Powered by TypePad

« Adult Stem Cells | Main | I Remain Stuck At Ground Zero »

August 04, 2010

Comments

Janet

In other news, famous dance floor boogie queen doesn't like Sarah Palin. LUN

"Where the hell do they get these names?"
Where the hell did she learn to dance????

fdcol63

Tyrants and despots don't usually appear suddenly, out of nowhere.

Instead, they oftentimes subvert and corrupt existing legal institutions and electoral processes incrementally, until a moment of opportunity arises for them to seize total power and control.

Often, this moment of opportunty comes amid crises that they have fomented along the way, in which the people find themselves in a state of anarchy and chaos.

In a desperate bid to restore order and safety, the people voluntarily cede their freedom and civil liberties to these would-be despots and tyrants, who appear on the scene like saviors.

This is all part of the Left's Gramscian strategy of the "long march through the culture" to undermine American and Western institutions, values, and goals.

Their 30-40 year dominance of journalism, academia, Hollywood and government bureaucracy has brought us to the point at which we don't trust or have faith in our own Federal, state or local governments, politicians, the media, schools, military, and most other major institutions or even our own American values and ideals.

We must stop them, or we'll cease to be Americans ... and free.

anduril

I'm just not as likely to read them because I am accustomed to scrolling by the cut-and-paste jobs.

I agree that long cut and paste jobs can be difficult to read. In fact, long posts of any sort can be difficult--do I need to offer examples? My long posts are hardly unique in their length. And that's why I go to a fair amount of trouble to format longish posts. The bolding helps the eye to focus on what I consider to be nuggets of meaning within the overall passage--salient points that capture the overall thrust of whatever I'm posting. If you don't trust my judgment, you can read every word--or skip every word. OTOH, if you do have some degree of trust in my judgment of what's important in an article, you can quickly focus on the bolded parts and make a quick decision whether to linger and read more or just move on.

Question: Isn't it odd, the number of people who'll admit that they like "some" or "occasional" or "rare" things I post? To say that, it must mean that they're looking at what I post pretty regularly--after all, if it was mostly so objectionable you'd think they'd just blow past it all, and never catch those "occasional" things they like. Funny, huh?

Ignatz

-- Turkey used to be a moderate Muslim nation. Now they are less so. Did the religion change or the party in power?--

I'd say it was moderate to the extent it was secular and didn't practice actual Islam. Erdogan has different ideas; real Islam with the secularists purged, especially from the military.
****************
Regarding this mosque, imagine what the reaction would have been if a Shinto group had proposed building a shrine overlooking Pearl Harbor while WWII still raged.
State Shinto was immolated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but AQ survives, our men are still dying in Afghanistan and the Saudi Wahabbi's still export their venom without penalty while this mosque is going to be built overlooking what, to our disgrace, is still the crater of ground zero.

Janet

"Why our Representative Republic is Right"
An interesting video posted at Ms. Underestimated awhile ago... LUN

Great post fdcol63!

Rocco

OT: A long lost legend is found in Willis Pond, Sudbury MA

Jim Ryan

The analogy to Shinto only goes so far because it's scriptures don't glorify an unrepentant murderer and warlord.

rse

Do you remember the Sept 12, 2001 editorial pages of the WSJ? The writing was so outstanding that it won a Pulitzer?

Rabinowitz's column today reminded me of those stories. They were nearby that day and it always shows up in the clarity of the prose and the passion.

On the courts, it's so disingenuous for the so-called "conservative" approach to be for the judiciary to defer to the legislative majority especially under the Bill of Rights.

I do not know who taught these commentators con law but it was completely removed from the history of the period.

Ignatz

Here's a couple of articles by the estimable Jed Babbin at Am Spec about the futility of nation building.
Both part one and part two (each called Bonfire of the Neocons) manage to tread the sensible line between examining the difficulties, perhaps impossibilities, of nation building while at the same time recognizing the necessity of knocking the hell out of our enemies. Unlike, say, paleos who apparently think we should be sidling up to the mullahs and the Arabs who only hate us because we haven't driven the Jews out of the Middle East and into the sea on Islam's behalf (since they seem singularly incapable of doing it themselves).

Ignatz

--The analogy to Shinto only goes so far because it's scriptures don't glorify an unrepentant murderer and warlord.--

Jim,
I was referring specifically to "State" Shinto which was quite malignant and nationalistic and intertwined the state and religion somewhat similarly to Islam.

Jim Ryan

I see, Ignatz.

Danube of Thought

Great idea, Frau Edith. But you left out hot dog stands.

Danube of Thought

it's so disingenuous for the so-called "conservative" approach to be for the judiciary to defer to the legislative majority especially under the Bill of Rights.

Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand what you're saying...

Clarice

I haven't read the Babbin pieces, but I will say there's an awful lot fo crap written about "neocons". All the neocons I know wanted to turn Iraq over to civilian authorities prompting after the invasion succeeded. Remember how evil they were for wanting to deal with Chalabi et al instead of the DoS pro consul idiocy which set us back a year.

Ditto with Iran. Neocon of neocon on Iran is Michael Ledeen who--contrary to the latest fantasy world analysis--has never urged we go to war with Ira but rather that we support the native insurgents .

Janet

examining the difficulties, perhaps impossibilities, of nation building while at the same time recognizing the necessity of knocking the hell out of our enemies.

When I read about the burning of Bibles in Afghanistan because they were offensive...my interest in nation building there ended. If no new ideas, thoughts, philosophies,etc. are allowed in, then it is a waste of time to continue to nation build. Just destroy the enemy & get out. Islam with Sharia law is a poison and building a road or giving out money will not change that.

Captain Hate

**Fledgling Update**

I went out in the back yard and could hear at least 2 chirpers from different parts of the back yard. I found the one nearest the house, this time far away from the nest and he clammed up again when I spotted him. I walked away and then he started up again and the father came around giving a similar type of chirp that resembled what the fledgling was doing but slightly different; I've never heard an adult cardinal sound that way before. He fed the fledgling and then encouraged it to move. It is flapping its little wings and hopping around and looking like a real bird rather than a ball of fluff. I wouldn't be surprised if its flying is somewhat up to speed tomorrow and I've seen the last of him or her.

Pops

I am appalled at the lack of tolerance we've seen with regard to this issue.

Of course we should allow the Muslims to build the biggest, most expensive community center they can possibly build.

Then of course, we should blow it up on the day it is to open. It would be a great civil defense execercise to prepare for the next muslim attack.

Pops

I would also require the first two floors be rented to other business by the developer. I would require a pork butchery, at least 4 liquor stores and a porn theater.

rse

DOT-

The first time I heard it was Jan Greenfield explaining that Roberts and Alito were not conservative as they did not defer to the majority will reflected in enacted legislation.

I found that to be a strange and self serving definition but I've heard it again in the Kagan hearings.

It's as if the judiciary is not an independent, co-equal branch as long as Congress or the state legislature is controlled by like-minded folks.

You can be sure though such deference will cease to exist when they are no longer in the majority.

So if you're low information, the legal MSM wants you to think of Alito, Roberts, and Scalia as radical and Breyer and Ginsburg as understanding their proper roles as judges.

Ignatz

--Ditto with Iran. Neocon of neocon on Iran is Michael Ledeen who--contrary to the latest fantasy world analysis--has never urged we go to war with Ira but rather that we support the native insurgents.--

clarice,
Jed Babbin applauds Ledeen and agrees with him almost completely in that punishing and dissuading the state sponsors of terror is what needs to occur.
What he chides is the idea that democracies were likely to spring up in the ME if only given a chance, a not uncommon idea in 2003-06.

Extraneus

**Fledgling Update**

Thanks, Captain!

But you're really risking your bad guy edge.

Clarice

Depends what you mean. I didn't expect New England town halls, but remember european nations have barely been democracies and most are far less democratic in significant ways than we are.
Historically, the truth is the neocons were not for imposing our notions of democracy via the Brenner we'll hammer out every jot and tittle for you notion. In any event per insty today:

AUSTIN BAY AND OMAR FADHIL ON IRAQ IN the Wall Street Journal. “Don’t worry about the gridlock in parliament. Democratic habits are taking hold.”

I think they are--probably as well as they are in most countries of the world which fancy themselves Democratic.

We are the oldest democratic nation (okay,democratic republic) on earth. It takes the others a while to even come close.

Sue

anduril,

Funny, huh?

99.99% of your posts I bother reading are at the end of a thread when nothing else shows up after 2 or 3 refreshes. If you find it funny, laugh.

anduril

Unlike, say, paleos who apparently think we should be sidling up to the mullahs and the Arabs...

So the paleos want to sidle up to mullahs and Arabs? That would mean that they want to take sides with the mullahs and Arabs against the ayatollahs and Iranians--since to be for one is ipso facto to be against the other? Why do I think this is somehow a caricature of paleos--without knowing much about paleos?

If Pat Buchanan is a paleo, then you can get some idea of paleo views here: Pat Buchanan on War & Peace. For the record, I'm not a paleo, do not support Buchanan now and never have.

