Nobody's Business

Al Gore's Abuse of Power

As in, the power that comes out of an electrical socket. But first:

My name is Rogier, and I used to be a liberal. (Hi, Rogier!)

Admittedly, I still have a few liberal tendencies (but way fewer illusions as to what they might accomplish), and while I probably would have voted for Harry Browne in 2000 if I'd been permitted to enter a voting booth (I wasn't a citizen yet), I could conceivably have given the nod to Al Gore. That's mostly because the Republican candidate — you know of whom I speak — was considerably less palatable to me. I certainly don't love Gore, but he seems like a thoroughly decent guy who's likely to do less to damage to our Constitution and our liberties than 75 percent of the politicians out there. Which isn't much of an endorsement, but it's the best I can muster.

OK, so now that my cards are on the table, let me weigh in briefly on the latest Gore controversy.

I have a couple of liberal journalist friends who are upset by the revelations of a Southern think tank that Gore's household uses twenty times the energy that an average American family does. They accuse the Tennessee Center for Policy Research of perpetrating a "far-right-fringe" smear job, and of "swiftboating" the man.

And they're eager to repeat the defense of a Gore spokesperson:

"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero."

I don't buy it. Literally. That whole 'buy offsets' approach has always smacked of elitism to me. At least two-thirds of the people in this country consider themselves lucky that they can afford to pay their utility bill month after month. The idea that they should then also buy offsets is — hell, you might as well ask everyone, for the sake of the environment, to switch to a car that runs on Veuve Clicquot.

Ordinary people earn their 'credits' the old-fashioned way. They turn down the thermostat, wear a sweater, don't heat rooms that aren't in use, switch off non-essential lights, power down the computer at night, and so on. What Gore's spokescritter seems to be saying (but maybe he was just phrasing it inartfully) is that rich people may be as wasteful as they like as long as they whip out the checkbook and buy absolution in the form of carbon offsets. It's a little, well, Marie Antoinette, no?

And I'm disappointed by the easy characterizations of those who've taken Gore to task on this one. "Far right fringe" — really? I guess that means I'm a wacko wingnut, then, because I believe in the same things that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research says it stands for. You know, weird far-right stuff like an accountable government; free markets; free choice; respect for property rights; and individual liberty that's grounded in responsibility. Collectively, these tenets have typically been known as 'libertarian'; I wasn't aware that they're just a step or two away from the principles espoused by neo-nazi scum (talk about a smear job!).

Anyway, if it emerged that George Bush habitually rents out the Lincoln bedroom to wealthy Taliban officials, liberals would be having a field day (as would I). I thought that pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians who display a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mindset is something that every intellectually honest person can get behind. No, I'm not saying (yet) that Gore is a hypocrite, but there are legitimate questions about how (or even if) he practices what he preaches.

One of the few non-kneejerk responses on Daily Kos was this bit of advice:

Assuming that Gore really does practice what he preaches then I'd like to see him invite ABC News for a tour of the house. Show us how easy it was for him to cut the electric bill by 30% from what would be typical for a house of that size. Show us that living an environmentally responsible lifestyle does not require living in a mud hut.

Works for me. Nothing wrong with him opening up, is there? On the contrary, I should think. If Gore has a clean conscience and nothing to hide, he should unreservedly release a few years' worth of energy bills, as well as honest estimates of what his less enlightened neighbors are paying. Maybe he could indeed invite a couple of TV crews to take stock of his personal commitment to creating the smallest possible carbon footprint. It would serve as an inspiration to others, and knock the wind out of his critics' sails. He could go from being attacked to being on the attack, by issuing a challenge to Republican politicians to match his own stripped-to-the-bone energy consumption

If, on the other hand, he keeps hiding behind hurt, defensive statements written by his handlers, he's doing incalculable damage to his reputation, reinforcing the lingering notion among the fencesitters that he is timid and weak, and not 'his own man,' and that he has learned precious little from the 2000 elections.

This is do-or-die time for Gore, assuming he wants to be a candidate again. No doubt the American electorate wants a leader with a proven ability to take the bull by the horns. If Gore isn't media-savvy or aggressive enough to fight off the accusations of some pesky local think tank, how is he going to take on Congressional Republicans, or, um, al Qaeda?

