The World According to Nick

At Least The Left and Right Agree on the Bill of Rights...

Nick — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:15:08 GMT

... right?

It's funny... I tend to socialize pretty equally among both liberals and conservatives. I'm a regular at both Drinking Right, and Drinking Liberally. And no matter where I go, it seems like people from both sides are trying to convince me how they both have some sort of "libertarian creds". I hear lines like "I respect the Constitution" or "I'm pretty libertarian" (which is similar to be "a little pregnant"). But very quickly, many of these conversations degrade into how they like liberty... but wait... not when it comes to... and then they name their favorite topic.

As I say time and time again, both the left and the right want the government to control things... they just differ regarding how the government would control you.

What Tyrants Have We Elected To Replace Kings?

Nick — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:16:53 GMT

More than 200 hundred years ago, a brave group of citizens of a nation, yet to exist, declared their independence from tyranny. This day, many people are quoting that declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain Inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But that was not all of what was said. What came after was a list of charges against the King that demonstrated why the colonies wanted their independence. But when we examine that list today, how many of those things has our own government repeated, against us?

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

How is that any different from how the Federal Government has usurped the power of the states? Between the DEA refusing to recognizing the rights of states to legalize medical marijuana, or even something a simple as allowing the states to pass a drinking age law of their own choosing, the Federal Government has refused the rights of states to pass laws of their choosing. Either the Federal Government has simply refused to recognize the rights of the states, or it has blackmailed the states into passing laws under threat of withholding the taxpayer's own money.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

While legislative bodies aren't kept far from public records, the Federal Government has kept the public records far from the people. While we supposedly have a "Freedom of Information Act", the government makes the cost and paperwork required to get information so high, that it serves the same purpose to "fatigue us" into not asking for that information any more. In some cases, even when the people request the information correctly, the government still refuses to give it to those who every right to see it.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

Could there be any more apt description for our current mess of immigration laws which makes it nearly impossible for people to legally immigrate into this nation?

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

Does anyone actually know how many agencies are contained within the Federal government? And anytime we decide that there is a problem with the Federal Government, the only solution they seem to accept is the creation of yet another agency to manage it.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury."

While the battle cry of the Revolution was often, "No Taxation Without Representation", all levels of our government have sought to create boards which may create taxes, where the members of those boards are not directly answerable to the people. And between our government's lack of respect for the 4th amendment, and it's "creative use" of civil asset forfeiture law, our trial by jury rights seem to disappear more and more as every year passes.

This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats, for both parties have shared equally in the dissolution of our freedom. This is about the powers of the government vs. the powers of the governed. Surely, there are many abuses which the King of England thrust upon us, which our Government has yet to repeat. But despite that, every Administration that passes seem to thrust more abuses on us, or makes worse the abuses of their predecessors.

Remember the immortal words of our Founding Fathers on this day, as so many seek to grant even more power to our government.

Protection

Nick — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:53:26 GMT

I made this demotivator a couple of months back, posted it on Flickr, and then promptly forgot to post it on my blog for the rest of you to see. But with Independence Day only a day away, I thought now would be a perfect time to share this particular one with the rest of you.

Have a great holiday everyone!

The Future is So Dark, My Car's Gotta Have Shades

Nick — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:46:17 GMT

California is going broke, and will soon be sending out IOU's instead of checks. At the same time, auto sales are dismal, and car manufacturers could use all the help they can get to keep prices down... so what does California decide to do with its spare time? They passed this:

California has become the first state to require that all new cars sold after 2012 have windshields that block the sun to cool vehicles, increase fuel efficiency and cut greenhouse gases.

The regulation, approved yesterday by the state Air Resources Control Board, says that automakers must prevent 45% of the sun's total heat-producing energy from entering the car, and that the glass must block at least half that energy, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The requirement rises to 60% in 2016, though car makers can use alternate methods to achieve that mark.

Basically, California just mandated that all cars wear sun glasses... because they want their cars to be the hippest... or coolest if you prefer... in the country. Words fail me sometimes.

Strip Search Ruled Illegal

Nick — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:50:42 GMT

In a blazing, and somewhat surprising, common sense ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that a school's strip search of a middle school girl for ibuprofen 6 years ago was in fact illegal:

The Supreme Court ruled by an 8-1 vote Thursday that the strip search of a middle-school girl for prescription-strength ibuprofen violated her privacy rights.

The decision in an Arizona case requires administrators nationwide to weigh more carefully how intrusively they search for drugs.
...
A school official must have, Souter wrote, a "reasonable suspicion of danger" regarding the contraband sought and a belief that it could be in the student's underwear before making "the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."

In October 2003, after obtaining an unverified tip from another student that eighth grader Savana Redding might have ibuprofen and finding none in her backpack, Safford Middle School assistant principal Kerry Wilson asked a school nurse and administration assistant to search Savana in the nurse's office. The two women had Savana take off her shoes and socks, then her shirt and pants. They then directed her to pull out her bra and pull open her panties to see if she was hiding any pills. None were found.
...
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He said the majority opinion "grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."

I blogged about this case a couple years ago. Clarence Thomas should be absolutely ashamed of himself. The idea that requiring school administrators to use some basic common sense before humiliating and violating a young girl is too much... well... he has as little common sense in this area as they when the search was performed. It's important to note, that had the search not been performed at all, the health and safety of students would not have been compromised. Ibuprofen is a perfectly legal and safe, over the counter drug.

Although I think Thomas should be ashamed, I am not surprised by his ruling. He very consistently sides with government agencies that act in a law enforcement capacity. Because the courts rarely throw out charges when searches are performed illegally, the police do not have an incentive to follow the law. This is a rare instance when our basic freedoms have been protected by the court. Unfortunately, in a seperate vote, the court also ruled that the administrators could not be held liable. So one wonders how much protection this ruling will really give.

I Blame Gay Marriage

Nick — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:18:21 GMT

Dan Bice has another hard hitting story, where he has uncovered the fact that Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn had an affair with Jessica McBride. There are just a couple of things I want to mention here.

First, Jessica McBride was one of the ones who was pushing hard for passage on the gay marriage amendment... you know, so that the sanctity of marriage can be protected. Well, she got her amendment, but apparently that didn't change how she thinks of marriage. I feel sorry for her husband, and also their children, who are going to have to deal with the publicity this will bring.

Second, Jessica teaches journalism at UWM and has even taught journalistic ethics. One of the tenants of journalistic ethics is that reporters should "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." Apparently she didn't think that applied to her when she wrote a flowering review of the Chief in Milwaukee Magazine and later said in a letter to the Chief: "Just felt a little protective. Knew I didn't want to do you wrong..." Obviously this puts a taint on anything she's written regarding the Chief, and the Milwaukee Police department in general. People ought to consider these ethical problems before accepting any of her writing in the future.

This of course is yet another in a long line of people (especially conservatives) who talk very publicly about the need to protect certain institutions, like marriage, who then trash those institutions through their private behavior. Simply put, if you can't practice what you preach, then get out of the pulpit.

And on a side note, could they have picked a worse picture of her for the story on the website? It looks like a mug shot, only worse.

Update 6/22: The Editor of Milwaukee Magazine has publicly come out to defend Jessica, and says that Bice left out a lot of evidence that shows that the affair started some time after the article was written.

Innocent People Do Get Convicted of Murder

Nick — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:02:51 GMT

And a hell of a lot more often than people want to admit. In fact, John McAdams seems to think that we need to be killing more murderers in jail... because "apparently" we have yet to kill an innocent man. Now then, are there guilty people on death row? Absolutely. But there are also people who have been convicted of murder who are innocent. Take for instance, this gentleman:

At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, despite a negative DNA test and hair found on the body that did not match mine. My conviction was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of other evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by the medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later - almost three years ago - when further DNA testing reaffirmed my innocence while identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed and was sentenced.

The story goes on to describe how the appeals system worked against him at every turn, despite the strong evidence of his innocence. This case is even more interesting because one of the appeals judges was Sonia Sotomayor, who was willing to let this innocent man stay in jail because he missed an appeals deadline by four days, only because the clerk of a court gave his attorney the wrong deadline. So much for empathy.

The fact is, once you are found guilty, nobody wants to look at your case any more, and very few people want to reconsider the decision of the jury. The fact is, we haven't found an innocent person on death row yet because, very few people bother to look. The sad fact is, most people would rather bury their heads in the sand about the injustices that happen in our justice system, because we don't want to think about innocent people who may be wrongfully imprisoned.

Sometimes the evidence against these people is so flimsy that it's shocking. Take for instance this story out of Florida, where testimony from a "wonder dog" put at least 3, and possibly as many sixty men, in jail wrongfully. The dog handler was able to convince juries that his dog was able to track a suspect to the scene of the crime montys after the crime. This is something that is so crazy, I am shocked that a jury would have bought it.

A wonder dog helped convict all three men: a German shepherd named Harass II, who wowed juries with his amazing ability to place suspects at the scenes of crimes.

Harass could supposedly do things no other dog could: tracking scents months later and even across water, according to his handler, John Preston.

If it sounds hard to believe, there's a good reason.

After providing prosecutors with testimony for years, Preston was finally discredited by a judge who had the sense to do what others had not: test the dog for himself.

But not until after Preston and his dog had appeared in dozens of cases.

We know that at least three of those cases were overturned - after the defendants collectively spent more than a half-century in prison.

What is even scarier is that the Attorney General for the state has no real interest in going back and seeing if any other guilty people were put in jail because of this crack pot dog handler. And we wonder why we haven't found any innocent people on death row yet? Once again, the people who are in the best position to check, because they have the most information about the case, are not interested in checking.

For my part, I have no problem with the death penalty in theory. I think the idea of killing someone as punishment for killing is perfectly acceptable. However, the problem is that because of the finality of that punishment, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is no long sufficient for that punishment. You have to be absolutely, 100% sure, otherwise the risk is too great. And since it is nearly impossible to practically create a law where you would only send 100% guilty murderers to death, its simply safer to not do it at all.

Happy Monday

Nick — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:45:24 GMT

We're Sorry - We Prefer Donations Over "Dreams"

Nick — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:24:13 GMT

There is a great investigative story in the Journal Sentinel about eminent domain abuse right here in Milwaukee. For those who don't want to read the whole thing, here is the reader's digest version:

Man buys property, tears down delapidated building on that property, and applies for a permit to build a bar and restaurant on that property.
The permit is denied, due to "aldermanic priviledge". As it turns out, the alderman received campaign donations from the owner of the market which is next door to the property.
The owner of the market next door offers to buy the land, but is rebuffed because the owner of the land still wants to run his own business (silly him).
The city declares the land blighted, because nothing has been built on the property. Of course the only reason nothing was built on the property was because the city denied the permits to build!
The city is now starting eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land, for the sole purpose of selling it to the neighbor so he can expand his market.

The city maintains that this is all perfectly well and good, and that the campaign donations given to Alderman Jim Witkowiak had nothing to do with the decision. Uh huh. Let's just put this in very clear terms. This is government sponsored theft, and Alderman Witkowiak is abusing his power as an alderman, and should be driven out of the common council on a rail.

Even if the lot stood empty for 10 more years, it is never legal for a government to take land from one person, simply to sell it to another. The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Of course, there was the Kelo case a few years ago... but that was simply a wrong ruling. The Supreme Court essentially declared that the Founding Fathers added the word "public" for fun, and that it had no meaning. It should also be noted that Wisconsin does have a law which specifically forbids the transfer of "non-blighted" land from one private owner to another.

The problem with this is that the barrier to declaring land as "blighted" is low, that it really doesn't exist at all. The fact that the city is using their own failure to grant a permit as a reason to declare land blighted is just gaming the system.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Nick — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:03:52 GMT

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a stay against the Chrysler deal with Fiat. The suit was filed by three pension funds in Indiana, saying that the Obama administration had among other, things changed the order of precedence in the bankruptcy illegally. They also said that TARP funds were illegally used in the first place to fund Chrysler, something I've been saying for quite a while, despite assurances by Paul Ryan that a car company somehow is actually a bank. It should also be noted that evidence is coming out that the deal with Fiat was forced upon Chryrsler by the Obama Administration, despite serious management concerns. So much for Barack's statements that these companies are still "privately run".

Of course, this was all started by the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration is all too happy to use all the same tricks... and in most cases these are the same tricks that they criticized the Bush Administration for. For instance, when arguing against the Indiana pension funds, they said:

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of "bailout" (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

Sound like something Bush did? So what does Michael Mathias say when bond holders actually challenge all this in court, and the Obama administration says that they aren't even allowed to? Is the Obama Administration still not subverting the rule of law?(Reason has some good coverage on how the Bush Administration waffled back and forth on whether car companies were banks as well.)

It doesn't stop there either. Remember how Bush loved to subvert the legislative process by issuing an unprecedented number of signing statements on laws he signed? Remember how Democrats complained about this, and how Obama promised to return to the Constitution in this regard? Guess what... Obama has so far outpaced him during even the early days of his administration:

For those of you keeping score at home, based on the listing of signing statements on coherentbabble.com (which includes both constitutional signing statements and uncontroversial rhetorical or laudatory signing statements), President Obama has issued more constitutional signing statements than President Bush had at this point in his presidency

But despite all this, at least we now have a President who doesn't go around the world like a Christian soldier, and using religion in any and all contexts imaginable:

He's done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.
...
At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he'd seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. "I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church but to be in the church," Obama said. "It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."

Damn. I should point out, that I'm not offended by the President using religion in these contexts... only that he is doing it more than Bush did publicly, and yet Bush caught more flack for it. As I've said time and time again, Republicans and Democrats are really no different. They both want to control your lives through government power... they'd simply have you do different things. Likewise, Obama is really the same as George W. Bush... except he can read off a teleprompter better.