Babbin means well, but is too simplistic. For example, he writes:

George W. Bush made three mistakes which altered the course of American history and from which we may not recover because Barack Obama is compounding them.

First, President Bush never defined the enemy clearly and correctly: we are at war with the nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism and the religion-cum-ideology which propels them.

Second, and the inevitable consequence of the first, we have mistaken the terrorist groups as the enemy and -- despite overwhelming evidence of their responsibility for the deaths of American troops -- we have never attacked the terror-sponsors or even exacted a price for their actions.

Third, and with equally disastrous effect, Bush sunk us neck-deep in the neocons' self-imposed quagmire of nation-building.

His premise that Bush made mistakes and that Obama is compounding those same mistakes is largely correct, in my view. However, I find myself in full agreement only with item three. More importantly, Babbin's first point is grossly over simplified. He's absolutely right that Bush failed miserably in defining our enemy, but he's wrong to state: we are at war with the nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism and the religion-cum-ideology which propels them.

If Clausewitz is correct--and I think he is--in stating that war is the continuation of politics by other means, then Babbin is painting with way too wide a brush.

More accurately, we're in conflict with Islam. Their values are simply antithetical to our values--if we yield we will cease to be who we are. However, there are many ways to handle conflict, and outright war is only one of them. We were certainly in conflict with the USSR and the PRC during the Cold War, and to varying degrees we still are. That conflict never came to outright war, although it did come to many Americans losing their lives as a result of Soviet and Red Chinese support for opponents with whom we were at war. There is no reason to view this conflict as essentially different from the Cold War era, especially since Communist ideology and Islamist ideology are quite similar.

That said, I'll finish reading Babbin's articles. And I'll report back!

anduril

Ha ha ha. So you even keep count? Join cathyf reviewing weblogs.

Janet

risking your bad guy edge.
LOL!
It should have read -
**F^@%ing Fledgling Update**

Clarice

Fox says Pelosi is calling the House back into session to pass card check and to bail out California.

Jim Ryan

AIDE: Ms. Speaker, it's just that, we're getting a lot of calls...angry calls. And the internals for a lot of our members, they're, like, really really bad.

PELOSI: They can't be that bad, sweety, the American people -

AIDE: They're really bad. So, I was thinking, you know how last week you were talking about maybe going for card check and the California bail out? Maybe now is not a good time to-

PELOSI: What's that? Card check and the Cal bailout. Yes, we should get on that right away. That should give the polls a little boost. Thanks for the encouragement, honey.

AIDE: No, I mean don't-

PELOSI: Oh! Gotta run! The View is coming on and today they've got Bob Denver!

anduril

Islam with Sharia law is a poison...

This is very true, Janet. It's also why we need to keep muslims out. No muslims, no mosque, no mas. We largely kept our other enemies out during the Cold War, there's no reason not to do the same now, and many good reasons in favor of the same policy.

fdcol63

"What he chides is the idea that democracies were likely to spring up in the ME if only given a chance, a not uncommon idea in 2003-06."

Well, personally, I think something new needed to be tried. Although not a fan of "nation building" nor deluded by the notion that Muslim cultures were going to become Jeffersonian democracies overnight, I concluded that what we'd been doing since the end of WW2 had failed.

Basically, we had propped up some unsavory, authoriatrian and despotic regimes in the Muslim world in a pragmatic strategy to keep them out of the Soviet sphere of influence, so we could secure a vital national resource (oil), obtain bases in areas close to the USSR, and all of that.

In return, though, we got a bunch of 2-faced, double dealing from these regimes. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc etc allowed the Muslim crazies in their own countries to grow and whip up anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli fervor, basically providing a relief valve for internal anger that would have normally been directed against the failures and abuses of their own regimes.

This all came back to haunt us on 9/11.

I think Bush and Co. also concluded that the only way we could "co-exist" with Islam was if serious, fundamental changes started happening in the Muslim world.

We needed to start remedying the situation that we had created, understandly, while confronting the Soviet threat. This could only happen by starting the process of trying to spread democracy and freedom to those in the Muslim world, in the hopes that THEY would themselves start overthrowing their authoritarian and despotic regimes.

Of course, we couldn't just come out and declare to ALL of these regimes - our superficial "allies" like King Fahd, Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah, et al that this was our strategy.

Nor could we announce publicly that that was our strategy against the mullahs in Iran or elsewhere.

But we had hoped this would spread, as it did in the Cedar and Orange Revolutions. And probably would have continued to do so, were it not for the opposition and subversion of the American and European Left.

