Month: June 2005

I’ll accept no excuses, lame or otherwise appealing: Lileks Screedblog for yesterday is a MUST READ. There will be a test (you just won’t see it coming… 🙂

A sample, please? OK. But understand, you need the context, and you’ll simply have to read the whole thing to get that.

“Why PBS threatens their intellect.” Whoa! You nailed me there; I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve switched the channel ‘cause I cain’t tell what that dang Miss Marple’s saying. (And why’s she a miss, huh? She wunna dem lesbeens?) It’s possible that one could oppose public funding of PBS because it could survive on its own by appealing to the rich yeasty demographic slice that likes it; it’s possible one could argue that the very idea of state-funded TV is more like, oh, the Soviet Union, the Nazis and Pol Pot’s regime, but I wouldn’t do that. It’s possible that one might wonder if PBS would be beloved by Mr. Schram if it pumped out the O’Reilly Factor 24/7, with occasional station breaks for Marine Band concerts. In that case, one suspects that state-funded TV with mandatory citizen contributions would be a sign of creeping fascism. And one might also note that cable TV has offerings that delight the PBS-inclined viewer, 24/7, and rather than fight for dimes and pennies for PBS, Congress might well use its regulatory power to break up the tier system that keeps people from subscribing only to the smarter channels on cable. These things are possible.

In which I am properly chastened by words from one who is wiser than I…

Would I campaign against changes to California law restricting the right of cities to take property and hand it to private developers? Tooth and nail, war to the knife; but I still do not understand why this is a Federal matter.

“Incorporation of the Bill of Rights” is the justification given. It is clear that the Civil War Ammendments did not intend to incorporate the Bill of Rights into rights to be enforced against the states by the federal courts; they specifically empower Congress to enforce them by appropriate legislation. But Congress doesn’t always act. So when Congress doesn’t act why may the courts do it for them absent an Act of Congress?

And the answer, “Because it is so important, and this needs to be fought by any means necessary” is not a conservative answer. Where in the Constitution does it become a Federal matter? I am prepared to be enlightened on that because I would not at all mind seeing the Feds protecting private property rights (although I doubt they will). So what is the Constitutional issue here? What gives Federal Courts — not Congress, but the Courts — jurisdiction in this case at all? The Incorporation Doctrine has been responsible for a great deal of mischief and in my day Conservatives hated the whole idea. Wouldn’t we be better off if that incorporation were overturned, ended, rescinded, rather than being used by courts to thwart the will of the legislature of Connecticut? If you want protection for private property enforceable by US Marshals, pass an Act of Congress; don’t hand more power to the Courts. They’ll misuse it every time.

Jerry Pournelle nails it pretty well. I have railed often enough about courts creating law ex nihilo and the encroachment of Federal power, often through “incorporation” of Federal Constitutional restrictions and empowerments into State and local government (following after some very bad law issuing out of the so-called “Civil War Amendments”). Why then my outrage at the Supreme Communists of the United States for (irrationally, given their intrusion in other areas) upholding State and local powers in Kelo et al. v. City of New London?

Well, I guess I feel we’re in a Catch-22 situation: as a matter of fact (irrespective of Constitutional justification) the Feds, including the SCOTUS, can and do intrude into State law situations on a daily basis—whenever they wish.

• a puddle on an Iowa farm can be declared “navigable waters” and so a farmer can be jailed by feds for filling it in

• Federal courts can order local schools to do all manner of things abhorrant to the local residents, expensive things that do more harm than good (if any)

• people nationwide can be forced to flush twice (wasting water and still often not getting the “job” done) because some Feeb thinks it important to “save” water with low-flush toilets that don’t work

The list can go on as long as one wants to keep typing. The feebs already exercise, via phony expansion of the commerce clause, the “general welfare” clause and “incorporation of rights” rules far more power than the Founders and framers, in their wisdom, thought healthy for government to exercise.

But when it comes to protecting the bedrock of a democratic republic, provate property owned by citizens, the feebs refuse to meddle as they are happy to do in everything else.

