Category: Ranting

I can’t wait to read the new Google searches

Who knew America could offer such overwhelming concern for our culture? Consider:

The Internet’s key oversight agency agreed Tuesday to a one-month delay in approving a new “.xxx” domain name after the U.S. government cited “unprecedented” opposition to a virtual red-light district.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, had stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] to “ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered.”

The department received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it, he said.

Wow, 6,000 letters from 300 million Americans. That’s a lot. It’s good to know so many (probably) one group cares so much. And wants the rest of us to understand so little.

Oppose porn? Fine, oppose it. But answer this simple question: why would porn sites convert to ‘.xxx’? That would allow the porn filters to block them with one simple edit to the filter. Ah, but the 6,000 concerned Americans know this, I would think. Perhaps not.

“Pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain. The .xxx domain will increase, not decrease, porn on the internet,” [Family Research Council] said.

This is a blatant scare tactic. Hide the women and children, the porn is taking over. Except, as I’ve just stated, internet filters exist. Add ‘.xxx’ to the filter criteria and, although the porn has increased, the user’s exposure has not. This isn’t about families being exposed to more porn. If that were the case, the Family Research Council would have no opinion. Instead, it’s about access to porn by willing adults. The FRC essentially spelled this out in its press release.

“Selling hard core pornography on the internet is a violation of federal obscenity law so the Bush Administration is right to oppose the ‘.XXX’ domain. The Bush Administration should not, in any way, be seen to facilitate the porn industry which has been a plague on our society since the establishment of the internet. The ‘.XXX’ domain proposal is an effort to pander to the porn industry and offers nothing but false hope to an American public which wants illegal pornographers prosecuted, not rewarded.

“The ‘.XXX’ domain was never intended to force the porn industry to leave the ‘.com’ domain, which has been a cash cow for pornographers. Indeed, any law attempting to force pornographers to relocate to ‘.XXX’ would be constitutionally suspect and not likely to be effective. Instead, if the ‘.XXX’ domain were established pornographers would keep their lucrative ‘.com’ commercial sites and expand to even more sites on ‘.XXX,’ thus becoming even more of a menace to society. Pornography violates the dignity of the women and men involved, destroys marital bonds, and pollutes the minds of child and adult consumers.

“The Family Research Council supports Attorney General Gonzales’ major new prosecution initiative against the porn industry, announced in May. We are confident of his determination and of his ultimate success. The pornographers, instead of expanding their presence on the internet, would be well advised to get out of business all together right now before they are called to court to answer for their crimes.”

A few quick observations.

— I have no idea if selling hardcore pornography is illegal, but the claim seems dubious, at best. I suspect it has more to do with what the pornography depicts.

— The American public wants “illegal” pornographers prosecuted. What about the legal pornographers? And I suppose those 6,000 letters constitute the American public. And the billions of dollars spent on pornography are clearly stolen from customers.

— Why bother to (unconstitutionally) force pornographers to switch from ‘.com’ if their businesses are illegal? Wouldn’t it make more sense to shut them down and prosecute them? Or is that also constitutionally suspect?

— Who’s to say porn violates the dignity of the women and men involved? I tend to agree, but I acknowledge that as opinion, not fact. If you make a statement like that, prove it.

— If the pornographers are committing crimes right now, how will getting out of the business prevent them from being “called to court to answer for their crimes”? If I embezzle money, but stop before being caught, am I no longer eligible for prosecution?

Technology is robust enough to block the overwhelming majority of porn from Generic Internet User’s computer. Install a firewall and anti-spyware software and, with minimum diligence, porn will not sneak up and expose itself to Generic Internet User. It really is that simple. If Generic Internet User is an ignorant Ludditte, learning how to protect his computer is the solution.

But groups like Family Research Council aren’t interested in that. Without pretending that the threat is scary, overwhelming, and pervasive, they wouldn’t gain sufficient political clout to pursue their true objective of Puritan nanny-statism. Instead of working to show porn consumers how it’s a detriment to a happy, productive life, groups like the FRC seek governmental control over the actions of all. We can have any freedom we want, as long as no one is against it.

Is the idea of freedom and personal responsibility really as dead as it seems?

Will it perform a lobotomy on you?

Overheard in PETsMART last night:

Woman: Did you buy the equipment?

Man: Yes.

Woman: But it cost like $450. You paid for it?

Man: I didn’t pay for it; the U.S. government paid for it.

Hey, guy, guess what? You did pay for it. So did I, which is not cool. You may think that passing it onto the government is a convenient way to “avoid” the burden yourself, but if you haven’t noticed, there’s a rather ginormous national debt that’s going nowhere but up. That debt didn’t just appear because the U.S. government bought one too many bullets 75 years ago. So, on behalf of everyone who will never get to use your machine, allow me to tell you to stop being a leech.

P.S. You owe me $0.0000018. I accept PayPal. Thank you.

People can be so base

This story is “interesting”. Consider:

The science and business of sex identification took yet another quantum leap forward recently with the Pregnancystore.com’s release of the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit. Now, a pregnant woman can know her child’s sex shortly after she discovers her pregnancy. As soon as five weeks after conception, she can prick her finger, FedEx a blood sample to Acu-Gen Biolab in Lowell, and have the sex of her sprouting embryo e-mailed to her faster than Netflix can send her next movie.

Seems like a nice, harmless little bonus for horribly impatient people, right? That’s what I thought, until I read further, discovering one potential issue I hadn’t, and hopefully never would have, thought of. Consider:

Ultrasound and amniocentesis cannot accurately determine a fetus’s sex until at least four months into pregnancy and sometimes not until month five — a point at which virtually all expecting mothers have already chosen to continue their pregnancies to term. Since the state has no legal interest in a fetus before its viability (usually at 24 weeks), there has been a legal and technological gulf separating a woman’s choice to continue her pregnancy and any knowledge of its sex.

This is no longer the case. With the Gender Mentor Kit, a new issue enters many prospective parents’ minds: Do we want to have a child of this sex? Or should we try again?

Just what the hell is wrong with people? I understand that some cultures value male children more than female children, but, and this is an important point, we’re not supposed to be one of them. Any couples who want to choose the sex of their children should keep their zippers up and adopt.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh… This topic is too disgusting; I have nothing more to say.

(Source)

Manicure his picture on the White House lawn, instead

Who elected Representative Henry Bonilla mayor of Washington, D.C.? Either I missed the report or he possesses an elephantine pair of testicles. Unfortunately, they’re located where a brain should be. Consider:

A Republican congressman from South Texas has proposed renaming 16th Street NW as Ronald Reagan Boulevard.

Rep. Henry Bonilla, co-chairman of the 2000 and 2004 Republican national conventions, quietly introduced the 106-word resolution before Congress adjourned for summer recess July 28.

How is this an appropriate use of congressional efforts? Many local D.C. politicians are publicly mad, as they should be. They’ve pointed out that Rep. Bonilla’s stupid plan would mar the street plan for the District. It would also cost the city $1 million to “alter maps and signs”. Who’s going to pay for that? Certainly not the citizens Rep. Bonilla claims to represent, unless, of course, he recommends that we use federal money to pay for the change.

I know President Reagan is an American icon. That’s wonderful. But, wielding Congressional power in an effort to change street names in a city in which he’s not the elected mayor and isn’t even in his Congressional district isn’t a traditionally Republican value. I suspect President Reagan would not have fought for such nonsense, so I doubt he would be honored by this waste. Also, the deification of President Reagan needs to stop. Now. It’s unbecoming of a nation with a respect for representative government and the notion that all men are created equal. George Washington knew this in the 18th century. Why should President Reagan be different?

The most surprising fact in this, though, is this little tidbit from Congressman Loose Cannon&#153. Consider:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee with jurisdiction over Bonilla’s legislation, called it “ridiculous” and said he would put it in the “appropriate file,” according to a report on radio station WTOP’s Web site that was distributed by Davis aides.

Davis noted that Congress has renamed Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and dedicated the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on Pennsylvania Avenue NW. “If Congressman Bonilla wants to name anything else, he has to look at his own district in San Antonio,” Davis said.

Criticizing Rep. Davis verges on sport for me, but I’m happy to offer him praise on this. Here, he’s acting as a responsible elected official, weeding out nonsense on our behalf. I can offer nothing less than a genuine “Well done.”

(Hat tip: Frank Foer, guest-blogging at AndrewSullivan.com)

Any idea why I live outside the Beltway?

I’ve only given a cursory interest in the ongoing “scandal” about whether or not Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. Honestly, I’d love to see Karl Rove booted from any sort of influence, but please, do I need to spell it out for the stupid? Consider:

“I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration,” Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer’s name, Bush replied: “Yes.” On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed.

Karl Rove isn’t going anywhere. He never was, even when this scandal had the potential legs of “criminal activity” by Rove. Rove is sleazy in his methods, but that’s nothing new. But he most likely can slither his way out of any criminal actions, assuming he even committed a crime. But short of a prosecutor filing charges against him, Democrats need to refrain from this:

“President Bush backed away from his initial pledge and lowered the ethics bar,” Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said. “Bush should be prepared to keep his word, and to enforce a high standard of ethics in the White House as he promised from the beginning of his administration.”

Yes, President Bush lowered the bar for ousting the (potential) leaker from his administration. Boo, hiss. And big whoop. If Rove is fired, do we think he loses his influence in the Bush Administration? As long as there is a secure phone line in the White House, Rove is free to practice his dark arts at will. So he doesn’t push the buttons to make the politics of diversion happen. He’ll still pull the strings. Personally, I’d prefer Rove in the White House where we can theoretically watch him because Rove behind the scenes scares me much more.

But this is Washington. A potential scandal is more than enough justification for going on the offensive. Better to smear someone because you hate them than because they’ve done something illegal. Victory at any cost, right? So what happens when the White House manages to spin this away? Every talking head on the Right gets to pin this as partisan politics on the Left. Sure, any sane person can decipher the spin to know it’s happening. But will the ideologues care? Remember, these are the people spewing “Liberal MSM” and “activist judges” at every opportunity. This whole scandal reeks of the old adage that “the facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.”

I’d rather win when the battle matters.

It is a very precise, and a compricated pran!

An editorial in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times explained in one simple paragraph. Consider:

Hollywood’s box office has hit the skids, and the entertainment media are in overdrive trying to explain why. The most obvious explanation for box office malaise is consistently overlooked: Hollywood’s ruling liberal elites keep going out of their way to offend half their audience.

Anyone with grey matter between his ears will understand that this theory is stupid. Hollywood is full of cultural elites who believe that the Heartland of middle America, the “real” Americans, are dumber than the soil they farm. Gee, thanks, that’s original, and I’m happy that we’ve cleared it up. But that forgets the all-important truth at the heart of Hollywood’s slump. The pink elephant in the corner, the one we’re not supposed to think about, lest it divert us from the culture war being waged by Hollywood, is that story still matters.

We want to be entertained, regardless of perceived politics. Anything short of Fahrenheit 9/11 will draw the ideological ire of only the most partisan hacks. While the conservative radio hosts blather about how Star Wars: Episode III is directed at the Bush Administration, I’m watching Yoda kick ass. Most of the time, for most people, entertainment is just entertainment.

But the editorial’s author doesn’t believe that. Consider:

Did we need to hear from “War of the Worlds” screenwriter David Koepp that the aliens in his movie are stand-ins for the U.S military – and the innocent Americans they attack are stand-ins for Iraqi civilians? Or that Americans are guilty of post-9/11 anti-Muslim “paranoia”? (A question to Koepp: Were we “paranoid” after Pearl Harbor too?)

War of the Worlds is about the military and Iraqi civilians? Hmmmm, I guess I shouldn’t go see the movie if I love America. Since ignoring the screenwriter’s opinion isn’t an option. But, I don’t think I can. No doubt H. G. Wells had that in mind when he wrote The War of the Worlds in 1898. And I’ll bet you anything Orson Welles made certain to imply that in the 1938 radio broadcast that scared so many people. They knew the U.S. military was coming for them, as innocents, so the artistic people needed to get the message out.

Or the movie could represent Hollywood’s refusal to risk new ideas. The only reason I’m debating whether or not to see War of the Worlds isn’t because the writer is a nitwit who overthinks his job. I’ve heard good reviews of the movie and it might be fun to watch space aliens and war and all that in this summer popcorn-movie season, but I’m still debating. Why? Because Tom Cruise is nuts.

The author approaches the idea that Hollywood might be risk-averse but apparently the non-political answer scared her. Consider:

Hollywood could turn things around, but that might mean tolerating films with pro-conservative themes. Hollywood liberals are so consumed with hatred for George W. Bush and the right, they would rather go down with the ship than allow a conservative message. The result is a creative paralysis in which liberals are out of ideas and have to resort to endless sequels and remakes – while conservatives who have new ideas aren’t allowed into the mix.

