Constant Conservative

In these days of nearly instant communication, where everyone (and I include myself at times) is trying to put together news/commentary with the briefest examination of the source material it is critical that we remain careful readers. Careful reading is even more critical when it comes to matters of the law.

This is pointed out very nicely by the David Kopel by way of Reason w/regards to a recent ruling of the US Supreme Court:

Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker’s 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy’s article reviews Tucker’s lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights….

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell’s article, and therefore Justice Stevens’ opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker’s description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker’s explanation of Article I’s grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker’s description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker’s 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service.

It is not unheard of for a justice (or you or me, for that matter) to make up his/her mind and then seek out sources which would support the foregone conclusion. This is, however, a remarkably dangerous approach to law. If one more justice had joined with Steven’s dissent, Heller vs DC might well be an enduring black mark on the history of American jurisprudence.

My health, as far as I know, is quite good for someone of my advanced age. I trust that my health (and that of my dependent family members) will remain good for the indefinite future. I know, however, that such conditions cannot continue indefinitely, thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With that in mind, I must concur with the sentiment expressed in the following piece by Brian Scwartz in the Rock Mountain News:

At the recent Colorado Health Care Summit, Barack Obama’s Cabinet pick Tom Daschle said his boss’s “commitment to changing the health-care system remains strong and focused.” But in the wrong direction.

Obama has stated that “capitalism is great for consumers” when they have “many alternatives,” when customers, “not government bureaucrats … are the judges of what best serves their needs.” Obama’s health insurance proposals fail these standards and would fail patients.

Obama would further empower government bureaucrats to judge what insurance is best for you. By increasing private premium costs, new controls would drive patients to Obama’s proposed “new public plan.”

[...]

Obama would subject all insurance to new national mandates, letting government bureaucrats decide what insurance is good for you. The result? Look at Massachusetts, where the average family plan costs almost $17,000, compared to $5,400 in Colorado and $3,000 in Wisconsin, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans. The Boston Globe reports that “mandates are helping to drive up costs, making coverage unaffordable.” Residents with policies that don’t meet “minimum standards set by state regulators could face a hefty tax penalty.”

Seventeen thousand dollars for the average family health insurance plan for those living in Massachusetts. That’s the sort of change in which I simply cannot believe. How about you?

On the subject of global warming as caused by human beings, much has been written. I’ve no doubt that much more remains to be written. However, one of the best pieces I’ve read in some time may be found at PowerLine. An couple excerpts follow:

[Physicist and mathematician Frank Tipler says, in part] I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We’ve seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September’s temperatures for Russia rather than October’s. I’m not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.

[...]

This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a university job…

Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can’t Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.

Such a simple statement, but so spot on: “We had better science and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science.”

I do not agree within anyone on everything (in fact, I don’t even entirely agree with the me from 5 or 10 years ago) but I find more to like with regards to Milton Friedman the more I read. What chance, however, do you think that such a proposal would have today? Hold on, I think I can see a snowball . . . . Sorry, I believe it just melted. Must be global warming.

For the recently closed weather poll, which asked “What will the next 10 years bring, in terms of weather?” (which not many of you participated in between opening presents and stuffing yourselves on turkey) we have the following results:

• 12.5% said “Global warming”
• 0.0% said “Global cooling”
• 87.5% said “Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter”
• 0.0% said “Forget the next 10 years. I’d just like to be warm again.”

Apparently, humor does not mix well with cranberry sauce and sweet gherkins. Thank you.

New poll in the sidebar. Enjoy.

Tom Daschle’s loss to John Thune is once again providing context for an upcoming race.

The deadline for the cutover to an all digital TV network here in the US (and South Dakota) is fast approaching. Apparently, it is approaching quickly enough that some folks are calling for the brakes to be applied:

Senator John Thune says Congress has been talking with the Federal Communications Commission about possibly extending the February 17 deadline for switching from analog to digital television.

[...]

He says he thinks many South Dakotans will be affected.

According to estimates, 33.6 million people in the United States – or about 12 percent of the population – will be affected by the switch.

Of course, I have a clear personal bias with regards the switchover. It simply does not affect me one way or the other (and I would suppose that to be the case for many people who are either receiving cable or satellite feeds or just do not have a TV to begin with).

Further, I am at a loss to understand why you and I are subsidizing the switchover by giving out coupons for the converter boxes. I realize that many people think that TV is a necessity, but can we truly the support the argument that it is as essential as food, clothing and shelter? It would simply seem that there are better (read: constitutionally supportable) thing on which our government could spend our money–and our senator could spend his time.

A long long time ago, when many of us were not yet alive (OK, it was just 1932) the royal head of Great Britain gave the first of what became the annual Christmas messages. This year’s address was given by the Queen. As is usually the case, the message includes a number of nice religious and Chrismassy things and does not tend to rely heavily on substance or policy. It is, in short, a bit of “feel good” from days gone by. Nonetheless, it is a tradition which I will gladly suffer.

While I’m on the topic of suffering, may we look at the counter-message which was broadcast by Channel 4 from that classical Scrooge of the Middle East: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He said, among other things:

Upon the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, Son of Mary, the Word of God, the Messenger of mercy, I would like to congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain.

The Almighty created the universe for human beings and human beings for Himself.

He created every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection. He called on man to make every effort to live a good life in this world and to work to achieve his everlasting life.

Some are saying that this sounds pretty good, especially coming as it does from someone who at other times has spoken of wiping the homeland of Jesus, Son of Mary, off the map. And, after all, shouldn’t we be willing to listen to anyone who has  a message of hope and peace at this time of year?

From  a Christian perspective, however, there is still much wrong with this speech.

Let’s start with the “Son of Mary” piece. Mahmoud does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God (which makes this whole Christmas celebration thing more than a little suspect). Further, why would he congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) if one of those religions (Judaism) believes that if there was a Jesus, that he was at best a blasphemer because he claimed to be very God?

Then there is this whole issue of the “ability to reach the heights of perfection” and “work[ing] to achieve his everlasting life.” No, Mahmoud, he did not create us with the ability to reach perfection without Christ. Nor are we capable of working to achieve everlasting life (that’s why it is called “faith” to begin with).

There is much more, both to the message (which you can read at the linked location) as well as my thoughts on the same. However, I believe you understand where I’m going with all this.

For a follower of Mohamed to claim common faith with a follower of Christ is at best ignorance, but more probably dissimulation with intent to confuse and deceive those whose understanding of Christmas is about as shallow as their truly unselfish giving.

You’ve no doubt heard the meaning of “merry” in the well-known Christmas carol “God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen” but it bears repeating here. Merry, at the time the carol was written by an unknown author, had the meaning of “strong” or “mighty.” Hence, the stories of Robin Hood and his Merry Men. Given this context, the title of the carol means something like “God keep you in strength/might.”

So it is this Chrismas, I would wish that each of you has a very merry day, in the best old-fashioned sense of the word. If there should happen to be a new .22 (or .410, or 9mm or just about anything else that goes “bang”) under the Christmas tree, then all the better.

Paul at PowerLine has a very good piece on the mentality which drives labor union leadership (which I touched on a bit with my post on Mr. Stern of the SEIU). Here’s an excerpt of the PowerLine piece, which is worth reading in its entirety:

In essence, Stern argues that a union election isn’t like the elections we have in the U.S. in which we choose, for example, the members of Congress. According to Stern, a union election is the equivalent of an election over whether we should have a Congress.

The question-begging nature of Stern’s argument is evident. Stern simply assumes that the desirability of having a particular union, no matter how thuggish or corrupt, represent a particular set of employees is as self-evident as the desirability of having Congress represent the people of the United States; therefore the issue need not be put to a proper vote. Under this absurd reasoning, it’s not clear why unions should even have to obtain authorization cards, and there’s little doubt that Stern would like them to be exempt from even this requirement.

Here in the US, unlike countries which have parliamentary systems with “shadow governments,” we do our best (well, some of us anyway) to stay away from parallel power structures. It would appear to me that Mr. Stern and others in authority within the SEIU, UAW, ETC would like to create/maintain parallel structures with existing US legal authorities. Of course, in such cases, the best we could hope for would be an oligarchy of the labor leadership, but more probably we would have a series of dictators.

I do not believe I am overstating the case here. Labor unions, broadly speaking, are well past trying to help the “little man” and well on their way towards that Western European goal of wielding quasi-governmental powers. There are a number of reasons  many of us left Europe, but this is one reason I have no desire that we become Far-Western Europe.

The ill-named “Employee Free Choice Act,” about which I’ve written previously, looks as though it will be coming soon to a federal legislator near you. South Dakota’s delegation is split rather evenly on the issue (an interesting thing in itself, considering we have 3 members). By that I mean we have one for it, one against it and one who is still making up her mind:

Johnson was a co-sponsor of the bill, spokeswoman Megan Smith said, making it “pretty clear” where he stands on the issue.

Sen. John Thune opposes the measure. “The right of the secret ballot is a time-honored principle in American elections,” he said. “It’s one we ought to preserve.”

[...]

Russ Levsen, a spokesman for Herseth Sandlin, said South Dakota’s lone representative in the House continues to talk with stakeholders.

“It’s possible improvements can be made to the bill,” he said by e-mail, “but also important to bear in mind that the Employee Free Choice Act passed the House with bipartisan support because it’s a fairly straightforward idea: Workers should get a right to vote whether or not to organize a union free from pressure or fear of retribution from their employer, and that vote should be transparent and fair.”

If and when it returns, it’s likely to pass easily in the House. The Senate is a different story.

Thune thinks there are three or four Democrats that could help Republicans stall the measure again.”This time around, they are going to try, I think, to run it early,” he said. “It will be one of the first things they do as a payback to the unions.”

Go read the whole article and then get ready to email, mail or call your congresspeople. This bill is nothing more than an attempt by the labor unions to prolong their time in power. If we as a nation are truly interested in seeing a better future for all of our industries, across the board, then we would do well to ensure that (despite backing from the One) this bill fails quickly and spectacularly.

In short, let’s climb out of this crevasse before it widens.

We finally made it (and it seems it was largely in the old fashioned way, too). Full article may be found here. Of course, we’ll find out with greater accuracy after the 2010 census, but why wait to celebrate?

We are being constantly reminded to give, particularly during this time of year. Giving is a much-touted virtue, though a much-twisted one as well. Various advertisements let me know that it is just fine if I wish to give to myself, instead of others–after all, I deserve ________.

Our government is a regular giver of gifts large and small to other countries, states, cities, citizens, companies, etc. At various times, we have been told that we, as a country are more giving than just about any other country in the world. Yet, there is a problem with this giving: much of what has been given does not exist. Last year’s “stimulus” checks? They were written from debt, not wealth. That $1800 which I received will cost me and my children many times that before it is repaid.

Have you ever heard, perhaps in the context of an emotional religious service, that you need to give sacrificially–to give “until it hurts”? I’m sure that most of us have. And, while there is nothing wrong (and indeed much right) with an individual or a family depriving itself of some things in order to help others with greater need, there is a principle in play here that is often given short shrift, or ignored entirely. The principle is simply this: one cannot give that which one does not have. If one does, it either requires debt or theft–which, while they differ in degree, still result in long-term deleterious affects.

While we are all being encouraged to spend this Christmas season, thereby saving the retail establishments from ruinous declines, very few are being encouraged to save. There is a reason that wealthier people may give great sums (outside of the tax benefits conferred by our convoluted tax code, but that is another topic). They have the money in the first place. That is, they have spent less than they earned.

The first principle of giving is that one must have the wherewithal to give. This means that before I can give, I must wisely earn, budget and save. If I have fallen through the ice , I am hardly in a position to help another person  who has also fallen through the ice, am I?

I realize that we are a few days from New Year’s and its attendant resolutions. Nonetheless, I would challenge you to give of what you have, do not go into debt to do so, and encourage others you may know to place themselves upon as stable a financial basis as they can. The coming months and years will be difficult for many financially. Let us learn from recent events and ensure that our charity (in all senses of the word) is entirely righteous.