We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 15. 2008
Photo: Artist's image of the new Gerald Ford Class.
George Mason has a new first year Law course, and it looks like good fun.
Should a Catholic university host a Clinton campaign event? Bainbridge
Govt benefits for seniors: Now up to $27,000/yr average
Dick Morris (who is frequently wrong) Why Hillary can't win
Eloquent and full of it: Clinton on Obama
Munger for Governor. I'd vote for that guy.
Are Americans ignorant? NYT
A reporter writes a ranting screed against amateur journalism
Does global warming cause ice in Antarctica? CSM. I am getting the message that it causes everything.
Double super secret backward reverse psychology.
Youth Courage Awards. It's not your grandpa's courage award.
Did you already read Henninger's take on Obama's basic negativity and pessimism?
Does stare decisis apply to Constitutional rights? How could it?
Rush on Rush. Althouse.
Why do the Brits hate free speech? Roger
Bill Quick wants a political party which entirely agrees with him. Doesn't everybody?
GM on GW, quoted in full from Insty:
From The presidential race at the cusp, by A Jacksonian:
Quote from No Looking Back:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
A Jacksonian's piece is a good one for explaining voting trends and coalition alignments and the necessity of having turnout and solidarity on the Republican side for victory in '08.
A key element also discussed and which I see having no remedy within sight for conservatives is their inability to govern once they have power. I'm not talking here about the diurnal running of the bureaucracy, I'm talking about the ability to deliver on the fundamental changes our system needs to back away from becoming an even larger leviathan.
The Reagan era produced few of the changes promised, such as doing away with the Dept of Education. The Contract with America help elect Republicans by the bushel , who then ran around like bedlamites unable to govern effectively. They never seemed to be able to bring the hammer down on the Democrats in a way necessary to crush them as a still robust party. The Republicans went along with a "hands across the aisle" and continued to have the hand gnawed on like a dog with a new bone.
Now we are faced with the SCOTUS nightmare, that could well become reality. That would make the stare decisis applied to Constitutional rights a moot point, for surly all of our "Rights" would be reinterpreted for the good of the state. The individual be damned.
We must win this one and move from the chrysalis of simply having power to the maturity of using that power. And in a fight with Socialists that means taking no prisoners whenever possible.
An article about the history of the "evil eye" and no mention of Fleegle?...Kids!
Henninger's take on Obama's basic negativity and pessimism ?
It fits in nicely with the review of Obamas first book and his continnuing searcch for a black identity....his own words.
Prior to his Senate life and Presidential run Obama did have a life. Apparently it was and remains one that is quite conflicted.
Try as we may like to keep race out of the loop, it is Obama who actually presents the greatest racial blow to his outwardly kumbaya personna.
Before penning his book "The Audacity of Hope" Barry (as he was known in high school) Obama wrote a tome of a deeply conflicted individual. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance , now out of print, is a book we need to know about, for it opens up the suave, oleaginous Obama for what he is, or tries to be, in his own words.
Thankfully writer Steve Sailor has read Dreams and gives us a look at what lies beneath the veneer of the gliding gangster strut and unctuous oratory..it is not pretty.
Some excerpts from Sailors review on Dreams:
-Obama’s gift for restructuring the past into emotionally and aesthetically satisfying patterns made for an uneasy hybrid of fact and fiction, with composite characters, clearly made-up dialogue, and even preposterous dream sequences.
- Obama has led a fairly pleasant existence, with most of its suffering and conflict taking place within his own head as he tries to turn himself into an authentic angry black man .
- Which Obama is real ? Or is that a naďve question to ask of such a formidable identity artist? William Finnegan wrote in the New Yorker of Obama’s campaigning: “… it was possible to see him slipping subtly into the idiom of his interlocutor—the blushing, polysyllabic grad student, the hefty black church-pillar lady, the hip-hop autoshop guy.” Like Madonna or David Bowie, he has spent his life trying on different personalities, but while theirs are, in Camille Paglia’s phrase, sexual personae, his specialty is racial personae
- A racial group is a large extended family, and Obama’s book is primarily about his rejection of his supportive white maternal extended family in favor of his unknown black paternal extended family .
- Instead, Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites . Reverend Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate . (The title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, is borrowed from one of Wright’s sermons.) Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: “This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.”
I could go and give many more examples that peel back the layers, but the Sailor piece is worth the read, and no cherry picking can do it justice. It is a powerful piece.