That opposition and subversion of the grand strategy gave hope to these tyrants and despots that American will could be sapped, if they could just hold on until Bush was out of office and a "progressive" Democrat like Kerry, Clinton, or Obama could be put in office.

Thus, we are where we are.

majoritysame

Appeal already filed. It' snot State this time.

Frau Edith Steingehirn

"I would require a pork butchery, at least 4 liquor stores and a porn theater." Pork butchery = BBQ, I hope. Add on DoT's hot dog stand and we have a complete list of treatment centers for the sex-crazed worshipers the the VM.

With Clarice's link and the upcoming announcement about gay marriage in CA, I can only hope, Pelosi's botox finally breaches her sinus cavities.

Frau Edith Steingehirn

**of** the VM.

Ignatz

--I think Bush and Co. also concluded that the only way we could "co-exist" with Islam was if serious, fundamental changes started happening in the Muslim world.--

That's the fundamental error IMO. It hasn't changed much in 1400 years and it aint going to start now. Islam, like most such idealogies, naturally tends to try to expand and it does so either violently or by undermining from within.
The only way to coexist with expansionist Islam is to knock the snot out of it until it leave us alone.

Porchlight

Fox says Pelosi is calling the House back into session to pass card check and to bail out California.

I knew the Cali bailout was coming. If it passes, all hell should break loose...and yet I'm afraid that won't be the case.

centralcal

Frau - the judge ruled it "unconstitutional" - drudge has the siren up.

centralcal

Ruling is 138 pages!!!! On to the Appeals and hopefully, the Supreme Court eventually.

fdcol63

Ignatz, that may well be. But I think it was worth a try .... before we end up having to nuke the place.

NK

Shinto = Wahhabism

Once again I agree with Ignatz. Tojo's invocation of Shinto as a national religion aping Hitler's "Ein Volk" religious nationalism is an apt analog for Wahhabism/bin Ladenism. Tojo believed in "Bushido for thee not for me", he sent those young boys out as Kamikazes and kill themselves for the "Emperor", but he didn't follow Bushido's code and commit sepiku (supposedly he shot himself and missed?who knows), in the end Tojo left that for the hangman's rope. Likewise, bin Laden didn't get into the cockpit and meet the 72 blackeyed virgins, he left that for 20 other saps. bin Laden, Tojo, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all perverts and mass murders.

Jane

On to the Appeals and hopefully, the Supreme Court eventually.

I fear that the Judgment will be affirmed. As everyone knows I'm a huge supporter of gay marriage, what I am not in support of is the people constantly being over ruled by the court.

Janet

unconstitutional under due process and equal protection.

If the word marriage can mean anything now because a judge says it is unfair for it to mean what it means ...then I say juvenile, minority, Union worker, Sr. citizen and a lot of other words should also become meaningless. I want Sr. citizen discounts to be given to me because I consider myself a Sr. citizen. I want minority standing when I apply to college. I want Union wages wherever I work. I want some of the Pigford settlement...because I consider myself a black farmer.
I don't just want these things, I demand them.
Let redefining words begin.

anduril

Well, personally, I think something new needed to be tried.

That's the type of reasoning that gave us Obama.

I think Bush and Co. also concluded that the only way we could "co-exist" with Islam was if serious, fundamental changes started happening in the Muslim world.

The only change in the Muslim world that would be fundamental would be if Muslims forsook Islam en masse. Basically every religious reform we know of has come under the claim of being a return to the basics, in one form or another. Look what Islam was up to in the beginning and ask if that's what you want. That's also why the various Islamist ideologies have the degree of support that they do among ordinary Muslims: they can credibly claim to be following Islam as it was in the beginning.

anduril

This is kinda interesting: CIA Software Developer Goes Open Source, Instead.

Dave (in MA)
AIDE: No, I mean don't-

PELOSI: Oh! Gotta run! The View is coming on and today they've got Bob Denver!

AIDE: Bob Denver? Um...
Uh, Bob Denver's dead.

PELOSI: Dead? I didn't even know he was sick!

matt

I wonder if these judges go to sleep at night and think to themselves "gee, I've got the opportunity to overturn 4,000 years of precedent."

soccer dad

The Washington Post today hailed the decision of the landmark commission as a vote for religious freedom. Just curious, but if the building had, say, been a stop on the underground railroad would the Post have been so generous in its praise of the decision?

But here's what gets me. The Post waxes eloquent about how Cordoba refers back to the city where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony for 800 years. Huh? That peaceful coexistence came to an end in the 12th century when the Almohads conquered Andalus and gave the Jews and Christians the "convert or die" ultimatum.

