 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought February 19, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
What could possibly be more arrogant than to think that humans should determine which species continues and which goes extinct? Or that humans can, in fact, keep a species from going extinct? A news item in the February 20 edition of U.S. News & World Report noted, “Citing concerns over climate change, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week began reviewing whether polar bears should be declared a threatened species. If they are, federal regulations would be required to considered the impact on the animals before ruling on such matters as industrial emissions or fuel economy standards.” I submit that is such madness and idiocy that the mere stating of the notion polar bears are going extinct or threatened by the alleged melting of the Arctic is too bizarre for rational people to contemplate. That said, the USFW will dispatch people “to collect data on polar bear population, distribution, the effects of climate change, and threats from development, contaminants, and poaching.” Guess who set this nonsense in motion? If you said the Center for Biological Diversity of Tucson, Arizona, you’d be right. Not exactly a hotbed of polar bear activity, the Center asserts that, “Arctic melting could cause polar bears to become extinct by century’s end.” “Could” is the key word here. This is a splendid example of the way the environmental movement is forever cozying up to the federal government to get it to spend your tax dollars on projects of such dubious merit that a school child would dismiss it out of hand. Polar bears going extinct? The whole of the Arctic melting? The last time I checked, the State of Alaska offered the wandering polar bears some 571,951 square miles, surrounded by 91,316 square miles of water in which to frolic. Alaska is the largest of all the U.S. States. Room enough for plenty of polar bears, scads of caribou, all manner of wildlife, and even the occasional oilrig or two with which to extract millions of barrels of oil from ANWR. Could it be all the worrying about polar bears has nothing to do with polar bears and everything to do with thwarting the effort to reduce our dependence on the Middle East for the oil we consume? The answer is yes! Environmentalists whose second greatest sport is playing God and whose first is getting laws passed to deprive people of the use of all public and private property in America, have been playing this game for a very long time. As this is being written, instead of just letting the Endangered Species Act go extinct, Congress is wrestling with ways to continue what is arguably the single worst piece of legislation of the past thirty-two years. How’s this for a record-setting level of incompetence? Since its enactment, the ESA has listed 1,300 species as endangered. Only 34 of these species have made it off the list and, of these, 9 are now extinct, 14 are now judged to have been improperly listed, and 9 have been judged to have “recovered” to be delisted. That’s less than one percent! The real story of the ESA is even worse than this appalling waste of tax dollars and the personnel to run about counting the population of these species. The ESA has been used to destroy the livelihood of thousands who worked for the northwestern timber industry, effecting turning some communities into ghost towns. The U.S. actually imports timber from Canada despite having an abundance of it here. The ESA was used to bludgeon the farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon, when the water they needed for irrigation was shut off to protect a suckerfish! The examples of how the ESA has been used to deprive Americans of the value and use of their private property are endless. The United States of America has got to rid itself of the folly of “saving” various species while decimating the lives and livelihood of Americans in the name of some fish or some owl, some wolf or some bear. Ninety-five percent of all the species that ever called Earth home are extinct. Let’s show some care for those that share the Earth, but let’s not throw millions at their alleged survival because some environmentalists want to ruin our national economy. America is not Disneyland where all the animals and fish sing and dance. America is the home to people who farm, who harvest trees, who graze livestock, who do all the hard work of providing us the food and other things we need. |
|||||
Recently the Democrats have one-upped the Republicans in one of their moves that I find to be a little questionable. An English port-handling company has been sold to a company that operates out of Dubai. In order for them to operate in US ports the White House had to approve the sale, which it did. I found the move to be something I wouldn’t have allowed, but there is that old Sun Tzu quote about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. I might be willing to agree with the move in part. The one thing that makes me think the move might actually be a good one is the list of left-wing clowns who are against it. This particular company operates out of a country where many of the 9/11 attackers came from. They will be operating many of the ports here in the US, and will even be moving into New Orleans. This brings me to the point I would like to discuss. After the Katrina disaster the old gangs, such as the Latin Kings, Bloods