Quote of the Day
If I had my life to live over... I'd dare to make more mistakes next time.
Nadine Stair
Thumbs DOWN!
First of all, I think the use of controlled substances is irresponsible, and I certainly don't want to see taxpayers subsidizing a self-destructive lifestyle; this is over and beyond my concerns about welfare programs perpetuating an undue dependence on indefinite government assistance which I consider corrosive towards self-actualization and authentic human freedom and dignity.
Now in discussion of this issue, it's fruitful to remember how Rand Paul almost destroyed his Senate candidacy by bringing up a philosophic point Barry Goldwater made with respect to civil rights legislation back in the 1960's. Goldwater believed in integration as a businessman: why in the world would you ever want to turn away business for the individual characteristics of the customer (many beyond his control, e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, creed, whatever)? The same thing holds true of hiring workers and managers. It's almost impossible to outlaw every possible prejudicial or stupid business decision someone would make--and the point is, where do you draw the line?
For example, I remember reading once about a short man (about 5'5") whom hired only towering teenage girls and women as office assistants; why would any boss automatically eliminate over 95% of the pool of knowledgeable, skilled applicants? (It reminds me of my first MIS professor, whom used to mock people buying a $3000 personal computer to do the function of a 99-cent recipe box. No doubt the manager's own secretary, his 6'3" wife, could reach things on high shelves; of course, a chair is much cheaper, and one can always buy smaller bookcases.) Is it fair to other applicants? Of course not. Should the government get involved? No. If I'm running a business, I can take advantage of other people's hiring or operational missteps.
Of course, we have a progressive patchwork of rules and regulations on hiring or related staffing decisions and business decisions. We can't trust businesses to do the right things on their own. (No doubt if progressive regulators don't remain vigilant, we will inevitably regress to the days of segregation.)
So, what does this discussion have to do with drug test qualifications? A lot. There are some very legitimate reasons for testing against the influence of alcohol or drugs, particularly with respect to public safety issues. But in many or most cases, it's intrusive and presumptuous. It may well be the case that drug-using personnel have higher rates of absenteeism, workplace violence and performance issues. But I would argue a risk-based application is more reasonable, for reasons analogous to my opposition to the TSA's universal application of its invasive search procedures. (That being said, I've cooperated with any employer drug-testing regimen; as long as they pay for the test. I think there are all sorts of issues, including the possibility of false positives, masking technologies, morale issues, and its arbitrary, dubious link to performance; for example, job performance can also be linked to less readily or validly screened factors, e.g., lacking prerequisite knowledge and skills, work ecology issues, family problems, multitasking or inadequate sleep. I think you deal with performance issues more directly if and when they occur.)
What about the Florida law? First of all, I find it hard to believe that welfare payments will cover both drug expenditures and basic living expenses. Second, I would like to see the data motivating the law: how do they know welfare money is being used for drugs? What percentage of welfare recipients? To give simple examples, maybe a woman is bartering sexual favors for her drugs, or a guy is selling his car or other property. Third, I think there's an equal protection issue: why not, for example, test college students attending state universities, state employees or contractors, Medicaid enrollees, etc.? Not to mention the disparate, discriminatory treatment (invasion of privacy) of lower-income people. Fourth, I would like to see the evidence that the expected savings in welfare payments more than offsets the cost of testing.
Should Justice Clarence Thomas Recuse Himself From ObamaCare Decision? No!
It's amusing to see Fox News' windbag Bill O'Reilly buy into the partisan Democrat demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself from the constitutional questions of ObamaCare. because his wife Ginni Thomas earned income from Liberty Central, a conservative advocacy that, among other things, supports repeal of ObamaCare and embraces Tea Party policies. O'Reilly, in his preposterous attempt to sound even-handed, suggested a quid pro quo for former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the newest Supreme Court justice recusing herself.
First of all, Elena Kagan was intimately involved with legal strategy for defending ObamaCare. There is no doubt here she has direct involvement with the case and ethically is required to recuse herself, because she has an unambiguous vested interest in its outcome.
It's not clear what role, if any, Ginny Thomas has on the ObamaCare appeal; the principal appeals are being headed by state attorney generals. Second, there's no evidence that Ginny has ever discussed with Justice Thomas any issues pending or potentially pending before the Court. Third and probably most importantly, Justice Thomas's dissent on the broad progressive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, a key justification for ObamaCare was already established long before the Tea Party and Ginny Thomas' involvement with Liberty Central:
[Clarence] Thomas, the justice least respectful of precedents, joined O'Connor's dissent and also dissented separately, disregarding many precedents giving almost infinite elasticity to the Commerce Clause. He said that the women's marijuana was never bought or sold, never crossed state lines and had no "demonstrable" effect on the national market for marijuana: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
I would argue that Justice Thomas would have ruled against ObamaCare whether or not there ever was a Tea Party; even if Ginny Thomas secured donations in support of a position consistent with Justice Thomas' positions, it's hard to believe that Thomas would back away from his preestablished position on the Commerce Clause, regardless of his wife's subsequent political activities. This is part of the unambiguous public record.
