|
| Of Brilliant Political Foresight and Contemporary Ideological Myopia |
|
| Any serious student of the Constitution can see the wondrous symmetry of the Bill of Rights. Individual amendments work together with the whole to assure the survival of each. Our founders understood that in order for us to have individual rights, each was often contingent upon another guaranteeing the whole.
Contemporary myopic ideologues are often willing to dismiss or even try to change individual amendments because of fear and distrust.
LEFT MYOPICS
Many people of the "left" persuasion are staunch advocates of all amendments except for the second, the right to "keep and bear arms". They are quick to say the 2nd is referring to the military and is not an individual right as a United States citizen, (whilst arguing that the other nine amendments are individual rights).
James Madison said,
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
A second rank Founder, Tench Coxe, said about the Second Amendment:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
The failure of the ideological left when trying to dismiss this all important amendment is that the guarantee of the other 9 is hinged upon the 2nd. Therefore, liberal myopic ideologues are often torn between retaining their individual rights and advocating the tools of tyrannical fascism.
-disarm the people
-place all arms in the hands of the government military
-police state/Fascism/absolute power becomes much easier
-all other rights die under the hand of tyranny
TOMORROW: RIGHT IDEOLOGUES |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/31/2005 05:33:00 AM   |
|
|
|
| DON'T LAUGH! |
|
| We have people in this country who are just as loony!
FOXNews.com - Foxlife - Out There - Docs Want Kitchen Knives Banned: "Citing a rash of stabbings across Britain, three physicians wrote in a British Medical Journal article published Friday that the large pointed knife beloved by chefs both professional and amateur was needlessly deadly and should be replaced by safer, blunter counterparts." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/31/2005 04:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FDR DINOSAURS |
|
| Eliminate the minimum wage
It's settled. Another FDR era program has outlived its usefulness, and should be eliminated. The federal minimum wage, adopted in 1938 to guarantee a wage of at least 25 cents an hour to employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce, is no longer needed. The original law mentioned interstate commerce as a nod to the constitution, since Congress is specifically allowed to regulate interstate commerce. Of course, nearly anything produced can be transported from one state to another.
McDonalds employees who sell you a hamburger that you just might transport across state lines, are protected by the federal minimum wage law, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997. Its singular value now is to frustrate Sen. Ted Kennedy, who tries to raise it every year, but has been defeated seven years in a row. Maybe that's good enough reason to keep it, but my head tells me otherwise.
In practically every corner of the country, the labor market has made the federal minimum wage obsolete. Most employers bound by the minimum wage pay more than that, not because the government tells them they have to, but the market tells them so. Their fellow businessmen and women, bidding for the same labor, are willing to pay more, so they do too.
On top of that, many states have adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the federal standard. In all, according to the USA Today, 17 states and the District of Columbia, have minimum wages that are higher than $5.15 an hour. They are, for the most part, in states where the cost of living is higher than average.
I'm not a fan of any minimum wage, but I can live with it if it's set by states, and not by the federal government. First, states do have the constitutional authority via the 10th Amendment. Federal constitutional authority is flimsy at best. Second, states can set a minimum wage that makes more sense. Having the same minimum wage for D.C. and South Carolina makes no sense at all, since the cost of living in the two places is vastly different.
One of my daughters lives in a Virginia suburb of D.C. and rents a three-bedroom house for nearly $2,000 a month. She tried to buy the house for $400,000. The owner wanted a half-million. That's four times what the same house would sell for in a similar neighborhood in Greenville or Spartanburg. Should D.C. and South Carolina have the same minimum wage?
I truly enjoy seeing Sen. Kennedy squeal every time his colleagues in Congress turn down another increase in the minimum wage, but sooner or later, his side will carry the day, and Congress will go along. More than likely, in order to get some Republican votes, Kennedy will agree to attach another form of corporate welfare onto the bill.
It's time for the federal minimum wage to die a natural and overdue death. If someone wants to move from South Carolina to D.C. or Alaska in order to make $7.00 or $7.15 an hour, that would be an act of financial stupidity on their part. But if other states want to draw the stupid people out of South Carolina, who am I to stop them?
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/31/2005 03:59:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WHAT A FLIPPIN' HERO! |
|
| The State 05/29/2005 Graham sticks to role in partisan detente: "WASHINGTON. After alienating a chunk of his political base by negotiating with Democrats on the filibuster crisis this past week, you might think U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would want to put a little distance between himself and the minority party.
Forget that.
Graham on Thursday met with four of the seven Democrats who signed on to the filibuster compromise to tackle another sticky issue - Social Security." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/31/2005 02:07:00 AM |
|
|
|
| The Body Politic: PORK PROJECTS GET A VOTE - CHILDREN STILL WAITING |
| Friday, May 27, 2005 |
| The Body Politic: PORK PROJECTS GET A VOTE - CHILDREN STILL WAITING: "This week, the South Carolina General Assembly busied itself with what seems to have become an annual ritual - overriding Governor Sanford's vetoes. After the Governor returned a budget with 163 vetoes totaling $96 million, the General Assembly - in either a sign of deep respect for the process or a profound fear of piglets - managed to debate each veto before overriding almost every one of them.
