The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
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.
Labels: polygamy Labels: freedom of speech Labels: Iraqi WMDs Labels: abortion
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).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
Wow! Joe Wilson Lied--Not Mistaken
The Washington Post, of all papers, is reporting: Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Thanks to Kevin Patrick for the pointer.
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
...
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
New Additions to My Primary Sources Page
These are all here.
1777: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 9:75-94. Another long militia statute, obligating (on page 77) every white male inhabitant from 18 to 53 to be enlisted in the militia, with exemptions for members of the Continental Congress, state officials, ministers, faculty of colleges, and "servants purchased bona fide" (which would seem to include slaves as well as indentured servants). Much of this statute is a very tedious organization of the militia to ensure that not everyone would get called out simultaneously, and to make sure that no one was unfairly forced to serve more than others, dividing the militia into multiple "classes" Unlike previous militia statutes of Pennsylvania, this provides for the government to arm at least two classes in each company.
1777: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 9:110-14. Not really a militia law, the Test Act is sometimes cited by those attempting to prove that the right to keep and bear arms was not considered a fundamental right, because those refusing to swear an oath of loyalty to the revolutionary government would be disarmed. The theory then is that if this was not considered a fundamental right, then it should not be considered a fundamental right today, subject to whatever restrictions the government sees fit. As the Act explains on page 111, "whereas allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will bear the former are not nor ought not to be entitled to the benefits of the latter" the Act specifies (on pages 112-113) that all white males refusing to take the oath "shall during the time of such neglect or refusal be incapable of holding any office or place of trust in this state, serving on juries, suing for any debts, electing or being elected, buying, selling or transferring any lands, tenements or hereditaments, and shall be disarmed by the lieutenant or sub-lieutenants of the city or counties respectively." Hmmm. By the "not a fundamental right" logic, there would be a lot of other rights lost as well.
1777: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 9:131-6. This supplement to the militia law above is primarily technical in providing for election of officers.
1777: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 9:167-9. This militia law was to make "more equal the burden of the public defense" by preventing wealthy people from just paying to avoid militia duty. From all accounts I have read, it wasn't a raging success, and the Philadelphia militia in particular became filled with poor and radical artisans.
1777: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 9:185-9. This "further supplment" to militia law seems to be a simplification of the method of calling out the militia, along with provisions for fines for militiamen failing to do their duty.
1780: From James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, ed., Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 (Harrisburg, Penn.: William Stanley Ray, 1898), 10:144-73. This seems to be primarily technical changes in how the militia is structured, but I have an odd feeling from what I have read about the radicals in the Philadelphia militia and their struggle against what they perceived as economic oppression, that some of this was to prevent a repeat of the militia's attempt to scare the wealthier classes into submission.
Interesting Admission From the Chicago Tribune
The Chicago Tribune's "public editor" (an ombudsman, I guess) has an interesting column (free registration required) about the selection bias involved in their coverage of homosexuality: As public editor, I find the rest of his letter less interesting and provocative than the predicate: that the Tribune is "overwhelmingly pro-gay" in its viewpoint.
This is exactly right. Journalists, lawyers, and university faculty (all members of the elite--or at least they think so) are so overwhelmingly convinced on the issue of homosexuality that few of them can even imagine that there might be another side to the story (except to assume that those who disagree about this are bigots, or fools).
Brueggeman was not the first reader to suggest this. Beginning with the legally dubious San Francisco gay marriage stampede in February through the unquestionably legal Massachusetts nuptials in May, there had been a stream of phone calls and e-mails from readers wondering whether the play given the story in the Tribune wasn't more indicative of support for gay marriage by the paper's reporters and editors than of its importance as a news story.
...
decided last week to explore that proposition by evaluating the Tribune's coverage this year of the gay marriage issue. I plugged the words "gay marriage" into the search field of the paper's archiving system. It found 333 articles in which the term had appeared in 2004.
I began reading them, moving from most recent to earliest and attempting to be as critical as I could be of any deviation from standards of fairness and objectivity in descriptions of the participants and their positions.
About 50 stories into the exercise, a pattern was clear: In opinion articles and letters to the editor, there was a decided tilt in favor of gay marriage. But in news articles there was no discernible bias either for or against. It was very much the Joe Friday formula: "Just the facts, ma'am."
So does this mean that the Tribune is off the hook on this charge? Not necessarily.
During a conversation recently, a wise colleague observed that we mainstream journalists tend to acquit ourselves well when we have a story in front of us and have to make sure that it meets all the standard tests for fairness and impartiality. That would explain the lack of an observable tilt in our news stories.
Where we run into trouble is in discerning the stories that haven't yet been written, or even conceived. We have trouble seeing reality from the perspectives of those who do not fit into the newsroom "mainstream," which, according to recent surveys for the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists, is predominantly "liberal" and "moderate" and overwhelmingly convinced that homosexuality should be accepted by society.
It is from this inability to see from other perspectives that stems what Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, calls "bias by omission." This bias manifests itself, he says, in the media's failure to tell what he considers interesting and convincing stories that argue against gay marriage. Stories like those of "guys who come out of the gay lifestyle" and live straight lives.
I would argue that this is because the analogy that likens homosexuality to race, sex, or ethnicity is ideologically very powerful. Unfortunately, professions that are primarily focused on ideas are easily swayed by grand theories that try to neatly explain everything. This is why Marxism was (and is) among the most powerful models for academics--it has a grand theory to explain economics, religion, art, and in some decades, even biology (T.D. Lysenko). The real world doesn't fit into such neat and tidy categories.
"There's a debate in the culture as to whether [homosexuality] deserves classification" as a protected attribute like race, LaBarbera said. But the media behave as if that debate already has been resolved. "They take a protective attitude toward homosexuality."
Yes. It is certainly true that many opponents of homosexuality are religious. (To my surprise, there are a surprising number of atheists and agnostics who share my concerns about the way in which homosexuality dominates the popular culture and courts.) I suspect that this is because the mass media overwhelmingly promotes homosexuality, and religion is the only force left that questions these assumptions. Those who are not religious will almost never run into any expressions of disapproval of homosexuality, and thus, have no reason to even question the dominant view. If you think I exaggerate: when was the last time that you saw any disapproval of homosexuality in any secular newspaper, magazine, or television show?
Kathy Valente, Illinois state director of Concerned Women for America, which is pushing for state and federal constitutional amendments to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, makes much the same argument as LaBarbera. "I think the media coverage in general is very, very biased, very, very slanted," she said.
One personal observation: After talking at some length with LaBarbera and Valente, I was surprised to discover that their arguments are not essentially religious. That is, they do not require that one accept their faith in order to believe their argument.
For many years, I found myself in a rather strange position as a Christian. The Bible certainly expresses disapproval of homosexuality (along with extramarital sex, greed, gluttony, and a host of other behaviors that define modern America), and I knew in some abstract sense that this must be right. But I had grown up in a fiercely pro-homosexual society (California) where homosexuality was generally classified about like skydiving or eating sushi: it wasn't for everyone, but if that's what someone wants to do, that's their choice. If there was ever a reference to homosexuality in the Los Angeles Times, it was always phrased so as to make homosexuality look like a good thing. To me personally it was like eating sushi: "Yuck!" But if you enjoy it, that's for you, just don't be tiresome and try to persuade me that sushi is something that I need to eat and enjoy.
It was only after I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area that I begin to question this very libertarian view. The more contact that I had with real homosexuals, instead of the abstract theory of homosexuality, the more apparent it became that while homosexuals were not monolithic (and lesbians and gay men were actually two quite different cultures), there were some pretty common characteristics that made them distinctly "different" from heterosexuals. The more apparent it became that the abstract homosexuality had little to do with real homosexuals, the more I questioned what I had grown up believing. The more digging I did, the more apparent it became that the dominant 1970s and 1980s portrayal of homosexuality was, in many respects, false.
New Resistant Strain of Syphilis
From AP: (AP) -- A fast-spreading mutant strain of syphilis has proved resistant to the antibiotic pills that are offered to some patients as an alternative to painful penicillin shots.
Well, that's no surprise. The additional problem is one that anyone who has read much about the last four centuries already knows:
Since the late 1990s, doctors and public health clinics have been giving azithromycin to some syphilis patients because the long-acting antibiotic pill was highly effective and easy to use. Four pills taken at once were usually enough to cure syphilis.
But now researchers at University of Washington in Seattle have found at least 10 percent of syphilis samples from patients at sexually transmitted disease clinics in four cities had a strain resistant to azithromycin.
"That suggests that this mutation is pretty widely distributed geographically," said Sheila A. Lukehart, research professor of infectious diseases.
The percentage of samples from San Francisco with the mutant strain jumped from 4 percent in 1999-2002 to 37 percent in 2003, with the increase taking place largely among gay or bisexual men with multiple partners. [emphasis added]Experts said the findings also show that syphilis patients treated with azithromycin must have follow-up tests to be sure they are cured. After syphilis sores disappear, the disease can silently attack the brain and cause dementia, paralysis and death.
I've blogged about this before--and pointed out that syphilis is very disproportionately present among gay men--because there is a very promiscuous segment of homosexuals that seem to have a self-control problem.
Penicillin has long been the recommended treatment for syphilis. But it must be given in two buttocks injections much more painful than typical shots, because a large amount of the solution must be forced into the muscle.
Syphilis decreased in the United States through the 1990s, then climbed 19 percent from 2000 to 2003 to about 7,100 cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC attributed the spike to a twelvefold rise in cases among gay and bisexual men, many of whom are also infected with the AIDS virus. [emphasis added]
John Kerry Upset That Ken Lay Is Being Prosecuted
No, really, he is insisting that prosecuting Ken Lay now--rather than two years ago--is a political trick: BECKLEY, W.Va. July 9, 2004 — Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards on Friday questioned President Bush's claim on values, arguing that the administration's election-year decision to prosecute former Enron chief Kenneth Lay after more than two years hardly amounted to American values.
And if the Justice Department had brought this indictment two years ago, and Lay was already in prison, Kerry's argument would have been that they hurried the process to get this embarrassment out of the way before the election.
...
"Values are putting the full force of the Justice Department on day one in an effort not to take three years and a few months before the election before you bring Ken Lay to justice," Kerry told a morning fund-raiser in New York.
Is there anyone more transparently dishonest than John Kerry (I mean, besides Michael Moore)? Bill Clinton was sleazy, but he was at least competent at this sort of thing. Kerry sure isn't.
How Homosexuals Are Going To Help Republicans Gain Seats In Congress
I don't expect the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass either house--it needs a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate. But it will force a lot of Democrats (and a few Republicans) to stand up and be counted on this issue. Even Senator Smith from Oregon is telling homosexuals that there are limits to what he can do for them: The vote puts Democrats and Republicans on the spot. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.
Now, I don't believe for a second that being "true to myself" matters anywhere near as much to Senator Smith as getting re-elected--and even in strongly left-wing states like Oregon, homosexual marriage doesn't fly. The proof of this is that even California--as lunatic fringe of a state on sexual morality as there is--a majority of voters voted to define marriage as "one man, one woman."
"I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me," Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, a leader in efforts to make attacks against gays a federal hate crime, said while addressing his comments to gay and lesbian voters.
"But on this one, I have to be able to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and be true to myself," he said.
There are going to be Congressmen who are going to vote against the FMA--and at the next election, a number of them (mostly Democrats) are going to lose because of it.
About 2% of the population is homosexual. I would guess from conversations that I have had over the years that perhaps 3/4 of them consider this a make or break issue for whom they vote. Some don't see marriage as important; some regard it as bourgeois; some are actually pretty conservative sorts who, other than their sexuality, don't want to rock the boat. Yes, there are straights who will be upset about their Congresscritter voting against FMA, but outside of university faculties and the bar association, how many are there for whom this will be a make or break decision?
Something like 45-50% of the population opposes not only homosexual marriage, but even civil unions, suggesting that there is a significant hostility to homosexuality above and beyond simple traditionalism. A fair number of those voters are already voting Republican, of course. One of the causes of the Reagan Revolution in 1980 was the Democratic Party's unwillingness to see that its pandering to the left with respect to religion, gun control, and the rest of the elitist belief system, drove a lot of conservative and moderate Democrats into voting Republican--some for the first time in their lives. I do not find it at all implausible that a Congressman voting against FMA will motivate at least 3-5% of the population into voting against that guy or gal the next time around--and in some races, that will more than make up for those who vote for him for having the "courage" to vote against it.
The Democrats are whining that the FMA is purely a political maneuver to make them look bad in an election year. Perhaps their masters should have thought about that, before starting up unlawful marriages, and engaging in the judicial tyranny of Goodridge.
I'm not entirely thrilled with FMA--it's a rather meat-axe solution, because it takes away the authority of the state legislatures to pass their own laws. But because of elitism and judicial tyranny, it sometimes takes a meat-axe to get their attention.
More Reasons To Not Trust AP's Iraq Coverage
Over at PowerLine there is a very well done analysis of AP's recent news story, which relies on attacking the (false) claim that the Bush Administration says that the attacks are largely foreign fighters. To believe AP's version, most of those attacking us are former Baathists: Guerrilla leaders come from various corners of Saddam's Baath Party, including lawyers' groups, prominent families and especially from his Military Bureau, an internal security arm used to purge enemies.
Well golly gee, what a surprise! The same crowd that used to "purge" enemies by torturing them to death aren't on our side. I am so surprised!
Remember The Al Gore/Unabomber Quiz?
The one where you were asked to guess which statements came from which, and it was hard to tell the difference? Clifford D. May has an article about Hezbollah support for Fahrenheit 9/11: Yes, of course. And it's not as if Mr. Moore's views of America differ dramatically from those of Hezbollah. If you think I exaggerate, look at the two statements below. One is from Mr. Moore, the other from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Guess which belongs to the Hollywood celebrity and which to the mass murderer. (The answer is at the end of this column*.)
And no, I'm not going to tell you who said what. You'll have to go read his column yourself.
“The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.”
“This is the war of a despotic, arrogant, and cruel country against the nations of the world.”
The equivalent of Fahrenheit 9/11 during World War II would be if Charles Lindbergh had made a film that suggested that Roosevelt had purposefully started a war with Japan in order to have an excuse to go to war with Germany, because Jews were telling Roosevelt what to do. Lindbergh, while an opponent of the war, and far too friendly with Nazi Germany, at least had to good sense to stop his agitation once the war was under way. Michael Moore does not.
Am I Missing Something On This News Story?
This Washington Post news story says that: The AP-Ipsos poll found Bush leading Kerry just outside the margin of error, with the president's support at 49 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 3 percent.
Later in the story they tell us that the margin of error is 3.5%.
I won't claim to be spectacularly knowledgeable in statistics, but assuming that by "margin of error" they mean the 95% confidence interval, then it is within that confidence interval that Bush might have as little as 45.5%, and Kerry as much as 48.5%. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the story when I see "just outside the margin of error," and read that as meaning that Bush would clearly win.
Taking The Terminator Role Too Seriously?
This article by John Fund at the Wall Street Journal includes this amusing quote from Governor Schwarznegger's State of the State address some months back: An ambitious effort to streamline and reorganize state government, the project was born last January when the governor announced in his State of the State address: "Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government. I don't want to move boxes around. I want to blow them up."
