May 2012

Money Violates Civil Rights Laws, Court Rules

by Hans Bader on November 28, 2006 · 3 comments

in Economy, Legal

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has just ruled that America’s money bills, such as $1, $10, and $100 bills, discriminate against the blind, in violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits the federal government and recipients of federal funds from discriminating against the disabled.

Unlike some foreign currencies, such as the Euro, American money bills don’t vary in size, color, or texture based on denomination, making it harder for blind people to distinguish them.  Blind people often end up folding each denomination differently in order to keep track of them.  

The Rehabilitation Act has been construed to require agencies to make “reasonable accommodation” for the disabled unless doing so would cause “undue hardship.”  The American Council for the Blind argued that it was reasonable to change the bills size or shape or texture, since other countries have been able to do that to their own currency.  The Treasury Department argued in response that redesigning the bills would cause undue hardship by costing it tens of millions of dollars a year in additional printing costs, and increase the risk of counterfeiting (as the de facto international currency, the U.S. dollar is subject to counterfeiting that other currencies are often spared).

The judge has ordered that the bills be redesigned, while leaving the details to the Treasury Department.  He himself concedes that the redesign is likely to cost at least $50 million per year, and judging from the Treasury Department’s protestations, the figure could be a lot higher.

Like other disabilities discrimination laws, the Rehabilitation Act is quite a broad (and vague) law, so the judge’s decision isn’t necessarily wrong (although the Treasury Department’s arguments seem at least as plausible as the judge’s).  Indeed, the law’s concepts, such as “reasonable accommodation” and “undue burden,” are so vague and undefined it’s hard to know exactly what sorts of changes or accommodations it requires for the disabled, or how much institutions are expected to spend to accommodate them. 

No doubt recognizing that vagueness, the judge has taken the unusual step of suggesting that the government appeal his decision immediately rather than waiting for the trial proceedings to finish, since, as he concedes in his ruling, the case “involves a controlling issue of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.”

The outcome of this case may indirectly affect private businesses and how they can communicate, in writing or through web sites, when they have potential blind customers.  The Rehabilitation Act itself doesn’t apply to most private businesses.   But the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which does, is directly modelled on the Rehabilitation Act.  As a result, cases decided under the Rehabilitation Act often end up dictating the result in ADA cases.   

That’s not always a good thing, since it gives no weight to the property rights and autonomy that private businesses, unlike government agencies, enjoy.  It makes perfect sense to require the government to take reasonable steps to accommodate all taxpayers, including the disabled, at some added cost.  But a small business has neither the resources nor the moral obligation to accommodate every conceivable class of would-be customer. 

 

 

 

Marketing principles involves having them

by Iain Murray on November 28, 2006

in Economy, Politics as Usual

The current direction of the Conservative Party leadership in the UK could serve as a case study of how not to implement value-based communication (VBC).  The idea of VBC is that you tune how you market your principles and policies to reflect the values people feel are most important in choosing leaders and/or policies.  According to the classification of the late Aaron Wildavsky, there are three main values groups: libertarians, who value freedom; hierarchists, who value order; and egalitarians, who value fairness.  Bill Clinton was a master in portraying his policies as reflecting all three values.

Now it is certainly true that the British Conservative Party was failing dismally in matching its policies to voter values.  In the manifesto for the last election in 2005, by my calculation, 5 of the 6 main policies were marketed as hierarchist policies, 1 as libertarian and none whatsoever as egalitarian.  To reconnect with the electorate, it was clear that the Tories were going to have to explain how their policies made life fairer and more free for people.  It seemed, when he was elected party leader, that David Cameron understood that.

Instead what has happened has not been egalitarian marketing of conservative policies, but the junking of those policies in favor of policies that have previously appealed to egalitarians, like environmentalism, redefining poverty as relative rather than absolute, and being kind to muggers – “hug a hoodie” as they called it in the UK.  As one Conservative representative said in my earshot when I was last in the UK, “I don’t see why we should have to adopt the entire agenda of the Albanian Communist Party.”

VBC theory, of course, would predict that such an approach would attract some egalitarians to the party, but at the expense of the hierachists who had been the party’s main core beforehand.  That is exactly what appears to be happening.  According to the latest poll, the Conservatives are behind Labour again, as voters whose main value is the hierachist one of security have gone to the Labour Party.

If David Cameron wants to gain a commanding poll lead over Labour, he could return to core principles such as economic liberalism and national security, while marketing those in terms of their fairness (e.g. a Western state built on a strong defense, civil society and religious liberty is the best champion of womens’ rights, for instance, or school choice ensures better schooling for all, or, dare I say it, the benefits of fossil fuel use lift all boats).

Instead, disenchanted Tories will vote for the party that most reflects their values, which may well be Labour.  Other egalitarians will continue to vote Labour as long as its economic policy is redistributionist via its tax regime.  Libertarians will have either the Liberal Democrats or the fledgling UK Independence Party to vote for as well as the Conservatives.

Unless there is a significant rethink, the current Tory communication effort will continue to fail to achieve its goals.  Those of us who have spent years studying how to market liberty could have told them that.