One thing it will do is cause you to ask yourself this question. Is this a man we can afford to have in the White House?
This is a must read article in the understanding of Obama
The stare decisis ABA's amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Here, I must admit I have not read it ,but let's just go with what we have here.
According to the ABA, the sanctity of stare decisis means that an explicit constitutional right should not be recognized today if it has been denied to citizens in the past.
If this is there argument I see a hole large enough to drive a big dump truck through (ok lame but you know, something BIG).
In "the past" the definition of a citizen was much more narrowly defined than today. Today you need to be born here of naturalized and have a pulse. Not so "in the past".
Citizens were adult ,land owning MEN only. So to examine, (and what they're attempting to do is manipulate laws they don't agree with), the stare decisis principle on the grounds they have defined is a loser right out of the gate.
But here again is an assault on our RIGHTS. Today's citizens must be made aware that they possess RIGHTS which the government may not alter under any circumstance. Hard as it is to stand before the full physical force of the government, that is what must be done to guard OUR RIGHTS...a pity too few understand.
Of course in my opinion one of our very first landmark cases,
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), establishing judicial review (never mentioned in the constitution or the Federalist Papers, or notes) destroyed the concept of three co-equal branches of government.
When five votes can overturn the Legislative and Executive Branches of government , something is wrong with that.
great illo -- that TU95 flying over the Nimitz @ 2000 ft just scares hell outta me. I mean, if a bad guy wanted to start something limited to our outposts, what better way than to sneak a training exersize over one of our mere dozen Carrier Battle Groups -- hell from 2000 feet an iron bomb would've deleted 9% of our naval air arm.
ha -- Evil Eye Fleegle, the 'double whammy' guy -- only Al Capp character not from Dogpatch -- the zoot-suiter was from Brooklyn -- heh -- anti-Yankee bias. Al Capp visited us at the Beta house in Austin way back when -- i'll never forget it. "The" Al Capp! Subversive par excellence --
Algore was at the UN, leading the charge against people cooking, heating, driving, flying and living near the beach. Save. Us. Algore. End all those jobs now.
Climate change could be the next subprime meltdown
Most companies unprepared for effects
Janet Whitman, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, February 14, 2008
NEW YORK -- Another subprime-mortgage-meltdown-sized risk could be looming for investors: global warming.
That alarm was sounded Thursday at an investor summit at the United Nations headquarters, at which 480 investors, pension fund leaders and corporate executives from around the globe were warned that the vast majority of companies are ill-prepared for the Earth's changing climate.
Many oil producers, utilities and manufacturing plants have yet to factor in the added expense if the United States - as is expected in the next few years - imposes caps on carbon-dioxide emissions. Similarly, many companies with big real-estate holdings in U.S. coastal regions haven't calculated their exposure to increased tropical storms and rising seas.
Most of the financial institutions that lend to these companies and the insurance companies that protect them also have yet to adequately consider how they might get burned.
"It's like subprime mortgages...one of longest kept secrets of uncalculated risk," said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups, which co-hosted yesterday's event. "By not acting on climate change...we face the same kind of [risks] with what we're seeing in subprime."
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for bringing attention to the issue of climate change, echoed that theme as keynote speaker, urging investors to dump any assets they hold in businesses that are heavily reliant on carbon-intensive energy - or risk losing a ton of money down the road.
"You need to really scrub your investment portfolios, because I guarantee you...that if you really take a fine-tooth comb and go through your portfolios, many of you are going to find them chock-full of "subprime" carbon assets," Mr. Gore said according to an Associated Press report of the speech, which was closed to the press.
Similar to betting on subprime mortgages given to people with bad credit histories, "the assumption that you can safely invest in assets that come from business models that assume carbon is free is an assumption that is about to go splat," Mr. Gore added.
Wall Street is starting to catch on. This month, a group of big U.S. banks said lending for coal-fired power plans would hinge on utilities demonstrating they'd be economically viable under a crackdown on emissions.
Nevertheless, many companies remain oblivious to the risks, panelists at the summit said.
yep, good old Al -- my coal stocks (MEE & BTU) are down nicely, about 5% each, as we speak.
Not. Good. It is freakin freezin and Algore is nibbling away at my retirement. Oh well.) February can be a cruel month. Need a heat wave. The Valentine candy hearts reminded me of this one.) Yeah, yeah.
Martha Reeves And The Vandellas - Heatwave
Habu, y'all should read ABA's amicus brief before driving your truck into a ditch again.
It's a fun ride, ya'll's truck.
Marshal court's was a unanimous decision of 4 on Marbury v. Madison and upheld Legislaure Act against Executive refusal to apply the law.
Might want to read that one, too.
Bob Luntze is right. Global warming IS a Crock. But, Crude Oil Production DID peak in May, of 2005; so, bring on the Volt (and, anything else ya got.) And, Hurry, dangit.
good point -- it's a damn shame two different issues have gotten mixed & blended in the public mind. AGW yes or no, cheap oil over with yes, period. exclamation point.
I'm afraid you just don't understand. But keep at it. BTW I am not a lawyer but did take four Constitutional Law classes at the senior and post graduate level...wanna guess what my grade was in all four classes?
The condescension is greatly appreciated as it magnifies the depth you desperately need while providing a mirthful note to your offering.
You could help me out by pointing to the section of the Constitution that established the right of the Judicial Branch to void laws made by the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Executive Branch. Thanks.
A Jacksonian's points are well taken but fall into the common journalist/ beltway insider shorthand about "control" of branches of government. A 55-45 Senate for either party is not "control," because there are moderates, defectors, and sleazebags who can be bought in both parties. Though conservatives have made some inroads, there has not been a conservative congress in my lifetime. Nor do I project one anytime soon.
It is fair to jump all over Republicans who defect but owe their elections to the renewed efforts of conservatives. But not accomplishing what conservatives would like is not a fair overall criticism. They haven't had the votes, plain and simple. Ever.
All that eddication and y'all are asking me?
Real humor is provided by y'all's truck driving without glasses.
If ya had read the brief you wouldn't have missed the big hole and ended in the ditch.
The concept of building a 'Big Tent' Republican party is that all the factions join in for the commonly held understandings and to address factional needs. If political parties are not to reflect their supporters, then what good are they?
That is a social compact made to have political parties: work for the common and agreed-upon agenda that brings disparate groups together. If one is seeking power purely for party basis and not for the agreed-upon agenda then the party had best say so. The mainline party support has not been to that agenda and the number of incumbents who have been Upon the Hill for decades and now seek to 'remain in power' and use the power of Congress to do that is no better and, indeed, far worse than the pandering of the Democratic party as the Republicans espoused a higher set of ideals to remove that capability from government.
It is very strange to have a 'reform candidate' a third time around who has not only not accomplished the simlpest of reforms by addressing them to the body he is elected to but who, instead, turns on the People to restrict them first. The simplest thing to do is not to seek a law but to reform the ethics rules of the house in question, being the Senate, which requires a grand total of a majority vote to do so. If a Senator cannot lobby those in his own party and those that have been bitten by corruption scandals to reform their own ways, then what are the chances a more wide-ranging bill turned into law can be adhered to when administered by outsiders?
That is not asking for the majority of the American People to support you: that is asking for 50 other individuals, the majority of which are in your own Party, to do so.
The broader goals of the Party, if their elected officials who have had the majority in both Houses, cannot abide by the Party's views then are breaking with the Party. They should be forming their own Party instead of being hypocrites inside one they have firm, substantive and deep disagreements with on the subject of governing. When a political party does not meet the broader goals that it had to form to get those seats and those that are in the party see that, they will not put party before Nation if they do believe the goals of the party are the best for the Nation.
If the party is not made to accomplish those goals set to it by its members then something is seriously wrong with it as an organization: it is now seeking power for the basis of the few within it elected to high office and not the support of those who backed them. Saying the opposite gets you individuals like the Clintons and Obama in the long run - individuals out for their own agendas and twisting the party to their own needs via identity politics. Which, given the class warfare views of its current leading candidate, is just what is happening.
And doing that in both parties has turned off a percentage of the population that has starkly grown since 1968 because the parties have come to stand for their identity politicians and not for underlying ideologies of what is best for the Nation. That is at the point where democracy, itself, as a system to validate the views of the people are not only suspect, but are now reflecting the will of a rather delimited set of minoritarian views that no longer see the good of the Nation as primary to getting themselves elected to power. What is highly worrying is that this was described during the founding era by such as Federal Farmer Nos. 3 and 17, Luther Martin's Address No. 4, and even in the outcomes by Maryland Farmer Essay VII. Their views on what happens when civil society, republics and democracies break down across all of the founding generation are stark.
It is too bad we are repeating those mistakes. By putting party ahead of power and division ahead of the common good.