A Simple Solution: The Danger of liberal Ideas

Here's a Great Idea To Solve the Illegal Alien Problem:

Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All illegal aliens would be seized and deported. The employers and landlords of the illegal aliens found in the searches would be prosecuted.

Fairly quickly there would begin to be illegal alien-swept, illegal alien-free areas where there should be no illegal aliens. If there were, those harboring them would be subject to quick prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for harboring illegal aliens.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-smuggling rings installing themselves in Mexico, to funnel illegal aliens into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

Sound a bit over the top? Well, this is actually a modified version of a proposal written by Dan Simpson for the Toledo Blade. Here is what he wants to really do:

[H]ow would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying." ...

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time....

Sign me up! Can't wait for this much government control.

Baby J.J.!

Judge Alex Kozinski hates blogs

ERIC GOLDMAN: So but what about blogs? . . .

JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I hate them, hateful things.

ERIC GOLDMAN: Why do you hate blogs? . . . .

JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I just think it's so self-indulgent, you know. "Oh, I'm so proud of what I'm saying, I think the world instantly wants to know what I'm thinking today." People wake up thinking, . . . . "I wonder what great thoughts have come into his mind this morning that I can feel myself edified by. I can't really have breakfast -- really enjoy my day -- until I hear the great thoughts of Howard Bashman!"
I don't think so. I go for months without ever knowing what Howard has to say. So I don't know. I find it sort of self-indulgent. And I find it grandiloquent. And I find it annoying, particularly if I'm in an audience and people are sitting there typing in their computers.

Whats funny about this is the fact that I wrote a chapter in a book about Judge Kozinski. That and it is ironic comment coming from a man who personally lobbied to get himself named, "sexist" judge on the U.S. bench.

Dennis Kucinich: The face of Weakness

One of the motivational pictures that's up on my wall

Is Tony Snow Ron Burgundy?

We report, you decide!

Carbon Offsets for sale!

Carbon offsets are basically what the Catholic Church did 500 years ago in selling indulgences to people who wanted to "get out of jail" or H-ll.

Now the Hollywood celebrities have sought to burnish their environmental credentials by purchasing these offsets to compensate for their lavish lifestyles. For example, former vice president Al Gore, among others, claims the purchase of such offsets enables him to live a "carbon neutral" lifestyle, despite his conspicuous energy consumption.

Whats the point of this post you ask? Well, I was thinking of getting into this racket ... grr ... I mean environmentally responsible living so I will be selling carbon offsets to those who need them. Since I will not be flying across Europe and will be moving back to DC (and not driving much) I will have a few to sell.

I haven't come up with a set price yet, but I believe I will allow the market forces to decide that. Anyhow, if you are feeling guilty and want to buy some offsets contact me!

"Problem Solved?"

Excellent post by the Texas Rainmaker blog:

Apparently having solved all other issues on campus, the University of Virginia has passed a resolution apologizing for slavery.

So people who’ve never owned slaves have now apologized to people who’ve never been slaves. Brilliant.

Now I’m ready for somebody who’s never done anything to me to apologize for something I’ve never personally suffered.

I’m waiting…

Cindy Sheehan is a bitch

We, as a nation, were rightly shocked, saddened and repulsed by the murders of 33 students and faculty at Virginia Tech. My heart grieves with the friends and families of the fallen. I know what a ghastly path they have been forced to step off on by a maniac who unthinkably had easy access to weapons of limited (but infinite) destruction.

Ok, that is fine. However, I would point out that 32 students were murdered. One was the killer who decided to do the right thing and blow his brains out. Coward.

Another sociopathic killer with inexplicable and unconstrained access to the planet's most deadly arsenal, George Bush, has condemned 100 times 33 of our nation's bravest and brightest to death and most people walk around indifferent to the fact that our White House is inhabited by a serial killer of historic proportions. Bloody King George has even more tragically claimed the lives of more than 20,000 times 33 innocent victims in Iraq . Where is the public horror and outrage over these killings? Where was the 24 hour news coverage this past week when over 500 people were killed in Baghdad and 65 decomposing bodies were found?

