Any Means Necessary?

Ward Connerly’s Amendment 46 would eliminate affirmative-action programs in state hiring, contracting and education in Colorado. As in other states, there seems to be plenty of support for such a move. Opponents of the anti-discrimination initiative — already caught in some shenanigans – are using predictable tactics to keep this bill off the ballot: accuse circulators of fooling voters into signing. Everyone, you see, is a vicitim.

Local conservative enfant terrible and executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, Jessica Peck Corry, told the Post recently that, “They don’t want to have a discussion about the merits because when they do, they lose. We can have policy debates. But to allege that our argument is fraud is an outright lie.”

Of course it is. As you can read in the Omaha World-Herald today, debate is not in the cards: “The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That’s the only way we’re going to win,” said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.

Now, that’s what I call confidence in your position. And as Roger Clegg at The Corner notes: “The Left, as you know, favors democracy, power to the people, and nondiscrimination, except when it doesn’t.”

(Cross-posted on Post-Ed Notes.)

“In baseball you wear a ‘cap’”

Brandon Inge of the Detriot Tigers just reinforced every stereotype regarding the toughness of baseball players by injuring himself with a pillow.

“It was the stupidest, most freakish thing,” Inge said Wednesday, explaining why he had just been placed on the 15-day DL with the pulled side muscle (oblique) he suffered 3 1/2 weeks ago.

“I have a 3-year-old son who sleeps in the bed with my wife and me,” Inge said. “I was trying to push the pillow down behind his head (two nights ago), and when I did … I repopped (the strained muscle).

“You take swings in baseball, and it’s not as bad as pushing a pillow down.”

Upon hearing this story, manager Jim Leyland said, “That’s a first.”

In honor of this pillow mishap, here is the late George Carlin to explain the finer points of baseball and football:

Finally some good news …

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

From Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The section on the Second Amendment’s language is definitive, convincing and fasinating.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” …

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”

The opinion did not eliminate any long-standing bans on concealed guns, gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded. It still allows barring guns from schools or government buildings and conditions on gun sales. All it did was strike down two sections of the DC gun ban and, most importantly, confirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

McCain’s $300 million prize

I notice that Jonathan Adler at the National Review, a superb writer, has a far different take on McCain’s science fair prize than I do.

Speaking Monday at Fresno State University in California, Sen. John McCain put forward what may be the most promising and important energy-policy proposal of the campaign: a $300 million prize for the development of advanced battery technology.

If this is the most “promising and important energy-policy proposal” we can expect from the Republican campaign, I fear McCain has wasted an opportunity to grab the energy issue. Whatever the actual merits of a $300 million prize are, this proposal, at the very least, sounds gimmicky.

Adler compares the battery prize to similar 18th and 19th century English efforts in navigation — Don Boudreaux had mentioned these to me, as well. More recently, he points to the “The X-Prize Foundation offered the “Ansari X-Prize,” a $10 million reward for the development of a reusable, manned spacecraft, which was awarded in 2004.” (James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report also points to this prize.)

But a reusable manned spaceship has only a narrow purpose and few consumers benefit from its invention in any obvious way. Without a market for a manned spaceship, such a prize (which seems, in effect, to be a bidding process) also seems necessary in persuading a private company to take the risk. In that context, outsourcing a government venture to a private enterprise is fine idea.

The next generation of battery, though, has multiple purposes and billions of potential consumers. A prize will do nothing to speed innovation as companies are already racing to meet the demand of the market.

I also noticed that Adler had written a piece supporting prizes over front-end subsidies last year. And the idea, in the context he lays it out here, makes a lot of sense.

Offering substantial financial rewards for those who develop particular innovations or solve specific problems is a far better way to spur technological innovation and practical scientific research. As the patent system demonstrates, the hope of a large financial windfall is a powerful inducement for innovation, and can encourage many different people with different strategies or insights to tackle a given problem.

Absolutely. The difference between a patent system and McCain’s idea, however, is that McCain has prescribed a very specific outcome using a very specific method, rather than allowing the best technology or the most innovative research to win out.

(cross-posted on Post-Ed Blog.)

