Maggie's Farm

He had a bad year, but justice will be sweet. Newsweek (h/t, Betsy). Now he wants to be a defence lawyer. I should think so.

Seen this one yet?

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance.  I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.  My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.

If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.   I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine.   Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively?  This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005. 

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider.  Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son. 

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums.  This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car. 

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.  Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

You have to scroll down. He does it month by month. (h/t, Coyote)

See What 50 Years Will Do

You don't have to be over fifty to see how much the world has gone berserk!

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1956 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.

2006 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1956 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.

2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1956 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.

2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.

1956 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.

1956 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1956 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1956: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1956 - Ants die.

2006 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to comfort him.

1956 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

"This doesn't define me." 

The best possible story for New Year's Day, at Villainous.  The question is "Can I live with that spirit?"

It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella Awards." The Stella Awards, which are not genuine awards but just lists of real cases someone compiles, are named after 81 year old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the United States. Clever lawyers, or brain-dead juries? We report - you decide. Here are this year's winners:

5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.


5th Place (tie): 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and
medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.


5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a
house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able
to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning.  He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The
family was on vacation, and  Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
large bag of dry dog food.  He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming
the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
tune of $500,000.  In my opinion this is so outrageous that it should
have been 2nd Place!


4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed
over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a
pellet gun.


3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
argument.


2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner
of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom
window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred
while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies
room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge.  She was awarded $12,000
and dental expenses.


AND.....


1st Place: This year's runaway winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot
Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football
game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70
mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back & make herself
a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and
overturned. Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the
owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her
$1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their
manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other
complete morons around.

A man was at the country club for his weekly round of golf.

He began his round with an eagle on the first hole and a birdie on the second. On the third hole he had just scored his first ever hole-in-one when his cell phone rang. It was a doctor notifying him that his wife had just been in  a terrible accident and was in critical condition and in the ICU. The  man told the doctor to inform his wife where he was and that the he'd be there as soon as possible.

As he hung up he realized he was leaving what was shaping up to be his best ever round of golf. He decided to get in a couple of more holes before heading to the hospital. He ended up playing all eighteen of course, finishing his round shooting a personal best 61, shattering the club record by five strokes and beating his previous best game by more than 10. He was jubilant.... then he remembered his wife. 

Feeling guilty he dashed to the hospital. He saw the doctor in the corridor and asked about his wife's condition. The doctor glared at him and shouted, "You went ahead and finished your round of golf didn't you!? I hope you're proud of yourself! While you were out for the past four hours enjoying yourself at the country club your wife has been languishing in the ICU! It's just as well you went ahead and finished that round because it will be more than likely your last! For the rest of her life she will require 'round the clock' care. And you'll be her care giver!" The man was feeling so guilty he broke down and sobbed.

The doctor snickered and said, "I'm just messing with ya. She's dead. What'd you shoot?"

Bush's former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, wrote a piece about the idealistic strain in the Republican Party for Newsweek, which was highlighted by YARGB and Ankle Biting, among others.

I think it's worth reading because the Repub Party is, like any party, a mix of views and philosophies. Furthermore, I think many Repubs are, like me, a mix of contradictory and philosophically inconsistent views, ranging from the radical Libertarian to the socially "progresssive."

Indeed, almost all Republicans these days are "big government Republicans." There's no big movement to eliminate Medicare, is there? It's just a matter of degree.

For me, and for most of us bred-in-the-bone proud Yankees at Maggie's Farm, I think it boils down to something like this: We distrust Federal power. We distrust state power less, and local power even less. We are Federalists partly because it is a bulwark against excessive centralized power, and we lean Libertarian because power, unlike money, truly is a zero-sum game.

We are sympathetic to CS Lewis' statement:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Here's a quote from Gerson:

Campaigning on the size of government in 2008, while opponents talk about health care, education and poverty, will seem, and be, procedural, small-minded, cold and uninspired. The moral stakes are even higher. What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism—an idealism that strangles mercy.

But there is another Republican Party—what might be called the party of the governors. It is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles—not a small thing in a post-Katrina world.

