perfidy

The two major touchstones I have in thinking about the role of government in our lives are 1) Is it Constitutional? and, more fundamentally, 2) Leave me the hell alone. #1 is the first line of defense, because many bad things are unconstitutional. But even if it passes that muster, the government must show a really compelling need to interfere with lives of citizens before a law is "good." I can see that laws against theft, which interferes with my desire to take things that I want, is good for society. Similar thoughts give a pass to many laws we have. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their boudoir is, properly, there concern and theirs alone. Therefore, sodomy statures and similar laws are bad.

Where Santorum is wrong is in positing a slippery slope between sodomy laws and the other things that he mentioned. Slippery slope arguments are overrated and overused, and inapplicable here. Bigamy, gay marriage and adultery are different issues. Regardless of what you feel about these, they are societal concerns, and in a different category. They may be "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," but overturning a sodomy statute won't make them legal. 

It is a huge question whether the government has a role in implementing "the Good Society." Some weep and gnash their teeth at government legislating morality - but that is certainly what the government does with murder and theft laws. I weep and gnash my teeth at the liberal attempts to legislate a good society with "risky schemes" like welfare and so on. All of these things infringe on our rights to do just what we please, or at least leave us less cash to fund doing just what we please. We need to look at these things somewhat pragmatically, and somewhat strict constructionistally. 

We need first off to pay more attention to the Constitution, as it is written, because it is the rule by which we live. Many, many bad things come from ignoring this. There are no umbras and penumbras and eclipses and occultations in the constitution. If you don't like what it says, what it allows and permits, there is a mechanism for changing it. The rule of law is the most fundamental requirement for civilization, and we ignore it at our peril. The RICO statutes, and the RIAA and the Patriot II that Johno has been exercised over recently are all the result of a failure on the part of our legislators to ask the question, what part of the constitution gives us permission to pass this law. Deferring that judgement to the courts results in many other evils, as the courts end legislators who cannot be voted out of office. While we may be happy with one decision or another, the situation is bad for us all. 

On the pragmatic side, we need to look at individual cases, and ask, "Is this law doing what we want it to?" When Congress passed the welfare reform act back in 96, the left was having fits of apoplexy, crying and whining that we would have children starving to death because of the callousness and heartlessness of Republicans. This was an ideological reaction. The result was much happier. Welfare rolls are down by almost half, and there are no children starving to death. This was a situation where someone took a long look at a program that was supposed to end or at least ameliorate poverty, but ended up institutionalizing it. The law of unintended circumstances hits government programs harder than anything else - largely because government programs are so hard to change, much less kill. Social Security is clearly heading for disaster unless something is done to fix it - yet many oppose any kind of reform because it offends their leftist aesthetic sensibilities to kick this particular sacred cow. There are other situations where conservative sacred cows could use some kicking as well, most notably the drug war nightmare. Instead of reducing the amount of drugs in use, it has lowered prices, increased purity, given billions of dollars to very bad people, ruined Columbia and is ruining Peru and Venezuela, savaged civil liberties in this country and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on an all expense paid vacation for 12 on Mars. 

On some issues, my instincts say, "that shouldn't be allowed." Or, "Those greenpeace fucks should be in camps." Others will have similar thoughts with different targets. But my other instincts say, we live in a rather nifty Republic, with constitutional safeguards, and we shouldn't screw it up. We best avoid screwing things up by avoiding action. The best government governs least. Anyone who feels differently is invited to look at the former Soviet Union, or even France for a counterexample.

No, it's in the amendments (IV, IX, X), you sneaky semanticist you!

Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that Ricky Santorum was not making a statement about the Bill of Rights when he made that speech, but was rather wringing his hands about how the preverts are going to drag civilization down. I dunno. That's just my sense.

[update] Santorum has a right to his opinion. I also have a right to know he's dead wrong.

[update] The big issue, in a legislative sense, isn't privacy at all, but whether the Feds have a right to regulate what consenting adults do with their own time. I'm inclined to think they don't.

Of course, he's right in saying that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

And to think, I have been invited to be in a wedding... Perhaps they should reconsider.

From Senator Rick Santorum:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," the Pennsylvania lawmaker said in a recent interview, fuming over a landmark gay rights case before the high court that pits a Texas sodomy law against equality and privacy rights.
"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum said. "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

More information/insight/reaction/yammering at Instapundit, Light of Reason, and the Times-Leader, which is an actual news source.

Apparently,

I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king-a?!

What Monty Python Character are you, you English pig-dog?

(brought to you by Quizilla)

From Geek Lethal, via coded private communique, comes this January 2001 article from the Onion, covering Bush's Inaugural Address. Read it.

For you lazies, here's excerpts:

"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years. You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

Yeesh. It's like they had a time machine or something.

Tomorrow, when (hopefully) I am not exhausted and sore, I have on tap: genre killing; the French (again); and James Madison and Valery Giscard d'Estaing: a comparative view of constitution building in America and Europe.

In the meantime, I am going to go home and take a nap.

Put the founder of the Mars Society at the helm of NASA, and give him two weeks worth of the Social Security budget, and we'll be on Mars in a few years, tops. Very smart guy. He has developed plans for getting to Mars far cheaper than the typical NASA baseline mission profile. Not only cheaper, but smarter. 

Even better, put Charles Pellegrino in charge, give him a month's worth of the SS budget, and he and his Brookhaven Lab physicist compatriots will have us on our way to Alpha Centauri in anti-matter powered Valkyrie starships in a decade or two. If you're gonna think, think big. Screw Mars, I want the stars. 
 

While I know little about the two men mentioned (do feminists insist on being womyntioned?) in the Globe article, promoting from within is rarely a good sign at NASA. It will probably lead to more bureaucratic inertia, lack of creative solutions, and overspending. I could be wrong. On a more positive note, But Rutan and the aerodynamic geniuses at Scaled Composites have unveiled their new spaceship.

As the space.com article mentions, Rutan is going for the X-prize. This ten million dollar award goes to the first group that takes passengers into space, returns safely, and then does it again with the same vehicle inside a week. The prize is consciously modeled after the prizes offered in the early days of aviation, which played a significant role in the development of the industry. It gives me some hope that Rutan is pursueing this vision - unlike most of the pie-in-the-sky "competitors", Rutan has a proven record of not merely designing; but building, flying and selling experimental aircraft.

Rutan designed Voyager, the plane that made the first unrefueled, non-stop, round the world flight. If anyone can do it, Burt can. And if someone can get into space without metric tons of government funding, it will be a wonderful thing. (And if Rutan wins the X Prize, he can get serious venture capital.)