Tuesday, April 22. 2008
Bitterness oozing out of them, in photo above: small-town Americans on April 19 The songs of past Earth Days Bill Cosby: This is how we lost to the white man St. George gets the ax News should neither be fair nor balanced Obama's plan for NASA A moron speaks: "No-one told us" that we bought at the top. Tiger The new Willy Horton ad
 From the Peoples' Cube:
Now that the idea of social awareness and class struggle has reached American pulpits, it was only a matter of time before progressive historical revisionism left its academic confines and flooded the nation's churches, raising consciousness of the worshiping masses and prompting them to re-evaluate archaic concepts of "faith," "freedom," and "morality." Armed with the winning theory of class struggle, more and more oppressed churchgoers are finding the courage to speak out against violations of human rights in the ancient world, and indeed against the entire litany of "traditional" "conceptions" based on the "Bible" and its "teachings." In this sense, the conference of religious leaders and scholars from around the world, titled "From Security to Homelessness: Moses and the Renegade Exodus of the Hebrews" was the first major event of its kind, focusing on Moses' fraudulent activities and the resulting major humanitarian disaster called the Exodus. Convened at the Cathedral of the Victim Trinity in Chicago just before the Easter and Passover holidays, the confab manifested itself as a global showcase of progressive religious studies.
Read the whole thing. (Image from the piece.)
From Kudlow, in Why Not Blame Obama?: In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a schoolteacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Mr. Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Mr. Obama’s cap-gains tax increase. This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It’s another cultural misstep by Mr. Obama. I can’t help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.
Kudlow makes the point that we have made many times here: the American socio-cultural Middle Class - if any such thing exists - spans family annual incomes between $40,000 - 200,000. Plumbers in my village make $200,000 if they work hard and will show up on weekends. My gunsmith charges $175/hr (but he gives me a break if a job takes too long), and his wife works for the town.
What is Constitutional and What is Unconstitutional in Eminent Domain? FindLaw, a web-based subscriber source of legal materials, gives us some details on the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes: “The Supreme Court has approved generally the widespread use of the power of eminent domain by federal and state governments in conjunction with private companies to facilitate urban renewal, destruction of slums, erection of low-cost housing in place of deteriorated housing, and the promotion of aesthetic values as well as economic ones.”
The principles applied by The Supreme Court in Kelo go back as far as 1810 when in Custiss v. Georgetown and Alexandria Turnpike Co, the Court stopped a district court from interfering with the taking of private land for a private turnpike. Similar cases are Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905) (a water ditch), and Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power, 240 U.S. 30 (1916) (power company). In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) the Supreme Court states, “The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.”
All these cases, however, are united by a principal of the courts deferring to the decisions of the legislatures as to what constitutes public use, or “public convenience and necessity”, the criteria for eminent domain. Elsewhere in Connecticut, a vast swathe of central Stamford was taken by eminent domain for urban redevelopment purposes by the Frank Rich Company, and Stamford was transformed in terms of economic growth, employment and culture. It hosts the US headquarters of UBS (with the largest trading floor in the world) and UBS is about to be joined by the Royal Bank of Canada’s headquarters, and there are so many jobs that people commute 90 minutes or more to work there. It was tough on the homeowners in central Stamford, but a great boon to the public at large. Justice O’Connor’s dissent in Kelo distinguishes Berman by its slum removal goal; public use in her view was not just building something to create an economic resurrection of an area of Washington, it also got rid of some nasty ugly old buildings.
However, note that Kelo really makes no change in judging the Constitutionality of a taking; it will continue to be determined by someone’s definition of “public use”. The SCOTUS majority chose to defer to the local representatives of the public in this case. This is a step back from the Court’s recent activist role, and I think it is healthy. When an issue before a court revolves around interpretation by individual decision makers of whether a proposed use of land is or is not public enough, I favor deferring to the “boots on the ground”, the local authorities. Arch-liberal Edward Lazarus actually makes my point:
“Conservatives have managed successfully to equate the term ‘activism’ with all controversial or unpopular judicial decisions. Indeed, they have even managed to take uncontrovertibly non-activist decisions and label them activist. A prime example is the Court's controversial decision in Kelo v. New London, in which the Court refused to strike down New London's decision to use the power of eminent domain to take private property and give it over to a private developer. Now, many reasonable criticisms have been leveled against the Kelo decision (though it is also powerfully defended). But one thing is certain: the decision is the very opposite of activist. Kelo is a decision refusing to impose a judicial check on the judgment of New London's elected officials. If anything, the decision is excessively passive. None of this, however, stops conservatives from tarring the decision with the activist label.”