While not offering an opinion on the validity of certain programs or whether or not these vetoes should have been sustained, we find it ironic that each and every one of these items received debate and an up or down vote - something parents and children were denied when the school choice bill Put Parents in Charge was on the House floor. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/27/2005 03:55:00 PM |
|
|
|
| JOHN KERRY ISN'T THE ONLY ONE... |
|
| Senator Edward Kennedy
Then: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." – Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 3 February 1998
Now: "The Senate Democrats are the only line of defense against George Bush's effort to pack our federal courts with reactionary right-wing judges who will roll back the fundamental constitutional rights that Americans in states across the country value the most in our free society. Now, our very ability to block the confirmation of these ideological judges is in jeopardy. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has arrogantly threatened repeatedly to re-write the long-standing Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster rule, the basic procedure to prevent a narrow Senate majority from running roughshod over the rights of the Senate minority." – Senator Kennedy, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee newsletter, March 2005
Senator Charles Schumer
Then: "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. … I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." – Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000
Now: "Whatever party is in charge always wants to control the whole thing, but that's not what America is all about, that’s not how the Founding Fathers set it up. The Democrats were wrong — I was not there when they wanted to get rid of the filibuster when they were in charge, and the Republicans are equally wrong. We believe in checks and balances; if you win 51 percent or 52 percent or 53 percent, that doesn't mean you run the whole show." – Interview, Fox and Friends, 25 April 2005
Senator Patrick Leahy
Then: "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported. …" – Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, 18 June 1998
Now: "Historically, the Senate has been one of the major parts of checks and balances in this country. When Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, even though it was a heavily Democratic Senate, we said no. It's a good thing that we stood up and said no. George Washington had members of his own party — he's the most popular man in America — turn down some of his judges. Now, we put 95 percent, let's understand, we put through 95 percent of President Bush's judges, one of the highest percentages any president has gotten, that's been with Democratic help." – Senator Leahy, CNN Late Edition, 24 April 2005
Senator Richard Durbin
Then: "I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. But to impose all of the burden on the executive branch and to step away from our responsibility I don't think is fair." – Senator Durbin, Congressional Record, 28 September 1998
Now: "Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats will use the filibuster selectively. 'We have to pick and choose our fights in order to keep our unity and make our point,' he said." – Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan, "GOP To 'Load' Senate With Votes On Judges," The Washington Times, 11 March 2003
Senator Joseph Biden
Then: "But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor." – Senator Biden, Congressional Record, 19 March 1997
Now: "The filibuster has always been available to stop extremes." – Senator Biden, WABC This Week, 24 April 2005
Senator Russell Feingold
Then: "All Judge Paez has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up or down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years, the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." – Senator Feingold, Congressional Record, 8 March 2000
Now: "My view has changed," said Feingold in an interview last week, saying he has come to value the filibuster "because of the abuse of power by those running the Senate." – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 23 April 2005
Senator Ken Salazar
Then: "In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Senator-elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations. We hope he sticks with that position even if his Democratic colleagues-to-be lean on him, as they are almost certain to do." – Editorial, "Salazar's Pledge," [Denver] Rocky Mountain News, 8 November 2004
Now: Q: How do you square the consistency of opposing the nuclear option now with saying during your campaign that every judge deserves an up-or-down vote? I'm not real clear on that. A: You know, you come here as a new senator, and you learn. And I've learned a lot about this place. … Q: So you were wrong in your campaign statement? A: Now I am much more informed today about how these rules work and operate than I was back when I was a candidate for the office. – Senator Salazar, at a press conference with Senator Joe Lieberman, 20 April 2005
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Then: "For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate." – Sen. Lieberman, Congressional Record, 4 January 1995, p. 38
Now: "And particularly when it comes to a judicial nomination, somebody who's going to be on the federal bench for life, we ought to say that this person ought to command the support of at least 60 of 100 senators, as kind of a minimum standard. So bottom line, circumstances changed, and my opinion about the supermajority change." – Senator Lieberman, at a press conference with Senator Salazar, April 20, 2005
Senator Barbara Boxer
Then: "Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote." – Senator Boxer, Congressional Record, 28 January 1998
Now: "They're going after judges, they're going after the filibuster, and it is dangerous," she told the news leaders. "You have a dog in that fight. Your whole basis of what you do is exercising that freedom of speech. These checks and balances are crucial for all of us. We exercise them." – Joe Strupp, "Sen. Boxer: 'Nuclear Option' Can Hurt Newspapers, Too," Editor and Publisher, 12 April 2005
Senator Harry Reid
Then: "I don't think we should have litmus tests for members of the sub-Cabinet, the Cabinet or the judges. … [Y]ou take the 106th Congress, it took 285 days on an average to get a judge approved; 103rd Congress when we controlled, it was 80 days. So you can see the difference there. Fifty-five percent of President Clinton’s judicial nominations to the appellate court were turned down. We're not going to do that. We're going to have hearings. We're going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor." – Senator Reid, CNN's "Evans Novak Hunt & Shields," 9 June 2001
Now: "Reid indicated Monday his party would not agree to give up the filibuster entirely, as Frist and most other Republicans want: 'As part of any resolution, the "nuclear option" must be off the table,' Reid said, referring to Frist's proposal." – "Frist chills talk of judges deal," MSNBC.com, 26 April 2005.
Senator Hillary Clinton
Then: "The Senate is bottling up people who deserve to be voted on — up or down." – Paul Shepard, "In Poke At Bush, First Lady Tells NAACP Compassionate Isn't Enough," The Associated Press, July 11, 2000
Now: "If invoked, the 'nuclear option' would be, in my view, one of the most egregious abuses of power that the Senate has experienced in its history. ...[T]he majority seeks to turn the United States Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush's extreme judicial nominees and force all Senators to abdicate our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. As one sworn to uphold the Constitution, that is something that I cannot do and will not do and that is why I will continue to do all I can to fight for our democratic principles." – Friends of Hillary.com newsletter, 26 April 2005
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Then: "It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 16 September 1999
Now: "[O]ut of 205 judges, we haven't confirmed 10 submitted by the President and have chosen to filibuster those, the Republicans want to break the filibuster rule. And I think that's a big problem." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," 17 April 2005 |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/27/2005 05:12:00 AM |
|
|
|
| MORE ON GRAHAM |
| Thursday, May 26, 2005 |
| Katon Dawson
Chairman
Republican Party of South Carolina
Dear Mr. Dawson:
First, I would like to thank you for your work and dedication to the South Carolina Republican Party.
I'll cut to the chase.
I am a Republican from Lindsey's district and for the last two elections I have not voted for Mr. Graham. I will continue that trend.
What truly disturbs me is that the American people have put faith and trust in the Republican party and what it USED to stand for; but that trust has been sorely betrayed. We didn't send Jim and Lindsey to the senate for "business as usual", and whether Mr. Graham realizes it or not, the Democrats and their agenda is a real and present threat to our nation.
This year I intend to register as Independent, as the disappointment with our Republicans (our State House is a joke) continues to increase. Unless we can start bringing candidates to the forefront of the caliber of Mark Sanford, I and my family will start to look for alternatives.
This coming primary election we can do the right thing for our State and the nation by going against "business as usual", and the "good 'ol boy system" and back a truly Republican candidate. I sincerely hope that Thomas Ravenel may challenge the incumbent Graham, and hope our state Republican Party will throw it's support behind him.
Sincere thanks for your time,
Jack Mercer |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/26/2005 06:59:00 PM |
|
|
|
| IN PRAISE OF JUDAS |
|
| The State | 05/25/2005 | Graham, centrists bravely defy partisan politics:
"Graham, centrists bravely defy partisan politics
BY FORGING a compromise over judicial nominations, a core group of moderates rescued the U.S. Senate from being pushed, by extremists on both sides, into a partisan death spiral. The compromise preserves the Senate's role on nominations, and its ability to function. It also keeps intact the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, which the 'nuclear option' sought to shift.
The senators who did this under fire, including South Carolina�s Lindsey Graham, deserve our thanks."
Thanks, Senator. Glad you have such high regard for the UNCONSTITUTIONAL process of filibustering. Maybe you should talk to your friend Lieberman--at least he had the principle to call the filibuster for what it was (that is, when Democrats were in the majority).
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/26/2005 03:22:00 PM |
|
|
|
| SIDESHOW THEATRICS |
|
| Weepy Voinovich Begs for 'No' Vote on Bolton: "Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) choked up on the Senate floor, as he urged his colleagues to vote against Bolton's nomination on Thursday:
''I'm afraid that when we go to the [Senate] well, that too many of my colleagues -- (voice breaking) -- that too many of my colleagues are not going to understand that this appointment is very, very important to our country,' Voinovich said."
CAN WE TAKE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SERIOUSLY? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/26/2005 10:17:00 AM |
|
|
|
| BETRAYED |
|
| There are so many articles out there in the MSM praising the 14 and their "courage". Maybe the definition of courage has changed.
Let's face it, Lindsey Graham betrayed the Republican Party and his colleagues. Years ago, we would have judged these actions for what they were, not praised them for what they're not.
When Judas betrayed Jesus, no one ever praised him for his "courage". No one ever accused Aldrich Ames of courage when he betrayed his nation. Hey, we don't even care for Linda Tripp and what she did to her friend Monica Lewinsky.
Bottom line, is that anyone out there who is saying that it took "courage" for the 7 Republicans to do what they did to their party's assured victory, they have a poor sense of honor.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/26/2005 06:22:00 AM |
|
|
|
| THE REAL STORY BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING |
| Wednesday, May 25, 2005 |
Artic peoples move quickly in a desperate move to extort money from a victim based unscientific premise, in spite of recent reports that the polar caps from BOTH regions are being maintained and even GROWING.
Arctic Leaders Appeal Over Global Warming: "BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Indigenous leaders from Arctic regions around the world called on the European Union on Tuesday to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples."
Surprised? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/25/2005 11:49:00 AM |
|
|
|
| IMAGINE THAT! |
|
| ThisisLondon: "A Christian education makes teenage boys less permissive, according to research out today.
Boys at private Anglican and Catholic schools are more likely to oppose sex before marriage and be less tolerant of pornography.
They are also less likely to feel depressed or consider suicide, according to a survey of 13,000 teenagers by Professor Leslie J Francis from the University of Wales, Bangor." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/25/2005 11:43:00 AM |
|
|
|
| A SIMPLE POWER GRAB? |
|
| Social Security is next for Gang of Fourteen: "Some of the senators who banded together to forestall the "nuclear option" are eyeing a new goal: reforming Social Security.
After the group of 14 senators struck the high-profile deal on judicial nominees Monday evening, some political observers immediately speculated that the centrists could become a driving force in the 109th Congress." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/25/2005 11:38:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOUNDING MORE LIKE A DEMOCRAT |
|
Lindsey Graham made the following statement concerning his role in the compromise. It's interesting that the "H" word comes up, as this is favored by liberal democrats who demagogue others for disagreeing or voting against them.
The State 05/25/2005 Graham gets heat for deal: "But I will not use this job to hate people. There are some people on the right and the left, (who) expect you not only to vote with them, but to hate the people they hate. Count me out." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/25/2005 08:01:00 AM |
|
|
|
| PARTISAN? WHAT DO WE VOTE FOR THEN? |
|
| The following article contains one of the most ridiculous assertions that I have heard in a long time. We VOTE for our politicians for PARTISAN reasons, if not, we wouldn't have different parties. If we wanted BI-PARTISANSHIP (which is simply a word for a single party) then we as Americans would vote that way! What are Americans being brainwashed to believe now?
The State | 05/25/2005 | Graham, centrists bravely defy partisan politics: "Graham, centrists bravely defy partisan politics
BY FORGING a compromise over judicial nominations, a core group of moderates rescued the U.S. Senate from being pushed, by extremists on both sides, into a partisan death spiral. The compromise preserves the Senate's role on nominations, and its ability to function. It also keeps intact the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, which the 'nuclear option' sought to shift."
And they pay someone to write this... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/25/2005 07:36:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Thomas Sowell: Liberals, race, and history |
|
| Thomas Sowell: Liberals, race, and history: "If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.
Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/24/2005 04:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
| I AGREE - THE DEMOCRATS WON! |
|
| And fair and square!
