Schmitty's Blog

I was watching The Simpsons the other day (not a shock there), when I had an epiphany. It was the episode where Homer goes into the grease business, collecting grease and selling it for recycling. When he brings in his first load of grease, he has this exchange:

Homer: Okay, boy. This is where all the hard work, sacrifice and painful scaldings pay off.
Clerk: Four pounds of grease. That comes to... sixty-three cents.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
Bart: Dad, all that bacon cost twenty-seven dollars.
Homer: Yeah, but your mom paid for that.
Bart: But, doesn't she get her money from you?
Homer: And I get my money from grease. What's the problem?

What I realized was this exchange essentially encapsulates the Obama economic plan. Obama plans to spend billions of dollars to fund “programs” that will create jobs for Americans. But where does he get that money? Oh yeah, from American tax dollars. Thanks to waste and inefficiency in the government at every step of the way, those billions will only be worth pennies on the dollar by the time the money makes it back to Americans -- like wasting $27 worth of bacon to get 63 cents.

Of course, this is also further proof that everything you need to know you can learn from The Simpsons. At the very least, it’s more insightful political commentary than Keith Olbermann.

By now most people have heard about the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, in which the Court essentially held the current lethal injection method of execution does not violate the Constitution. Most people, though, probably don't know the specifics of the decision, particularly the fact that, while seven of the nine justices concurred in the ultimate result, they couldn't reach a majority agreement on the reasoning. Basically, a bunch of justices wrote their own concurring opinions explaining their reasoning.

And then there was Justice Scalia. He wrote a separate concurring opinion solely to respond to Justice Stevens' dissent (in which Stevens basically wrote he would find the death penalty unconstitutional in whatever form it were carried out). To say that Justice Scalia got the better of the argument would be an understatement . . . it was an ass-kicking.

Here is Scalia's opinion. He points out that capital punishment was obviously envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, because they actually set forth procedural protections (the Fifth Amendment requires a presentment or indictment of a grand jury to hold a person to answer for “a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,” and prohibits deprivation of “life” without due process of law). Why would the Constitution set forth procedural safeguards for the death penalty if the death penalty were unconstitutional?

The answer is it's not unconstitutional under the text of the Constitution, but rather is somehow unconstitutional because it offends Justice Stevens -- which is exactly what Scalia calls Stevens on. Scalia writes, "In the face of Justice Stevens’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as 'the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.' The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a 'thirst for vengeance.' It is Justice Stevens’ experience that reigns over all."

He also writes, "But of all Justice Stevens’ criticisms of the death penalty, the hardest to take is his bemoaning of 'the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society,' including the 'burden on the courts and the lack of finality for victim’s families.' Those costs, those burdens, and that lack of finality are in large measure the creation of Justice Stevens and other Justices opposed to the death penalty, who have 'encumber[ed] [it] … with unwarranted restrictions neither contained in the text of the Constitution nor reflected in two centuries of practice under it . . . ."

Wow. That's a beatdown. If this were a fight, the referee would be flailing his arms to put an end to it and Stevens' corner would have thrown in the towel.

From Marv Albert to Bill Clinton to Eliot Spitzer, I love a good sex scandal. And believe me, this is a good one. The president of the governing body of Formula One racing has allegedly been caught on tape engaged in a "'sadomasochistic orgy' with five prostitutes that reportedly involved Nazi role-playing." Yes, that's right -- the always highly sensual Nazi role-playing. Apparently, they "re-enacted a concentration camp scene in which he played the role of both guard and inmate," which involved this guy being "chained over a torture bench while being caned by a woman."

What?! First of all, how sick are you to come up with this fantasy to begin with? For other people, the most taboo it gets is using the old teacher and naughty school girl scenario, but you're going right to the concentration camp scene?! And then to actually take the time and effort to track down prostitutes (note the plural, because one apparently isn't enough for this little fantasy) and explain in detail what scene you want to re-enact?! You've got to be kidding me. I mean, do you place an ad: "Wanted: group of whores for role playing. Must have cane/Nazi paraphernalia."

I have seen this clip at least 20 times now, and I still laugh every time I watch it. What type of evidence were they collecting exactly? I'm pretty sure that thing wasn't used for bagging the coke.

You know what? I'm not even going to have you guess (though it would be pretty obvious by looking at the picture anyway). Have a look at these idiots from Florida. By the way, how delightful it is that this dirtbag has eight children.

The N.Y. Times has a very interesting article that touches on how other countries' courts look at the American system of imposing punitive damages. Frankly, I've always felt the same way as these other countries. It seems so bizarre to me that punitive damages even exist in civil cases. After all, we have a criminal system to punish wrongdoers -- including those "evil" corporations. Yet we likewise have punitive damages in civil cases.

Unlike criminal cases, though, we do not have nearly the level of procedural safeguards in civil cases. Sure, we have "due process," but not to the same level as criminal cases. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in civil cases -- someone seeking punitive damages in civil cases need only establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud, or oppression. And you can forget about that whole unanimous jury thing you get in criminal cases -- try only 9 out of 12 having to agree to impose punitive damages (in many state courts). By the way, when you're charged with a crime, the statutes provide a set sentence, or at least range of a sentence, you can get. When you're sued for punitive damages, it's a free for all, with juries having free reign to impose whatever punishment they think is necessary to make an example of the defendant and deter such conduct in the future (with the Supreme Court only in recent years stepping in to provide loose Constitutional guidelines that punitive damage awards need to be reasonably related to the amount of actual damages awarded).

But beyond this lack of procedural safeguards, why does it even make sense to have a system where a single, private person can seek punishment against another private person or entity? Even more, why should a single private person be given a windfall, just to punish a defendant? The purpose of a lawsuit is to compensate a plaintiff for his loss, not give him more than he lost. To do otherwise is to encourage lawsuits by people trying to hit the jackpot.

Samuel John was born on Thursday (February 21) at 7:52 a.m. Sam weighed in at 10 lbs., 4 oz., and is over 21.5 inches long -- thankfully, mom had a C-section. He and Mrs. Schmitty are both fine, and we are already back home, resting comfortably.

Well, I am finally back from a very lengthy leave. Between ever-increasing hours at work and a now nine-month pregnant wife, I have had absolutely no time to write anything. Of course, I'm not sure I will have a lot of time after my son is born in the next week or so either, but perhaps I'll learn how to type with one hand so I have something to do while I'm up doing late-night feedings with the other hand. (For the record, I deny having any experience "typing with one hand" . . . .)

What better way to jump back into the blogosphere, though, than to find out you were right all along. You see, when politicians want to control your personal choices because they think they know what's best for, they all resort to the same argument: it's their business because it costs taxpayers money in health care costs. Smoking? No way, your smoking-related diseases are burdening our health care system. Seatbealts? You have to wear them, otherwise you'll be hurt in a crash and burden our health care system.

The only problem, though, is that in calculating the amount of money these issues "cost" taxpayes, they always fail to calculate how much money they save. For a long time now, for instance, studies like this one in the New England Journal of Medicine have repeatedly shown that smoking decreases health care costs because people die younger. I have always hypothesized that the same would be true for obesity -- and now I have been proven right. A new study showed that, like smokers, the obese die younger, and thus save society money in the long run.

So instead of spouting statistics like "obesity costs taxpayers millions every year," I'd rather you just say "thank you" and be on your way.