Yes, I agree with Pournelle that this sort of land grabbing is best handled at the State and local level. And I’m pretty sure that such land grab attempts would go fly about as well as a lead balloon in my small town. Still… we live in the world we have. And the world we have is one where our Federal Gummint is far, far too intrusive and unresponsive to Constitutional restraints; where judges legislate from the bench (and legislatures and executives let them, instead of removing them for exceeding their authority); where local and state governments emulate the excessive power of the Federal Gummint.

What, short of Revolution, is the remedy?

Pournelle seems to suggest that more involvement in local politics is an answer—and I’d certainly agree it’s a good place to start. But what to do about the problem of both too much interference by the feebs in what often seems like most local issues and their inconsistent insistence on keeping their hands off in others?

Update (And I, like Randy Barnett said of his book, Restoring the Lost Constitution, would have led with this, had I seen it sooner :-): Justice Thomas, in his dissent on Kelo, said,

“Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.”

Oh? You think? *sigh*

I’ve been largely dissatisfied with Sandra O’Connor’s unpredictable performance in that Conspiracy of Dunces I now call the Supreme Communists of the United States but…

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing —
That side was made for you and me!

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;

On the sign it said NO TRESPASSING,

But on the other side it didn’t say nothing–

That side was made for you and me!

My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys
Originally uploaded by mnmus.

You may need a “fat pipe” to view this one… but it’s a good one. I had to wait almost a week before the server on their end wasn’t swamped with requests so I could view this.Turn your speakers on and watch

“My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys”

Dana, of Note-It Posts, has done a bang-up job with this week’s Carnival of the Recipes! Lotsa good stuff. Toodle on over there and just dig in if you haven’t already. If you’ve just dropped in from the Carnival post, stick around. Poke your nose in the fridge (there’s some leftover Cheeseburger Macaroni), re-arrange the furniture. Make yourself at home.

The Supreme Communists of the United States say private property… ain’t

“Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Despite years of intrusion into state issues, extending Constitutional guarantees to all levels of government and insisting on conformity in state laws to rights ennumerated at the federal level in all state and local—and even extra-governmental—venues; despite even the penchant of courts, and especially SCOTUS, for creating “rights” not ennumerated and imposing these on state and local governments; and despite the fact that Amendment V clearly and unequivocally states that private property cannot be taken for public use without “just compensation” the Supreme Communists have decided that YOUR land, YOUR home is up for grabs any time a local government wants to take it from YOU and sell (or give) it to another NON-public entity or person for PRIVATE PROPERTY usage, then that’s just fine and dandy (by a 5-4 margin) by the Supreme Communists of the United States.

Those are the plain unvarnished facts of the case the Supreme Communists decided the other day.

“High court approves seizure of property for private use

By MICHAEL DOYLE
June 22, 2005

Local governments can condemn private property and convert it to more profitable private use, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In one of the most closely watched cases of the year, the court, by a 5-4 margin, extended the eminent domain powers that frequently incite controversy. It’s a marked victory for city planners and local officials over private property advocates….”

I am just *this close* (see the tiny gap between my thumb and forefinger?) to agreeing with Kim du Toit’s take on this:

Yesterday, with their disgusting, un-Constitutional ruling, the Supreme Court took the country further down that road to where the bullets will eventually, and with absolute certainty, begin to fly. So when some poor schmuck shoots a state employee driving a bulldozer, and people ask: “How did this tragedy happen?” you can just point towards the Supreme Court.

Say bye-bye to private property. And while you’re at it, kiss all your “unalienable rights” goodbye. When the government (or any of its agents) can take an ennumerated Constitutional right and define it out of existence (public use does NOT mean grab by politicians for use by another private entity, no matter how one twists one’s words), you no longer have rights; you have licenses that the government can remove from you.

Welcome to Zimbabwe.

Crossposted at Cathouse Chat.

Naturally, the Dems think the plain truth is “divisive”…

“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, “I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.”

Defining the terms

“Mean, vicious, devisive” are terms the loony left moonbats throw around when talking about political campaigns or behaviors that they don’t like. Here’s a look at what those terms mean when coming from the Loony Left Moonbat Briagde and their allies in the Mass Media Podpeoples’ Army.