The rest of the article discusses how Schwarznegger's team is trying to save money by terminating unneeded boards (of which there are many--like the agency that licenses dry cleaners, if they still exist) and selling off government property.
This Isn't Funny At All
Victor Davis Hanson has a sobering piece over at National Review Online about how the left (including people that ought to know better) still don't get it: In response to the historic events of the week, one columnist for the New York Times decried George Bush's pronunciation of "Eye-rack." Another pundit trumped that profundity by whining that Bush had written "Let Freedom Reign," rather than "Ring" — a verb that, had Mr. Bush employed it, she would most likely have denounced as a hackneyed cliché.
I think the answer is simply that they care more about partisan gain than they do about rape, torture, and mass murder.
At a time when tens of thousands are risking their lives to end the barbarism that has spawned a quarter century of worldwide terror, the New York Times wishes us to know that its columnists can properly pronounce Iraq and really do remember that freedom "rings" more often than "reigns."
Meanwhile, an even smugger Billy Crystal was introducing the billionaire John Kerry at a millionaires' banquet in L.A. with similar gravitas — comparing 9/11 to the president's SAT scores. Oh yes, 3,000 incinerated on September 11 add up to the president's combined SAT score. Analyze that: comparing charred corpses to multiple-choice tests taken by high-school seniors.
The message of this out-of-touch, spoiled idiotocracy seems to be something like, "How embarrassing for us to have an inarticulate president who has freed Iraq and inaugurated democracy in Saddam's place." Are all these people crazy and ignorant of history — or do they simply want a free civilized Iraq and the American soldiers who brought it about to fail?
Other news coverage suggests that Kerry should resign from the Senate immediately, because his campaigning is taking precedence over affairs of national importance. Drudge Report quotes:Just hours before attending an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry revealed how he has been too busy for a real-time national security briefing.
"I just haven't had time," Kerry explained in an interview.
Kerry made the startling comments on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE Thursday night.
KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?
KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.
The Used Book Market Is Pretty Bizarre
I received an email asking where to find a copy of For the Defense of Themselves and the State, because it is now out of print. I was going to suggest the used book market, until I clicked here, and discovered that a used book dealer is asking $174.30 for my book. The book was only $65 (a steep price, as far as I am concerned) when new. What I don't understand is why my publisher doesn't make a small run of a few hundred copies to take advantage of such absurd prices.
I Am So Surprised!
The New York Post reported on July 6: WASHINGTON — Transcripts of secret U.N. Security Council sessions show that U.S. and British diplomats were constantly thwarted by their French, Russian and Chinese counterparts while investigating Saddam Hussein's dirty deals under the oil-for-food program.
Well what do you know? Countries involved in corruption didn't want their little scam to stop!
Minutes of meetings of the so-called 661 Committee — the U.N. Security Council panel that oversaw Iraq sanctions and the oil-for-food program — have been recently turned over to U.S. congressional committees investigating the $10 billion bribery kickback scandal, officials said.
According to a top congressional investigator who has read the highly sensitive documents, the minutes confirm that there was widespread knowledge inside the United Nations years before the war that Saddam's regime was ripping off the $100 billion program by demanding kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian aid to Iraq.
The investigator said the transcripts reveal that U.S. and British diplomats repeatedly raised questions about suspicious contracts, but efforts to investigate corruption were blocked by Russia, France, China and, at times, Syria.
As Good As It Gets: James Lileks Dismembers Michael Moore's Lies
Just a few samples: it's well worth reading in full: His patriotic bona fides thus established, he says this:
But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them.
For some reason that intrigued me: nine boys from my school. So I googled around, and found the Casualty list for the Vietnam War. There were six casualties from Davison, Michigan. (He didn’t go to high school in Flint. He didn’t live in Flint. You knew that, right? He lived in a suburb.) They weren’t boys. They were men. The earliest was killed in 1967, and there were two casualties in that year. Two in 1969, one in 1968, and one in 1970. Moore was born in 1954, so he would have entered high school in 1969, after which there were four casualties. (One of which died of a heart attack.) Two were drafted, incidentally. The rest – if I’m reading the site correctly – appeared to have enlisted.
Just so we’re not throwing them around as props, we should give their names. They were Gary Thompson, Martin Scott, David Bonesteel, Howard Doyle, David Ex, and Lowell Holden.
...
Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?
This is addressed in “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.” As the authors note: the survey to which Moore refers also says (quoting MMIABFSWM) “in the next paragraph, [the survey] goes on to note that 25 percent of those people who scored in the lowest literacy category were immigrants who have learned little or no English. And in classic Moore fashion, he also fails to disclose that nearly 19 percent of the group he includes in the uneducated masses are actually people who have ‘visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print.’”
Where The Money Comes From
It's always entertaining to see to which political campaigns your really, really wealthy acquaintances are giving money. One fellow I know in California has a driveway that is several miles long--in Sonoma County, where even a house on a residential lot will set you back $300,000 or more. He of course gave the legal maximum of $2000 to the Kerry campaign--doubtless out of concern for the little guys.
Someone I don't know, of course, is Bill Gates, who gave the maximum of $2000 to Senator Patty Murray--a left-wing Democrat, and $750 to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), one of the principal gun control advocates these days.
Bill Gates's dad--also William Gates--gave pretty sizeable chunks of money to not only Patty Murray, but also Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the guy who insisted that the capture of Saddam Hussein was staged for the political benefit of Bush.
This is one of the reasons why too much wealth can be a destructive thing--it just provides more money for the left to spend impoverishing the middle class.
More Evidence of Ken Lay's Special Relationship To George Bush
You can see a picture of Ken Lay in handcuffs on Drudge Report (at least for now). Now remember: Lay is accused of crimes that were largely during the Clinton Administration. He is being charged by the federal government under the Bush Administration. And this shows some sort of unfair, cozy relationship between Lay and Bush?
Nader Paranoid?
Perhaps. But knowing what the Democratic Party was capable of under Bill Clinton, I can't immediately dismiss this: WASHINGTON — Democrats could be participating in a "mini-Watergate" effort to get Ralph Nader (search) out of the presidential picture, the consumer advocate charged Thursday.
Well, not really. If the Democrats are doing something unethical or illegal, that might be an apt comparison. But to make it a "mini-Watergate" would require widespread media attention to it--and pretty obviously, nothing that fundamentally damages Kerry's chances is going to get covered by the mainstream media.
"They're hiring lawyers to go up to technicalities in places like Arizona, they infiltrated our political convention," Nader, an independent candidate for president, told FOX News on Thursday. "I spoke to John Kerry and said 'you'd better look into it because it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly."
Gays Out Member of Congress
Apparently Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) hasn't been vocal enough in her opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment--so homosexual activists have "outed" her. I don't know how much this will damage her chances of re-election, but it's hard to imagine that it is going to help her. Maryland, in spite of a strong tendency for police state politics (for example, the arrest of supporters of a pro-gun initiative the day before the election a few years ago), is socially somewhat conservative, and whatever Republican runs against Mikulski will have a somewhat stronger position because of it.
There are threats by homosexual activists to "out" more members of Congress and Congressional staffers in order to defeat the FMA. This really tells you a lot about this crowd, doesn't it? If this is what they do to their friends (and Mikulski, while not out front on this, was opposed to the FMA), what will they do to their enemies?
Well, That's One Way To Energize A Core Democratic Constitutency!
From Drudge Report: CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER
Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...
John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!
...
"I've been covering Washington and politics for 30 years. I can say I've never seen this much touching between two men, publicly," e-mailed one wire photographer.
Buying Uranium in Niger
The Financial Times is reporting that Lord Butler's report concludes that yes, indeed, it appears that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger: A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.
Obviously, you aren't going to read this in most American newspapers. How would that help elect Kerry?
The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq.
The report will say the claim that Mr Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes, seized on by UK prime minister Tony Blair to bolster the case for war with Iraq, was inadequately supported by the available intelligence, people familiar with its contents say .
But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.
Shocking Drop in Unemployment
But it may not mean as much as the numbers alone would suggest: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. jobless claims staged an unexpectedly steep fall to the lowest level in nearly four years with 39,000 fewer workers seeking aid, the government said on Thursday, but seasonal factors distorted the report.
I'm still disappointed with how miserably low Treasury yields are.
First-time claims for state unemployment insurance benefits plunged to 310,000 in the week ended July 3, down from a revised 349,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said.
It was the lowest level since 302,000 in the week ended October 8, 2000.
A Labor Department official said the seasonal adjustment method used to calculate the data had anticipated a surge in claims in the week for automakers' annual summer maintenance shutdowns. However, that rise did not occur in the week it was expected.
The official added that July tends to be a volatile month for claims overall.
Economists said the seasonal adjustment issue made it hard to draw broad conclusions from the fall, which was much steeper than the drop to 345,000 anticipated in a Reuters poll.
Playing Telephone With The Constitution
[Feel free to criticize and comment]
I always have great fun asking people to show me where “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution. A few victims of my sense of humor know that no such phrase appears in the Constitution; it is only how the Supreme Court has interpreted the rather different language of the First Amendment. Most people, however, get very confused when they read the actual language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Where, they ask me, does this “separation of church and state” come from? When they find out, they often become quite upset. What has happened is the legal equivalent of playing telephone, where a dozen people sit in a circle, one whispers a sentence in the ear of the person next to him—and by the time the sentence has worked its way around the circle, it is often unrecognizable.
Back in 1802, a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson, congratulating him on his election. They were also upset because Connecticut (like a few other states at the time), had an established church, meaning the one particular denomination had special legal privileges. In some states, the government collected taxes to fund that church. The Danbury Baptists were not happy about this, understandably, and hoped for President Jefferson’s help. There wasn’t much that Jefferson could do; the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from giving special treatment or privileges to a particular church, but the states were free to give these sort of special privileges.
Jefferson did write a very nice letter back to them that expressed his belief that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God” and that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions….” In short, everyone was free to believe anything they wished, no matter how silly, but the government was free to punish actions that disrupted public order. Jefferson did quote the First Amendment, and claimed that it built “a wall of separation between Church & State.”[“Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin, June 1998, available at http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html, last accessed July 6, 2004.] Jefferson probably would have liked to see Connecticut disestablish the Congregational Church; he had played a major role in his home state of Virginia in disestablishing the Anglican (now Episcopalian) Church.
It seems most likely that Jefferson’s remarks were intended as a statement of what states should do—-but even Jefferson recognized that the First Amendment was a limitation only on the federal government. State governments throughout the Revolutionary and early Republic period regularly took actions that clearly gave preference to religion in general, Christianity in particular, and in some cases, to specific Christian denominations. Delaware’s constitutional convention of 1776 required delegates to acknowledge “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine Inspiration.”[Claudia L. Bushman, Harold B. Hancock, and Elizabeth Moyne Homsey, ed., Proceedings of the Assembly of the Lower Counties on Delaware 1770-1776, of the Constitutional Convention of 1776, and of the House of Assembly of the Delaware State 1776-1781 (Newark, Del.: University of Delaware Press, 1986), 209.] Some required a rather broad religious confession of officeholders, such as the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” [Pennsylvania Const. (1776), § 10, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004. Similar language remains in the current Pennsylvania Const., Art. I, sec. 4, available at http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html, last accessed July 7, 2004.]
Other states were more specific. Maryland’s 1776 Constitution specified what requirements might be imposed on officeholders: “That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”[Maryland Const. (1776), Art. 35, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ma02.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004.] This was softened in the 1851 Constitution to “if the party shall profess to be a Jew, the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.”[Archives of Maryland 138:622, available at http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000138/html/am138--622.html, last accessed July 7, 2004.] North Carolina’s 1776 Constitution was even more specific: “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”[North Carolina Const. (1776), available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc07.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004.]
Along with requirements for officeholders, some state constitutions still imposed a religious establishment. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, ordered the legislature to pass laws requiring local governments to tax the population “for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” The Constitution also authorized-—but did not require-—the legislature to pass laws mandating church attendance.[Massachusetts Const. (1780), available at http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004.]
What then did Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists really mean? Jefferson was certainly a bit of a skeptic about religion (and was incorrectly reviled as an atheist by some of his opponents in the 1800 presidential election). He does not, however, seem to have been as hostile to government entanglements with religion as those who claim to be following his words today. During the Jefferson Administration (and that of James Madison, principal author of the Bill of Rights), the House of Representatives chambers were regularly used for church services—and this continued until after the Civil War. Both Jefferson and Madison attended these services, at which different Protestant ministers officiated. Starting in 1826, Roman Catholic priests joined in the rotation. There were church services in executive branch buildings during the Jefferson Administration as well, and in the Supreme Court chambers as well.[“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” part 2, available at http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html, last accessed July 6, 2004.]
It would seem that Jefferson’s notion of “separation of church and state” was hardly the high wall that the ACLU seems to favor-—and Jefferson was, of the Framers, one of the least friendly to religion. More typical would have been President George Washington, who on a number of occasions issued Thanksgiving proclamations loaded with religious language: “that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions….”[The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Series 8a, Correspondence and Miscellaneous Notes, 1773-1799, October 3, 1789, available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html, last accessed July 7, 2004.] Washington’s Farewell Address to Congress also presented a secular benefit to the promotion of religion: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”[Washington’s Farewell Address to Congress, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004.] Other Framers also made clear their belief that religion and government were closely tied principles, such as Benjamin Franklin’s plea at the Constitutional Convention: In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor…. I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”
There are many examples available of official actions of the First Congress (the same one that wrote the First Amendment) that suggest that if the First Amendment was supposed to erect a wall of “separation of church and state,” someone neglected to tell the authors:
…
I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.[Jonathan Elliot, The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution, As Recommended By The General Convention At Philadelphia, In 1787, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1836-59), 5:253-4, available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html, last accessed July 7, 2004.] Resolve, That the form of the oath to be taken by the members of this Houses, as required by the third clause of the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the United States, be as followeth, to wit: "I, A B a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me GOD.” [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793, Monday, April 6, p. 7, available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html, last accessed July 7, 2004.]
There are example as well from state governments in the early Republic that at least suggest that government regarded the promotion of religion as a legitimate activity, such as an 1820 Indiana law that prohibited concealed carrying of deadly weapons, with fines of up to $100 (a sizeable sum, back then) to be paid “for the use of county seminaries.” (Presumably, the legislature saw some connection between a vile practice and the need to promote morality in the population.) [Laws of the State of Indiana, Passed at the Fourth Session of the General Assembly (Jeffersonville: Isaac Cox, 1820), 39. The provision concerning fines going to seminaries was repealed in 1831. Revised Laws of Indiana, in Which Are Comprised All Such Acts of a General Nature as Are in Force in Said State; Adopted and Enacted by the General Assembly at Their Fifteenth Session (Indianapolis: Douglass & Maguire, 1831), 192.]
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) is still considered an important source by the federal courts for understanding original intent. Story argued that it was probable that when the Constitution and the First Amendment were adopted, “the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” “The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” [Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States… (Boston: Hilliard, Gray And Company, 1833), §§ 1865, 1871, available at http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm, last accessed July 7, 2004.]
