political views after careful consideration of the relevant principles and issues, more often than not we adopt philosophies that align with our personalities and life experiences.

For example, philosophically perceptive, right-leaning libertarians (as opposed to liberalartarians or leave-me-alone libertines) are a subclass comprised almost exclusively of white, middle-to-upper class, educated males aged twenty to fifty. Sociologically speaking, they are a demographic that is unlikely to have extensive experience with public disorder. It is understandable why they would be dismissive of such concerns when other interests, such as the rights of the individual, are involved.

(more…)

The Hill on the reason that the Republican Party is in trouble from the the wisdom and insights of Senator Voinovich:

Too many conservative senators like Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) are to blame for the GOP’s downfall, one of their retiring Republican colleagues complained Monday.

We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns,” Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told the Columbus Dispatch. “It’s the southerners.”

Voinovich, a native Clevelander who retires after the 2010 election, continued after the southern elements of the GOP.

They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr,’” he said. “People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

Oh so that is problem.  There are a number of problems with the good Senator’s statement.

(more…)

When does one become a human being? Let us turn to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John P. Holdren, for a clue.

John P. Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In 1973, he co-authored a book — “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” — with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

…

On page 235, while making an argument for legalized abortion, the authors use language that on its face says a child “will ultimately develop into a human being” — after it is born.

“To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building,” they wrote. “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

Did you go through the essential early socializing experiences, and were you given sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after your birth? If not, then you, though born, are not a human being.

Over at American Catholic, Donald McClarey offers a “Pre-Mortem” on the Obama health care plan. I’m afraid I can’t share my Donald’s relief at ObamaCare’s timely demise. From the perspective of ObamaCare opponents, it seems to me that we are at the point of in the movie where the monster appears to be killed and everyone starts to breath easier only to have it jump up again and renew its rampage.

Here, for example, is a story hot off the digital presses:

President Barack Obama is retooling his pitch for legislation overhauling the nation’s health care system by emphasizing that any bill he signs will include consumer protections.

Among conditions White House aides say Obama will outline in visits to North Carolina and Virginia Wednesday are that insurers would be required to set annual caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses, fully cover routine tests to help prevent illness, and renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full.

Insurers would be barred from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions, scaling back insurance for people who fall very ill, charging more for services based on gender, and placing caps on coverage.

(more…)

What’s the big deal? Apparently, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post seems to think that the handful of Republican Senators that choose to vote by proxy in Committee against Sotomayor somehow are disgracing the nomination process because they didn’t show up. Or was it that they didn’t vote yes like their colleague, Lindsey Graham? As if sitting through hours upon hours of near pointless hearings isn’t enough. Truthfully, our reporters have nothing better to do.

The ever-perceptive Mark Steyn has a post in the Corner today concerning the John Conyer’s widely ridiculed defense of not reading gargantuan bills.  Watch floor speeches, listen to Rush, et al., and you’ll hear the exasperated cry of “They haven’t even read the bill!”  What that leaves aside, of course, is that the problem is the size and complexity of these 1000+ page monstrosities; I’d be willing to bet that most of the larger bills during the Bush years were not completely and personally read by the Republicans.  Not that I would have them cease using such an effective line presently.

Steyn gets to the heart of the underlying problem.  It’s impossible for an individual senator or congressman to fully digest these bills.  In their size, scope, and complexity, they make a mockery of informed representation:

(more…)

When I’m not blogging here at Southern Appeal and at Thoughts of a Regular Guy, and when I’m not working my job, spending time with my family, working with my new Knights of Columbus council, etc., one of my pursuits is running in the GOP primary for the Illinois House of Representatives against a pro-abortion Republican incumbent.

(What follows is the text of an email I shared with my supporters today.)

My dear friends,

I’m sorry to be cluttering your inboxes again so soon, but I wanted you hear what happened today in my campaign to unseat the RINO Sandy Cole. Following up yesterday’s message (quoted below) in which I told you that I planned to be at the Lake County Fair, I wanted to tell you about the funny thing that happened to me at the fair:

I was kicked out of the Republican booth.
(more…)

Here’s a cutting edge, thinking outside the box idea for how to reduce abortion: give America’s largest abortion provider millions (more) in taxpayer money. With this extra cash, businesses like Planned Parenthood could help women avoid abortion, leading to an overall decline in the abortion rate. Skeptical? Well, that just means you’re a militant.

