Jesse Jackson defies parody (again)

What do Jesus, Moses, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, the suffragettes and the abolitionists have in common? They're all liberals!

What do Herod, Pharaoh, King George, slave owners have in common? They're all conservatives!

At least Jesse Jackson says they are. And according to the simplistic, grade-school definitions of liberal (upsetters of the status quo) and conservative (preservers of the status quo), he has a point, sort of. But those terms in the Real World™ are much more complex than what we were taught in grade school, else Jackson would have to admit that Hitler was a liberal as well.

Check out Joe Carter's amusing deconstruction of Jackson's essay. He noticed that by Jackson's reckoning, Washington and Jeffersons were both liberal and conservative.

Rev. Jackson never fails to entertain.

Any guesses where CNN stands on embryonic stem-cell research?

Opening paragraphs of an August 7 CNN article:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry Saturday carried his "help is on the way" theme to those affected in some way by diseases and conditions that could be improved by stem cell research, pledging to lift a partial ban President Bush put on the research three years ago.

Bush issued an executive order on August 7, 2001, limiting federal funding to projects using existing lines of fetal stem cells, a position supported by his party's fundamentalist Christian and conservative faction.

So, what have we learned up to this point?

1. Kerry offers hope to those whose medical condition could be improved by embryonic stem cell research [ESCR].
   
2. In paragraph one (bold type in the original), we see that President Bush imposed a "partial ban" on this research.
   
3. In paragraph two, we see that it wasn't actually a ban on the research; it was a ban on federal funding of the research (which is the actual case).
   
4. Bush imposed this ban to please certain unsavory factions of his party.
   
5. Kerry opposes this ban to please..... oh, wait. There's no mention of Kerry's desire to please certain constituencies on the left, so his motives must be pure.
   

There is plenty more red meat in the article. In what was almost certainly meant to be the sound-bite line of his speech, Kerry declared, "Here in America we don't sacrifice science for ideology."

Remember, this is a CNN article, so we know he couldn't possibly be referring to the way the pro-aborts sacrifice the overwhelming biological evidence of human life in the womb in favor of the ideology of "choice".

Kerry goes on to make an absurd comparison:

"We know that progress has always brought with it the worry that this time, we have gone too far," Kerry said. "Believe it or not, there was a time when some questioned the morality of heart transplants. Not too long ago, we heard the same kind of arguments against the biotechnology research that now saves stroke victims and those with leukemia."

The donor is not alive at the time of the transplant, Senator. To my knowledge, neither is the donor hurried on his way (at least in America). Similarly, none of the biotech research "that now saves stroke victims and those with leukemia" required the premeditated death of a single soul in order to advance the research.

I dare the Senator to publicly use this argument in favor of animal experimentation.

The very fact that Mr. Kerry would never do so should be sufficient to give the lie to item #5 above.

To nobody's surprise, the article's author does a cut-and-paste reminder that Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan both support ESCR. Yawn.

So, we see here a prime specimen of the usual left/media template for reporting on the great issues of our day:

1. The Democrat is a selfless humanitarian
   
2. The Republican is a lackey for those in the farthest reaches of his party

Sigh.

Pro-lifers: Do you know what's at stake this election?

LifeNews.com's Steven Ertelt warns in an August 10 editorial that the winner of this November's presidential election will likely affect federal abortion policy for the next thirty years.  The current Supreme Court is stacked roughly 6-3 against overturning Roe v. Wade.  Given the probable retirements of justices O'Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg and Rehnquist in the near future, the next president may have the opportunity to either further entrench Roe (7-2 against overturning, same as in 1973) or give the first real hope of ridding our land of this unconstitutional travesty (6-3 in favor of overturning, unless one or more on the conservative side are overcome by stare decisis, or the Dems are allowed to continue their judicial confirmation obstructionism).

 

Ertelt ends with a warning to fellow pro-lifers who are considering voting third-party or staying home altogether (emphasis added):

Pro-life voters need to keep in mind this election year that if John Kerry is elected, Roe will almost assuredly be preserved and abortion will probably remain legal for decades. That means every vote for Kerry and every vote not cast for President Bush (i.e., for a third-party candidate or by citizens who abstain from voting) is a vote to keep abortion legal for as many as thirty years.

 

If we truly want to see Roe thrown in the trash heap of history right next to the Dred Scott decision, we can't let that happen.

 

It is up to you to elect a pro-life president this November. It is up to you to re-elect President Bush. Women and unborn children are counting on you.

