Noted by Vox:
Assemblywoman Francis Allen is facing battery charges for allegedly stabbing her new husband with a steak knife.
The two-term Republican was arrested May 17th after Paul Maineri checked himself into Summerlin hospital claiming Allen attacked him during an argument in the couple's home.
According to the arrest report, Maineri said Allen accused him of embarrassing her in front of friends.
She represents an area near Las Vegas.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
De-Mythologizing Greenspan
Aside from "Easy Al"'s propensity to pump gazillions of USD's into markets (thus creating three distinct and disastrous "bubbles"), and re-arranging inflation calculations to reflect imaginary 'convenience' numbers (thus on paper lying about actual costs)--there's even MORE to the story, from BigPic:
It's worth noting that the shift in focus from total inflation to core inflation was a Greenspan era "innovation."
A quick excerpt [from a Wharton/Philly Fed study]:
"We find that core inflation, which omits food and energy prices, is less volatile than total inflation, but the reduced volatility comes from omitting the energy components. Several components of the CPI exhibit higher volatility than food prices. And an index that omits food and energy prices demonstrates slightly more volatility than a measure that omits only the energy components and retains the food components...
Perhaps most important, we find that including PCE inflation when forecasting CPI inflation and including CPI inflation when forecasting PCE inflation significantly improves the accuracy of the forecasting model for horizons up to one year. This suggests that each measure of inflation provides independent information that can be exploited to yield statistically significantly more accurate forecasts."
Al's retirement came far too late...
It's worth noting that the shift in focus from total inflation to core inflation was a Greenspan era "innovation."
A quick excerpt [from a Wharton/Philly Fed study]:
"We find that core inflation, which omits food and energy prices, is less volatile than total inflation, but the reduced volatility comes from omitting the energy components. Several components of the CPI exhibit higher volatility than food prices. And an index that omits food and energy prices demonstrates slightly more volatility than a measure that omits only the energy components and retains the food components...
Perhaps most important, we find that including PCE inflation when forecasting CPI inflation and including CPI inflation when forecasting PCE inflation significantly improves the accuracy of the forecasting model for horizons up to one year. This suggests that each measure of inflation provides independent information that can be exploited to yield statistically significantly more accurate forecasts."
Al's retirement came far too late...
FHA Bailout Required!! CongressCritter Foreclosed
Just in case you wondered why Our Congress "thinks" that the Feds (FHA, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae) should step in and guarantee all sorts of home mortgages, here's a clue:
The story of the foreclosure of Long Beach Democrat Laura Richardson’s Sacramento home is a tale of a real estate market gone sour. It is also an illustration of how far many candidates will go to seek elected office, even if it means quite literally mortgaging their own financial future.
While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees
Yah.
The Congresscritter denies that the home is in foreclosure.
More here.
The story of the foreclosure of Long Beach Democrat Laura Richardson’s Sacramento home is a tale of a real estate market gone sour. It is also an illustration of how far many candidates will go to seek elected office, even if it means quite literally mortgaging their own financial future.
While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees
Yah.
The Congresscritter denies that the home is in foreclosure.
More here.
GWB: Mousing Out, Again
It's not news that GWBush likes to spend other people's money--and a LOT of it.
So even when he says he doesn't like spending, he's ....spineless?
Quin Hillyer:
...NRO wisely noted several days ago that Bush should take his time before issuing the veto -- he is allowed ten days -- in order to give his allies time to make the case to the public about why his veto ought to be sustained. Bush could have waited until the very end of next week, and vetoed the bill just as Congress was going out of session, giving Congress no time to override his veto before its Memorial Day recess. That way, Bush and conservatives could have had ten days to make their case about why the bill is so gawdawful, and get the public sufficiently upset about the bill that the congressmen would hear about it in no uncertain terms during town meetings. THEN Bush would have had a chance to actually defeat an attempted override vote.
But no. Georgie hit the red-button almost immediately.
...Remember that Bob Novak reported earlier this week the same thing I heard independently, that the president offered only a tepid explanation for his coming veto when he met with GOP House members last week, and that he immediately said he understood that good people like Bob Goodlatte put a lot of work into the bill and he understands if they pass it despite his wishes. And he offered the congressmen no specific reasons, or very very few, why the bill was so bad. That, combined with this hasty veto, tells me the president wants credit for finally taking a real stand against spending, while not really wanting his stand to, well... to stand.
Frustrating is one word to describe this. And it's the only polite word I can find.
So even when he says he doesn't like spending, he's ....spineless?
Quin Hillyer:
...NRO wisely noted several days ago that Bush should take his time before issuing the veto -- he is allowed ten days -- in order to give his allies time to make the case to the public about why his veto ought to be sustained. Bush could have waited until the very end of next week, and vetoed the bill just as Congress was going out of session, giving Congress no time to override his veto before its Memorial Day recess. That way, Bush and conservatives could have had ten days to make their case about why the bill is so gawdawful, and get the public sufficiently upset about the bill that the congressmen would hear about it in no uncertain terms during town meetings. THEN Bush would have had a chance to actually defeat an attempted override vote.
