… and other places from The Wire
James Madison Responds to Stengal
A while back I wrote this.
Someone spared me some argument, like James Madison:
Foster Friess | Time Magazine Says Constitution Allows for Unlimited Government.
Now. As I Have Said Repeatedly
The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded
Probably four iterations of this blog ago, this was pretty much why i stated that I’m not a Republican. The party is just so caught up in leftish-like cult thinking when it comes to morality and government’s role in dictating what should really be left to individuals to figure out on their own.
Could Have Fooled The General Public
Police Say Wearing Video Cameras Offers Protection – ABC News.
Maybe this is a good thing, but given the notable lack of love for the camera among cops and public officials, I wouldn’t hold this instance as a trend.
Critical Thinking No Longer Component of NEA Education Plan
How else can you explain a teacher’s union endorsing a candidate before the competition has materialized.
NEA endorses Obamas re-election bid – UPI.com … h/t Cafe Hayek.
Put your fingers in your ears and scream “stranger danger” until the election is over.
The Blog I Hate To Love
I don’t usually do posts like this but I find that my blog consumption falls into three categories:
- Blogs I generally tend to identify with and read voraciously.
- Blogs I tend to vehemently disagree with that I will chance upon on occasion.
- One blog in particular that I hate to love
Blogs of type 1 or 2 generally require little thought, provide adequate room for snark, and, on occasion provide some great info or insights.
The Blog, of type 3, generally requires more in-depth attention, a good reading three-times over, and a lot of searching for supplementary material mentioned in the posts. Just about the time I think I disagree, I have to re-read what is written only to realize that it make sense and I’m in agreement. Then I go back and read my own writing and cringe. It also makes me feel… incoherent…
Anyway, check out :
LIBÉRALE ET LIBERTAIRE
Time Magazine: All that’s fit for garbage cans
Some might be repulsed if he were to find the mailman just left a huge pile of shit in your mailbox. But I like to think the mailman is ignorant for the better in such cases.
Time magazine began showing up in my mailbox, uninvited and unpaid for about a month ago. Today, I found a nice lump of shit, in my mailbox, with the word “Time” at the top followed by an image of the Constitution, shreded, with the headline “Does It Still Matter?” on the cover.
Imagine my horror when I find the article du jour is a poorly researched, wretchedly long diatribe lacking both substance or merit. Rather than take the honest approach, it is generally a personal interpretation of what the document, and selective historical events, mean to the author. Rather than approach the topic from a journalistic perspective, it meanders through many of the greatest factually-challenged arguments about the Constitution up to and including how it is/should be interpreted.
Here’s a snippet:
Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College.
Read more: Time
We’ll skip over the assertion that the Constitution gave us the idea that a black person was 3/5ths of a human being – it doesn’t (the 3/5ths part comes from how votes are apportioned – Non slave holders didn’t want slave holders having more power simply because they owned slaves), or that women were not allowed to vote (oddly, wouldn’t that make them 0/5ths of a person? – but he can’t just say that can he!).
The completely inane part that just blows my mind is the part about South Dakota having the same number of Senators as California.
Here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution itself:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
I don’t understand why Stengal can’t understand why this is NOT crazy. But you should have at least a rudimentary understanding of why the Senate was created in the manner it was: It gave each STATE equal representation in the Federal government. How do we know this? Senators were originally nominated by STATE legislatures – not the people.
RTFC
The House represents the people, the Senate represented the states. It is also a key piece of the checks and balances that Stengal goes on to mention several times throughout the article. By placing strict limits on the number of senators, it creates a body where states are evenly represented. How can you believe it insanity that the Senate have equal representation, when it is the House that is to represent the people en-masse.
The insane part is where the Senate elections were given to the people and not the states – effectively trimming a part of the checks and balances that were put in place to check the power of an unrestrained majority.
How can the former CEO of the National Constitution Center not know this or spout that it is somehow “crazy” that the Senate is a check against mob rule?!
But the hits keep on coming throughout the piece. I can barely even stomach it when Stengal says things like:
If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power.
RTFC – the entire document is a limit on the extent of the Federal Government. They’re called enumerated powers for a precise reason: It is the extent of the Federal government’s power. The 10th Amendment is the final nail in the coffin of Stengal’s ignorant argument. All those powers the Federal government claims that don’t exist in the Constitution: they’re ours (the states and the people).
When Protectionism and Nature Collide
What do you get when you mix leftist economic theory and the insatiable desire of leftists to “help” people? Reality, with the help of mother nature:
The Associated Press: Climate, government controls hit Bolivias farmers.
It Will Snow In Hell Before The Wire: Season 6
David Simon Agrees to Make Sixth Season of ‘The Wire’ If U.S. Agrees to End War on Drugs | /Film.
I think the slashFilm title says just about all it needs to say about the liklihood of The Wire: Season 6.
What I find most interesting is that our Attorney General Eric Holder is a fan. While Holder doesn’t write the laws he is enforcing, it is ironic that he represents one aspect of the many things the HBO series was critical of.
If you have not already watched the series, start with Season 1 and go all the way through Season 6. I would not suggest starting in on a different season – you will miss a lot of connections and back-story into the police and gangs.
(spoiler alert)I’d be interested to see what Simon would do with a 6th season, but my favorite characters (Bodie and Omar) are both pushing daisies. (/spoiler alert)
Apocalypse Now Tomorrow
Kyle Smith’s column, Profits of doom – NYPOST.com, is a bit refreshing. I thought New Yorkers long ago abandoned common sense.
Smith gets it right and points out one of the more frustrating things that happens when we mix science with fantasy – lofty doomspeak of very little substance.
This doomspeak always reminds me of a friend who thinks in analogous terms: We’re on the brink of “something” huge and we’re all going to be wiped off the face the the earth. She can’t ever manage to put her finger on what the catalyst is, but it seems to run the gamut of whatever doomsday scenario is popular.
In our discussions, we have been through the environmental aspects which always begets some new-agey spiritualism (mother nature is pissed), to how horrible humanity is. I’m often needling her to provide details or examples which are often scant and short of any historical perspective.
But when the topic inevitably turns to oil running out, deforestation, or any other resources on the verge of extinction, I like to point out the argument of prices. Funny little things that often get in the way. People like to avoid paying them if at all and if the prices rise, they often will find other ways to go about a specific task.
I’ve pointed my friend to Russ Robert’s book, “The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance” in which his main protagonist, Sam, offers a salient point to his economics class:
Years before the last drop of oil is found and extracted, we’ll walk away from oil as an energy source. It will be too hard to find new reserves. Or too expensive to extract the reserves we know about. Long before we run out of oil, we’ll switch to cheaper alternatives.