That, at any rate, is the argument made by a recent William Saletan article in Slate. The proposal in question, the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act, would increase funding for contraception and sex education, among other things. The bill has been endorsed by all the main pro-choice groups, and is opposed by the “militant” National Right to Life Committee. (more…)

It was a piece of cake determining this week’s recipient of the Margaret Went Award in Journalistic Non-Excellence:  congratulations Chris Elmendorf and Ethan Lieb.  You have devised what might be the most idiotic idea in the history of ever. (more…)

Mississippi girl Kelly Foster takes her stand over at the Image magazine blog in all her indignant, southern glory.  Seems she met with some ol’ fashioned Yankee condescension up in New England while attending a workshop.  No one is more provincial than a cosmopolitan.  At any rate, mix yourself a julep and enjoy.

I come from a place where elegance is valued, where beauty is enough of an argument for the existence of anything—where walls are draped in silks and gorgeous textiles, where women know how best to drape themselves, how best to make up a face, how best to make up a room so lovely it radiates its own light, how to host a proper cocktail party, where men know what a good single malt Scotch tastes like and when it rains, they get their feet wet walking you to your car under umbrellas.

I come from a place where ritual is respected, where children are taught to say Ma’am and Sir because it’s respectful. Because the act of saying so acknowledges the truth that these people have come before you and know better than you do just how bloody costly life is.

E.J. Dionne has a “I’m Smarter than You” argument today that the Senate should put its money where its mouth is on a federal-style respect for concealed carry throughout the Union and permit guns in the supreme Court and legislative chambers. Aside from the totally asinine comparison of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES with two small buildings, I wonder if Dionne isn’t missing a bigger point. Does anyone out there know if historically guns/weapons have ALWAYS been banned in legislatures and courts, going back even to Parliament and the Star Chamber? My political science reading on this is that, yes, force is one way to resolve our differences but the legislatures and courts have always been temples and altars dedicated to the civil resolution of disagreements. So a prohibition on weapons in these near-sacred places denotes the importance of these activities outside the realities of day-to-day life. Thoughts? Not that I wouldn’t want to see SOME of our congressional members armed.

The United States spends a lot of money on health care. According to the Progressive Policy Institute, for example, in 2004 “Americans accounted for nearly half — $1.7 trillion of the total $3.7 trillion — of the world’s health spending.”

The United States also spends a lot of money on the military. According to the site Globalsecurity.org, for example, in 2004 military expenditures for the United States ($625 billion) exceeded those of the rest of the world combined (approximately $500 billion).

One could quibble with how these numbers are derived, but there’s no disputing that the United States does spend an awful lot both on health and on war. (more…)

This evening I will be a guest on Fr. Ron Lengwin’s Sunday night radio program, Amplify. It is broadcast from KDKA in Pittsburgh (1020 on the AM dial). You can listen to the show from 9-11 pm EDT online here. I will be on the program to talk about my new book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic (Brazos, 2009)

(Originally posted on First Thoughts)

This story is beginning to get a lot of play:

Brooklyn nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will. The hospital even exaggerated the patient’s condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.

“It felt like a horror film unfolding,” said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn’t been able to sleep since the May 24 incident. The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.

This is EXACTLY why conscience protection is so desperately important to enact and keep in place.

H/t: Volokh

A friend recently received a brochure for a seminar in which businesses could learn how to secure stimulus funded contracts, often without any competition. The seminar, sponsored by something called the B2G Institute, states that “[s]uccessful entrepreneurs are continually innovating. You can innovate in this economy by doing business with the government” and “[b]e in business with the government today . . . or be out of business tomorrow.” Sadly, I’m afraid such statements are becoming more and more true.

The Senate Republicans came up with the perfect entertainment for all you stalwart defenders of the status quo in preparation for Obama’s presser earlier tonight.  Could be useful in the months to come, but it might have to be combined with a drinking game to be most effective.  Htip NRO’s Critical Condition

My small contribution to the discussion on the importance of the entrepreneur in a family-centered economy.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This statement, first uttered by Louis Blanc and popularized by Karl Marx, is thought to be the essence of communism and/or socialism. Yet in practice socialist experiments have tended to do badly with both halves of the idea. Communist societies don’t take from each according to his ability (as indicated by their low productivity). Nor do they give to each according to their need (elites in such societies often do well while millions starve). A more accurate description of real existing socialism is the old Polish saying from the communist era: we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.

Ironically, basically capitalist societies do better on both halves of the statement. Capitalism is awesome at taking from each according to their ability. It does less well at giving to each according to their need, though it does a better job of this than it is often given credit for, and a far better job than most socialist systems (which tend to be poor and/or corrupt). (more…)

Now we can sit back and await the outcry.  Henry Louis Gates, Jr., has managed to get himself arrested at his own home in Cambridge after neighbors reported a suspected break-in.  He spent several years at Duke complaining of his treatment on a regular basis, in spite of being lionized at Duke and in academia generally.