But no. Georgie hit the red-button almost immediately.
...Remember that Bob Novak reported earlier this week the same thing I heard independently, that the president offered only a tepid explanation for his coming veto when he met with GOP House members last week, and that he immediately said he understood that good people like Bob Goodlatte put a lot of work into the bill and he understands if they pass it despite his wishes. And he offered the congressmen no specific reasons, or very very few, why the bill was so bad. That, combined with this hasty veto, tells me the president wants credit for finally taking a real stand against spending, while not really wanting his stand to, well... to stand.
Frustrating is one word to describe this. And it's the only polite word I can find.
State DOJ Picture Becoming Clearer, Maybe
The somewhat foggy and confusing picture of the State's Department of Justice situation is now coming into focus, if one reads between the lines of today's JSOnline story.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen demoted the state fire marshal Wednesday, saying she had threatened top Department of Justice officials and obstructed an investigation into e-mails she wrote
He also said Carolyn S. Kelly had slowed the release of public records related to the Crandon shooting by an off-duty Forest County sheriff's deputy. For the past 14 years, Kelly headed the unit that investigates arsons and high-profile homicides.
...
Kelly was suspended with pay in January after her boss, James Warren, abruptly retired after Van Hollen said he planned to move him into another job.
There's a lot of silly stuff having to do with a "hit" and "taking out..." I think that's foofoodust which Kelly and her attorney are pumping into the story to make VanHollen look like an idiot.
HERE'S the payoff:
In her e-mails:
• Kelly told agents at least twice to avoid dealing directly with Van Hollen's aides. "I do not want anyone dealing with them on these issues, particularly the situation up north," she wrote, adding that she viewed this as standard protocol.
• Kelly said she was sick in early November and hoped her germs "spread like wildfire" in meetings with Van Hollen's aides.
• She referred to Van Hollen's aides as weasels and sent a picture of a weasel to Warren.
What we see is a classic 'I'm tenured, I've been here 25 years, I'm not going to let some newly-elected twit run this department.....' sort of thing which happens all the time, in private industry and in Gummint bureaucracies.
Usually the entrenched ones survive, in most cases due to inertia and the unwillingness of a change-agent to actually follow through.
Doesn't look like the case here.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen demoted the state fire marshal Wednesday, saying she had threatened top Department of Justice officials and obstructed an investigation into e-mails she wrote
He also said Carolyn S. Kelly had slowed the release of public records related to the Crandon shooting by an off-duty Forest County sheriff's deputy. For the past 14 years, Kelly headed the unit that investigates arsons and high-profile homicides.
...
Kelly was suspended with pay in January after her boss, James Warren, abruptly retired after Van Hollen said he planned to move him into another job.
There's a lot of silly stuff having to do with a "hit" and "taking out..." I think that's foofoodust which Kelly and her attorney are pumping into the story to make VanHollen look like an idiot.
HERE'S the payoff:
In her e-mails:
• Kelly told agents at least twice to avoid dealing directly with Van Hollen's aides. "I do not want anyone dealing with them on these issues, particularly the situation up north," she wrote, adding that she viewed this as standard protocol.
• Kelly said she was sick in early November and hoped her germs "spread like wildfire" in meetings with Van Hollen's aides.
• She referred to Van Hollen's aides as weasels and sent a picture of a weasel to Warren.
What we see is a classic 'I'm tenured, I've been here 25 years, I'm not going to let some newly-elected twit run this department.....' sort of thing which happens all the time, in private industry and in Gummint bureaucracies.
Usually the entrenched ones survive, in most cases due to inertia and the unwillingness of a change-agent to actually follow through.
Doesn't look like the case here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" --Not Long for the World
It's just a matter of time now.
The Ninth Circuit ruled this morning that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny (PDF). The ruling was 2-1 (but the 1 concurred in part and dissented only because the majority did not go far enough). This is kind of a big deal.
Usually, the courts easily dismiss challenges to DADT on the theory that the policy doesn't implicate any fundamental rights and so is subject only to rational basis review. That is, so long as the government can provide a rational reason (even if it is the most spurious cover for its true aim), the law will be upheld.
But now the Ninth, relying on Lawrence v. Texas (BTW, for a good time ask Drew how much he loves Lawrence) has found that DADT burdens a "fundamental" constitutional right to engage in private, consensual sexual relations with another adult. Because it burdens a fundamental right, the Ninth says it must pass more exacting scrutiny than rational basis review. Some judicial contortions ensue and though the court doesn't extend strict scrutiny (the heighest level of scrutiny) to homosexuals, it settles on "heightened review."
DADT was in place before Lawrence, of course, but that's irrelevant.
Looks like this bomb will drop about 6 years from now, more or less. Should be interesting how the C-in-C handles it, no?
HT: Ace
The Ninth Circuit ruled this morning that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny (PDF). The ruling was 2-1 (but the 1 concurred in part and dissented only because the majority did not go far enough). This is kind of a big deal.
