What would Jesus Drive?

Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism. - Philip Brennan

What would Jesus Drive?, Why, a big SUV, so he can carry more apostles with him. -- Rush Limbaugh

In a 2003 speech by author Michael Crichton, among other places, he raised the spectre of environmentalism as the next big religion.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

And so it is with environmentalism.

This speech, and the landmark Philip Brennan article paint a pretty strong picture on why you should simply ignore all calls for dealing with global warming. In fact, if I were you, I'd think a bit about prepping for the next ice age.

In the meantime, there will be more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires. It's gonna happen. And the simple truth is that anybody who wants you to park your SUV in order to save the planet is trying to convert you into his environmentalist religion. Think of him as more of a Jehovah's Witness. Tell him no thanks.

Conservative vs. Republican

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. – Ayn Rand

I profess, at the outset, to being a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. I don't feel any strong affinity or loyalty to the party; just a kind of "common identification" with the basic philosophy. The delicious irony is it is an organization made up of confirmed individualists. In that context, there probably isn't even a party platform, because that would require consensus, and individualists are parsimonious with their saluting of anything.

If there were a party platform it would be pretty simple, like repealing 90% of all laws, eliminating 90% of all bureacracies, and installing (for a change) a constitutional form of government.

Politicos today don't talk much about that. No, they talk about higher or lower funding of this bunch or that group, without even stopping to consider the absolute need. It's useful to see how we got this way. The government was founded on Federalist principles. That is, an expressly limited government. It was confusing enough in the 1780's when the so-called Federalist Party wound up supporting big government, and it took the Democratic-Republicans to finally win that battle (see this historical treatment).

Unfortunately, the war has gone poorly since then. It does appear that the modern day version of big government, the Democrat party is getting hammered the way the Federalist party did in the 1810's; only for us to to find now that the Republican Party is embracing all the big brother-inspired evil that folks didn't like about the Dems.

Let's examine the term "conservative". If by conservative you mean resistant to change; that can be said about both major parties. If however it means what it meant when the term applied to Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and Ronald Reagan, it means something completely different.

Anyway, adopting the idea that limited government is still the domain of the so-called conservatives, then they have a common objective with libertarians and Libertarians, at least on the economic and political sides.

There is a very sharp divide at the moment between conservatives and Republicans. The opportunity does not exist for the Democrats, however. That is, unless the Dems somehow start a total retool and become the party of smaller government. Then we'll see a Federalist Party-like meltdown of the Republicans. Now THAT would be fun to watch.

Supreme Court as Playground

"Ms. Miers has not been a judge, but I regard that as a strength, not a weakness." --Harry Reid, D-Nevada

"I know her well enough to say that she's not going to change; 20 years from now, she will be the same person with the same philosophy as today." -- George W. Bush

"the worst damn-fool mistake I made as president." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower on his appointment of Earl Warren as CJOTSCOTUS

It floored me when I learned of Miers nomination. Not so much because it was her, but because of who was extolling her virtues. Harry Reid. I was hoping to hear about a nominee that Harry hated. Then I could be pretty sure that the nominee at least wasn't a communist. Likewise, I would want someone that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and their friends hate. Instead, I'm hearing that Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, and Rusty Limbaugh have a problem with this.

I didn't say much here about the Roberts nomination, but I am now marvelling at how the same president nominated both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Bush-41 was one for two in his appointments, perhaps Bush-43 wanted to share that legacy too. Roberts could become the only real accomplishment of Bush's tenure (and that is all in the hands of Roberts now) but that possibility is amplified by the contrast between the two.

For a president who is wrong more often than he is right (recall: Social Security Privatization, Patriot Act, Immigration Amnesty), I suppose that we should feel lucky with one out of two. It just seems too much like the schoolyard playground situation where you need someone for right field, and so you pick your buddy because you don't know the other players.

Pork Barrel, Cajun Style

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."-- James Madison, in response to the 1792 congressional appropriation of $15,000 to assist some French refugees.

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."-- Franklin Pierce, after he vetoed a bill in 1854 to help the mentally ill

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds . . . I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland, after he vetoed an appropriation in 1887 to help drought-stricken counties in Texas

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." -- George W. Bush

Well, well, well, George to the rescue. I can't help but feel pangs of sorrow and disappointment that George did not take the opportunity to instruct the media of the true calling of a federal government. How is it we've come this far that when we have a hurricane in Louisiana, people fold their arms and look to Washington for the solution. So now we have George going on the biggest ego trip since FDR, armed with nary a hint of the fundamental flaws of FEMA. After 5 years of piling bureacracy on top of bureacracy, we can't even find FEMA on the org chart, much less give it a job description.

The sad thing is that the dialog is centering on what went wrong, when what really went wrong was the persistent expectation that the federal government should even be involved. FEMA is as unconstitutional as any organization in government today. The stupid part is that people will continue to live below sea level, on fault lines, in forest fires, and in every conceivable harm's way when they know someone else is perfectly willing to build them a new home when the worst comes. It's like federally subsidized insurance for the chronically stupid.