and the Cryps, to name a few, were moved out of the area or they have simply moved on by themselves. It is a little difficult to prey on a population that simply isn’t there anymore. But there is something about gangs and organized crime that is interesting. They, unlike some other people, can see an opportunity that others miss completely. Last week MS13 graffiti began to appear in Kenner, which is just outside of New Orleans and quite sadly is connected to it. For those of you who don’t know what that really means I’ll explain a little of it. It seems MS13 likes to do a lot of drug trafficking and have been involved in shootouts over certain highways in this country. It is one of the most violent gangs going. But it gets even better than that. MS13 has been tied to al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, they have been tied to their efforts to get nukes into this country. The gang originated in El Salvador and then spread throughout South America, eventually landing in that wonderful bastion of stupidity - Los Angeles. As they say out there, all things that become part of California tend to spread across the rest of the country. But as if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that the Russian Mafia is also trying to stake out some turf in New Orleans. In case you’re unaware they are the ones who are believed to have possibly sold the nukes to al Qaeda in the first place. It sure is a good thing that corruption isn’t rampant in New Orleans or Louisiana, because if it were they would most certainly be able to stake their claims and go into business. Yeah. So, in a nutshell, we have a company with potential ties to al Qaeda taking over the operation of our major ports. We have the people who sold the nukes to al Qaeda moving into one of our ports, as if they aren’t already in place at other ports, and we now have a gang moving in that also has ties to al Qaeda. I look at the picture and almost cringe. One of the things that amaze me is that people can be so stupid. MS13 is in the business to make money and so is the Russian Mafia. They are unfortunately tied to a group that is dedicated to destroying their new golden goose. That doesn’t strike me as being very bright. But to look at the local politicians I don’t see much hope from here to DC, not that I ever suffered from any illusions of them being able to get anything right. Large governments are never very nimble, and agile isn’t one of the words I’d use to describe any bureaucrat. That is unless we’re speaking of the agility they usually display when dodging responsibility. That is quite a sight to see. One can be assured that if the government starts to get it right we will have the ACLU in there getting all of the purps out of jail and helping them sue anyone responsible for locking them up, and the Democrats will move with stunning grace and agility to the defense of anyone anti-American, as always. By they way, the only reason the Democrats are fighting this foolish move is that they are trying to appear to be tough on defense. It ain’t a purty picture. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
You know, I’m not going to lie to you. Sometimes I’m too open-minded for my own good. I’ve been sitting here for the last couple of hours, trying to get started on this week’s article. The topic I’ve been planning to write about is the recent spate of Muslim riots, which have occurred in response to a couple of derogatory cartoons from a Danish newspaper. I like this topic. I think it’s important. But as I sit here, collecting my thoughts, I keep stumbling over which side of the conflict to side with. Officially, I side with the Danish newspaper. No question about it. I’m all for the freedom of speech. If you own a paper and want to print a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, I say do it. Not because it’s a good idea—it probably isn’t—but because a free press isn’t really free once it bends to someone’s religious dogma. At that point, it’s basically just an organ for that religion. And this is bad news in a free society, because many religions don’t like organs. On the other hand, there’s a certain rule of common sense that seems to have been violated here. Personally, I found the cartoons amusing. And even more so, I’m amused by the idea that any reasonable Muslim would try to hold non-Muslim papers in non-Muslim countries to the Muslim moratorium against depicting the Prophet Mohammed. However, I’m a nonconfrontational person, and any editor with a brain could’ve guessed these cartoons would cause mass confrontations. Not that that excuses the people who are now burning flags and tearing apart whole international embassies. But still. If you set out to offend somebody, you shouldn’t act surprised when you succeed in offending them. That seems a little shortsighted to me. The bottom line is, Muslims have every reason to see these cartoons as a sign of disrespect. So I’m not entirely sure what kind of stand to take on this issue. Obviously, I side with the Danish newspaper. I’m just not sure what to make of that. By siding with them, I don’t really solve anything. I don’t ease the animosity betwixt East and West in any real or measurable way. And if that’s the case, then this column is pointless (though there’s a pretty good chance it was pointless anyhow). Yet I can’t just delete this whole thing and try to write about something else this week, because let’s face it: Everyone in the world is commenting on this issue. And what kind of weekly op-ed columnist would I be if I failed to comment on it, too? So rather than continue to sit back and blather incoherently, I’m going to do two things: (1) I’m going to start three paragraphs in a row with the word “So;” and (2) I’m going to do everyone a favor and do what I always do when I’m paralyzed by my own objectivity. After a lengthy introduction, I’m going to abandon any hope of writing an actual column and lapse instead into out-and-out satire. What follows below is a list of suggested solutions for fixing the Danish-Muslim dilemma. None of these solutions should be taken seriously. In fact, each of them is remarkably dangerous. However, each would undoubtedly make the problem go away, which, at this point, is the only thing any of us really ought to care about. So here goes. (And dear God, forgive me—I know not what I do.) Solution No. 1: Re-Release Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ One of the best things to happen to Muslims over the last few years was the release of Gibson’s seminal Christ movie, which, for a time, shifted focus away from the persecution of Muslims and onto the persecution of Jews. Clearly, a re-release of this film would go a long way towards easing current Danish-Muslim tensions. The only problem with this solution, however, is that Gibson already re-released The Passion once and, when he did, he took out half of the good (i.e., bloody) parts. At this rate, if he re-re-released it, it would probably only be five minutes long. However, if we tacked on an episode of NBC’s The Book of Daniel, it would probably buy us another 45 minutes. That should be long enough to keep folks preoccupied while we come up with a better solution. So I say do it. Solution No. 2: The Ann Coulter “Convert ‘Em All” Solution The problem here is that Muslims and non-Muslims can’t see things through one another’s eyes, right? So how about this: While the world is asleep, forcibly convert all the Muslims to non-Muslim and non-Muslims to Muslim. When they wake up, non-Muslims will stop printing anti-Muslim cartoons because they’ll be former Muslims and won’t want to make themselves angry anymore. And Muslims, meanwhile, will stop caring about those cartoons because they’ll realize, as former non-Muslims, they’re the ones who printed them. So getting angry would only be like a form of repression. Solution No. 3: The Nuclear Option Just wipe the entire eastern hemisphere off the planet. Why not? We have the weapons to do it. Isn’t that what they’re there for? Of course, on the surface, this solution sounds terrible. However, it would work for two reasons. One, because it would, indeed, end the Danish-Muslim conflict. In fact, it would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it would solve the whole Iranian nuclear weapon crisis, to boot. Two, this option would work because it would leave us in a world comprised only of America, South America, and Canada. As an American, I am relatively sure we would dominate such a geopolitical landscape. Which would be great, because then we wouldn’t feel threatened anymore, and airports would no longer make me take off my shoes. Solution No. 4: The Rhythmic Method By abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile period of a woman’s menstrual cycle, unrest between Danes and Muslims can be safely avoided without the use of contraceptives. And, finally, Solution No. 5: A Very Special Episode In the 1980s, all of the world’s major problems—such as homelessness in America and teen drug use in America—were solved by “very special episodes” of popular primetime sitcoms. I propose that such a solution be applied to the cartoon controversy. Here’s how it will all go down: On a very special episode of Special Report w/Brit Hume, the Danish press and a mob of angry Muslims will accidentally become handcuffed together. This will make them angry at first, but then everything will be turned upside down when they get stuck on an elevator together, with a bomb on it. Bruce Willis will guest star as “Third Man on the Elevator,” who knows how to defuse the bomb, but who’s too high and too pregnant to do it. The Danes and the Muslims will then have to work together to deliver the baby and defuse the bomb, while ironing out their differences. Everyone will learn a valuable lesson on tolerance and drug abuse, and the phrase, “I don’t like you. You don’t like me. We don’t have to like each other, but we do have to work together,” will be used. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan will also appear. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
The Bush administration released a proposed 2007 budget last week that increases federal spending to a staggering $2.77 trillion, a sum that is 4 times larger than the Reagan-era budgets of the early 1980s. With a public angry about useless earmarks and bridges to nowhere, and a Republican congressional delegation promising to restore some small measure of fiscal discipline, it's troubling that the administration chooses to ignore economic reality and increase spending without regard to revenues and deficits. Consider these sobering facts:
There has been a
great deal of talk in Washington about scandals lately, but few seem
to understand that enormous federal budgets provide the mother's milk
for every backroom deal, questionable earmark, and sleazy lobbying trick.
Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously vote for enormous
budget bills, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make
government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases
spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting
for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%,
especially when we consider that the federal budget in 1990 was far
less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal
government was not big enough just 16 years ago? Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
The U.S. Supreme Court, with its nine black-draped justices, is at the pinnacle of America's third branch of government. It wields immense power, but has sometimes stumbled badly in exercising its influence. According to Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, "Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..." The Supreme Court can hear some cases directly (original jurisdiction) and some only when they're appealed (appellate jurisdiction). The meaning of jurisdiction is to interpret the law; therefore, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret federal law. Some have interpreted jurisdiction to mean that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare acts of the president or Congress unconstitutional. This notion has been around since the time the U.S. Constitution was written. According to Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78,
In 1803, the court assumed the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall and his court declared that Congress could not amend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without amending the Constitution. Another way the
court has expanded its influence on public policy is through broadly
interpreting the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. This
began with Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), when Marshall said regulating commerce
included regulating the transportation of goods, not just the buying
and selling of goods. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), it was ruled within the law to regulate a privately owned accommodation, because it used national advertising to solicit out of state customers and provide accommodations to them. This ruling helped to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations involved in interstate commerce. Sometimes the courts put up roadblocks to the implementation of progressive public policy by narrowly interpreting the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, restricted state governments from depriving individuals of their civil rights and liberties. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), Justice Miller narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's "privileges and immunities clause" by saying that property and labor weren't included in the fundamental rights. He said that these rights were subject to state regulation for the good of the community. This left it up to the Southern states to protect the basic rights of newly freed black people. The Civil War amendments were passed to abolish slavery and secure equal rights. However, the courts did not enforce these rights based on what we would consider today as basic human rights principles. They were to prove themselves not infallible for over a half-century; first striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress authority to prevent discrimination by private individuals. States began segregating most public facilities, and victims were subject to state jurisdiction. In 1887, states began requiring separate accommodations on railroads. Railway companies did not like the extra cost of adding "Jim Crow" cars. The Citizens' Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law decided to test the constitutionality of forced segregation in railroad cars traveling between states. In 1892, the Supreme Court decided this law was unconstitutional when applied to interstate travel. The committee, now calling itself the Citizens Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, had Homer Plessy (who was one-eighth black) take a seat in the whites-only area. Plessy informed the conductor that he was black and the conductor had him arrested. The Louisiana District Court ruled that a state had the constitutional power to regulate railroad companies operating solely within its borders, concluding that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was constitutional. The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court in 1893 and was appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. At the Supreme Court, Plessy's lawyer argued that he was denied his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and that the law violated the Thirteenth Amendment by perpetuating the essential features of slavery. Supreme Court Justice Henry Billings Brown, speaking for the majority, wasn't convinced. "If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plane." Enforced separation treated both blacks and whites equally under the law because whites were forbidden to sit in black railroad cars. The lone dissenter, John Marshall Harlan, argued that "everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons." Jim Crow segregation laws remained for almost sixty years. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities violated the Constitution in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon colored children. The impact is greater when it is the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting inferiority of the the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of the child to learn. ...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Prior to its passage,
our federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. But
due process, written into the Fourteenth Amendment, was used to incorporate
similar rights to be protected by the states--rights that reflected
fundamental principles of liberty or were considered inalienable. Freedom
of speech and press were among the first rights to be incorporated,
beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925). Other rights have been incorporated
on a case by case basis. Amendments Two and Three and portions of Amendments
Five, Seven, and Eight stand out as not having been applicable to state
government. The "establishment clause" prohibits the government from creating an official religion or giving preferential treatment to one religious group. The "free exercise clause" prohibits the government from interfering with religious expression. Nowhere does the Constitution say that there is to be a wall of separation between church and state. However, in 2002, there was a huge conservative backlash played out on the Internet over the ordered removal of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Moore's Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama state courts building because of its alleged government endorsement of religion. Since then, many more lawsuits have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State to remove such displays. In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), it was decided that individual states would decide whether or not to use capital punishment with seventeen- or sixteen-year-olds. Based on foreign law and the majority consensus to abolish juvenile capital punishment in thirty-two states, however, it was determined in Roper v. Simmons (2004) that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a juvenile under age eighteen. This ruling ignores that the power to write law belongs to the legislative branch of the government. In reaction to the use of foreign law to make their argument, Florida Rep. Tom Feeney introduced a nonbinding resolution instructing the judiciary to ignore foreign precedent when making their rulings. By citing foreign law they may be subject to impeachment. Probably the most controversial ruling in recent days is Kelo v. New London (2005). A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court supported the opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court that,
There are serious implications to this decision, not the least of which that property owners can no longer be secure in the knowledge that their home is their castle. The court is supposed to be independent of political influence. However, it can be argued that many have tried and succeeded in influencing court decisions. The most blatant example of overt influence is Franklin D Roosevelt's court-packing scheme of 1937. He wanted to add six additional justices to the court who would be favorable to his New Deal reforms, because the members of the court kept striking down his programs as unconstitutional. Roosevelt had the
votes needed to pass his Judicial Reorganization Bill. However, one
of the court members began voting for Roosevelt's New Deal programs.
Newspapers reported the reversal as, "The switch in time that saved
nine." Another justice retired, and Roosevelt was given the opportunity
to nominate a judge who embodied his views. The momentum for the bill
declined. In 1948, a law was passed that set the number of the Supreme
Court members at nine.
Unless courts keep altering legal rules to facilitate liberal causes, Democrats label judges conservative activists, and view anyone who supports them as wanting to take us back to the days of segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions. It's a mantra that worked against Robert Bork, so why not use it against everyone else? Some view judicial activism as a bad thing, while others find it acceptable, even good. To prevent judicial activism, some say, the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of its inception. Creating law should be left to the legislative branch of government, because its members are elected to represent the will of the people and the states; and the only way to change the meaning of the Constitution was through amendment. Others say that judges should view the Constitution as a "living" document, the principles of which "evolve," and should interpret it to make it more relevant to contemporary circumstances. Justice Antonin Scalia vehemently disagrees with idea of the living document. Associated Press writer, Jonathan Ewing reports him as saying,
It is up to the president to nominate members of the Supreme Court. There are no minimum age or citizenship requirements, and many previous justices acquired no judicial experience before their appointments. Nominees should only be rejected if they are unqualified for the job. However, political affiliation and judicial philosophy has influenced the success of a nomination. It is interesting to note that some political pundits have the expectation that a nominee should have attended a prestigious law school, but research has uncovered that the faculty at most prestigious law schools have liberal dispositions. The Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday in October. Court sessions run until late June or early July. The term is divided between sittings, when the justices hear cases and deliver opinions, and intervening recesses, when they consider the business before the court and write opinions. There are many traditions to which the court has adhered throughout history. For example, it is customary in American courts to seat justices by seniority on the bench. In the center is the chief justice; to his/her right is the senior associate, the second senior to his left, again right, left, and so on. Justices customarily wear black robes while in court. The Conference Handshake is used each day; when the Justices assemble to go on the bench and at the beginning of the private conferences, during which they discuss their decisions. Each justice shakes hands with each of the other eight, as Chief Justice Fuller initiated so long ago, to emphasize that differences of opinion on the court do not preclude overall harmony of purpose. As in past centuries, quill pens are placed on counsel tables each day that the court sits. The star beneath the eagle's claws on the seal of the Supreme Court symbolizes the Constitution's creation of "one Supreme Court." The newest chief justice, John G. Roberts, was sworn in to office in September 2005. Justice Samuel Alito recently replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. The judicial branch, like the other two branches of the government, is supposed to be held accountable for its members' behavior on the bench. It is up to the legislative branch to impeach and try sitting judges for "bad behavior." Samuel Chase is the only Supreme Court justice to have been impeached. His crime was behaving in a partisan manner by making inflammatory political speeches to juries and campaigning for President Adams. He was not convicted and remained in his position until his death. This set the precedent that justices would not be removed from office for their political opinions. Having an opinion and acting on it are two different animals. The million-dollar question is, if the legislative branch won't hold judges accountable for inappropriate use of their power, who will? Some believe that judges should be subject to term limits. Perhaps they would be less inclined to strike down laws enacted by the legislature, unless they are clearly prohibited by the Constitution. Suggestions, anyone? FURTHER READING The
official Web site of the U.S. Supreme Court Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Monday, February 20, 2006 6:42 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