Not Over For Haditha Marine

Some news. I just spoke with Brian Rooney at the Thomas More Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor that has been defending the Haditha “massacre” marines

Yesterday’s good news about the dismissal of all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani is ruined by this news: Incredibly enough, the prosecution has appealed the decision so Chessani is not out of the woods yet. In fact, he may be have to go through another trial.

“We would hope that after years of litigation they would look at their track record, which is 0-7 of eight for the prosecution on this so-called massacre, and they would say ‘enough is enough,’” Rooney told me this morning.

No such luck apparently.

My column tomorrow will delve into this topic in more detail.

(Cross-posted at Post-Ed Notes.)

UPDATE: More from Michelle Malkin.

And a release from the Thomas More Center:

Late yesterday afternoon, military prosecutors filed an official notice that they are appealing the June 17th decision of Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, which dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. Prosecutors have 20 days in which to file their appeal brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted with outrage, “This case has turned into the persecution of one of the Marine’s finest combat commanders. LtCol Chessani devoted his life to the Corps and his Nation. He served three tours of duty in Iraq, away from his wife and children in defense of us all. In their attempt ‘to get’ Chessani, prosecutors granted immunity to seventeen Marines, including one they had charged with murder. Still they failed. Sadly, in the process they have destroyed the career of an outstanding officer. Enough is enough.”

Was tribute to Russert unseemly?

Jack Shafer at Slate, one of my favorite media critics, takes the media to task for the over-the-top Tim Russert tribute that anyone watching TV this past week experienced.

I wonder whether the media grievers gave a moment of thought to how this Russert torrent they produced played with viewers and readers. Did the grievers really think Russert was so important, so vital to the nation’s course, and such an elevated human being that he deserved hour upon hour of tribute? I wonder whether any of the responsible journalists paused to think, Hey, this is really weird. We’re using our unchecked editorial power to soak the nation with our tears about our friend, and that’s unseemly!

I think Shafer makes a valuable point about the self-adulatory bubble journalists tend to live in. (Having seen other professionals at work, I find nothing unique about it.) Yet, Russert was one of the few recognizable journalists the public could relate to and actually trusted. A political journalist who lacked any obvious partisanship also makes him exceptional, these days. But in the end, I think Russert’s memorial was more about covering a celebrity death than any overindulgence by fellow journalists.

(Cross-posted w/ Post-Ed Notes.)

Cap and trade. Home edition!

They’ve been talking about enacting this in Boulder, Colorado for a long time now.

The new rules, which will go into effect Aug. 8, will force anyone who wants to build a house larger than 6,000 square feet — including basements, garages and storage areas — to purchase extra “development credits” from smaller houses or vacant lots to do so. The idea is to offset huge homes with more modest houses and open land.

The idea, much like cap and trade, would create artificial scarcity and then force people to trade for space thus saving the environment by capping growth. In a mid-sized city such as Boulder, the rich can easily overcome this problem and build massive houses while the poor and middle class … well, they can move elsewhere. But, as with many progressive, environmentally friendly, diverse, forward-looking neighborhoods around the country, Boulder is primarily white and quite rich (once you negate — and I mean this in the least violent way –the University of Colorado students).

But Housing Commissioner Ben Pearlman says:

“I think there are a lot of people, when the dust has settled, who are going to be happy to be able to sell off their development credits,” Pearlman said. “That may be the greatest legacy of this project — allowing people to choose to keep small houses for the benefit of themselves and the rest of their community.”

It’s wonderful to see Boulder taking a lead in coercing people to live more responsible and sensible lifestyles. I simply can’t wait for this idea to catch on. Soon I’ll be spending half by day trading credits to save the planet.

Fear and loathing . . . everywhere

Does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Sports fans everywhere believe that superstars and marquee franchises are granted special treatment by the league. Every superstar, that is, but the one on your team. That guy is always getting the shaft.

This week, when disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy accused refs of fixing games, it precipitated an outpouring of conspiracy theories on sports radio and elsewhere.

Who could argue? The fix is undoubtedly in. How else could the San Antonio Spurs, playing in the vaunted 37th-largest media market in the nation, have won three championships in the past five years?

