Today, in a conversation with an Anonymous Friend Who Is Definitely Not Dr. Hmnahmna, I asked if he was as excited as I that Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for President. He responded that he was, and that he looked forward to Bill turning the White House back into a bachelor pad.

I then opined that I was looking forward to being called a sexist throughout 2016 and probably beyond, because it would be a welcome change from being called a racist since June 2008. Anonymous Friend then rightly pointed out that I’ll be called cisgendered and heteronormative regardless.

I’ll probably also be called ageist, and possibly heightist if I’m taller than Mrs. Clinton.

I look forward to the next 19 months of rational debate and calm discussion.

…

Now that I think of it, I wonder what I was for opposing John Edwards.

A few thoughts spring to mind regarding the controversy surrounding Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, largely informed by my background in econ:

1. What is the difference in principle between the refusal to buy a product and the refusal to sell a product, or between a boycott and a refusal to serve customers?

2. Is offending people’s sensitivities by refusing to trade with them worse than forcing people to violate their consciences?

3. It is often said by self-congratulators that “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Would they do the same for any other rights, say, your right to give your money to whom you want, or your right to give your property to whom you want?

4. Public servants, officials, employees, whatever you’d like to call them, should not be permitted to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, orientation, etc., in the performance of their duties. No RFRA should protect that sort of discrimination.

5. It bothers me that a private business owner might refuse to serve someone for shallow reasons. It bothers me more that that business owner might face fines, lawsuits, or even get shut down by the city or state for that refusal. It would not bother me at all to see negative media attention and boycotts eventually run them out of business. Let the media and the marketplace work their magic.

6. I have heard comparisons between the various RFRAs and the Jim Crow laws. They are largely invalid. There is all the difference in the world between allowing businesses to pick and choose their customers (RFRA) and mandatory segregation of private property (Jim Crow).

7. I think the right to trade gets short shrift in American legislation, jurisprudence, and culture. It would’ve been nice of Mr. Madison to enumerate it back in the day. Two consenting adults should have the right to love each other, and to live together, and to marry. Those protesting the Indiana RFRA would certainly agree. I just wish they’d also envision and support the right of consenting adults to trade– or to choose not to trade.

President Obama recently floated the idea of mandatory voting. For the man’s sake, I hope there’s some larger context here that justifies his otherwise tyrannical proposal. But since we’ve already established that you can be forced to buy stuff or else pay a tax– which may not actually be a tax, it depends which judges you’re trying to win over– he probably actually means forcing people to vote.

Why? Apparently because in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, money has too big an influence on the electoral process. Somehow, all that big bad evil money keeps people from voting, so Obama wants to make them vote in spite of all that big bad evil money.

Some thoughts:

1. If you have to be forced to vote, I don’t want you to vote.

2. If campaign ads and media bluster can convince you not to vote, I don’t want you to vote.

3. If you can be convinced to vote for a particular policy or party, why is paid campaign advertising a less valid method of doing so than, say, media bluster, or endorsements from fawning celebrities, or flattering coverage from talk show hosts, or free viral videos, or educational indoctrination, or religious indoctrination, or writing an op-ed, or simply talking to somebody? (An aside: more than a few of those alternatives are also paid for; we just don’t normally think of them that way.)

4. When the Constitution refers to citizens’ right to vote, it specifically uses the word right. Not obligation. Not requirement. Right. And a right that people are forced to exercise is not a right.

5. Speaking of which, what other such rights are you required to exercise?

6. If you think the campaigns are superficial and negative and obnoxious and just plain bad enough now, think about how bad they’re going to be when the campaigns have to go after the votes of people who don’t vote because they don’t care or because they don’t want to.

The long and short of it is that the government doesn’t have as much control over political speech as it used to, and Obama thinks the way around that is to force you to vote. If they can’t control your vote, they’ll control your speech. Since they can’t control your speech anymore, they’ll control your vote. This idea won’t come to fruition anytime soon, but oaks start off as acorns.

Say I were to publish the following as an open letter:

Dear Government of Iran,

Here’s the United States Constitution: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm.

Please pay special attention to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (click here; it’s the paragraph starting “He shall have power…”), which is about treaty stuff. Also have a look at Amendment XXII (click here), which is about how long Presidents serve. Note there’s no mention of term limits on congressmen.

Then, click here for a Wikipedia article about the Treaty Clause, with some explanations about how treaties are different from executive agreements. And then click here for some stuff about filibusters in the Senate.

Finally, President Obama has to leave office no later than noon, January 20th, 2017. At 12:01 PM that day, you could be dealing with President Hillary, or Walker, or Warren, or Rubio, or O’Malley, or Jeb, or God-Knows-Who. Two-thirds of the current Senate will still be around, though.

Sincerely,

Vincent D. Viscariello

Set aside for a moment the wisdom of typing such a letter and publishing it in a forum that has as many as thirty-seven viewers per day, worldwide.

My question is: Did I just violate the Logan Act or otherwise commit treason?

…

Congressmen, Supreme Court justices, and the President are welcome to follow the above links as well.

Harve Bennett, producer of The Greatest Film Ever Committed To Film, passed away yesterday. And by producer I don’t mean “some guy with enough pull to get a credit,” I mean “the guy who came up with the idea of putting Khan in the movie.” The film ended up much different from what he originally envisioned, but he got the ball rolling and the end result was powerful. What a sad week for Trekkies and Trekkers alike.