I'm really interested in knowing how Cordoba symbolizes peaceful coexistence.

narciso the harpoon

Down here in South Florida, specially in Coral Gables there's a great deal of the Moorish influence in architecture, nomenclature, et al, sort of in the same way that Indian names represent our finest weapon
system. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, was 11th century, so he actually preceded the Almohads

Clarice

In Sarasota, those intending to build a mosque, insisted that their religion required the dome to exceed in height all the other buildings in the city and demanded as a religious right a zoning variance. The locals advised them, they could build the mosque outside the city of conform to the zoning rules on height,Religious tolerance did not require a special exemption.

I grant the WTC site is different. They are not requesting a variance, but it is such a provocation and such an insult to those murdered there and the rescuers,many of whom will suffer from ilnesses contracted there fo the rest of the ife, I would have denied permission.

As Megan McArdle notes it is, nevertheless, a treat to see the gormless Mayor Bloomberg acknowledge private property rights though.

Clarice

**outside the city oR conform****

Ignatz

Excellent article by Nicole Gelinas at City Journal on the financial crisis and its aftermath.
In fact the whole City Journal site is well worth a read; no clunkers.

centralcal

Ignatz your linky is corrupt (too many l's in journal)

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_financial-crisis-books.html

Ignatz

I tried fixing the broken City Journal link once but it didn't seem to post.
Here's the old college try again.

Ignatz

Thanks cc.

anduril

I like what Babbin has to say about the muddle of the Bush administration--this is a fact that conservatives need to come to terms with before we can move forward. We need a clear idea of what we're for and what we're against.

Unfortunately, Babbin seems to want a world in which all problems are strictly black and white:

That if you do not fight a war in a manner calculated to win it decisively, you will lose it inevitably.

What is a decisive win against an ideology, short of mass conversion? I mean, I understand what Babbin is trying to say, but I wish he'd think it through a bit more. Is he suggesting that we annihilate all Muslims: men, women and children? I defend our use of the A bombs against Japan, but are the circumstances we face really such as to justify that type of action?

Anyway, here's what his strategy seems to be:

Iran and Syria should be told, only once, that their dedication to terrorism is intolerable and that if they do not cease immediately (and of course, they won't) they will suffer undefined consequences. There should first be a declaration of war and then those undefined consequences should begin, delivered at night [Question: why at night?] by the vast variety of stealthy weapon systems we have (and can build).

Islam -- and all our Arab "friends" -- cannot be reformed by non-Islamic peoples. But we can and must attack the ideology that goes under the name of Islam. If we give our fullest attention to denigrating the ideological Islam -- which precludes the freedoms we preserve in our Constitution -- we can engage defeat the Islamists in the ideological war that is essential to winning against the terrorist nations. If our Muslim friends cannot accept this, so be it. It must be done regardless.

I can agree with the broad outlines here: 1) punitive military strikes against nations that attack us--IF that's the prudent course to take; 2) all out ideological war. Yes. But...don't we need to offer some alternative, and what will we present as the preferable alternative? Catholicism? Methodism? Seventh Day Adventism? Secular Humanism with Obama as Head Poobah? I don't say it's impossible to offer some alternative, but it will take some creative thinking and it will require a degree of unity that we simply haven't had for some decades.

While we're trying to decide what we really stand for, it might be helpful to set an example to the Muslim world. We talk a lot about justice, but we've helped to set up Israel--a nation founded on terrorism and forcible expropriation--as an apartheid state. What credibility will we have in our ideological war if we don't address that issue? Yes, Muslims are our enemies--their "holy" books say so, and I believe them. But our values tell us that we need to be just even to our enemies. Especially if we want to change them. Firm, but also just. The fact is that there are degrees of enmity. The Arab world didn't turn decisively against us until we shifted decisively (in 1967) behind Israel. We have continued to support every action Israel has taken, no matter now repulsive and inhuman. Are Arabs purely victims? No, but two wrongs don't make a right. We need to address this.

narciso the harpoon

Having read Klein and Littell's counterfactual
about what would have happened if Israel had been defeated in '67, I can't agree, and it seems another needless provocation on your side

matt

way back in olden times, Islam came into the world out of the Arabian Peninsula, militant and wild. A religion of the desert. Harsh and unforgiving and, as it matured, immutably rooted in its origins.

It's first stop was what is now Palestine and Syria, where Christians and Jews had been living in relative peace under Byzantine rule, which was polyglot.

