In a stunt that seems more fit for “investigative” television programs like “Dateline,” the British government’s “Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force” has wasted £168,700 (or $270,931) of taxpayer money sending out fake resumes to employers to root out racists.

While $270,000 is, of course, a paltry sum by government standards, the thought of governments trying to expose “racists” with these tactics is more than a little unsettling. One wonders if they targeted specific “suspects”, or if they just sent the phony resumes to random employers to see what turned up.

In any case, Joe McCarthy is probably dancing a little jig down in hell right now.

In case you’re interested, Ben Cannon (D-Portland), the guy who wanted to raise Oregon’s beer tax by ~1600%, has a piece over at Blue Oregon in which he tries to “aw, shucks!” his way out of legislative embarrassment:

There is no training manual for being a legislator. You don’t have a boss, you have 60,000 voters. Heck, you don’t even have an official job description to fall back on.

Like many jobs, this is one you learn by doing.
As my second legislative session draws to a close, I can assure you that I am still learning.

Well, golly. It’s nice to know Ben’s learned something from this massive waste of taxpayer dollars. I guess now that he’s got a little experience under his belt, he realizes what a terrible idea his proposal was, and has abandoned any illusions of trying to resurrect it, right?

Absolutely not… I have tried to apply the above lessons to a new version of the tax.

The first thing on his list of reasons why we need to increase the tax?

Oregon hasn’t raised its beer tax in more than 30 years.

One of the posts in the comments section put it nicely:

I love the rationalization the just because a tax hasn’t been raised in awhile it is your profound duty to see that it be raised.

Indeed.

Speaking of The Gay, New Hampshire just became the sixth state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage. Congratulations to NH and all its residents. For being so “forward-thinking” and “progressive,” Oregon is starting to look a little sad.

FIRE reports on yet another case of a student being harassed by school administrators for advocating for concealed carry of handguns on campus. The Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania has threatened disciplinary action against one of its students, Christine Brashier, for handing out pamphlets and trying to start a campus chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

The school deans said Brashier was prohibited from “soliciting” her materials or even discussing concealed carry on campus. They even went so far as to order her to destroy all of her pamphlets. Brashier was then grilled by school officials, who demanded to know whether she owned firearms or carried a concealed weapon.

Perhaps the CCAC deans need a refresher course in Constitutional law. It just so happens that pamphleteering is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. In the 1938 Supreme Court case Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Court ruled that such activity fell under freedom of the press, writing:

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

I previously wrote about another student who was harassed by school officials and campus police after advocating for concealed carry in a speech class.

Representative Linda Sanchez has an article over at the Huffington Post responding to criticism of her proposed bill, the Megan Meiers Cyberbullying Prevention Act. She starts off with this nice piece of obfuscation:

“If you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way? If that person was telling the child the world would be better off if they just killed themselves, would you ignore it?”

Well … no, but my response probably wouldn’t be to craft an overbroad, facially unconstitutional bill that targets far more than just “cyberbullying.” But then again, I’m not Rep. Sanchez. (For you critical thinkers out there, Sanchez’s rhetorical question is called a false dichotomy.)

Bonus points to Sanchez for including the phrase “so-called free speech” in her article. It really shows her true colors when it comes to the First Amendment.

Also, hat tip to Reason, where you can find a more thorough shellacking of Sanchez’ Maginot Line of an argument. Crossposted at Campus Magazine Online.

Yesterday the Oregon House of Reps narrowly passed HB 3122, also known as the “honest pint” bill, that would give state-issued stickers to bars that serve true 16-oz pints.

Seems like the state legislature could spend their time doing more important things, but at least you’ll know when you’re getting a honest-to-God pint. Of course, this would be moot if bars would just serve pints in mason jars, the way the good lord intended.

Money quote from a state rep:

“It’s a little past 10:30 here, but it’s 5 o’clock somewhere,” said Rep. Jules Bailey, D-Portland, in opening his pitch.

Dumbass comment award:

Now you won’t get ripped off when you drink until you turn gray, ruin your marriage, lose your job, drive drunk etc. I can think of a number of issues that elected officials could spin their wheels on rather than feeding addiction. What’s next, making sure you don’t get shorted buying meth? Now lets hear from all the alcoholics applauding this nonsense.

Clap, clap clap! Thanks to OC alum Ian Spencer for the tip.