Usually, the courts easily dismiss challenges to DADT on the theory that the policy doesn't implicate any fundamental rights and so is subject only to rational basis review. That is, so long as the government can provide a rational reason (even if it is the most spurious cover for its true aim), the law will be upheld.
But now the Ninth, relying on Lawrence v. Texas (BTW, for a good time ask Drew how much he loves Lawrence) has found that DADT burdens a "fundamental" constitutional right to engage in private, consensual sexual relations with another adult. Because it burdens a fundamental right, the Ninth says it must pass more exacting scrutiny than rational basis review. Some judicial contortions ensue and though the court doesn't extend strict scrutiny (the heighest level of scrutiny) to homosexuals, it settles on "heightened review."
DADT was in place before Lawrence, of course, but that's irrelevant.
Looks like this bomb will drop about 6 years from now, more or less. Should be interesting how the C-in-C handles it, no?
HT: Ace
Fairytales Can Come True...
Only 25 years ago, you'd have been given a straitjacket for speculating as follows.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming – to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. ...
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine Scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed – and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. ... On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. ...
Oh, there's plenty of work for the lawyers there.
HT: the Hat
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming – to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. ...
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine Scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed – and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. ... On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. ...
Oh, there's plenty of work for the lawyers there.
HT: the Hat
Anent "Freedom"
Another take on "freedom" and art in today's society, mentioning 'obligations,' which of course, are the flip-side of "rights," and which in fact are restraints to the Self.
Culture cannot exist without orthodoxies, because freedom cannot give itself the obligations necessary for its own perfection: the ordered liberty of assent to that which is greater. --RR Reno, First Things
Which follows up nicely on a political-science note from yesterday. Excerpt:
...a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part. Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception as citizenship as suffrage...
Which also comports with Rick Esenberg's discussion of gay 'marriage': (excerpt)
I distrust rapid changes in marriage brought about by the application of abstractions about equality and individual autonomy.
By no coincidence, it also happens to be tangentially similar to thoughts on art and beauty found here: (Excerpt)
Alasdair McIntyre, in his seminal book After Virtue, described this mode of thinking as emotivism, that is, the collapsing of all moral or qualitative judgments into mere expressions of personal preference. And this kind of thinking is the besetting sin of the post-modern West.
May even be thematic!
Culture cannot exist without orthodoxies, because freedom cannot give itself the obligations necessary for its own perfection: the ordered liberty of assent to that which is greater. --RR Reno, First Things
Which follows up nicely on a political-science note from yesterday. Excerpt:
...a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part. Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception as citizenship as suffrage...
Which also comports with Rick Esenberg's discussion of gay 'marriage': (excerpt)
I distrust rapid changes in marriage brought about by the application of abstractions about equality and individual autonomy.
By no coincidence, it also happens to be tangentially similar to thoughts on art and beauty found here: (Excerpt)
Alasdair McIntyre, in his seminal book After Virtue, described this mode of thinking as emotivism, that is, the collapsing of all moral or qualitative judgments into mere expressions of personal preference. And this kind of thinking is the besetting sin of the post-modern West.
May even be thematic!
Creative Writing: Careful What You Write!
Reported by the Wall Street Journal, relayed by Vox:
When Steven Barber turned in a short story this semester for his creative-writing class at the University of Virginia's College at Wise, his instructor was alarmed. The 23-year-old student had produced an imagined account of someone on the edge of a violent breakdown, touching on suicide and murder.
"It had to be acted on immediately," says Christopher Scalia, the instructor. He alerted administrators, who reacted swiftly, searching Mr. Barber's dorm room and car. Upon discovering three guns, they had him committed to a psychiatric institution for a weekend. Then they expelled him.
I wonder if they graded the assignment?
When Steven Barber turned in a short story this semester for his creative-writing class at the University of Virginia's College at Wise, his instructor was alarmed. The 23-year-old student had produced an imagined account of someone on the edge of a violent breakdown, touching on suicide and murder.
"It had to be acted on immediately," says Christopher Scalia, the instructor. He alerted administrators, who reacted swiftly, searching Mr. Barber's dorm room and car. Upon discovering three guns, they had him committed to a psychiatric institution for a weekend. Then they expelled him.
I wonder if they graded the assignment?
Oregon: Not an Obama Blowout
Well, yah, Obama won.
But according to CNN, updated at 0650 this morning, it's only 58-to-42.
Hmmmmmnnn.
But according to CNN, updated at 0650 this morning, it's only 58-to-42.
Hmmmmmnnn.
More Lawsuits!!
Gotta love the Endangered Species Act.
Commenting on the polar-bear ruling, Arms (who has spent time in the Government) is not very optimistic about whether common sense will prevail.
...The Secretary's speech sounds like he's trying to evade the inevitable, which is that any action even arguably affecting global warming will require extensive review by Fish and Wildlife Service. Here are the rules in a nutshell:
Any federal action that has any possibility of affecting a species requires a may affect/will not affect initial finding. Note the "may" versus the "will not." Any action that simply "may" affect a species require further analysis.
That takes the form of a biological opinion, done by FWS staff. A biologist/botanist, or a team of them, draws up a detailed study of the species and the effect the action will have on it. The conclusion must find whether the action will jeopardize the species with extiction (note that the term is jeopardize, not a certainty it will do so) or not. They must also map out reasonable alternatives to the action that would have less risk, and lay out modifications to the action that will reduce its impact. This generally requires a lot of study and writing: the biologists must get up to speed on the technical aspects of the action, which lay outside their training. If a jeopardy finding is made, the action is generally blocked. And in any event, the result is subject to challenge by lawsuit. And courts love to grant preliminary injunctions to stop it, since if the result is wrong it can lead to extinction.
Now, put into that mix a formal finding that global warming menaces a listed species. Any federal agency conduct that "may" affect global warming is going to require a biological opinion at the very least, and become a subject of a lawsuit. Oil imports, ethanol, building refineries, mileage ratings of autos, land with growing plants, etc.. The only real exemptions would be for legislation (which is not agency action) and where an agency has absolutely no discretion (down to inability to impose terms and conditions).
And that's just sec. 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
There's also the ambiguous 7(a)(1) which requires agencies to use their powers to "conserve" (i.e., affirmatively try to bring back from endangerment) listed species, and sec. 10 which makes it illegal for anyone (not just a federal agency) to "take" a listed species. I forget now what the regulations say about how much habitat modification is required in order to "take" (kill) members of a species.
Essentially, welcome to years of global warming litigation! I doubt Interior has a tenth of the biologists it's going to need to do the biological opinions, or tenth of the attorneys it will need for the litigation.
Silly me. All I mentioned above was lawsuits. I forgot that the taxpayer will also have to hire more Gummint lawyers and biologists, too.
Commenting on the polar-bear ruling, Arms (who has spent time in the Government) is not very optimistic about whether common sense will prevail.
...The Secretary's speech sounds like he's trying to evade the inevitable, which is that any action even arguably affecting global warming will require extensive review by Fish and Wildlife Service. Here are the rules in a nutshell:
Any federal action that has any possibility of affecting a species requires a may affect/will not affect initial finding. Note the "may" versus the "will not." Any action that simply "may" affect a species require further analysis.
That takes the form of a biological opinion, done by FWS staff. A biologist/botanist, or a team of them, draws up a detailed study of the species and the effect the action will have on it. The conclusion must find whether the action will jeopardize the species with extiction (note that the term is jeopardize, not a certainty it will do so) or not. They must also map out reasonable alternatives to the action that would have less risk, and lay out modifications to the action that will reduce its impact. This generally requires a lot of study and writing: the biologists must get up to speed on the technical aspects of the action, which lay outside their training. If a jeopardy finding is made, the action is generally blocked. And in any event, the result is subject to challenge by lawsuit. And courts love to grant preliminary injunctions to stop it, since if the result is wrong it can lead to extinction.
Now, put into that mix a formal finding that global warming menaces a listed species. Any federal agency conduct that "may" affect global warming is going to require a biological opinion at the very least, and become a subject of a lawsuit. Oil imports, ethanol, building refineries, mileage ratings of autos, land with growing plants, etc.. The only real exemptions would be for legislation (which is not agency action) and where an agency has absolutely no discretion (down to inability to impose terms and conditions).
And that's just sec. 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
There's also the ambiguous 7(a)(1) which requires agencies to use their powers to "conserve" (i.e., affirmatively try to bring back from endangerment) listed species, and sec. 10 which makes it illegal for anyone (not just a federal agency) to "take" a listed species. I forget now what the regulations say about how much habitat modification is required in order to "take" (kill) members of a species.
Essentially, welcome to years of global warming litigation! I doubt Interior has a tenth of the biologists it's going to need to do the biological opinions, or tenth of the attorneys it will need for the litigation.
Silly me. All I mentioned above was lawsuits. I forgot that the taxpayer will also have to hire more Gummint lawyers and biologists, too.
Fed Court Slaps Milwaukee Social Worker
Some folks think this is all a plot by Tommy Thompson (!!), who took campaign donations from the lawfirm representing the school.
(And you thought conspiracy theories were strictly the property of the Right....)
In any case, parental rights have been re-affirmed.
Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.
In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.
...When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.
...Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.
"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.
Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.
"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."
(And you thought conspiracy theories were strictly the property of the Right....)
In any case, parental rights have been re-affirmed.
Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.
In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.
...When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.
...Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.
"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.
Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.
"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Iraqi Geography and "Losing" the War
Ace on the MSM's theme-meme du jour--that of painting victories as defeats.
...the American media laments each and every American "defeat"... but careful readers will note that the "Zone of Quagmire" seems to be radiating farther and farther out from US power centers and closer and closer to the heart of Al Qaeda/insurgent/Sadrist control.
We began by losing in Fallujah so badly our troops now say there are weeks that go by without hearing a gun shot. It's quiet there now... Too quiet.
We then lost Baghdad catastrophically. You can tell we lost because there are so few reports of mortar attacks hitting the Green Zone. The enemy won there by moving further and further out from the city. You know -- surrounding us.
We then lost in Basra so dreadfully it apparently simply vanished from the map entirely, perhaps sucked into another dimension through an interplanar vortex.
Next up we lost in Sadr's last bastion of power -- the slum he's named for -- which you can see by fact that the Iraqi Army is now patrolling the streets and conducts house-to-house searches for weapons. But we lost, because two concessions were made to the Sadrists -- "light weapons" (pistols, rifles) could be kept, one per person, and no US troops would accompany the IA. That last point really stung us, because you know our boys are heartbroken that the IA gets the glamor duty of patrolling this slum. Glory denied; a brilliant psyops tactic to crush the spirits of our troops.
And now we're losing in Mosul, of course.
It's a funny thing -- we keep "losing" by successively moving into the enemy's next-most-dear bastion and taking it for our own.
Meanwhile, they "melt into the shadows," thereby defeating us, because of course they always wanted to be in the shadows anyhow; it was just their bad luck to have wound up in non-shadowy major urban centers. They were sort of trapped there, victims of circumstances, but always had their eyes set on that rich shadowy utopia out in the hinterlands and deserts.
In a way, we did them a favor by finally encouraging them to move to where their hearts had always been from the start.
So neener-neener, we still lose.
Next, the MSM will be reporting that the US Forces are "surrounded" by AlQ forces in Paris, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and (on the western front) Detroit.
Hopeless situation.
...the American media laments each and every American "defeat"... but careful readers will note that the "Zone of Quagmire" seems to be radiating farther and farther out from US power centers and closer and closer to the heart of Al Qaeda/insurgent/Sadrist control.
We began by losing in Fallujah so badly our troops now say there are weeks that go by without hearing a gun shot. It's quiet there now... Too quiet.
We then lost Baghdad catastrophically. You can tell we lost because there are so few reports of mortar attacks hitting the Green Zone. The enemy won there by moving further and further out from the city. You know -- surrounding us.
We then lost in Basra so dreadfully it apparently simply vanished from the map entirely, perhaps sucked into another dimension through an interplanar vortex.
Next up we lost in Sadr's last bastion of power -- the slum he's named for -- which you can see by fact that the Iraqi Army is now patrolling the streets and conducts house-to-house searches for weapons. But we lost, because two concessions were made to the Sadrists -- "light weapons" (pistols, rifles) could be kept, one per person, and no US troops would accompany the IA. That last point really stung us, because you know our boys are heartbroken that the IA gets the glamor duty of patrolling this slum. Glory denied; a brilliant psyops tactic to crush the spirits of our troops.
And now we're losing in Mosul, of course.
It's a funny thing -- we keep "losing" by successively moving into the enemy's next-most-dear bastion and taking it for our own.
Meanwhile, they "melt into the shadows," thereby defeating us, because of course they always wanted to be in the shadows anyhow; it was just their bad luck to have wound up in non-shadowy major urban centers. They were sort of trapped there, victims of circumstances, but always had their eyes set on that rich shadowy utopia out in the hinterlands and deserts.
In a way, we did them a favor by finally encouraging them to move to where their hearts had always been from the start.
So neener-neener, we still lose.
Next, the MSM will be reporting that the US Forces are "surrounded" by AlQ forces in Paris, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and (on the western front) Detroit.
Hopeless situation.
For Senator Kennedy
Apparently the brain tumor is malignant. It is not clear whether this is the "aggressive" or not-so-"aggressive" type.
There are a lot of reasons to pray for the Senator.
Choose the one you feel best with, and pray.
There are a lot of reasons to pray for the Senator.
Choose the one you feel best with, and pray.
More Aristotle--On Polities
A reminder of societal objectives from the old dead Greek guy.
The essayist, Patrick Deneen, is a PolySci prof at Georgetown.
...sharing the view of Aristotle that a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part. Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception as citizenship as suffrage.
So--which Party currently runs America? Or better put, which Party orients the polity?
This general form of a polity is a legitimate end of guvment, but it is one that is now largely rejected in our own society in the name of individual liberation from such culture - on the Right, in the name of economic liberty and unlimited growth, and on the Left, in the name of personal autonomy. Because we are so often engaged in the discrete political battles of our day - and I wouldn't suggest that they don't matter, for they do - nevertheless, we easily lose sight of the deeper similarities between our two main Parties, parties that are both defenders of what John Stuart Mill indicated was actually one Party - the Party of Progress.
Mill didn't have much use for the other guys, today's Burkeans:
In our current society there are few defenders of what he identified as the other Party, the Party of Tradition. Mill was a severe critic of this latter Party, inasmuch as it discouraged what he called "experiments in living" and the obstruction of our experience of ourselves as "progressive beings." The Party of Tradition, he suggested, held the view that humanity had a certain kind of nature and end, and thereby sought in various instances to limit or restrict activities that it viewed as contradictory to that nature and end. He was particularly scornful toward traditional religion that sought to restrain our acquiescence to our appetites: he viewed "Calvinism" as pessimistic and restrictive.
...and since Mill's 'Calvinism' died about 100 years ago with the Lambeth Conference, it's likely that Mill's spleen would be vented at the Roman Catholic Church today.
And the effect of this Party of Progress?
...we are not truly capable as a society of debating over legitimate ends, because very few of us are even able to articulate any alternatives.
There is a legitimate debate to be had. It cannot be had, however, because we are largely incapable of considering whether "liberty" as we currently define it (largely the absence of restraint) is even debatable
Properly, "liberty" is the freedom to do what is right...
Were that debate to be advanced, it's entirely possible that Gummint could recede:
...what is at issue is not "guvment" vs. our liberty, but a different conception of liberty altogether - one in which, ultimately, we govern ourselves by governing our appetites, and in so doing become ourselves a government, a democracy of citizens (not "consumers") enacting laws that we impose upon ourselves with an appropriate and chastened acceptance of limits and humility
(I was with him until he mentioned 'humility.')
But in reality, as "progress" of the Left or Right strains at bounds, Gummint grows to counter the strain--preventing a hernia, more or less.
So--is this a re-work of the "nominalism" thing, or the "relativity" thing?
Yes. The Party of Progress must define Ends; and those Ends are not necessarily the Ends which Aristotle (and Aquinas, and others such as Hawthorne and Melville, Orestes Brownson, Henry Adams, Jonathan Edwards, Santayana and Royce, the Southern Agrarians, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Christopher Lasch, Alasdair MacIntyre and Wendell Berry) defined. Therefore by definition they are either 'relative' or 'nominalistic' ends, when viewed against the 'ends' of Santayana and Kirk, e.g.
One may argue that the Ends of the Burkeans are not the best ends. But the argument should be about the Ends, and it's an argument which will not be undertaken so long as the Party of Progress is hegemonic.
The essayist, Patrick Deneen, is a PolySci prof at Georgetown.
...sharing the view of Aristotle that a proper economy is cognizant of limits to moneymaking in the name of fundamental human goods of which prosperity is a part, but only a part. Those goods include healthy and stable communities which are both formed by culture and in which cultures are maintained and preserved; a sound culture that inculcates central human virtues and that is ably passed on from one generation to the next; a culture that makes and keeps good families; a culture that inculcates the very virtues that will be necessary for a good, humane, and moral economy (one that avoids the abuses that we have recently seen in our financial markets); a culture that strongly emphasizes a sense of gratitude and obligation between generations; a culture that encourages stewardship, conservation and fidelity; and perhaps above all, a culture that reins in and chastens our eternal temptation toward Promethean or sinful self-aggrandizement, that teaches and enforces limits, that calls to our mind our flaws, and that does not allow us to lose sight of our fundamental condition of being dependent upon one another. A further good is our ability to act in concert with one another to achieve and maintain such a culture and polity - citizenship as shared and mutual governance, which goes far beyond our current conception as citizenship as suffrage.
So--which Party currently runs America? Or better put, which Party orients the polity?
This general form of a polity is a legitimate end of guvment, but it is one that is now largely rejected in our own society in the name of individual liberation from such culture - on the Right, in the name of economic liberty and unlimited growth, and on the Left, in the name of personal autonomy. Because we are so often engaged in the discrete political battles of our day - and I wouldn't suggest that they don't matter, for they do - nevertheless, we easily lose sight of the deeper similarities between our two main Parties, parties that are both defenders of what John Stuart Mill indicated was actually one Party - the Party of Progress.
Mill didn't have much use for the other guys, today's Burkeans:
In our current society there are few defenders of what he identified as the other Party, the Party of Tradition. Mill was a severe critic of this latter Party, inasmuch as it discouraged what he called "experiments in living" and the obstruction of our experience of ourselves as "progressive beings." The Party of Tradition, he suggested, held the view that humanity had a certain kind of nature and end, and thereby sought in various instances to limit or restrict activities that it viewed as contradictory to that nature and end. He was particularly scornful toward traditional religion that sought to restrain our acquiescence to our appetites: he viewed "Calvinism" as pessimistic and restrictive.
...and since Mill's 'Calvinism' died about 100 years ago with the Lambeth Conference, it's likely that Mill's spleen would be vented at the Roman Catholic Church today.
And the effect of this Party of Progress?
...we are not truly capable as a society of debating over legitimate ends, because very few of us are even able to articulate any alternatives.
There is a legitimate debate to be had. It cannot be had, however, because we are largely incapable of considering whether "liberty" as we currently define it (largely the absence of restraint) is even debatable
Properly, "liberty" is the freedom to do what is right...
Were that debate to be advanced, it's entirely possible that Gummint could recede:
...what is at issue is not "guvment" vs. our liberty, but a different conception of liberty altogether - one in which, ultimately, we govern ourselves by governing our appetites, and in so doing become ourselves a government, a democracy of citizens (not "consumers") enacting laws that we impose upon ourselves with an appropriate and chastened acceptance of limits and humility
(I was with him until he mentioned 'humility.')
But in reality, as "progress" of the Left or Right strains at bounds, Gummint grows to counter the strain--preventing a hernia, more or less.
So--is this a re-work of the "nominalism" thing, or the "relativity" thing?
Yes. The Party of Progress must define Ends; and those Ends are not necessarily the Ends which Aristotle (and Aquinas, and others such as Hawthorne and Melville, Orestes Brownson, Henry Adams, Jonathan Edwards, Santayana and Royce, the Southern Agrarians, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Christopher Lasch, Alasdair MacIntyre and Wendell Berry) defined. Therefore by definition they are either 'relative' or 'nominalistic' ends, when viewed against the 'ends' of Santayana and Kirk, e.g.
One may argue that the Ends of the Burkeans are not the best ends. But the argument should be about the Ends, and it's an argument which will not be undertaken so long as the Party of Progress is hegemonic.
Self-Defense for ME--But Not for Thee!
The term "PIG"--denoting "party-in-government" comes to mind.
Essentially, Chicago imposed handgun registration, a requirement to re-register annually, and a ban on all new registrations. Over the years, a number of people have forgotten to renew their registration, and been informed that they cannot reinstate it due to the handgun registration ban, and thus lost their guns.
Now, a Chicago Alderman who voted for those rules let HIS OWN handgun registration expire. So he's quietly introduced a proposal to create a 30 day amnesty during which handguns can be registered, but only if (1) they were previously registered and (2) the registration expired during a certain time period, which strangely spans when his registration expired
Some Chicagoans are More Equal than others.
HT: Of Arms
Essentially, Chicago imposed handgun registration, a requirement to re-register annually, and a ban on all new registrations. Over the years, a number of people have forgotten to renew their registration, and been informed that they cannot reinstate it due to the handgun registration ban, and thus lost their guns.
Now, a Chicago Alderman who voted for those rules let HIS OWN handgun registration expire. So he's quietly introduced a proposal to create a 30 day amnesty during which handguns can be registered, but only if (1) they were previously registered and (2) the registration expired during a certain time period, which strangely spans when his registration expired
Some Chicagoans are More Equal than others.
HT: Of Arms
NBC vs. The Actualities
NBC, well-known for fiction (see GM light-truck saddle-tanks, e.g.) is still creating it.
Here is a transcript of the interview in question via Newsbusters, the White House release of the full interview, and Bush's Knesset speech. [Marc Ambinder reprints the White House letter.]
Gillespie objected to "both initial questions"; here is the first as presented by NBC:
RICHARD ENGEL: Good morning, Meredith. I started by asking the President about his controversial comments he made in Israel, which Democratic candidates interpreted as a political attack. You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless and then you went further. You're saying, you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were.
GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently, the political calendar has.
Left on the cutting room floor was this:
People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.
But I also talked about a vision of what's possible in the Middle East.
So Bush did in fact dispute Engel's characterization of the speech. Here is the next question as presented by NBC:
ENGEL: Negotiations with Iran. Is that appeasement? Is that like appeasing Adolf Hitler?
BUSH: No my, my, my position, Richard, all along, has been that if the Iranians verifiably suspend their enrichment, which will be a key, key measure to stop them from gaining the know-how to build a weapon, then they can come to the table and the United States will be at the table.
Omitted:
...then they can come to the table, and the United States will be at the table. That's been a position of my administration for gosh, I can't remember how many years, but it's a clear position. We've stated it over and over again.
But I've also said that if they choose not to do that -- verifiably suspend -- we will continue to rally the world to isolate the Iranians. And it is having an effect inside their country. There's a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be isolated. And their leaders just need to make better choices.
So did Bush attack Obama? Hardly. Did he articulate a negotiating stance? Definitely.
Should NBC be awarded a Pulitzer for 'Creating Fiction'?
You be the judge.
HT: JustOneMinute
Here is a transcript of the interview in question via Newsbusters, the White House release of the full interview, and Bush's Knesset speech. [Marc Ambinder reprints the White House letter.]
Gillespie objected to "both initial questions"; here is the first as presented by NBC:
RICHARD ENGEL: Good morning, Meredith. I started by asking the President about his controversial comments he made in Israel, which Democratic candidates interpreted as a political attack. You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless and then you went further. You're saying, you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were.
GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently, the political calendar has.
Left on the cutting room floor was this:
People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.
But I also talked about a vision of what's possible in the Middle East.
So Bush did in fact dispute Engel's characterization of the speech. Here is the next question as presented by NBC:
ENGEL: Negotiations with Iran. Is that appeasement? Is that like appeasing Adolf Hitler?
BUSH: No my, my, my position, Richard, all along, has been that if the Iranians verifiably suspend their enrichment, which will be a key, key measure to stop them from gaining the know-how to build a weapon, then they can come to the table and the United States will be at the table.
Omitted:
...then they can come to the table, and the United States will be at the table. That's been a position of my administration for gosh, I can't remember how many years, but it's a clear position. We've stated it over and over again.
But I've also said that if they choose not to do that -- verifiably suspend -- we will continue to rally the world to isolate the Iranians. And it is having an effect inside their country. There's a better way forward for the Iranian people than to be isolated. And their leaders just need to make better choices.
So did Bush attack Obama? Hardly. Did he articulate a negotiating stance? Definitely.
Should NBC be awarded a Pulitzer for 'Creating Fiction'?
You be the judge.
HT: JustOneMinute
Insight: Cities, Suburbs, and Kids
Just One Minute has a take on city/suburban living which parallels mine.
My question - is it unreasonable to wonder whether the low European birth rates can be tied to their living arrangements? I have lived in Manhattan with two kids, and in the suburbs with more than two. Trust me, or try it for yourself - the suburbs are easier to manage when lots of kids are in the picture.
Or try this simple census survey - how many couples can you think of that met in the cities, had children, and moved to the suburbs? Now, how many couples have kids in the suburbs and then move with them into the city? Hmm...
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just noting that the evidence from Europe might suggest that small cars and limited space might be better suited to small families; it seems to be a point that a top-notch, objective economist like Krugman would at least want to address.
Of COURSE there are exceptions, which the LeftyWonks will be happy to raise as "norms."
But it is not merely high property-taxes which impel young families to move to the 'burbs,' nor "racism." It is, in the wonderful German term invented just for this debate, 'lebensraum.'
My question - is it unreasonable to wonder whether the low European birth rates can be tied to their living arrangements? I have lived in Manhattan with two kids, and in the suburbs with more than two. Trust me, or try it for yourself - the suburbs are easier to manage when lots of kids are in the picture.
Or try this simple census survey - how many couples can you think of that met in the cities, had children, and moved to the suburbs? Now, how many couples have kids in the suburbs and then move with them into the city? Hmm...
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just noting that the evidence from Europe might suggest that small cars and limited space might be better suited to small families; it seems to be a point that a top-notch, objective economist like Krugman would at least want to address.
Of COURSE there are exceptions, which the LeftyWonks will be happy to raise as "norms."
But it is not merely high property-taxes which impel young families to move to the 'burbs,' nor "racism." It is, in the wonderful German term invented just for this debate, 'lebensraum.'
Kohl and Feingold: Big Pig Spenders
Although there is little hope that Nobody's Senator and the Panderer (Kohl and Feingold, respectively) will support the veto of the President, they should be reminded that the Farm Bill is NOT a net benefit to Wisconsin residents.
Pathetic. Craven. Irresponsible. Unprincipled. Those and similar adjectives apply to every member of Congress who voted for the bloated, anti-consumer piece of legislative corruption known as the Food and Energy Conservative Act of 2008 a k a as “the farm bill.” President Bush has promised to veto the bill. To put it plainly, everybody in Congress who votes to override the coming Bush veto should be retired come November because they will have voted for a measure that is nothing more -- or less -- than a $300 billion giveaway of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is especially true for conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who brag about their fiscal rectitude.
Here's Your Senators' version of "helping middle Americans"
...columnist Tim Carney described how the bill increases subsidies for domestic sugar growers that, combined with restrictions on imported sugar, will drive up U.S. food prices substantially -- and, even worse, how it provides for the government to buy “excess” sugar at high prices, then re-sell it to ethanol facilities at as little as one-tenth the price.
...it will continue to give subsidies to millionaires who actually live in Manhattan and who might not even use their “farmland” for food crops. (Those subsidies will come from tax dollars confiscated from millions of working families of four making, say, $35,000. How is that fair?)
And there are several dozen "poor farmers" in Wisconsin who have taken in MILLIONS of subsidy-dollars over the last few years, as well.
It's worth a call. And it's worth haranguing Nobody's and The Panderer about when they show up in the State.
Pathetic. Craven. Irresponsible. Unprincipled. Those and similar adjectives apply to every member of Congress who voted for the bloated, anti-consumer piece of legislative corruption known as the Food and Energy Conservative Act of 2008 a k a as “the farm bill.” President Bush has promised to veto the bill. To put it plainly, everybody in Congress who votes to override the coming Bush veto should be retired come November because they will have voted for a measure that is nothing more -- or less -- than a $300 billion giveaway of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is especially true for conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who brag about their fiscal rectitude.
Here's Your Senators' version of "helping middle Americans"
...columnist Tim Carney described how the bill increases subsidies for domestic sugar growers that, combined with restrictions on imported sugar, will drive up U.S. food prices substantially -- and, even worse, how it provides for the government to buy “excess” sugar at high prices, then re-sell it to ethanol facilities at as little as one-tenth the price.
...it will continue to give subsidies to millionaires who actually live in Manhattan and who might not even use their “farmland” for food crops. (Those subsidies will come from tax dollars confiscated from millions of working families of four making, say, $35,000. How is that fair?)
And there are several dozen "poor farmers" in Wisconsin who have taken in MILLIONS of subsidy-dollars over the last few years, as well.
It's worth a call. And it's worth haranguing Nobody's and The Panderer about when they show up in the State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