It then marched into Egypt and what are now Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. It pushed eastwards all the way to India, almost always under conquest. While offering an option to people of the Book, to all others it was convert or die. In many cases Christians and Jews were given that same ultimatum.

The Moors made their way first into Spain in 711 (Mohammed died in 632)and then across the Pyrenees all the way to Poitiers in 732, where Charles "The Hammer" Martel forced them back into Southern Spain. This was felt across countries and political and religious differences to have saved Christianity up until the revisionists of the late 20th century.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottomans then expanded westward again until they were repulsed by King John III Sobieski before the walls of Vienna in 1683, where once again Europe breathed a sigh of relief.

It was not a united Europe that stopped the Islamic invasions, but isolated and principled bodies of people willing to put everything on the line to save what they felt was sacred. Read the histories of either Poitiers or Vienna and tell me there are no miracles.

Islamic tolerance is limited by the level of political control they have over a particular region. With a large, restive population it was forced, as in Greece and the Balkans to accommodate different believers. As it was, ask the Greeks about the Ottoman occupation.

Peaceful coexistence was forced on the Ummah by the West. Let there be no doubt whatsover on this point. Name a single country where Muslims were forced to convert to another religion.

Even in the Soviet Union, while the communists were doing their best to stamp out any form of religion, they left the Muslims alone because the cost militarily and economically would have been unbearable.

That, in a nutshell is the political history of the religion of peace.

narciso the harpoon

In other news, virtually nothing we heard about Shirley was true, entirely, in the LUN, which made me wonder why there was no direct
link to the crime in question, 'things that make you say hmm"

Danube of Thought

Thanks rse. I didn't read Greenfield's remarks, and there is a good chance she was being a little deceitful with them, but the words you quoted, taken at face value, are eminently sensible.

That theory of conservative jurisprudence--and it's one I agree with--holds that in the absence of the infringement of a clearly identifiable constitutional right, the people are entitled to do whatever they choose to do through their elected representatives. Prominent case in point: Roe v. Wade. Forty-seven states at the time had statutory bans on the procedure, and the Court swept them all aside on the basis of a "right" that even many who liked the outcome found laughable to the point of corruption.

A more recent case in point happened a couple of hours ago with Judge Walker's ruling.

But those of us who hold to that view have to recognize that it cuts both ways. I'm a life member of the NRA (my father was its president at one point), and a strong advocate of gun rights, I have to acknowledge that the right of individuals to own them is rather difficult to find in the Second Amendment. But hell, I've had to accept a lot of judicial activism that gives me results I don't like, so I find it pretty easy not to complain about the recent gun decision.

Does that make sense?

Danube of Thought

of gun rights *but* I have to...

Danube of Thought

I think Pelosi is now almost dangerously out of touch with the American people. Unless I am way out of touch myself, I believe any effort to bail out CA or any other state with taxpayer dollars from the sensibly-run states is going to be met with a very intense outrage. As a Californian I want the state legislature to be taught the lesson of its decades of irresponsibility.

If there is such a thing as a blue dog Democrat, this is the time for them to show themselves.

Danube of Thought

Well, shut my mouth. I just discovered that this package has already been approved by the Senate, 61-38, with the Maine ditzes in the majority. I guess I was aware of the passage of an aid package, but hadn't focused on what it would do.

What the fuck has happened to this country?

L!ink U!nder N!ame

The lawyers here will be pretty amused by the letter sent to the EPA by Texas a couple of days ago. It's pretty caustic.
================

matt

The truck ran over all the blue dogs, if there were in fact any still extant, with the health care bill, DoT. The only place you'll find them these days is on Ebay under taxidermy.

As to the express right to bear arms, when you have so many utterances by the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and others regarding the encroachment of the state upon the individual I think the original intent is pellucid. Those militias were meant as much as anything as a check on tyrants, of which we seem to have an ever growing supply lately.

Clarice

narciso, did you notice Sherrod's mother said she was related to Hall, the man charged but never indicted for the shooting?

Texas' shot over the EPA bow still at LUN.

DoT, I've always been amused that 'well-regulated' and 'shall not be infringed' occur in the same sentence. I figure the founders did it so we would argue over it rather than shoot each other over it.
===================

narciso the harpoon

So it's a little like the Bishop situation, in Massachussett's, a confused affair, that does not take away from the experiences she
endured in Baker Cty, but it does put things
into some perspective

squaredance

Believe me, the whole liberal establishment is coming down on Bloomy to go ahaead with this starting with the O his own self. Can you imagine that landmarks commission down there passing up an opportunity to declare yet another building down there as a "landmark"? You can bet that if any other group tried to build there it would be declared such. Can you imagine if someone tried to build a church down there. It is true that Bloomy is really playing hard ball--publicly at least, he has never played such hard ball before this issue--but it is not originating with him.