Right. Liberals aren’t in danger of being shut out because they’re all busy writing a Silver Spoons movie, except in their new version the father will be a rich do-gooder who behaves like a child and let’s his kid play with multi-racial friends from different social classes. And I guarantee that Ricky will be tormented by the social injustice of capitalism to the point where he’ll shoot a film about homelessness in which he and his father are the stars and learn a valuable moral lesson. Those crazy liberals will not stop with the bastardized, ideology-laced remakes.

All is not lost, given that signs of hope abound.

Fortunately, a new conservative film movement is arising to give hope to those on the new Hollywood blacklist. Michael Moore’s emergence showed us we could no longer passively yield Hollywood to the left, and Gibson’s success showed us there was a market for films that lean to the right.

Right, so here’s an idea. How about an abundance of films that lean to story? If Hollywood leans to the right, the left will feel ignored and we’ll get these same boring rants from liberal columnists that we’re now getting from conservative columnists. Remember, President Bush won the last election with 51% of the vote. That’s a majority, sure, but not an overwhelming indictment that the movie-not-going public is pissed off about the screenwriter’s politics. Quality matters above all else. It always has, and it always will.

For example, I watched about an hour of Troy on Sunday. I’d never seen it before since I’d felt no incentive when it hit theaters. I had, and still have, no idea who the screenwriter(s), voted for last year, nor do I care. I skipped Troy because I couldn’t see paying for something I suspected of being poorly written drivel. So is it a surprise when I say that the dialogue was wooden, the story dull, and the special effects stunning? That wasn’t worth my $9 then, and it wasn’t worth lost sleep on Sunday night.

My opinion hasn’t changed with the current gaggle of movies at the theaters. Consider these movies currently playing in my area:

  • The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D

    • – Four-year-olds love it. I’m not four.

  • Batman Begins

    • – I’ll see it, but it’s still been done.

  • Bewitched

    • – Ditto.

  • Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

    • – Ditto.

  • Cinderella Man

    • – Based on a true story, so it only half counts as original.

  • Crash

    • – Poorly marketed, so I know nothing about it.

  • Dark Water

    • – Horror, so I don’t care.

  • Fantastic Four

    • – Another comic book movie. I don’t care.

  • George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead

    • – I enjoyed Shaun of the Dead, but don’t care for zombie movies.

  • Herbie: Fully Loaded

    • – This has been done before, and it’s from Disney. No thanks.

  • The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

    • – Based on the book.

  • The Interpreter

    • – This stars Sean Penn, so I don’t care.

  • Kicking & Screaming

    • – I’ve heard horrible reviews, but at least it’s original (I think).

  • Ladies in Lavender

    • – What the hell is this?

  • The Longest Yard

    • – Oh, what’s this? Another remake? Who would’ve guessed.

  • Madagascar

    • – Animated, but without cursing 8-year-olds, so forget it.

  • March of the Penguins

    • – I want to see this more than anything else. It seems fascinating.

  • Me and You and Everyone We Know

    • – ????

  • Monster-in-Law

    • – Not even Vaughn Michael Vartan can overcome the Jennifer Lopez, so forget it.
    < li>Mr. & Mrs. Smith

    – Not even guns and explosions can overcome the Angelina Jolie, so forget it.

  • Sin City

    • – Don’t care.

  • The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

    • – Teenage chick flick, based on the novel(s).

  • Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

    • – This was good. And I didn’t even think Iraq.

  • War of the Worlds

    • – See above comments.

For those who subscribe to the vast left-wing conspiracy theory about Hollywood, answer these questions. How many truly original movies are in that list? Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Kicking & Screaming, and March of the Penguins? Maybe Madagascar? And then the art house-type films that no one’s heard about? If we aim for originality and quality, that’s not a particularly stellar list. But liberal? Please.

The author tries to paint the logical idea about quality, but swerves at the end to satisfy the conspiracy theory.

Everyone – liberal and conservative – acknowledges that a once-great film industry is out of ideas and in dire shape. Wouldn’t it be smart, then, to let some new ideas in from the right, and give everybody a real choice again at the box office?

If liberals are so partisan and possess such a tight grip on Hollywood’s purse strings, then why would they acknowledge that opening the industry to ideas from the right is the correct way to solve the lack of ideas? That doesn’t make sense. Pretending that it makes sense only to enable a push for propaganda right-wing approved films is no better than the accusations levied against supposedly liberal Hollywood. It’s so obvious that it dips into pathetic, simplistic folly. Future pushers of this nonsense should try as hard at thinking as they want Hollywood to try at making movies.

(Source: Michelle Malkin)

Profit and Proper aren’t mutually exclusive

There have been many stories of potential identity theft and fraud making the news in recent months. (Here’s one of the most recent, just as an example.) An individual’s ability to protect himself is possible, though this ability seems to fade with each new technological advance. The reach of information is almost beyond comprehension. Yet, there is one tool, however primitive, that can be used: the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The FACT Act allows consumers to request one free credit report every 12 months. Right, I’m thinking the same thing everyone is. Nice baby step, but when my data can be stolen by a diligent hacker with little more than an internet connection, how am I supposed to protect myself with that? That’s valid, and the consumer information industry should be doing everything it can to protect us police its business model. If it doesn’t… Okay, even if it does, legislation is coming. But we have to start somewhere and the credit report is the simplest method.

Equifax CEO Thomas Chapman doesn’t like this. Consider:

“Our company felt, and still does … that it’s unconstitutional to cause a public company who has a fiduciary responsibility to return profit to shareholders to give away the product,” Chapman said to reporters following a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on Monday [6/27]. “Most of my shareholder group did not think that giving away our product was the American way.”

Chapman was referring to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which since last December has required credit agencies to provide consumers with a free copy of their credit report every 12 months to check for inaccuracies and fraudulent activity. Chapman said that viewing a credit report once a year wouldn’t protect consumers against fraud.

“That’s like turning on the smoke alarm once a year,” he said.

His point is correct but wrong. Once per year is not enough and it won’t really do much to protect fraud. It will, however, allow individuals to see the information sold, at a profit by companies like Equifax, that could affect whether or not they can purchase renter’s insurance, to name an example that erroneously happened to me. So, even though it won’t likely prevent fraud, it can help to clear mistakes. Except, it’s notoriously hard to “encourage” credit reporting agencies to fix mistakes. But Equifax is now motivated to do the right thing for its business model.

Or does it?

To ward off excessive legislation, Chapman supports the idea of tougher industry standards pressuring companies to encrypt data. He suggested that increased funding for enforcement of data-theft laws would help reverse a trend in which few identity thieves are ever prosecuted.

Chapman also discussed the need to educate consumers about monitoring their credit records on a regular basis and being wary of giving out sensitive information. He noted that during a recent visit to a museum with his grandchildren, the cashier asked for his social security number as well as his home address and phone number when he tried to buy tickets with his credit card.

To ward off excessive legislation. May I offer protecting consumers (your supply) as a worthy goal from the beginning rather than only when something goes wrong? Where business fails to protect in accordance with reasonable standards (and even where it protects, but that’s a different rant), government steps in with regulation. Welcome to America in 2005. And if you think a business subject to high profile “disasters” is going to escape extra scrutiny and governmental “care”, you’re smoking something now regulated by interstate commerce, even when it doesn’t cross state lines. As for educating consumers to monitor their credit records on a regular basis, the technology exists, but you didn’t do it because it didn’t improve the bottom line. I seem to believe that’s why Congress, correct solution or not, passed the FACT Act. And it only gets worse from here, especially if you pursue this line of logic instead of catching up to your real starting point. Just a hunch.

(Consider reading No Place to Hide by Robert O’Harrow, Jr. for more insight into many of the issues surrounding information sharing. There are examples relevant to this story. Also, request a free credit report every 12 months from AnnualCreditReport.com.)

Respect my Authoritaahhhh or I will kick you in the Nats

Congressman Loose Cannon is at it again. He and a fellow Congressional imbecile sparked a controversy yesterday with regard to the eventual sale of the Washington Nationals by Major League Baseball. Consider:

Major League Baseball hasn’t narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league’s antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team [in a group headed by Washington entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky].

“It’s not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world,” Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. “That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it’s one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government.”

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that “Major League Baseball understands the stakes” if Soros buys the team. “I don’t think they want to get involved in a political fight.”

For fuck’s sake, what is wrong with him? We all know that no one in Congress will pull Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption because then they’d have no tool with which to threaten Bud Selig. (Representatives Davis and Sweeney make Bud Selig appear to be a statesman in this debate, which is especially pathetic for the Congressmen because Mr. Selig has said nothing.) So why the idiocy? Could it be a growing, insatiable hunger for power and nanny-statism? Consider:

Democrats weren’t about to let the broadsides go unanswered.

“Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team,” Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) asked. “So Congress is going to get involved in every baseball ownership decision? Are they next going to worry about a manager they don’t like? I’ve never seen anything as impotent as a congressman threatening the baseball exemption. It gets threatened half a dozen times a year, and our batting average threatening the exemption is zero.”

It’s not just Democrats who are commenting on the stupidity. Consider Michelle Malkin, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan. Representatives Davis and Sweeney should know that when Michelle Malkin and I share an opinion 100%, they’ve slammed through the wall of questionable judgment into an unambiguous zone worthy of constant mockery.

The Washington Post followed up with Rep. Davis and received this response:

Davis didn’t return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, “The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs.”

After all of the Republican conservative hysterical blathering about Senator Durbin’s recent comments, I’m amused that Rep. Davis wants it both ways. His party believes that every public comment should be scrutinized before it’s delivered to be sure it’s not “traitorous”, but he has permission to pretend like we’re taking his words out of context? Nope, sorry, Congressman, you don’t get a free pass on that. You said what you said and meant it. You didn’t misspeak, nor did we impose meaning where it wasn’t. You threatened Major League Baseball to harm a political enemy’s bid for the Nationals. You attempt political blackmail and expect us to accept that as reasonable? That’s a slimy leadership governance failure and you should be removed as chairman from the House Committee on Government Reform.

(Source: The Agitator)

P.S. The gross domestic product of Columbia was projected at $83.01 billion for 2004. I can’t find reliable numbers for how much Mr. Soros spent in his effort to legalize certain drugs, but his estimated net worth, as of 2004, is $7.2 billion, nearly $75 billion less than Colombia’s gross domestic product. Off-the-cuff hyperbole or deflecting heat from a political retribution by Rep. Davis? You decide.

Inspector Butters is on the case, ma’am

As evidenced by the 2,146,316 flag amendment posts over the last few days, I’m a bit bothered up about it. But as Wendy pointed out in comments last night, there is another legal travesty in the news. In a (not really) stunning decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kelo vs. New London. Here is a summary of the decision:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person’s home as part of a private development project aimed at boosting tax revenues and revitalizing a local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a private development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

I admit that I’m not a lawyer, although I play one on RollingDoughnut.com. Sometimes, such as in this case, I admit that I don’t know as much as I should. I’m only basing my argument on standard, obvious logic. But I know enough to realize that this case is an abomination. However, since there are sufficient commentaries all over the internets, I’m not going to contribute anything other than to point to two of particular interest.

First, consider this New York Times travesty (link via Michelle Malkin – truth is truth, even when it comes from an ideologue):

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence “so long as it might be upgraded.” That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London’s development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

Do you believe that some hack politician being bribed lobbied by a real estate company will make sure that eminent domain is “part of a comprehensive plan”? Right, neither do I. As for “fully compensated”, family history and memories can’t get an appropriate price tag. How does a city compensate a family whose house has eight years of height lines etched into the kitchen door frame? How exciting will it be for a man to take his kids to his boyhood home and point out the nice backyard parking lot where he used to play catch with his dad? Cash isn’t always king.

On a different angle, consider reasoning from KipEsquire:

Wouldn’t it be nice if all those grass-root, “let the voters decide,” Red State, “damn activist judges” types put as much effort into enacting state constitutional amendments limiting eminent domain as they did discriminating against gays? You might think people like that would care more about keeping their own homes than what goes on in their neighbors’ homes. We’ll see.

It’s an argument that some might not like, but he’s right. So, yeah, people can think what they want about social issues like same-sex marriage and flag desecration, but there are more important issues with a more fundamental, long-term impact on the United States.

So, yeah, although five Justices and the New York Times think this decision makes sense, I’m with everyone else. It pisses me off, too.

I’m not giving up on this topic

More thoughts on the Constitutional that passed the House of Representatives Nanny-statists yesterday.

_____________________________________________________________________

When I e-mailed Congressman Loose Cannon&#153, I informed him of my opposition to H.J.Res. 10, which is this:

H.J.RES.10
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (196)
Related Bills: H.RES.330, S.J.RES.12
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 – 130 (Roll no. 296).

Do I need to clarify that Congressman Loose Cannon&#153 is in the list of 196 Cosponsors?

This is the response I received earlier this week to my e-mail. Before I reproduce it here, though, let me remind you that I referenced H.J.Res. 10 because I knew that it was the proposed amendment coming before the full House. I made specific reference to the fact that it would come before the House this week. And he was one of the 196 Cosponsors. So this is what his intern he wrote:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.J.Res. 5, the Flag Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you regarding this important issue.

As you know, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) introduced H.J.Res. 5 in January 2005 at the outset of the 109th Congress. H.J.Res. 5 proposes to amend the Constitution by authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag.

Since its introduction, H.J.Res. 5 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Rest assured I will keep your comments foremost in my mind if this measure comes before the full House for a vote.

Thank you again for contacting my office regarding this important issue. I appreciate you sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on matters of interest or concern.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis
Member of Congress

I’m sure my comments will be foremost in your mind, but only if your mind is in the circular file. At least the pattern of not reading my e-mails for context continues, so that’s a reassurance in this world of change.

_____________________________________________________________________

Here are two more wonderful quotes about the amendment that passed yesterday:

Among the new votes for the amendment is Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who pushed the issue in his campaign and helped recruit co-sponsors. “Out in the country, at the grass-roots level, it’s seen as a common man’s practical patriotism,” Thune said.

Because, you know, it’s about the common man, the country folks. The real people. Not us liberal, elitists snobs on the East Coast. Because I hate America, unlike real, salt-of-the-Earth Americans. But, Sen. Thune, perhaps a suggestion: remove the symbolic flag from the pole before you beat us over the head with it. And take that slice of your mom’s apple pie out of your baseball mitt. But most importantly, please, please make sure you loosen it from around your neck so that you still get oxygen. It’s obvious that it’s wrapped so tightly around you that it’s cutting the flow to your brain.

And…

House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said during the debate that lawmakers “must act with bipartisan dispatch to ensure that this issue is returned to the hands of those most interested in preserving freedom — the people themselves.”

Rep. Sensenbrenner, returning this issue to the people, who hadn’t been clamoring for you to address it the way they have about, oh, I don’t know, terrorism, war, social security, taxes, and other minor issues, is wise in a Republic. Encourage mob majority rule when you’re in power because, you know, your party will never be in the minority again. Well thought out.

Dumbasses.

_____________________________________________________________________

Here’s an interesting article from Eugene Volokh titled “What’s Wrong With the Flagburning Amendment”. Here’s an excerpt, but read the full text.

“Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and the flying of the Confederate flag.”

OK, so that’s not exactly how the proposed flag protection amendment reads — I’ve added the Confederate flag phrase. But this little thought experiment helps show that the flag protection amendment is a bad idea.

After all, burning the U.S. flag and flying the Confederate flag are similar in many ways. Some people argue that flagburning shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment because it isn’t “speech.” Well, burning one flag and waving another are pretty similar on that score. I think both are traditional terms in our political language, and should be constitutionally protected; but if I’m wrong, then both should be unprotected.

Of course, burning the U.S. flag deeply offends many people. But so does waving the Confederate flag, even when it’s done by individuals and not by state governments. Many American boys died defending the U.S. flag — and many of them died fighting against the Confederacy. Burning the U.S. flag is often an anti-American symbol. Likewise, the Confederate flag was a symbol of treason and rebellion against the lawful American government.

Mr. Volokh carries the argument through, building a very strong case against the amendment. He concludes with this:

America is different from most other countries, and even from most other democracies. In America, all ideologies are protected, even those that the majority thinks are evil.

Why is this right? Because the First Amendment was drafted and interpreted by people who intimately understood cultural, religious, and political conflict, and who knew how calls for censorship could launch the most bitter of culture wars.

The [First] Amendment is a truce: “I won’t try to suppress your ideas, if you don’t try to suppress mine.” And the flagburning amendment risks shattering this truce.

(via Instapundit and The Corner)