The future of the Republican Party depends on which party it wants to be—the party of purity, or the party of the governors. In that decision, Republicans should consider: any political movement that elevates abstract antigovernment ideology above human needs is hardly conservative, and unlikely to win.

There is an "idealism that strangles mercy" - and there is government power that strangles freedom, self-reliance, autonomy, and emotional and spiritual maturity - and thus cripples humankind. I'm not saying I agree with all that Gerson says, but it's well worth the read, here.

It's an old joke -- that, eventually, in a true "nanny state," everything not forbidden will be mandatory.

The above noted in a piece by Jay Tea on how MA is considering extending the Nanny role that Mayor Bloomberg has in NYC. And he accurately points out that, of all things Americans ingest, alcohol is the most problematic. A trans-fat never killed anyone, after all.

Meanwhile, also in MA, there is a move to revive sodomy laws - for health reasons! The gays will love that one.

Maybe "health" and "safety" are our new, narcissistic religions, worshipping our oh-so-precious, irreplaceable selves?

Or is it control just for the sadistic fun of it?

Why don't I find such things simply silly or amusing? Because if the government can rationalize controlling things like this, they can rationalize controlling anything and everything - whether for "my good" (because I am an drooling idiot and cannot feed myself) or for the "common good" (because I don't matter as an individual). That is, fascism - whether our "very caring" leaders are elected or not. So it isn't funny.

Image: Mary was not an evil nanny.

Update. Related: The state cannot love you, at Never Yet melted

You guessed it, didn't you?

"Big Government needs little Hitlers".

Ain't that the truth. It's a new tagline of the UKIP, as discussed at Samizdata.

And in that context, Moonbattery announces the return of It Takes a Village- a quote:

As summed up by Human Events, the book dismisses the traditional family as inappropriate for the modern world. "The village" — i.e., government bureaucracy — should take its place.

This point of view may explain why Shrillary opposed relief from the marriage tax, and favors publicly financed divorce — which she would treat as "a public health issue," presumably covered under HillaryCare.

For the view of the world which is close to that of us Maggie's Farmers, try Villainous Company on Free Will vs. The Nanny State. A classic blog rant on the subject of responsibility. A long quote, from a section on marriage:

Because Dad made a decision, long ago, that his happiness was the only thing that mattered. How many people, over the years, will try to step in and take the place of that "man" who walked away from his vow, from a marriage that there was really nothing wrong with, from a promise, not that he would always "feel" love, but that he would always practice it, no matter what? In sickness, in health, for richer, for poorer, 'til death do us part. Only he didn't mean what he said. He couldn't be trusted. That small boy learned a valuable lesson, early in life. It is dangerous to trust.

People make decisions on the basis of trust, like the decision to make yourself economically and emotionally vulnerable by having a child who will impose a lifelong responsibility on you. One that, on the basis of that promise, you thought would be shared between two people.

This is a less obvious case, and no one in today's world is likely to argue for coerced enforcement of marriage vows. But that is not the point. The point is that it is not invalid to disapprove of irresponsible behavior. It is not wrong to wish people would do the right thing. It is not impolite to notice when other people's tendency to avoid their responsibilities keeps spilling over into your life and causing problems for people who would never dream of doing those things. And above all, it is not beyond the pale to observe that in our oh-so-tolerant quest to be nonjudgmental we have, perhaps unintentionally, also done away with many of the restraints on human behavior that used to encourage the more weak-willed members of society to buck up and stick it out when the going got tough. We used to call this being ashamed of yourself. But in today's climate so little invokes a feeling of shame that we have a woman who lies and cheats on her husband actually asking a therapist if this can ever be "wrong"? And other people defending her actions. Bizarre.

Read it all.

These people are, like, in, like, you know, college? I pity their parents, if they are paying the, you know, bills. Especially if a parent is a, like, police officer. From Students Honor Cop Killer:

“If you look at it at face value and think about what she did, it might seem wrong, but I think you really have to, like, look beyond the whole thing with the cops to really understand, like, where she’s coming from,” said Orlando Ayala, a 24-year-old senior.

and

Sophomore Carlos Badilla, 20, of the Bronx, wanted to know why the center was named after Shakur.