The Liberal boomers that run NYC and this nation have completely lost their minds and their bearings (and, no doubt, some are on the take from some big Middle Eastern money).

The odd thing is that a great many of them are Jews.

Our "ruling classes" are composes idiots of moral cretins.

PDinDetroit

DoT - I would point you to the McDonald v. City of Chicago SCOTUS Decision for the history lesson about individual firearm ownership that results from the fundamental right of self-defense. The collective right interpretation just isn't defensible, especially since the unorganized militia is comprised of individuals.

What most people are unaware of: States have Militia Laws that generally state "all able-bodied persons between 18-45 are part of the unorganized militia, which can be called up by the governor during times of emergency".

Maybe I should write-up something for AT or PM about the unorganized militia. I'm sure it will be news to most people.

bgates

I have to acknowledge that the right of individuals to own them is rather difficult to find in the Second Amendment.

Look at the part that starts "the right of the people...."

rse

Perfect sense DOT. She sounded deceitful when she said it.

Was driving through rural Alabama and started screamimg at the radio.

Of course the same commentators who currently want to defer to the legislative majority do not seem the least interested in deferring to a majority of the voters as with Prop 8.

"I believe in the power to implement my vision and the power to block any competing vision in the way"-the honest description of too many judicial philosophies.

Danube of Thought

That doesn't quite do it for me, bgates, in that it is prefaced by that stuff about the militias. What has always troubled me that if the militia business isn't something along the lines of a necessary condition, then it is surplusage. There is a pretty firm rule of construction to the effect that surplusage should never be assumed.

PD, what about the people in those states who don't have such laws?

Anyone looking for a succinct shredding of the Prop. 8 decision should take a quick look at this item at NRO.

Extraneus

Hey, thanks for that link, narciso. I've been waiting to hear some actual facts on that.

So we learn that Hosie Miller wasn't shot in the back after all, huh? And by his wife's relative, no less.

Guilt, guilt, everywhere.

Yah, it was racial violence.
================

matt

I find it interesting that Judge Walker, who is openly gay, did not recuse himself from the case. I believe the state could have argued this point and won.

I also find his language disturbing in that "domestic partnerships do not satisfy California's obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry". He basically just created one more right that didn't exist before.

 centralcal

DoT: Thanks for that link to NRO. Very well said by the author.

I have no objection to civil unions with full legal rights (community property, etc.)

In other news - since I am a techy-dummy, Clarice or Janet need to go over to Newsbirds. She has pictures of the Fashion Icon, however, there is a link in the comments that go to Telegraph UK, with an even more "revealing" picture of our FI-Flotus. Just pathetic and sad, is all I can say.

Donald

I'm apalled by Apalled's moral relativist argument regarding capitalists and business owners (Like me), who hire people right there in that decrepit neighborhood, trying to perhaps point the locals (There are SEVERAL housing projects adjacent to this arm pit) to a positive way of life in which they earn a living and have dignity as opposed to blood thirsty savages hoisting their symbol of victory right there where it happened. Knocking down that dump and putting positive role models right there would be the best possible thing that could happen. Fuck you dude, and for your follow up. That's not moderate, that's not reasoning, that's just craven babbling at best.

Extraneus

Yeah, so the judge - the umpire, calling balls and strikes - is gay, has a long-time partner, and didn't recuse himself?

Tsk, tsk.

So how do we defend ourselves from the Sherrods of this world?

Self defense, no less, and on his own land.
====================

Extraneus

Can we add a few more posts to this thread so I don't have to keep seeing that damned picture of Katie Couric every time I refresh the page? Blech.

 centralcal

So - on Narciso's Sherrod link. Was Hall black? White? A blend? I know he was somehow related to the wife of Hosie Miller.

I thought it interesting that the wrongful death lawsuit went in Hall's favor, even though the Miller side was claiming the jury wasn't "black" enough.

Ignatz

DoT,

The Heller victory is built upon 40+ years of Second Amendment scholarship so conclusive that even a great many liberals who used to claim it envisioned some collective right had waved the white flag, even before Heller was filed.

 centralcal

Twitter from Iowahawk:

Idea: approve Ground Zero mosque only if they agree to perform gay marriages. WEDGEAGEDDON

lol!

Janet

Sorry Extraneus, and I don't know how to "get" the picture centralcal. Some pictures give me a no text jpg image & I can post those, but otherwise we need Ann.

