Internet Scofflaw

Ilya Somin comments on an egregious use of eminent domain for private purposes:

If the Chronicle’s description is accurate, this is a typical case of the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interest groups under a thin veneer of advancing the public interest. . . Texas law allows the condemnation of almost any property for nearly any plausible-seeming reason presented by government officials.

You may wonder how this could be. After all, Texas is one of 43 states that adopted a new eminent domain reform law in the wake of the massive public backlash after the Supreme Court’s hugely unpopular decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The answer is that Texas’ 2005 law is one of many that purports to constrain eminent domain without actually doing so. Although the new statute forbids takings that transfer property to private parties for “economic development,” it allows essentially identical condemnations that promote “community development.”

In a bizarre twist, corrupt Illinois Gov. Blagojevich has decided to appoint a Senator after all, and in an even more bizarre twist, his appointee actually wants it:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor’s support. . .

Blagojevich’s criminal defense attorney Ed Genson had said Blagojevich would not name a Senate successor to Obama.

This should be entertaining.

The UK’s Culture Secretary discusses his plans for censoring the Internet:

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

If he stopped there, it might be no big deal (although, to be clear, web filtering doesn’t work). Alas:

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

So we are explicitly talking about censoring content the Government doesn’t like. The talk of libel is particularly alarming, given that the UK has apallingly low standards for libel. Will they go as far as Australia and China? The plans aren’t clear.

At least it’s “not a campaign against free speech.” Good of him to tell us that; otherwise we might get confused.

There’s no indication here whether the Obama Administration is interested in participating. I doubt it. Obama is smart enough to pick his battles, and censoring talk radio appears to be a higher priority for him.

(Via Samizdata, via Instapundit.)

POSTSCRIPT: It’s an indication of a problem that the UK has a “Culture Secretary” in the first place.

Fox News reports:

The United Auto Workers may be out of the hole now that President Bush has approved a $17 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry, but the union isn’t out of the bunker just yet.

Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it’s costing them millions each year. . .

Managing the course may become a burden for the union. The UAW covers costs for the Reuther Center from the interest it earns on its strike fund, according to tax documents, but massive losses in the past five years have forced the union to make heavy loans to keep the center afloat. Critics call it a poor investment for a group with over $1.25 billion in assets.

The Chicago Sun-Times has a very strange story about discussions between Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s designate for Chief of Staff) and Illinois Gov. Blagojevich. Apparently, Emanuel did not only discuss a replacement for Obama in the Senate, but also one for Emanuel in the house. Emanuel was looking for someone to keep his seat “warm” for a few years until he returned.

This is strange for at least three reasons: (1) It’s not a reasonable request to make, (2) it shows a lack of commitment to the incoming administration, but most importantly (3) the governor has no power to appoint members to the House, so it’s unclear what Blagojevich could have done for Emanuel anyway.  (Is there any state where the governor can appoint House members?)

Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety. (Via LGF.)

UPDATE: Omissions in the report.

The Seattle Times reports:

To hear the city’s spin, Seattle’s road crews are making “great progress” in clearing the ice-caked streets.

But it turns out “plowed streets” in Seattle actually means “snow-packed,” as in there’s snow and ice left on major arterials by design.

“We’re trying to create a hard-packed surface,” said Alex Wiggins, chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transportation. “It doesn’t look like anything you’d find in Chicago or New York.” . . .

The icy streets are the result of Seattle’s refusal to use salt, an effective ice-buster used by the state Department of Transportation and cities accustomed to dealing with heavy winter snows.

“If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” Wiggins said. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.”

By ruling out salt and some of the chemicals routinely used by snowbound cities, Seattle has embraced a less-effective strategy for clearing roads, namely sand sprinkled on top of snowpack along major arterials, and a chemical de-icer that is effective when temperatures are below 32 degrees.

Seattle also equips its plows with rubber-edged blades. That minimizes the damage to roads and manhole covers, but it doesn’t scrape off the ice, Wiggins said. . .

Between Thursday and Monday, the city spread about 6,000 tons of sand on 1,531 miles of streets it considers major arterials.

The tonnage, sprinkled atop the packed snow, amounts to 1.4 pounds of sand per linear foot of roadway, an amount one expert said might be too little to provide effective traction.

“Hmmm. Six thousand tons of sand for that length of road doesn’t seem like it’s enough,” said Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest.

Spector and snow-control experts in four cities said sand is typically mixed with salt and used for trouble spots.

“The occasional application of salt is probably not going to have a lasting effect” on the environment, Spector said. But she cautioned it’s highly dependent on where it’s used, how often and how much is applied.

Seattle’s stand against using salt is not shared by the state Department of Transportation, which has battled the latest storms in Western Washington with de-icer, 5,800 tons of salt and 11,500 cubic yards of salt and sand mix, said spokesman Travis Phelps.

Many cities are moving away from sand because it clogs the sewers, runs into waterways, creates air pollution and costs more to clean up.

Its main attraction is that it typically costs less than one-fifth the price of salt, according to Spector.

Fake environmentalism, which lowers quality of life while not actually helping the environment, is par for the course in Seattle today.

(Via Drudge.)

With the automaker bailout now ordered, it was inevitable that everyone else would go begging to Washington.  And so it begins.

Editor and Publisher reports:

The New York Times is planning to launch a new “Instant Op-Ed” next month that will allow the paper’s Web site to post immediate expert viewpoints on breaking news, according to Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal.

“Our Op-Ed now is very rapid response, but it is at the most the next day,” said Rosenthal. “We are looking at a way to take advantage of the expandability of the Internet, the back and forth of it and the instantaneous nature of the Internet. Taking ideas that have existed in Op-Ed form and giving them a robust position online.”

Rosenthal said three editors, among them former editorial writers, are teaming up with a Web producer to oversee the initiative. He said the team is gathering a list of numerous experts on a variety of issues to be ready to provide quick comments, essays and columns on issues or stories that come up in the news. He said the idea is to have a group that provides opinions soon after news occurs, with a solid Web space dedicated to them.

They should call it Daily Sulz.

Yet another review of the origins of the financial crisis.  (Via Instapundit.)  Nothing especially new here, but a very succinct account, plus a panning of a terrible NYT article that discusses the origins of the financial crisis without even mentioning the Community Reinvestment Act.

(Previous post.)

In Brighton, Michigan, a ban on annoying speech is set to take effect January 2.

You know, I find CBS News annoying. . .

Last month, President-Elect Obama proposed to create or save 2.5 million jobs.  Although the press dutifully reported it as though it were a meaningful target, the “or save” phrase makes it impossible to measure whether he has succeeded.  Whatever happens, so long as total employment doesn’t drop below 2.5 million, Obama can argue that we would have been 2.5 million worse off without his policies.  Currently, 145 million people are employed, so the essence of his “ambitious” benchmark is for employment to drop by less than 98.3%.

Ah, but that was then.  Now, Obama has increased his meaningless figure to 3 million jobs created or saved.  With the new “more ambitious” goal, he’s only covered if employment drops by less than 97.9%.

Anticipating a significant worsening of the business climate and tax rates in America, oil drilling and related companies are relocating elsewhere.  (Via Instapundit.)

The mere anticipation of future tax hikes and regulation is cutting tax revenues right now.

The events of the last few days in Minnesota have been alarming, to be sure, but Kathryn Jean Lopez reports that matters may not be as grim as they appear.

Many of Obama’s cabinet appointments have been more centrist than I dared hope, but not Hilda Solis, his designate for Secretary of Labor.

Well, now we know what an “orderly bankruptcy” means. It means a bailout. GM and Chrysler get $17 billion, with essentially no strings attached. Officially, the loan will be called back if they don’t make reforms, but those reforms are not binding. Does anyone think President Obama will call the loan because the UAW doesn’t make concessions? Besides, even if he were to call the loan, the money will be gone.

Also, the first half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program is now spent, without spending a single penny on troubled assets.

One final thought, if the TARP gives the President the power to give billions of dollars to whomever the hell he feels like, mightn’t that be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? Or is it just a terribly written bill?

UPDATE: Jim Manzi says we were still right to support the bailout.  He says the equity injection was necessary and effective.  (The TED spread does seem to bear out the latter.)  He has no love for the auto bailout, though, and says Congress should be very reluctant to release the second half of the $700 billion.

Whatever that means:

The Bush administration is seriously considering “orderly” bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.

“The president is not going to allow a disorderly collapse of the companies,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday. “A disorderly collapse would be something very chaotic that is a shock to the system.”

But, she added, “There’s an orderly way to do bankruptcies that provides for more of a soft landing. I think that’s what we would be talking about.”