Political Potpourri
Mitt Romney will announce his candidacy for President at 12:30 PM EDT tomorrow (Thursday) here.
Since I presented a video for Tim Pawlenty the day before his announcement, I'm doing the same here:
PPP has a new Iowa poll for the prospective GOP Presidential field in 2012, and Romney, at 21%, has a 6-point lead over second place Sarah Palin. Both Gallup and Rasmussen have Obama's job approval rating at 49%. More intriguingly, Rasmussen yesterday for the first time in weeks or months showed a 2-point advantage for the generic GOP candidate against Obama.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update. This segment is a thrice-weekly, more readable summary of some key blogs covering the the recovery of Fukushima Daiichi shutdown but damaged nuclear reactors 1-3 and relevant spent fuel pools, whose critical cooling systems failed as the result of power failure following a record earthquake/tsunami.
The Hiroshima Syndrome blog notes:
- Wednesday update: The blogger debunks the continuing preoccupation with zirconium cladding burning. (This was an early controversy regarding early crisis allegations of burning fuel rods in boiled off spent fuel pools.) There is also the belated revelation of internal ingestion of radiation by a couple of TEPCO workers early in the crisis (probably when they weren't wearing full protective gear) beyond a statutory exposure cap. There's a discussion of the external cooling system being readied for spent fuel pool 2 and ongoing radiation filtering of seawater within the shielded area about the intakes. The blogger also mentions a pending no-confidence vote in the Japanese parliament (he doesn't want to see a changing government while the crisis is in process). Hiroshima Syndrome is alive and well: opera stars are refusing to travel to Japan over fears of Fukushima Daiichi.
NEI blog notes:
- Tuesday update: An oxygen cylinder near reactor 4 exploded but did not affect any radiation-relevant characteristics.
- IAEA update: Overall, IAEA has been favorably impressed by the overall containment effort at Fukushima Daiichi; it does point out the deficient design issues relevant to the tsunami and the status quo lack of independence of regulators from the Japanese government administration.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- Wienergate continues. Yes, Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is allegedly the victim of a prank where someone used Weiner's Twitter account to send a picture of bulging men's briefs to a 21-year-old college student Gennette Cordova over the weekend. There's a cover-up: an earlier tweet boasted that Weiner has an original New York foot long, and coeds demanded proof....
- The Texas legislature just passed a law that made it a crime to lie about the size, weight or provenance of a fish in certain fishing tournaments. Texas ladies are unhappy their own measure wasn't given higher priority: it makes it a misdemeanor or even a felony for a man in a dating service or online to misrepresent his height, weight, income, wealth, occupation, age, sexual performance and duration and/or his male body parts.
Killebrew Tribute Song: Jeff Arundel, "Harmon Killebrew". In yesterday's post, I embedded Killebrew's widow Nita's speech at the Target Field's memorial service. After the speech, there was a live version of the following tribute song:
Great song! (I would say that even if Harmon Killebrew wasn't my childhood idol.) I haven't seen the licensed track yet on iTunes, but if and when I do, I'll post it. This song, to me, is sort of a Beatlesque mix of themes underlying Chicago's "Old Days", Faith Hill's "Where Are You, Christmas?", Gun 'N Roses "Sweet Child of Mine" and Eric Clapton's "My Father's Eyes".
Thinkin' back to another time
4th of July '69
I dropped the top on the Pontiac
And we drove on down
Down Cedar Avenue
To the place where the home runs flew
We had a few miles left to go
I heard Halls and Hawk on the radio
And even with the volume down
So near that I could hear that sound
Of that rumble in the air
Harmon Killebrew did you ever get my letter
Ten pages of clear blue sky
Green diamond days gone by
Wonder Why
Those days are going, going, gone. gone
I used to hate to hear my dad complain
About the way the world has changed
Now I find that I'm doin' the same
As the years go by
I went back to the praire to the diamond ground
One last look before they tore it down
They put up a mall with a merry go round
Like there ain't enough shopping malls in this town
Someone one turn the volume down
I just want to hear the sound
Of those Sundays after noon
REFRAIN replace last line with:
Those days are going, going, gone
Harmon Killebrew did you ever get my letter
Ten pages of clear blue sky
Harmon Killebrew I need things to get better
These days are going, going, gone, gone
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Hard To Say I'm Sorry". The group's second #1, also penned by lead singer Peter Cetera.