And I hope my liberal friends will forgive me, but for now, I'm rather enjoying the spectacle of watching the usual advocates for the common man sputteringly defend what looks for all the world like the conspicuous, carbon-wasting lifestyle of a mansion-dwelling millionaire.

That said, I hope I am wrong. I hope Gore will come out swinging after all and do his supporters proud with a great explanation — warm and humorous and, above all, factual.

Time's a-wasting.

Monsters of Metal

Sounds like a lost Spinal Tap scene:

Heavy-metal group Deep Purple have found themselves in the unlikely position of asking fans not to purchase their latest record after a clash with their record label over whether it should even have been released. Lead singer Ian Gillan claims the live recording of the band's 1993 Birmingham NEC gig, which was released in January, shouldn't have seen the light of day because the gig itself was the worst the band ever played. The singer claims that infighting during the Come Hell Or High Water tour led to a dismal performance during the Birmingham show, including the "infamous water-throwing" incident perpetrated by guitarist Ritchie Blackmore. Blackmore, who claims he was throwing water at a cameraman and not, as speculated, at his band mates, left the group during the same tour.

Of course, if Gillan had some actual balls instead of a pair of whichever legumes he likes to wrap in tinfoil and stuff down his pants, he and his bandmates could first offer the Birmingham fans their money back for the 1993 "worst concert ever." Wankers.

Video of the (underwhelming) incident here, with the water-throwing taking place at roughly 4:10. The whole thing would no doubt have been a lot funnier under Christopher Guest's able direction.

Germans Put Book Burner on Trial

Unless you have a split personality, you can't wax poetic about freedom of expression and then choose to whom you wish it to apply. Which is why I defend the right of neo-nazi scumbags to say that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication, and why I find it incomprehensible that even really nasty Hitler-worshipping creeps can go to jail for burning a copy of Anne Frank's diary.

A suspected German neo-Nazi has admitted publicly burning a copy of Anne Frank's diary, at the start of his trial with six others. The suspects are accused of inciting racial hatred and disparaging the dead. Prosecutors in the eastern German city of Magdeburg said Lars Konrad, 25, threw the book onto a bonfire during a summer solstice party in June 2006. ... The indictment says the public burning took place in Pretzien, near Magdeburg, and that the accused, aged from 24 to 29, glorified the Nazis.

In this unsettling little court drama, there are people I find even more detestable than the accused — to wit, the prosecutors, the judges, and the legislators who caused such cases to be brought in the first place.

Yes, it's a worthy and important goal to ensure that the totalitarianism of the Third Reich never again finds a foothold. But to attempt to achieve it by resorting to totalitarian thought control is evidence of a cognitive disconnect bordering on insanity.

No one ever claimed Germans were good at humor. Apparently, it's especially irony that eludes them.

God Wants You To Kick the Shit Out Of People

Is there a link between religious texts and violence? University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman and a few of his colleagues decided to find out, with the help of students from two very different universities — deeply devout Brigham Young in Utah, and Amsterdam's mostly secular Vrije Universiteit. The results of the study were just published in the March issue of Psychological Science. Here's the summary (via Stephen Ayers' Disinterested Party blog):

After reporting their religious affiliation and beliefs, the participants read a parable adapted from a relatively obscure passage in the King James Bible describing the brutal torture and murder of a woman, and her husband’s subsequent revenge on her attackers. Half of the participants were told that the passage came from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament while the other half were told it was an ancient scroll discovered in an archaeological expedition.

In addition to the scriptural distinction, half of the participants from both the bible and the ancient scroll groups read an adjusted version that included the verse: "The Lord commanded Israel to take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the LORD."

The participants were then placed in pairs and instructed to compete in a simple reaction task. The winner of the task would be able to "blast" his or her partner with noise up to 105 decibels, about the same volume as a fire alarm. The test measures aggression.

As expected, the Brigham Young students were more aggressive (i.e. louder) with their blasts if they had been told that the passage they had previously read was from the bible rather than a scroll. Likewise, participants were more aggressive if they had read the additional verse that depicts God sanctioning violence.

