Better pictures

Over at The Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk is compiling a list of pictures and links which are far more worthy of the Pulitzer Prize than the ones that were actually chosen.

Florida residents can now defend themselves in public

Update: Kim du Toit weighs in on the issue, as I expected he would.

The Florida State House of Representatives passed legislation, which had already been passed by the State Senate, addressing citizens' right to self-defense:

The bill essentially extends and codifies a right Floridians already have in their homes or cars, saying that there's no need to retreat before fighting back. People attacked in their homes generally don't have to back off. But in public spaces, deadly force can only be used after trying to retreat.

As usual, the proponents of victim disarmament and empowerment of criminals are incensed:

Opponents said the idea will legalize shootouts in the streets.

"This bill creates a wild, wild west out there," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood.

The "wild west" argument has been used every time a state or local government has made it easier for citizens to carry and use weapons for self-defense. And every time it has been proven groundless.

They're also making the obligatory flawed analogy with other recent events:

The sponsor, Baxley, also led the failed legislative effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive by blocking the removal of her feeding tube - and decried a growing "culture of death."

"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," said Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. "You are telling people when they are in the midst of an emotional moment ... you can stand your ground until death happens."

No, dumbass, we're telling people that they don't have to accept their own maimings or deaths at the hands of assailants just because we don't want to violate the rights of said assailants. By initiating violence against another, an attacker violates the rights of his victim and thereby forfeits his own right not to have violence done to him. This bill doesn't devalue life, it affirms the value of the lives of law-abiding citizens and their right to self-defense.

President Bush finally comes right out and tells the truth about Social Security

Yesterday, speaking at West Virginia University, President Bush finally said in plain language the truth about the so-called Social Security trust fund:

have just come from the Bureau of Public Debt. I want to thank Van Zeck, Keith Rake, and Susan Chapman. Susan was the tour guide there at the Bureau of Public Debt. I went there because I'm trying to make a point about the Social Security trust. You see, a lot of people in America think there's a trust, in this sense -- that we take your money through payroll taxes and then we hold it for you, and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works.

There is no "trust fund," just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.

The office here in Parkersburg stores those IOUs. They're stacked in a filing cabinet. Imagine -- the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It's time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control, that you call your own -- assets that the government cannot take away.

I personally would much rather the Social Security tax I'm paying go into a private account. Heck, I'd rather put it in my 401k plan to be honest. The opposition to privatizing Social Security is sometimes just plain stupid. For example, Hans Reimer, the political director of the organization Rock the Vote said:

To us, it's totally black and white. This is the first generation ever that would be asked to pay for their own retirement and Social Security at the same time. This is what private accounts do. They saddle young people with an unfair burden.

Huh? What he apparently doesn't realize is that this "first generation" would not be paying any more than anyone else. The only difference is that some of what they pay would go into a private account and the rest to the regular Social Security fund (which means, of course, it would end up in the general fund, replaced by another of those IOU's).

I don't know if Social Security reform has a chance of happening during this administration. But at least the President is still talking about it and working to make it happen. Yes, Social Security isn't in immediate danger; it will be able to pay full benefits for a while. Currently more is coming in than is being paid out in benefits. The difference, as noted above, is then "borrowed" by the general fund and replaced with treasury bonds. Some think that qualifies as a "trust fund" but that's an illusion as the government is literally borrowing from itself. It's similar to my borrowing from my 401k account. I have to pay back the "loan" with interest, and that interest goes into the account so it's still mine, but that interest doesn't equate to profit. Those bonds will have to be repaid, with interest, and that payment and interest will come from taxpayers. In effect, the government is borrowing from us and then paying us back, using our own taxes to do it. Sounds like a profitable "trust fund" to me....

The Pulitzer Prize for terrorist sympathy?

The prize for Breaking News Photography, according to the citation for the award is:

For a distinguished example of breaking news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities.

The pictures can be found here. Take a look and then come back here.

Did you look at them all? What did you notice? Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report breaks it down:

5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.

...

To their credit, at least three photos show the victims of terrorism. See, fair and balanced.

No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule.

Gaijinbiker at Riding Sun expands on this:

I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:

• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
(4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18)
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
(6, 15, 20)
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
(7, 12, 14)
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
(16, 17)
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
(1, 19)

Equally telling is what the photos don't show:

• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

Yes, the photos are impressive and are worthy of individual recognition. But, taken as a group, it becomes difficult to believe the Pulitzer committee is not expressing their opinion of the war in Iraq and attempting to influence public opinion.

There's also the little matter of photo number 20 and how the photographer came to be on the scene at just the right time. I won't go into detail as Powerline and others have already addressed it depth.

In 2002, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Jimmy Carter. The chairman of the prize committee, Gunnar Berge, admitted openly that, at least in his view, the prize was intended as a political message: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize had previously been awarded to Yassir Arafat and we all know just how committed to peace he really was.

The Pulitzer Prize for photography is not as blatant as Carter's Nobel prize. I'll even admit that it's possible the Pulitzer committee wasn't trying to make a political statement with their choices as many of my fellow bloggers are convinced. But even if they weren't, I still can't help but think that they could have chosen a more balanced set of photographs. Surely there are many images of positive events in Iraq that are just as dramatic.

In addition to The Jawa Report, the following blogs have also commented on this:

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin again
Powerline
Blackfive

Meet the new rig

Update

It wasn't long before I discovered that my new computer was having the same problem as the previous computer. I had originally thought it was the motherboard, which is partly why I got a new system, but now know that it was the 40GB IBM DeskStar hard drive. That drive had been in the previous computer, and the computer before that. All three computers that drive was in had problems. I did some web research and it is apparently a known issue with that line of hard drive. It's now a paperweight.

I recently replaced the 120GB IDE drive with a 250GB SATA drive. The 120 I put in an external enclosure that allows me to hook it up to a USB port. I now have 120GB of portable storage goodness.

At the same time I replaced the two off-white optical drives with a new DVD burner and a CD burner/DVD ROM combo drive. I can theoretically burn two CD's or burn one CD and one DVD simultaneously. The best part is that they have black bezels so they match the color of my case. I also replaced the white floppy drive with a black multi-format card reader. Now I can pop the compact flash card from my camera into the front of the machine and access the stored images directly.

Since I now know that the motherboard in the old computer is good, I plan on resurrecting it. I'll get new RAM for the new machine, put the old RAM back in the old machine, put the old optical drives back in, and get an inexpensive hard drive. I need to reconfigure a couple of fans as well. Once it's up I'll probably use it as a game server, or a system where I can mess around with various operating systems and software without worrying about losing any data if I have to scrape the drive.

(Original post follows)

So I broke down and upgraded the computer. I had a partial system assembled by a local shop, bought a new video card at CompUSA of all places (the local shop building my system didn't have what I wanted and CompUSA had a good enough price on it), and put it all together. All in all, here's what's new in it:

• MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI motherboard


• AMD Athlon64 3500+ Socket 939 CPU


• Coolermaster Centurion 5 aluminum case


• Antec NeoPower 480 power supply


• Zalman CNP S7000b-Cu CPU cooler


• ATi Radeon X800XL video card

In addition, I used the existing RAM from my old system (Corsair XMS DDR400/PC3200), the existing hard drives (WD 120GB and IBM 40GB), and the existing optical drives.

For grins, I ran 3DMark2001SE sort of as a guage of raw power improvement. It's an older benchmark and doesn't take advantage of some of the new rendering capabilities of current hardware. It showed a full 50% increase. 3DMark2005 gives a score in the 4800's which is in line with what I've seen in reviews of my new video card, a little better in fact. This motherboard will let me tweak all kinds of stuff but I think I'll just leave it alone as it's plenty fast now. The main improvement in the games that I'm playing is that I'll be able to run them at 1280x1024 resolution, which is the native resolution of my LCD monitor, rather than at a lower resolution. I can also run some games at higher quality, such as Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Unreal Tournament 2004.

It's also noticeably quieter. The power supply has a single 120mm fan instead of two smaller fans. The case has a 120mm fan in the back and an 80mm fan in the front. I've replaced the front fan with an even quieter one I was using in the old system. The CPU cooler is known for making little noise. The fan will speed up some when the system is under load, but even then it's not obnoxious.

The motherboard is capable of SLI, which is where you can put in two nVidia video cards and have them work together. Basically each one handles rendering half of each frame. I'm not using that as I have an ATi video card. I chose this motherboard instead of the Neo4 Platinum (non-SLI) because this one had much better onboard audio. It comes with a Creative SoundBlaster Live! built-in. It sounds good, and I'd say it's even better than the SoundStorm on my old motherboard.

The new case is smaller than the old, and has better airflow. However, being mostly steel and not aluminum (which I wasn't aware of when I bought it), it's heavier. Still, that means it's sturdier and is likely quieter as it doesn't flex as much with vibration of the fans and hard drives. The only lights on this computer are the LED's on the front of the optical drives, and the power and hard drive access indicator LED's on the front of the case. I thought about putting one of the lighted fans from the old system in the front of this case but they have aluminum frames and the front fan uses screws that screw directly into the fan frame so only plastic frame fans will work.

I've had a few hiccups but I've hopefully got all the kinks wired out. At the very least it should last me another year or so. I do plan on putting in a couple of serial-ATA drives, possibly later this year. For now, the hard drives from the old system appear to be doing the job.

Washington State Estate Tax

The Washington State legislature is considering reinstating a state-level estate tax. The state has had an estate tax, also known as an inheritance tax, since 1901 but the State Supreme Court abolished it in February on Constitutional grounds. In the ruling, they said any new estate tax would have to be the result of new legislation and so, naturally, that's what the Democrat-controlled legislature is going to do. As expected, Governor Gregoire (for how long, we don't know yet) will sign it into law.

What really got me was this comment from Gregoire:

"Those who are rich in Washington state are rich because we have a great state," Gregoire said when she announced her intention to partially reimpose the estate tax. "The economy has allowed them to prosper. ... Why not have them pay for education for the children of our state?"

Translation: Those who are rich are rich because the government let them become rich. Pure. Unadulterated. Socialism. People who become rich do so through hard work and smart choices. Also, the image that proponents of the estate tax want you to form in your mind is that of the so-called idle rich. These are people who simply have a lot of cash sitting in investment accounts and they're living a life of leisure without doing any work. While there are some people who fit this definition, the vast majority of rich people are hard-working. They are business-owners, and their businesses provide jobs and power the economy. Their wealth is in the value of the businesses they own, not simple cash or securities. Take, for example, this man:

"I would support a higher sales tax, even an income tax in this state, rather than having a death tax installed," said Don Root, who wants his sons to carry on his Seattle-based manufacturing and design company after he dies.

Reinstating an estate tax at the same time the federal government is poised to abolish it would cause successful Washington businesses to leave the state, taking a lot of good jobs with them, said Root, whose company employs roughly 450 people in Washington.

It's not as if his sons will be able to sit on their butts and watch the money roll in. They'll have to work for it by running the business. They'll be earning that money.

If the estate tax forces the heirs of a business-owner to liquidate the business in order to pay the tax, just how in the hell does that help the economy? The proposed legislation affects only those whose estates are worth two million dollars or more, but this is not a hard limit to exceed when you own your own business.

Gregoire is not the only one supporting reinstating the estate tax. The father of the country's wealthiest individual, and a wealthy man in his own right, is also onboard:

"The question is, why are people wealthy?" [William] Gates [Sr.] said at a news conference last week. "They worked hard, they're smart, and they are American ... (with) a police force that works, a court system that works, a market system that makes it possible to dispose of what you own. Economists tell us that having a stable market adds 30 percent to the value of everything you own."

Gates is a leading voice in the campaign to preserve the estate tax through Responsible Wealth, a national network contending that concentrated wealth tends to turn into concentrated political power and is therefore bad for democracy.

At a forum last week in Olympia, Gates said Washington's tax system puts a disproportionate burden on poor people.

One of the best ways to shift the tax burden from low-income and middle-class residents to those who can best afford it is to restore Washington's estate tax, he said.

Of course Mr. Gates does not have to worry about whether or not his son will inherit anything when he dies. And in the case of Bill Gates Jr., when he dies it's not as if Microsoft will have to be liquidated to pay the estate tax. But a smaller business, where one person essentially owns it all, does not have that luxury.

I do agree that wealthy people have a greater social obligation to help those less fortunate, for indeed I do recognize that fortune plays a role though not the only one, and usually not the major one. Yet I'd rather see that obligation fulfilled through charitable giving rather than government-mandated wealth redistribution. That, after all, is what an estate tax really is and, as such, is socialism pure and simple.

Alaska Governor Murkowski on drilling in the ANWR

Frank H. Murkowski, the Governor of the State of Alaska, has penned an opinion piece for the Seattle Times. In it, he attempts to explain why drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, which has recently been approved by Congress, is a good idea and won't adversely affect the environment. I've included some excerpts with commentary below. First, he provides us with an interesting number:

Washington's five oil refineries process billions of dollars of Alaska crude, supplying consumers throughout the Northwest with energy. Washington alone consumes 18 million gallons of petroleum daily. Apparently, not everyone is traveling to their destinations on bicycles. If Alaska's crude oil were not available, Washington state would be getting its oil supply from Middle Eastern nations in foreign ships with foreign crews, built in foreign shipyards.

Most of Washington State's power comes from hydroelectric dams but electricity doesn't power cars (yet), nor the trucks, trains, and ships which move goods from one place to another and form part of the backbone of the nation's economy.

Alaska's environmental standards are the highest in the world, and yet Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray — opponents of ANWR drilling — have repeatedly declined my invitations to visit ANWR and see firsthand this area of national importance.

All I can say about this is that I am totally not surprised.

Advances in directional drilling make the footprint in ANWR extremely small. Use of only 2,000 acres for ANWR development is authorized in the House energy bill, yet ANWR is 19 million acres, about the size of Colorado.

Hmmm... Let's do some math here. Two thousand out of 19 million is 1.0526315789473684210526315789474e-4 according to my calculator. This equates to roughly 0.01 percent. That's right, a hundredth of a hundredth. We're talking a virtually neglible amount of area here. Now, admittedly, this is not the entire portion of the ANWR that Congress in 1980 said could be developed for oil exploration if Congress authorizes it. That area is the coastal plain which is about 1.5 million acres. Yet even that is only about 8 percent of the total area of the ANWR.

Governor Murkowski goes on to provide another interesting number:

Federal biologists began surveying the Central Arctic caribou herd in 1978, after the Alaska pipeline began operation. Since then, the herd has grown from 5,000 to over 32,000 animals. Alaska has proven it can be responsible; wildlife in ANWR will continue to coexist with cautious oil and gas exploration.

Life is adaptable. Yes, it has limits but as long as we're cognizant of those limits and work to stay well within them, there's no reason why development of this area will cause any sort of ecological disaster.

Yet more interesting numbers:

Critics falsely claim ANWR will only produce six months of oil. This incorrectly assumes ANWR would be the only oil field in operation in the world. In fact, ANWR oil will make significant contributions to the nation's energy supply for decades, replacing what we import from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 years. To bring this statistic home, ANWR alone would supply the state of Washington with all of its oil needs for 15 years.

Some estimates use the most pessimistic production figures by counting only 3.5 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates between 12 billion and 32 billion barrels exist in the ANWR "1002 area," of which between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels are recoverable using current technology.

Just to be clear, the "1002 area" he's talking about is the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain. The small 2000 acre area currently being opened won't produce all that oil.

Some say ANWR will take at least seven years to begin production. That delay is because of the comprehensive environmental-impact study necessary to ensure that the environment is protected.

Yep, we're just going to rush in and rape the environment. And if you believe that one, well you know the punchline.

Like all Americans, I support research and technological development in alternative energies so that in the future we can reduce our energy dependence. But we must be realistic — right now the world moves on oil and that will be the case for years to come. Until the arrival of new energy technology, oil from ANWR can significantly help in easing our dependence on foreign imports.

Producing oil in Alaska means high-paying careers for American workers, not foreigners. Companies friendly to our country will profit, rather than governments that would prefer our demise.

While hybrid vehicles, alternative technologies such as fuel cells, and alternative fuels like biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen will help, they're not going to displace oil as the king of energy any time soon. They will take years, probably decades, to become pervasive. In the short term at least we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil while these new technologies are being developed. The plan to extract oil from a portion of the ANWR balances conservation with responsible use.

More Supremacy games

It's been a while since I've posted anything. I've been kinda busy with some personal stuff, such as being sick and arranging for a new home computer. I'll try to be somewhat more prolific in the future but no guarantees....

Today we have the next installment of "The Supreme Court Follies" courtesy of this article by Texas Senator John Cornyn, via the ever-irascible Kim du Toit. Here Senator Cornyn is addressing the Supreme Court's distressing new propensity to refer to the laws and precedents of other nations to determine their interpretation of the laws and Constitution of the United States, in many cases overriding previous rulings by the Court:

For example, in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state may impose the death penalty on convicted criminals regardless of their IQ, if the state so chooses — but in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court reversed its earlier ruling in part because the Court was concerned about "the world community" and specifically the views of the European Union.

Similarly, in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Court held that each state retains the discretion to determine whether certain kinds of conduct, long considered immoral under our longstanding legal traditions, should or should not remain illegal — but in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court again reversed itself, this time in part because it was concerned about the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Likewise, in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Court concluded that 16- and 17-year-olds may be subject to the death penalty, if a state chooses to do so — but just last month in Roper v. Simmons, the Court reversed itself yet again, in part because of treaties the U.S. has never even ratified, and because of the views of foreign countries not shared by the people of Missouri and numerous other states.

Still other opinions from Supreme Court justices have relied upon the legal judgments of foreign courts all across the globe, such as Jamaica and Zimbabwe.

If the laws of other nations are sound and worthy of implementation in this country, it's the purview of the United States Congress to draft and then pass those laws, subject to signature of the President. Only then can the Supreme Court take such laws into consideration. Otherwise, it should be as if those laws do not exist. If they are not a part of the law of this country, the Supreme Court has no business even considering them in its rulings. Senator Cornyn has come up with a plan that should at least help with this issue:

Last week, I introduced Senate Resolution 92, similar to a resolution introduced by Rep. Tom Feeney (R., Fla.) last month. It expresses the sense of the Senate that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of our Constitution should not be based on the judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions, except where such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of our Constitution.

It's not binding legislation but it should send a message to the members of the Court that a lot of people are getting fed up with this behavior. If you ask me, any Supreme Court Justice who cites foreign law or precedent as a basis for their ruling is in violation of their oath of office and should be removed. After thinking about this further, it may be that a Constitutional amendment is required that will force Justices to confine the bases of their rulings to the laws and Constitution of this country and no other.

Tug of war with Terri

The latest in the unfortunate case of Terri Schiavo is that the US Congress is going to pass legislation allowing a federal court to review the Florida State judge's decision in her case. With her feeding tube having been removed yesterday, the idea is that it would be re-inserted and she would be kept fed and hydrated until the federal appeal is finished.

I admit that I am torn on this issue, however I tend toward the position of her husband since I don't think I would want to continue indefinitely in the state that Terri is in. There are both valid and invalid arguments for each side and I don't have a firm opinion either way.

However, I do have a comment about how those who support keeping her alive have characterized the action of removing her tube. They claim that removing the tube will kill her. Actually, that's not really true. There's a difference between taking deliberate action to bring about the end of someone's life, and no longer performing actions that are preventing someone from dying.

So, for example, putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger would be killing her. Pulling out her tube would not be the cause of her death. It will, however, allow starvation and dehydration to occur which would be the cause. Yes, it's essentially arguing semantics but I think it's an important distinction. I do not agree with those who oppose removing the tube that it is an act of murder.

The Governator is on a roll

Dick Morris, writing for the New York Post, has this to say:

We'll never change the Constitution to let him become president, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is conducting a one-man revolution aimed at providing presidential leadership.

The East Coast media has missed the full dimensions of the California governor's accomplishments and bold proposals. Together, they constitute one of the most astounding, imaginative and forward-thinking agendas in our recent history.

The things that Governor Schwarzenegger is doing can be summed up as follows:

• Promote use of hydrogen as fuel for automobiles.


• Promoting a voter initiative to have legislative and congressional districts drawn by independent jurists who aren't permitted to take account of incumbency or party in creating the districts.


• Eliminate public school teacher tenure and pay and promote teachers based on merit instead.

These are all worthy goals, however I do have a problem with some aspects of the first one. According to Morris:

With financing projected to come one-third each from federal, state and private sources, California will offer hydrogen fuel every few miles in urban areas and at least every 20 miles along the highway system by 2010. Eventually, he and the leaders of Washington, Oregon, Baja California and British Columbia will work together to create a "hydrogen highway" that will run from B.C. (British Columbia) to B.C. (Baja California).

The Schwarzenegger plan calls for state-subsidized production of hydrogen and for tax incentives for those who purchase hydrogen cars.

As usual, it's government and taxpayer money that is being touted as the answer to this problem. Well, if a state wants to do that, then fine. That's what states' rights is about. The use of Federal tax revenue to support this is, at the very least, questionable, and more probably unconstitutional. But then so is most of what the Federal government does anyway.

Replacing gasoline engines with hydrogen-fuel cells would eliminate two-thirds of America's need for oil — a demand that we could meet entirely with domestically produced oil.

Now that sounds impressive but it ignores a very basic fact which is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Generating hydrogen requires energy. I've heard that it may be possible to get it from ethanol, which of course comes from plants. If sufficient quantities can be obtained using that method, which would also probably require burning some of that ethanol to provide the energy to crack the rest, then great. Otherwise it will have to be supplemented with other energy sources such as hydroelectric, nuclear, or burning of coal and/or petroleum fuels. In other words, it may be possible, but it's not nearly as simple as this article makes it sound.

Thank God it's Friday

And thank God for Victor Davis Hanson. In today's column, he addresses the ubiquitous comparisons by the Left, both mainstream and radical, of Bush to Hitler:

The effort to remove fascists in the Middle East and jump-start democracy, for all its ups and downs, has been opposed not just by principled critics who bristled at tactics and strategy, but also by peculiarly vehement cynics here and abroad — whose disgust was so often in direct proportion to their relative political impotence.

One of their most hackneyed charges, begun almost at the beginning of this war, has been the Bush/America as Hitler/Nazi Germany comparison. True, fast-changing events in the Middle East recently have left many of these hypercritics either embarrassed, discredited — or desperately reinventing themselves into the “I told you so” crowd. But we should not forget these slurs — nor expect them to disappear entirely inasmuch as they reflect a deep sort of self-loathing among Western elites.

Anyone who compares Bush to Hitler and/or the Republicans to Nazis is betraying a fundamental ignorance of history. If either major party can be said to be the heir of the Third Reich, it's the Democrat Party. After all, Democrats are socialists and so was Hitler. Nazi is an abbreviation for the full name of the party in German which, when traslated into English, is the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. Although it differed from Communism on several points (one of which was that the Nazi's allowed corporations to exist, albeit under governmental control and the Soviets did not allow such corporations at all), they were far more alike than either is like the Republican Party. Hanson goes on to show just why this comparison is preposterous:

Hitler hijacked an elected government and turned it into a fascist tyranny. He destroyed European democracy. His minions persecuted Christians, gassed over six million Jews, and created an entire fascistic creed predicated on anti-Semitism and the myth of a superior Aryan race.

Whatever one thinks of Bush’s Iraqi campaign, the president obtained congressional approval to invade and pledged $87 billion to rebuild the country. He freely weathered mass street demonstrations and a hostile global media, successfully defended his Afghan and Iraq reconstructions through a grueling campaign and three presidential debates, and won a national plebiscite on his tenure.

And if Bush had lost, he would have relinquished power to Kerry (shudder) because that's how it's done in this country. If he had tried to hold on to power by declaring martial law or some such ploy, my voice would have been among the loudest denouncing his actions.

Of course, a post about the foibles of the Left wouldn't be complete without the hypocrisy element:

George Soros can nearly destroy the Bank of England in his hyper-capitalist financial speculations but somehow find spiritual cover among the leftists of Moveon.org, which he subsidized and which ran ads comparing the president to Hitler. Sen. Byrd, who suffers from the odium of an early membership with the racist Ku Klux Klan, perhaps finds it ameliorative to associate others with the tactics of the 20th century’s premier racist.

Entire continents can play this game. If Europe is awash in anti-Semitism, then one mechanism to either ignore or excuse it is to allege that the United States — the one country that is the most hospitable to Jews — is governed by a Hitler-like killer. Americans, who freed Europe from the Nazis, are supposed to recoil from such slander rather than cry shame on its promulgators, whose grandfathers either capitulated to the Nazis or collaborated — or were Nazis themselves.

If the sick analogy to Hitler is intended to conjure up a mass murderer, then the 20th century’s two greatest killers, Mao and Stalin, who slaughtered or starved somewhere around 80 million between them, are less regularly evoked. Perhaps that omission is because so many of the mass demonstrators, who bore placards of Bush’s portrait defaced with Hitler’s moustache, are overtly leftist and so often excuse extremist violence — whether in present-day Cuba or Zimbabwe — if it is decorated with the rhetoric of radical enforced equality.

In other words, it's okay if leaders we agree with go all totalitarian on their people. The ends justify any means as long as they are the ends we desire. Nice.... He closes with this sobering thought:

The final irony? The president who is most slandered as Hitler will probably prove to be the most zealous advocate of democratic government abroad, the staunchest friend of beleaguered Israel, and the greatest promoter of global individual freedom in our recent memory. In turn, too many of the Left who used to talk about idealism and morality have so often shown themselves mean-spirited, cynical, and without faith in the spiritual power of democracy.

What an eerie — and depressing — age we live in.

To quote the mighty Reynolds, "Indeed."

Walk on....

Today's installment of "The Hypocricy of the Left" is brought to you by the letter 'D' and Joe Kelly, who writes about his experience at the Tenth Annual Talk Radio Seminar. His write-up is interesting and I recommend you check it out if you listen to talk radio at all. However, the part I want to focus on has to do with a couple of people who were at the conference. First of all, the set-up:

The keynote speaker for breakfast was not Dr. Laura, but liberal radio newcomer Al Franken.

(snip)

But, I must admit that Franken’s address was probably the most entertaining. He was witty, funny, self-deprecating, and seemingly sincere. He ribbed both Hannity and Rush, with an amusing impersonation of the latter. He told the story of his USO tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. He choked up as he told of meeting amputee soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He is an actor, yes, but aren’t we all?

And now the payoff:

Every single time I walked back and forth between hotels, I adhered strictly to the controls and never crossed until given the signal to do so. As I made my final walk back to the hotel to check out and prepare to take my taxi ride back to LAX, I stood waiting at the final cross walk for the signal to turn. While I stood waiting with a handful of tourists, I saw from the corner of my eye two people who briskly walked out into traffic against the signal. I chuckled as I realized it was none other than Al Franken and liberal talker Stephanie Miller.

Laws are good for thee, but not for me, it seems is the mantra of the liberal talkers. I don’t know if anyone else would have noticed the irony that these two activists are absolutely the kind of people who will campaign for greater government involvement in our lives, yet don’t adhere to the same regulations that they sought.

Any morsel of respect I had gained for Franken from his address moments earlier had completely gone out the window at viewing his callous and arrogant disregard for simple government regulations that were implemented for greater public safety.

You can't make this stuff up because nobody will believe you unless you can back it up with eyewitness testimony. It's so blatant and obvious that people will assume you're lying and trying to smear the character of those you're talking about.

Too little too late

I didn't comment on this (see here as well) when it originally came out in the news. Since then, there has been a new development:

The UAW has apologized to U.S. Marine Corps reservists and reversed its stand on which Marines can use the UAW parking lot. But it's too late -- the Marines have moved on.

And rightly so. You don't dis the finest fighting force in all of history and expect them simply to forget about the slight.

After several days of bad publicity, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger -- a former Marine reservist -- retracted the decision Monday. "I made the wrong call on the parking issue," Gettelfinger's statement said.

Ya think?!? And since he's a former Marine reservist, I guess it's possible to be an ex-Marine after all despite the old adage to the contrary. This guy put political considerations above supporting the men and women who are fighting and dying for this country and for his freedom to make these kind of boneheaded mistakes.

"I'm glad he decided to change his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, commanding officer of the Marine Corps Reserve Center.

But the apology came too late. "The decision's already been made that we're not going to park there," Rutledge said. "We've already made other arrangements to park elsewhere."

There's more from Lt. Col. Rudledge in this more in-depth article at The Detroit News:

Wounded by what they consider an unpatriotic ambush, the Marines rejected the union's olive branch and secured an alternative parking lot.

"I talked to Ron; I let him know that I understand he has rescinded his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, a top-ranking officer at the reserve infantry rifle battalion. "However, I've made my decision -- either you support the Marines or you don't."

I'm willing to bet the Lieutenant Colonel had some choice words he really wanted to say, but refrained from doing so in the interests of public relations. More from the second article:

Gettelfinger and other top UAW International officials say Bush is blatantly anti-labor and has opposed measures that could have benefited working men and women.

UAW leaders backed Democratic challenger John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards in last year's election.

Just because a measure benefits working men and women doesn't mean it's a good one. Every time there's a "benefit" there's also a "cost." Unions served a vital purpose in ending the exploitation of labor by large corporations. Now that's not really an issue anymore but the unions are still around and still trying to have their cake and eat it, too. And that support for Kerry by the UAW was paid for with union dues which auto workers were forced to pay and had no say in how they were spent. You ask me, unions should be barred from supporting political campaigns with compulsory dues. Why wasn't *that* in McCain-Feingold?

Tip of the hat for the first article to Mike who had this to say on the subject:

It’s enough to make me consider a Toyota next time around—and boy, let me tell you, I NEVER thought I’d say those words. Congrats, Smiley – you guys are getting so good at shooting yourselves in the foot somebody oughta be giving out marksmanship badges for it.

And another to Kim du Toit for the second article who commented on the situation in his own inimitable style:

And you know what? Now that the UAW has exposed themselves for the fucking bastard socialist Democrat supporters that they really are (not that we didn’t know it already, but it’s always nice to get confirmation), let me add this:

When I get round to replacing the F-150, I’m still not going to buy a car that has been built by UAW labor.

Suck on that, asswipes.

Quotes of the day

From today's Federalist Patriot email:

"It is a singular advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end purposed -- that is, an extension of the revenue." --Alexander Hamilton

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison

"Congress never votes on the things we used to talk about when I got there -- like reining in entitlements or the balanced budget amendment or closing down Cabinet agencies such as the Department of Education. And under Republican control, for goodness sake! Whatever happened to getting rid of the National Endowment for the Arts? Medicare should have never been passed in the first place. And now Republicans compound the problem by enacting this prescription drug bill when the White House has no idea what it will ultimately cost. Choosing between Democrat and Republican bills on prescription drugs is like saying how do you want to shoot yourself -- with a silver bullet or a lead bullet?" --Former Rep. Mel Hancock

"The other day I found myself, for the umpteenth time, driving in Vermont behind a Kerry/Edwards supporter whose vehicle also bore the slogan 'FREE TIBET.' It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the 'FREE TIBET' stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by these stickers, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the slogan he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: 'But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?' she demanded. 'You're not doing anything, are you?' 'Give the guy a break,' I said back home. 'He's advertising his moral virtue, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division [will] go in on Thursday,' the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast." --Mark Steyn

I'll see your 500,000 and raise you another 500,000

From the AP article (which I'm linking to at Fox News because, well, you know):

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence," and waved a sea of Lebanese flags in Beirut on Monday, the biggest anti-Syrian protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Nothing to see here, move along. It's nothing special. Later in the article:

Monday's protest easily surpassed a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.

While there were no official estimates of the size of the crowd, police officers privately estimated it at about 1 million people. The officers refused to speak publicly because it was an opposition rally.

An Associated Press estimate by reporters on the scene put the number at much higher than the approximately 500,000 who attended the March 8 pro-Syrian rally.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like "regain(ing) the momentum" to me. I could write something really snarky about what this means for the Left, but Mike beat me to it:

Moreover, given not only the incontestable desirability of maintaining “stability” in the ME, no matter how brutal and inhuman that “stability” might be, but also the proven effectiveness of decades spent carefully nurturing the status quo as advocated by various forward-thinking liberals worldwide, it would be downright criminal and completely disgusting to suggest that the widely derided efforts of the Bush admin had anything whatever to do with any of this.

Of course not, Mike. It would have happened anyway if the US had done nothing in response to 9/11 and then engaged in the broader war against terror and its enablers. In fact, it would have happened faster. Trust us, we have the technology to explore alternate timelines so we know this to be true....

You know, it's funny that we're seeing these massive demonstrations by the people of Lebanon telling an occupying power to get out. We're *not* seeing anything remotely close to that magnitude from Iraqis telling the US to get out. Syria doesn't really have much of an economy itself; it relies on the economy in Lebanon. The US, on the other hand, is not sponging off of Iraq but is instead sinking large sums of money into the reconstrustion of Iraq's infrastructure and the revival of its economy. Yet, between Syria and the US, which one would the Left rather see leave the Middle Eastern nation it has its troops in?

And, also via Mike, this image is not to be missed. Be sure you're not drinking anything if you don't want it all over your keyboard and monitor.

Yet another import

From USA Today:

Americans drive imported cars, wear imported clothes and chug imported beers. Now scientists are discovering another, less welcome import into the USA: air pollution.

Mercury from China, dust from Africa, smog from Mexico — all of it drifts freely across U.S. borders and contaminates the air millions of Americans breathe, according to recent research from Harvard University, the University of Washington and many other institutions where scientists are studying air pollution. There are no boundaries in the sky to stop such pollution, no Border Patrol agents to capture it.

Well, isn't that special. Of course, since the US won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, it's all our fault, even though China and other developing countries are specifically exempted from meeting its requirements. What good would signing it do? It's not like magical "pollution pixies" will appear and clean up the planet. All that will happen is that the economy of the US will be significantly hampered at the expense of the economies of other nations.

It doesn't take much research to find that, the wealthier a country is, the cleaner its environment tends to be. This is in large part because cleaner technology, involving both the creation and consumption of energy, is more sophisticated and therefore more expensive to develop, purchase, and maintain. Goods and services provided with that technology are likewise more expensive. You really want to clean up the planet, let the wealthy countries like the US grow their economies, which will help other less developed nations grow theirs, and eventually you'll get to a point where everyone can afford to have clean environments.

Now I'm not saying that the US doesn't have any work to do. But it's being done. For example, here in the Seattle area, I'll bet you won't be able to find a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid for MSRP. There are a lot of environmentally-conscious people living here and a lot of them have ample money to spend on hybrid vehicles that are somewhat more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts.

Oh, and what about allowing greater use of the energy source that doesn't pollute the air at all? That would, of course, be nuclear power. Yes, there's the problem of what to do with the spent fuel but we know how to store that stuff safely. Take a look sometime at how that stuff is going to be stored at Yucca mountain, if it ever happens. It's seismically stable and the fuel will be encased in containers that are, if anything, massively overengineered for the task.

Whether the Kyoto Protocol is an attempt to reduce the economic power of the United States or is motivated entirely by good intentions, it has serious issues and that's why the US isn't signing on. Instead, we're just going to go about our business inventing cleaner sources of energy not because we have to, but because we want to.

Muslims react to '24'

According this article at Fox News:

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. — A plate of spicy stuffed cabbage leaves and a cup of mint tea before him, Yosry Bekhiet sat down and turned on the television for a late dinner one recent Monday night. On the screen, he saw Muslim terrorists gain control of a nuclear plant, causing it to melt down.

One of the leaders of the plot shot his own wife and tried to shoot his son, fearing they would thwart his plans. (And this was after kidnapping the U.S. defense secretary and trying to behead him live on the Internet.)

Bekhiet was watching "24", the popular Fox action series starring Kiefer Sutherland as a government agent who battles bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists. The show has garnered high ratings, but also has angered Muslims across the nation over the way their community is portrayed.

"It's disgusting," Bekhiet said after watching an episode with an Associated Press reporter. "My own kids, if they see this show, they might hate me."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also had something to say about this:

Rabiah Ahmed, a CAIR official who attended the meeting with the network executives, said Muslims are concerned with how others view them, particularly in the mass media.

"For us it's a sensitive and urgent situation because we are facing a backlash after Sept. 11 and we need to defend our interests and our image. We understand that it's entertainment and fiction. Our concern is that others may not."

One of the goals of good drama is to present believable situations. Right now, the majority of terrorism occurring in the world is being perpetrated by Muslim extremists. To be sure, there have been terrorists who were not Muslims; the IRA is a prime example. But, at this time, it's pretty much all Muslims, all the time, at least when it comes to terrorism that targets the United States and its allies.

The producers of the 2002 movie "The Sum of All Fears" had to deal with this issue. From the trivia page at IMDB:

The movie changed the villains from Islamic extremists (in the novel) to Neo-Nazis. This was done to increase realism because before the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, Islamic extremists were considered unable to carry out intensive terrorist act on US soil. After 9/11 the production staff had to review how to present the movie to the public.

I think that the decision was at least partly motivated by a desire not to upset Muslims.

The thing is that it's realistic to portray Islamic terrorists in television shows and movies that are being made at this time. Getting mad because someone is portraying realistic events is just trying to shift the blame elsewhere. It's not Fox's fault that Muslims are committing terrorism; it's the fault of those Muslims who are actually doing it. Instead of getting mad at Fox, American Muslims and CAIR should be getting mad at the terrorists themselves for giving all Muslims a bad name. Start denouncing terror unequivocally and distance yourself from those organizations who are in any way involved with it. Unless you start by doing that, your protests ring hollow.

And just to note, I know that most Muslims living in America are peaceful and do not want to kill anyone. For that matter, several of the people that work at my company are Muslims and they're perfectly friendly and peace-loving. I'm sure that they don't support terrorism any more than I do. The problem, as I see it, is with prominent Muslims and Muslim organizations who are not making it very clear that they abhor terrorism. They may feel that way, but for whatever reason they are not speaking out, at least not unequivocally. Some are, but not enough.

Drawing a line in the sand

So, it looks like the Federal Election Commission is looking to start "crack(ing) down on blogging."

The GeekWithA.45 has some words to say on the subject:

I am an American, and this is my soapbox, and I will write whatever the hell I want, link to whatever the hell I want, and copy snippets and excerpts of whatever the hell I want.

The ever-irascible Kim du Toit and The Everlasting Phelps put it much more succinctly:

Fuck you.

The Geek has called for a "McCain-Feingold insurrection." I hereby add my voice to the growing chorus. Let it be known throughout the land:

This is my personal weblog and what I post here are my own personal opinions, in accordance with my sacred rights as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This weblog is supported and maintained entirely by me, utilizing the services of private corporations. I will write what I want, link to what I want, and excerpt whatever I want subject to the fair use provisions of copyright law. You will not tell me what I can and cannot say here. If you don't like it, don't read it. It is no different than me sitting in a coffee shop and talking with other people. If you think that you can regulate that speech, if you think that you can come in and try to shut me up, then you will bring us one step closer to the necessity of refreshing the tree of liberty with that which it occasionally needs. And should it prove the final step, then may God help you, even though I know he won't.

Supreme treachery

Anybody who has been paying a modicum of attention knows that the US Supreme Court has ruled that execution of minors is unconstitutional. This has the effect of overturning the death sentences of some 70 criminals who committed their crimes as minors, and prevents states from sentencing any further minor offenders to death. The complete majority opinion of the court is here.

When I first heard about this, I didn't necessarily disagree with it. Although I do think there are juvenile offenders whose crimes are heinous enough to merit the ultimate sanction (I tend to think of it not so much as punishment as excising an unacceptable risk from society), it is better to err on the side of caution given the finality of the sentence once carried out.

However, at that time I had not read any information about the actual ruling itself and the majority Justices' reasonings for that ruling. Although I may not disagree with the outcome, the reasoning used is something that we all should be very concerned about.

Others have done a much better job than I of expressing this. I point you to Kim du Toit's post on the subject. Lileks chimes in as part of a longer post. The relevant portion I include here:

For a modern analogue, albeit a broad and inexact one, you could be worried about the SCOTUS decision on the death penalty. It upended laws concerning the execution of juvies because five judges didn’t much like the law, and were alarmed to find it was out of step with the direction of the drift of the emanations of the penumbra of several judicial decisions in Europe. I’m not all that keen on the death penalty; I think it lets them off the hook. I want killers to die in jail, alone, forgotten, with their last meal consisting of steak-flavored mush and Sanka. But the reasonings don’t seem based in that pesky Constitution itself, and the very idea of using foreign law as some sort of guide for American law unnerves me as much as it angers me. I know: let’s use Iranian law to settle the constitutionality of divorce, right now. Someone bring a case.

There are others. Just click browse the blogs on my blogroll and I'm sure you'll find plenty.

In short, there is an increasing and disturbing trend for the Supreme Court to use foreign opinion to shape their decisions. Section IV of the majority opinion is devoted entirely to doing this. That section includes this text:

It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10—11. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.

Yes, they say it is not controlling their outcome, but I disagree that it is proper that they acknowledge such foreign opinion. It should have no bearing whatsoever on the court's decision, as Scalia notes:

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

The Federalist had this to say as part of a larger essay regarding Senate Democrats' obstructionism regarding the President's judicial nominees:

The U.S. Constitution suffered some serious setbacks this week. The future of liberty and the rule of law suffered likewise.

It's bad enough that Democrat obstructionists are once again denying President George Bush's federal-bench nominees their constitutionally prescribed up-or-down vote by the full Senate. In a fine example of why we need those nominees on the bench, Leftists on the Supreme Court are, again, "interpreting" the so-called "living Constitution" as a method of altering that venerable document by judicial diktat.

Worse yet, these Left-judiciary Supremacists -- Justice Anthony Kennedy and Court Jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- cited "national consensus" as a factor in Tuesday's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In other words, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy. Which is to say, while riding roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as they overturned the laws of 19 states, the Supremes blithely pushed the nation one step closer toward what everyone since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.
Writing for the majority, Kennedy claimed that Americans had reached a "national consensus" against capital punishment for "children," citing as evidence that only 20 states allow a 17-year-old to be sentenced to death. Of course, Kennedy's logic is utterly at odds with decisions such as Roe v. Wade. In that 1973 decision, the Supremes serendipitously discovered a right to privacy that allowed for the aborting of children, despite the fact that all 50 states had laws at the time either prohibiting or tightly regulating abortion. So we must ask you, Justice Kennedy -- what's all this rubbish about a "national consensus?"

You recall, of course, that in a recent case, the Supremacists discovered a clause in the Constitution specifically stating that a 14-year-old is mature enough to abort the life of her child without parental consent. Now, in Roper v. Simmons, they've found a contradictory clause, which avers that a 17-year-old is not mature enough to be held accountable for capital murder.

Adding grievous insult to this "national consensus" injury, Kennedy cited "international consensus" noting "the overwhelming weight of international opinion" as a factor in the Court's decision. Kennedy cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when writing, "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." Here, his message was all too clear: The High Court is building a tradition of referring "to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

Sadly, such citing of international standards and conventions seems to be the latest fashion among the Supremacists.

In 2003, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer upheld an affirmative-action policy at the University of Michigan, noting an international treaty endorsing race-based advancement for minorities. Stevens, for his part, cited international law in overturning another capital case: "Within the world community, the...death penalty...is overwhelmingly disapproved." Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy wrote that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly...on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Justice Breyer added, "We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really -- it's trite but it's true -- is growing together. The challenge [will be] whether our Constitution...fits into the governing documents of other nations."

"How our Constitution fits?"

Justice Antonin Scalia, a dependable constitutional constructionist, protested on behalf of the dissenters that capital punishment should, rightly in accordance with constitutional federalism, be determined by individual states. "Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent. ... To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decision-making, but sophistry." Just so.

Perhaps Justice Scalia recalls this admonition from Founder George Washington: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence...the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."

Clearly, international consensus has no standing whatsoever in the constitutional rule of law in the United States. For that matter, the only relevant "national consensus" is that prescribed by our Constitution for its amendment -- a consensus of the people as represented by two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states. But such facts are lost on Left-judicial activists who are content to legislate from the bench. Just consider this recent comment from Justice Breyer: "The extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you're talking about." In other words, if he likes it the way it was written, it stands as is. If not, he interprets it, in the words of the august Sen. Sam Ervin, "to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."

Garage jumping

So it looks like there's a new "sport" in Orlando, FL, called "garage jumping." This is where teens jump from one parking garage to another adjacent garage. The thing is, they're making these jumps six stories above the ground. As you might expect, not everyone makes it:

Tim Bargfrede told Local 6 News that he was following friends when he attempted to garage jump and did not make it to the other side. Bargfrede fell six stories and was knocked unconscious on impact.

"I just didn't make it," Bargfrede said.

Bargfrede survived the 80-foot fall but was injured.

The truth is he's lucky to be alive after a fall like that. I expect his injuries are more than just a bump to the head.

Of course, we all know who's responsible for this, right? When a young person wilfully and deliberately engages in behavior that anyone with more sense than a peanut knows is patently dangerous, whose fault is it? Why, it's the city and the garages' fault, of course!

There are no safety fences in place on the parking garage.

D'Assaro [attorney for the Bargfrede family -RR] is filing a lawsuit against the city of Orlando and the private garage owner for making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk.

"There was a very, very short length of fence that was completely ineffective in preventing this from happening," D'Assaro said.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Yanking. My. Chain. What, did the garage owner take young Mr. Bargfrede up to the sixth floor and force him to make that jump? Did they have a sign up there that said, "Jumping across to the other garage is a fun and perfectly safe activity?"

Unbelievable. Although I hope the judge throws the case out with an admonishment to stop waisting the court's time, it wouldn't surprise me if the city and the garage end up settling out of court for some ridiculous sum. In this case, "ridiculous" means anything more than zero dollars.

The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the kids who are doing this dangerous activity, and those of their parents who are failing abjectly to raise their children with even the remotest shred of common sense.