Day: March 18, 2002

Columbine Media Lawsuit Dismissed; Michigan Legislators Want Restrictions on Violent Video Games

At the beginning of March a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the family of Dave Sanders, a teacher who was fatally shot during the Columbine massacre.

Sanders’ family had sued Time Warner, Acclaim Entertainment, Atari Corp. and Nintendo of America arguing that movies and videogames produced by those companies unduly influenced gunmen Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17.

The judge ruled that the Kelbold and Harris were responsible for the death of Sanders, not video games and movies the two killers may have watched.

Meanwhile, outraged by the bestselling Playstation 2 game Grand Theft Auto III, legislators in Michigan are pushing for a law that would make it a crime to rent or sell violent videogames to minors. Failing to abide by the law would result in penalty of up to $1,000 and possible jail time.

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has decided not to get involved in the legislation, saying it does not pose a risk of censorship. The Detroit Free Press’s quoted its lawyer, Herschel Fink, noting that the same reasoning could be used to prevent children from buying newspapers which might contain graphic descriptions of the death of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (or even accounts of the 9/11 terrorist attack for that matter).

Sources:

Bill to keep violent games from minors. Bill Laitner, Detroit Free Press, March 5, 2002.

U.S. judge dismisses Columbine suit against media. Reuters, March 4, 2002.

Joe Sobran Proves William F. Buckley Right

For a long time, Joe Sobran wrote for National Review. Then he was booted out by William F. Buckley who agreed with Sobran’s critics that Sobran was an anti-Semite. Sobran and his supporters have long decried that decision as completely unfair. But in a recent column about Israel (a country which Sobran appears at times to be obssessed about), Sobran writes,

Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review has summed up the situation in one pithy sentence: “The truth is that if we held Israel to the same standards that we apply to Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, U.S. bombers and missiles would be blasting Tel Aviv, and weÂ’d be putting Israeli prime minister Sharon behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The Institute for Historical Review is an anti-Semitic organization dedicated to Holocaust revisionism. Weber himself has written that there is no evidence that Jews were mass murdered at Treblinka and that, in fact, the camp was used as a transit camp.

For someone who insists he is not an anti-Semite, Sobran keeps fairly odd company.

Good Riddance, Mary Robinson

United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson announced she was stepping down. Good riddance. Robinson aptly summed up the entire view that marked her term with this outrageous comment,

The buildings that were destroyed on Sept. 11 can be replaced. But if the pillars of the international system are damaged or demolished, they will not be so easy to restore.

Earth to Mary — we don’t care about the buildings, it’s the almost 3,000 human beings that died on Sept. 11 that count. This statement really puts a capstone on Robinson’s approach to human rights.

The spin from human rights groups is that Robinson ran into trouble because she was willing to criticize the United States. Reed Brody Human Rights Watch told the New York Times, “She has paid a price for her willingness to confront publicly big governments like the United States and Russia when they violate human rights.”

Give me a break. Robinson presided over a conference at which Israel was labeled the only racist country in the world. Yeah, that took a lot of moral courage.

Source:

U.N. Rights Enforcer to Step Down. Associated Press, March 18, 2002.

Here’s What You Can Do With Your Party Line

Last night I spent an hour chatting via IRC with author Wendy McElroy and about a dozen other people. Normally I find chatting a waste of time, but the topic that McElroy wanted to talk about intrigued me — dealing with unreasonable claims/positions/demands by people whom you are ostensibly defending.

In McElroy’s case, she has done a lot to promote the cause of the Men’s Movement and true sexual equality, and in return receive a lot of hostility, anger and even threats from some people involved with that movement. Some of the hostility is downright silly. McElroy calls her position Individualist Feminism, but for some in the Men’s Movement, the “f” word is just too much and they draw a line in the sand — if you’re going to call yourself a feminist, they want nothing to do with you (and, in fact, will react abusively).

One of the really odd things that was apparent from the chat was that many of these people were upset because they believe McElroy has some sort of power or influence and that what she says or does not say has far reaching effects. Now I’m a big fan of McElroy, and am glad she’s been writing for Fox News regularly the past few months because I enjoy reading her work, but power and influence? I don’t think so.

