2nd Amendment Disconnect
During President Obama’s campaign, I knew he wouldn’t be quite “conservative” (re: libertarian) enough for me concerning 2nd amendment rights. The campaign also suggested to me there would be quite a disconnect from both the left (who would expect him to be a gun control savior) and the right (who would expect him to be the incarnation of their tyrannical fears that seemed to be buried during the Bush administration. “He’s taking away our guns!”)
I’ve not been disappointed.
Follow-up: Charging Candy With A Crime
After Warren’s post re: DNA warrants being used to work around various statutes of limitations, I thought it would be interesting to see how courts have addressed it so far. It turns out that the California Supreme Court upheld their validity very recently, in People v. Robinson. Recently as in January 25th of 2010.
The “Stop Outsourcing Security Act”
Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jan Schakowsky today introduced a bill that would ban security contractors from war zones. Unfortunately, considering the clout that this industry has (See: Cheney and Rumsfeld) I don’t give it much of a chance of surviving.
I hope, though, that it at least garners some much-needed attention. The fact that so much of our national security –including protecting our Embassies in places like Afghanistan– is in the hands of mercenaries loyal to the highest bidder is something that I would hope would be of concern to conservatives and liberals alike, regardless of party affiliation.
Especially after Warren’s post about the Republican party of the 50′s, I Eisenhower’s prescient address to the nation expressed it best:
CPAC, giving me hope
I find CPAC a strange combination of establishment Republicans, sincere libertarians and the authoritarian right. A group that has Glen Beck as a major speaker, and the John Birch Society as a sponsor, though strikes me more the the latter than the first two (though the first seems to have become the latter).
Yet two straw polls done at CPAC give me hope that, if not currently, in the future the conservative movement might move towards some things I could agree with. First was their straw poll about candidates. Mitt Romney has one several years in a row. This year, Ron Paul won the straw poll as their choice. Not that I particularly think he’d make a good president, but compared to Romney and Palin, he’s a no-brainer.
These poll results ‘most important’ issue also gave me hope… Read more
Tort Reform: Concerns
The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce today whether or not it will hear the Haliburton Rape Case. The case, basically, centers on whether or not an arbitration clause in a Haliburton employee’s contract will prevent her from seeking a civil action in a court of law for alleged violations of her rights surrounding an alleged gang rape. After this Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and the way it was handed procedurally, this case makes me nervous. I keep getting paranoid thoughts of the Court using this case to call the constitutionality of Franken’s “Anti-Rape Amendment” into question.
It also makes me think of the noise being made about “Tort Reform.” It’s usually brought up in the debate about health care reform. The idea–I think–being that frivolous lawsuits and out-of-control damage awards are crippling our health care system and raising its costs dangerously. I’ll look at that more specifically over the next week or so, but the projected impact of Tort Reform on health care costs –while not negligible– is likely minimal.
There is talk of tort reform on a more general level as well. The talk about tort reform is usually well-padded with references to that most evil of creatures, the Trial Lawyer, and quotes of outrageous amounts given in supposedly ridiculous and frivolous law suits. I have serious concerns about all of this.
A place for Gays in Conservatism?
Andrew Sullivan was there and speaking. He has the video up. Very fascinating. That was the topic of a forum at the Cato Institute. Jason at Positive Liberty (who is employed at Cato) attended and wrote a brief commentary at his blog.
What struck me is the question he was able to ask Maggie Gallagher, and her answer:
CPAC
The CPAC is now, I guess in full swing. This year, the John Birch Society is one of the Co-Sponsors. The same group that recently called Nelson Mandela “nothing more than a communist terrorist thug.” I wonder if they’re going to have special un-fluoridated water shipped in.
In any case, I thought a quote from WIlliam F. Buckley, Jr. regarding the John Birch Society was apropos:
How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.
Replace a few words–”John Birch Society” with “Republican [/tea] Party” and “A man” with “men”– and I think it voices a set of concerns that many rational conservatives would do well to address.
Charging Candy with a Crime
Well, candy with DNA that is. As reported in the Kansas City Star, Police, without suspect, charge DNA on evidence before statute of limitations expires .
As described in the article:
A SnapShot of Judicial Activism in its Natural Environment
The Washington Post today published a poll showing that a large majority of respondents opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.
While my own issues with the decision could fill many pages written in an insanely small font, there are some that can be quickly, if not thoroughly addressed:
1. The problems with the Citizens United decision go beyond its immediate probable effects on elections and campaigns. It demonstrates this Court’s willingness to stretch to bring issues before it that the Court itself wants to address, in order to overturn decisions and statutory law that it simply does not agree with.
Climate Change, the undebatable and the debatable
There are two things remaining about climate change, despite denialist snowhope, two things that are scientifically verifiable and at this point beyond debate (though people will always debate anything):
* The global climate is warming at unprecedented rates (as in ‘millions’ of years)
* Human activity is the cause for the majority of that change
For those interested, Climate Progress has a great rundown of the most current science: An illustrated guide to the latest climate science.
To quote…
