The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance. He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments – and divorce rulings – complied with the law of the land.
We are supposed to be reassured that the law will hold the line on stoning:
Lord Phillips said that any sanctions must be ‘drawn from the laws of England and Wales’. Severe physical punishment – he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands – is ‘out of the question’ in Britain, he added.
(ASIDE: This is crap, of course, since the government has done little to stop the “honor killings” that are already going on in Britain.) Of course, the problem isn’t just the barbaric punishments, but the idea that women will “voluntarily” sign away their rights:
Lord Phillips’ speech brought protests from lawyers who fear women could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia deals.
Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: ‘There should be one law by which everyone is held to account. ‘Well-crafted laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups, could be compromised.’ . . .
Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think tank, said: ‘Everybody is governed by English law and it is not possible to sign away your legal rights. That is why guarantees on consumer products always have to tell customers their statutory rights are not affected.
‘There is not much doubt that in traditional Islamic communities women do not enjoy the freedoms that they have had for 100 years or more in Britain.
‘It is very easy to put pressure on young women in a male-dominated household. The English law stands to protect people from intimidation in such circumstances.’
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: ‘Mediation verdicts which are incompatible with our own legal principles should never be enforceable. One of the key aspects of our free society is equality. This should be understood and respected by all.’
Or if not by all, at least by Britain’s top judge.
Despite backing off the central promise of his campaign, to remove all troops from Iraq in 16 months, Barack Obama denies that his position has changed:
Democrat Barack Obama denied Thursday any suggestion he’s shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it “pure speculation” and adding that his “position has not changed” — shortly before telling reporters questioning his stance that he will “continue to refine” his policies as warranted.
The one thing we’ve learned to expect from Obama is he will never admit that he’s changing his position. His one consistent position is that his position is consistent. But, in a break with precedent, the press is not buying it. Of course, it may be good politics to bury this shift (along with others) on the July 4 weekend.
Anyway, the problem with a flip-flop is that we don’t know what his real position is. Even if he were genuine about his new position, which seems unlikely, does anyone think he would stand up to Pelosi and company’s demands for immediate withdrawal?
But on April 10 he told an Indiana crowd it may take “16 months to two years” to remove combat troops. In recent speeches, he’s left out the phrase “16 months” entirely.
Pressed as to why that’s been the case, the White House hopeful first laughed, then told reporters it’s because he’s been “focused on the economy.”
Their lobbyists inserted a loophole that would make them exempt from a new Florida law:
Walt Disney World believes it is exempt from a new state law that allows Florida residents to keep firearms in their vehicles while at work, according to an internal memo obtained by a newspaper.
Under the bill, which took effect Tuesday, businesses cannot prohibit employees or customers from keeping a legally owned gun locked inside their cars, as long as the owner has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
However, the bill states that property owned or leased by an employer who has a permit required by federal law to manufacture, use, store or move explosives would still be off limits. Disney has a permit for its fireworks shows.
The loophole was lobbied for by a group of lawyers that represented groups and businesses that included Disney, The Orlando Sentinel reports.
Someone should fight this. I can’t imagine Disney wanting the bad press they would get.
David Bernstein looks at which justices are more likely to protect individual rights:
The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides.
Or perhaps it’s not as remarkable as we’ve been led to think. Consider the Court’s First Amendment decisions. Contrary to popular belief, conservative justices are about as likely to vote in favor of individuals bringing First Amendment challenges to government regulations as are the liberals. Indeed, the justice most likely to vote to uphold a First Amendment claim is the “conservative” Justice Anthony Kennedy. The least likely is the “liberal” Justice Stephen Breyer. Consistent with general conservative/liberal patterns in commercial speech cases, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have voted to invalidate restrictions on advertising more than 75 percent of the time. Justices Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meanwhile, have voted to uphold such restrictions in most cases.
This Politico story will be no surprise to most Internet Scofflaw readers. (Via the Corner.)
POSTSCRIPT: Let’s not forget that Evan Thomas has a bit of history of his own. In 2004 he famously asserted that the media wanted John Kerry to win, and their favorable reporting would be worth 15 points in the polls. That was before claiming in last May’s Newsweek story that the media had no ideological bias.
Remember the “benchmarks”? To the Democrats last September, they were the see-all, end-all measure of progress in Iraq. Now they are all but forgotten, but the White House is still tracking them, and report that nearly all have satisfactory progress:
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”—almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks—enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues—are unsatisfactory.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq’s military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein’s political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1. . .
In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation’s police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.
Amusingly, the Associated Press actually puts a negative spin on this:
No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.
Iraq’s political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it’s done so has been achingly slow.
ASIDE: The idea of grading a democratic country’s legislature pass/fail on satisfying various political objective was always a little bit nutty. How many benchmarks do you think our own Congress has met in the last year.
The Boston Globe has a devastating article on the abject failure of Obama’s housing policy:
The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.
But it’s not safe to live here.
About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale – a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.
Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing – an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.
But if the program failed to produce inhabitable housing, it did not fail to enrich Obama’s friends:
As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. . . Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.
The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people connected to the senator.
Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.
Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama’s US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama’s former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.
Antoin “Tony” Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama’s early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko’s company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama’s district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.
Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers – including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko – collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama’s own accounting.
One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.
Butler and Davis did not respond to messages. Rezko is in prison; his lawyer did not respond to inquiries. Jarrett, a powerful figure in the Chicago development community, agreed to be interviewed but declined to answer questions about Grove Parc, citing what she called a continuing duty to Habitat’s former business partners.
Mickey Kaus calls the story Obama’s Katrina. I’m not sure that’s fair. Katrina, after all, was a mismanaged natural disaster. Grove Parc, on the other hand, is a case of human corruption that enriched Obama’s friends, who in turn enriched him personally. Also, FEMA seems to have learned from Katrina (as its performance in the recent midwestern floods indicates), but Obama has campaigned on expanding the program that created Grove Parc to a nationwide scale.
Kaus also notes that while Obama has distanced himself from Rezko since his conviction, Jarrett remains a top Obama advisor. For now.