Call me cynical, but this feels manufactured.  Just ask yourself:  white, black, or latino, how hard is it to keep from being arrested for breaking into your own house?  Cops just love filing that extra paperwork, don’t you know.

Drop what you are doing and start repairing doors for the Federal Government!

Another good use for the internet: getting back at big businesses who piss you off by making “anti-commercials” about their service.

Dave Carroll: “United Breaks Guitars”

(H/T: Shoved to Them)

(Cross-posted from: Thoughts of a Regular Guy)

Yet another compelling video from the folks at CatholicVote.org:

Huge decision today in the Water Wars that have been going on between Alabama, Georgia and Florida for a long, long time.  At issue, is the fact that Alabama and Florida contend that Georgia is taking more than its fair share of water from a several rivers that flow from Georgia into Alabama and Florida, particularly Lake Lanier in Georgia which supplies Atlanta with a significant amount of its water.    Alabama has argued that Lake Lanier was built for flood control and for the production of power and, thus, releases from the lake and removal of the water from the lake must be to further those two purposes.   As a result, since drinking water was not one of the purposes authorized by Congress, the Corps of Engineers has to restrict such withdrawals.  A federal judge has now agreed.  The AP/B’ham News story is here.

Judge Paul Magnuson agreed with Alabama, ruling that only Congress could approve such a massive use of water from Lake Lanier by Atlanta-area entities. Judge Magnuson ordered that all water withdrawals be frozen at current levels for the next three years. If Congress does not approve a reallocation within that period, then water withdrawals from Lake Lanier will revert to the much lower levels of the mid-1970s.

If the decision stands, Congress doesn’t act (rest assured Alabama and Florida’s delegations will do whatever it takes to make that happen) and if the states can’t reach an agreement (the sticking point has been Georgia’s unwillingness to compromise and insist that Atlanta gets what it wants/needs first and then Alabama and Florida can get a portion of what’s left), then things could get real interesting in Atlanta in terms of availability of water.

Somethings need comments.  Others speak for themselves.  The following is clearly the latter (Note: I  have not actually reviewed the bill to make sure this is accurate.  However, it comes from a reliable source):

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Congress: It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading
the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16
is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
(more…)

Noted Princeton ethicist Peter Singer has a piece in the upcoming Sunday NYT Magazine arguing that health-care rationing is both necessary and desirable.  His argument is that everyone has a price on the extension of human life and that we already ration in other ways (copayments, ER waits, etc.), just inefficiently and irrationally.  Why not just accept the reality and get down to business of designing a rational system of rationing by a federally funded but independent body such as the NICE in Great Britain.

The problem with NICE, like the scientific-bureaucratic monstrosity in C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength that shares its acronym, is that it concentrates the power to decide human goods in the hands of scientists and bureaucrats.  It is the very rationality and neutrality that makes one recoil.  Yes, as Singer states, we all have a price on six months or three years, but who makes that awful decision makes all the difference.  The decision is not made in isolation or neatly, but better the messy consults with doctors, talks with family, and negotiations with insurance companies and Medicare than the cold finality of a formula.  Such an objection makes no sense to the beautiful mechanism of Singer’s utilitarian mind, but so be it.

Singer presumes that he preserves an element of liberty by arguing for a mixed model that allows private health insurance as a supplement, but he avoids the question of what such insurance could provide in the wake of the nationalization of the world’s most dynamic health-care system.  The effects on research, innovation, the supply of highly-trained specialists, advanced equipment, and next-generation drugs would be profound.

(more…)

Inequality is a tricky concept. Typically when people talk about inequality in a political context they have in mind not inequality of virtue or beauty or intelligence, etc., but inequality of material conditions. Even there, however, the various types of inequality and ways of measuring it are numerous. Inequality of wealth in a society will not be the same as inequality of income, and neither will be the same as inequality of consumption.

Nor, even once we pick out the specific type of inequality we wish to measure, have we resolved the ambiguity. Suppose, for example, that we wish to measure the income inequality in a society of three people, A, B, and C. In year one A and B are both making $10K a year, while C is making $50K. Now suppose that by year ten, A is making $12K, B is making $50K, and C is making $60K. Has inequality of income for the group gone up or down? If we measure inequality just by looking at the spread between the lowest and highest member of society, then inequality has increased. To look at inequality just in this way, however, is to ignore the fates of the millions (if not billions) of people in a given group who aren’t either the very best or very worst off. (more…)