The Dutch heathens fared slightly better:

Although Vrije students were less likely to be influenced by the source of the material, they blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. This finding held true even for non-believers, though to a lesser extent.

I'm wondering how Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback and their fellow scolds will respond to the news. Remember, they're so concerned about the supposed violence-breeding effects of video games and movies that they'll legislate if they can't strongarm the game and movie industries into self-censorship. If their concerns are genuine — that is, if they're not epic hypocrites and panderers of the slimiest kind — it follows that they should now also start restricting people's access to the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and other religious texts.

Any day now, I'm sure.

Cough If You Hate the Fourth Amendment

Think cops need a warrant if they want to search a suspect's home? Nah. All they need is someone who's willing to cough on demand.

[via Fark]

Swiss Cops May Destroy Drivers' GPS Units

I once interviewed the chief of security of a European department store. He told me that the rent-a-cops he'd begun hiring to thwart shoplifters were disappointed that they were catching very few such petty thieves. So he had to explain to the dimwitted guards that, as theft had demonstrably dropped since the start of their employment, they were clearly being a deterrent to theft, and so they were actually doing their jobs just fine.

Go tell it to the Swiss government, which recently made it a crime to share information about the location of its speed cameras. Specifically, Swiss lawmakers have outlawed GPS navigation units capable of warning drivers about speed cameras ahead. Fines for having the wrong GPS device in your car can be as high as 2,000 euros (2,650 dollars).

[P]olice now have the authority to stop drivers using their GPS units for such a purpose, confiscate and destroy the device and fine the driver. ... [I]t's not actually illegal to own such a device, just illegal to use it for such a nefarious purpose, but at the same time Swiss government has issued a list of "illegal" navigation systems for retailers to remove from their shelves, including devices from TomTom, Garmin, Mio, Navman, Medion, Route66, Packard Bell, Sony and ViaMichelin.

Never mind, apparently, that warnings about speed cameras have the irrefutable effect of making drivers lower their speed — thus making them obey the law. So apparently, Swiss legislators prefer that citizens do not heed speed limits, and silently hope that drivers will break the law. Think about it. If the state's goal is to promote safe, lawful behavior, why would the reason drivers display such behavior matter in the slightest?

The ugly truth, it seems to me, is that drivers who don't break the speed limit are useless in terms of revenues. The Swiss initiative purports to fight lawlessness but actually promotes it, all with a cynical eye on lining the government's coffers.

And if the officials, in order to protect their revenue stream, have to take not just people's money but also destroy private property in the form of pricey GPS units confiscated and sent to the crusher, well, it's all in a day's work for greedy legislators masquerading as virtuous defenders of public safety and fairness.

[hat tip: Paul K.]

Arkansas' Scarlet-Letter Number Plate

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't have a problem with this.

It'd be easy to spot those convicted of drunken-driven offenses under a measure proposed by one Arkansas lawmaker: Hot pink license plates, starting with the letters DWI, would be issued to repeat offenders. The proposal, by state Rep. Pam Adcock, would require anyone convicted three or more times of driving while intoxicated to display the pink DWI license plates on his or her car. 

Do you? Why?

 [hat tip: Matthew Fulvio]

Google Advertisers Didn't Get the Memo

There's nothing new about the fact that the number of sex crimes has been decreasing year after year, though it doesn't hurt to publish the latest stats now and again — just to put things in perspective for old-style feminists, anti-porn crusaders, and others who are prone to hissy fits and moral panics.

Of course, mere statistics won't deter those who make a living by selling hysteria. So below the L.A. Times article recounting that sex crimes have long been declining pretty drastically, we find five Google ads, three of which warn that you should protect yourself and your family from the violent sex fiends that are lurking in the bushes.

A site called desktopwatcher.com trumpets that "Sexual Predators R Online" and offers to help you locate them before they strike. Registeredoffenderslist.org wants you to "Protect Your Child Today." And nationalalertregistry.com asks, "Do registered sex offenders live near you? Find out now."

I know these merchants of fear simply bought some keywords that trigger the automatic placement of their ads, but still, the complete disconnect between ad and editorial is a sight to behold.

U.K. Muslims Tell Dhimmis How To Run Schools

The Muslim Council of Britain has just released Towards Greater Understanding — Meeting the Needs of Muslim Pupils in State Schools. It's a document (PDF) that contains no fewer than 69 demands recommendations about everything from school meals to dress codes. Among many other things, the MCB wants school staff to undergo "Ramadan awareness training," lessons that will presumably make it clear why schools must never schedule exams during the holy month, nor teach the regular science curriculum if there's the slightest chance that sexual functions will be mentioned. Schools must teach Arabic to Muslim pupils, and ensure that those same pupils are never asked to paint or draw the human form (nude or clothed) in art class, as such images are sinful under some interpretations of Islam.

Large parts of the report are dedicated to stressing the need for strict boy/girl apartheid. Schools must make provisions for the sexes to "swim in single-gender classes and ensure that teachers and attendants are of the same gender as the pupils." Girls must be entirely covered "except for their hands and faces." Contact sports like soccer and basketball are verboten unless the players are all of the same gender.

Scott Burgess of the Daily Ablution blog neatly fisks more of the exhaustive MCB decrees than I have the heart or the patience to do here. For instance:

Dance is a touchy area as well — since "most dance activities, as practised in the curriculum, are not consistent with the Islamic requirements for modesty". In fact, music is also problematic — some Muslims "may wish to avoid it altogether, not wishing their children to participate in school music lessons". In such cases, "alternative musical learning opportunities" should be provided. It should be no problem to come up with some "musical learning opportunities" that "avoid it altogether" (repeated study of the John Cage work 4'33" seems the only option here).

In the West, the U.K. included, such rules are widely recognized as repressive, sexist, and deeply objectionable — as long as it's, say, the Taliban imposing them on Afghani schoolchildren. But coming from a [cough] "moderate," London-based group like the Muslim Council, all of a sudden they're bona fide policy proposals that deserve to be taken seriously, even welcomed with multiculturalism's soft, inanely indiscriminate embrace.

Oh: I'm sorry to say that it looks like the MCB guidelines are implicitly backed by Tony Blair's government, or at the very least legitimized by the presence of a Blair appointee at the report's launch.

Burgess' spot-on conclusion:

What's truly astounding is the organisation's chutzpah (hah!) in insisting that implementation of this long list of measures — most of which serve only to segregate and isolate — actually encourages "positive integration" and "inclusion".

Bitching About 'Bitch'

If you're looking for a name for a high-end dog salon, you could do a lot worse than 'High Maintenance Bitch,' which has the advantage of being both cheeky and memorable. But even in cosmopolitan Seattle, such a name promptly brings out the neighborhood scolds.

[T]he store has drawn the ire of some Wallingford residents who dislike the sign that hangs outside the company's flagship boutique. "I am probably the most progressive liberal person in the world and I am personally offended by the sign," said Janet Stillman, executive director of the Wallingford Neighborhood Office. "It's so blatant and so in your face. ... Walk by there with your 5-year-old and try to explain why that sign is there." ... Stillman fears that the sign will ruin family photos of the summer parade.

In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer photo, the sign looks to be about three by three feet. The slightest tilt of a reveler's camera will literally keep it out of the picture.

As for the five-year-old, it's surely neither beyond most parents' linguistic grasp nor their pedagogical capability to explain that 'bitch' is a perfectly fine, non-pejorative English word that means female dog, which is exactly the context here.

Stillman is the world's "most progressive liberal person" in the same way that O.J. Simpson is the world's most loving husband. She perfectly fits the mold of the pursed-lipped church lady who blanches at the common synonym for 'rooster,' and who always felt a bit miffed that the alphabet contains such vulgarities as the letter P.

Luckily, the city of Seattle is effectively telling Stillman and her posse (calm down Janet, I said posse) to stuff it.

To ban the sign would be a violation of free speech, said Alan Justad, spokesman for the city of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development. The city regulates size and placement, but not language, he said.

Quite. Ah, wouldn't it be nice if officials had such a baseline commitment to free speech at the state level?