“If it had nothing to do with killing the cop, it’s alright,” he said. “You have to think why she did it, cause cops are known to mess with some people, you know. If she had a reason to do it then I have no problem with it.”

It's Christmastime. Must be the traditional time for atheists and the terminally intolerant to complain about church bells.

How many of these did you get wrong?

An excellent and amusing video (10 or so quick and worthwhile minutes) of Peter Donnelly discussing common statistical errors. (h/t, Junk Science)

Tree is up. An 8-footer.

With a fresh cut, and well-watered.

Smells wonderful. But my task is done.

It hardly needs improvement, in my opinion, but people will hang lights and old sentimental decorations all over it.

I have never gotten the sense or practicality of bringing a dead tree indoors...except that it's like a miraculous transformation of home and life.

We mentioned this poor fellow yesterday, a victim of idiotic laws and an idiot of a DA, I suspect. 15 years? (Shouldn't jail be for people who actually hurt someone else? Fines and a whuppin' for the rest of them, so we don't have to pay their keep.)

But this one really takes the cake.

Readers know that I am partial to remote-controlled flying machines, but I just saw one of these and this is cool:

It's a Walther NightHawk .177 pellet pistol. Add to my Santa list.

Asbestos. A classic:

Harry Kananian met with the firm Early Ludwick in February 2000. According to an Early email, he wasn't clear how he'd been exposed. He had, however, served in the Army in World War II and remembered several months on troop ships known to contain asbestos. On one such two-week trip he'd done welding. He also recalled working in a factory that was "dusty," as well as a "white powdery substance" when he was remodeling his house.

Early Ludwick then filed its multiple claims--to the 48 Insulations trust, the Eagle Picher trust, the UNR trust, the Celotex trust and others. Brayton Purcell was also retained by the plaintiff and filed claims to Johns Manville and Bethlehem Steel. The discrepancies were never questioned until Brayton sued Lorillard Tobacco, and Brayton probably never thought the prior claims would be an issue. But Lorillard suspected Kananian had already collected on the basis of his work history--and it argued the jury had a right to know. To Brayton's dismay, Judge Hanna agreed earlier this year.

Yes, dusty material. Show me one person over 35 who hasn't been been in a place that contained asbestos, and guess what? You can get mesothelioma without asbestos exposure.  Read the whole sorry tale by Strassel at Opinion Journal. I wonder what their next scam will be. These people make honest lawyers look bad, but they laugh all the way to the bank. But can they look at themselves in the mirror?

More quotes from the Chris Wallace interview, at Shrinkwrapped. One example:

The freedom of speech. Do you know what it means? Basically. But you don't know its entire content, and it doesn't tell you itself. Those words, "the freedom of speech," "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech." Neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet.

Breyer is supposed to be a smart guy, ex-Harvard Law Prof and all. But that is the dumbest statement I have heard in the past week. I know that power corrupts, but it is the arrogance which concerns me, as I said yesterday. Doesn't Breyer's comment there imply that he might have some option for control of internet speech? Why else would he raise the issue?

Or am I missing a nuance?

When he says "It doesn't tell you its entire content," he is saying that a statement as unambiguous and clear as "Thou shalt not murder." is complex and full of nuance, that only someone like him can decipher.

No. His job is referee, by the rule book. It's not rocket science. The rules are very clear: they even permit Al Gore to make an absurd movie! And us to have a blog!

The arrogance, specifically, is the notion that "I am an expert in law, so I am an expert in life." Wrong. It is not his job to try to micromanage all of the outcomes in life in the USA. That sort of grandiosity on a court is indeed dangerous and, dare I say it - un-American.

How Sarbanes-Oxley has been destroying NYC as a financial capitol. Quote from John Fund in Op. Journal:

Perhaps the top culprit in New York's relative decline as a trading center is the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability rules that were put in place in 2002 in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Henry Tang, Hong Kong's financial secretary, couldn't be more blunt on the good fortune Sarbanes-Oxley has brought his city. "Our success is giving [Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson a few raised eyebrows," he told a delegation from the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market think tank, last week. "Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Oxley," he said, referring to Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes and GOP Rep. Mike Oxley, the law's chief sponsors.