Continue reading "A reply to some of our readers, and more on Kelo and eminent domain"
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain
An intercepted Al Qaida strategy letter, in Iraq (h/t, Belmont) We have Pallywood - now Lhasawood Watch how this NYT writer slips global warming into the article - with no evidence Adidas vs. Puma: A story of two brothers (h/t, Wall St. Fighter) Deck of Weasels playing cards Chicago: Ban guns once again? The rich and their taxes. (h/t, Flares) Yo ho ho. Pirates as a victim class Mookie mocked by a girl Obama is the media's man. John Fund Al Gore: The wealthy don't need to save the planet. Just the "little people," I guess. Poll presented as if it were data. Idiotic. Not a soul on earth can say how much oil we have. I always liked Michael Pollan, but this morally-agonized piece in the NYT just fills me with pity for him. He's a putz. The Ayers story gathers steam. As it should. Help! I'm a snob like Obama. Micky Kaus
 After a short visit to the US, David is returning to Italy.
Monday, April 21. 2008
...and other fun historical trivia from the Early Modern Carnivalisque
The comments on this Mormon fundy polygamy piece are pretty good. So what's the issue? Polygamy? Or the under-age marriages? Or the arranged marriages (which are not illegal at all)? Moslems quietly practice polygamy in the US without being hassled. Single teen-age pregnancy is of epidemic proportions in the US, so why is teen pregnancy within marriage worse? I am confused, not about the moral issues, but about the legal issues.
 Coming soon to your town.
This could be some competition for Dunkin Donuts. I like the red bandana idea.
From the Wiki entry: "Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions." The notion of Anchoring Bias comes from Cognitive Psychology, not from Logic. I suppose it could be a fancy way of saying that sometimes we cannot see the forest for a single tree, and are thus "prevented" from considering all of the relevant facts or options. This sort of cognitive bias typically operates, as do most biases, unconsciously or reflexively, as a gravitational pull towards some decision or reaction. A true example (but not an unconscious one, from the Mrs., on considering what new car to buy): "It just has to be the right shade of maroon." Another example, reported to me by a pediatrician friend: "I ordered a brain MRI ($800) for a 10 year-old kid with tension headaches. Totally unnecessary, and I realized afterwards that I did it because I had read a journal article over the weekend about an undiagnosed brain tumor in a 10 year-old." Thus, like most fallacies and biases, it's part of the brain's effort to be efficient or persuasive in its heuristics by tossing out an anchor on one detail (ouch - that's bad writing), and often might, but doesn't always, lead to the most realistic choices. As we learn more about how our brains make decisions outside of our awareness, being aware of, and being able to monitor, the shortcuts our brains take should serve us well. I could not resist this free association, having recently learned that "Anchors Aweigh" was written in 1906 to be a swinging football song (which it is):
Protectionism is a policy built on the premise that consumers exist to satisfy producers. Cafe Hayek
I am always years behind the curve when it comes to techy stuff. I have no desire for XM or Sirius radio, but I do like to be able to listen to some of the classical music stations across the country on iTunes radio. I am listening to WQXR today as I stumble through a mountain of annoying paperwork. Now I need one of those Squeezeboxes so I can run the cable radio through some decent speakers.
Quoted from a piece on tax hypocrisy at Lonely Centrist: FDR repeatedly claimed that he was exempt from the high tax rates on personal income that Congress had enacted -- and Roosevelt had approved -- in the revenue acts of 1934 and 1935.
In a series of letters to internal revenue officials, Roosevelt insisted that he could not be taxed at the heavy rates imposed on rich taxpayers during the mid-1930s. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution forbids any reduction in the president's compensation during his term in office, Roosevelt pointed out. Since the new rates enacted in 1934 and 1935 effectively reduced that compensation, they could not be applied to the president's salary.
As Leona Helmsley famously said (before she was indicted), "Paying taxes is for the little people."
 Gwynnie thinks that Maggie’s readers in the northeastern United States must without hesitation get themselves to the New Britain Museum of American Art before June 29 to see the current exhibit “All Things Bright and Beautiful: California Impressionist Paintings from the Irvine Museum”.
The New Britain’s brilliant director, Douglas Hyland, has put together yet another fabulous show at this gem of a museum.
As quoted from a piece at SDA: Wind power is a toy anywhere; it isn't dependable, and it's even more diffuse than solar. Both of them are boondoggles designed to separate you from your tax money and give power to the bureaucrats who "manage" the projects. People who tell you otherwise are lying, and the only thing the numbers they give you establish is that liars can figure.
When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred. Niccolo Machiavelli
 Has Al Gore failed? Tiger
Coyote loves his Squeezebox Mankiw on income inequality Why plants are green Borneo Pigmy Elephant update The "Why bother?" societies, via Blue Crab: A British think tank has issued a report that shows that high taxes, an entitlement mentality and poor education are sapping the British populace and turning the nation into a "why bother" culture.
In memoriam: Tibet Is this for real? Why am I skeptical? Driscoll begins: Mark Steyn notes that, pace Obama, guns and God, and proper respect for both, are what make Red State America a much healthier--and sustainable--place than the Biggest Blue State of 'em all: Europe. Steyn writes, "In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God’n’guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion":
WSJ: Gun owners are happier people Brussels commands Scots to pipe down Straight talk about casual sex. Am Thinker Virtue by default. David Thompson Woman turns 115 Carnival of the Insanities at Dr. Sanity
 Some say P.J.O'Rourke is the new Mark Twain; but of course I'm the new Mark Twain so that can't be. He is the new Mencken, at least, or as fierce as Bierce, surely. I can't tell if he's lazy or smart --I imagine it's both-- because he almost never writes anything. He certainly never writes anything not worth reading.
Somebody at the Weekly Standard and the Defense Department got the bright idea to send him out on the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, and he didn't go up the gangplank to get on, either. If this doesn't explain John McCain to you, you're beyond explaining, and should just pull the lever for the empty suit or the empty pantsuit right now and get it over with. Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"
Some people say John McCain isn't conservative enough. But there's more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?
Read: 24 Hours on the "Big Stick"
Sunday, April 20. 2008
The Pope's Mass, at Yankee Stadium, via the miracle of TV. Wonderful. For us Protestants, it is always a wonder and a privilege to experience a formal RC Mass, and Benedict's homily about obedience was simple, and just right. Benedict is an evangelist.
I am ashamed that we were so distracted by April fishing that we missed Patriot's Day yesterday. Rick Moran covers Paul Revere, and Jules covered several first-person accounts of that first skirmish of the war. Wish I could say that my Yankee ancestors were among the rebels, but they probably were not. Best we can tell, approx. 1/3 of the colonies' population sympathised with the rebels, 1/3 were on the fence, and 1/3 were hard-core Tories. I am not aware of any Revolutionary War veteran ancestors. The Farm itself in Massachusetts, if you recall from earlier posts, was a land grant to my family from King George, and we remain thankful for that - but not ambivalent about our revolution because of its elevation of the idea of individual freedom from the power of The State.
(Thanks, Buddy)
 Our News Junkie linked to a long and carefully researched property rights article in American Thinker. It is an eloquent complaint about the Kelo decision where pursuant to Connecticut law private homes were taken through eminent domain for (private) redevelopment. We hear this line of complaint frequently and have two reservations about it. First, the United States has a long history of allowing private land to be taken and turned over or sold to for-profit corporations. If this could not have been done, there could never have been any railroads in the country that were not public agencies. Can the dear reader even imagine an economic development of the US interior by Conrail and Amtrak? Second, and more important, is that the US Supreme Court in its Kelo decision merely decided to defer to state law. How many times do we conservatives complain when the Court overturns yet another state law for a newly discovered but unwritten federal “right”? If we in Connecticut do not like our eminent domain law which was passed by a majority of our state legislators and signed by our governor, we have a legislative solution and should not be rushing to Federal courts to ask that our legislature be overruled! Just think about the number of times we have been furious that the Anointed Nine in Washington have overturned yet another long-standing state law for transgressing yet another unwritten right, and shout, write or (now) blog the words of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” We have to confront a serious question: is our concern for states’ rights limited to state actions of which we approve? If so, we must then accept our hypocrisy and join the liberals in acknowledging that having an end result we like is more important than the legal niceties of getting there, and watch as the Age of the Rule of Law comes to an end. Photo: Our recently-new Maggie's Farm contributor Kondratiev. We are fortunate to have such an eminent fellow on board. He meets our criteria, which are that he can shoot, write grammatically most of the time, and plow a straight furrow on our CT tobacco farm, with two cranky mules.
|
