Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • On Choice, Coverage, and Contraception

    I’ve been watching this story for a few days. For those who haven’t been keeping up with the news, the Obama administration is proposing rules that would require all employers to provide coverage for contraception in their health care plans. Catholics are in an uproar over this. The White House has responded (HT: Unsettled Christianity). The first line of the response indicates that “all employers” is not correct, by the way!

    I have little sympathy for the Catholic view on contraception. I don’t mean this as generally anti-catholic. There are plenty of specific doctrines for which I have little sympathy. But at the same time, it is their conscience involved. I knew this type of issue would come up when health care reform law was passed. Despite its great length, most of the detail work was left to regulators to fill in. This is one of the dirty secrets of legislation–how frequently congress passes outlines of laws and not complete laws, and then agencies have to fill in the details.

    For me, conscience should prevail on this issue. I realize this involves places where Catholic agencies are hiring people of other faiths, but that should be a factor in one’s choice of employer, just as other benefits and conditions are. It’s an imperfect world, but I tend to come down on the side of freedom of conscience.

    On the other hand, if you read the White House statement, and if what they are saying is correct, much of the uproar over this issue is, in my view, overdone. The government is overstepping its bounds in my view, but less so than was believed. Nonetheless, I am opposed to this regulation.

  • On Externalities and Libertarianism

    I’ve often wanted to write something about externalities, but I’ve never gotten the time. Specifically, I’m interested in how these relate to regulations and in turn to economic freedom.

    I lean libertarian, and many people  who know that are surprised that I’m not always opposed to environmental regulations. Why is that?

    Well, Ed Brayton has written an excellent summary, and all I can say is I couldn’t agree more.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Romney and Baptizing the Dead

    It appears he had his atheist father-in-law baptized after death. Interesting!

    I think we should respect people’s decisions as they made them while they could still communicate with us. On the other hand, it suggests Mitt Romney really does believe what he claims–about his faith at least.

  • Democrats Running Anti-Romney, Pro-Gingrich Ads in Florida?

    From what I’ve found I’m not sure if these are largely against Romney, which could at this point be explained as getting a head start on the general election (though I doubt that), or actually pro-Gingrich. (Report in the Boston Globe, hat tips Stones Cry Out and American Thinker.)

    I pointed out in a comment at Stones Cry Out that one of the reasons I, as a non-Republican (as opposed to left-leaning, which I’m not sure what it means) blogger have not commented on this practice is that I didn’t know it was happening. But I’ll go further here. I think measuring things by what people do and do not condemn on blogs is a very error prone idea. For me, at least, what I comment on is determined much more by how much time I had that day than by a broader level of interest. Yes, I will choose among the things that interest me most on any particular day, but since I don’t generally go back and comment on old stories, if I don’t have time for immediate comment, I won’t.

    I’m an independent in a state with close primaries. When I lived in a state with an open primary, I only voted in those primaries for people I would support in the general election if they got on the ballot. I don’t approve of the kind of advertising referenced.

    But I will also note that I do not approve of the bulk of campaign finance laws. In other words, I think free speech is free speech, and it should be especially free when campaigning. And if we don’t consider the voters capable of exacting that penalty, how do we expect people they elect to manage speech any better?

  • Correction on GPS Devices and Warrants

    Jeremy Pierce corrected an error in my original post on this topic via a comment. I’m linking here to a clarification at The Volokh conspiracy, which I think makes the difference clearer.

    The original argument that this wasn’t a search was, in fact, quite ridiculous in my view, but I incorrectly reported that a warrant would be necessarily required according to this decision.

    Thanks to Jeremy for this correction.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Search Warrants Required for GPS Devices

    … that police put on your vehicle, according to the Washington Post. I welcome this ruling, and am very pleased to see it was unanimous.

    In fact, I think the government agencies who thought they could get by with this should be ashamed of themselves, and the a unanimous court ruling shows how far outside “reasonable” they were.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Blackout on Wikipedia Tomorrow

    I’m not going to be blacked out here, but I thought I’d just mention that I also oppose the bills (PIPA, SOPA) that are going through congress. Our representatives simply have no idea whatever what a reasonable burden is. Their view is that if a multi-billion dollar corporation or a large government agency could handle it, it must be reasonable.

    As usual, a good idea (piracy prevention) gets implemented in a way that will place an undue burden on many and will chill the conversation online.

    You can find more information from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  • Badly Written Laws Badly Applied

    I sometimes watch Law and Order on TV (not faithfully), and I’ve often thought “how creative!” as one prosecutor or another invents a way to apply the law to something they’d like to “get” someone for. (Quite a sentence, but I’m going to leave it.) At the same time I’ve hoped real prosecutors in the real world don’t behave in that fashion, even though I know they do.

    Here’s an example. According to The Economist, a marine biologist took advantage of the fact that some killer whales killed a gray whale calf. She moved quickly to photograph the feeding, including putting a rope through some of the blubber. She’s now charged with a federal felony for feeding the whales, as well as for lying to the police. Why lying? She provided them with her edited video when they asked for her video of the event.

    We need better laws, better written, and we need better accountability for some of these prosecutors.

    (HT: The Agitator)

  • When Campaign Finance Reform Has the Reverse Effect

    Radley Balko (The Agitator) has an interesting article on actions of the Institute for Justice, which is helping some folks in Mississippi challenge the laws on spending to advocate for a political cause. The idea of such laws, of course, is to provide for openness and accountability in politics. In this case, however, it provides a major barrier to a citizens’ group’s efforts to advocate for a cause.

    This is an area where I think liberal policy is largely a dismal failure. We keep writing new regulations, but I don’t think we’re getting cleaner or more intelligent elections.

    As a result, political speech is amongst the most regulated types of speech in this country, in spite of the first amendment. The combination of regulating political speech, and creating a sort of media class that has special rights in terms of free speech actually makes such speech much less free.

    Once the government gets to decide who really has free speech and who doesn’t, we have no protection from being placed in the class that “doesn’t.” Similarly, if the government can control the money that pays to disseminate speech, it can quite effectively silence whoever it would like.

    Beware of laws—they often accomplish precisely the opposite of what they claim.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • A Note to Politicians This Election Season

    I’m reading about direct mail in the campaign, and soon it will come to Florida. I just want all politicians to know that no piece of direct mail has ever increased my chance of voting for the candidate who sponsored it. Concealing your sponsorship behind a supposedly independent organization (I think they should be legal, but I don’t like them) won’t work. I take the time to find out who sent the item, and like Santa, I’m making a list, only mine is for election day.

    So skip the direct mail. Oh, and if I get a robocall, you go right on the “naughty” list. I don’t much like your TV and radio ads either, but since I’m rarely watching, they don’t do so much harm.

    What would I like? Solid, content-filled position papers. I don’t even mind research that brings up the negatives about your opponents and their positions. Just make sure there are lots of footnotes and that the notes point to good sources.

    I know, none of you are going to make me happy. You’ll all end up on the “naughty” list, and in the end I’ll have to vote for one or another naughty person. I just thought I’d let you know.

    Enhanced by Zemanta