Leftovers

Here is a sample short blurb for this blog that I'm still waiting to post on:

We conservatives love the rule of law.  The immigration debate is a perfect example.  Despite the fact that it would be virtually impossible to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants currently in this country, many conservatives balk at the thought of immigration reform and find the idea of amnesty a complete non-starter, all because they don't want to reward violators of the law.

I get it:  people who break the rules shouldn't be rewarded.  But can we make an exception for these kids?  For those too lazy to click the link, the 4x100-meter relay team of a Texas high school had just finished demolishing the competition in a race, after which the anchor member of the team "pointed to the heavens" in victory.  Apparently, this violates the rule against "excessive celebration," and the winning team was disqualified, meaning that it could not compete at the state championship.

How is this a rule?  Maybe if the rule meant to capture celebrations like this or this, I could see a colorable argument for it.  But apparently Texas's rule includes any hand gestures.  The superintendent in the video (see previous link) seemed to indicate some remorse about the fact that the rule seemed to apply here, though he continued to insist that the rule applied.

Let's set aside the religious freedom argument for just a second and think about this.  Even if we stipulate that there was a rules violation, what is the purpose of this rule?  To make the losing kids feel better?  It seems like this rule will do nothing more than make four kids feel like crap for daring to be happy about their success.  Besides, you can always deal with actual instances of excessive celebration in the moment and in a manner more tailored to the circumstances.  If things get out of hand? Then maybe we can start talking about disqualification.

I get that the rule exists.  Still, can we make an exception?  I think we can all acknowledge that these kids didn't do anything really wrong.  But the bigger concern is that strict adherence to the rule of law in this case serves the purpose of undermining the general argument in favor of the rule of law.  If the rules are stupid and arbitrary and pick the wrong winners, then why is it a good idea to obey these rules, or any of the other ones for that matter?

I imagine there's a parallel to immigration laws (something like questioning why we're so obsessed with the fact that 11 million people broke the immigration laws when the immigration laws themselves create a broken immigration system, and, understanding that it's not okay that they broke the law, how we might consider making an exception for the illegal immigrants in this country, as long as we can reform the rules to make them more reasonable for all parties involved), but really I just wanted to vent about this story.  What a farce.

---

Here are some links:

This can't be right.

Have you ever been here?  I'd like to go.

I thought this was interesting.

Maryland sucks.