What Spam? It’s against the law.

by Wayne Crews on November 28, 2006

in Odds & Ends

The European Union claims that unsolicited email –spam– accounts for between 50 and 80 percent of all Internet traffic. But that can’t be true, because a 2002 EU directive outlawed spam. Worse, an EU spokesman yesterday called the United States the biggest offender, blaming us for 22 percent of the torrent. That can’t be true either, since here in the U.S. we passed the CAN-SPAM Act in 2003, and as everyone knows, especially the politicians and activists who pushed for that legislation, there isn’t any spam here anymore.

Zimbabwe military wants “to listen” to make people safe

by Fran Smith on November 28, 2006

in Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends

Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, with 25-plus years of dictatorship under his belt, is now cracking down on cell phones in the name of national security. His military, with a record of expropriating land, torching and looting small businesses, and police brutality, now says that Zimbabwe’s citizens are endangering national security by having independent connections to the outside world.

According to their military spokesperson, the mobile phone providers should have to route their international calls through the state-owned TelOne so that people couldn’t “communicate without our knowledge.” This crackdown comes on the heels of a proposed law to monitor mail and Internet communications — again in the name of security. If the proposed law is passed by Mugabe’s hand-picked parliament and the new initiative goes through, then the military could monitor all forms of communication — in the name of security.

Says the military: “We want to listen, to make sure the nation is safe.”

Tony Bourdain: Recovering socialist

by Iain Murray on November 28, 2006

in Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends

I’m a big fan of Tony Bourdain, but he describes himself as a socialist. At the same time, he clearly hates what the nanny state has done to food. Here’s an excerpt from his book A Cook’s Tour that I used in a debate on the Crunchy Con blog this March:

These are dire times to be a chef who specializes in pork and offal. The EU has its eye on unpasteurized cheese, artisanal cheese, artisanal everything, shellfish, meat, anything that carries the slightest, most infinitesimal possibility of risk – or the slightest potential for pleasure. There is talk of banning unaged cheese, stock bones, soft-boiled or raw eggs. In the States, legislation has been suggested, mandating a written warning when a customer requests eggs over easy or a Caesar salad. (‘Warning! Fork – if placed in eye – may cause injury!’) A woman in the States won a lawsuit, claiming her coffee was too hot, scalding her as she stomped on the accelerator exiting the McDonald’s parking lot. (‘Warning! Deep-fried Mars bar – if stuffed down pants – may cause genital scarring!’) The result of this unrestrained fear mongering, this mad rush to legislate new extremes of shrink-wrapped germ-free safety? Much like it was after Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle scared the hell out of early-twentieth-century meat eaters – the absorption of small independents into giant factory farms and slaughter domes. Try and eat an American chicken and you will see what looms: bloodless, flavorless, colorless, and riddled with salmonella – a by-product of letting the little guys go under and the big conglomerates run things their way. [Sounds crunchy, no? But note what Bourdain blames it on - ISM]…It’s war. On one side, a growing army of hugely talented young British, Scottish, Irish, and Australian chefs, rediscovering their own enviable indigenous resources and marrying them with either new or brash concepts or old and neglected classics. On the other? A soul-destroying tsunami of bad, fake reproductions of what was already bad, fake New York ‘Mexican’ food. Gluey, horrible nachos, microwaved, never-fried ‘refried’ beans, fabric softener margaritas. Limp, soggy, watery, and thoroughly dickless ‘enchiladas’ and catsupy salsas. Clueless ‘Pan-Asian’ watering holes where every callow youth with a can of coconut milk and some curry powder thinks he’s Ho Chi Minh. (Forget it. Ho could cook.) Sushi is almost nowhere to be found – in spite of the fact that the seafood in the UK is magnificent. You get more heart, soul, and flavor at an East End pie shop than at any of the rotten, fake, dumbed-down ‘Italian,’ ;Japanese fusion,’ or theme purgatories. Even the cod – the basic ingredient of fish and chips – is disappearing. (I raised that subject with a Portuguese cod importer. ‘The damned seals eat them,’ was his answer. ‘Kill more seals,’ he suggested.”)

Fortunately, Fergus and other like-minded souls are on the front lines, and they’re unlikely to abandon their positions. Sitting at St. John, I ordered what I think is the best thing I have ever put in my mouth: Gergus’s roasted bone marrow with parsley and caper salad, croutons, and sea sold.

Oh God, is it good. How something so simple can be so … so … absolutely luxurious. A few Flintstone-sized lenghts of veal shank, a lightly dressed salad … Lord … to tunnel into those bones, smear that soft gray-pink-and-white marrow onto a slab of toasted bread, sprinkle with some sel de gris … take a bite … Angels sing, celestial trumpets … six generations of one’s ancestors smile down from heaven. It’s butter from God.

Bourdain now hosts a show on the Travel Channel. Earlier this year there was an episode set in Peru, I think. He stayed with a very poor community, watching them labor hard to produce exceptionally meager fare. In the evening, he sat down with them and commented how beautiful their surroundings were as if they were compensation for the hard life. “You can keep it,” came the reply.

Bourdain indicated he was having second thoughts about the “benefits” of such lifestyles. Add the two pieces of evidence together and I suggest he may now be a recovering socialist.

Free to Choose on your Computer

by Iain Murray on November 28, 2006

in Economy

Idea Channel TV has the classic 1980 Milton Friedman series Free to Choose streaming on your desktop. One can only assume Milton would have approved.

Hat-tip: ConservativeHome

The Media Filter

by Iain Murray on November 28, 2006

in Healthcare, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

Dr. Crippen, a doctor who has the misfortune to work in the British National Health Service, has an interesting story about the critical faculties of the BBC. Blessed Auntie Beeb simply posted a news release from a firm that makes artificial milk posing as a healthcare advocacy group as a news story, then when found out altered the story without notice. I wonder what could have attracted the BBC to the story in the first place? Claims of babies dying – check. Claims that normal part of diet is causing it – check. Authoritative-sounding statistics – check. General suspicion that industry actually enjoys killing its customers – check. Who could blame them? The story was simply too good to fact-check…

Profiles in Awesomeness

by Richard Morrison on November 28, 2006

in Odds & Ends

Chrissie Thompson of the Washington Times has written the best newspaper story of the day: a profile of Bureaucrash and our very own Jason Talley. You’ll want to read the whole story, of course, but I particularly liked the quote from Fred:

Fred L. Smith Jr., president of CEI, said he founded the think tank with the goal of using left-wing groups’ vertical organization formats, in which they focus on one issue and sponsor both policy analysis and activism on it. Bureaucrash, therefore, fit in with his vision and gives younger people an arena in which to tout pro-freedom principles.

“I’m now 65,” Mr. Smith said. “I’m not going to jump off a building unfurling a flag saying, ‘Economic liberty for the world.’”

Personally I think Fred is cutting himself short – with a little training he could easily be the leader of the high-rise banner campaign. Bureaucrash’s message is just that inspiring.

Freedom Fighting from the Kitchen

by Ivan Osorio on November 27, 2006

in Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends

In the current issue of Doublethink, Baylen Linnekin, founder of the libertarian blog “To the People,” asks the burning question: “Is Anthony Bourdain a libertarian?” To get to the answer, you’ll need to read the interview of the celebrity chief and TV travel host. But to whet your appetite (no pun intended), consider these choice bits of Bourdain in his own words:

On New York City’s smoking ban:

“We’re in such a headlong rush to become the next Singapore, I find [it] horrifying and completely, well, un-American.”

On poverty:

“I think glamorizing poverty — as long as they wear cute, indigenous clothes and look good from the tour boat — I think is a danger we should be aware of…I think it is smug to suggest indigenous people would be better off without television or modern clothes if that’s something they would very much like. They would like to see their children educated. They would like to have a roof over their heads. They would like the things that we take for granted.”

On globalization:

“The places that I’ve seen that are multi-ethnic, places like Singapore and Malaysia, where the ethnic populations are almost indistinguishable, yet they manage to hold on to bits of traditional cultures, as well as the wonderful melting between those cultures, in a general way that’s what the future looks like. The future looks like Singapore and Malaysia. At least ethnically and foodwise.”

There’s much more. Read on. It’ll be worth your time.

The Green Revolution South of the Border

by Ivan Osorio on November 27, 2006

in Economy, Nano & Biotech, Odds & Ends

In his latest column, The Miami Herald‘s Andres Oppenheimer gives reason for hope for Latin America’s water supply challenges, and offers policy makers there good advice. While many parts of the region suffer water shortages, and some conspiracy theorists claim that the United States is out to take over water supplies there, he cites experts who claim that “water is not likely to become a rapidly disappearing natural resource.” He goes on:

“On the contrary, water may become more easily available in the future, because one of the most important technological innovations of the 21st century will be drought-resistant crops. These crops will allow farmers to grow food using half of the water they use now, they say.

“That will be a watershed technological advance, because about 70 percent of all water currently used in the world is not used for home consumption, but for agricultural irrigation…

“My opinion: I agree. Industry experts tell me that drought-resistant crops may be widely available even earlier, within the next five years.”

Further, he extrapolates this to a larger point about doomsayers in general — and how wrong they’ve been — going back to their modern godfather:

“The whole water debate reminds me of the once popular theory of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus, who said that because the world population increases geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16, etc.) while food supply only increases arithmetically (1, 2, 3, etc.), the world was heading toward mass starvation.

“Malthus did not take into account technological innovation. The ‘green revolution’ of the mid-20th century led to massive increases in cereal production in the developing world, which let countries like India — which suffered from chronic famines — become a food exporter.”

Oppenheimer concludes that, “The same thing may happen with the water scare.” So, rather than blame shortages of natural resources on yanqui plots, Latin American policy makers and entrepreneurs should embrace technology to solve those challenges. Further, he offeres those policy makers some sound advice: Get out of the commodity game.

“While Latin America should take care of its water reservoirs, it would help itself by spending more of its energies on improving education and attracting investments, like China and India, rather than by waiting to be propelled to the First World by its natural resources.”

Norman Borlaug or Hugo Chavez? The choice should be clear.

 

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →