Forward Biased (Current Events)

Good advice, but...

The National Motorists Association has a list of tips for avoiding speeding tickets.

You might notice that "don't speed" is not on the list.

(Via Ralph Bristol.)

God works in mysterious ways

I really don't know what category to put this in.  And this is via Steel Turman, so sorry for all of you who have seen this already.  Over there, I mean.  Or anywhere, for that matter.

Via the great AP Teletype Oracle, we find that:

WACO, Texas (AP) - A pastor performing a baptism was electrocuted inside his church Sunday morning after grabbing a microphone while partially submerged, a church employee said.

The Rev. Kyle Lake, 33, was standing in water up to his shoulder in a baptismal at University Baptist Church when he was electrocuted, said Jamie Dudley, a church business administrator and wife of another pastor there.

For those of you who don't know for sure, yes, "electrocuted" means killed by electrical means.  It's kind of awful—I don't know what to say.

The woman Lake was baptizing was not injured, Dudley said.

... "He was grabbing the microphone so everyone could hear," Dudley said. "It's the only way you can be loud enough."

... Lake, who had a wife and three children, had been at the church for nine years, the last seven as pastor, Dudley said.

This is terrible, and I find I can't make a "joke" or humorous aside that wouldn't be in terrible taste.  After all, a guy died here.

As a former electrical professional, it strikes me as extremely foolish to grab a microphone like he did without first having established that the system was properly grounded—and even then, if he was going to use a mic while standing in water, he should have used a wireless mic, not something connected to line power.  But he may not have known that, and his ignorance meant his death.  Death by ordinary household 120VAC while doing God's work.

This is all so very ironic.  Somehow this reminds me of the Old Testament, but I'm not sure exactly where...

Best of Me Symphony #101

This week's Best of Me Symphony is being guest-conducted over at The Owner's Manual ("Groping the news with Gary Cruse," heh).  As usual it's a virtual suite of brain food, and even yours truly has an entry.  And since one of the few criteria for the BOMS is that the post must be at least 60 days old (and no, it doesn't have to be about music), you actually might not remember this one, so GIT over tha'r and read, dangit.

Spirit Fingers starts off the first movement with a hilarious examination of Victoria's Secret's marketing efforts for the IPEX bra, a bra so high-tech it could easily make your breasts redundant.  If you have any.  Breasts, I mean.  (Koff)

The next movement slips into a brisk allegro with Susie over at Practical Penumbra ranting about political correctness and identifying one's color/race.

I steadfastly refuse to identify myself as "white" in surveys that ask for race. White is a color, not a race. My race is Caucasian, and my ethnic origin is European-American. Even if I were asked my color, I would have to say sort of pinky-beige, rather than white.

Just asking the question shows discrimination. Why should it matter whether I am Caucasian, Hispanic, African American or Aboriginal, unless someone is planning on using that information to draw certain conclusions or make decisions based on it? (And what is it called when you do that? Yep--discrimination).

I like this gal.  I'll bet she doesn't even IPEX.

Point Five carries the motif further with The Lost Powerpoint Slides (Frankenstein Edition).  I need say no more.

There are fifteen additional movements in this the 101st Symphony, each distinct yet melding wonderfully into a cohesive whole, or something like that, and you don't want to miss a one of them.

What are you doing still here?  Git.  Now.

Do words actually have meanings?

Yesterday I received the following email (obviously it was mass-mailed to others as well):

Dear Obi-Wan,

Conservatives who opposed Harriet Miers are hoping the president's next judicial nomination will not (again) duck an open fight with Senate Democrats over judicial activism.  But there’s another way — a better way — to engage liberals in that debate.  It’s described at www.fairamendment.us. 

[Note:  the Fair Construction Amendment link above was broken—fixed now.]

A Fair Construction Amendment is an idea whose time hasn't just come -- it's long overdue.  It first occurred to me as I was reading Raoul Berger’s Government By Judiciary, more than 20 years ago.  I thought: Instead of arguing with liberals about Berger’s thesis, why not establish it as law, whether liberals like it or not?  We could devise a constitutional amendment, using the framers' very own words, that instructs the Supreme Court to treat its task as the framers themselves said it should and expected it would: as interpretation of an historical document, not husbandry of a "growing, evolving" one.

A friend whose opinions I respect doubts the amendment would work, since activist justices would set out to subvert it, just as they’ve done with the rest of the Constitution.  But if so, they’d have to do it in full sight of a people who had been alerted to the issue by the very process of  the amendment’s adoption and ratification.  And in that fight, the Left’s favorite weapon — “borking” judicial nominees — would be of no use.  I for one would love to watch our liberal senators, activists and law professors explain to the public how Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, Story, Teddy Roosevelt and  Cardozo are all “out of the mainstream.”

My Web site mentions a forthcoming book in which I argue the case for the amendment.  That argument concludes: “This little brainstorm may or may not be the way to cut the Gordian knot into which liberals have tied our country’s constitutional law.  One thing, however, is certain: Conservatives have been picking away at that knot for a generation now, with hardly any effect.  It’s time to try something new.”

Will next month’s Federalist Society convention on Originalism offer something new, or will it be just more picking away at the Gordian knot?  I wish them all the best, but even if the society’s work prospered to the extent that all future justices came from its Dream Team, our government, even then,would remain one not of laws but of men.  The meaning of the Constitution would still depend on the composition of the court --- a court whose members would be scorned by half the nation as the creatures of partisan politics, rather than respected by all as the oracles of the law.

The Fair Construction Amendment is designed to change that.  If you like the idea and want to help it along, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Karl Spence
Author/Publisher
Fielding Press
P.O. Box 685
Converse, TX 78109
karl.spence@grandecom.net

The first thing that happened was that my cynicism kicked in, telling me that this would never get passed and ratified, not in a million years.

But I still think it's a good idea, and just maybe, even if it failed, the process of trying for ratification might make more people aware of the problem it was designed to solve.

Think about it—if the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then it means nothing at all, much like the very phrase just used to describe it.  It means that anyone can interpret any words to mean anything they like, and words will have no meaning at all.  Shoot, we're just about to that point already.  No wonder the left is so anxious to embrace this view—they wouldn't have to get new laws passed at all, just get some judge to agree that the "living" Constitution already "says" what they want.  Presto, new federal law. 

See?  We're almost there as it is, what with the Ninth Circuit Court and all.  Perhaps going through the attempt to ratify this amendment would be good for the country.

Of course, Bill Quick's idea to have a full-blown Constitutional Convention would be even better.

UPDATE:  Eric over at Eric's Grumbles has more on this issue, including a list of proposals for checks and balances on the SCOTUS.

FURTHER UPDATE:  Mark at Cutting Edge of Ecstasy has more yet.

Administrative note

Typepad has informed its users that it will be down today between 9pm and midnight, Pacific Daylight Time, which I suppose is midnight to 3am for the east coast.

Typepad has been going through some capacity-related performance problems lately, and has been trying to upgrade "on the fly," which hasn't worked very well at all.  So, they're pulling the plug and moving to a whole new system which should be quite sufficient to last for a long time. 

This may account for some of the page loading times some of you have experienced—including me.

Anyway, during the above times Forward Biased will be unavailable, as well as all other blogs on their system, including Iowahawk, The Steel Deal, Just One Minute, Andi's World, The Alliance of Free Blogs, Philosophy of Biology, Void Where Prohibited, Resistance is Futile!, and lots of others, of course.

"Fun game of the day" dept.

Hey, girls and boys!  It's time to play Name that Liberal Hypocrite!