It's that pesky old Law of Unintended Consequences. Whole piece here. 

Well said, of Justice Breyer: "My question is ….. who ensures he doesn’t get too powerful?" Piece at Ankle Biting, on Breyer's view of his job.

Hey, Justice Steve: I ain't paying you to try to save the world. Recheck your job description.

It's about time for another fun fallacy.

This one goes back to the astonishing Aristotle, and hence to the Roman Petitio Principii.

That is, pleading, or begging for the premise to be accepted.

What is fun about this fallacy is that the statements may be fully logical, but erroneous because they are circular: if you accept the premise, then the conclusion logically follows. As in: My premise is A=B, so I will create another assertion which implies, or is built on, or derives from, the notion that A=B.

The classic example of this form of logic abuse is "When did you stop beating your wife?" The premise contains the accusatory conclusion.

Also known as "circular arguments," such arguments can seem persuasive if you don't step back and examine the often-hidden premise. They are technically "informal fallacies," because the error is not within the "form" of the argument: the form can be fine while the basis is flawed.

Example: God created the earth and its creatures five thousand years ago. Well, that hidden premise is that every word of the Bible is scientifically and chronologically true according to modern thinking. If you accept the premise, then I suppose you must accept the conclusion.

Example: Massachusetts politicians alarmed by rapid erosion of Cape Cod: Blame Bush's global warming. Hidden premise/assumption: man-made warming is raising sea levels and washing Cape Cod out to sea. Of course, there is no evidence for that mechanism - Cape Cod was disappearing in Thoreau's time, and he commented on it. The wise will buy Monomoy Island real estate, which is where the sand is being deposited. Hey - it's the next Nantucket.

Example: All of the money from our healthy economy is going into the pockets of wealthy corporate thieves. The notion, or premise, that wealth consists of a finite number of dollars is a famous fallacious assumption of the economically illiterate. If that premise were true, the socialists would have an argument. But the premise is wrong: wealth is created, almost miraculously, out of work, investment, creativity, and risk. There is no end to it.

Another famous example which contains this fallacy, from the late, lamented Johnny Cochran:  "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." How many assumptions are built into that assertion, besides the stated one? Enough for an acquittal by a jury which couldn't see his tricks, or refused to. The assumptions of the premise were, of course, that a murderer would only wear gloves that fit well, that blood-soaked gloves would not shrink, etc etc - but, most of all, the assumption that the jury would welcome any excuse to acquit. They took the bait and swallowed the hook, too.

Always examine the premise or assumption of an argument before taking on the logical flow. They are commonly hidden, or implied by tricksters so that it all seems to make sense if the premise is accepted. That is Rule #1.

This true story came in over the transom today:

THE LONGEST MINUTE

by Doug White, September 16, 2006

The kerfuffle about this Richards guy, who I know nothing about and never saw the TV series, who called some hecklers "niggers" in an ill-considered effort to be edgy and funny, just one comment: the joy and sense of confirmation of the race-mongers has been palpable. They feel relief, like being given a gallon of gas to get to the next gas station.

For people who build their careers, and base their incomes, on tracking down racism, any public stupidity becomes a cause celebre. It unveils the "dark undercurrent of latent racism", or BS like that. 

Why? Because nowadays there is so darn little racism in America that race-mongering is a dying profession, like manufacturing buggy whips.

So anytime some moron, especially an actor or some similar fool, says something stupid, it has to rise into a very BIG DEAL. Race-mongering has become a very desperate career - and that is a good thing for America, as long as we do not take it seriously when Jesse and Al find an excuse to get themselves in the news again.

In an era when Condi Rice is Secretary of State, and Obama is running for President, the racial witch-hunting seems a bit silly, and dated. America has reason to be proud to be the most post-racism nation on the planet.

We have become a "content of our character" country, as MLK dreamed.