So what happened to this understanding of the First Amendment? The U.S. Supreme Court’s first use of Jefferson’s quote about “separation” of church and state was in a case where today, the ACLU would almost certainly file a friend of the court brief on the losing side. The case involved a group that, at the time, most Americans considered sexual perverts—and worse, who insisted that marriage should not be limited to a man and a woman (at least, not just one woman). Congress prohibited polygamy in the territories, at least partly because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) were openly engaged in plural marriage.
In Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ban on polygamy. Rather than admit that American laws were based on Christianity (a position that could have been supported with reference to Justice Story’s Commentaries), the Court claimed that the law against polygamy was not based on religion: “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”[ Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 165 (1878). ] Polygamy led to patriarchy, the Court decided,[Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 166, 167 (1878).] and because Jefferson had written about the distinction between beliefs and actions—and polygamy was definitely an action, and not just a belief, they quoted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to defend their position.
Here was the first transmission error. Jefferson’s letter was sympathetic to the Danbury Baptists because Connecticut was playing favorites, giving one denomination legal and economic advantages not enjoyed by others. In the Reynolds case, Congress passed a law that applied equally to everyone in the territories, regardless of their religious beliefs. It did not matter if you were a Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or an atheist, federal law prohibited polygamy. That the polygamy law had more impact on Mormons at the time than other groups did not mean that the law discriminated against a particular religion. In modern terms, the polygamy statute had disparate impact (it affected one group more than another), but it was not narrowly written just for that group.
The next use of Jefferson’s “separation” metaphor was Everson v. Board Of Education Of Ewing Township (1947). In this case, a New Jersey township board of education provided for transportation services for children to both public and private schools—in some cases, Catholic schools. The lawsuit sought to prohibit payment for busing of children to Catholic schools, claiming that such payments violated the establishment of religion clause. The Supreme Court made a claim completely contrary to the available historical evidence, relying instead on the precedent from Reynolds: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. [Everson v. Board Of Education Of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1, 16, 17 (1947).]
Nor did the Everson decision give any authority for its claim that the First Amendment required complete neutrality regarding religion. The Supreme Court pointed to Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, which had only addressed the question of whether states should give legal preference to one church, and argued that the First Amendment should be understood as meaning no law could aid any religion—-a position that Jefferson did not take in that letter, and that Reynolds did not take, either. While both Jefferson and Madison (principal author of the Bill of Rights) had certainly played a role in disestablishing the Anglican Church in Virginia, the rest of the First Congress—-who also voted on the First Amendment—-did not share Jefferson and Madison’s views on disestablishing churches at the state level. There is also no evidence that Jefferson and Madison would have agreed with this claim that “no law could aid any religion”—and the actions of both Jefferson and Madison Administrations, as we have previously seen, suggest otherwise. While the Everson Court upheld the law—-because the money was only being spent on transportation to and from a Catholic school—-the decision established an incorrect precedent based on Reynolds—-and the game of telephone continued.
The following year, McCollum v. Board Of Education (1948) involved the use of public school facilities in Illinois for religious instruction. With parental consent, clergymen representing the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths provided religious instruction to children of their respective faiths. The Supreme Court ruled that this was an unconstitutional action. “This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education….” [McCollum v. Board Of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 210, 211 (1948).] But since Everson had misinterpreted Reynolds, which had misinterpreted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists—-which only expressed a personal opinion, not a legal requirement, about state preference for a particular denomination, it is hard to take this decision seriously. Yet, decision after decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is based on McCollum—-a embarrassing chain of misinterpretations of what was, at best, only one point of view about the meaning of the First Amendment.
It is high time that “separation of church and state” be given a proper (and secular) burial. The history behind “separation of church and state” is embarrassingly sloppy, and a clear examination of original intent shows that the First Amendment was not intended to provide either complete separation, nor complete neutrality.
---
Clayton E. Cramer is adjunct history faculty at Boise State University and George Fox University (Boise).
UPDATE: Jonathan Rowe's critique raises some important points. One is that Jefferson and Madison were primary players in the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, and that the Everson decision points to Jefferson’s "Virginia Statute on Religion Freedom" and Madison’s "Memorial and Remonstrance" as evidence for their position.
Jefferson's "Virginia Statute on Religion Freedom" clearly opposes establishment of religion: That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
This does not, however, fit into the ACLU's model of "separation of church and state," in which a cross as part of an historical event may not be allowed in a county seal, or in which the Ten Commandments are not allowed in a public park or building.
Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" also clearly opposes religious establishments--but note what its argument is against religious establishment: 12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.
This is hardly the argument of someone who regards all religions, and no religion, as equivalent in value.
Virginia definitely disestablished the Anglican Church. Most other states did so within a few years--but not all, and even those that disestablished continued to impose obligations that run contrary to the ACLU's notion of strict separation of church and state.
Rowe also points out that the First Amendment is now applicable to the states, through selective incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. No question about that--but what meaning of the First Amendment? An originalist understanding would look at how it was understood when Congress passed it in 1789, and how it was understood when Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It would be difficult to defend the ACLU's view based on the laws in effect in either year.
How To Defeat McCain/Feingold Act
It prohibits most PACs from running campaign ads within 60 days of the general election. This guy (a right-wing gun owning homosexual, of all things) points to the Wall Street Journal's proposal on how to get around the Supreme Court's upholding of this law:... if a right-wing pornographer made a pro-Bush film featuring erotic scenes and put it on the Internet within 60 days of an election, would the Supreme Court call it protected speech? Just asking.
Financially Strapped Schools Discover Multimillionaire Art Collection
From AP: To the delight of school officials, a multimillion-dollar treasure trove of 19th- and 20th-century art has been discovered in basements, boiler rooms, closets and hallways in Philadelphia's cash-strapped public schools.
Hmmm. From what I've read, basic literacy is the more immediate problem in most of Philadelphia's schools. Perhaps having turning some of the more valuable art into capital to buy supplies would help.
The artworks - 1,200 works in all, including paintings, sketches, sculptures, murals, tapestries and ancient artifacts - had been donated to the school system or bought for small sums long ago.
But over the decades, many of them were taken down when the walls were painted and were put into storage, where they apparently were forgotten altogether.
The collection is probably worth tens of millions of dollars, school officials and art experts said.
...
The school system will look into how to preserve and display the collection and make money off of it, perhaps through calendars, coffee-table books and the like.
But Natalye Paquin, school system chief of staff, made it clear that selling some or all of the collection is out of the question, even though the district has been in financial straits and passed its first balanced budget in seven years this spring.
"Our history is not for sale. It's for the benefit of our children and it's part of our region's history," Paquin said. "Many of these paintings were made here, some only a couple of blocks from the school. That's an exciting way for kids to learn about art, culture and history."
The inventory began quietly in March 2003 and is similar to one conducted for the Chicago school system, where Philadelphia schools chief executive Paul Vallas and Paquin previously worked.
Something tells me that this wouldn't be the case in a lot of the California school districts, where they haven't had two centuries to accumulate valuable art.
Roughly the same number of works were inventoried during the mid-1990s in the Chicago schools, whose collection was estimated to be worth at least $20 million. But Philadelphia's collection is "richer in its historical value and more beautiful," Paquin said.
Some of the artworks were hanging in halls and offices, but many were not as lucky.
"Art often gets taken down when the school is painted and they don't get put up again. So many valuable and important works were forgotten in boiler rooms, locked closets, bicycle rooms," Bernhardt-Hidvegi said. "When we walk into a school and see hooks sticking out of walls, we really get excited. It's a rush."
Many need restoration work after sitting for untold years in dank basements and dusty storage rooms. The damage ranges from slight to severe, and includes dirt, water damage, holes, rips and paint loss.
Is Spreading Manure a Form of Free Speech?
I ask because Professor Volokh has a very thoughtful entry about a man arrested for spreading manure on the streets just before a gay pride parade in Arkansas. One of the organizers of the parade saw this as evidence of a need for an Arkansas hate crimes law. Professor Volokh was not impressed with such a claim, pointing out that hate crime laws, while constitutional, aren't necessarily a good idea. But I did find one odd little remark: Before the anti-homosexuality people start seizing on this as further evidence of those dominant gays trying to oppress the rest of us, let me mention that hate crimes laws were originally most seriously pushed by groups that see themselves as defending Jews and ethnic minorities.
If the police had arrested this guy for carrying signs or other expressions of disapproval of homosexuality (as has happened in other parts of the U.S.), there might be some basis to regard this as oppression. But spreading manure is hardly free speech, unless you think burning an American flag is a form of free speech.
Ooops! Liberals do believe that, and even have a Supreme Court decision to back them up. So I guess spreading manure is a form of free speech, and this is oppression!
Obviously, I'm kidding. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the liberal position. Spreading manure on the street is disgusting and perhaps even represents a minor health hazard. Ditto for burning an American flag, whose smoke might conceivably be a health hazard for those with some lung disorders. To call either of these protected free speech opens up the door to an enormous range of offensive "symbolic" expressions: mooning someone; baggies containing human excrement; etc.
UPDATE: Professor Volokh says that Scalia and Thomas voted to overturn the Texas flag burning statute. I didn't know that. Very interesting. Still, the core problem with this decision is that is a "fighting words" sort of symbolism, one likely to provoke violence. While I think such laws are stupid, I think the notion that flag burning is constitutionally protected is silly.
Here's a thought experiment for you: other than making people angry enough to get violent, what does burning an American flag express that couldn't be said on a protest sign? Something like, "Amerika is a fascist country," "Amerika is evil."
UPDATE 2: After careful consideration, I've decided that spreading manure on the streets before a gay pride parade really is constitutionally protected free speech, just like burning an American flag, or carrying a swastika flag through Skokie, Illinois, or showing up at gay person's funeral, and behaving as boorishly as the Rev. Fred Phelps did at Randy Shilits's services, or wearing Klan robes and hoods in South Central Los Angeles. And because it's constitutionally protected free speech, the police need to provide protection for people exercising their right of free speech--even if the National Guard has to be called in to suppress the resulting riots. I hope that makes the liberals very, very happy.
Picked Up Another State
Ohio now recognizes Florida, Washington, and Michigan concealed handgun licenses. This gives me 32 states in which I can carry concealed, and one in which I can carry openly (New Mexico).
states that trust me
Iranian Intelligence Officers Captured in Iraq
FoxNews is reporting: WASHINGTON — American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed.
Well, that's an act of war.
Senior officials said it was previously believed that Iran had officers inside Iraq stirring up violence, but this is the first time that self-proclaimed Iranian intelligence agents have been captured within the country.
Hate Crime in Boise?
No link on this; I'm actually reporting stuff first hand. The offices of the Save the Ten Commandments Coalition here in Boise were broken into over the 4th of July weekend. According to highly placed officials of the Coalition, Boise Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating the break-in as a religiously motivated hate crime. A couple of windows were broken out, and there was a bit of blood as a result, but nothing was stolen, and nothing was vandalized.
My first reaction was "why assume a hate crime?" But the more I thought about it, if this was an ordinary burglary, why would you break into a place, and steal nothing? It also seems to have been more than just petty vandalism. When I was over at their offices last night, both a large window in the outer lobby had been smashed out, but also the glass in the door leading inside. Someone smashed through one window, then smashed through another--making a 90 degree turn in the process. (This building, like a number in Boise, has an outer lobby to keep the extremes of our climate outside.)
Humor
Mad magazine used to have a semi-regular feature titled, "Bookshelf of very thin books," including such titles as, Germans Who Admit They Backed Hitler. Here's a recent collection someone forwarded to me: FRENCH WAR HEROES
by Jacques Chirac
HOW I SERVED MY COUNTRY
by Jane Fonda
MY BEAUTY SECRETS
by Janet Reno
MY SUPER BOWL HIGHLIGHTS
by Dan Marino
THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL
by Hillary Clinton
MY LITTLE BOOK OF PERSONAL HYGIENE
by Osama Bin Laden
THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD
by Bill Gates
THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY
by Dennis Rodman
MY WILD YEARS
by Al Gore
AMERICA'S MOST POPULAR LAWYERS
DETROIT: a Travel Guide
A COLLECTION of MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES
by Dr. J. Kevorkian
ALL THE MEN I HAVE LOVED BEFORE
by Ellen de Generes
GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE
by Mike Tyson
SPOTTED OWL RECIPES
by the EPA
THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY
MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS
by O. J. Simpson
And the world's Number One Thinnest Book ........
MY BOOK OF MORALS
by Bill Clinton
with introduction
by The Rev. Jessie Jackson
Good News From Iraq, Part 5
It's here. An excerpt: Saddam and his top henchmen are not the only ones to come before the new justice system:
"Khaiss al-Malek's bid to become a legend in the Iraqi resistance did not go quite as planned. In April his gang mounted a rocket attack on a US base, badly wounding a soldier, but the returning fire killed his two accomplices and he was caught. Instead, his footnote in guerrilla history is rather less glorious: in a trial last week at Baghdad's new central criminal court, he became the first Iraqi ever convicted of attacking coalition soldiers."
In the media news, the growth of talk-radio: "There are many things lacking in newly sovereign Iraq, but freedom of expression isn't one of them. Radio Dijla, a private talk-radio station, offers Baghdadis a chance to participate in frank, open discussions on a variety of topics ranging from electricity blackouts to Iraq's political future. The formula works -- after just two months on the air, Radio Dijla is already the most popular station in Baghdad." More on the station here ("And, after 35 years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule, where voicing the wrong opinion could lead to a beating or even execution, Iraqis are eating it up."). When Iraqis get their very own Rush Limbaugh, the world media will have no choice but to announce the US occupation a complete failure.
Fireworks Are Dangerous
I mentioned a few days ago John Lott's article in the Los Angeles Times claimed that most of the deaths from fireworks have been the result of professional displays, not amateur level stuff. This article certainly fits that claim well: MARYSVILLE - A 14-year-girl was severely wounded in a Fourth of July fireworks mishap that hospitalized two and injured a dozen others, authorities said Monday.
I remember when I was young that a professional display went bad on Santa Monica Pier, with at least one person killed, and a number injured. The reader who pointed me to this tells me:
The girl, 14-year-old Jessica Velez of Linda, lost the lower portion of her right leg, and a female friend suffered a shrapnel injury requiring surgery, officials said.
...
The bloody incident occurred about 10 p.m. Sunday, roughly halfway through the annual Yuba-Sutter pyrotechnics display at Lake Ellis in downtown Marysville.
"Due to numerous and conflicting witness statements, the origin of the explosion is still being investigated," Police Chief Bret Smith said. My friend Doug who did the fireworks shows for Sebastopol said, "You've gotta respect this stuff. There's more than enough BTUs in the hole to get a few of your body parts to the moon and back."
What a Court Order Is Worth...
If you have a lunatic boyfriend, what's a court order worth telling him to stay away? About as much as a court order and a gun. Over at the Shekel, you can read this depressing story of a woman who trusted the criminal justice system to protect her.
The Integrity of Viacom
Click here to read my friend Jim March's account of what happened when he was invited to appear on a debate TV show about gun control: In the phone calls that followed, it was understood that we wouldn’t know who the “opposition” was ahead of time. Fine by me - I have a particular “take” on the gun issue that I didn’t want the other side prepping for, involving patterns of cronyism and the apparent corrupt sales of gun carry permits to the rich’n’famous by sheriffs and police chiefs in California and elsewhere.
The Circus:
Once I got there, I was hustled into a private “dressing room” and segregated from everybody else. They were weirdly vague about what was going on or who else was present, and kept me incommunicado for the first 10 or 15 minutes or so.
Then it’s “my turn”.
On entering the set, I immediately spotted Andre Soto. I know Soto real well (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2017) and when he looked up and saw me, he muttered “oh shit”.
But other things were…puzzling.
There was a lady to my right who was supposedly pro-gun (some sort of RKBA button, American flag lapel pin, denim jacket and weird hair), introduced by first name only. To my left was the moderator, then past him was a guy in a tie, short-sleeve shirt and camo hat, then Soto at the end.
...
We start in, and the moderator gets in a conversation with the guy in the camo hat who turns out to be wildly against the second amendment, calling it the worst part of the BoR, outdated, a lie, just ranting and raving. I counter this by explaining that the parts of America with the most violence are the areas denied the 2nd Amendment for the longest – the urban inner-city areas. People in those areas can’t legally defend themselves, and therefore can’t safely complain about crime in their neighborhoods…having been stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights, they’re effectively stripped of the 1st Amendment too.
“Camo boy” then rips into me with extreme anger, yelling that I don’t trust the police whose job it is to defend us. I mention the 22 court cases that make it clear cops have no duty to defend us, therefore the only ones financially and legally liable for our personal defense is us. He blurts out that there are 23 cases the other way (a lie) and then goes into his REAL point.
He’s supposedly a psychologist who helps people with their “gun addictions”…by linking their “need for a gun” to their “sexual issues”.
In other words, it turned into one long grotesque genitalia joke. His first rapid-fire question to me was “when was the last time you had sex” I goggled at him a sec and then blurted out “a week and a half ago” (first thing I thought of) while grinning; the second involved whether or not I’d ever missed the toilet or not…I laughed, said “well ya, everybody misses once in a while” at which point he took that as “proof” that we can’t safely aim guns. The third question was “when was your first homoerotic experience” at which point I called him a nutcase and the “moderator” shut that crap down.
“Camo Boy” was then allowed to conclude his point about a gun’s barrel length being used to “compensate” – I laughed and said “you moron, my biggest gun has a two inch barrel” so he switched to “activity levels”.
He then blurted out “But I’m all for hunting! Not with guns though!”
“Yup! With ROCKS!”
What the…
They switched to a video of this idiot and two friends wandering through the woods throwing rocks at anything that moved…birds, fish, whatever. Soto looked like he was gonna die. The chick on my right screams something about how “you’ll go pretty hungry that way”…“Camo Boy” then starts naming his “prey”, mentions hitting a sparrow once (couldn’t find it afterwards) and “alpaca”. Soto looks at him in shock, I blurt out “that’s a farm animal!”, conversation dies on THAT subject.
Moderator takes us to a “gun safety expert” on live video feed who has this wonderful smartgun invention blueprint…all on ONE gun, he’s got three triggers, a safety on top of the safety, fingerprint recognition, breathalyzer, retinal scanner and microphone for your pass phrase.
...
I should have walked away right then. “See ya”. But…these guys had paid my transport/hotel costs ($200 plus the hotel room) so…I felt…”obligated”. Sigh.
So we go back on. “Camo boy” says he’ll make a deal with me…a month’s supply of penis enlargement pills if I’ll give up guns. I’m just disgusted at this point. Two months. “You idiot, those don’t even exist, they’re a fraud like you are” at which point he gets mad, reaches down into a bag and grabs this…thing. Vaguely medical looking. Hands it to me. I must have had a puzzled expression, then I realized what I was holding on national TV. A “penis pump”. I’ve heard of the concept but never actually seen one…there are freaks out there that turn their “gear” into something the size of a beer can with these things.
Once I realized what it was, I tossed it over my shoulder. The chick runs back and gets it, waves it around and screams something about “you think *I* need this!?!”.
By this point I’m right around mental shutdown. God only knows what I must have looked like on camera, I don’t want to even think about it.
They then switch to yet another “live video feed”…this time to an anti-gun African-American rap group. Not anti-VIOLENCE mind you, anti gun. They have no problems whatsoever “cruisin’ the hood” in a convertible while wearing neon pink and green feathers and warpaint and doing drive-by bow and arrow murders…with their “rap video” concluding with a black guy doing a cheesy fake death scene with fake blood and an arrow through the throat.
Their African-American “spokesman” comes back on camera still in silly feathers and bad warpaint and goes into an incoherent rant about guns being “from the white man” (my numbed brain was thinking “no, you idiot, the first guns were CHINESE!”). It was about as tasteless, vile and racist as it comes and concluded with a screaming match between the moderator and this “rap star”. Oh, until a fat Chinese guy in medical scrubs snuck up behind the idiot in warpaint, injected him in the neck with a hypodermic, idiot in warpaint goes “unconscious” ‘cept we can see him giggling while the guy in scrubs screams something about “I’m gonna bust a CAP in you CAPilary, booyeeee!” in a bad Asian/”ghetto” mix accent.
Amateur Journalists at the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post
This blog points out that both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have now run stories criticizing Paul Bremer for not giving a farewell speech to the Iraqis--apparently out of embarrassment at what a bad job he had done. The problem, of course, is that he did give such a speech, and a number of Iraqis have expressed their pleasure at it. (Go here, and search for "Bremer"--this Iraqi blogger's links are a bit screwed up.)
Even when the Los Angeles Times was informed of this, they still won't admit that they blew it--and apparently they won't correct it.
UPDATE: Oh yeah, and BBC apparently is so sloppy that internal memos are now talking about a loss of credibility: The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of "unvetted" stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.
Look, if you can't even get spelling or simple details right, why should we trust them when they engage in analysis of highly charged political materials?
In an e-mail last October, Mr Berlyn said journalists were not showing their reports to managers, who are supposed to check them in accordance with BBC rules. He wrote: "Yesterday we carried out a study of how many of your stories were being properly checked by a second pair of eyes before publication. To my surprise and concern, more than 60 stories around the country were apparently published without being second-checked."
Another e-mail, sent in February, said that the number of "justified complaints" about the lack of accuracy in spelling, names, grammar or simple detail was growing. Mr Berlyn told staff that he received dozens of complaints a day. "I really think the level of complaints is such that our credibility is on the line and that cannot be allowed to continue."
Use of Foreign Decisions
Professor Volokh points to a recent decision written by Justice Scalia concerning judges deciding the penalty in capital cases, and the question of whether the rule requiring juries to decide the penalty may be applied retroactively to defendants sentenced to death by a judge. He argues that because Justice Scalia made mention of foreign law concerning the question of whether juries are better fact-finders than judges, that the shrill opponents of the use of foreign laws to decide Lawrence are making a serious mistake: [T]he distinction Justice Scalia draws with regard to foreign practices — not relevant to the meaning of the right, which should be decided with reference to the Framers' views and American traditions, but relevant to empirical questions, such as those that the Court's retroactivity rules raise — is a plausible one. But it's important to note that even Justice Scalia, a firm critic of certain kinds of reliance on foreign practices, finds it proper to draw such distinctions, and to consider foreign practices in some situations.
The difference is that Scalia's opinion explicitly did not decide the case based on foreign precedents, but merely pointed out that those arguing that juries are better finders of fact can't point to the practice of the rest of the world to defend that position. This is strictly a question of empirical evidence, not of a Constitutional right to have a jury decide the penalty. As Scalia pointed out, foreign practices with respect to juries are "irrelevant to the meaning and continued existence of that right under our Constitution...."
I think critics of some Justices' use of foreign law — especially the shrillest critics, who denounce such use as a near betrayal of the Justices' oath — should keep these distinctions, and other similar ones, in mind. Thus, for instance, the reference to foreign attitudes in the Lawrence v. Texas majority may be different from the reference to such attitudes in the Grutter race preferences case, and still other uses of foreign practices might be treated differently still.
By comparison, the Lawrence decision explicitly rejected the Framer's understanding of the Constitution, and put the decisions of foreign courts ahead of both original intent and existing U.S. Supreme Court precedents: In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here.
In any case, when it comes to the larger question of whether juries should decide the penalty in capital cases, or judges, original intent is sufficient to decide this question, I think (although the Supreme Court has, once again, decided to ignore original intent on this). I'm not sure away of any juries in 1789 deciding the punishment in potentially capital cases.
...
The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, §1.
Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.
Perhaps there were states where juries decided the punishment, but my impression is that judges handed down the sentence throughout the United States. If you know differently, let me know. From an original intent point of view, to establish a Constitutional right to have a jury decide a capital case penalty, would require that this procedure was universally, or nearly universally followed in 1789 or 1868.
GUIs
I'm helping out some friends who need a prototype to get the vulture capitalists to fund their startup. We have a clumsy command line interface version working, but to properly wow the VCs, we need a GUI.
I've written a trivial Windows application before--but it was Windows 1.0. (Try not to giggle--I was given the job of evaluating Windows 1.0 beta vs. Digital Research's GEM back in the early 1980s.) Since then, C++ and MFC have entered the scene. I spent some time learning how to write a Windows application using Visual C++ and MFC--and compared to Java's GUI, I'm both underwhelmed and repelled.
Intrinsically, any GUI is going to be a bit more complex than a more traditional user interface, just because the View-Model-Controller approach has a lot more going on than a "print prompt, read keystrokes" approach. Still, the Java GUI is vastly cleaner than C++/MFC.
Part of this is because Java is a cleaner language than C++. The requirement that C++ be a superset of C means that a lot of aspects to the language are just ugly. I believe that I originated the aphorism "C++ is to C as lung cancer is to lung" back in the late 1980s, and I have seen nothing to change my mind on that.
Finally, Some U.S. Media Coverage of the WMDs Found in Iraq Recently
The Polish Army found them--or rather, outbid the terorrists for them: WARSAW, Poland -- Terrorists may have been close to obtaining munitions containing the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that Polish soldiers recovered last month in Iraq, the head of Poland's military intelligence said Friday.
"Polish jokes" were very popular when I was young, being an outgrowth of jokes that Polish-Americans used to tell about immigrants from "the old country." I always found them offensive, and after the courage of men like Lech Walesa and the Polish labor unions in resisting the Soviet Union, they seemed to have faded away. It was hard to see people this courageous as stupid. It's even harder when Poland is among our strongest allies in Iraq.
...
"We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece," Dukaczewski said. "An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads."
Dukaczewski refused to give any further details about the terrorists or the sellers of the munitions, saying only that his troops thwarted terrorists by purchasing the 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds containing the nerve agent for an undisclosed sum June 23.
...
The warheads all contained cyclosarin, multinational force commander Polish Gen. Mieczyslaw Bieniek said.
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage."
Thanks to Chadster for the link.
New York Times Blames CIA--Not Bush
Well, this is a surprise. The New York Times says the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is blaming the CIA for the Iraqi WMD intelligence failure--and specifically clearing Bush of wrongdoing: The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.
Well that explains his resignation, doesn't it?
The existence of a secret prewar C.I.A. operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists — and the agency's failure to give their statements to the president and other policymakers — has been uncovered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The panel has been investigating the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons and plans to release a wide-ranging report this week on the first phase of its inquiry. The report is expected to contain a scathing indictment of the C.I.A. and its leaders for failing to recognize that the evidence they had collected did not justify their assessment that Mr. Hussein had illicit weapons.
C.I.A. officials, saying that only a handful of relatives made claims that the weapons programs were dead, play down the significance of the information collected in the secret debriefing operation. That operation is one of a number of significant disclosures by the Senate investigation. The Senate report, intelligence officials say, concludes that the agency and the rest of the intelligence community did a poor job of collecting information about the status of Iraq's weapons programs, and that analysts at the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did an even worse job of writing reports that accurately reflected the information they had.
...
While the Senate panel has concluded that C.I.A. analysts and other intelligence officials overstated the case that Iraq had illicit weapons, the committee has not found any evidence that the analysts changed their reports as a result of political pressure from the White House, according to officials familiar with the report.
The Senate report is expected to criticize both the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, and his deputy, John McLaughlin, and other senior C.I.A. officials, for the way they managed the agency before the war. Mr. Tenet has announced his resignation, effective July 11, and Mr. McLaughlin will serve as acting director until a permanent director is appointed. The C.I.A. has scheduled a farewell ceremony for Mr. Tenet on Thursday, just as the reverberations from the Senate report are likely to be hitting the agency.
Kerry's Position on Abortion
Quite a number of people are taking Kerry to task for saying: "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist ... We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
At first glance, this isn't quite as silly as it sounds. There are lots of things that I don't approve of, or which I think are wrong, but I don't think it is the government's job to prohibit them.
I don't approve of homosexuality, but it's not the government's job to tell consenting adults what they can do in private. I don't approve of prostitution, either, but there are pragmatic arguments for why it is better to have it legal and heavily regulated, as a way to reduce STDs transmission, reduce the gross side effects (used condoms on the streets), and perhaps disempower pimps. (I hasten to add: none of these are arguments for a constitutional right to do these things. The government has a long history of prohibiting both of these actions.)
Still, what is the primary purpose of government? To protect individuals from violent crimes. If you believe, as John Kerry claims, that life begins at conception, but the government is not going to protect those lives, what is the purpose of government? This is a bizarre position for Kerry to take, unless it is understood as yet another attempt to take both sides of the issue.
I should point out that the "life begins at conception" position is pretty modern. Throughout the medieval period, the Catholic Church had the view that life begins at 40 days, or 80 days, depending on the sex of the child. This position seems to be enshrined in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which recognized that abortion before "the quickening" was not homicide.
Destructive of These Ends
The pastor was reading a really subversive document this morning during the sermon--a document that fundamentally runs against everything that our courts believe. It's a document that says that government's legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed--not from the fanciful theories and falsifications of history that the left has used to strike down law after law: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If there is any better example of the naked abuse of power than judicial mandating of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, it has not happened in my adult lifetime.
I fear that the point is soon going to be reached where a complete rewriting of the Constitution will become necessary--one that substantially restricts judicial review, or at least requires judges to base it on something a bit stronger than falsified history and personal whim.
I really do like the idea of a government restrained from abuse of power by a formal list of limitations. Unfortunately, our judiciary has only a pretense of following our Constitution left. They decide that freedom of speech precludes a law that puts only a minor obstacle in the path of adults obtaining obscene material--while upholding a law that effectively prohibits independent organizations from running political advertising within 60 days of a general election.
They decide that states may not regulate sexual morality, based on a falsification of history and at best, an implied right to privacy--while refusing to strike down laws that clearly infringe (and a lot more) on the very explicit "right of the people, to keep and bear arms."
A consistent and honest use of judicial review based on these principles would either strike down entire volumes of federal and state laws, or would uphold them in equally large quantities. But that would require some integrity from our Supreme Court.