So this must be “Unity”

The “cap and trade” climate boondoggle is being debate this week in Washington. A dreadful idea so, naturally, support is growing among lawmakers (though it probably won’t pass until Bush is gone). You have to absolutely love this headline from the Politico: Warming bill: Super Bowl for lobbyists.

The climate change legislation being debated now in the Senate is the Super Bowl for lobbyists, roping in everyone from Alaskan Inupiaqs to venture capitalists.

I thought lobbyists were nefarious hucksters intent on destroying America, freedom and the environment? And don’t even get me started on the venture capitalists — bloodsuckers of the plutocracy.

Anything for change, I guess.

Thanks for nothing

A new study claims that obesity among children is leveling off. But the battle is not over!

However, experts caution there’s still much to be done to improve the health of American children because the number of youngsters who are overweight today is still triple what it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

“The rates are still very high. But this study suggests there may be some cause for optimism as the rate appears fairly level over eight years,” said study author Cynthia Ogden, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics, whose findings are published in the May 28 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The story claims that researchers went as far back as 1999, compared obesity data and discovered no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of overweight children.

And since only recently has government gotten “serious” about childhood obesity and passed laws to “help” fat kids change their habits and educate parents and teachers, we can deduce that nannyistic programs have done absolutely nothing to help the problem.

I don’t see “economic justice” in the Constitution

Despite all his promises, I don’t trust John McCain will pick judges that practice “judicial restraint.” But it’s incredibly disturbing that the Obama campaign can’t even mention the Constitution as it panders on potential Supreme Court appointees.

“The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Throw us a bone and pretend the Supreme Court is still around to uphold the Constitution before using collectivist-laden phrases like “economic justice” – which I can assure you scares the holy crap out of tons of Republicans and Independents.

Your fair share

What the candidates are inadvertently saying on taxes in my column today.

Watership Down

I watched Watership Down with my daughter today. I can’t think of any modern animated movie that is as well made or engrossing. Nor can I think of a movie I enjoyed as much as an adult as I did a child. If you can get your hands on a copy, I would recommend it — or better yet, read the book.

Reading about a newish theatrical version staged in London not long ago, I came across this quote that sums of the feel of the story:

The closest humans come to feeling like rabbits is under war conditions. Imagine what it would be like if every time we stepped out on the street, we know we could be picked off by a sniper. We’ve tried to capture that anxiety in the way the rabbits speak -lots of short, jerky sentences.”

This is the conservative soul?

Andrew Sullivan writes that Ron Paul “seems a little more comfortable with a president Obama than a president McCain” based on, among other things, Obama’s “integrity of the Constitution” (except on the Second Amendment – on the rest, we lack any evidence of reliability) and “walking back the doctrines of pre-emptive war.” *

In reality, we never know what a president will do. That’s why trust is such an important election issue. But Sullivan’s hyper-fawning over Obama has never been about policy, it’s about the power of personality and perception. And his take bears no resemblance to the political philosophy of skepticism he wrote about in his book.

“I don’t think you have to agree with Obama on many things to want him to succeed,” writes Sullivan, echoing his past writing on the topic. Well, why in hell not? In the end it should be about policy, shouldn’t it? Obama, outside of foreign policy, believes in the expansion of government control: higher taxation, attack on profit, draconian controls on energy, socialized health care, etc … why would a conservative of any flavor want Obama to succeed? (The best a classic liberal or libertarian can hope for in this election, in my humble opinion, is gridlock government.)

In any event, I thought those thick-headed Americans who voted for candidates they could envision themselves having a beer with exposed a deeply unsophisticated electorate. That’s how we got Bush. After 9/11, we listened to Dear Leader, because we trusted him, and found ourselves on our present disastrous course– or so the story goes.

Supporting Obama based solely on his messianic allure is just as simplistic. Obama’s (untapped and unproven) transformational power to bring folks together hasn’t panned out, anyway. Fact is, as it stands now, Obama can’t even bring his own party together. He doesn’t deserve such adoration. No politician does.

On this topic, everyone would benefit from Gene Healy’s superb “Cult of the Presidency.” This kind of veneration for a candidate, Bush or Obama or anyone else, just doesn’t strike me as something from the “conservative soul.”

—————————
* … unless, it makes sense for Obama.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

I realize this Obama quote is from last year, but a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation which has fallen short of our expectations in the War on Terror seems as adventurous and irresponsible as anything in the Bush Doctrine. Surely Saddam’s sins were as dreadful as Musharraf’s? Is harboring terrorists enough of reason for an invasion? Or only certain terrorists? What about the unforeseen consequences of such an invasion? Imagine all the anger it will generate on the Muslim street? A new tool for terrorist recruitment and so on … Why don’t these issues apply? We may believe bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan but, for all I know, he’s in Somalia or Sudan or Sacramento.

Old news, I know. But, looking back at it now, I think it illustrates the problem with the perception of Obama vs. the reality of Obama — and the complexity of the world. He’d be just another president who would have to deal with the Middle East. It’s going to be ugly. It always is.

“The chronic goad of fear”

This outstanding quote — I’d never heard before — leads a Slate review of the new Iron Man flick: iHero — Why Iron Man is like Steve Jobs.

“Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtue, not vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear.”—Alan Greenspan

Self-perpetuating orgy of negativity

The top corner of Drudge looks like this today:

GLOOM LIFTING? Employers cut fewer jobs in April, jobless rate falls…
Sense of Optimism Begins to Ease Onto Wall St…
Dow crosses 13,000; Dollar UP…
GUSHER: CHEVRON profit rises 9.5%…

My column today begins: “A self-perpetuating orgy of negativity regarding the economy begins with the media, which collect every morsel of daunting economic news and jump to a logical conclusion — which is to say, Armageddon.”

Hopefully we’ve turned a corner. Both in terms of a slow economy and in how the slow economy is covered.

Just wondering

So there will be no global warming for the next ten years … and there has been none the past ten years. Are we knuckle-dragging flat-Earthers allowed to be skeptical yet?

Employing the “F” word properly

Christopher Hitchens writes on John McCain’s temper problems today (and claims that former Sen. Bob Smith “combines the body of an ox with the brains of a gnat.”) I wonder if McCain’s temper tantrums are anything like Lee Elia’s – who conducted the greatest post-game press conference of all time 25 years ago today. (Unquestionably not work friendly):

And here’s another pretty good one:

64 K of pure power

With all the talk of rising gas and food prices, it was interesting to run across this Commodore 64 commercial from 1982, 26 years ago. The beloved computer was going for $595. It reportedly sold 30 million units; the best-selling personal computer ever — though no one has yet figured out what exactly they were supposed to do with it after playing games.

Today, a consumers still have numerous desktops they can purchase at around the same price — or a little more. And certainly, these computers will enrich their in countless ways a Commodore 64 never could.

It’s not the product …

Glenn Reynolds, I think, gets it exactly right on ethanol.

The problem with ethanol is a government-subsidy problem, and a trade-barrier problem. It’s not a problem with ethanol itself. Make it out of something other than food, and lower the barrier to Brazilian ethanol imports, and it would help our current situation a lot.

From what I can tell, there is nothing uniquely terrible about ethanol (then again, there is nothing exceptionally wonderful about corn-based ethanol, either). There is, however, something potentially destructive in the false economy we’ve created. In today’s column, I write “that government, on both the local and national level, has mandated and subsidized ethanol, creating an artificial market that incentivizes production of a wasteful energy.”

I also write: “Not only are presidential candidates promoting dangerous fallacies about energy but, last I checked, they weren’t crisscrossing the nation in chariots hitched to teams of flying unicorns.”

That second bit was just gratuitous. I wanted to get flying unicorns into a column. But the fact is, nationally, we’re forsaking market-driven energy solutions out of frustration. We want a cure now. If we happen to have ethanol and wind farms, well that must be the answer. Innovation and technology, especially when it comes to an issue as vast and complicated as energy, is going to take a long time. With any luck, because of this fiasco, the nation has learned a valuable lesson about the unintended consequences of government subsidies, the importance of consumer choice and our unhelpful tendency to hastily fall in line behind any idea, just as long some bureaucrat puts the word “green” in the promotional material.

Who am I kidding?

One of the best reads on this, and related topics, is Robert Bryce’s superb Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. Bryce predicted much of the ethanol fiasco years ago.