Politicians often measure the impact of tax-rate changes on the number of dollars they “generate” or “cost”. This is useful for generating large, impressive numbers, but it’s not actually a useful measure, for two reasons. First, tax changes never generate or cost the predicted amount. (In fact, Hauser’s Law indicates that tax-rate changes have essentially no impact on revenues.) Second, it’s the tax rates themselves — not the overall amount collected — that is relevant to taxpayers’ lives and (particularly the marginal rates) to the health of the economy.
Hank Adler, a professor at Chapman University, has looked at Barack Obama’s proposed tax increases, and notes that they are almost unprecedented in US history. (Via TaxProf, via Instapundit.) One frightening figure is an tax increase of as high as 39% on self-employment income.
In fact, since the First World War, there has only been one tax increase greater than the one Obama proposes: Herbert Hoover’s tax increase of 1932. Hoover’s economic policy (which Obama promises to follow in other ways as well) is now generally seen as regrettable.
The Economist reports that school choice has been successful in the most unlikely of places, Sweden:
BIG-STATE, social-democratic Sweden seems an odd place to look for a free-market revolution. Yet that is what is under way in the country’s schools. Reforms that came into force in 1994 allow pretty much anyone who satisfies basic standards to open a new school and take in children at the state’s expense. The local municipality must pay the school what it would have spent educating each child itself—a sum of SKr48,000-70,000 ($8,000-12,000) a year, depending on the child’s age and the school’s location. Children must be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis—there must be no religious requirements or entrance exams. Nothing extra can be charged for, but making a profit is fine.
The reforms were controversial, especially within the Social Democratic Party, then in one of its rare spells in opposition. They would have been even more controversial had it been realised just how popular they would prove. In just 14 years the share of Swedish children educated privately has risen from a fraction of a percent to more than 10%.
At the time, it was assumed that most “free” schools would be foreign-language (English, Finnish or Estonian) or religious, or perhaps run by groups of parents in rural areas clubbing together to keep a local school alive. What no one predicted was the emergence of chains of schools. Yet that is where much of the growth in independent education has come from. Sweden’s Independent Schools Association has ten members that run more than six schools, and five that run ten or more.
The biggest, Kunskapsskolan (“Knowledge Schools”) opened its first six schools in 2000. Four more opened last autumn, bringing the total to 30. It now has 700 employees and teaches nearly 10,000 pupils, with an operating profit of SKr62m last year on a turnover of SKr655m.
This is the sort of success that US teachers’ unions have been working hard to prevent.
Dogged by persistent questions about his faith in God and country, Sen. Barack Obama today journeyed to Harry Truman’s birthplace to lay out his vision of patriotism, conceding that he has learned in this campaign “the question of who is — or is not — a patriot all too often poisons our political debate.”
“Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given, ” Obama said. “It was how I was raised. It was what propelled me into public service. It it why I am running for president. And yet at times over the last 16 months, my patriotism [has been] challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.”
Curiously, Obama did not name a single person that actually has attacked his patriotism. Is there any national figure who has actually done so? Sure, there are anonymous emails propounding fevered conspiracy theories, and there might even be more of them targeting Obama than others (although I sincerely doubt he can beat Cheney), but I’m not aware of any major media outlet or public figure who has done so.
No, I think that Obama has learned the value of attacking a straw man, as he has done on race and campaign finance. And, I think the reason he chose today is to distract from yesterday’s attacks by Wesley Clark — his campaign surrogate — on John McCain’s military experience:
“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” [Clark] said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. . .
“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
Clark is right I suppose; McCain didn’t command a squadron until after the war. During the war, his promotions got stalled for some reason. (I’m reminded of this again.)
POSTSCRIPT: Part of the reason Obama has had troubles in the area of patriotism is the ridiculous flag pin controversy. As the record shows, Obama manufactured that controversy himself, with his unwise decision to attack the patriotism of those who did wear flag pins. Too clever by half, it turned out.
This is a good example of why I’m so troubled by Google’s near-monopoly over access to information on the Internet. If Google decides to distort its results, for some political or business purpose, how will people know? This is no abstract worry, either, as Google has already done so, and not only in China. (For example, Google News includes highly dubious “news” sources of the leftist persuasion, but you’d be hard-pressed to find an example from the right.)
In this case, Google is following bad procedures — in the very least — if obviously non-spam blogs are being suspended (and worse, not being reinstated in a timely fashion). But it’s more troublesome than that, because Google is deliberately opaque about what its procedures are. Consequently, if they bias their procedures — or just violate them — for some political or business purpose, we have no way of knowing.
Probably Google is simply utilizing a bad algorithm here that has been exploited by pro-Obama vandals, but given Google’s opaqueness, we can judge the incident only by its outcome. And the outcomes of Google incidents, when they have political implications, usually seem to be in line with the company’s public-record political preferences. (I only say “usually” as a hedge; I know of no counterexamples.)
Obviously, a big part of Google’s procedures is their page rank algorithm, which is an important trade secret. But if they can’t be transparent in that area, they need to make a special effort in other areas. It also wouldn’t hurt for them to try to build bridges with people outside the political left.
Doctors in the U.K. reportedly say they have helped conceive a child genetically incapable of developing hereditary breast cancer.
According to the Times of London, doctors screened out embryos that contained a gene that may have given the baby up to an 85 percent chance of getting disease.
The British couple agreed to go through IVF (in-vitro fertilization), although they had no problem conceiving, to allow for the embryos to be screened. They produced 11 embryos, which doctors tested, and found five to be free from the gene, the Times reported.
Two of these were implanted in the woman’s uterus, and she is now 14 weeks pregnant.
Nine discarded embryos to get two that are less likely to develop breast cancer in middle age. It won’t just be breast cancer for long, either. Soon people will be selecting eye color and cheekbones.
Wilmette and Morton Grove will suspend enforcement of their gun bans. (Via Snowflakes in Hell, via Instapundit.) Both towns are somewhat infamous for their gun bans. Morton Grove had the nation’s first. Wilmette made the news four years ago by prosecuting a man who shot an intruder in his home.
BONUS: This is nice:
“The [Heller] ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today,” [Oak Park Village President David Pope] said.
Ooo-kay. I’m not sure that’s the kind of argument for the left to be making right now.
Obama has tried hard to distance himself from his campaign’s earlier statement in favor of the DC gun ban, but I think he’s nailed here. This time it isn’t an aide’s statement to be disavowed. Obama nods and says “right”, twice, as his interviewer asserts “you support the DC handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional.” He then spends over a minute focusing on more moderate gun-control measures that he supports, but never disputes the earlier assertion.
Hot Air has the YouTube video (search to 1:15 if you’re impatient).
The difference between then and now is, back then Obama was competing with Hillary Clinton for the votes of DC liberals. Back then, extreme gun-control positions paid. Now he wants to appear more centrist.
BONUS: Howard Kurtz tracks Obama’s changing positions on guns, and how they’ve been portrayed in the media. (Via Instapundit.)
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my ass” in return for his support.
If the Obama campaign induces the left to learn a few things about their favorite President’s character, it won’t have been a complete waste.
When you eliminate oil, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, you’ve already eliminated every plausible technology to address our energy needs. But why stop with the plausible ones? Wind power is bad (either for environmental concerns, or because it spoils the beachfront views of our ruling class). Geothermal disrupts the earth.
Now, solar is bad for the environment too. (Via Instapundit.) So what’s left? Is there any form of energy, even impractical, that can satisfy the demands of the greens? (Perhaps this is where they imagine society should be going.)
According to France’s Europe Minister (!), American neo-cons were responsible for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty:
France’s Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has said that Europe has enemies in Washington, suggesting that neo-conservatives played a significant role in the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty earlier this month.
French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that “Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No.”
When Obama recently backed away from his earlier statement in favor of the gun ban (“Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”), his campaign refused to admit he was changing his position. Rather, they said that it was an “inartful” attempt to explain Obama’s position. Evidently, “artful” means “too clear”.
By that standard, Obama’s latest statement in the wake of the Heller decision is more much artful:
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
(Emphasis mine.) There’s a lot of obfuscatory (“artful”) blather here, but the statement may not quite be artful enough. Not the emphasized sentence, implying that Chicago’s gun ban works. Presumably, if it works, it must be constitutional, right?
The problem is, the Chicago gun ban is virtually identical to the unconstitutional DC gun ban, and will likely be overturned in short order. As Michael Goldfarb points out, Chicago Mayor Daley’s angry response to the ruling indicates he expects that to happen.
So is Obama saying that the Chicago ban is constitutional? His campaign turns on the art:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is hedging on whether Chicago’s ban on handguns is constitutionally permissible in the wake of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar law in Washington, D.C. . .
But Obama’s spokesman says that the reference to “what works in Chicago” does not indicate his view on the constitutionality of Chicago law.
“He didn’t point out anything specific except for the fact that they are two different places where different solutions are often appropriate,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
So the mention of Chicago, the city obvious to all as the next battleground in gun rights, was just a meaningless turn of phrase? Please.
I’ve been thinking. The war in Iraq is 5 years old, but the war on poverty is 44 years old. Isn’t it high time that we cut off support for the poor? Wouldn’t that surely induce them to resolve their own problems?
First, read this “curious” exchange from today’s House Judiciary Committee meeting between Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and David Addington (chief of staff to Vice President Cheney):
Addington had acknowledged earlier in the hearing that he took part in discussions with CIA lawyers over the agency’s interrogation policies. Delahunt tried to find out what Addington knew about the use of waterboarding on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, or more specifically, whether Addington knew it was approved as an interrogation technique.
Addington told Delahunt he couldn’t discuss specific techniques being used, or even discussed for use, by CIA agents because terrorists may be watching his appearance and would gain insight into what U.S. intelligence agents are up to.
“You kind of communicate with Al Qaeda if you do. I can’t talk to you because Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN,” Addington said.
Delahunt responded: “I’m sure they are watching. I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive.“
(Emphasis mine.) What did Delahunt mean? Surely he couldn’t have meant that he’s glad Al Qaeda can target Addington now, could he? (Allahpundit thinks so.) Could he really have sunk so low that he cannot resist expressing revenge fantasies in public? These guys are running the country, for pete’s sake.
The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’
Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”
Now the campaign has explicitly disavowed its earlier statement, but as usual, he cannot admit he has changed his position:
The Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
“Inartful” means “too clear”, I guess. In contrast, his position now is quite “artful”, because he won’t say what it is. (Whatever it is, it’s definitely consistent, though.)
By the way, as Ed Morrissey points out, Obama was a constitutional law professor! Isn’t this the sort of subject on which he actually ought to be able to give an informed opinion? John McCain, on the other hand, despite not being a law professor of any kind, is on record with a clear and consistent position. He even went so far as to sign an amicus brief.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. (Opinion here.) According to Tom Goldstein, “The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.” (UPDATE: More on incorporation from Eugene Volokh.)
The vote was 5-4, which leaves the matter intact as a political issue. This probably helps McCain.
Finally, there’s this gem:
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
For Justice Stevens to suddenly discover the idea of original intent is the height of chutzpah. Moreover, his application is complete nonsense; the Framers weren’t contemplating the regulation of civilian weapons one way or the other.
UPDATE: The bit about a “well regulated Militia” is directly addressed on page one of the syllabus:
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
UPDATE: Megan McArdle wonders what would have happened if Michael Bellesiles had never been shown to be a fraud. (Via Instapundit.)
Spanish apes are one step closer to receiving the same [rights] to life and freedom humans have.
The environmental committee of Spain’s parliament approved resolutions that urge the European country to comply with the Great Apes Project — a plan developed by philosophers and scientists who say the animals deserve the same rights as their closest genetic relatives, the Reuters news agency reported.
UPDATE: Stephen Green thinks that European-style human rights isn’t much of an aspiration for the apes:
Try looking at it this way. Your average EU country doesn’t really recognize individual rights; there are just some facets of human existence Brussels hasn’t gotten around yet to regulating fully. So why not give “rights” to chimps? It’s not like they’ll gain much, when half or more of Europe is already one very posh, very nice zoological garden where people are kept on display in a semi-natural state.
Heck, Madrid, or even Brussels, could extend the franchise to dogs who think they’re people, at it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to how the place is governed.
UPDATE (7/14): The NYT picks up the story. (Via Instapundit.)
Apropos of my earlier post, in which I asserted that nuclear power is extremely safe, I uncovered a short report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Three Mile Island accident. The TMI accident is important because it and Chernobyl are the most frequent arguments against the safety of nuclear power. Chernobyl was a Soviet design far below any standards ever employed in the West, so it isn’t actually relevant. On the other hand, TMI was an American design.
One counter to the TMI example is that designs and procedures have changed completely since the TMI accident. Moreover, modern pebble bed reactors are based on an entirely different technology that is self-limiting, and therefore incapable of melting down.
The preceding is by far the more important argument, but there is another to be made: If by “serious” one means “affecting the health of at least one person,” then there has never been a serious nuclear accident in the United States, TMI notwithstanding. In the words of the NRC report:
Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.
In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.
Of the two million affected, the average person got one-sixth of a chest x-ray. The maximum effect to anyone was equivalent to one year of natural background radiation.
“The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” Mr. Obama said in an energy policy speech Tuesday in Las Vegas.
He’s quite a bit more pessimistic about real technologies, though. In his energy speech yesterday, not only did he blast nuclear power, the one technology that can resolve our electric problems, but he also opposed oil sands, which could help reduce our dependence on OPEC.
While politicians prattle on about “renewable” (but uneconomical) energy sources such as solar and wind, or yet-to-be-invented silver bullets, there already exists one practical and economical way to generate all the electricity we need. Nuclear power is cost-effective, generates no greenhouse gases, and is extremely safe with modern technology (especially pebble bed designs).
Despite being the only existing technology that can solve our electricity problems, nuclear power has been crippled in America by demagoguery and NIMBYism. Recently, however, the rising price of oil, increasing concern over greenhouse gasses, and dwindling reserves in electrical generating capacity have let to a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, even among some on the left (eg, Nancy Pelosi).
ASIDE: If you’re not concerned about generating capacity, consider this: Washington DC is projecting rolling blackouts within three years if it cannot drag in power from elsewhere in the country.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama made clear yesterday that he opposes nuclear power (despite earlier indications that he might support it), and prefers to rely on uneconomical and/or nonexistent technologies instead. Speaking in Nevada, which has managed to block the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, he blasted McCain’s proposal to begin building nuclear reactors again. He did say that he might support nuclear power sometime in the future, provided we can find a way to deal with the waste that doesn’t involve putting it somewhere. (Alas, I am not making this up.)
If our nation’s capital starts suffering rolling blackouts in a few years, or if we’re forced to rely on coal for electricity, I hope people will remember why.
Bizarrely, the decision seems to hinge on “a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” This is that sort of national consensus that exists without the participation of the people, I guess.
Barack Obama said Tuesday evangelical leader James Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible. Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to highlight excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane before landing in Los Angeles, Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”
Obama added, “I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”
I guess Obama’s idea of “open and vigorous debate” doesn’t allow for any actual criticism. (And what a strange ad hominem it is to accuse Dobson of acting “for his own purposes”! Of course he’s acting for his own purposes, as is Obama and everyone else.)
Anyway, the AP article doesn’t give any of the substance of the debate. It just presents it as a he-said, she-said sort of disagreement. (I suppose from the AP’s perspective, how could anyone be right? It’s just the Bible, after all.) But, since it’s already established that Obama doesn’t understand the Bible (or doesn’t believe it, at least), I suspect that Dobson has the right of it.
Israel’s repeated efforts to make peace with Palestinian terrorists have to be the very definition of the word “quixotic”. The latest cease-fire is in tatters after five days, and no one is surprised. (Actually, I’m a little surprised it lasted so long.) Few things in the world are certain, but two things you can predict with confidence are the outcomes of Cuban elections and Palestinian cease-fires.
Barack Obama is endangering his status as the media darling of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, he has been the villain in the campaign story over the last few days. Two decisions — one small and one large — showed the dangers he faces. And a third showed that the post-racial candidate is no longer in evidence.
It is no secret that the media has been openly rooting for Obama for months. His gaffes would have felled other candidates, his relationship with hate-mongering preachers would have disqualified mere mortal candidates and, of course, his lack of any national record of accomplishment might have prevented all much the most ego-inflated from even mounting a White House run. But it was hanging together fairly well until last week.
After Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, the EU commissioned a poll to find out why. But it seems they didn’t like what they found, according to Open Europe Blog, who observe that the EU appears to have lied about the results. They claim that 40% voted no because they didn’t understand it, when the actual (pdf link) number is 22%. (The article specifically mentions Eurobarometer, so it does look like they’re talking about the same poll.)
There is a growing feeling that European leaders meeting in Brussels tomorrow for their six-monthly summit will want another Irish referendum next year to save the treaty, which they regard as vital for the streamlining of the EU.
and:
“Of course, we must respect Ireland’s constitutional system, but we must also respect the vote of the 18 countries which have already ratified the treaty. The Irish ‘no’ cannot be the last word.”
Gallup’s latest poll has public confidence in Congress falling again, to 12%. And well it’s deserved, too. The military notches 71%, which is also well-deserved.
The [Iraqi] foreign minister [Hoshyar Zebari] said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”
It’s curious that this news is appearing in an editorial and not in any news report. (At least, I couldn’t find one, except second-hand stories referring to the editorial.) Additionally, according to ABC’s Jake Tapper, Obama denied to him that the conversation went the way the Post reports. But, that was before the editorial came out, so he wasn’t denying a specific report. Also, the Goulsbee controversy showed that Obama’s denials don’t mean anything (except perhaps in a ultra-literal way, such as denying an entire story because it took place at the Canadian consulate rather than embassy).
Anyway, not every flip-flop is bad, so this is potential good news.
The New Atlantis has an article on public opinion regarding stem cell research. Two results stand out. First, people are strikingly ignorant, especially those who think they are not:
In fact, professed familiarity with stem cell research in the prior question turned out to be a leading indicator of actual ignorance with respect to this question of therapeutic uses. Almost 40% of those who claimed some knowledge about the research in the earlier question believed, incorrectly, that embryonic stem cells had yielded therapeutic results.
Second, people’s opinion on embryonic stem cell research depends largely on the way the question is framed. When phrased to emphasize potential cures for diseases, embryonic stem cell research is supported by a margin of 54%-39%. However, when phrased in terms of ethics, it is opposed by a margin of 62%-33%. Other phrasings gave results in the middle.
There’s material there for anyone to cherry-pick numbers to support their position, but if we can draw any honest conclusion, it’s that most people don’t know what’s going on.
Since February, American intelligence has been crippled since the House Democratic leadership refused to allow a vote on a compromise bill and also allowed a temporary measure to expire. During that time, any terrorists anywhere in the world could escape surveillance by the simple expedient of communicating over the Internet.
Finally a new compromise has been struck and it includes House Democratic leaders, so there’s good reason to expect it will actually be voted on, and pass. Andrew McCarthy of National Review says it’s a good deal on balance. So does Phillip Carter of the Washington Post.
UPDATE: Actually, the House already passed the bill.
Sadly, there’s not a peep from the mainstream media in three pages of Google news results. (Although there is this story in an Italian paper about Iran barring the media from Mashad.)
As expected, Obama broke his pledge to accept public financing of his campaign. But in a fit of chutzpah, he presented his opportunistic reversal as a matter of principle. As the Washington Post put it:
Barack Obama isn’t abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it’s in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn’t about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he’d get if he stuck to his promise — and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. . .
Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. “It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.
Mr. Obama didn’t mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same . . . Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. . .
Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.
“John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs,” Obama said in his message to supporters yesterday. “And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”
To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized.
On the other hand, there are liberal 527s out there, repeating Obama’s dishonest talking points while he ostentatiously holds them at arms length.
The Washington Post also reports that Obama has rejected McCain’s proposal for a series of town hall debates:
Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama’s move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a “new politics” is empty rhetoric.
There is some potential good news here; this stuff was all reported and editorialized. As Glenn Reynolds put it, the media bloom may be off the Obama rose. Obama has benefited from breathtakingly positive coverage, and if he loses that, he may find that it was worth more than he’s gaining.
I don’t know if it’s true (everyone denies it, of course), but for your amusement:
Matthews denies he wants to host “Meet the Press”: “I love what I do. My Sunday show is a perfect fit for me. I hope they find a perfect fit for ‘Meet the Press.’ ”
Meanwhile, Matthews’ MSNBC cable cohort Olbermann, who was also at the memorial, is “threatening to quit if he isn’t installed as Russert’s replacement,” another insider said. “I know, it sounds ludicrous, but, then, Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.”
A rep for MSNBC said, “All of this is utterly untrue.”
Russert himself wanted Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director he hired, to succeed him, said one source, who added that MSNBC hosts don’t stand a chance of landing “Meet the Press.” The insider said, “They’re cable. They’re far too partisan. They have no gravitas. If gravitas is eight letters, they’re about seven letters short.”
They ought to try to get Cokie Roberts. She’s liberal (which is probably a requirement), but she’s smart and not overly partisan. She also has experience on that sort of show.
The artists reportedly softened King’s face to make him look less “confrontational and like a socialist leader.” However, officials with the King memorial foundation refused to release a picture. What’s that about?
Because advertisement fact-checking reports like this one are never viewed as widely as the spots themselves, a good many people may take from this advertisement that Mr. McCain is supporting 100 years of an overwhelmingly unpopular war.
Last February, Barack Obama spoke out against NAFTA, saying he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.” However, Canadian television reported that a “top staff member” of the Obama campaign reassured the Canadian government that this was only (in CTV’s words) “campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.” The Obama campaign furiously denied the story, at times denying even that a meeting took place. (Obama put it plainly, “It did not happen.”) But then CTV named the representative, Austan Goolsbee, and the AP obtained an official memo regarding the meeting:
According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
Then unable to deny the meeting, the Obama campaign changed its tack, denying only the substance of the report, and claiming never to have denied the actual meeting:
In an interview with the AP, Goolsbee disputed a portion of the memo that quotes him as saying that campaign rhetoric “that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
“That’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of the memo’s author, Joseph De Mora. “He’s not quoting me.” . . .
Burton stood by the campaign’s handling of the story, saying the denials were in response to the “substance of the matter at hand” about whether someone representing Obama was consistent about his position on trade.
“At no point did we deny there was a meeting,” Burton said Monday, hours after Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Obama surrogate, denied the meeting on MSNBC. “We made it crystal clear to anyone who was covering it.”
That’s where the Obama campaign left it: he really would opt out of the treaty and his supposed reassurances to Canada were a misunderstanding.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.
In other words, Obama’s opt-out position on NAFTA was (as CTV put it from the start) “campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.” Every single denial the Obama campaign issued was a a lie, from the actual meeting to the underlying substance.
POSTSCRIPT: The campaign has admitted being in possession of all the facts when they issued their denials, so they can’t argue confusion. However, the story is muddled by the fact that the original CTV story contained some minor factual errors — such as whether the meeting happened at the Canadian Embassy or Consulate — so it could be argued that some of the denials were literally true. I’m comfortable calling a deliberate deception a lie, but if you like, you can read “lie” as “deception” in the last paragraph.
We don’t hold out much hope that a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s powers to investigate allegations of hate speech will come to much. For one thing, the commission handpicked its own investigator. But mostly we are skeptical because even when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it.
There can be no doubt Canada’s human rights bodies — federal and provincial — are in need of investigation. They are out of control, far more interested in imposing political correctness than defending free speech.
They have become laws unto themselves, too, routinely suspending rules of evidence that have taken centuries to perfect.
Consider that Ms. Lynch’s own lead investigator at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), Dean Steacy, recently testified at a hate speech hearing that “freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” . . .
It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals.
Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints. Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions’ investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted. The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own and commission investigators may attempt to entrap suspects by getting them to say or do hateful things they might not have done on their own.
No wonder the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate on hate speech complaints.
Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.
The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
They can say that it’s not their policy, but this isn’t the first time something like this has happened in the Obama campaign. And why not? Today’s identity politics makes this sort of thing inevitable.
An advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, to Barack Obama says that Obama didn’t realize what he was saying to AIPAC when he used the term”undivided” in reference to Jerusalem. According to Kurtzer, Obama had “a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones.” Kurtzer says that only after the speech did Obama realize it was a “code word” to use the phrase, “but it does not indicate any kind of naivete about foreign affairs.”
Oh, it doesn’t indicate naivete? That’s a relief.
ASIDE: Even I knew that “undivided” meant not sharing the city with a Palestinian state. Although, I suppose I shouldn’t say “even I,” since I have nearly as much experience in government as Obama does.
Michael Ledeen writes on our bizarre, but hardly unprecedented, blindness to the nature of evil world leaders:
Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?
The Economist reports that police are looking for ways to catch fugitives in cars without dangerous high-speed chases:
One way to avoid the need for chases would be to track felonious vehicles electronically, instead of running after them. StarChase, a company based in Virginia Beach, Virginia, has developed a way to do just that. A pneumatic cannon is mounted on the pursuit car. With the help of a guiding laser, it shoots a satellite-based tracking device, smothered in epoxy goo, onto the target vehicle, allowing the police to track the suspect without endangering the public. The Los Angeles Police Department plans to deploy the system this year.
Sounds good, and they mention several other interesting ideas as well. This one, however, I’m not wild about:
From the police’s point of view, however, it would be better if they could actually stop a runaway car by satellite, not just track it. General Motors plans to allow them to do just that. From September its OnStar service, which provides navigation and emergency services to drivers, will include a system called Stolen Vehicle Slowdown. Police who believe a car to be stolen can ask an OnStar operator to disable its accelerator, while leaving the steering and brakes in working order. Some people worry that hackers might take over the system. But Chet Huber, OnStar’s boss, reckons that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Yes, the hackers are a worry, but a greater worry is the government. Once the government starts controlling our vehicles, how long will they limit themselves to this narrow purpose? Not long, history tells us.
ASIDE: The Long Run, one of my favorite novels, paints a picture of an oppressive world government that uses control over vehicles as one of its tools for controlling the populace.
In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.
The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it’s fighting. Here is a transcript:
“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.
“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
“I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.
“Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.”
Video here, and his tone is indeed striking. (Via LGF.)
POSTSCRIPT: What exactly would it take for missile defense to be “proven”? Not a deployed system with 23 of 25 tests successful, obviously. I guess the only way to prove it is to shoot down an enemy missile in action. That’s the one proof we’ll never be able to get, if Obama has his way.
“The wolves have not encircled us yet,” the Denver Post opined in an article in 2006 entitled “Signs America’s Scientific Edge is Slipping”, “but there’s no denying the sounds of scratching at the door.”
This was a pithy summary of a mountain of reports from congressional committees, scientific panels and business groups. But a new report from the RAND Corporation’s National Defence Research Institute, “US Competitiveness in Science and Technology”, suggests that the panic is overblown.
The report demonstrates that America is still the world’s science and technology powerhouse. It accounts for 40% of total world spending on research and development, and produces 63% of the most frequently cited publications. It is home to 30 of the world’s leading 40 universities, and employs 70% of the world’s living Nobel laureates. America produces 38% of patented new technologies in the OECD and employs 37% of the OECD’s researchers.
There is little evidence that America is resting on its laurels, according to RAND.
It’s nice to hear such an encouraging report, but I think there’s still plenty of reason for worry, particularly when it comes to science, as opposed to technology.
Since taking office last year, Sarkozy has done much to roll back the legacy of French-U.S. relations left by Chirac, who had angered the Bush administration with his outspoken opposition to military action against Iraq.
That prompted some indignant Americans to rename french fries “freedom fries” and boycott products such as French cheese, drawing heavy publicity but only a modest following.
Quoted at Libertas, several European leaders tell the story of the Lisbon treaty. Nicolas Sarkozy says the (rejected) EU constitution couldn’t have passed anywhere if voted on by the people:
France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments.
How is the Lisbon treaty different? In substance, not at all, says the Irish foreign minister:
The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’.
Angela Merkel agrees:
The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.
So how is it different? Deliberate obscurity, the Belgian Foreign Minister explains:
The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (former French President and chairman of the EU constitutional convention) expands:
The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.
The bottom line, again from d’Estaing:
Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.
Two influential US senators got “VIP” loans from a leading subprime mortgage lender that saved them tens of thousands of dollars. . . The Democratic pols, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both received the highly favorable loans under the designation “Friend of Angelo,” a reference to embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo, Condé Nast Portfolio reported.
Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, while Conrad is chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee. The two senators refinanced properties through the VIP program in 2003 and 2004, the report said. . .
The report came one day after Democratic heavyweight Jim Johnson stepped down as chief of Barack Obama’s vice-presidential search committee after revelations he’d gotten Countrywide loans at very favorable rates because of Mozilo. . .
Dodd reportedly received two loans through the program in 2003 – $506,000 to refinance his Washington town house, and $275,042 to refinance a home in Connecticut. The more favorable terms saved him about $70,000, the report says. . . Conrad borrowed $1 million to refinance his vacation home, and saved at least $10,000.
As always, Europeans reject EU transnationalism whenever they are given the chance to vote on it. (Via Instapundit.) Having learned from the past, no other EU nation allowed a public vote on the Lisbon treaty, but Ireland’s constitution requires one.
UPDATE: The vote was 53%-47%, similar to when they rejected the Nice treaty 54%-46% in 2001. That time they made a highly controversial second attempt a year later in which the treaty passed.
Dan Boren (D-OK) declines to endorse Obama for President. (Via the Corner.) He does say he’ll vote for Obama, so this sounds like he’s doing a delicate dance for re-election.
As most of the country moves toward greater respect for self-defense, Seattle’s mayor has decided to stand athwart history:
On Monday, Nickels announced he had signed an executive order, which does not require City Council approval, directing employees to draft a plan in 30 days to create a “gun-free policy” on city property. He has not set a date for the prohibition to take effect.
“Our parks, our community centers and our public events are safer without guns,” Nickels said at a news conference with Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. “At many properties, including City Hall, you can bring a gun if you have a concealed-weapons permit. Under this order, people with concealed weapons will be asked to give up their weapon or leave.”
The city does not have the authority to arrest or fine people for bringing a gun onto city property. Only the state can enact laws governing firearms, and the mayor acknowledged the city could face a legal challenge.
The city can, however, charge violators with trespassing.
The home of the San Angelo judge who ordered the removal of 440 children from a polygamist ranch is under guard after Utah and Arizona authorities warned of “enforcers” from the sect, a newspaper reported Wednesday.
Police assigned to Judge Barbara Walther’s San Angelo house were provided dossiers and photos of 16 men and women deemed a threat, the Deseret News said.
What the article doesn’t mention is any credible evidence of an actual threat. It’s hard to tell from the article (thanks, AP!), but this sounds like little more than blog comments. It could just be bad reporting by the AP (of course), but it’s just as likely that this is a PR stunt by the authorities.
Certainly not, most Americans would say, but some are not so sure:
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. . .
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
The article is pretty good, and it reminds us all why we turned our back on Europe in 1776. It’s certainly disturbing, though, that the New York Times would lend its (rapidly declining) respectability to the idea that we should limit free speech. The book review in which the NYT lent its pages to support censorship is here (membership required).
ASIDE: Remember that the NYT recently editorialized against academic freedom.
Also apropos of my conversation yesterday, here’s a (year-old) calculation of the costs of the Los Angeles light rail system, showing that it would have been cheaper for LA to buy every one of its riders a Prius.
To give this some currency, here’s a recent Bill Steigerwald article on America’s disastrous mass transit systems, with a particular focus on Pittsburgh’s Port Authority.
If it’s not enough that Olympic visitors will be supporting China’s oppressive regime, they will also be exposing themselves to espionage:
National security agencies are warning businesses and federal officials that laptops and e-mail devices taken to the Beijing Olympics are likely to be penetrated by Chinese agents aiming to steal secrets or plant bugs to infiltrate U.S. computer networks. Chinese government and industry use electronic espionage to “easily access official and personal computers,” says one recent report by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a federally chartered panel comprising security experts from corporations and the State, Commerce and Treasury departments.
Equipment left unsupervised for just minutes in a hotel or even during a security screening can be hacked, mined and bugged, adds Larry Wortzel, who chairs the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a federal panel that monitors China-related security issues for Congress. China’s government also controls Internet service providers and wireless networks, he says, so computers and PDAs can be monitored and planted with bugs remotely, too.
“There is a high likelihood ? virtually 100% ? that if an individual is of security, political, or business interest to Chinese ? security services or high technology industries, their electronics can and will be tampered with or penetrated,” Wortzel says.
Obviously, this is something short of a scandal, but there are a few reasons why we should care. As I noted last April, Obama’s campaign has seen in the past fit to lie about his smoking, and they’ve chosen to make political his ability to quit. Also, as the ABC report points out, his continued smoking gives additional reason for concern over his refusal to release his medical records (in contrast to McCain’s open disclosure).
Of course, if it were revealed that McCain secretly smokes, I don’t doubt it would become a huge political issue.
It’s a third-hand report, but for what it’s worth: Investor’s Business Daily says that Colombian Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata says that US Treasury Secretary Paulson says that things are looking up for the Colombian free trade agreement. (Via Instapundit.)
Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate’s network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money — more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.
The financial condition of the world’s most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won’t make payroll next month.
The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit’s new hires.
The House is expected to agree — its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s — and President Bush’s signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts. . .
All told, [the Senate Restaurants] bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in just seven of their 44 years in business, according to the GAO.
In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed “noticeably subpar” food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.
House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.
It’s a perfect little tale of private versus government management:
In the past 10 years, only 20 new items have been added to the Senate menus. So rare are new entrees that last year’s arrival of daily fresh-made sushi was treated in some senatorial quarters as if a new Nobu had opened in the Capitol dining room.
Even revenue in the once-profitable catering division has been decimated, as senators have increasingly sought waivers to bring in outside food for special events with constituents and private groups.
Operation of the House cafeterias was privatized in the 1980s by a Democratic-controlled Congress. Restaurant Associates of New York, the current House contractor, would take over the Senate facilities this fall. The company wins high praise from most staffers and lawmakers, who say they are pleased with the wide variety of new items offered every few months.
Most important to Feinstein, Restaurant Associates turns a substantial profit — paying $1.2 million in commissions to the House since 2003.
This makes good sense, and it’s surprising to see a Democratic Senate agree to do it. They’re own interests were at stake, though, so maybe it’s not so surprising. Since they used a voice vote, there’s no way of knowing how individual Senators voted.
Meanwhile, talk of nationalizing health care proceeds apace.
POSTSCRIPT: It would be been even smarter if they had hired a different contractor than the House, to introduce some competition, but I guess there’s a limit to how much free enterprise Senators can tolerate just to get good meals.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged Colombian rebels on Sunday to lay down their weapons, unilaterally free dozens of hostages and put an end to a decades-long armed struggle against Colombia’s government.
Chavez sent an unexpected message to leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, saying their ongoing efforts to overthrow Colombia’s democratically-elected government were unjustified.
“The guerrilla war is history,” said Chavez, speaking during his weekly television and radio program. “At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place.”
The strong statements were uncharacteristic of Chavez, a self-described socialist who earlier this year called on world governments to remove the FARC from terrorist lists and suggested the guerrillas should be recognized as a legitimate insurgent force.
“Uncharacteristic” is an understatement. What could account for this? It’s possible that Chavez has decided on a Qadhafi-style rehabilitation of his image, but that doesn’t strike me as likely. Perhaps this has something to do with the captured FARC files?
IBD doesn’t like it. (Via LGF, which has the video.) The Democrats haven’t run anyone this hostile to defense in years.
POSTSCRIPT: Missile defense is just one part of Obama’s diatribe, but I have to ask: He calls missile defense “unproven” despite dozens of successful tests. What would it take for such a system to be proven? Can anything “prove” the system other than intercepting a real missile in flight? That’s the one proof that Obama wants to make sure we can never have!
There’s a downside to incorporating Daily-Kos-style diaries into your official campaign website, as BarackObama.com has done. When anyone can post a diary/blog, the world can hear from some of your supporters that you would prefer remained silent.
Charles Johnson finds that the Obama campaign has not been very vigilant in deleting the anti-Semitic material posted on their web site. Being a helpful sort, Johnson has started doing their work for them. Of course, he kept screen captures.
Or freedom of religion or freedom of the press either, for that matter. To wit: Stephen Boissoin, a pastor, wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, criticizing the “wicked” homosexual agenda. The letter was published. A professor at the University of Calgary filed a complaint with the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission.
The Red Deer Advocate folded before the case was heard, agreeing to institute a new letter policy stating (pdf link, paragraph 6):
The Advocate will not publish statements that indicate unlawful discrimination or intent to discriminate against a person or class of persons, or are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt because of …sexual orientation.
But the Red Deer Advocate was just a sideshow. The real case was against Rev. Boissoin. The commission’s Lori Andreachuk ruled that (paragraph 357):
Having considered the Charter [of Rights] and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the [Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism] Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom. However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the ‘guise’ of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.
Having earlier found that the needs of censorship trump freedom of speech and religion, on May 30 she issued her remedy, ordering (pdf link, paragraph 14):
That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
and:
That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.
Wow. This pastor is forever barred from any disparaging statements against homosexuals or against Lund (the professor who filed the complaint), in any medium including public speeches. In America we call that “prior restraint.” He also is required to write an apology and pay damages.
There’s more, notes Ezra Klein, but this is enough, isn’t it? (Via the Corner.)
Goodness knows what the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal will do with their hearing about Maclean’s and Mark Steyn. Probably what they did with their 1997 case against North Vancouver columnist Doug Collins: Release the steam by calling them horrible people but not quite hateful enough to be convicted, then write in some judicial refinement for future use against less well-equipped defendants who have no powerful friends and can’t afford counsel like Julian Porter and Roger McConchie.
That seems likely to me. Ruling for the complainants here would be a Pyrrhic victory for the censors. As Andrew Coyne, a blogger for Maclean’s, wrote:
Actually I am rooting for [the complainants], in a strange sort of way. Don’t tell my employers, but I’m sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win—that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is—then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how “reasonable” it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved.
Philadelphia’s sheriff refuses to carry out a court-ordered foreclosure auction:
Sheriff John Green has spent 37 years in law enforcement. But these days he’s best known around town for the law he won’t enforce.
With the economy soft and thousands of Philadelphians delinquent on their mortgages, Sheriff Green this spring refused to hold a court-ordered foreclosure auction. His move raised eyebrows on the bench and dropped jaws among lenders and their attorneys, who accuse him of shirking his duty to enforce legal contracts.
Sheriff Green is unconcerned about the law:
Mr. Green and Judge Jones are casual golfing buddies. Still, Judge Jones warned the sheriff at a meeting soon after the announcement that a blanket moratorium on the sales was “unwise and more-likely-than-not illegal.”
Mr. Green says he never considered the legality of his decision to halt foreclosure sales. His aides say he is being cagey and that he saw himself as a catalyst to get the court to take action.
“It’s not the sheriff’s job to sell houses,” says Deputy Sheriff’s Officer Paris Washington, a veteran of the department and its head of training. “It’s the sheriff’s job to serve the people who elected him. Because he was elected by the people, he has to listen to the people. Aren’t the people the law?”
Philadelphia is the city that gave us the rule of law; now they’re turning their back on it.
The latest messianic account of the one man who can heal our souls, comes from the San Francisco Chronicle, in a piece entitled “Is Obama an enlightened being?” Here’s the gist:
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
The US is giving up on the worse-than-useless UN “Human Rights” Council, which is controlled by the world’s worst human rights offenders:
The United States has quietly informed Western allies of its intention to walk away from the U.N. Human Rights Council, diplomatic sources said on Friday.
The U.S. delegation has observer status, with the right to speak, in the 47-member state forum, which meets in Geneva, and has never stood for election to the Council since it was set up two years ago.
Diplomatic sources and rights activists said that U.S. officials had informed the European Union on Friday morning of its intention to halt its involvement in the Council. . .
[The Council] is seen by critics as having fallen under control of a bloc of Islamic and African countries, which have a majority when backed by their frequent allies Russia, China and Cuba.
Seattle may ban beach bonfires because they cause global warming. (Via the Corner.)
This is so stupid. A few bonfires on Alki beach aren’t going to make a whit of difference to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Fireplaces alone dwarf those few bonfires and no one would suggest that fireplaces are a significant CO2 contributor. This sort of thing is just to send a message and make themselves feel good, at the expense of everyone’s fun. It won’t even work, because people will just move their bonfires elsewhere, or hold them illegally.
Also, shouldn’t this sort of thing be done by an elected body, if it’s done at all?
Obama likes to claim that he doesn’t take money from lobbyists, which isn’t remotely true, except in the narrowest possible sense. Mark Hemingway lists the many ways in which Obama is happy to accept money and other assistance from lobbyists.
After Mark Hemingway’s column on the dismal state of free speech in Canada, I feel comfortable making the bald statement above. Of course, part of the reason I feel comfortable saying that is I don’t live in Canada.
In 1990, when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that criminalization of certain speech did not violate the freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights, it was anti-Semites at issue. Today, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission handles complaints regarding all manner of non-PC speech. And, throughout its 31 years of existence, it has never once found a defendant innocent.
MSNBC reports. Translation: Obama will cry that his patriotism is being attacked whenever Republicans attack his demonstrably poor judgement on national security.
Posted by K. Crary 
Internet Scofflaw 
You must be logged in to post a comment.