But I wasn’t all that surprised since I’ve had the same argument thrown in my face when it comes to animal rights. One of the things I like about running a web site is the independence — I have considered going to work for organizations in the areas that I write about, but could never be satisfied giving up that editorial independence. There are two things, for example, with which I have problems with in the anti-animal rights community: a) the tendency to support cockfighting (which, in my opinion, is both a dead end morally and politically), and b) the tendency to exaggerate the case against some animal rights groups.

In the last six months after writing about cockfighting and defending an animal rights group against what I thought were baseless accusations of being involved in terrorist activities, I received e-mails from people outraged at the comments. The basic argument was that given the prominence of my site, such comments could only aid the animal rights movement.

Bah! Who cares? What’s the point of rejecting the group think of one movement just to turn around and adopt the very same principles?

Developing Countries Need to Get Out of the Water Business

In an article for TechCentralStation.Com Dr. Roger Bate offers a persuasive argument that government misallocation of water resources is a major reason for the water problems that much of the developing world suffers from.

Bate argues that governments have a role in creating initial water allocations and setting up a framework for allowing water quotas to be traded, but then make the mistake of getting involved in the day-to-day end use of water which has the effect of promoting inefficient water usage.

A prime example of that is South Africa where, Bate explains, water quotas are allocated to farmers who are unable to sell them to anyone else. Combined with subsidies on farming, this means large chunks of water are destined for agricultural use even if that is not the most efficient usage of water. The end result is that the poor get shortchanged on their water needs.

Contrast this with Chile which largely ended subsidies for water and allow for the trading of water quotas (farmers who did not need all of the water they were allotted could turn around and sell the excess). According to Bate,

In 1970 only 27% of rural and 63% of urban dwellers [in Chile] received potable water. By the mid-90s the respective percentages were 94% and 99%. These figures are better than any other mid-income developing country in the world.

Having the state involved in deciding end water usage is a pointless exercise in futility. Other states should do more to emulate Chile’s model of tradeable quotas and let market forces determine the most efficient use of water.

Source:

Pipe Dreams for the Poor. Roger Bate, TechCentralStation.Com, March 4, 2002.

Revisiting Some AR2001 Complaints

Missed this the first time around, but someone dug up a fascinating message that Alex Hershaft posted to VegSource.Com describing the aftermath of last year’s Animal Rights 2001 conference. It seems that The Hilton used for this conference was less than pleased with some of the shenanigans that occurred at the July meeting.

Prior to the conference, The Hilton had spent millions of dollars renovating its site and, as a result, instituted a no pets policy. Apparently many visitors to AR2001 simply ignored that request,

In spite of it [the no pets policy], a number of people brought their dogs, and the hotel didn’t appreciate having to clean up after those animals who urinated on the new carpet. We will probably have to enforce a “no animal companion” policy of our own, unless someone can come up with a better solution.

Hmmm…what about the rights of the poor companion animals? (In fact several people replied to Hershaft that this was just a base prejudice against animals on the part of The Hilton).

The Hilton apparently did not appreciate the much-publicized protests at Nieman Marcus and Wendy’s (with the Wendy’s protest ending in several arrests).

The hotel is a member of the local merchants association, and the demonstrations at the nearby Wendy’s and Neiman Marcus gave them grief. We will have demonstrations at future conferences, but they will be part of the program, non-invasive, and well away from the hotel. However, here again, we will have to ask all participants to refrain from staging rump activities of their own

The Hilton was apparently not very happy when Neiman Marcus complained that protesters arrived in a Hilton van.

Of course when the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee set up protests areas for activists far from events, the activists acted as if the Constitution of the United States had been repealed. But scheduling demos so as to not offend The Hilton is apparently another story.

The message concludes that it is important to maintain the goodwill of The Hilton because, “We need a high-class venue, because of our size and because we are trying to project a middle class image.”

Yeah, wouldn’t want people to think they’re a bunch of nuts who protest Wendy’s and can’t keep their dogs from urinating on the carpet.

Source:

Hotel Grievances. Alex Hershaft, July 23, 2001.