Tensions

I watched both in disgust and respect as the media and politicians play on Terri Schiavo's case as her feeding tubes were withdrawn. Disgust, because today, as thousands of dollars are poured into appeals and lawsuits, as millions around the nation spend an inordinate amount of time following the media, and as the media shamelessly report on Terri, politicians used Terri's situation as fodder for debate, and to help them win more votes in the next round of elections.

I wonder if Terri is in a better place now, instead of the living hell that she led in a hospital in this filthy world.

Along side with the headline on Terri today, are smaller reports of things happening around the world: Indonesia's death toll steadily crept up from 1000 since a second tsnami earlier ethis week. Some condolance are heard from around the world, as a few navy ships are sent for relieve purposes by the Indonesian government. Victims from the previous Tsunami, only a few months ago, are still struggling to recover. Thousands of lives were lost, more were shattered and disabled. At the University, there were a few cookie-selling fundraisers, I suppose to ease people's conscience about a natural disaster incomprehensible in its scale of destructiveness.

Misallocation of resources? Inefficiency? Democracy? The rule of law? Respect for life?

A Royal Pain

Prince Charles and Camilla got married. Camilla was named as Duchess of an obscure place. She will never be known as Queen, and will forever be known to the public as the undeserving second wife that replaced the beautiful, beloved Diana, Princess of Wales.

Indeed, if the Prince was born a common man, he will not need to face these excessively annoying opinions and comments upon his private life. But being a public person - as head of the church and as heir to the British throne, Prince Charles was born with a public duty to uphold the values of the church and dignity of the Royal family.

To say that marriage is a private business for the Prince is analagous to saying that marriage and sex are a private business for the Pope. Commoners in a democracy are given the freedom to marry as many times as like. But a royalty is stripped of that freedom the moment he/she is born. Lest the British Royal family is to meet its demise and decline in all dignity and respect. In other words, Prince Charles is pursuing his personal freedom at the expense of the freedom of the existence of the Royal family. Consequently, Prince Charles, should have his title removed, and be simply known as Charles Whatever-his-last-name-is.

I know it sucks to be the Prince, but too bad you are born that way. And the fact that you are living on people's taxes only makes your second marriage look worse.

Thoughts on the BCRA of 2002

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 modified and augmented the restrictions on campaign funding imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The added restrictions now subject “soft money” contributions to federal regulations, in the sense that no contributions can be made to federal-election candidates unless such contributions were made under federal regulations. The constitutionality and political legitimacy of the BCRA, passed under Bush’s administration, have been highly debated. The Supreme Court upheld BCRA’s constitutionality, citing precedents that were supportive of regulation on campaign funding. Those in support of the BCRA, such as Corrado and Mann, recognized that BCRA by no means gained perfection in its goal, but that it did improve the FECA clauses. Certain critiques, such as Thomas Sowell, accused the Republican government of being opportunistic in its passing of the BCRA. His counter arguments made against the BCRA, however, were perfunctory at best. The BCRA was not passed with the intention to regulate the media, which would be a more likely case of provocation of the First Amendment that the BCRA could have intended. Further, the freedom of incumbents to participate in electioneering is by no means expanded by the BCRA. Granted, the BCRA is lacking in its financing restrictions on the incumbents. But to expect incumbents to impose restrictions on themselves is irrational, and to expect them to do so with one set of reforms is unrealistic. The BCRA does its best in regulating the future incumbents, whom, to a certain extent, may be impacted by these rules even after they are elected. Bush’s administration, even though it may be opportunistic, did no harm to the public in the long run by passing the BCRA. The comparative advantage that Bush may have gained in the 2004 campaign should be more than offset by the benefits gained through the regulation of rampant corruption during the campaign process. The normative argument that Sowell made in support of free campaign financing simply cripples under its use of Enron as an example. Enron’s thinly-veiled attempt to bribe both parties not only gave it more market power that takes away consumer benefits and reduces social welfare, but also continues to corrupt incumbent or up-coming politicians. To put the blame of corruption on the incumbents alone is to ignore the contagious vicious cycle that corruption causes. Regulation needs to start somewhere. And the BCRA answers that need, if not in full, at least in part.