NR Editors on Judges & Senate on National Review Online: "If we were inclined to take an optimistic view of the judicial-filibuster deal announced last night, we would start with the fact that the full Senate will be allowed to vote on the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor. That would not have happened if Senate Republicans had not threatened to forbid judicial filibusters. We would continue, in an optimistic vein, to suggest that the deal sets a precedent that nominees as conservative as Brown, Owen, Pryor were not the menace to the republic that the Democrats have spent the last few years suggesting they are." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/24/2005 03:57:00 PM |
|
|
|
| POLITICAL SUICIDE |
|
In an effort to place themselves in the limelight and create their own mass appeal, two Republican senators committed ritual suicide. There will never be a 2008 McCain-Graham presidential nomination. For that, at least, we can be thankful.
CNN.com - Senators compromise on filibusters - May 23, 2005: "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bipartisan group of senators announced Monday evening that they had reached an agreement after days of talks to avert a showdown Tuesday over President Bush's judicial nominees." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/24/2005 07:38:00 AM |
|
|
|
| STROM THURMOND - LORD OF THE FILIBUSTER! |
| Monday, May 23, 2005 |
The State | 05/23/2005 | Strom is filibuster champ: "If any senator in the hereafter is watching the filibuster showdown of 2005, it is Strom Thurmond.
Of course it was for a good reason--WHO NEEDS CIVIL RIGHTS, right? Gotta' keep those negroes out of white schools" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/23/2005 10:07:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SOUTH CAROLINA'S "DEMOCRAT" SENATOR |
|
| The Ralph Bristol Show: "Sen. Lindsey Graham would not come on the Ralph Bristol Show to explain his efforts to head off a filibuster showdown, but he did show up on CNN over the weekend to pronounce that the Senate is acting like a bunch of third graders. His efforts have also drawn high praise from the most liberal editorial writer in South Carolina, The State newspaper's Brad Warthen. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/23/2005 09:17:00 AM |
|
|
|
| LEVEL YOUNG HEADS ON SOCIAL SECURITY |
| Saturday, May 21, 2005 |
| Rational thought is not dead in America. In spite of what you have been told.
Here is a young friend's take on the Social Security issue. Its worth reading.
Thus Saith the Fly
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/21/2005 10:38:00 PM |
|
|
|
| GLOBAL WARMING |
| Friday, May 20, 2005 |
| There is so much nonsense out there concerning global warming and the politics of the environment. Want something factual to sink your teeth into? Check out the Greenland Ice cores. Real science, not religious fanaticism:
Twin Ice Cores From Greenland Reveal History of Climate Change, More: "Two projects conducted from 1989 to 1993 collected parallel ice cores just 30 kilometers apart from the central part of the Greenland ice sheet. Each core is more than 3 kilometers deep and extends back 110,000 years. In short, the ice cores tell a clear story: humans came of age agriculturally and industrially during the most stable climatic regime recorded in the cores. They also indicate that today, Greenland is roughly 20 degree C warmer than it once was. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/20/2005 02:48:00 PM |
|
|
|
| ThisisLondon |
|
| ThisisLondon: "Muslim protesters today called for the bombing of New York in a demonstration outside the US embassy in London.
There were threats of 'another 9/11' from militants angry at reports of the desecration of the Koran by US troops in Iraq. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/20/2005 12:42:00 PM |
|
|
|
| NEWS WEAK - GOOD ARTICLE! |
|
| Dennis Prager: Newsweek and the rioters: "And now a word about the rioters. They have desecrated their religion and their holy text far more than the alleged flushers of Koranic pages.
Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?
Did any Christians riot and murder when an 'artist' produced 'Piss Christ' -- a crucifix immersed in a jar of the 'artist's' urine? When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan?
Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph's Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003?" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/20/2005 09:50:00 AM |
|
|
|
| THE FILIBUSTER - A PROUD DEMOCRAT HERITAGE |
|
| U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Historical Minutes > 1964-Present > Civil Rights Filibuster Ended:
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.
The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities including private businesses offering public services, such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.
As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others 150 of them vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.
Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' He continued, 'The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!'
Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive sixty-seventh vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the twentieth century's towering legislative achievements. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/20/2005 08:04:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SPEAK FREELY |
| Thursday, May 19, 2005 |
| Judges, and those who want to preserve judicial tyranny, are hoping to trick people into following an old adage with a new twist, "if you don't have anything nice to say about judges, just don't say anything at all." Phooey on that.
The Senate Judicial Committee staged a tribute to judges Wednesday and invited a sympathetic federal judge to star in the show. The Chicago judge whose husband and mother were killed by an angry litigant urged U.S. senators to denounce the Rev. Pat Robertson and members of Congress who harshly criticized federal judges.
U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow said in her testimony, "Even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks and violent acts of vengeance, fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them."
There is no doubt that judges have come under harsh criticism in recent years, and it should continue. It would be a big mistake for anyone to succumb to this thinly veiled effort to try to shield the judicial branch of government from necessary public scrutiny and criticism.
Frantic liberals, having failed repeatedly to expand their political influence in the elected branches of government, are desperately trying to cling to the power that they exercise through the judicial branch. Judges have transformed their chambers into super legislatures where they rewrite or strike down laws passed by elected representatives and replace them with rulings that have the force of law. In some cases, they don't even pretend to get their direction from the Constitution, but rather from their own estimation of contemporary values and, in some cases, even values imported from foreign countries.
Judge Lefkow shamelessly used the tragedy that visited her family as a political tool by implying that the death of her husband and mother was triggered by rhetorical attacks by conservatives. In fact, the man who killed her husband and mother was specifically angry that she had ruled against him in a malpractice case. To suggest that he was inspired by political rhetoric is patently absurd.
Just what did Misters Robertson and DeLay say that is allegedly threatening to the lives of judges? On May 1, Robertson said on ABC's This Week that liberal judges are "destroying the fabric that holds our nation together" and that they pose a threat "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
It is a completely defensible notion that liberalism, enforced by unelected judges, can do more long-term harm to the social fabric of America than any foreign enemies, whether they are terrorists or communists. Liberals would disagree of course, and that is their right, but it is also the right of conservatives to draw that conclusion and state it publicly.