“Mean” and “vicious” are terms applies by the LLMB and MMPA to any political speech that truthfully refers to actual facts of LLMB and MMPA past (or present) behaviors, their candidates’ actual words or actions, actual, verifiable facts that directly and overwhelmingly refute false claims made by LLMB, the MMPA and their candiadtes [sic]. In their eyes, facts (past comments on the record, voting record, etc.) that accurately reflect the views of their candidates are “personal attacks” and verifiable facts (actual real numbers about economy, budgets, etc) that contradict their candidates’ talking points are “divisive.”

So, now you know. It’s pretty safe, given the record of actual distortion and outright baldfaced lies about “vicious attacks” and “divisiveness” that any time you hear those terms coming from the LLMB and the MMPA you can pr[e]tty much automatically assume the opposite is true.

Daughter home last weekend, initially just passing through on the way to first job after grad school, turned out to be more involved than that. Wanted some childhood memories, comfort food…

Cheeseburger Macaroni

This is another “process, notarecipe” recipe. Ingredients (more or less) and some prep. Get creative with this.

Ingredients

• 1.5-2C uncooked macaroni

• 1Lb hamburger or ground chuck

• ¼ Lb Velveeta (yep: it’s just for this, or maybe nachos in a pinch 🙂

• 1 can tomato soup concentrate

Preparation

• Cook the macaroni; you oughta know how to boil water by now.

• While the mac is cooking, crumble and fry the meat. Season with Salt n pepper.

• When the meat and mac are done, combine them in the frying pan with the tomato soup concentrate. Top with the Velveeta, sliced.

• Simmer it a while, then stir in the Velveeta and serve it up.

UPDATE: Yeh, Dana, of Note-It Posts, has done a bang-up job with this week’s Carnival of the Recipes! Lotsa good stuff. Toodle on over there if you haven’t already. If you’ve just dropped in from the Carnival post, stick around. Poke your nose in the fridge, re-arrange the furniture. Make yourself at home.

Welcome Alliance folks! Kick your combat boots off (I know you got ’em from Mom, but they ain’t that special :-), grab a beer and make yourself comfortable.

Note this, please: a personal request for help (for someone else)

Now, on to the main event!

How should the White House respond to incredibly stupid accusations at press conferences?

This Precision Guided Humor Assignment grew out of a comment by Walter Wallis in Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor in Perspective Current Mail.

I think his answer to the question above has merit (recruit Ann Coulter and John Bolton to work together answering such press conference accusations), but we need to flesh it out a bit.

Wallis also suggests green goo or slime for the worst offenders. Maybe. But I think a more general approach would be best.

Deciding which accusations merited green goo would simply be too complex and time-consuming, and surely some Mass Media Podpeople would complain, “Why didn’t Helen Thomas get slimed like I did? She’s always rude and idiotic! It’s not fair!”

57 Coulter-queen-hearts

In the service of both fairness and efficiency, I say give Ann Coulter a Queen of Hearts costume and let her have at it:

The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting `Off with his head!’ or `Off with her head!’ about once in a minute.

–Lewis Caroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Let John Bolton wield the axe.

I think that a few such White House press corpses might have a salutary effect on the White House press corps.

Of course, at first, “once in a minute” wouldn’t be a high enough frequency, but, sadly, things would settle down after a while, as Mass Media Podpeople began learning their manners—most for the first time in their lives.

Next? The floor of the Senate…

🙂

So, what do you think of the Anti Flag-burning Amendment that was approved by the House today by a 286-130 vote?

Yes, I know it faces a fairly steep climb through the Senate, then a 3/4 passage by the states. Still, it won a pretty clear passage in the House, and “Red” states seem likely to approve it. So, its effects could be felt within a couple of years.

A couple of points of clarification, in case the Mass Media Podpeople haven’t been all that clear (although the AP seems to be playing this one pretty straight, so far). The amendment (H.J. Res 10) would simply give Congress the authority to make flag desecration (not just burning) illegal.

Expect the usual suspects to crawl out of the woodwork crying wolf about First Amendment rights. *yawn*

IN PARTICULAR: expect the ACLU to continue its fight to defeat this amendment.

Yes, I am well aware that society in general and some very stupid judges and justices (SCOTUS in particular) have made some crazy and idiotic rulings about the free speech clause of the First Amendment, stretching the Framers’ words and plain, clearly-expressed intent to ridiculous lengths. People have come to view the First Amendment as meaning “freedom of expression”—whatever that means: grunts and squeals and urine in a jar, no doubt.

And yes, I am well aware of the ACLU’s disingenuous espousal of the idea the “expression” in all its varied and usually offensive and non-political and inarticulate grunts and squeals is equivalent to speech.

I say, grow up. The Framers’ clear, expressed and openly published intent with the First Amendment was to protect religious speech and behavior, political speech; political and social commentary in the press and free association assembly for religious and political purposes. All the fru-fru the courts have added have created a sense of entitlement among subliterates and lazy thinkers who now feel that burning a flag is equivalent to writing The Declaration of Independence.

Bullhockey. Let them say or write something intelligible, something sensible (heh—I just heard Macbeth say, “Art thou not, fatal vision sensible to feeling as to sight?” Rabbit trail…). THAT is protected as free speech or free press. Grunting and screaming like animals around a blazing piece of cloth is not speech; it is not writing. Let them proceed beyond expressions of indeterminate meaning to making sense. That’s what the Framers were talking about. This “free expression” B.S. is just that, and a relatively new invention at that.

“… modern free-speech protections were largely the work of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis, who were generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court on most issues; of FDR’s liberal appointees to the Court; and of the notoriously liberal Warren Court…” —Eugene Volokh, “First Myths” NRO, January 05, 2004

So, I simply pay no attention to the moonbats who claim unlimited free expression as their right under the First Amendment. What one or more courts can create ex nihilo, another court can dissolve.

But what, specifically, of this amendment? Firstly, this country’s flag is a symbol of all of the highest and best of the Framers’ intent, of the blood and toil and sweat and tears of generations of patriots who have been willing to “pay any price, bear any burden” that we might live free… if we will. Regardless of political belief or conviction, such a symbol has always enjoyed extraordiary protections in civilized lands. That the barbarians are no longer at the gate but integral to our society is evidenced in the fact that some feel dishonoring the symbol of so great a sacrifice by so many is their right.

It is not.

If they feel this country is doing wrong, they have the right to assemble and seek redress.

If they feel this country is doing wrong, they have the right to SPEAK their mind or persuade someone to publish their speech (or, today, to blog it–self-publish on a scale that would have blown ben Franklin’s mind).

But act like savages, like animals with unitelligible “expression” that has no meaningful content other than to scorn the sacrifice of multitudes who are better men and women than they could ever dream of being. Provided, of course, that they could dream in other than contentless “expression.”

[Oh, another rabbit trail: speech consists of some discrete, essential parts. Phonemes (sounds), syntax (structure) and semantics (meaning). Apparently some past SCOTUS members have been too uninformed to be able to discern the differences between “expression” and speech. Dimwits. Flag burning/desecration doesn’t even come close to speech.]

An amendment that might move, be it ever so slightly, away from the Warren court’s excesses: a Very Good Thing, IMO.

What say you?

Crossposted at Cathouse Chat Note: the <;a href="http://romeocat.typepad.com/">Cathouse Chat version of this post is mentioned at Danny Carlton’s JackLewis.net blog. Be sure to check his post Fiction and facts about flag-burning. A sample:

“James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, condemned flag burning as a crime. Thomas Jefferson agreed with Madison and made clear in his writings that “speech” in the First Amendment meant the spoken word, not expressive conduct. To say otherwise made freedom “of the press” a redundancy. In fact, the words “expression” and “expressive conduct” are not in the Bill of Rights, and for good reason. Activist judges have added them to the Constitution in order to promote their own political agenda.

Since our birth as a nation, we the people have exercised our right to protect our flag. This right has been confirmed by every Chief Justice of the United States and Justices on five Courts in the last century who denied that flag burning was “speech.” This fact is also confirmed by current constitutional experts, 70 percent of the Congress, the legislatures of all 50 states and more than three out of four Americans.”