Compassionate Conservatism, I have finally ascertained, truly sucks. The biggest handout since LBJ is at our door, and "W" is dealing out the debit cards.

I believe we are now seeing what will eventually turn Washington back to the Democrats, and this time it won't take a Perot to do it.

New Orleans

"Every fighter's got a plan until they get hit in the mouth." -- Mike Tyson

Hate Crimes

"The world is divided into the three super-powers Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Oceania is alternating at war with one power and allied with the other. The population of Oceania consists of three castes: the Inner Party (1%), the Outer Party (14%) and the Proles (85%). The Inner Party is the ruling caste and its sole desire is to gain power, have power, and keep the power - forever. The Inner Party uses a system of totalitarianism to stay in power, which means the total control over the people's actions and thoughts. "

-- excerpt, Reto Hohener's summary of the book Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell (http://www.warroad.k12.mn.us/moredocs/stdnt_work/rhohener/1984.1.htm)

" Killing people is already illegal" -- The Wizer


Since about the '90's, certain states as well as the federal government have tacked on additional penalties for what is termed "hate crimes". As I understand it, you might get 25 years for killing a gay guy; however if you can prove you didn't know he was gay, maybe you get off in 15? Either way, this guys's dead, so it doesn't seem to protect his rights any.

Is it a hate crime every time a white guy kills a black? Or when a black guy kills a white? How about Jews. Does it become a hate crime if you knew the man you killed was a Jew? Why? Maybe you killed him just because he was an a**hole. The first point is, why would it matter why you killed him? Killing is already illegal. There's no additional protection for the killee, so why is this even bothered with?

Consider that the only difference between the two such crimes is what you were thinking. So, the additional penalty has as it's only legal definition, what the user was thinking, or, in short, "a thought crime". It's difficult to ignore the Orwellian aspects of that; but assuming we can for the moment, how do we establish what the offender was thinking? That would seem to be a job for a mind-reader. Last time I looked, that was not a rational possibility.

So, the only remaining objective of the "Hate Crime" penalty is to create a system whereby thoughts are monitored. It may be a while before Science catches up with the law, and folks, I for one am concerned that they just might be able to do it someday. When the Inner Party starts to fund it, it's time to watch out.

Wizer One-Liner #5

"Nothing Happens until Somebody Does it."

Am I a Democrat or Republican?

"Dad, am I a Democrat or a Republican?" -- Billy, Age 9

"That's an interesting question. The short answer is that you are neither, at least yet. But since you asked, there are a number of things you need to look for before deciding if you are one or the other or something else. You see, Billy, most Democrats think Americans are dumb and can't be trusted to run their own lives. Most Republicans don't have a low opinion of people, but they try to run everybody's lives anyway. The difference is usually in how they spend your money. Both parties will spend everything they can. The political parties that won't spend your money are not in power. I wouldn't be in a hurry to line up with either side if I were you. Billy, there's a lot that will change before you have to decide anything about that. In the meantime learn all you can about it. The most important thing to remember is that you are in charge of your life, and not some politician in DC."

There's so much more I wanted to tell Billy. But we arrived at home, and other necessary routines put the question aside for a day. This morning he asked if we could get the police to stop the politicians from spending all the money. That's Billy. He asks a lot of good questions. I explained how our representative democracy works. Then he asked about voting. I said "You'll like voting", and I answered his questions until we got to the day care center. Billy is an optimist. The kind of kid who could grow up and lead a political party. You heard it here first.

Karl Rove

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing" -- Karl Rove

You see it in the NFL all the time. The best team in football tends to dominate in its time, with a solid quarterback, and a number of other top-quality players. When a quarterback makes this much difference (as Karl Rove must be doing), the defense has to find a way to stop him.

If the offense is set up properly, there's no way for the defense to stop the quarterback. So, the defensive line coach puts in a designated thug, whose job it is to break the quarterback's arm; and to bend the rules as necessary to do it.

So there we are with Wilson. He's the designated thug, that the democrats will sacrifice so long as they get their man.

They may get to the quarterback, but it's not clear where the penalty flags will fall.

Happy Trails, Sandy O'Connor

It is difficult to discern a serious threat to religious liberty from a room of silent, thoughtful schoolchildren. --Sandra Day O'Connor

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. --Sandra Day O'Connor

O'Connor often swerved wildly to miss the point in matters before the court. In case #1, she made the shallow observation that quasi-religious expression in school is hardly threatening, but she missed the broader constitutional point that freedom of religion does not require freedom from religion.

In case #2, she bemoaned the fact that the definition of liberty is questioned, while discounting and condemning the most fundamental liberty of the young and fragile.

The Supreme Court is supposed to settle matters of law. Most of O'Connor's rulings were not only shallow, but exceedingly narrow. This required many more passes at the court to re-try and clarify all these narrow rulings. That makes more work for lawyers, but is ultimately not efficient or effective.

I really wonder if lawyers are all that well suited to be judges. Maybe we should train judges to interpret the law, instead of drawing from the pool of those paid to exploit it.