Congressman DeLay has been castigated for saying, in response to judges rulings in the Terry Schiavo case, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." DeLay is among those who favor congressional action to reign in the seemingly unchecked power of judges to have the final say on every law and disagreement in the land.
I hope DeLay is right that the time will come for judges to pay for their unilateral expansion of their own powers by inspiring Congress to expressly limit the powers of judges. Again, the wisdom of such a wish may be debatable, but is not irresponsible.
I join in advising people of influence to keep their political rhetoric civil and constructive. It's more effective that way, and more demonstrative of their position on the public stage. However, to categorize the comments of Robertson or DeLay as inflammatory and irresponsible is both nonsensical and disingenuous.
The attempt to muzzle strong conservative criticism of federal judges is a disguised effort to shield judges from public scrutiny and accountability. It should worry conservatives that the Senate Judiciary Committee is entertaining such an agenda. Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/19/2005 10:21:00 AM |
|
|
|
| NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED |
|
| 'NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!' - Yahoo! News: "When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.
When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.
When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.
So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.
Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/19/2005 08:31:00 AM |
|
|
|
| You might be a Redneck Jedi if ... |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2005 |
1) You've ever heard the phrase, 'May the force be with y'all'.
2) Your Jedi robe is camouflage.
3) You have ever used your light saber to open a bottle of Bud Light.
4) At least one wing of your X-Wings is primer colored.
5) You can easily describe the taste of Ewok.
6) You have ever had a land-speeder up on blocks in your yard.
7) The worst part of spending time on Dagobah is the dadgum skeeters.
8) Wookies are offended by your BO.
9) You have ever used the force to get yourself another beer so you didn't have to wait for a commercial.
10) You have ever used the force in conjunction with fishing/bowling.
11) Your father has ever said to you, 'Shoot, boy, come on over to the dark side ...it'll be a hoot'.
12) You have ever had your R-2 unit use its self-defense electro-shock thingy to get the barbecue grill to light.
13) You have a confederate flag painted on the hood of your land-speeder.
14) You have the canopy of your X-wing welded shut and you have to get in through the window.
16) Although you had to kill him, you kinda thought that Jabba the Hutt feller had a pretty good handle on how to treat his women.
17) You have a cousin who bears a strong resemblance to Chewbacca.
18) You suggested that they outfit the Millennium Falcon with redwood deck.
19) You were the only person drinking Jack Daniels during the cantina scene.
20) If you hear: 'Luke, I am your father...and your uncle.'" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/18/2005 10:44:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Star Wars is Better |
|
| Top Ten Reasons Why Star Wars is Better
10. In the Star Wars Universe weapons are rarely, if ever, set on 'stun'.
9. The Enterprise needs a huge engine room with an anti-matter unit and a crew of 20 just to go into warp -- The Millannium Falcon does the same thing with R2-D2 and a wookie.
8. After resisting the Imperial torture droid and Darth Vader, Princess Leia still looked fresh -- After pithy Cardassian starvation torture, Picard looked like something the cat dragged in.
7. One word: Lightsaber
6. Darth Vader could choke the entire Borg empire with one glance
5. The Death Star doesn't care if a world is 'M' class or not.
4. Star Wars has WAY cooler action figure potential.
3. Jabba the Hutt would eat Harry Mudd for trying to cut in on his action.
2. The Federation would have to attempt to liberate any ship named 'Slave I'
1. Picard pilots the Enterprise through asteroid belts at one-quarter impulse power --- Han Solo floors it. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/18/2005 10:35:00 AM |
|
|
|
| MISPLACED ANGER |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2005 |
| Afghanistan, Pakistan Angry at Newsweek
If they had a single brain among them they would be ticked off at the crazy pychos who started these riots. No wonder these people still exist in the stone age...
My Way News |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/17/2005 02:08:00 PM |
|
|
|
| NEWSWEAK |
|
| Suppose for a moment that The New York Times had (falsely) reported that an Iranian prison official, trying to get information from some Americans arrested as spies, flushed a bible down a toilet. The story wafted into American homes, and American Christians took to the streets in a wave of violent protests. From South Carolina to South Dakota, hundreds of people were injured and more than a dozen killed by fanatical Christians.
Would fingers be wagging all across the country because the sloppy reporting by the Times had caused death and destruction? Or would folks be saying, "There go those Christian extremists again. These people are nuts. What sane person would kill over such a thing?"
That didn't happen, but almost exactly the same thing did, and it's Newsweek Magazine, not the radical Muslims who rioted, that is catching the brunt of the criticism. On May 9, Newsweek reported that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay by flushing a copy down a toilet.
The report triggered riots across the Muslim world from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Indonesia to Gaza. Rioters killed at least 16 people and injured more than 100 others. The alleged action by the interrogators was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League. On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.
Newsweek Magazine was irresponsible and its editors have now apologized, but let's face it. These rioters are nuts. They are extremist maniacal fanatics and it's crazy to try to appease them. The Arab League needs to stand down its protest against Newsweek and train its sights on the maniacs within its ranks. Until these people learn to address their grievances in a fashion a little more suited to the human species, they are not going to make any progress in an otherwise fairly civilized world.
There is a lesson to be learned by Newsweek, other media, and people in general, but it's not the one that is blanketing the media today. The lesson is this. It takes very little to irritate a mad dog. That doesn't mean that you go out of your way to be nice to it. It means that you avoid it if possible and be ready to kill it if necessary.
Newsweek is right to apologize for lousy reporting, but let's not lose sight of the real problem here. Sloppy reporting is cause for concern and criticism. It is not cause for death and destruction.
The reason we are in a war with Muslim terrorists is because there is a faction in the Muslim world whose automatic reaction to any form of offense is murder and mayhem. They are the real problem. Newsweek is but a minor nuisance. Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/17/2005 02:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
| NEWSWEAK |
|
| The point that many people in the United States are missing about the Newsweek article and the resultant riots-
In all reality what Newsweek printed should not have caused a riot! Sane people, rational thinking people would have reacted with little emotion and far more control to what Newsweek printed. There are millions of words printed every day--many accurate, many inaccurate. Do you see average Americans flying off the handle and killing people when someone burns a Bible?
The most important lesson we should learn from this is that we are dealing with a host of crazed and barbaric animals who will look for any excuse to shed blood. And there are millions of them. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/17/2005 05:51:00 AM |
|
|
|
| PATHETIC |
| Monday, May 16, 2005 |
| WHEN WE DO HAVE ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK, DO WE HAVE NEWSWEEK AND CBS TO BLAME? IS THE IRRESPONSIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE MEDIA PUTTING OUR CHILDREN AT RISK?
YOU DECIDE!
How a Fire Broke Out - Newsweek World News - MSNBC.com: "May 23 issue - By the end of the week, the rioting had spread from Afghanistan throughout much of the Muslim world, from Gaza to Indonesia. Mobs shouting 'Protect our Holy Book!' burned down government buildings and ransacked the offices of relief organizations in several Afghan provinces. The violence cost at least 15 lives, injured scores of people and sent a shudder through Washington, where officials worried about the stability of moderate regimes in the region."
LET NEWSWEEK KNOW HOW YOU FEEL!
Letters@newsweek.com |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/16/2005 08:37:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Reporting the War |
|
I followed the war in Bosnia as closely as I could. The reason I say as closely as I could is because the media's attention to it was sparse at best; their attitudes often cavalier. The only allusion to failures or catastrophes that could be found in this disastrous and unjust war were on the "right-wing nutcase" internet news mags. No one knew, no one understood, no one cared.
Fast forward to the coverage of the war in Iraq. Each day the mainstream media serves up an extensive buffet of stories. Every single GI killed is profiled, his family to the fifth cousin twice removed interviewed, pictures of the wife, children and sad looking family dog plastered all over the article with the ever-present disclaimer of Bush's unjust and failing war policy. Proliferate are accounts of the blood-spattered Iraqi orphans, their innocent parents lying prone under the heel of a baby-killing soldier. Every bomb blast, every shot fired, every life spent, chronicled in a never ending "in your face, America, you supported this 'quagmire'." tone.
Can't today's self-professed liberals see their own hypocrisy?
I guess the hypocrite never can... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/16/2005 05:48:00 AM |
|
|
|
| PARTY OF CONVENIENCE |
|
| As the Democrats move to block the removal of the filibuster...
Senator Joe Lieberman (D) on January 4, 1995: "The filibuster rule . . . there is no constitutional basis for it. . . . it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate." And on January 5: "The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution--which I believe, respectfully, is not right--and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes." Congressional Record.
Senator Tom Daschle (D) on January 30, 1995: "The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority . . . . They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." Congressional Record.
Senator Tom Harkin (D) on March 1, 1994: "I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional. I believe the Constitution sets out five times when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate for treaties, impeachment." Congressional Record.
Lloyd Cutler, Carter and Clinton White House Counsel, on September 29, 1968: "Nothing would more poorly serve our constitutional system than for the nominations to have earned the approval of the Senate majority, but to be thwarted because the majority is denied a chance to vote. Senators have never before employed a filibuster against a Supreme Court nomination. Indeed, prior Supreme Court nominations have seldom been debated more than 8 days. Whatever the merits of the filibuster as a device to defeat disliked legislation, its use to frustrate a judicial appointment creates a dangerous precedent with important implications for the very structure of our Government." Congressional Record. And again on April 19, 1993: "Requirements of 60 votes to cut off debate and a two-thirds vote to amend the rules are both unconstitutional." And again on May 3, 1993: "The Senate rule requiring a super-majority vote to cut off debate is unconstitutional." Washington Post.
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/16/2005 03:26:00 AM |
|
|
|
| THOSE THAT CAN, DO. THOSE THAT CAN'T, TEACH. |
|
| The Snipet drew criticism from its 4/15 post on education. Here's some more to critique:
THOSE THAT CAN, DO. THOSE THAT CAN'T, TEACH.
Reminiscing once again on the good 'ol college days I honestly can't think of any of my professors who don't fit the above stereotype. Picturing any of them in the real world is a stretch. Yes, most of them spoke of real-world experience; however, I would have loved to see most of their resumes--I guarantee none of them held a real job more than 2 years.
I'm sure you detect a degree of synicism in my tone. I'm not at ALL being critical of these individuals who attain tenure after a short stint, and are impossible to fire, dismiss or get rid of and who settle down for the next thirty years of their lives and do nothing but show up for class with a half baked lesson plan.
Truly, the only thing I took away from my college experience was a piece of paper that opened doors to jobs that I never have quite enjoyed.
TO THE POINT
-Although a few of us escaped with our brains intact, a great deal of students don't. These are the students who assimulate the philosophy of their professors. These students are supposedly the future of the nation's leadership. (I shudder to think...)
-If the future is what our colleges are producing, then it may concern you to see the political, economic, religious, and social constitution of our nation in the near future:
Recently the faculties of a large group of colleges and universities were polled. Those who were absent were located according to their voting registration. These "balanced" bastians of diversity and learning lined up as follows:
Political registration of faculty:
Republican, Libertarian or right leaning party: 3 %
Democrat, Green or left leaning party: 96%
If today's students are tomorrows leaders we have an interesting future to look forward to.
(An additional statistic of the poll was interesting. The highest percentage of left leaning professors were in English, History, Psychology, and Women's Studies. While most registered to the right were in disciplines such as Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, and Engineering.) |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/13/2005 10:47:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FUNNY DEMOCRATS |
|
| This Bolton issue is so hilarious. Like this is an important post! Michael Jackson would do just as good a job and have as much impact. Its funny how important the Democrats view the least effective and most abusive organization on earth.
Print Story: Senate Democrats move to block Bolton UN nomination on Yahoo! News: "Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer 'put a hold on the nomination' of Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, her spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz said without indicating how the process could be delayed." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/13/2005 09:30:00 AM |
|
|
|
| PPIC (Put Parents in Charge) Legislation fails in SC. |
|
| In order to win office in SC you have to be a Republican. So, many of the Democrats who run, run as Republican. We have more RINO's than any state in the Union.
For the first time, SC had an opportunity to forge groundbreaking legislation. The RINO's aren't interested, and the remaining Republicans are typical of their contemporaries--Spineless.
__________________________________________________
Here's my letter to the locals:
Dear Senator Such & Such:
It all comes down to statistics and leadership. I'll deal with the latter first.
I have lived all over the United States and have heard of many states copying others' practical legislation but to date I have never heard anyone want to be like South Carolina.
Why?
Because of the former--statistics. South Carolina often ranks highest in many undesirable categories (i.e. violence against women) and lowest in many desirable categories (i.e. education).
We have elected Republican officials in the hopes of strengthening our legislative backbone, but the people of South Carolina continue to be sorely disappointed with politics as usual. For the first time in a long time, we had an opportunity to demonstrate our leadership, to place South Carolina in the spotlight of dynamic political change and progress with the PPIC legislation, but as usual the organized lobby proved stronger than the common sense or principle of our legislators. They have well earned the praise of South Carolina's top Democrat, Inez Tennenbaum.
Such has left this voter looking for an alternative to our failing Republican party.
Disappointed,
-Jack |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/13/2005 07:34:00 AM |
|
|
|
| CREDIBILITY GAP? |
|
Or just more fancy marketing?
Would like to hear from individual Democrats what they are personally doing to help the poor. Comments welcome. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/13/2005 05:48:00 AM |
|
|
|
| PETA Kills Animals |
|
| PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com: "PETA's Dirty Secret
Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the 'unethical' treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/12/2005 02:23:00 PM |
|
|
|
| LET THE BOOK BURNINGS BEGIN! |
|
| WorldNetDaily: Bibles banned on playgrounds: "An elemenatary school principal who barred students from reading the Bible during recess after a complaint from parents is violating the Constitution, according to a public-interest law firm challenging his actions. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/12/2005 02:20:00 PM |
|
|
|
| CONSERVATIVES ON PBS? THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL! |
|
| DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: "Two congressional Democrats called Wednesday for an investigation into recent activities by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, suggesting that efforts by the Republican chairman of the private nonprofit to add more conservative programs onto PBS may violate federal law" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/12/2005 07:58:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Reid doesn't back down from Friday remark about Bush |
| Wednesday, May 11, 2005 |
| REPUBLICANS ARE LOUSY.
BUT GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE?
(AND DEMOCRATS WONDER WHY THEY CONTINUE TO LOSE GROUND.)
reviewjournal.com -- News: Reid doesn't back down from Friday remark about B...: "'Maybe my choice of words was improper, and I have indicated that maybe they were, but I want everyone here, I repeat, to know I'm going to continue to call things the way that I see them, and I think this administration has done a very, very bad job for this nation and the world.' " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/11/2005 10:57:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Wrong venue to consider cohabitation law |
| Tuesday, May 10, 2005 |
| A sheriff's deputy is openly breaking the law and refuses to stop. What's a good sheriff to do? He told her she had to quit breaking the law or quit being a deputy. She quit being a deputy. Former deputy Debora Hobbs has now sued Pender County, N.C. Sheriff Carson Smith, and the American Civil Liberties Union is standing with the deputy.
The law she deliberately violated was the North Carolina law against cohabitation. Smith found out that Hobbs and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The sheriff says the cohabitation was both a moral issue and a legal question. He said he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together but does not send out deputies to enforce the law.
There are about 144,000 unmarried couples living together in North Carolina, and they are all violating a statute that has been on the books since 1805.
Six other states have similar laws. They are Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota. In January this year, the North Dakota House defeated a challenge to its cohabitation law on a 52 to 37 vote, so even though the laws are rarely enforced, they have not yet been relegated to the graveyard for the cultural obsolete.
The ACLU will argue that they should be. "Certainly the government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes," said Jennifer Rudinger, state executive director of the ACLU. "This law is 200 years old, and a lot of people are very surprised that we even have it on the books."
As an originalist libertarian, I would vote in the legislature to eliminate the law, but I would rule from the bench that the law is constitutional, and only the legislature can change it. If the legislature were to change such laws also, their should be precedence set that would eliminate a lot of the laws requiring insurance companies to insure co-habitants, since the "government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes."
I too do not believe the government has a legitimate interest in regulating most relationships between consenting adults. If I had my way, our elected representative would neither sanction relationships they prefer, nor prohibit those with which they have moral objections. As a legislator, the only activity I would attempt to regulate between consenting adults is that which poses a clear and present danger to innocent third parties.
Judges, however, are not legislators, and the North Carolina matter is now before judges, not legislators. The duty of judges is to determine whether the law violates the constitution, not whether it conflicts with contemporary standards. I challenge anyone to point to a provision in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from "regulating relationships between consenting adults."
The U.S. Constitution, through the 10th Amendment, gives states very wide latitude and broad powers. As James Madison said in Federalist Paper #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite."
Judges too frequently attempt to remedy "outdated" attitudes by the people's representatives. Thus the attempts by liberals to load the courts with what they call "moderate" judges.
Recently, a very immoderate judge, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at Texas A&M that the Constitution is a legal document, and like other legal documents, it does not change. He then asked, "What in the world is a moderate judge? What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"
The North Carolina law may or may not conform to contemporary North Carolina standards, but that is up to the state legislature to decide. It is not a job for the courts.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/10/2005 12:12:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Education potpourri |
| Monday, May 09, 2005 |
| Say what?
Congratulations to Republican Rep. Bob Walker of Spartanburg County. He is this week's winner of the Palmetto Memorial Brain Award for notable deceased brain activity. After Wednesday's defeat of the Put Parents in Charge bill, which was tabled without discussion by a vote of 60-53, Walker said he knew all along that the bill would die in the House.
Then he said, "It was a tax credit, it didn't have anything to do with education."
What? Nothing to do with education? Giving parents the power and resources necessary to choose an alternative to their state-assigned government school has nothing to do with education? That's a brain-dead statement if I ever heard one. Someone, most likely an operative from the NEA, must have slipped the honorable gentleman from Landrum a Mickey. No one with functioning cerebral matter actually thinks that school choice, whether it be through tax credits, vouchers or other methods, has nothing to do with education.
Walker continued, "Education issues come through the Education Committee and funding issues come through Ways and Means. This bill never came to the Education Committee." That, I must marvel, is a rather simpleton test to determine whether something is applicable to education.
I don't know if there is any truth to the rumor that Walker and like-minded Republican Ronnie Townsend of Anderson are planning to start a new group, Republicans Against Choice in Education (RACE), but I hope they do. It will be easier for Republican voters who believe in the positive benefits of free-market influences to recognize them on Election Day.
Another year, another tax increase
Greenville School Superintendent Dr. Phinnize J. "Penny" Fisher has unveiled her proposed new budget, seven percent larger than last year. Most of the new money would go to reducing class size and giving teachers a larger raise, the NEA's two top priorities. She doesn't know if it will take a tax increase, but the school board has increased taxes every year since 1998.
I suppose it would be silly, or at least futile, of me to ask Dr. Fisher what measurable improvement in education we are going to see from the smaller classes and higher pay that the higher taxes will provide.
Not that again
I don't know whether to condemn Ray Williams of Greenville or pity him. It depends on whether he is part of the NEA misinformation campaign, or simply one of its victims. Williams authored a letter to the editor in the Greenville News, stating that claims about South Carolina's poor SAT ranking is misleading because South Carolina's performance is compared to states in which very few students take the SAT. He concluded, "South Carolina could probably leap into the top 15 states nationwide if we tested fewer than 10 percent of our high school seniors and, apparently, no one would be the wiser."
This bit of misinformation has reached urban legend status in South Carolina. Here are the facts. There are 23 SAT states in the U.S. and 27 ACT states. That is, there are 23 states that primarily use the SAT for college entrance and 27 that primarily use the ACT. Naturally, the 27 ACT states have low SAT participation rates, and it is, of course, unfair to compare their SAT scores to ours.
South Carolina is one of the 23 SAT states. Among those states, South Carolina has a below average SAT participation rate, but we still ranked dead last until Georgia came along and rescued us from the cellar.
No matter how Inez and her buddies try to shine up South Carolina's public education performance data, it doesn't compare well to the rest of the nation. If any state is in need of a major shakeup in education policy - not just a deeper NEA money pit - it is South Carolina.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/09/2005 05:17:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Florida drops 'duty to retreat' |
|
| Floridians can hold their heads a little higher today. They no longer have a state-mandated duty to act like cowards. Florida is now one of only a handful of states that allow people to respond to life-threatening assaults with deadly force.
Until Governor Bush signed a law yesterday, Floridians, like most of the rest of us, had a "duty to retreat." That is, if they were attacked in public, they were required by law to retreat from confrontation before they could use deadly force. Only if they could not escape their attacker, could they kill him instead. State mandated cowardice is the law of the land, but no longer in Florida.
The new Florida law does three things. First, it codifies a long-standing assumption that a homeowner has the right to use deadly force against an intruder if he feels that his or his family's life is in danger. It shields the homeowner from prosecution and prevents the assailant from lodging future civil action against the homeowner.
Second, it extends the same right to protection of one's vehicle.
Third, it says people attacked in any place outside the home where they have a legal right to be may also use force to defend themselves. It eliminates the "duty to retreat" provision that existed in previous law.
Opponents dragged out the same old "Wild West" argument to try to defeat the law. Democratic Senator Steven Geller said he liked the first two parts, but hated the third part. He said men, liquored-up at a sporting event, could easily get into a deadly confrontation and then claim self-defense. "Does this sound like some bad western you've seen?" he asked.
Critics warned of the same "Wild West" scenes when Florida passed its concealed-carry laws in 1987. In fact, there is a proliferation of evidence to indicate the concealed carry laws have decreased gun violence significantly in Florida and other states with similar laws.
The new Florida law does attempt to anticipate some abuses. For instance, if the person claiming self-defense used an illegal weapon, or was engaging in criminal behavior when the action occurred, all of the protections are null and void.
The Florida law is a wise and measured response to the tide of control laws that have made our country more vulnerable to criminal gun violence. Other states should follow suit. It will take time and perseverance to assemble an irrefutable body of evidence that arming and empowering law-abiding civilians is the best deterrent and most effective response to criminal gun violence.
The illogic that has permeated the gun debate in this country is wide and deep. It is personified by a leading gun control advocate in Florida, Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He asks, "How are you going to reduce crime when you embolden gun owners to act?" That may be the dumbest question I've heard this week, but it's typical for gun control advocates who believe it is guns, not gun owners, that control gun violence. He makes no distinction between criminals and law-abiding gun owners.
His question, properly phrased, would be, "How can you stop criminal gun violence by empowering law-abiding gun owners to confront the criminals?" If that sounds like a silly question, it's only because it is. But it is the question he is asking.
That is the way to stop criminal gun violence. It is the only way to stop criminal gun violence. Police, whom even most gun control advocates grudgingly agree need to be armed, can only stop criminal gun violence if they happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Intended victims are always in the right place at the right time. If they are armed and willing to defend themselves and their families, the ability of people to accomplish criminal goals with threatened gun violence carries a much higher risk and fewer people will choose it.
One does not have to have genius level cognitive skills to understand the logic of the new Florida law, but logic alone will never overcome the fear that people have of guns, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Criminals are generally lazy and evil, but they are not all stupid. They prefer a workplace in which only they are armed.
Well-intended but irrational people who have used the public fear of guns to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are the heroes of criminals who depend on a safe work environment.
Florida has taken a step toward making the work environment a little more risky for gun-toting criminals. I recommend that other states follow suit.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/03/2005 04:11:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