Senator Carolyn Tomei has introduced a new bill to the Oregon Senate Tuesday proposing  a law that would make cigarette butt littering illegal. The law is proposing a fine of $90 dollars and possibly 60 days of community service.

Opponents are calling it a waste of time, and I have to agree. Oregon is going through its worst unemployment rating in twenty years and a budget crisis that will lead to state agencies being cut by 20% .  It seems the Oregon government is more into pet projects than helping out our failing economy.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-California) has been proposed in the House of Representatives that would make “cyberbullying,” as it’s been coined, illegal.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, named after a 13 year-old girl who committed suicide after falling victim to a cruel Myspace prank, would make it a felony to transmit “in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

As is wont to happen when lawmakers grandstand on a current issue, the proposed bill is a legal train wreck – a half-baked piece of legislation that, if it weren’t almost guaranteed to be stricken down as unconstitutional, would be seriously dangerous to free speech.

For example, law professor Eugene Volokh can think of six examples off the top of his head where the bill would encroach on protected First Amendment speech. Under the proposed bill, perhaps even this blog post could be considered “cyberbullying.” Rep. Sanchez might find my calling her legislation “half-baked” and “a legal train wreck” emotionally distressing, and I could be prosecuted in federal court.

What’s startling to me about the bill, though, is the similarity in the language to many of the oppressive speech codes found at universities throughout the country. In particular, notice the part about “substantial emotional distress.” Just like so many confused university administrations, Rep. Sanchez seems to believe that it aught to be illegal to make someone feel bad.

The bill is essentially the uber-version of all those speech codes. It would, for all intents and purposes, make criticism of anyone illegal. Well, hey, at least we would all be living in the ”inclusive, respectful atmosphere” that universities try so hard (and sometimes illegally) to foster, right?

You didn’t think we were going to let yesterday’s opinion piece in the ODE about concealed carry on campus slip by, did you? In case you missed it, columnist Truman Capps wrote about how icky guns are and how they shouldn’t be allowed on college campuses. Of course, he made sure to get his liberal credentials out in the open:

I live in Portland and listen to NPR, and my family owns a Prius and a Subaru (with a Volvo in our recent past) – perhaps it’s not surprising that I disagree with the notion that a campus full of armed students and staff is safer than an unarmed one. While I agree that people, not guns, kill people, I am also a firm believer in the familiar adage “Mo’ firearms, mo’ problems,” especially on a college campus.

It’s not so much that I completely disagree with Capps (although I do); it’s that his article is factually wrong on several counts. For example, at the beginning of his second paragraph Capps writes:

Currently, concealed weapon permit holders can take their guns with them everywhere except for government buildings, bars and college campuses.

There is no Oregon statute against concealed carry in bars or college campuses. According to ORS 166.370, possession of a firearm in a public building is a Class C felony, but one of the exceptions is “[a] person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.” In fact, the only public buildings you are not allowed to carry a firearm into are courtrooms, airports and federal buildings.

The university system code against concealed carry is in clear contradiction of state law. I don’t even know where Capps got the idea that concealed carry is illegal in bars. Perhaps before he writes an article disseminated to the whole campus, he should do some basic research first. Or perhaps his editors should fact-check his stories for, y’know, blatant errors. Perhaps a retraction is in order.

I wrote an article last year about concealed carry on campus, which prompted this response from the ODE. Searching through the blog archives for “concealed carry” and “gun control” is also fun.

P.S. In his penultimate paragraph, Capps writes, “[I]f campus safety is such a concern, let Department of Public Safety have guns.” Can we nominate this for oxymoronic phrase of the year or something?

Tomorrow Luke Sheahan from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) will give a lecture in Columbia 150 at 7 p.m.

FIRE is a great organization that protects students’ rights on college campuses. It’s often pigeon-holed as a conservative organization, but it’s actually quite non-partisan. (It just so happens that most violations of students’ rights these days are against conservatives for being “biased” or “intolerant.”) If you’re interested in First Amendment issues and controversies, specifically in higher education, come check it out.

FIRE has also supported the Commentator in our time of need. The event is sponsored by the Oregon Commentator and KWVA.

From a Washington Post opinion piece and probably one of the best articles I’ve read on drug legalization:

Here is a glimpse of what lies ahead if we fail to end our second attempt to control the personal habits of private citizens. Listen to Enrique Gomez Hurtado, a former high court judge from Colombia who still has shrapnel in his leg from a bomb sent to kill him by the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar.

In 1993, his country was a free-fire zone not unlike Mexico today, and Gomez issued this chilling — and prescient — warning to an international drug policy conference in Baltimore:

“The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget. With this financial power they can suborn the institutions of the state, and if the state resists … they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages.”

Speaking of Baltimore, here’s David Simon, creator of The Wire, in a recent interview with Bill Moyers:

I would decriminalize drugs in a heartbeat. I would put all the interdiction money, all the incarceration money, all the enforcement money, all of the pretrial, all the prep, all of that cash, I would hurl it, as fast as I could, into drug treatment and job training and jobs programs. I would rather turn these neighborhoods [ghettos] inward with jobs programs. Even if it was the equivalent of the urban CCC, if it was New Deal-type logic, it would be doing less damage than creating a war syndrome, where we’re basically treating our underclass. The drug war’s war on the underclass now. That’s all it is. It has no other meaning.

I tend to disagree with the some of Simon’s argument, which is fairly anti-capitalist (you should watch the whole video), but it just goes to show the breadth of drug legalization support.

I forgot to mention it yesterday, but good for Iowa.

Money quote:

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”

Yes.

For decades, people have been bemused by the fact that adults under the age of 21 can, in the United States, buy a lottery ticket, smoke tobacco, and even die for their country — but they can’t consume alcohol. Carefully noting this inequity, Oregon legislators have decided to rectify the situation by attempting to raise the legal smoking age to match the drinking age. Not only that, but one of the bill’s co-sponsors wants to make nicotine available by prescription only.

I’d like to say that I don’t think this has a chance of passing, but given the legislative successes that the anti-tobacco crowd has enjoyed of late, I think I’d be premature in doing so.

In related news, the Oregon Commentator will be holding its Second Annual Great American Smoke-In sometime during Spring Term (preferably when the weather gets a bit nicer). Watch this space and keep an eye on the magazine for details.

(via Radley Balko)

Today’s ODE has a Q&A session with Aaron Tuttle, ASUO elections coordinator. As I mentioned yesterday, one of the big non-issues of the election is spending limits – money, after all, being the root of all evil. Here’s Tuttle talking about changes to elections rules brought on by the almighty dollar (emphasis added):

We really just want to limit bribery, and that aspect of things. We solved that. These are issues … across the board for ASUO and elections in previous years. Another rule would be the spending cap, which we’ve been focusing a lot on. (Spending) went from $2,000 to $10,000 in the period of a year, and that’s just ridiculous. We really wanted to limit that because it’s a student election. You’re not running for a state office; you’re not running for a federal office. You’re here to represent students. And that image of you spending a lot of money, what does that say to people? You’re going to be their voice, basically. We really feel that, the financial aspect, leads to a lot of other issues. You’ve got to limit that. But the Oregon State Constitution states “no spending limits.” … It limits free speech, which is what the Oregon State Supreme Court, or whatever it is, says. So we kind of had to brush that off and head toward voluntary and see what candidates might be willing to do. […] Historically speaking, there’s obviously a huge correlation between the amount spent and the people who win, so it puts us in a bit of a pickle to figure out what they’re going to do. It’s a tough situation for everyone. Other schools in the state have spending caps and they just haven’t had to deal with the legality of it. It’s “a waiting for it to happen” kind of thing. Other schools comparable to our size … have campaigns of about $1,500.

Legality, Constitution, Supreme Court, whatever. But seriously, the ability to spend your money as you see fit is freedom of speech. People only whine about “disproportionate influence” and “concentration of power” when it comes to things they disagree with (e.g. You never hear Democrats complain about George Soros’ vast wealth and power).

Tuttle also talked about how this year’s ASUO elections are shaping up to be a kinder, gentler affair. Speaking of which, the grievance count remains at zero. Anyone want to start a pool for when the first one will be filed?

Here it comes…

Excerpt:

In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:

…

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

No word yet on whether or not the name “Reichsarbeitsdienst” is being considered for the new program.

Yeah, I know. Drink.

___

Then there’s this:

Because some governors might not accept the money, Congress added a unique provision, in subsection 1607(b): “If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution?