The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Second Amendment Purists Over at packing.org, a discussion of the upcoming election led to this comment by a poster, upset about Bush's remarks in the third debate about how he would have signed a renewal of the assault weapon ban--had it ever reached his desk: Bush believes ...government has the right to ban firearms simply because they look too dangerous for commoners to own. He doesn't want my vote.I read remarks like that, and I find myself suspecting that the poster is actually a Democratic troll. I would expect that in the next few weeks, the Democrats are going to be going to every possible "gun rights" chat room or discussion group, and trying to promote the idea that Bush doesn't deserve the votes of gun rights activists because he doesn't share our view of the Second Amendment. It is also possible that the poster in question really does believe that anyone that doesn't agree with us 100% deserves no support at all--that it is better to have Bush lose, rather than have a heretic hold the office of President. I have met people like this as well--who become so convinced that you must be 100% in agreement with them, or you are the enemy. This is the sign of a fanatic--the person who thinks that 90% agreement with your principles is just as bad as 0% agreement. There is a slightly better than even chance right now that we can re-elect a guy who tells the soccer moms what they want to hear--but who lifted not one finger to get the assault weapon ban renewed--or we can elect Kerry and Edwards, who interrupted their campaigning to show up in the Senate, for the first time in many months, to vote for renewing the ban--and who would, if they could, replace it with a far more severe assault weapons ban. I know that there are pro-gunners who are so focused on purity that they are going to vote for someone other than Bush. And what are they going to say next year, when President Kerry is pushing hard for a new, much tougher assault weapon ban, and gun registration, and support for lawsuits against gun makers again? "I was pure!" Great. That and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. This is not a game. We are engaged in a struggle for not only our gun rights, but the survival of Western civilization. I can't tell you what John Kerry will do as commander in chief, because he has given so many conflicting messages, many of which indicate that he will not take this war against Islamofascism seriously. I suspect that some of the "purer than thou" posters are actually anti-gunners trying to lower Bush's vote totals. Don't buy into this nonsense. Any gun owners who votes for someone other than Bush because he isn't "pure" enough has become a fanatic. If this were a race between Bush and a pro-gun Democrat like Zell Miller (D-GA), I could understand the upset. If this were a race between Bush and a wishy-washy Democrat who supported some sorts of gun control, but not others, I would say that I understood why you weren't letting the gun issue control your decision. This is not such a case. John Kerry is the gun control nut's gun control nut. Allowing him to win is going to put gun owners in a world of hurt in the U.S.--and all Americans at enormous risk from Kerry's "nuanced" approach to the War on Terrorism. I've been following what Kerry has to say about the War on Terrorism. I read English pretty darn well, and I can't tell for sure what he saying--and much of the time, he seems to be talking out of five different sides of his mouth at once. If native speakers of English can't figure out what Kerry means, what do you suppose the chances are that Osama Bin Laden is going to miscalculate all this doubletalk as a lack of seriousness on this matter? Labels: gun rights Hussein's Links To Terrorist Groups Now Proved The Scotsman (one of British papers) carries an article that you probably won't see in your local rag: SADDAM Hussein’s links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.Not bin Laden, but a terrorist group, nonetheless, running around setting off bombs in buses and restaurants, killing non-combatants. Friday, October 15, 2004
If You Emailed Me About University of Alabama and the Slave Burials... For some reason, the email reply-to address was defective. Try again. Voting For Bush In Strong Kerry States I am surprised to find out that John Derbyshire apparently made the same suggestion over at National Review Online about the same time that I did--to prevent the Democrats from whining about a "stolen" election. This blogger tells us that for this reason, he is going to vote Republican for President for the first time after 15 years of being a reliable Libertarian Party vote. This is not a game. As I pointed out below, I would even vote for a domestic liberal who recognized the importance of winning the war against Islamofascism right now--all the domestic policy matters will pale into insignificance if we don't win this war. This Guy Thinks Bush Is A Clown--And Plans To Vote For Him This has to be the most hostile election endorsement that I have ever seen: Recently, I spoke to an audience of college kids. The subject was our president. For 20 minutes or so, I gave them my assessment of George W. Bush, that he is a spoiled rich kid who wasted his youth partying with his frat-boy buddies and then woke up one morning and decided to become president. I pointed out that his domestic policy has been disastrous and his foreign policy idiotic.For you liberals out there (and I know that a few wander in every once in a while), there are a lot of Americans who regard Bush as a sellout to the liberal end of American politics. I wouldn't go quite that far. He is "triangulating," as Clinton did--moving just far enough left to buy off moderates, and throwing just enough bones to conservatives that we don't all stay home on election day. (I mean, I hope that he is throwing enough bones.) Where I disagree with this columnist, however, is on the question of foreign policy. I do not think Bush's policy is "idiotic." I think he made a big gamble on Iraq. The game isn't over yet, and I think there is still a good chance that we will win this hand--and eventually cause the Islamofascists to leave the table, having run out of idiots willing to commit suicide. Even if George Bush were a John Kerry sort of liberal on domestic policy, as much as it would really upset me to do so, I would have no choice but to vote for him. This is not a game. The broadly defined notion of liberal democracy is at stake. If John "terrorism is like prostitution" Kerry gets elected, I don't expect all the gals to be wearing burkhas by the end of his first term, but I do think there is a real risk that within 30-50 years, Western Europe and the United States will have become such authoritarian societies trying to prevent continual terrorist attacks that it will start looking attractive to a lot of people to just give in. Entertaining Column About Encouraging Slackers To Vote Catherine Seipp asks: The Other CampaignI ask that question frequently. Along with the obvious questions, such as, "Why do you want people that haven't been paying attention to make life and death decisions about the future of Western civilization?" she presents some devastating quotes: "I am not disengaged, I'm worn out," a Michigan State University senior named Traci E. Carpenter wrote in a Newsweek essay explaining why she and her peers are "not necessarily available Nov. 2." Traci had won a contest for college journalists sponsored by Newsweek and MTV's college channel, MTVU. MTV also sponsors the Choose or Lose youth-vote campaign; thus the topic of the winning essay.My son is 16, and tells me that MTV (I thought I blocked that sewer opening--maybe he's watching it at a friend's house) is still running "Rock the Vote" ads that imply that Bush is going to start the draft up again. They don't come right out and say that--but as he describes it, "They are so obviously biased in favor of Kerry." Oh yes, one more funny line to assist all of you that are trying to diet, or rein in out of control sex drives: Speaking of bribery and condescension, Michael Moore is now touring the country offering first-time voters joke prizes like ramen noodles or clean underwear in exchange for promising to make it to the polls. "Underwear" and "Michael Moore" are two concepts I'd hoped never to have to consider in the same sentence, but life is full of disappointments, as winners of youth-vote essay contests haven't quite realized yet. Revolutionaries With Chutzpah From the book I am working on. First of all, many Bostonians had left town in the weeks before Lexington, as it became increasingly apparent that war was coming.[29] Ammunition, military stores, muskets, and even publicly owned cannon “were carried secretly out of Boston.”[30] The quantities involved seemed to have been quite large; Lieutenant Frederick Mackenzie’s diary describes one amusing example: A Country man was Stopped at the Lines, going out of town with 19,000 ball Cartridges, which were taken from him. When liberated, he had the insolence to go to Head quarters to demand the redelivery of them. When asked who they were for, he said they were for his own use; and on being refused them, he said he could not help it, but they were the last parcel of a large quantity which he had carried out at different times. Great numbers of Arms have been carried out of town during the Winter; and if more strict search had been made at the Lines, many of them, and much Ammunition might have been seized.[31] 29 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, 54-55. 30 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, 15. See Frederick Mackenzie, Allen French, ed., A British Fusilier in Revolutionary Boston (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926), 31-33, 39-40, for accounts of gun smuggling out of Boston, and soldiers court-martialed and convicted for selling guns and gunlocks “to the Country people.” 