What the heck is this women talking about? If you hate America that much why not just go over to Iraq and join one of those so-called "freedom groups" and become a suicide bomber.

I was in DC this past week when George's bullet proof entourage (he always travels like he is outside the Green Zone in Iraq---how sad to have so many enemies you have to be put in a prison of your own making) hurried down to Blacksburg to participate in memorial services for the slain---yet, he has not attended one service for one of his murder victims in Iraq.

So what about Clinton? Was it a shame he had a bullet proof limo? Cindy, words cannot describe how pathetic you are. Just horrible. I wonder if your son looks down from Heaven and thinks, "Boy, my mom is a whack job!" I think he probably does.

Things learned from porn movies

1) Your cock will be huge

2) She will gladly accept you in any orifice, and orgasm loudly thereafter

3) Two is company, but sixteen is a party

4) The nude midget riding an erect horse will both delight and amuse

5) Surely her lesbian friends have only stepped out momentarily

6) She has no gag reflex and likes it rough

7) No matter what kind of weird shit your into, chances are she's into it too

8) If needed, a condom will magically appear on your penis during a cross scene fad

9) When ejaculating, it is considered gentlemanly to avoid the eyes

10) Everything feels awesome

"For Sale: One Useless Cat"

Benny Morris and Historical Revision

Benny Morris is a Jewish author who makes the claim that the land taken during the 47 war was stolen from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were pushed from their property with threats of massacre and rape.

That is being extremely facile about a very contentious subject. Morris is but one revisionist historian who admits he can’t document what he asserts. His is a minority position among historians. Other historians claim that most Arabs left because they expected Israel to lose the 1948 war, and they could return to a land free of Jews. If Israel forced the Arabs to flee then why did so many remain behind? That didn’t happen in Europe. That didn’t happen to the Jews in Arab counties. In a true expulsion virtually everyone goes. At that time about the same number of Jews left Arab countries for Israel, many leaving behind valuable property. They claim they were forced to leave and almost all of them did. By contrast so many Arabs remained in Israel they can elect their own representatives in the Knesset. Can you provide the name of one Arab who lost title to his land in the same way the Sudeten Germans did? Where are the Israeli decrees confiscating Arab property?

Lets also be clear that the migrations in the Middle East and Europe occurred at about the same time, the second half of the 1940s. So any “historical fading” applies just as much to the Middle East as it does to Europe.

"Israel will never agree to a two state solution"

I hear this position taken by many people on the left. However, let's never mind that it was the Arabs, and not Israel, who rejected the 1947 partition plan that would have established such a state. Or that the Arabs rejected Israel's offer made shortly after the 1967 war to withdraw from all land taken in that war except East Jerusalem (which Jordan had illegally occupied since 1948, and had illegally barred all entry to Jews and deliberately desecrated Jewish holy sites, many of which were millennia old) in return for peace and recognition. Or that it was the PA who rejected Israel's offer at Camp David for a state in 98% of the territory that the PA claimed to want, with portions of pre-1967 Israel tossed in to make up the difference.

Yes, let's forget that and believe Israel doesn't want peace and the Arabs do.

The Leftwing attack on the Midddle East Research Institute (MEMRI)

I wonder why does every crack-brained accusation about Israel get a serious hearing while explanations of the facts get dismissed out of hand as Zionist propaganda? Why did a British newspaper editor write that he no longer pays attention to pro-Israel information if the letter writer's name sounds Jewish? Why do people consider it an adequate refutation of MEMRI's (Middle East Research Institute) work to "accuse" MEMRI of being founded and run by Israelis Zionists (which is true) and of running inaccurate translations of the Arab press (which is not true), without pointing to a single inaccuracy in any of MEMRI's translations?

Arabs claims on Israel

I find it hard to be terribly impressed by Arab claims on Israel. There have been Jews and Arabs in the Middle East since Babylon. Yet, the Arab world (a titanic swath of humanity from the Casbah to Indonesia) cannot find peace because a useless spit of land called Israel has fallen into the hands of the Jews. Does anybody find this argument persuasive?

In addition, there have been wars over territory since before Babylon. The Palestinians and the Israelis have fought repeatedly since 1948, and the Palestinians have yet to prevail. They have a choice. They can accept reality, or they can continue to beat their heads, and the heads of their children, against the same wall, generation after generation. How many people here who claim sympathy for the Arabs would be sympathetic to a similar Mexican movement to take back Texas? Or the notion that the entire Spanish speaking world cannot rest until the perfidy of the Alamo is righted? So why is the analogous argument from the Arab world so... respectable?

There are countless historical examples of territorial battles. From that perspective, Israel and Palestine's conflict is not in the least bit unique. What is different is that in all those analogous situations, responsible leaders and sensible people recognized that endless war can only make a bad situation worse. The plight of the Palestinians is largely the result of things they have done to themselves. They have chosen the absolutely worst way to respond to a military defeat that occurred sixty years ago. Sorry, but I don't find in that anything to support.

The Resemblance is Uncanny

Apparently we exist to provide these people with position.

The campaign coffers of the new Democratic House committee chairmen have seen a big jump in contributions from lobbyists and special interests since the Democratic takeover of Congress, according to new campaign finance filings available on PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

In some cases, Democrats in powerful posts are raising more money from special interest groups than the Republicans they replaced.

Campaign finance experts say that special interests have been contributing mostly to Republicans over the last 12 years of GOP rule on Capitol Hill. Now they are having to making quick friends with Democratic leaders.

"Lobbyists and interest groups need to make a connection right away, and one of the ways to do that is through a PAC contribution," says Kent Cooper, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.

In the past three months, the new committee chairmen have raised $2.4 million in campaign contributions from PACs, the committees created by lobbyists and special interest groups to make contributions and influence elections.

...

The chairman to receive the most PAC money was Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, who reported raising $486,669 from PACs, compared to $7,500 during the same period two years ago. Rangel's PAC donors compromised more than half the money he raised and represent a broad array of industries including health care, finance, transportation, agriculture, technology, retailers and organized labor.

Democrats want to ban things that they don't know about

Don't trust your eyes

You have to try to understand people who will do anything to convince one to believe in their point of view. For instance, the media lying and making false pictures to support their claims that global warming is a grave threat about ready to destroy us all.

As these pictures show the media will go to any length to deceive you. Here is a brief description of what one blogger discovered about these photos:
"Kate McMillan did some fantastic work yesterday uncovering image manipulation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on an April 19th story about the government's sobering Kyoto costing. McMillan discovered that the CBC had cropped and applied a photoshop "dirty" filter to an image of smokestacks in Toronto to accentuate environmental damage. Not only was the juxtaposition of pollution and a story on Kyoto costing inappropriate (a less but still inappropriate image would have been a photoshopped stack of papers stamped 'Kyoto' crushing the piggy bank of a Canadian family) but to manipulate an image to reflect a editorial point of view is downright unethical. The image was also used in a news story back on February 14th."

There are many words, but only one truth

Basically this is the mentality of Democrats. Take, for instance, good olde' Senator Joe Biden.

Speaking at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network event in New York, Biden said President Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called “the politics of polarization.”

Biden said Republicans have created an environment that brings bad things to the United States.

“I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what’s gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn’t happen accidentally, all these things,” he said.

I wonder, but highly doubt, if any conservative would list all the hardships that the nation went through during the 40 years prior to 1994 when Democrats largely controlled the federal government and blame liberals for those things.

Try running these comments by your friends on the left and I bet you'll be in for quite a surprise. Democrats are what they are because they cannot think rationally for themselves. That’s why they like loud, obnoxious mouthpieces like Rosie, Sharpton, Biden and on and on.

University of Rhode Island hates free speech

Again, whats not to like about liberals?

With dramatic disregard for students’ constitutional rights, a committee of the University of Rhode Island (URI) Student Senate voted on Monday to derecognize the College Republicans. For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 “scholarship” for white, heterosexual, American males—an award that was never actually given out. The College Republicans refused to apologize for their protected expression and instead contacted FIRE for help. FIRE is now calling upon URI President Robert Carothers, who has already informed the Senate that it could not compel student speech, to reverse the decision to derecognize the group.

They are the gift that keeps on giving. "Free speech for us, not for you! And don't show our hypocrite nature!"

SFSU Liberals Showing Their True Colors

I particularly like the following quote: "The U.S. is worse than Hitler." Good times. Liberals really got love for America!!!

Terrorist Flag is Protected, Ours is Not According to SFSU

Am I taking crazy pills? What is going on in this world where there are these kind of idiots investigating people for burning flags of terrorists?!!!

In a profound display of disrespect for free speech, San Francisco State University (SFSU) is investigating its College Republicans for hosting an anti-terrorism rally on campus in which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags. After students filed a complaint claiming they were offended because the flags bore the word “Allah,” SFSU initiated an investigation into accusations of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. Members of the College Republicans then contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for assistance.

The students who stepped on the flag were not punished but this entire controversy should never have gone on in America. I guess for liberals it's free speech for us, but not for you.

Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

Democratic Presidential Candidate wants emphasis on Africa

New Mexico's Democrat Governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson announced that, if elected president, he would change the emphasis on the United States' foreign policy:

"Somehow [Africa's] not considered by American policymakers to have the importance it deserves," Richardson said. "Issues related to AIDS, refugees, issues related to governance, international poverty — somehow this continent is forgotten."

I wonder why the emphasis isn't on Africa? I mean what overriding issue would trump AIDS, poverty, governance problems with African countries? I mean a lack of emphasis could only occur if our country had a grave threat from people who are bent on killing us. People who drove plans into buildings and forced us to take the fight to them. It's not like we are fighting such a war.

You just can't make this stuff up!

I just don't know where to start on this one. Only in New Jersey does this happen.

James E. McGreevey, who resigned the governorship under a cloud of scandal, has a new job teaching law, ethics and leadership at one of New Jersey's public colleges.

State Republican Chairman Tom Wilson said of the matter:

"It seems to me," Wilson said, "Jim McGreevey teaching law and ethics is a little bit like Doctor Kevorkian teaching health maintenance."

Now remember former NJ Governor McGreevey did the following while leading the state of New Jersey:

1) Hired a foreign citizen as the Homeland Security Czar for New Jersey. Who couldn’t get clearance to run the position. This man turned out to be his "boy toy."
2) Had a gay affair in office which resulted in a very public divorce from his wife
3) Mired in multiple pay to play scandals

Seriously this is par for the course in New Jersey. Corruption upon corruption. Governors who buy the office and are so far above the law that they can’t be bothered to even wear a seat belt like the rest of the plebes.

Girlfriend dumps guy over BlackBerry blackout

If your girlfriend is that needy, Blackberry did you a favor.

Just as the smoke is starting to clear from today's massive BlackBerry blackout, Rafael Paz, a loss control specialist for a car rental agency, writes to tell me that he has been "getting my e-mails about one to four hours late minimum since yesterday." And it hasn't just been loss control that has suffered, he adds: "This issue sucks. I've been getting grief about it from my now ex-girlfriend thanks to this delay. She thought I was ignoring her e-mails when I was receiving them hours late."

So I write back expressing my fervent hope that he was kidding about the "ex" part. No chance.

"We got into a really bad argument earlier in the day," he replies. "She sent me a few e-mails and when I didn't respond right away, she thought I was ignoring her and called it off. I didn't get the e-mail it was over until around 2 a.m. today."

Not knowing what else to say, I suggest that perhaps this situation might be covered by his BlackBerry service-level agreement. His reply:

"I'll call RIM and tell them to give me an upgrade on a new girlfriend."

Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School In California

Protesters put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in California.

Scalia Having Second Thoughts About the Commerce Clause?

In the Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a very brief concurring opinion:

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S.914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

Justice Scalia joined this opinion. Thomas, who has a very narrow view of the scope of the Commerce Clause seems to be hinting that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the law. That didn't stop Justice Scalia, who wrote an atrocious concurring opinion on the Commerce Clause issue in the medical marijuana case, from joining Thomas's concurrence. I may be reading too much into this, given that Thomas's note that the Commerce Clause issue was not raised is obviously true, and Scalia certainly wouldn't disagree with that particular premise. But I'm hoping that Scalia, too, wishes to hint that, he suspects that Congress dictating nationwide abortion laws exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Understanding Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Ed.

Section: 7708(b)(2)(B)(i) of the law in question disregards districts with ppe above 95 pcile or below 5pcile.

The problem remains that the formula as written into law leads to conclusions that are absolutely absurd because it weighs all districts equally instead of weighing them by the number of students.

For instance, suppose the following distribution of 100 students into ten districts as follows

# of Students PPE
46 1000
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
46 0.001

Now, according to the letter of the law we can discard districts “with per-pupil expenditures . . . above the 95th percentile or below the 5th percentile of such expenditures . . . in the State.”

Since the top and bottom districts are above the 95th and below the 5th percentile (by definition, if you are counting per-district and there are ten you drop exactly the top and bottom) we can discard them and are left with the conclusion that this is a system that equalizes expenditures. This is, of course, patently absurd.

What's worse, the system can fail in exactly the opposite way - labeling a system as not equal when it substantially equal. For instance, consider the same 100 students divided into districts thusly

1 10
1 9
16 8
16 8
16 8
16 8
16 8
16 8
1 6
1 5

Once again, in a ten district system, the top and bottom districts are, by definition, in the 95th and 5th percentile and are dropped. We then conclude that the difference between the greatest and least (in this smaller set) is 33%>25% and therefore this system is not equalized. But of course, it is.

It fundamentally does not make sense to evaluate the spending per pupil in the various districts without any reference to the size of those districts. It is contrary to the fundamental rules of statistical analysis which state that you must assign a sensical weight to each input instead of simply counting them all equally.

Am I wrong here?

Oooh, Math Is Scary!

From Justice Scalia's dissent in Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Ed.:

The majority concludes that this method of calculation, with its focus on student population, is a permissible interpretation of the statute.

It most assuredly is not. To understand why, one first must look beyond the smokescreen that the Court lays down with its repeated apologies for inexperience in statistics, and its endless recitation of technical mathematical definitions of the word “percentile.” See, e.g., ante, at 12–13 (“‘The n-th percentile is the value xn/100 such that n per cent of the population is less than or equal to xn/100.’” (quoting C. Clapham & J. Nicholson, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics 378 (3d ed. 2005))). This case is not a scary math problem; it is a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation. And we do not need the Court’s hypothetical cadre of number-crunching amici, ante, at 17, to guide our way.

Do not be scared, legal America! Even if technical mathematical definitions of the word "percentile," with subscripts, slashes, n's, x's, and everything, were crucial here, the Justices of the Supreme Court would doubtless have been up to the task. The only thing we have to fear is math-phobia itself.

Senator Arlen Specter and the Military Commissions Act

These comments directly connect to my last post. To show I am not being partisan and that Harry Reid isn't the only Senator to vote for a bill he thinks is unconstitutional I give you Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) who just might have given us the most blatant recent example of this kind of two-faced nonsense.

In his case, Senator Specter first announced that he would not vote for the Military Commissions Act with the habeas provisions intact because he believed they were unconstitutional, then voting for the Act , he explained that he hoped the courts would sort it out. However hypocritical it is to vote for a law you believe is unconstitutional and want the court to strike down, it adds a whole level of irony when the part you want to strike down is the part that strips courts of jurisdiction.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid on PBA Ruling:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was among those who denounced yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Commenting on the decision, Reid said "A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there," indicating his desire that there has been a fifth vote to invalidate the statute, as Justice O'Connor had provided the fifth vote to invalidate Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in Stenberg v. Carhart.

What is curious about Reid's statement, as NPR and some news outlets have noted, is not Reid's criticism of Alito -- Reid opposed Alito's confirmation -- but the fact that Reid supported, and voted for, the federal statute upheld in yesterday's decision. Reid was one of 17 Senate Democrats voting in favor of the billin 2003. He also voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion in 1999 and , as indicated in his "Meet the Press" interview, Reid was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote against a resolution reaffirming Senate support for the holding of Roe v. Wade.

So, despite his repeated support of legislative restrictions on abortion, Reid's latest comment suggests that he believes the Supreme Court's decision was regrettable and wrongly decided, and that a law that he supported is unconstitutional.

To me, the latter is of greater concern. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if a member of the Senate believes a law is unconstitutional, he or she should vote against it. While I believe it is permissible to vote in favor of a bill that one believes the Supreme Court will invalidate (a Senator need not agree with the rulings of the Supreme Court), I do not believe that a Senator should vote in favor of a bill the he or she believes should be struck down by the Supreme Court, and it is more than a minor inconsistency when a Senator laments a Supreme Court decision upholding a law which that Senator supported. Note that I don't think Senator Reid can argue that he likes the law as a matter of policy, but believes it to be unconstitutional as a) he is sill obligated to vote against any bill that he believes to be unconstitutional, and b) his refusal to vote in support of Roe indicates that he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decisions holding most abortion restrictions unconstitutional.

Alas, Senator Reid is hardly alone in this regard. It has become almost routine for legislators of both parties to disclaim any serious evaluation of the constitutionality of their enactments and await court evaluation of their efforts. This is regrettable. Particularly if members of Congress desire or expect some degree of judicial deference to legislative enactments, they should take their oaths to uphold the constitution more seriously, and refuse to support given legislation when they conclude, based upon the exercise of their own independent judgment, that a bill is unconstitutional. So, if that is how Senator Reid felt about the federal partial birth abortion act, he should have voted against it.

In the end, my home-state Senator is an idiot.

Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Gonzales v. Carhart

In Gonzales v. Carhart, yesterday's partial birth abortion decision, the mostly liberal advocates of virtually limitless congressional power under the Commerce Clause are to a certain extent reaping the fruit of what they sowed in cases such as Gonzales v. Raich.

In the argument, Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that a federal ban on partial birth abortion - particularly one that extends to free abortion clinics - may exceed Congress' Commerce Clause authority, which only gives it the power to regulate "commerce . . . among the several States:" That concern is, in my view, well-taken. However, it directly contradicts the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which endorsed virtually unlimited congressional power over anything that Congress has a "rational" basis to believe is even remotely connected to interstate commerce. Ironically, Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich, and Ginsburg signed on to it.

I have warned that virtually limitless federal power can be used to uphold far-reaching conservative legislation, as well as liberal, and that it is far from clear that unlimited federal power is in the interests of liberals in an era when the federal government will often be controlled by conservative Republicans. And here is a prime example in the federal partial birth abortion ban of an Act supporting my point.

More importantly in a highly diverse society most such controversial social issues are better handled at the state, local, and private sector levels than through a one-size-fits all federal solution. Federalism debates often come down to a matter of whose ox is being gored in a particular case, which is perhaps understandable. However, there are also important systematic advantages of decentralization that are lost under a central government with nearly unlimited power.

Perhaps one consequence of Gonzales v. Carhart will be at least a modest increase in appreciation for federalism among both liberal and conservative jurists.

Gonzales v. Carhart and Moral Implications

I’m glad this legislation was upheld. It’s a terrible procedure where a doctor partially delivers a child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, then punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the now-dead infant. On that note I have seen the question asked by liberal bloggers:

What is society to do with all those additional unwanted babies?

This question is part of the reason why I support limited abortion rights, even though I am morally conflicted about it. (I think Roe is a constitutional abomination, but that's a totally different question.) However....

Yes, a total ban on abortion would result in a number of unwanted babies and lead to other social problems. But I don't think that this potential consequence is controlling when there is a moral question involved. I can imagine a lot of "efficient" laws or solutions that would be horribly, morally wrong. Consider a number of variations on Swift's "A modest Proposal".

When it comes down to it, there are some things that are sufficiently wrong that you oppose them and deal with the consequences as best as you can.

One must remember no constitutional right is absolute. The right to free expression is limited by libel, slander, obscenity, and the "fighting words" doctrine. A right to be secure in one's home can be invaded with a search warrant (and sometimes without). I list these things to show that any fundamental right does have limits and, more importantly, it SHOULD have limits. There are many conflicting values in our constitutional system and this is just one of them.

An Interview with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul or "Dr. No"

Here is my boy! Ron Paul in 08!!!

WHY HE'S RUNNING:

I am arguing that (Republicans) have lost their way. Right now, on the surface, a lot of Republicans in Washington will be critical of my positions, saying "I don't support the president or the party," but if you look at our platform, our state platforms, our policy positions, I would say we have lost our way. And quite frankly, I have not seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that's actually offering to stand up and stand for the principals the Republican Party has been built on.

In the past six years, when the foreign policy really changed, when we accepted the notion of pre-emptive war, a strong violation of our personal civil liberties, (we) at the same time (became) the party of entitlements, doubling the size of the Department of Education, McCain-Feingold. These are all things that Republicans used to criticize and not support, and all of a sudden we accept them. In essence, we have accepted what has traditionally been the Democratic platform -- increase entitlements and foreign intervention, getting involved in quagmires abroad.

IRAQ:

The president, if we are attacked or there is an imminent threat, has the authority to go to war. That's been clearly understood since the Constitution. ... The president, as commander in chief, can defend his country in times of emergency. But you know what? That has never happened in all these years. Even with the Soviet threat. ... Under today's conditions, the policy has significantly changed for the worse. That is, we now have established that our policy is to pre-emptively strike a country that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us. We just want to go in and have regime change.

We ought to look to the Constitution. ... We should only fight when there is a declaration of war, when there is an extreme circumstance. We should not have all options on the table to attack Iran when they don't have a weapon.

We shouldn't finance bad policy or unconstitutional war.

IMMIGRATION:

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the top issues in this country. ... People are really, really disgusted with it. I think the immigration problem is in some ways a symptom. And my position is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we subsidize and encourage illegal immigration. It started in the 1980s when amnesty was given after illegals came here.

Amnesty, ... I don't like that idea; I don't want to reward those who are already here. I don't think anybody has an easy answer about what to do with those who are already here. I think we ought to enforce the law, but what kind of an army would you need to round them up?

I also don't support a pathway to citizenship. They cannot get in the front of the line; I would not reward them in any way whatsoever.

I would also get rid of all the mandates from the federal government that say the states must provide free education, medical care and benefits to illegals. That is another reason they bring their families over here.

I believe we should beef up the borders, and I believe it should be civilian, not military. I believe we shouldn't be worried about the border between North and South Korea after 50 years or about the border between Iraq and Syria. I mean, that's where all our money and personnel is going. I think we should bring the troops home and getting them out of the war mode and probably be using the resources … to beef up our borders without adding any cost to the budget.

SPENDING:

I don't think there is one single budget you can't cut. Politically, the easiest budget to cut is the overseas expenditures. And then you deal with other problems as time goes on. I certainly would not be signing a bill that would double the size of the DOE or increase the size of the entitlement system or a drug company-promoted prescription drug program. That's where we as Republicans have fallen down, and that is the reason our base was very unhappy last September.

TAXES:

We lived in this country a long time without income tax, but then we had limited government. I don't think we need an income tax. I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position. My slogan at home has always been "the taxpayers' best friend," and most people like that regardless of what party they are in.

CAMPAIGN STRATEGY:

I felt good about every trip I have taken. We always pick up support and enthusiasm, … and the reception has been good. We don't have $100 million in the bank; we are not supported by wealthy special interests, so we are not polling. ... We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four or five early states, but the pressure is to have everybody together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever.

Republicans sometimes get intimidated that they have to follow the party instead of the platform and our promises in the Constitution. My job … is to make conservatives feel comfortable on any number of issues for really following through on what they believe in.

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

GOLD STANDARD:

I don't exactly say, 'Let's go back to the gold standard,' and you may chuckle a little bit, … but the question has to be turned around. What is it that possesses anybody to think that governments, which (are) not trusted by anybody, should have the power to create money out of thin air and create runaway spending and allow the politicians to not worry about deficits in order to buy reelection? And allow them to police the world and allow them to provide all these big benefits? ... That is the most astounding philosophy in the world, and it has never worked, … and now we are in the process of a failing dollar. ... So, yes, I want to restore integrity to the money, not be a counterfeiter. My proposal is not to close the Federal Reserve down and go back to the 19th century, it's just to legalize that which the founders consider(ed) very important.

Compassion: Students Forgive Virginia Tech Killer

Realizing that everyone grieves in different ways I am at a loss to understand the following:

[S]omewhere in between all the anger, there are the occasional students who are willing to forgive, and offer their prayers to honor the killer's life.

One such group, called "Eternal Rest Grant Unto Him, O Lord: Cho Seung-Hui," now has over 50 members signed up in the group, and they are speaking their minds. Most members do not attend Virginia Tech, and they range from high school students to graduates from all over the country.

If that is what compassion entials, mark me down as a fan of vendetta.

If it helps the students get passed this, fine. But usually forgiveness is granted to those who ask for it.

Clearly Cho did not. He was too narcisstic, crazy, and evil to ask for forgiveness. His arrogances alone should be enough to forbid it. Only that very special dysfunctional loser with nothing at all to be arrogant about can be arrogant.

So I ask how can forgiveness be extended to him?

I think I am in love

Have a problem with someone not paying you?

Well, the solution is simple ... small claims. Filing is easy and often the company or person will settle without you even appearing in court. Click on title for links to various states' small claims courts

IRS Grants Six-Month Filing, Payment Extension Following Virginia Tech Shooting

This relief applies to the victims, their families, emergency responders and university students and employees.

"Taxes are the last thing the Virginia Tech family should be worried about at this time," IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said. "Our hearts go out to the people affected by this tragic event."

The relief announced today allows taxpayers affected by the events at Virginia Tech to have until Oct. 15, 2007, to file and make payments associated with their 2006 individual tax returns due April 17. No filing and payment penalties will be due for those who qualify for this extension as long as the returns are filed and payments are made by Oct. 15, 2007.

In order to claim this relief, taxpayers need to call the IRS at 1-866-562-5227 and identify themselves to the IRS before they file and or make payment.

If The US Government Were The Average Household, What Would Its Budget Be?

Problems with the Voting Rights Act

This is sort of old, but I think what George Will said is right on:

Today there are 43 African-American members of the House and Senate and more than 9,000 elected state and local officials. The state with the largest number? Mississippi. Second and third? Alabama and Louisiana. So why the continuing pretense that the right to vote is, for African-Americans, precarious and, unless the full VRA is preserved forever, perishable?

One reason is that prominent Democrats, with their habit of seizing their own party's jugular, present the party as a bad, although practiced, loser. They assert what evidence refutes—"disenfranchising" (John Kerry's word) "a million" (Kerry's number) African-American voters in 2000, and the "suppression" (Howard Dean's word) of African-American votes in Ohio in 2004. Such meretricious laments encourage some African-American leaders to strike familiar sterile poses of victimhood. For some civil-rights organizations that are reluctant to recast their mission in response to their successes, and for some African-American leaders comfortable with a vocabulary of angry complaint 40 years old, renewal of the VRA's initially temporary provisions is a comfortable and unstrenuous, although irrelevant, project.

Zoolander -- Coffee

Zoolander -- Male Model Face Off

Zoolander -- Gasoline Fight

1980s 49ers Rap

Glad my landlord isn't that bad

Crap! Is this kid heavy!!!

I guess Iran will still get a pass by some

Iranian weapons intercepted on the way to the Afghanistan.

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

Interesting. I think this still doesn't help get them off the axis of evil list.

SNL - Peyton Manning

We are the 49ers Video

9ers Video