Captain Hate

**FLEDGLING UPDATE**

The one closest to the house had gotten very proficient in hopping around the hedge and I noticed that the parents were messing around in the ground cover in the back where I think one of the siblings was. Then I went inside for a while and heard some peeping outside and noticed both parents in the ground cover under the hedge closest to the house. Turned out the one fledgling must've fallen into the ground cover but they coaxed it up and it made it part way up the hedge. I can still hear them outside but their flying ability is getting better (those things are nearly weightless) and I expect them to be on their merry way tomorrow.

Pofarmer

Don't know if ya'll followed it. But MO voters gave O the finger yesterday with Prop C. It passed by around 75%. The Democrats in the Senate filibustered it at the end of the regular session.

narciso the harpoon

I wondered when you were going to give your two cents in their Po

Extraneus

According to Ancestry.com, a Cal A. Hall died in Dougherty County, GA, on 6/26/76, and was white.

 centralcal

Thanks Ext.

Pofarmer: yes, that was excellent news!

Jane

I find it interesting that Judge Walker, who is openly gay, did not recuse himself from the case. I believe the state could have argued this point and won.

Matt,

I don't think he should have recused himself any more than a woman judge should recuse herself when the issue involves women's rights (which frankly this woman thinks is pretty much a joke at this point.)

Amy certainly would have ruled on the law in CA regardless of the fact that she is gay. Judge Thomas would certainly follow the law if the case involved blacks.

A better argument is that liberals should not be allowed on the bench.

Danube of Thought

I'll defer to your assessmet, Ignatz. I haven't looked at any of that scholarship in many, many years, and have only read synopses of the two opinions. Anyhow, I sure like the outcomes.

I believe the state could have argued this point and won.

You can't do it. He has to recuse himself, or he stays on the case. Judicial bias could arguably raised on appeal, but I very much doubt that it will be, and if it is it's a loser. The argument that a gay judge can't be impartial in a gay-rights case is going to carry no more water than a similar argument about black judges in racial discrimination cases, or women in sex discrimination. You and I may very well believe that Walker's gayness determined the outcome for him, but you'll never even get a hearing on that one.

narciso the harpoon

In the short term I see as beneficial to GOP
prospects, in the long run, I wonder though, wasn't 2003-2004, the time when the subprime
problem could have been manageable, this is yet another detour from should be the main focus, and the fact that 'domestic partnerships' were foreclosed, punctuates the point

PDinDetroit

PD, what about the people in those states who don't have such laws?

From what I have been able to determine, they are there in every state. I will have to finish the research work and write the paper after all.

There is, of course, a federal law that states the basic same idea. LUN for more information on that.

narciso the harpoon

This does not seem like a birthday cake, to me, in the LUN

Extraneus

A better argument is that liberals should not be allowed on the bench.

That seems more reasonable.

Jane

well in the 2 minutes of Chris Matthews I saw, the headlines were all about gay marriage followed by the demonization of Sharon Angle followed by a recitation of the election results with the exception of the Missouri health care vote.

The funniest part was Chris uncovered a "novel GOP tactic" and exposed it - that is repeating something over and over until it becomes fact - that was right before he took another swipe at Sharon Angle and said the words "president Sarah Palin" are the scariest 3 words in the world (for the 10 millionth time.)

Extraneus

Ach! I refreshed the page again!

MayBee

That doesn't quite do it for me, bgates, in that it is prefaced by that stuff about the militias. What has always troubled me that if the militia business isn't something along the lines of a necessary condition, then it is surplusage.

I'm going to bungle my wording here, but the best argument I've heard against this is the matter of timing and procedure in actually raising and arming that militia.

Say something arises and citizens need to form a militia. Surely the founders didn't mean for the government to control the ability of people to then obtain guns to have a militia. Surely the founders didn't mean the government would somehow house the guns until a militia was required.

Who in the British government would the founders have trusted to regulate the gun ownership of the colonists?

(bungle bungle bungle. I hope that made any sense to anyone but me)

PDinDetroit

CH - I have a bumper crop of Gold Finches this year, they are so much fun to watch and listen to. I feed them Thistle (Niger) Seed, which they and the House Finches (Red Colored) just love. I have not seen the cardinals as much, although the chickadees show up at fairly regular times of the day to eat the Safflower Seed (which squirrels and pigeons do not like).

I am glad that the 3 hawks that have taken up residence in the woods nearby have not noticed these little birds that frequent my yard.

Extraneus

It made perfect sense. Besides, multiple Founding Fathers have been very specific on the 2nd Amendment.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Extraneus

(Make it stop!)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame