Ding Dong the Unconstitutional Law is Dead

Campaign Finance Reform Down in Flames

Two stories of the McCain-Feingold law being struck down. The first is from FoxNews.com, the second from WashingtonPost.com.

FoxNews.com: Federal Court Strikes Down 'Soft Money' Ban

Campaign finance reform opponent Sen. Mitch McConnell scored a victory Friday when a federal court struck down key parts of legislation enacted last year banning the use of corporate and union money by political parties.

The court's decision undoes much of the "soft money" ban that went into effect the day after the November 2002 election and casts doubt on the future of the campaign finance law designed to limit the use of large donations in federal elections. McConnell, R-Ky., and a large group of plaintiffs, said the law was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech rights.

WashingtonPost.com: Parts of Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

A three-judge panel in Washington struck down several major provisions of the new campaign finance law this afternoon in a much-awaited ruling, setting the stage for a final showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court later this year that will determine the shape, style and bank accounts of the nation's major political campaigns.

Nearly five months after the McCain-Feingold law was argued before the panel, most of the soft money prohibitions were declared to be unconstitutional by a 2-1 majority, possibly clearing the way for major political parties to begin raising the large, unregulated sums of money from corporations, trade unions and wealthy individuals that critics said had plagued major election campaigns during the past two decades.

--30--

GIGO - A Reference to Food or to Junk Science Studies?

JunkScience Guru v. Food=Cancer Crowd

FOXNews.com - Will the waistline police ever leave us alone?

Last week, it was the World Health Organization's (search ) nutrition guidelines. This week it's "obesity causes cancer" and "fasting improves health."

Researchers from the American Cancer Society (search) alleged that overweight and obesity cause up to 14 percent of cancer deaths among men and up to 20 percent among women.

We're expected to swallow these results without scrutiny since the study was conducted by the ACS, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and involved 900,000 adults.

Instead, I'm choking on the absurdity.

--30--

I Laughed. I Cried. It was Much Better Than Cats.

James Taranto does it again

Opinionjournal.com's Best of The Web, Last Item
An outrageous, and in some ways devilishly logical, look at a strange incident in which a woman who was not pregnant got an abortion.

Common Ground in the Abortion Debate: "A doctor . . . could have his medical license suspended or revoked for allegedly performing an abortion on a woman who wasn't pregnant," reports the Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat. The complaint accuses Dr. Yogendra Shah "of performing an abortion on a woman on March 26, 1998, when she was not pregnant. The doctor failed to perform a test to determine whether the woman was pregnant, according to the complaint."

We had no idea it was illegal to perform an abortion on a woman who isn't pregnant, and frankly, this law is insane. If a woman isn't pregnant, even pro-lifers have no reason to object to her having an abortion. And on the other side, why in the world should a woman have to get pregnant in order to exercise her right to choose? Then there's the unconscionable invasion of privacy this law entails. Pro-choice advocates say that mandatory counseling or a 24-hour waiting period puts an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. But neither of these measures seems anywhere near as intrusive as forcing her to take a pregnancy test.

Furthermore, dropping the pregnancy requirement for abortion would do away with a great injustice in existing law, under which men, who through no fault of their own can't get pregnant, are denied the right ever to have an abortion. Get your laws off our body!

--30--

Nanny State in the Extreme

A Literal Nanny State?

AlterNet: The Parents' Bill of Rights

By Jonathan Rowe and Gary Ruskin, Mothering Magazine April 28, 2003

Paul Kurnit is the president of KidShop, an advertising firm that specializes in marketing to children, and he has plans for our kids.

"Kid business has become big business," Kurnit says. To make it even bigger, he preaches what he calls "surround marketing" – saturation advertising that captures kids at every possible moment.

The folks over at AlterNet.org and Mothering Magazine (what a great name for a mag that puts out this sort of idea) seem to think that Mr. Kurnit is dangerous and that government involvement is needed to keep kids from seeing advertising on TV and elsewhere.

Look at the proposals involved in this Parent's Bill of Rights (Q: indicates a quote from the article, N: indicates my note about the immediately preceding quote):

Q: Leave Children Alone Act: Bans television advertising aimed at children under 12 years of age.
N: If the product is legal for children to buy or have bought for them, then this would seem to be prior restraint unless I completely misread the definition.

Q: Child Privacy Act: Restores to parents the ability to safeguard the privacy of their children. It gives parents the right to control any commercial use of personal information concerning their children, and the right to know precisely how such information is used.
N: I do not see any immediate problems with this one. Then again, I wonder if it has been thoroughly thought through for consequences or if it is promoted just because it "sounds good."

Q: Children's Advertising Subsidy Revocation Act: It is intolerable that the federal government rewards corporations with tax write-offs for the money they spend on psychologists, market researchers, ad agencies, and media in their campaigns to instill their values in our children. This act eliminates all federal subsidies, deductions, and preferences for advertising aimed at children under 12 years of age.
N: I am all for our government spending less money, but that’s not even what these guys are talking about. The government is not giving these corporations money. It is simply not taking it from them. I see nothing wrong with that. Corporations make our economy work. These guys seem to think that they are evil and want to influence your children’s thoughts. Oh, wait. That is what they want – to convince your kid to want their toy. While this may be annoying at times, it does not mean that the government should start doling out extra taxes to stop advertisements aimed at kids. If you have a problem with such advertisements, find a way to stop your kid from seeing them. No TV watching for the kid. Use a PVR to blip by the commercials. Watch TV with your child and explain why you think the advertising is wrong. (I never said it would be easy – just possible.)

Q: Advertising to Children Accountability Act: This act helps parents affix individual responsibility for attempts to subject their children to commercial influence. It requires corporations to disclose who created each of their advertisements and who did the market research for each ad directed at children under 12 years of age.
N: Aha! Now we get to the meat of the thing – making it possible and easy to SUE. Follow the money folks.

Q: Commercial-Free Schools Act: Corporations have turned the public schools into advertising free-fire zones. This act prohibits corporations from using the schools and compulsory school laws to bypass parents and pitch their products to impressionable schoolchildren.
N: Does this mean that charity would not be able to post things in a school? What about funding? Many times corporations pay good money to schools to allow their products or advertisements in the school. Who will make up the difference in the funding?

Q: Product Placement Disclosure Act: This law gives parents more information with which to monitor the influences that prey upon their children through the media. Specifically, it requires corporations to disclose, on packaging and at the outset, any and all product placements on television and videos, and in movies, video games, and books. This prevents advertisers from sneaking ads into media that parents assume to be ad-free.
N: Another bow to the gods of the lawsuit.

Q: Child Harm Disclosure Act: Parents have a right to know of any significant health effects of products they might purchase for their children. This act creates a legal duty for corporations to publicly disclose all information suggesting that their product(s) could substantially harm the health of children.
N: Once again, this looks good on paper. I wonder if they have done any studies that show what the consequences of this act would be or if it is just another “sounds good” idea?

Q: Fairness Doctrine for Parents: This act provides parents with the opportunity to talk back to the media and the advertisers. It makes the Fairness Doctrine apply to all advertising to children under 12 years of age, providing parents and community with response time on broadcast TV and radio for advertising to children.
N: So it is a good idea to force station owners to provide, free of charge, programming to anyone who dislikes something said on that station? Even if the only person who dislikes what was said is the person complaining? Besides, I thought that advertising to children under 12 would be illegal based on the first point above. But we need a separate act to make it mandatory that any crackpot who wants it get equal time to rail against something already made illegal in these people’s eyes?

Q: Children's Food Labeling Act: Parents have a right to information about the food that corporations push upon their children. This act requires fast-food restaurant chains to label contents of food and provide basic nutritional information about it.
N: Once more into the breach of sounds-good-but-are-there-any-unnoticed-consequences ideas.
--30--

Brit Understands US Feeling Toward France

Tony Parsons, Columnist from the UK Daily Mirror

Mirror.co.uk - FRENCH DISSING IN THE U.S.A

I HOPE that the continent of Europe never again needs help from the United States of America.

I hope that there's never some murderous little tyrant - another Hitler, another Milosevic - that Europe needs help in taming.

I hope that there's never some economic catastrophe that requires American dollars to make it right, as they did at the end of the Second World War.

I hope that the euro experiment works. I hope that all those peace-loving souls in Belgium, Germany and France can somehow muster an army to protect themselves.

I hope that the continent I live on never again needs to go cap in hand to the Americans.

Because if that black day ever comes, I have the feeling that America might just tell Europe where to go.

--30--

AP Misrepresents Greenspans views on Bush Tax Cut

AP Never Distorts a Story

Yahoo! News - Alan Greenspan Undercuts Bush Tax Cut

Greenspan said that while eliminating the tax investors pay on dividends would have long-term advantages for the economy, rising federal deficits require that such a move be offset by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere . . . .

Greenspan said tax cuts aimed at capital investment, not consumer consumption, will do the most for the economy. That could give a lift to tax breaks for small businesses, such as increasing the limits on expensing from $25,000 to $75,000.

In other words, Greenspan AGREES WITH the President that tax cuts will help the economy, we need to cut federal spending, and the best tax cut to give would encourage capital investing. Where’s the disagreement implied in “undercuts the Bush tax cut” in the headline? Great example of truly neutral reporting.

--30--

US Forces Off Holy Ground

This Oughta Make Al Qaeda Happy

U.S. to Withdraw All Combat Units From Saudi Arabia

The United States said today that it would withdraw all combat forces in Saudi Arabia by this summer, ending more than a decade of military operations in this strategic Middle East nation that is America's largest oil supplier.

--30--

Tax Cuts Boost Revenues

Pray This Goes Through . . .

Frist to push bigger tax cut -- The Washington Times

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, after meeting with President Bush yesterday, said he will push for a tax cut higher than the $350 billion limit he had promised two weeks ago.

"We want to fight for as high a number as possible," Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, told reporters after a 45-minute meeting between top Republican congressional leaders and the president.

He said a $550 billion tax cut — the number House leaders and the president have endorsed — "is a goal we'll shoot for."

For great analyses of how tax cuts effect the economy, click

here (NCPA Both Sides page), or

here (NCPA Issues-Taxes page), or

here (The Heritage Foundation), or

here (OpinionJournal.com - Pete Du Pont), or

here (Citizens Against Government Waste).

Finally, please check out FairTax.org for a well reasoned alternative to the current tax structure.

--30--

Road Map to Nowhere?

Another Try at Middle East Peace

Think this will work? Me neither . . . but we gotta try.

A Guide to the Mideast 'Road Map' (washingtonpost.com)

--30--

Under God Not Right

Pledge Talk

Here's a place where I disagree with the Bush Administration. The phrase "under God" was specifically put into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's during a time when we were fighting the atheistic "Communist plague" around the world. It was supposed to promote God. Not the thing for government to do.

Ashcroft asks court to undo Pledge of Allegiance ban -- The Washington Times

The Bush administration and a California school district yesterday asked the Supreme Court to reverse the federal appeals court ruling that banned the reciting in schools of the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God."

Attorney General John Ashcroft, who vowed to "spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," said the appeal filed yesterday afternoon defends centuries of tradition.

For an explanation of the orign of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, click here.

--30--

Norman Goes For a Long Walk

Norman Mailer Figures It All Out

Times Online: We went to war just to boost the white male ego

With their dominance in sport, at work and at home eroded, Bush thought white American men needed to know they were still good at something. That's where Iraq came in...

--30--

Horowitz v. Huffington

Horowitz v. Huffington

It all starts with a piece by Arianna Huffington, April 16, 2003 - Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right.

From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right.

Then it continues with David Horowitz: Everything the Left Said About the War Is Wrong.

The nature of this threat was threefold: 1) his proven determination to build weapons of mass destruction; 2) his proven readiness to use terror against civilian populations (and therefore the possibility that he would use terror against us and others); and 3) his willingness to commit aggression against his Arab neighbors (as already demonstrated in Iran and Kuwait).

--30--

Patriot Act Notes

PATRIOT Act In Action?

An analysis of Patriot Raid By Jason Halperin, AlterNet April 29, 2003


I agree, the PATRIOT Act is overwhelming and can be seriously abused. However, this article can be explained in ways other than as the author presents it.


For example, he states that "They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us." And "The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns . . . ." Anyone who knows a bit about police training, especially SWAT training as these guys probably were, knows that they do not put their finger on the trigger without a target. (The ethics of the topic notwithstanding . . .) Look at the famous photo of Elian Gonzalez being taken from the home in Miami and you will see that the ATF agent had his finger straight, next to the trigger but not on it. This is standard practice and I would bet that this policy was followed in this instance as well.


Also, he quotes the Fourth Amendment. As far as he knows, the police were acting in good faith based on information they had concerning the establishment and/or the people inside of it. I doubt they randomly picked a restaurant and decided to raid it. Thus they are not subjecting him to “unreasonable searches and seizures” since they were only trying to determine if he was the bad guy they were looking for.


The author speaks about his request to speak to a lawyer. Well, he should have been able to . . . when he had a chance at the station. There is no right to speak to a lawyer _in the middle of a raid_. What made him think it unreasonable to have to wait until the situation was more reasonably under control and he was in a place where it would be more feasible? If the agent really did say to him the line about days/weeks/months, yes, that was out of control and should not have happened. But to insist that he be able to call a lawyer during the processing of the raid is ridiculous.


As for the threat against him when he tried to leave, makes sense to me. Look, when an officer in a tense situation like that tells you to sit down and shut up, guess what? You don’t say “Hell no.” If you do, you are just begging them to get upset with you and that’s not a good idea. I am talking pragmatically here. The guy with the gun, whose job it is to protect people just like us, gets to make the rules in that situation. Does he or she get to do so in all situations at all times? No. But at this point, in the aftermath of a full on raid, I am thinking that maybe he is not in the mood to deal gently with those who say they are “just gonna leave.”


The “questioned as if I had something to hide” line is particularly amusing. As far as the officers know _he does_! They are trying to figure out if he is the bad guy they are looking for, right? Or if he knows the guy or is friends with him, right? It sounds like normal police questioning to me. Should the officers just immediately accept the first answer given by everyone they find at the location of a raid? “Oh, ok, you say you aren’t the bad guy? Ok, on your way then.” Sounds bit daft, doesn’t it.


Kicking in doors is bad during a raid? Should they have knocked instead? “Knock knooooock. It’s the cops. Any bad guys in there?”


He says, "I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all."


Let's look at these statements. Yes, our freedoms are even more important during times of strife. They were carved out by thoughtful men, having lived through the strife, in times of peace (confusion, yes, but still peace) after the war. A simple misstatement on his part, I expect.
I do not think that an hour and a half of detention is an outright abrogation of his rights. Was he released upon verification of his identity and circumstances? Yep, he sure was. He was even apologized to for the trouble. He speculates that the other patrons and employees were not. Not that he actually knows this, but it makes a nice tag to put on that part of the story about the evil g-men.


Apparently it was a mistake. What sort of mistake? Wrong address? Wrong people? What did the evil g-men think they were doing that evening? Just out wilding? I doubt it. I expect that they thought they were going into a place that had some connection to either some criminals or some terrorists. Anybody want to take a bet on that?


All in all, it sucks that this guy was bothered. Then again, what would he be saying if they had found a terrorist in the back of the restaurant? Would he still be upset or would he be damn glad these guys did their job that night?


The problem is we cannot have it no way at all. We have to find a way to balance an egregious need to be able to protect ourselves from people who use our freedoms against us, and to safeguard those very freedoms from being trampled in overzealous attempts to do same. I do not know how to fix it. All I know is that, while I may be pissed if this happened to me, I would eventually understand that the agents prosecuting this war on terror are not out to get me.

Unless, of course, I am doing the bad things they are trying to prevent.


Yes, it is scary. It will take wise people to finally figure it out, I expect.

How Many Children Suffered While This Law Took Time to Enact?

Geez, I thought this happened years ago. This is a great example of why bureaucracy sucks. They could have had this in place for years now but had to go through all the red tape necessary to make it a national law.

Bush Signs National Amber Alert Bill

--30—

NYT Mentions that Soldiers were Defending Themselves . . . in Second Paragraph

U.S. Troops Fire on Iraqi Protesters Again; 2 Reported Dead

ALLUJA, Iraq, April 30 — United States soldiers opened fire here today on marchers protesting a clash late Monday night in which 15 anti-American demonstrators were reported killed by American troops. The city's mayor and hospital officials said two protesters were killed in today's incident and 14 were wounded.

A United States Army officer said soldiers in a convoy passing the demonstrators were shot at, and then returned fire. There was no immediate indication of any American casualties.

--30--

Hillary on Hoover

Senator Clinton Blasts Long Dead President

Ben Shapiro: Herbert Hoover's daughter Hillary

Hillary and the Democrats blast Hoover because he was a Republican. But Hoover, like FDR and like Hillary Clinton, was a big-government economic policy-maker. As economist Thomas Sowell of Stanford University's Hoover Institution explains in his book, "Basic Economics," "Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt both tried to use the powers of the federal government to restore the economy." The Hoover economic ideology of yesterday is almost identical to the Hillary economic ideology of today.

--30--

Immigration Issues

Immigration Issues

Michelle Malkin: Ashcroft vs. the Chicken Littles

So, what's Ashcroft's sin this time? He has asserted the Justice Department's authority to help stop illegal aliens from exploiting the federal immigration system's idiotic "catch and release" policy. This is the system under which countless illegal aliens are released by lax immigration court judges on low bonds -- or no bond, as in the case of illegal alien sniper suspect Lee Malvo -- and then are never to be seen again.

In a related story . . . .

Legal Immigrants Can Be Held Without Bail, Court Says

WASHINGTON, April 29 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case with significant impact on the rights of noncitizens, that the federal government can detain legal immigrants without bail during their deportation proceedings.

--30--

ICC Wants to Prosecute General Franks for War Crimes

Another Reason Many Dislike the UN - Unfettered, Unaccountable Power Grabs

Just who will the International Criminal Court be accountable too? Who makes sure that it is not misused? The UN? The same body that put Cuba on the Human Rights Committee that has Libya as it's head?

FOXNews.com

The International Criminal Court (search) in The Hague, Netherlands, is supposed to bring justice for the victims of war crimes, genocide and other evils.

But a court case in Belgium offers a strange preview of what could be coming in the world of international jurisprudence.

It centers on U.S. war chief Gen. Tommy Franks (search), the architect of Operation Iraqi Freedom. . . .

One American official told United Press International the court would fail to bring war criminals to justice because it "undermines the U.N. Security Council's role in keeping peace and security, creates a prosecutorial system with unchecked powers, is vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutors and asserts jurisdiction over citizens and states that have not ratified the treaty."

--30--

UN Elects Cuba to Human Rights Committee

This is Why So Many People Feel the UN is Beyond Hope

FOXNews.com

The White House on Tuesday expressed outrage that Cuba has been re-elected to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, only three weeks after rounding up dozens of dissidents and sending them to prison . . . .

"The Human Rights Commission wanted to send investigators into Cuba and Cuba said 'no.' And yet, today, Cuba gets re-elected to the Human Rights Commission. It raises troubling issues, and that's why the United States is speaking out about it," Fleischer said. . . .

"You have to keep in mind that Libya is the chairman of this committee. There are some things that happen at the United Nations that it's very hard for anybody to explain," Fleischer said.

--30--

Weekly Standard Parodies the NYT

A Parody of the "WOI Has Been a Disaster" Crowd

Well worth taking a second to look at. (For slower connection speeds, it is a picture so it may take a minute to load.) "Three Weeks After Yorktown, Still No Constitution Ready" Too funny.

Parody: Ye Newe York Times reports on postwar difficulties following victory at Yorktown.

--30--

A Left Lexicon for the Right

A Left Lexicon for the Right

From the notoriously liberal SFGATE.com site comes this "View From the Right" column defining, in a mostly satirical way, terms used in political discourse by the Left. BTW - to those on the Left who get upset about this - it's a JOKE, ok?

The Left's Weapons Of Mass Distraction / VIEW FROM THE RIGHT

Words are power in motion. The war over words and how they're used by our society has become the new battleground of the Left. The primary tool in their arsenal is an effort to change the conventional meanings of words used in our daily communication. The morphing of our language is now the front line of the war on our culture and a powerful means for gaining political ground for the Left.

Just as many sports fans need a program to see who's who or what's what on the field, many citizens need a guide to understanding the Leftist lexicon. So, here's a brief primer into what the Left actually means when they say . . . .

--30--

Surrender Monkeys At It Again

France Briefed Iraq on Mettings with US

In other words, for everyone who said it was the Bush Administration's failed diplomacy that made France unwilling to support an 18th resolution . . . they were actively working behind the scenes with Iraq. What could have been done to get them to support a resolution against their partners?

NEWS.com.au | France briefed Iraq on war: report (April 27, 2003)

FRANCE gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials, The Sunday Times reported, quoting files it had found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry.

--30--

Iraq Had Strong Links to Al Qaeda

Iraqi Intelligence Papers Indicate Close Link to Al Qaeda

Naysayers will take one of two tacks on this news:

1. The information is false and/or planted by the Coalition; or,
   
2. So what, there have been no WMDs found yet.
   

If we find WMD, then they'll say the outcome of the war is based only on whether or not we find Saddam's body. IOW, they will keep changing the definition of a "win" in Iraq whenever the previous cirterion has been met.

Telegraph | News | The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

For a partial translation of the original documents, see this site.
--30--