A few examples from the .pdf file by Peter Schweizer:

• Who says that conservatives are racist because they don’t support affirmative action but has an abysmal record of hiring blacks?
  a. Barbra Streisand
  b. Michael Moore
  c. Al Franken
  d. All of the above
  Answer: D. All of the above. Of the 112 people Franken has hired to work on his books, television projects and radio program, only one was black. Of the 135 individuals Michael Moore hired, only three were black. Barbra Streisand has hired 53 senior people to work on her film projects and only one was black.
• Who says that corporations are “terrorists” and has said “I don’t own a single share of stock” but secretly owns shares in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, and even Halliburton?
  a. Barney Frank
  b. Gloria Steinem
  c. Michael Moore
  Answer: C. Michael Moore. According to IRS records, Moore owns at least several hundred thousands of dollars in stock and has a broker, even though he has repeatedly claimed he doesn’t “own a single share of stock.”
• Who says the rich need to pay their fair share and favors the estate tax, but hides his own assets in numerous trusts, including one in the faraway Pacific island of Fiji?
  a. George Soros
  b. John Edwards
  c. Ted Kennedy
  Answer: C. Ted Kennedy. The Kennedys have transferred more than half a billion in money from generation to generation but according to their own records paid only $34,000 in estate taxes. Their largest asset, the Merchandise Mart real estate company, was in a trust domiciled in Fiji.

And one of my favorites:

• Who has proclaimed themselves a corporate activist but has made money by investing in companies they were protesting against?
  a. REM’s Michael Stipe
  b. Ralph Nader
  c. Alec Baldwin
  Answer: B. Ralph Nader. When Nader went after Firestone in the 1970s he made stock investments in Goodyear, their main competitor. When he campaigned for the breakup of Microsoft in 2000, he invested hundreds of thousands in other high-tech companies that stood to benefit.

The question for that last one was mis-worded, as Nader made money by investing in the competitors of companies he protested against, since he set them up to benefit from his protests. 

There's several more of these in the .pdf file.

This is all via Mike at Cold Fury, who adds:

God, what a revolting passel of leeches.  [Peter Schweizer's] book, which ought to be a best-seller, can be had here. I got almost all of them right, but still managed to miss one or two. It all only goes to show that it’s simply not possible to exaggerate the staggering plenitude of self-righteous hypocrisy these worthless crumbums are only too happy to inflict on the rest of us. Marie Antoinette, call your office, please.

And commenter xj (of Chasing Waterfalls) adds this about Mr. Nader:

Nader’s actions were not merely despicable hypocrisy; they were a felony. It’s called “insider trading”, and Martha Stewart recently won a six-month stay at Club Fed as a prize for getting involved in it.

So when will we see Eliott Spitzer go after Nader?

(Sound effects: crickets chirp, wind whistles, tumbleweed blows across set…)

Oh that’s right, I forgot. Nader’s “one of us”, so he gets a free pass…

Thanks and good work, Mike.  Oh, and thanks for being kind enough to blogroll me, too.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Greyhawk At Mudville Gazette for the Open Post!

Objectivity, schmobjectivity...

I, on the other hand, have no biases whatsoever.  Just call me Mr. Fair and Balanced™, not to mention Gracious as Heck, right?  Right?  Hello...?

Hey, you in the back—stop that.  HEY!  No snickering...

(Chris Muir's Day by Day.)

And it's all Bush's fault, too!

Needless to say, this was via Steel Turman.  It was certainly brave of Steel to include the self-portrait and all, but I had always thought he didn't have that much hair.  On his head, I mean.

Didn't think she would, did you?

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration for the SCOTUS.

"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

Well, for one, it will sure be a while before I forget this.  And a lot of folks are going to remember it all the way to 2006.

Bush promised a new nominee "in a timely manner."

It's not the timing, George.  It's the nominee.  Haven't you learned that yet?

Democrats urged Bush to nominate a relative moderate in the mold of O'Connor, who frequently cast the swing vote on abortion and other hot-button issues coming before the court this year. "He must listen to all Americans, not just the far right," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts.

Here's another newsflash:  Neither Sen. Kennedy nor his party is in power.  Bush was elected, and the Constitution gives him the right to nominate justices, not you or the Senate or anyone else.  Don't expect the president to actually, you know, act like this is true, but it is true nonetheless.

Bush, after weeks of insisting he did not want Miers to withdraw, blamed the Senate for her demise.

Oh, Lord.  He may never learn.  You nominated an unqualified candidate, Mr. President.  It's mostly that simple.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers' nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: "I don't believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked."

Yeah, count on some moonbat to bring up the gender card.  Sheesh.

"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president. "They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."

No one wants to admit the truth, do they?  All anyone wanted was a qualified candidate.  That's all.  No "skewed goals" were involved.

Whomever Bush picks, a united GOP caucus holds the upper hand.

Golly, who's thunk it?  Someone actually figured out that the Republicans are in power!  Amazing!

Republican consultants predicted that Bush would satisfy the conservatives who helped him to two election victories and now want their due.

You ignore your base at your own peril, Mr. President.  Read the dang tea leaves for once.

In a way, I almost wish we could have seen her defeated in the Senate, but I'll accept this.  Now, Mr. President, at least learn from your mistakes.  Don't make this embarrassing defeat end up being a vain one.

All we want is a well-qualified nominee who is at least moderately right of center (the more libertarian/constructionist/Federalist she is, the better, but we can't have everything).

And, for goodness' sake, Mr, President, don't be afraid to fight for your nominee.

UPDATE:  I claim temporary insanity.  I was in a rush when I was writing the above, not that that's any excuse, but in the penultimate paragraph what I should have said was "all we want is for you to decide to finally keep your promise to nominate someone along the line of a Scalia or a Thomas."  And then, for goodness' sake, fight for her.  Fight.  We elected you because we believed you would do that.

And as for Harry Reid's comment about our "skewed goals," two commenters offer him a little perspective.  Rob adds,

Skewed goals? My goodness. Kettle, Pot on line 2...

...while DaveG shows us just how terribly "radical" our goals are:

Our "skewed goals": - preserve some modicum of respect for the Constitution and its intended function in our society - restrict government to doing only what it is constitutionally permitted to do, resisting the urge to add nuance to the writing in support of our pet peeve/demand for entitlement - resist the pressures to expand the "right to privacy" (which only applies to pregnant 14-year-olds, as per Raich) to have absolutely no boundaries at all. - resist attempts to restrict rights that are actually in the Constitution, such as the right to bear arms And so on. I don't think it's just the hard right that is frustrated by this aspect of Bush's performance. If it wasn't for foreign policy I'd probably suffer BDS too.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Ok, temporary insanity and poor manners.  I should have pointed out that it took a great deal of class, selflessness and bravery for Ms. Miers to put the interests of the country and her party ahead of her own and remove her name from consideration.  In addition, she weathered the storm over her nomination with nothing but grace while her own qualifications were being questioned.  She seems to exhibit more of each of these qualities than does her boss.  Or I, for that matter.

Election 2006 update

I just posted a very important update to this post, but it's important enough to merit a post of its own.

Here, again, is Mark Tapscott's list of how each Senator voted concerning the Coburn Amendments.

Here, for your perusing pleasure, is a list of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2006.  The list includes NY Sen. Hillary Clinton, for whom defeat in this Senate race would mean quite a setback in her plans for the White House in 2008.

Of those up for re-election, only George Allen (R-VA), John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Jim Talent (R-MO) voted in favor of the Coburn Amendments.  Remember, George Allen is a potential presidential candidate for 2008, and at least for now I support him in that endeavor.  (I just scanned these lists manually, so I may have inadvertently missed someone.)

We've got to get to the point where we're no longer intimidated by a Senator's being called "safe" because his or her district has, historically, reliably voted for his/her party.  Anyone can be vulnerable if their constituency can be made to see what they've been voting for.

Please help me spread the word about this by sharing the two Senate links above.  Of course, a trackback and link back to this post would be nice, but not necessary if you'll just help propagate those two links and what they're all about.  Thanks.