31 Mackenzie, British Fusilier in Revolutionary Boston, 42. One Missing Word Makes All The Difference I was at the mall, buying a watch battery, and I noticed an enormous Ford F-350 crew cab pickup in the middle of the first floor, attempting to lure potential buyers. (As if having its own gravity well wasn't enough to suck people close.) I noticed the window sticker, in the section reserved for EPA mileage numbers, contained only these words: THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT NEED FUEL ECONOMYI'm pretty sure that the word missing at the end of that sentence was, "ESTIMATES." But hey, maybe it's one of those vehicles that runs on water, or that model can only be sold to government agencies. Kerry's Position on Same-Sex Marriage Instapundit makes the claim that Kerry and Bush hold the same position on same-sex marriage, and trusts Kerry's statement to be the proof of this: The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.Nope. Kerry now claims to oppose same-sex marriage (same as Bush), but opposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the states (not the same as Bush). Opposing same-sex marriage--but allowing judges to require states to perform it--is like claiming to oppose abortion, knowing that judges can strike down state laws against it. It doesn't fool anyone who is paying attention. Of course, a few years ago, Kerry took a very different position, one consistent with the Democratic Party orthodoxy: Echoing the ignorance and bigotry that peppered the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago, the proponents of DOMA call for a caste system for marriage. I will not be party to that. As Martin Luther King Jr. explained 30 years ago, “Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.” This is the essence of the American pursuit of happiness and the core of the struggle for equality.Why has Kerry changed his mind? (If he has changed his mind at all, instead of just lying, as he does about almost everything in his blind lust for the Presidency.) Because Kerry knows that supporting same-sex marriage would be a lethal blow to his campaign--especially among black Americans, who tend to be quite a bit more conservative on social policy than the Democratic Party activists. Instapundit isn't stupid. So why is he pretending that there's no difference between Kerry and Bush on this matter? That's a good question to ask him. I Wish There Was Language That I Could Use To Describe This... But I don't use language that coarse. You'll have to just imagine my reaction: If Osama bin Laden ever buys a rap album, he'll probably start with a CD by KRS-One.Imagine what the media reaction would be if some musician explained that "lynching happens to them, not us" or gay bashing "happens to [offensive term deleted], not us" or any of a number of similar scenarios. Thursday, October 14, 2004
Reasons To Vote--Even In States Where The Contest Is Already Decided If you are going to vote for Kerry, please don't read this message. There is a pretty widespread conventional wisdom that if you live in a state where the presidential race isn't even close--say, Idaho, or Utah for Bush, or New York or Massachusetts for Kerry--that it doesn't much matter which presidential candidate gets your vote. Libertarians argue that if you live in a state where one candidate is going to win anyway, you can safely vote for the LP candidate, or Ralph Nader, and it won't really matter. The state's electoral votes are going for Bush or Kerry anyway, so a few thousand--or even tens of thousands of third party votes won't affect the outcome. With respect to the electoral vote, which determines who wins, this is true. If 50,000 Bush voters here in Idaho left that box blank, Idaho would still cast its electoral votes for Bush. But there is another issue here. It seems almost certain that unless Bush surprises everyone, and pulls an enormous upset on Kerry, there are going to be lawsuits in multiple states challenging the results. If Bush wins the electoral vote--but loses the popular vote (very likely, consdering the massive fraud that Democrats seem to be planning in places like Milwaukee), the left will spend the next four years whining about it. What this means is that we need every possible Bush vote, even in "safe" states. I do not want to hear Democrats screeching endlessly about the evils of the electoral college, and how Kerry "really" won the election. Tell your friends: we need a clear popular vote victory next month. The Question of Executing 16 and 17 Year Olds I mentioned a few days ago that I find the distinction of not executing minors a plausible one. I still am not comfortable with it (or any form of capital punishment), but here is a powerful, graphic, and unpleasant brief by the Alabama Solicitor General submitted to the Supreme Court on this question. This blogger writes how it changed his position on this question. (Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy made me read it.) The point of the brief is that there are 16 and 17 year olds who are behaving like adults: carefully planned, premeditated crimes of shocking cruelty, with carefully structured coverups. These are not kids who lost their temper and punched someone out, or pulled out a gun that they were carrying for style purposes, and shot someone. These are really, really evil teenagers. If there is an argument for the death penalty based on accountability and ability to understand the consequences of one's actions, these kids meet those requirements. I'm not sure that it changes my position, exactly. I'm still not comfortable with the death penalty. I also think that while there are legitimate distinctions between minors and adults, and states might conceivably cross the line into Constitutionally inpermissible actions by erasing some of those distinctions, at which point the courts should intervene, I have yet to see a strong case presented for that intervention on this question. As an originalist, the proper question is: "What was the minimum age of accountability that could lead to the death penalty in 1791 (for federal executions) and in 1868 (for state executions)?" If so, that might be a valid basis for finding such a minimum execution age today. Was there a single fixed age of accountability at the time? If so, you could argue that using a similar single fixed age would be appropriate today. I do encourage all good little liberals to read the brief, however, so that they can stop living in fantasy land about teenagers that commit murder. Interesting Online Primary Source Collection Library of Western Fur Trade Historical Source Documents Diaries, Narratives, and Letters of the Mountain Men Surprisingly, not of much relevance to what I am currently doing, but someone researching this topic might find it very useful. A Side Of The Story That You Won't See On The Evening News Iraqis expressing their gratitude about the overthrow of Hussein. I don't know who is funding this group, but the money is well-spent. How Horrifying: Justice Thomas Believes That Following Wrong Precedents Is Wrong How Appealling links to an article that tells us the dirty little secret about Justice Thomas. No, it doesn't involve pubic hair, porno films, or sexual harassment, but this even more shocking detail: Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."The rest of the article explains stare decisis, and why Thomas is a rebel, where Scalia is not. The article also makes the case for why stare decisis makes sense. I will agree that, all other issues being the same, stare decisis is a good idea: it prevents sudden and unpredictable changes in the law. Who wants to live in a society where every few weeks, judges come up with new rules for contracts, for police searches of vehicles, and the ten thousand other matters where law impacts our lives? But here's the phrase that matters in that sentence: all other issues being the same. If there is nothing clearly wrong about the existing precedents, I can see a good argument for stare decisis. There are a great many matters of law where both sides have evidence to defend their position. A good example is the question of what that phrase "probable cause" means in the Fourth Amendment. A liberal and a conservative could have a pretty serious discussion about this, come to different conclusions, and except at the very extremes, there might not be any clear point where one of them was wrong and the other right. The text of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are sufficiently imprecise that their meaning can only be teased out by a lot of historical research--and even then, the results are less clear-cut than I would like. But there are other precedents that were just plain wrongly decided. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was wrongly decided in more ways than I have time to list. I don't mean that I disagree with the result (I do), but that justices on the Court took a position with respect to the right to make contracts and laissez-faire exactly opposite to their position in other cases, where the question of race was not involved. Eventually, the Supreme Court struck down Plessy, but it took decades to do so, at great cost to the rights of black Americans, rather than admit that Plessy was wrongly decided. I would also make one other observation: stare decisis doesn't really mean that the courts following existing precedents in a long steady chain. It really means that each precedent twists the meaning of an early precedent just a little. As an example, look into the history of state supreme court decisions concerning the right to keep and bear arms. My book For the Defense of Themselves and the State (Praeger Press, 1994) shows that nearly all the antebellum precedents found that the right to keep and bear arms (under both state and federal constitutions) guaranteed a right to carry deadly weapons, including pistols. Yet by the twentieth century, a surprising number of those state supreme courts, pretending to following stare decisis, had turned that right into a privilege, available (if at all) at the whim of a sheriff or judge. I can't ever find a case where a judge acknowledged that they were breaking with an existing precedent (except when relying on a revised constitutional provision), and yet the effect was the same: many states where open carry of pistols had been constitutionally guaranteed in 1830, had effectively banned it by 1950. My favorite example of this judicial game-playing is Aymette v. State (Tenn. 1840), where an earlier decision's finding about the right to keep and bear arms, in Simpson v. State (Tenn. 1833), is dismissed as mere dictum. Now, I can see why the author of this gasping-with-shock article feels the way he does. He "is executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm." You see, a lot of the precedents right now have been constructed for the benefit of public interest law firms and the leftist causes that they represent. Any careful, original intent examination of the Constitution by a "rebel" like Justice Thomas would be setting a dynamite charge under the current, largely leftist legal structure. Maybe it's time for some rebellion--time to start asking how our current system ended up so at variance with the intent of the framers of the Constitution. I'm Really Sorry This Happened To Her... But since she was appointed by Clinton, I can only hope that the humorous saying, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged" applies when she gets back to the bench: "Federal judge is carjacked at gunpoint in Hyde Park": The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, "A federal appeals judge was carjacked at gunpoint Friday night in the alley behind her Hyde Park home, Chicago police and the U.S. Marshals Service said Saturday. Ann Williams, 55, had just gotten out of her 2002 Toyota Camry in the 5400 block of South Cornell Avenue when three men, one carrying a shotgun, approached, pointed a gun at her and demanded money and her keys, which she gave them, said police spokeswoman JoAnn Taylor." Please Recommend Online Photo Printing Services I have some digital pictures that need to be printed as 8x10 glossies. I could do it at home, but I suspect that it isn't anymore expensive to have a professional service do it. I'll recap everyone's recommendations here. When I Get Home, I'm Getting Out The Earplug Attachment for My Cell Phone There have been previous studies that have been worrisome on this, but this study sounds a bit more solid on sample size--and it found the same type of cancer: People who have used cell phones for at least 10 years might have an increased risk of developing a rare brain tumor, according to a study published Wednesday in the international journal Epidemiology.I think I will also run out and buy earplugs for my wife and son, because they are also regular cellphone users. Those earplugs have two substantial advantages: they are less distracting when you are driving than holding the entire phone to your head; the emitted energy isn't up to your head. I would still worry about that affecting other body parts, but by moving the phone to different locations (in your shirt pocket, on your belt, perhaps sitting in the console of your car), you are spreading the risk around. And maybe there just needs to be a little less cellphone use. Oh Dear, A New Sexual Minority Has Appeared But it is rather difficult to find much basis for demonstrations or lawsuits, since this sexual minority, to my knowledge, is not a victim of our current laws, and doesn't hold parades where they make fools of themselves: LONDON, England (CNN) -- About one percent of adults have absolutely no interest in sex, according to a new study, and that distinction is becoming one of pride among many asexuals.Note that this isn't the same as those who are celibate. There are a lot of people who are celibate for religious reasons, severe social problems, really bad breath, etc. but still have sexual desires. In spite of having no real basis to feel victimized, this does not prevent there being an asexual pride movement: Activists have already started campaigning to promote awareness and acceptance of asexuality, it reports.Acceptance? Maybe I've missed something here, but I wasn't aware that asexuals had any barriers to break down. Or is just that a society that soaks everything in sexuality can't imagine a person for whom sex isn't the central focus of one's life? Devastating Column By Charles Krauthammer About Bin Laden's Choice Krauthammer points out that repeatedly now, al-Qaeda has staged operations to influence elections, and there is no question who al-Qaeda wants to win this election: Last month, terrorists set off a car bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in the middle of a neck-and-neck Australian election campaign and just three days before the only televised debate between the two candidates. The prime minister, John Howard, is a staunch U.S. ally in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His opponent, Mark Latham, has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas.Make no mistake about it. Even if Kerry had made a consistent set of speeches in defense of the general Bush strategy--while arguing against how Bush has fought the war--bin Laden would want Bush to lose, just to make it expensive for Bush to have shown the leadership of invading Iraq. What A Shocker...The First Amendment Still Somewhat Applies to Political Speech Some television stations are going to run a news program about one of the candidates that is very, very uncomplimentary, and members of the candidate's party have asked the FCC to step and engage in censorship. Not surprisingly, the party of censorship are the Democrats: WASHINGTON (AP) The Federal Communications Commission won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday.That the Democrats are concerned about political misuse of the public airwaves is hysterically funny. I guess they don't ever turn on CBS ("1973 Air National Guard memos produced on Microsoft Word"), ABC, NBC, or CNN. I will never take a Democrat seriously again when they talk about the importance of free speech. They don't believe in it, except to the extent that it promotes the degradation of women and the sexualization of children. If it involves political speech, they want the modern equivalent of the Sedition Act. Actually, that's not quite fair: the Sedition Act only punished speech after it happened--it did not provide for prior restraint. Wednesday, October 13, 2004
368 Economists Against Kerry's Policies I've never been a big fan of the "400 historians against" or "300 economists in favor" approach to politics--it reminds me of when the Nazis persuaded 100 prominent German physicists to deny the validity of "Jewish physics." As Einstein observed, if relativity was wrong, it would only take one physicist to demonstrate it. There is a point, however, where it is interesting that 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates, have taken the position that Kerry's tax policies would be bad for our economy. If they are speaking in their area of expertise, then Kerry is either ignorant, or just pandering. Great Column About Kerry's Lies What's really sad is that he is telling lies that are so transparent--and so purposeless: There's not much Kerry can do about his 20-year anti-gun voting record. (Just last year, he supported a Ted Kennedy measure to tax ammunition.) And the National Rifle Association is already running ads showing that despite his windy rhetoric, in reality he is about as pro-Second Amendment as he is pro-life. Labels: gun rights If You Are Going To Commit A Felony... don't videotape yourself: A South Toledo man who police say is HIV-positive was charged yesterday with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor after police found videotapes of him allegedly having sex with boys.Yeah, he was certainly doing some serious HIV outreach, alright. I wonder how many of the boys he was having sex with will end up with AIDS? Chief Navarre said Mr. Gonzales pleaded guilty to a similar, misdemeanor charge in Michigan in 1989 but was not required to register as a sex offender.Not fired? "We're very concerned about what's going on, and I'm not very happy about it," Mr. Blaine said. "We had no idea what's been going on. This is something we certainly won't tolerate."Of course, child molesters aren't gay. But what gave Gonzales the right credentials to be talking to gay men about unprotected sex, if he wasn't gay? Neighbors in his South Toledo neighborhood said Mr. Gonzales was friendly, but kept to himself.Yeah. Stuff like that. More On Voter Registration Fraud See here for video of people admitting on film to forging signatures on voter registration forms. Humor About Philadelphia I've had some less than positive things to say about Philadelphia, but overall, it was just ugly and a little scary. (If I hadn't been armed just about the whole time I was there, it might have been a lot scarier.) A reader contributes this: My wife, who had the misfortune of working in Philadelphia for her first few jobs out of law school always thought that Philly should change its tourism slogan to Labels: humor Interesting Claim The article, unfortunately, doesn't give enough information to evaluate whether the claimed genetic differences appear in all homosexual men, or just some: LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Genetic factors, along with cultural and early experiences, influence male homosexuality, Italian scientists said on Wednesday.The study goes on to explain the methods and the size of the sample group: In their research, which is reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, they found an increase in homosexuality in the maternal line of gay men they studied which suggests the X chromosome.I would think that this must be a pretty dramatic difference if you could identify it from a sample group that small. However: "We can no longer say that is it impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality because we found out that genes might have different effects depending on gender," Camperio-Ciani.Psychologists were partial to a variety of explanations for homosexuality until the 1970s, abandoning each theory because it became apparent that there were large numbers of homosexuals that did not fit that set of facts. Perhaps a bit less willingness to look for a single explanation would have helped. More On The O'Reilly Lawsuit Well, after O'Reilly and Fox filed a complaint for extortion, the "victim" of the alleged sexual harassment filed suit. Her complaint is really interesting, including that she was a victim of this sexual harassment from "May 2002 through January 2004, and commencing again approximately July 6, 2004 through the present..." You see, she left Fox News to go to work for CNN in January--and then came back to work for someone that sexually harassed her before? Oh yeah, that's very believable. UPDATE: Just to clarify: if not for having returned to an environment and a boss that she calls sexually harassing, I would not have a strong opinion either way on this. I don't particularly like O'Reilly--he comes across as a bit of a egocentric jerk on TV--and the accusations that the "victim" makes about O'Reilly are the sort of out of control behavior that I expect from some people who have become rich and powerful. But returning to a place and a boss that from her description had engaged in really shocking sexual harassment before--that is just too hard to believe. I find it a lot easier to believe that watching her former boss at CNN fired for sexual harassment put ideas in her head--how can I get myself set up for life, financially? This is a woman who only makes $73,000 a year at Fox. Going for the big win would seem very attractive. Is The Entertainment Industry A Net Loss For Society? I think of that when I read accounts like this about a Botox lawsuit in Los Angeles: LOS ANGELES - EVEN before "Mr. Botox" returned from Europe to take the stand and Vanna White showed up, the judge braced the jury for something special. "You'll remember this for a long time," he said. Indeed, history is being made this month in Los Angeles County Superior Court, as Botox goes on trial for the first time in its brief but glamorous life as America's favorite anti-wrinkle treatment. Hollywood socialite Irena Medavoy, wife of film producer Mike Medavoy, is suing celebrity dermatologist Arnold Klein and Botox's manufacturer, Allergan Inc., claiming the drug caused myriad illnesses, including a four-month migraine so severe it left her bedridden. If You Are Going To Commit Vote Fraud, Be Subtle For example, the City of Milwaukee has asked the county to supply them with 938,000 ballots for the November election. One little problem: In a letter sent to City Elections chief Lisa Artison, Walker said that he had "serious questions" about the need for that many ballots when the city reported having 382,000 registered voters in September.Over here we see that the 2000 general election had 245,670 votes cast. Yes, there does need to be some spare ballots for spoiled ballots. But why does the city need more twice as many ballots as there are registered voters? I have never needed a replacement ballot in almost 30 years of voting. Does it seem even slightly possible that every registered voter in Milwaukee is going to show up, spoil his ballot, and need a replacement? Also, along with all the voter registration fraud stories implicating Democrats, one out of Nevada implied that a Republican registration organization was throwing away Democratic ballots. But it turns out that the "Republican" organization is actually part of the Democratic Party's effort--suggesting an attempt to smear Republicans. The Democrats seem intent on the dirtiest election in my memory. UPDATE: And here's more evidence, again, involving the group ACORN: A field director for one of the many national partisan organizations trying to drum up votes in Florida admits to routine efforts to rig the outcome. They include submitting thousands of invalid voter registration cards, as well as failing to turn in boxes of cards filled out to register Republicans. UPDATE: There seems to be some evidence that the Nevada group throwing away Democratic registrations is actually connected to the Republican Party. A Tennessee Democrat Hits The Ball Out of the Park! But for the other side. I am still in shock that any serious political candidate--and especially a Democrat, the party of inclusion, love, and concern for the downtrodden, would put together a flyer like this one here. Voting for Bush Is Like Running In The Special OlympicsOne of the recurring problems of American politics is that, by and large, the left, and to a lesser extent, liberals thinks of themselves as morally and intellectually superior to conservatives. Hence, this willingness to call Republicans "retarded." The moral and intellectual superiority notion is so strong that it overpowers what should be a Democrat's concern about insulting language. Imagine if a Republican had put together an ad portraying Kerry lip-locked to John Edwards with the slogan, "Even if they win, they're still homosexuals." This would have been front-page news everywhere in America. Why Bush Is Ahead in Electoral Votes Bush has only a slight lead in the popular vote--but a pretty substantial lead in electoral votes. Today's summary of state by state surveys shows Bush with 291 electoral votes, and Kerry with 228. (Only 270 are required to win.) Electoral votes are based on the number of members of the House and the Senate that each state has. (I don't know how they compute this for DC, which somehow has three electoral votes--and no senators.) This gives a disproportionate (you might even say "unfair") advantage to the small states, since every state has two U.S. Senators. Bush as of today's tally has seventeen states that are "strong Bush" (more than a 10% gap between Bush and Kerry) while Kerry has only seven states, plus the District of Columbia, in the "strong Kerry" column. Bush's states, however, are a lot of sparsely populated places like Idaho, while Kerry's are big population places like New York and Maryland. This advantage continues in the "weak" states (where one candidate is 5-9% ahead of the other). Bush has nine of these states; Kerry has only six--and they include high population states like California, whose electoral votes, while large, are smaller relative to population than the small states. What is quite amazing to me is that Kerry is only up 8% on Bush in California--a state awash in New Age idiocy and multimillionaires--practically the definition of likely Kerry voters. UPDATE: A reader reminded me that Amendment 23 gives DC as many electoral votes as an equivalent state--giving DC also disproportionate influence to its population. More Difficulties for the Left I've seen leftists over at Indymedia defend Hussein's mass killings of Kurds as punishment for their rebellion: Saddam's troops butchered thos Kurds and Shi'ites for the same reason Lincoln's troops butchered Confederates.They were in open rebellion.but what excuses this? A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq.How does a baby engage in open rebellion? Spitting up on you? Supreme Court Considering Question of Executing Minors I understand why some crimes by minors provoke a desire to see them pay the ultimate penalty. I am no fan of the death penalty, but I do think that there is a legitimate distinction between minors and adults. We don't give minors all the rights of adults, because we recognize that there are areas where they simply don't have the judgment to make some types of decisions. What amazes me is that Justice Ginsburg, who has supported lowering the age of consent to 12, is suddenly interested in holding the line at 18: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the dividing line between adults and children is 18, "to vote, to sit on juries, to serve in the military." Slippery Slope Problems As a friend of mine likes to say, "Never undestimate the osmotic pressure of money." He was referring to zoning and developers, but this applies to the problem of regulating political advertising as well: How about drawing the line where the Framers intended it: that the First Amendment's guarantee was first and foremost to protect the right of the people to participate in political discussion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.I don't dispute that they intended for freedom of speech and the press to include areas outside of politics, but the first point of this was political speech. Now, the Supreme Court seems to think that it includes almost everything but political speech--including forms of speech that would have been universally recognized as criminal actions in 1791. As I wrote a few months back for a Shotgun News column: What was the First Amendment supposed to protect? First and foremost, its purpose was to protect political speech. There have always been some gray areas on this, with questions as to what constitutes incitement to riot, what is obscenity, and what are the limits to libel. At least in the last few years, the Supreme Court has taken a very, very broad view of what is protected free speech. Last year, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), they ruled that virtual child pornography—that is, computer graphics depictions of sex involving children, but in which actual children do not appear—is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.2 Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law regulating tobacco advertising within 1000 feet of a school, again, on free speech grounds. The law, among other problems, was “overbroad” in the speech that it prohibited.3 In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning of the American flag was constitutionally protected free speech.4 Reasons To Be Armed In Public Places The Next Few Weeks Anywhere that I can be armed in the next few weeks, I will be, because of news stories like this: U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July.If you don't already have a concealed weapon permit from your state (and assuming that you live in a state where you can get a permit without having to bribe someone), you should go apply now. Visit packing.org to find out details about your state. Dirty Tricks by the Democrats? Or Just Greedy Lawyers? The complaint filed by O'Reilly and Fox News asserting extortion of course only presents their side of the matter--but I will say, I don't find it at all implausible that the goal of the suit is primarily political. The Democrats will stop at nothing: violent attacks on campaign offices; forged documents; registering convicted felons to vote; registering non-citizens to vote. So why not some extortion as well? Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Hurricane Damage Patrick Cox writes a column for Tech Central Station that starts out talking about his situation, more than a month after Hurricane Frances blew through: If there were a working land line in the cabin my family is using while we wait for services to be restored to our home, it would be a simple matter to google the scientific term for these hyper-winds that form on the lake, but they tell me I won't get electricity back for several more weeks. It's an interesting sign of these new tech times that Web access is now on my short list of missing amenities, along with power and sewer services. In the meantime, I impose occasionally on friends to send and read e-mail, but little else.He goes on from there to discuss the current project to restore the Everg |
