As ABC News reports, parts of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration statutes have been suspended by a federal judge (whole thing here):

Arizona’s tough new immigration law was just hours away from taking effect when a federal judge issued an injunction today blocking key portions of the law from being enforced.

Among the provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put on hold are the “reasonable suspicion” section that would allow police to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant and a provision making it illegal for undocumented day laborers to solicit or perform work.

Bolton also stayed part of the Arizona law requiring immigrants to carry federal immigration documents.

Based upon the likelihood that these provisions could be used by officers to wrongly detain legal residents.

Next steps? Arizona will likely appeal and lose that appeal at the 9th Circuit Court.  The final arbiter of course being SCOTUS if they decide to take the case upon any further appeals.

Legally speaking, it’s an interesting question.  Basically, one of the powers the federal government holds is over immigration status and therefore it can be legally argued that Arizona has overstepped its authority (regardless of whether legal citizens will be wrongly detained).  However, does this mean a state has no resource against illegal aliens if the federal government is doing a poor job at the very responsibility they are stating they have absolute authority over.

More interesting I think will be the upcoming round of debates on a continuing question:  What is judicial activism and who is and isn’t exactly against it?

& the question isn’t an easy one.   Two fairly recent decisions can illustrate the complexity.  For most of recent memory, conservatives have been leading the charge against judicial activism.  But take a case like Kelo v New London where conservative outrage notwithstanding, the court followed the restraint pattern by enforcing prior precedence.

Move forward to McDonald v the City of Chicago and whether conservatives think so or not, a federal decision has invalidated a law the citizens of Chicago seemed to agree (based upon the fact they have recourse through voting)…. this would be judicial activism.

In most people’s minds it seems judicial activism is only wrong when a law your side has passed met its end through the legal system, otherwise it’s always wise restraint or cautious interference.

But let’s call it what it is:  judicial activism is when the court system invalidates the will of the voters.  This is true whether they invalidate gun laws, marriage statutes or amendments, immigration laws, sodomy laws, marijuana laws, and on and on and on.

Let’s further assume no one is really against all judicial activism.  I think most reasonable people can agree that say if judges were to invalidate the intermittent of Japanese-Americans during WWII, it would’ve been both activist and morally correct.  Even if most people couldn’t agree on that, we can all envision unjust laws which should not stand.

If we can allow for that definition, the maybe we can change the question as well.  Instead of – are you for or against judicial activism – to – how and when should judges be activist; we might begin to move towards a more reasoned debate.

So let’s call this one what it is – judicial activism and ask, should it have been used?  Why/why not?

I for one want to see judicial activism to always err on the side of individual rights and freedoms, not collections, groups, NOGs, nor government agencies.  This case gives me pause either as I am supporting of Arizona’s rights, the freedom of those individual voters to enact the laws they wish, but also am against current immigration policy.  For now, the voters spoke and I would err on the side of those individuals.

Others of course will draw the line in different places.

What’s important however is that we understand the line exists, instead of continuing to pretend it moves based upon our wishes.

more here on the debate: Reason’s July Cover Story Conservatives v. Libertarians

Friday last week, I posted random links including a short story about the current Senate race between Carly Fiorina & Barbara Boxer (here):

…In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina…

While the true impact of the 2010 midterm elections is still ultimately up to a vote which hasn’t happened, the signs seem to all be pointing to good news based upon selectorate theory (DA post here):

..the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ration between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S,the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is….

…The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public….

The basic idea is that the leader will use their power to pay back those who helped them get elected and the larger that coalition is, the less likely that money can come in the form of direct payoffs.

Now theoretically, in a free election system, W is 1/2 of S + 1.  IE – in order to get elected I need 50% of the votes plus one.

What happens however, if the voters through their actions artificially limit W?

How can they you ask?  Easily actually.

Every 10 years post census, each state will redraw district boundary lines based upon population numbers.  The problem is this “redrawing” isn’t done based on some objective science or even just basic math, but based on politics.  The way it currently works is the party in power redraws the districts.

Typically, the only ones who argue against these plans are the parties out of power.  Historically, the minority party would go to court, but courts have answered these challenges by stating that unless specific acts of discrimination or such can be proven, political redistricting is not something the court will actively change.

The reasoning is that voters have recourse already, so legally speaking the point is moot.  Their recourse is to elect those who redraw the district boundaries.

Now in states that change majority party from time to time, there are incentives for politicians to not gerymander individual districts too badly, least they be on the receiving end next time.

However, in states like CA or TX, where one party dominates, there are no incentives for the party in power to do anything but draw district boundaries in such a way as to ensure they can maintain power.

This is how we end up with politicians like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, who win their individual districts in landslide elections, but whose national approval rating is slightly higher than the IQ of a prune.

This is also the reason (here) “polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.”

But his only works through voter ignorance.  The reality is voters are free to vote for whom they want.  Just because a district is redrawn to include mostly Democrat supporters, doesn’t mean those voters must vote for the Democrat.

We know the truth however for many voters is party loyalty and party identification are much stronger forces in their life than political analysis.

There are reasons for this as well, including the sheer complexity of the government itself.  This level of complexity means for a voter to be truly informed, a good deal of time is needed to sort through the information.  Time most people would rather spend with their families after work.  But I digress…. (read more about The Myth of the Rational Voter here via Cato)

The point is that while voters don’t have to vote party loyalty, the evidence is very strong to suggest they do.

Therefore - back to W/S as a ratio – if voters allow a district to always put a Democrat (or Republican) in that seat, they are effectively making the general election a formality whereas the real election is during the primaries.

This combined with the facts that primary voters represent a very small percentage of total voters & primary voters tend to be true believers, results is an artificial reduction of W in our ratio of W/S, ultimately reducing voter power.

While I tend to stay away from any predictions, the current trending of certain national Senate and Congressional races is showing a promising sign of reversing this trend for at least one election cycle.

Of course for now, these are only polls.  They only tell us what people think during a given time period and nothing more.  The true test for voters will be on election day:

Will voters stand up against incumbents?  Or will they do what they’ve done for the past couple of decades; complain about the worthless government while simultaneously voting to keep the same government?

More bad news for Obama & the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic here:

Chris Cillizza’s Morning Fix reports new data from Gallup showing that independents now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democrat by 12 points….

& as is continually the case with this congress, more bad news for freedom.  Via The Hill here:

The 30-second campaign ad could become a thing of the past for third-party groups if the Democrats’ campaign finance legislation becomes law.

Media strategists argue the new disclosure requirements would eat into the majority of their ad time….

& while we’re talking about lack of freedom…. what might Kagan do about this “disclose” act?  Via Reason.com here:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored…..

Does is matter that she’s against free political speech?  Unlikely…. via Yahoo News here:

…Kagan’s performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics, putting her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July.

“She will be confirmed. I believe she will be confirmed,” said Republican Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicting there would be at least some Republican support…..

& least we forgot, there’s still an oil spill…. which is being screwed up by the same government that is promising to “fix” healthcare….  Via The Heritage Foundation here, all kinds of people are offering help, but we’re still considering it:

In total, there have been 27 countries and 5 international organizations offering boom, dispersants, skimmers, vessels, bird rehabilitation equipment as well expertise. Along with the other important action items for the administration to undertake, accepting international assistance must be a more urgent priority. The Department of State has a chart that lists the equipment and expertise sitting on the sidelines with most of the status orders “under consideration.” Owners of the equipment have been rapid in their response to government queries but the equipment remains idle. It simply needs to be better….

Not to mention the economic killing impact the asinine moratorium is having:

Meanwhile, the Gulf continues to suffer. It’s not just government incompetence when it comes to the environmental cleanup; the administration’s policy decisions are making the economic harm much worse – especially the offshore drilling moratorium. Although the ban was only meant to affect those rigs operating in water 500 feet or deeper, it has led to a de facto ban on shallow water drilling….

Butler said that only one of his four drill rigs are operating; all four were drilling before the spill. Spartan has six contracts that would put his entire fleet back to work, but he can’t get going until the permits come through, he added. The week before last, Butler said he had to lay off 72 employees. Come Tuesday he’ll have to let another 140 go. “That’s 140 families, is how I look at it,” Butler said….

Not only incompetence in the clean-up, idiocy in quickly implemented, but poorly thought out regulations (DA post here), The Atlantic takes all this and poses an interesting moral question here:

In this video from Climate Desk partner Need to Know, Atlantic correspondent and oil expert Lisa Margonelli talks to Jon Meacham about halting drilling in the Gulf. She explains her view that Americans don’t have a right to drive cars and use gasoline unless we’re willing to drill for it in our own backyard….

For good news – research conducted on parents and children in reference to video games demonstrates that most parents actually don’t need government help.  Via The Technology Liberation Front (here):

• 93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented
• 64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives
• 86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game
• 48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly
• 97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play
• 76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful

It might be scary to those in government who are continuing to try to push more laws concerning how parents raise their children as it discounts the need for those laws, but for us normal folk – it gives us what we see everyday:

Once again, these findings illustrate that parents are parenting!

For some, it might be very disconcerting news to learn that internal documents from the Obama administration predicted the exact opposite of what they were publicly selling (here):

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare….

Publicly however…. in speech after speech we were told things like, you won’t have to give up your existing coverage even while internal documents predicted:

…The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law….

I’m unsure what the machinations coming will be from the White House – something along of the lines of this was only one report taken out of context – likely enough to allow true believers to sigh and continue to support this president.

Either way – this really doesn’t change much in the way of the facts pertaining to health care reform.  The bill is going to be a disaster for the US & if these policies are allowed to fully mature, this will go down in history as a major mistake that the public should’ve prevented.

It wasn’t all that difficult to see what they were selling couldn’t possibly contend with reality.  When people were told by their leaders that this reform would increase demand, increase regulations, and yet still decrease costs they could’ve easily spotted it for the scam it was.

Instead, the average citizen plodded along and by default told their leaders not to stop this.  They told them in polls they hated it, but didn’t want it prevented.  They tell them in polls today they hate it, but don’t want it repealed.  They told them when few wrote – please stop this.

No – the only thing this “new” information tells us is that the government’s own reports confirmed what many independent sources were saying & this administration, cloaked in the mantle of transparency, hide this information from the public and told a completely different story about the legislation when asked.

Maybe this will move some fence sitters against Obamacare and maybe this can be used as motivation to push back some of the legislation, but the truth is we the people failed the day the law was signed.

This is one of those cases where it’s almost as if the planets aligned perfectly to show anyone willing to see the complete idiocy of our current economic policies.  In the midst of a recovery that is anything other than certain, a time when the US government, its citizens, and indeed larges swaths of the world are simply broke, yet we keep on spending.

The Federal Reserve Chairman has stated directly (here via Reason.com):

Today may be terrible, but tomorrow is going to be much worse, at least as measured by such metrics as deficits, debt, and entitlement spending. In an April speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke laid out the misery that awaits us. “The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear,” he said. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”…

Yet just yesterday, the committee to reduce budget deficits is joining a long line of other government employees in asking for more.  Over @ Cato (here):

It’s rather symbolic of what’s wrong with Washington that a commission ostensibly created to promote deficit reduction is seeking a bigger budget….

Yep, that’s correct.  As private businesses have continued to contract to meet decreased demands, the federal government continues to grow.  This happens when the federal government is allowed to print money, but that’s a side note.

Simple fact is, we have no money, yet we are still spending like drunken sailors and it seems we don’t understand.  When the governor of New Jersey is forced to tell people directly:  unlike the US government, the state of New Jersey can’t print money, we’ve run into a major problem.

& like most problems, the federal government will not help.  They are the enemy of spending policy as we can easily see, but for those that think maybe they can help here… please watch their latest commercials for the census count and ask yourself what is they underlying theme?  On the government’s own website propoganda, what is the underlying theme?

What is the main thing they want you to take away from this?  That government is the answer.  Our leaders are telling us, in no uncertain terms the same unsustainable and morally questionable hypothesis:  Make sure you get counted…. so you too can get paid.

Maybe it’s time to start asking:  exactly where are they leading us?

It’s a little amusing that in the same issue (June 2010) of the Atlantic, they print an article by Michael Kinsley without any substantial facts to support any of his claims while simultaneously printing an article dealing with the decline of the news industry.  It’s quite possible the news industry is failing to attract consumers due to idiotic articles such as this, but either way.

Mr. Kinsley has a thorn in his side, better known to most as the Tea Party.  This movement, like most, has hitched on popular dissent on the current government.  They’ve successfully beaten Republican incumbents in the primaries as the rightful tide against any incumbent moves forward.

Just as the free love and peace movement hooked on to Vietnam, the Tea Party has picked up widespread dissent and is attempting to parlay this into a game changing group.  We could argue ad infinitum about which came first, the movement or the dissent, but every movement is intertwined in history with what is happening and can never be completely separated from it.

For Mr. Kinsley though – the Tea Partier is just right-winger exploiting a specific moment in time to bring us back to the stone age with the alluring subtitle (whole thing here):

There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots.

Now, I’m not one to question Mr. Kinsely’s patriotism or the Tea Partier for that matter, but I seem to recall that questioning someone’s patriotism just because they disagree with current government policy was tantamount to treason… times change I suppose.

Irregardless, the most infuriating thing about his propaganda is the lack of anything substantial or real, combined with an unwinding of recent history.  He starts with this:

….A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment….

I’m unsure what he means by embarrassment as even opponents admit 30% of the voting population was aware of the Contract during the 1994 election.  Also, his link to wiki, shows most of the contract was passed.  A lot of it was vetoed by President Clinton, some of it wasn’t.  But most of it was passed through the house as they promised they would.  Seems odd to call promises kept as embarrassing, but maybe his idea of embarrassing is different…. well, I was going to write different from mine, but in this case it would have to be different from the definition.

Either way – the true villain, is the Tea Partier:

…On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government….

I guess I love gimmicks to – because banning congressional earmarks, engaging term limits, and forcing a balanced budget all seem like decent ideas to me.  Maybe I’m not smart enough to know that the government should stop printing money when they have none or stop spending money on museums when we theoretically can’t afford to pay teachers or police officers, but these certainly seem like good ideas.

Why is the Tea Partier a villain…. apparently ageism:

…First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming….

So for those counting – Contract With America – successful but embarrassing.  Kids yelling end war, cool.  Adults yelling stop spending money you don’t have, tantrum.

What else….

…Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots….

Now we have a contradiction.  In the first few paragraphs he rightfully sees the Tea Party movement as anti-big government, but now…. he can’t seem to find any common ground the individuals hold.

Maybe there’s more?

…A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested….

Nope – like the rest of the tripe that preceded this idiotic passage, it’s nothing more than his “feelings” which he is trying, very hard to prove are in fact real.  The level of dishonesty & arrogance needed to think that people in the 1960′s were mostly altruistic, while people today are just self interested rises to the level of delusion.

Truth is Mr. Kinsley, we all operate on incentives and most of our incentives are self interested.   Research and historical evidence proves this has been and stays true today.  You can find some semblance of altruism in certain scenarios, like throwing yourself on a live grenade to save others, but even this has some self interest as you are trying to save your family (in combat, your comrades are family).

So what is the Tea Party about?

….“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility….

I only break this paragraph to note – he makes a very bold statement, yet follows it up without even one well worded sentence explaining why he thinks conservatives outdo liberals…. I suppose we should just take his word for it.  After all:

…To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?….

Yet another assertion without proof.  The Tea Party has worked within side the current system, have worked and are working to elect those they agree with and remove those they don’t.  I have yet to hear even one crazy person who has been to one Tea Party group say democracy is bad or should go away…. though it’s honestly possible I suppose that the Tea Party movement’s participants understand that the US isn’t a democracy and Mr. Kinsley doesn’t.

I could go on – he wrote more and it’s just as lacking as the rest of it.   It’s honestly hard to even write a critique of something so full of emotion, so incoherent and random, which is also completely devoid of any evidence to prove his assertions.

Each sentence is full of assumed assertions which are not only not proven, but easily obtained evidence suggests his assertion false.  The only thing that shows is his intolerance to views with which he disagrees.

& yet they sit and wonder…. why doesn’t anyone ready newspapers and magazines anymore?

Over @ Columbia Journalism Review, Greg Marx, has written a piece to let us all know that the 1994 political movement led by Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, didn’t really do anything (read whole thing here).  The problem is, they have no real evidence to back up their claim and the evidence they use is either pure speculation or actually can be used as evidence to the contrary.

As a side note – I wish both the Republicans and the Democrats get new leadership which actively seeks to expand real freedoms and that would include replacing Mr. Gingrich.  My goal here is not to defend Mr. Gingrich, but to highlight suspect journalism.

My reply (with some minor edits):

Using Media Matters for proof puts your entire publication at risk. They are well known as being a highly partisan outfit and the research you pointed to in order to prove your point is no different.

The basic question being asked is: Did the contract with America affect the 1994 election?

Those people, like Media Matters, who wish to devalue Mr. Gingrich’s contribution point to one basic fact: only 30% of the voters knew. One thing they point to talks about exit polls, which does lend some credence to their argument, but everything else they point to lends absolutely no credible evidence to their answer.

Simply put, if 30% of the voters are aware of some political push, you’ve done something quite difficult. Most voters don’t know anything about politics, they only know about the most recent dust-up. Most voters in 2008 still thought Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress.

Most voters don’t study things like Contract with America, or any of the other things non-profit groups might ask a candidate to sign, like tax groups asking for signatures against raising taxes. Most voters have no idea how many promises their candidates made and to whom they were made.

This does not mean that those who did know where not affected. & when elections have been very close historically, it seems odd you’d make the claim that 30% of the voting public knowing about a completely political movement meant nothing.

Maybe back out of the politics of it and think of it as a product sale. Republicans and Democrats are selling a product – themselves. Neither group knows exactly which advertisements, which communication strategies, and which campaign pushes help their vote totals, but they know they all help.

As the axiom is marketing goes: “I know 1/2 the money I spend on marketing works, I just don’t know which 1/2″

Lastly, even though you have no idea which 1/2 is working, if any CEO could get 30% of their potential client base to know specifics about an organizational push…. just wow. They’d live and die a very, very wealthy person and be sought out by every book writer and researcher to figure out just how that was possible.

For Columbia & Media Matters though – it’s just overblown.

Being reported @ Politico, there’s once again some new polling data out that is both semi-understandable and interminably frustrating (here):

…The Quinnipiac polls, conducted in three states across the past month, all find likely voters to have complex and contradictory views on these repeal lawsuits as well as health care reform itself.

By a slight majority, likely voters tend to oppose the health care reform law. But they also tend to oppose the repeal lawsuits as a “bad idea” that would, for a sizeable portion of voters, make them “less likely” to support a given candidate….

Which seems roughly equivalent to wanting to win the football game, but not really wanting to deal with scoring points…. or as Politico reports:

…In short, voters simultaneously don’t want to [sic] health care reform but don’t want to challenge it either…

There is a scientific explanation for this called cognitive dissonance (DA posts here).  There’s also some logical evidence that helps explain why we as humans seek to reduce anything seen as contentious by the rest of society.

It’s frustrating because time and time again it seems the majority does understand that government is not some Utopian solution.  For instance, they seem to understand that the current tax code is 60K pages of government sponsored corruption where the normal citizen or even the IRS agent has little idea exactly what all 60K pages means together, but special interests, nonprofits, businesses, and others all work to make the code a little better for themselves. (Freedomworks – Top Ten Reasons to Scrape the Code here).

Yet polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.

There’s a Japanese Proverb that begins with “Vision without action is daydream.”  Well, here we are, proving, that some truths are universal.  Proving that believing in something strongly or knowing something real well is meaningless if never acted upon.

Use a simple analogy to prove this true – what good is the best doctor in the world without patients or students?  What good would have come out of Newton’s genius, or Salk’s genius, if their abilities were followed up by only inaction?

The only good thing that can really be said about genius without action, is that it doesn’t directly harm anyone.  You can make a moral argument that Salk had some level of obligation to help since he could, but inactive genius shouldn’t be the main concern as the real problems will come from people acting without understanding.

& there’s where the second 1/2 of the proverb comes “Action without vision is nightmare. ”

Too bad we’re seemingly in a society today where both are true depending only upon the group in question.