It may not be clear what an “orderly bankruptcy” is, but it is already clear it won’t work:

She said one of the factors delaying an announcement on an auto rescue plan is the continuing discussion between the administration and the various stakeholders who would have to sign on to a managed bankruptcy — entities such as labor unions and equity holders in addition to the companies themselves.

The automakers can’t be saved without major union concessions, and the unions have already made it clear they won’t make them.  If the unions have to sign on, this plan is dead even before arrival.

When you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em:

California’s Democratic leaders were planning a vote today on a brazen proposal to raise gas, sales and income taxes through a series of legal maneuvers that would bypass the Legislature’s minority Republicans.

The Democratic gambit, announced Wednesday, would raise $9.3 billion to ease the state’s fiscal crisis by increasing sales taxes by three-fourths of a cent and gas taxes by 13 cents a gallon, starting in February. The plan would add a surcharge of 2.5% to everyone’s 2009 state income tax bill. . .

Inside the Capitol, the strategy is considered revolutionary, because it would sideline the GOP. Though Republicans are a minority in both houses of the Legislature, they have repeatedly blocked tax increases and thwarted budgets they did not like, because California is one of only three states mandating a two-thirds vote for both budgets and tax increases. Achieving that threshold requires some Republican votes. . .

The plan hinges on a legal distinction made by judges that a tax is imposed broadly and used for general government purposes, while a fee is charged to users of a specific benefit provided by government, such as a road.

The proposal would employ an arcane loophole in state law that lets legislators pass a tax bill with a simple majority vote — if the bill does not raise more revenue.

The Democrats intend to do two things: eliminate some existing fees, including those on gasoline, and substitute tax increases that would include a 9.9% levy on oil extraction and the income tax surcharge.

Under the proposal, the Democrats would then reimpose the gas fees at higher levels; fees can be raised with simple majority votes. . .

Similar proposals have been considered in past budget crises but never acted on out of concern that they would unravel in court.

(Via Instapundit.)

James Taranto notes an easy way to solve problems:

Amid all the gloomy economic news, the New York Times brings us an encouraging report on social trends:

The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data. . . .

According to the bureau’s estimates, the number of black children living with two parents was 59 percent in 1970, falling to 42 percent in 1980, 38 percent in 1990 and 35 percent in 2004. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, it was 40 percent.

What accounts for the turnaround? The Times explains:

Demographers said such a trend might be partly attributable to the growing proportion of immigrants in the nation’s black population. It may have been driven, too, by the values of an emerging black middle class, a trend that could be jeopardized by the current economic meltdown.

The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents.

The problem of illegitimacy and broken families had seemed intractable for decades, but the Census Bureau has been able to make a significant dent in it, at virtually no cost to the taxpayer, merely by redefining the word parents.

(Via Instapundit.)

This is far from unprecedented, of course, but it’s a tragedy when we maim a word for political purposes.  This was one of George Orwell’s major themes in 1984.  On a less highbrow (but more entertaining) note, I’m also reminded of the Babylon 5 episode Voices of Authority, in which the Ministry of Peace’s political officer admits that Earth’s government has solved all its problems by rewriting the dictionary.

The selection of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education is getting good reviews from reformers.

If personnel is policy (as they used to say in the Reagan Administration), then Obama’s initial policies are failing to confirm my worst fears.

Politico reports:

During today’s press conference, President-elect [Barack] Obama brushed off a question from Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormick about the Blagojevich scandal, and what interaction any advisers had with the Illinois governor.

“I don’t want you to waste your question,” Obama said. . .

After a few attempts, the reporter finally followed up by asking who had the better jump shot: Obama or incoming education secretary Arne Duncan?

(Via Instapundit.)

The jump shot question reads like a very clever protest, but the video cuts off before that part, so I don’t know if it was actually a protest or merely a softball. Kudos to McCormick if it was real.

Politico continues:

The interaction with McCormick stood out from previous meetings with the press. And speaking about the exchange on MSNBC shortly after, NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that reporters have not been aggressive enough during Obama’s post-election pressers.

You think?

Rich Lowry writes that Paulson’s conduct of the financial bailout borders on bad faith.  Like Lowry, I reluctantly favored TARP at the time.  Now we have egg on our faces, now that Paulson and Bush have apparently decided that their original plan is neither sufficient nor even worth doing.  I definitely owe Tim Murphy an apology.