President Bush has many faults, and I will continue to speak out whenever I feel it appropriate, but he has my vote this November.  Those who embrace the culture of death know what's at stake.  Do you?

Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain

CEI's Iain Murray notes that in most areas of scientific endeavor, theories are constantly undergoing the rigorous process of validation and refinement.  But the prevailing wisdom in some subjects are (similar to the official version of John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam) meant to be accepted without question, and data contrary to the prevailing wisdom are promptly discarded or are given creative interpretations.

Scientists change their minds when data contradicts their modelsÂ?except in one area, the relatively new scientific discipline known as climatology.

If the climate models that predict massive rises in temperature over the next century are correct, the atmosphere should warm before the surface.  But atmospheric data from both satellites and weather balloons show only a trifling rise in temperature over the past couple of decades, while the surface temperature has been rising steadily.  In 2000, a National Research Council study confirmed the data's discrepancy with the model.

The proper scientific response would be to reexamine the models and adjust them to fit reality.  But that hasn't happened in climatology.  Instead, there have been repeated attempts to manipulate the satellite data fit the models.

 

The state of the First

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything...

This surreal exchange is what comes to mind when I ponder the current state of our First Amendment freedoms. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance 'reform' law has done violent damage to our freedom of speech (particularly in the sixty days prior to election day), but somehow the Supreme sees no constitutional evil there. Imagine Supreme Court Justice Humpty Dumpty trying to explain the amendment:

'When I say abridging the freedom of speech, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less...'

Paul Jacobs of U.S. Term Limits may be a little bit over the top when he calls this "our first election without the First Amendment", but one can easily understand the frustration that gave rise to such hyperbole.

My favorite Supreme Court justice

Magic mirror on the wall,

who's the most Constitution-friendly justice of all?

If you listen enough to the rhetoric of the left, you know the party line that Antonin Scalia is Public Enemy #1, and that Clarence Thomas routinely takes his marching orders from him.  I hadn't really pondered the question of which justice has the greatest fealty to the 'strict construction' philosophy of constitutional interpretation (to paraphrase Horton the elephant, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says -- no ifs, ands, buts, penumbras or emanations about it).  If someone had buttonholed me on the street and demanded an answer, I might have said Scalia, since he's the one who gets all of the press (Thomas doesn't actually exist, since everyone in the media knows that there's no such thing as a black conservative).

As it turns out, though, a law.com article reveals that Thomas boldly and routinely goes where Scalia is often reluctant to go.  In his biography of Thomas, Ken Foskett quotes Scalia as saying that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."  Foskett considers this to be a "bombshell", although Steve at Southern Appeal says the fact is well-known in the legal community.

Stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by decided matters", refers to the doctrine that gives weight to judicial precedents.  If there is a string of Supreme Court decisions on a matter, Scalia is much more likely to uphold the issue on the basis of the precedents, even if he is uneasy with the soundness of the constitutional reasoning behind the precedents.

Thomas, on the other hand, believes that if a previous decision is constitutionally suspect, it has no weight whatsoever.  Continuing Scalia's quote:

"If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right," says Scalia. "I wouldn't do that."

As much as I admire Scalia, Thomas is in the right here.  If you're driving from Washington to New York and you see an exit sign for Atlanta, the solution is not to keep driving and hope everything turns out right.

I understand even more now why the left hates Thomas so much.  Not only is he conservative, he's also one of the best friends the Constitution has had in recent generations.

(Credit: The Corner)

Judicial tyranny, cont'd.

Scott Ott (Scrappleface) is in his usual groove as he relates the probable fate of a state constitutional amendment approved overwhelmingly by Missouri voters last weekend:

According to an unnamed law professor at the University of Missouri (MU), federal judges in the midwest today are "racing their colleagues for the prize" of overturning the Missouri state constitutional amendment passed this week which defines marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union.

 

"The average citizen cannot comprehend the visceral thrill of taking pen in hand and reversing the so-called 'will of the people' with a flick of the wrist," said the MU professor. "It is the juice of the judiciary. There is nothing sweeter than saying 'a million commoners are wrong and I'm right'. It makes me wish I were behind the bench rather than the law school lectern. I'm so jealous."

Keyes/Obama should be an interesting race

According to WorldNetDaily (August 4):

Illinois Republicans chose Alan Keyes as their candidate today to run against heavily favored Barack Obama, the up-and-coming Democratic Party star.

Keyes does not currently live in Illinois, and never has. He'll be doing what Hillary did in New York, fulfilling the letter of the residency requirements (i.e. resident of the state as of election day). Apart from that, Keyes ought to liven up the debate quite a bit, and will defuse the Dems' ability to play up Obama's race (half-African).

UPDATE: Illinois blogger Greg isn't too thrilled with this prospect:

I've dealt with Keyes personally... His ego is too big for the Senate, Presidency and probably God...

Also, John (PolicyGuy) mentions two more relevant points in a private e-mail:

1. Keyes has not actually committed to running--he will get back with the committee on Sunday or Monday.

Stupid move by the party. He could let them hang out to dry.

2. He was quite clear, in 2000, that Hillary's move was a threat to federalism. See today's Chicago Tribune article (intrusive registration required) for a quote he gave FNC. It will come back to haunt him should he decide to run.

What's up with the Bush administration's GOP platform hijinks?

Robert Novak has concluded that the GOP Convention platform committee will in essence have no work to do -- that the Bush administration will present to them a draft platform, with a mere two days to adopt it. This breaks with decades of precedent that gives the platform committee wide latitude to come up with planks which are important to the party rank and file, but which may not be in total harmony with the standard-bearer's (in this case, Bush's) views:

For more than a quarter of a century, Republican platforms have been forged in an intense debate, often against the presidential candidate's wishes. The pattern was set in 1976, when Sen. Jesse Helms led Reagan forces against President Gerald Ford. In 1984, when Ronald Reagan was seeking re-election, then House Republican Whip Trent Lott as platform chairman resisted White House efforts to equivocate on taxes and abortion. In 1996, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois threatened to resign as chairman if candidate Bob Dole interfered.

Novak says that the Democrats' platform was also predetermined this year, but at least they went through the charade of a traditional debate.

What is the difference between a prewritten party platform adopted without meaningful debate saying "The Republican Party believes [insert Bush administration opinion here]", and a politician who knows nothing but his own agenda going on a Sunday morning talk show and saying "The American people believe [insert politician's pet issue here]"?

If what Novak says about the GOP platform is true, shame on the Bush administration for its heavyhanded tactics. If someone out there has a spin that they can put on this that will make it look better, I'm all ears.

UPDATE: Before anyone says it, I realize that the party platforms of both parties have little relevance to Real Life, and that as such the specifics of the platform don't really matter. Perhaps this is just another instance of the Bush administration controlling the message -- they don't want an off-the-reservation platform committee giving the Dems (and their buddies in the media) any talking points. I can see this from a strategery point of view. However, a party ought to espouse a set of core principles that will survive long after the current candidate has moved on to other things. Is it really up to the candidate to tell the party what those principles are?

Jefferson re: judicial tyranny

How do the Democrats explain away the fact that they have views totally in opposition to those of the founder of their party?  They don't have to -- Jefferson was a slave owner, so he's already been given the Soviet treatment (Jefferson?  Who?  There was no such person.), and his inconvenient views can be safely ignored.

 

The quote below was undoubtedly in reaction to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's assertion of the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803).  Although the court didn't really exercise this assumed power until the Dred Scott case (1857), it seems clear that in the years since then Jefferson's fears were not misplaced.

[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

 

-- Thomas Jefferson

(Courtesy of The Federalist's "Founders Quote Daily")

Not a boycott list. Really.

The Kerry campaign has published a list of big-business contributors. FYI. Not that I mean for anyone to do anything with this information.

For a long time, I couldn't imagine how business leaders could support Democratic candidates, given that the Democrats have shown themselves consistently (in both rhetoric and policy) to be hostile to business. I eventually came to understand how it might happen. I see three classes of business leaders that might find themselves sufficiently motivated to support Democrats:

• Ideologically leftist business owners. These are the True Believers, those who might have preferred to vote for Nader, or Kucinich, or Dean, but in general are willing to vote Democrat in spite of the damage the party does to business. Perhaps they see their business chiefly as a means of generating revenue that can be plowed into their favorite causes. Probably account for the smallest percentage of Kerry big-business contributors.
• Darwinian business owners. These folks recognize the fiercely competitive nature of business, and noticed that the government can be used as a weapon against one's competitors (e.g. through antitrust allegations). Their money goes to the party most willing to use the coercive power of the government in this way. The GOP is not blameless in this, but the advantage goes to the Democrats here.
• Pragmatic business owners. These folks for the most part might wish that the government would just leave them alone, but recognize that this will never happen, so they tend to give money to both parties... so their bases are covered no matter who wins. Kind of a protection racket.

National Review noticed an interesting factoid (08/04, 01:14PM entry) regarding a subset of the Kerry contributors. The campaign has been haranguing about corporate America outsourcing jobs and about what they'd do to stop it. It turns out that at least forty people on Kerry's big-business list represent companies on Lou Dobbs' "Exporting America" list. There's plenty of room for civil debate on the realities of outsourcing and the effects it has (or doesn't have) on the economy, but it seems clear here that on yet another issue, the junior senator from Massachusetts is trying to have it both ways.

FWIW, a few of the Bush campaign's big-business supporters can be found here.

Michelle Malkin is about to step in it

Journalist/columnist/blogress Michelle Malkin is releasing a book next week that argues in favor of Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese-Americans in World War 2.  Only someone as gutsy as MM would touch this subject with a ten-foot pole, and I greatly admire her willingness and determination to follow a story wherever it leads her (her research completely changed her view on this topic).  I'm looking forward to the lively debate that is sure to come (and which is already well underway on MM's blog).

The end of the IRS?

According to Matt Drudge, House Speaker Dennis Hastert's new book reveals that a centerpiece of the Bush administration's second-term domestic agenda will be a push to replace the current tax code with a consumption tax (NRST, VAT, etc.).

 

Consumption taxes have had their cheerleaders for some time (see, for example, FairTax.org).  I haven't yet taken the time examine all of the pluses and minuses of the proposed alternatives, but I eagerly look forward to the debate that's sure to come.

 

(Credit: Boortz, 8/2/04 Nuze)

A rare, remarkable victory for private property rights

In 1981, the Michigan Supreme Court handed down a ruling whose effects have been felt far beyond the borders of that state. General Motors wished to build a new plant in Detroit, and the only thing that stood in their way was Poletown, a residential neighborhood. Many residents were refusing to sell, so GM asked the city for help. The city of Detroit, seeing the economic benefit the new plant would bring, and seeing that those who would benefit from the new plant represented more votes than did those living in Poletown, initiated condemnation proceedings against the holdouts.

Detroit was seizing the property of private entities for the benefit of another private entity. Amazingly, the Michigan Supremes upheld the seizure.

In the 23 years following the Poletown case, this odious use of eminent domain powers has become pandemic. We are no longer surprised to see stories of local governments seizing property from the politically powerless and turning it over to businesses who promise either more jobs (resulting in political capital for the officeholders) or more property taxes (which the officeholders also seem to like).

The U.S. Constitution's fifth amendment implies that the only legitimate reason for government to compel the sale of private property is because the land is needed for some genuine public use that the government is supposed to provide for -- roads and other such infrastructure, necessary government offices, public schools (not that education is supposed to be a government function, but I digress). It does not allow the government to force retirees and small businesses out for the benefit of GM, Ikea, Wal-Mart and the like.

Apparently, somebody finally noticed that the "Poletown standard" also violated the Michigan constitution. The current Michigan Supremes used the occasion of a new eminent domain case to unanimously overturn the Poletown ruling (emphasis added):

"The county is without constitutional authority to condemn the properties," the court's opinion read. All seven justices voted to overturn Poletown, although three dissented over some technical aspects that do not affect the main ruling.

Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a GM plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."

"We overrule Poletown," Young wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."

The judicial branch is "the expositor [i.e. explainer], not creator, of fundamental law". When is the last time we heard that from a court? Will we ever hear it again from a working majority of the U.S. Supreme Court?

We can't leave this story without noting the reaction of Wayne County (defendant in the current case) to the ruling:

[A] spokesman for Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano issued a statement saying that "the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to change Michigan law and divest municipalities from their ability to create jobs for their citizens is a disappointment not only for Wayne County, but for all of the Michigan communities struggling to address these difficult economic times."

According to Wayne County, the land seizure in question was for the purpose of "creating jobs" -- and apparently they could only be created right where some people were already living. This whole idea of the government "creating jobs" is worth another essay...some time. Meanwhile, I'll just repeat my cynical observation that government "job creation" initiatives are scarcely distinguishable from vote buying schemes. Sigh.

UPDATE: PolicyGuy (Hi, John!) gives more details on the story and on its implications.

Well, I never said I was Instapundit

Sorry about the dearth of recent posts.  Real Life™ has kept me away from the keyboard recently.  I should be back in my groove today, if nothing intervenes.  If you need infofixes more often, be sure to visit some of the sites on my Favorites list.