Scalia vs. de Tocqueville

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.31.06]

The eventual repeal of Roe vs. Wade (it’s coming) would have very little effect on a woman’s ability to get an abortion in the US, because even right now, only 13% of all counties in America have any abortion providers. The states that are abortion-friendly (Maryland for the Southeast, California for the West, etc.), where women who want an abortion are already forced to travel, would still be available if and when the Federal law is repealed.

However, what would change is the privacy doctrine the Roe decision helped to establish and this would drastically alter our society.

A clue as to how this would happen comes from Justice Scalia’s dissent in that Supreme Court decision striking down Texas’ anti-sodomy laws in 2003. Scalia was in the minority then, but is probably in the majority now. His dissent reads in part:

The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law is provided. The Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing on fundamental liberty interests by using the doctrine of so-called “heightened scrutiny” protection—but only rights which are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” qualify.

Criminal prohibitions of homosexual sodomy are not subject to heightened scrutiny because sodomy was a criminal offense and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights,” and thus was not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Roe v. Wade recognized that the right to abort an unborn child was a “fundamental right” protected by the Due Process Clause but the Roe Court made no attempt to establish that this right was “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

By the reasoning above, any practice that was banned in the 1700s can still be banned today by a simple majority. Moreover, the majority is the only entity that matters in American democracy. So, any minority (gays, blacks, women who want to chose, political parties, dope smokers, etc.) can be criminalized by legislative majority.

Over 120 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about this:

“The main evil of the democratic institutions of the United States does not arise from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength. I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny. If an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority and implicitly obeys it; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority and serves as a passive tool in its hands. The public force consists of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain states even the judges are elected by the majority.

“If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions, an executive so as to retain a proper share of authority, and a judiciary so as to remain independent of the other two powers, a government would be formed which would still be democratic while incurring scarcely any risk of tyranny.”

The type of arrangement above is really what’s “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” not, as Scalia claims, a pure majority rule government. The shield against tyranny by the majority has been responsible for allowing individuals to view sexually explicit material, participate in consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes, buy and use contraception of their choice, a woman’s right to choose, the removal of Jim Crow laws discriminating against blacks and countless others advances.
There is no doubt this is what our Founding Fathers intended:

“The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Scalia et al, don’t understand or acknowledge these issues. And if you watch shows like Hannity & Combs or The O’Reilly Factor on Fox, you see that they are also based on this mob/majority mentality.

It isn’t just the right to an abortion, it’s the idea that unless the rights of the individual are protected from the mob we will lose what makes our country unique and great.

For Sale

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.28.06]

Last Sunday, I phoned a friend of mine who is now a professor in a small college town in Iowa. She and her husband still own a small house in Cincinnati where there is now double-digit deflation.
Because the house isn’t worth near what they bought it for, they may have to file for bankruptcy. Yet the new bankruptcy laws pushed through last fall by the Bush Administration would force them to sell off their musical instruments. My friend is a music professor and her husband is a music teacher and in 2 bands.

Click here for a recent article on this stupid new law.
Today’s New York Post had the following(full is here):

“The red-hot housing market that powered the U.S. economy for the past three years has officially cooled off. Houses are sitting unsold for months: the current inventory of unsold properties hit the highest level since records began to be kept in 1999.”

But there are dozens of news articles coming out every week from all over the country, aggregated here and also here.

It would be easy to make the point that the Bush Administration’s suicidal economic policies have made things much worse as argued here.

But, housing is intensely over-priced and has literally been the only thing driving the American economy for at least 6 years. Consumer spending and most of the job growth in the US have been directly related to housing hyper-inflation. For at least the last 2 years, anyone who could fog a mirror could get a 100% loan to buy the home/condo/double-wide of their dreams. What now? This early-summer article offers one scenario.

Bill Bonner, the co-author of Empire of Debt, has a blog, Daily Reckoning, that offers another:

Classical economists recognize that the excessive credit expansion has many impacts on the financial markets and the real economy.
Asset prices, including houses, inflate.
Savings rate disappears
Trade Balance goes negative
Capital Investment dries up
Wages and employment drop

Finally, a paper, written in 1991, concludes:

When the decline begins, it is longer than stock market crashes due to: a) the lack of short selling, b) the tenacity to which owners cling to mortgaged property, and c) the slow process of foreclosure. During the downswing, the net income of real estate falls due to falling rents and increased vacancies, while mortgages and other operating costs remain rigid in the short term. There are widespread defaults on mortgages and other loans. The foreclosure rate increases. Unemployment and lower real wages further reduces demand for real estate. To secure occupants, rents decrease. Many banks fail, having loaned large amounts to illiquid and fallen real estate.

After the old obligations such as mortgages and contracts are gone and the wreckage of the collapse is cleared away, shrewd investors pick up real estate bargains. With debt reduced and prices, including interest rates down, lower costs induce a renewed rise in business and the recovery phase of the cycle.

Historical data from the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, and other countries have shown that real estate booms have preceded major depressions. The theory that the major real estate cycles, accommodated by monetary inflation, have significantly contributed to major depressions is consistent with the historical record.

Most of the jobs I’ve held in the past few years have been related to financial or real estate(think most bank, IT, construction, ad agency, etc.). So many friends are similarly dependent on those types of jobs. Does anyone in the US work at making things other than new houses or office buildings anymore?

V for Vendetta?

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.25.06]

Just rented V for Vendetta a few days ago. What a strange storyline.

Elites within the government execute a terrorist act that kills thousands of people, blaming it on religious extremists. Using the fear generated by the “attack,” all manner of controls and surveillance is put in place, with the people too cowed and fearful to do anything but acquiesce.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about 9/11, concluding with this paragraph:

“Muslims extremists planned an attack on the WTC as they had done in 1993. Neo-cons needed a Pearl Harbor. No chances were taken with potentially inept terrorists. Before the NYFD could fully assess and begin putting out the fires from the jet crashes, the buildings were blown down. A missile was shot into the least-populated side of the Pentagon. Flight 93 was blown out of the sky before it could get to wherever it was going.

“You know what it all means. Although the terrorist’s acts caused several hundred deaths, the remaining deaths, almost 3,000, were caused by some other group. Why? Isn’t it obvious? Look at what’s happened to our country and our world since then. . . and what is yet to come.”

Maybe I can re-write that slightly, let’s see…how about:

Elites within the government execute a terrorist act that kills thousands of people [by well-placed explosives, well-directed missile(s), distracting/disabling NORAD], blaming it on religious extremists [who they had advanced warning about and/or helped facilitate their plans]. Using the fear generated by the “attack,” all manner[Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, bank records, National ID] of controls and surveillance is put in place, with the people[and legislators] too cowed and fearful to do anything but acquiesce.

Funny how life imitates art, isn’t it (V was written in the 80s)? Now, where is the American V?

Infamous “Fat Arab” Terrorist Plot Foiled!

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.23.06]

Afraid of flying? Don’t be. Our government is busy making sure we are in fear of our lives every day. . . but the reality may be different. The following dispatch reads in part:

British police foiled yet another terrorist plot today, announcing the arrest of a 340-pound Egyptian man planning to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic using homemade explosives derived from his own body.

British authorities say the unidentified man planned to use the on-board lavatory as a mobile chemical lab, where he would render his own fat and refine it into bio-diesel while extracting urea nitrate from his own urine.

According to an NSA terrorism expert who spoke on condition of anonymity, a typical “fat arab” could easily extract sufficient material from his own fluids to mix enough ANFO explosive to bring down a Boeing 747. “This is the nightmare scenario we’ve all been predicting,” the NSA official told Reuters.

In response, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) immediately instructed airport screeners to prevent fat people from boarding planes, and ordered all bathrooms to be locked and sealed on flights of six hours or more. A spokesman for the International Airline Passengers Association called the TSA’s new regulations a “mixed blessing” in terms of its total impact on passenger comfort.

The whole deal in England last week was a load of crap. As is the cell phone detonator scare. Read about why here.

The terrorists are supposed to strike fear in our hearts, NOT our government, but they’re doing a pretty good job of it so far.

Live With the One You’re With

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.17.06]

I’ve read of studies saying the older a guy gets the more important (to his health) to be living coupled, but the opposite is true for a woman. Yet in the past few years there have been several articles regarding the benefits of conjugal living for both sexes and all couples regardless of orientation.

Before you get tempted to pick a fight with your loved one tonight, you might want to ponder some recent medical news. According to a study reported in The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the benefits of living with someone are profound. In fact, your spouse may be saving your life: Having studied 138,000 subjects, Danish researchers found that, among people between the ages of 30 and 69, those who live alone are almost twice as likely to suffer from a serious heart condition, from angina to a fatal heart attack, as those who live with a partner.

Living alone, by itself, apparently doesn’t doom one to cardiac catastrophe. Rather, it seems it’s the slovenly habits that a life of solitude encourages that are to blame. Those who live with another person, the study showed, tend to take better care of themselves: They eat less fat, exercise more and smoke less than their solitary peers, who are more apt to go for the extra scoop of ice cream than to go for a jog.

This would seem to go against the conventional wisdom that, once married, people let themselves go, while single folks work out like maniacs to stay in top shape for the purpose of attracting a mate. Instead, the research suggests, coupledom encourages clean living.

For those wedded to the single life, things don’t get better as time goes on: The study revealed that for men over 50 and women over 60, the heart risks associated with living alone increase threefold.

So a long-term relationship may not always make you happy, but it will certainly help your heart.

An Imbalance of Power: the Beginning of Tyranny?

[Originally posted on goofyblog 8.16.06]

The conservative Salt Lake City Tribune has recently printed an editorial regarding Bush’s unprecedented use of signing statements, part of which reads:

The Constitution commands that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” There is no exception for laws with which the president disagrees. Despite this, some presidents have issued statements when they have signed bills into law declaring that they will not enforce certain provisions.

This ploy to ignore the law-making authority of Congress places in jeopardy the separation of powers that underlies the Constitution. It also places the president above the law. President George W. Bush has used signing statements far more than any other president, a record 800 times to date. Congress and the courts must rein in this presidential power grab. To do otherwise would be to court tyranny.

And an article in the June 22^nd issue of the New York Review of Books called “Power Grab” reads:

For five years, Bush has been issuing a series of signing statements which amount to a systematic attempt to take power from the legislative branch. Though Ronald Reagan started issuing signing statements to set forth his own position on a piece of legislation, he did it essentially to guide possible court rulings, and he only occasionally objected to a particular provision of a bill. Though subsequent presidents also issued such statements, they came nowhere near to making the extraordinary claims that Bush has; nor did they make such statements nearly so often.

Although, the power of the Congress has been eroding for years (e.g., Truman ignored Congress to go to war with Korea), the past 5 years have seen a distinct change. A too-docile Congress should be all the reason we need to vote a different breed of people in, if it’s not already too late.

“Authority once ceded is almost impossible to retrieve” Mickey Edwards says in his article, “Power Play” in this month’s Playboy Forum. “If the president. . .is guilty of malfeasance. . .by virtue of having ignored the Constitution, then Congress is equally guilty of nonfeasance. . .for failure to perform its constitutional duties. The US has survived presidential malfeasance before; congressional nonfeasance is a much more dangerous thing.”

In watching Bush give his pronouncements about going to war several years ago, what struck me was not his speech, but the “set” shown on the screen. The off-white background, the red carpet, an empty podium. Bush swept out, made his statement, then swept away. It all seemed so “roman.”
Do we have an Emperor now?

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier. . .just as long as I’m the dictator.”

-George W. Bush
December 18, 2000
during his first trip to DC
after his appointment by the Supreme Court.

On Location Wednesday, 8/9/2006

[Originally posted on goofyblog on 8.9.06]

After CharlieSheen announced he had serious doubts about the events of 9-11, I got interested in taking a closer look.

The events of 9-11 are called the worst acts of terrorism in history, a modern “Pearl Harbor.” There is no doubt that Muslim extremists effected a plan to fly jets into the WTC. And there is no question that their acts were reprehensible and barbaric, and they should be brought to justice.

But, the official story is in doubt. And thoughtful people are raising their voices with questions, questions that if fully investigated might give a different picture of the genesis of our War on Terror.
The basics are these:

• In the months before 9-11, there was a ton of intelligence coming through on the terrorists plans, giving our government advance warning of what was about to happen. Bay Area example: Mayor Willie Brown told the SF Chronicle he was warned 8 hours before the attacks not to fly the next day.


• Steel buildings don’t fall when hit by planes, don’t fall when on fire. Most importantly, they don’t fall straight down at close to free fall speed – unless from a controlled demolition. That’s what engineers say; that’s what physicists say; that’s what fire department personnel said they heard (explosions). What we saw on 9-11 was most likely buildings being blown from within.


• Later that day, a 3^rd building (WTC7), not hit by any plane and with only a few minor fires, suddenly collapsed — straight down. FEMA could offer no explanation for the collapse; the 9/11 Commission Report didn’t even mention WTC 7; the NIST said over a year ago that at some future date they will issue a report on WTC 7.


• The remains of the WTC collapses were removed and destroyed as quickly as possible under Rudy Guliani’s orders, before they could be fully examined by engineers and other investigators.


• Marvin Bush, GW’s younger brother, was head of the security company (Securacom) for the WTC in the weeks before the buildings came down. Witnesses say there were multiple powerdowns in the buildings during the weeks before the attacks.


• The first photos taken after the attack on the Pentagon show the façade intact, and: there are no marks on the lawn in front of the entry point; no debris that would be corresponding to a 757; the hole is too small; and there were no bodies or engine parts. All tape from the many security cameras in the area were immediately confiscated by government personnel. Experienced pilots say that even a well-trained pilot would have had great difficulty flying a large plane at great speed that close to the ground, yet the terrorist pilot who allegedly did so nearly flunked out of pilot school.


• Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania: the crater resembles no other passenger plane crash ever. Debris was strewn far and wide from the scene of the alleged crash. This is not what happens in a crash; it’s what happens when a plane is shot down.

What happened really? It reasonably could go something like this:

Muslims extremists planned an attack on the WTC as they had done in 1993. Neo-cons needed a Pearl Harbor. No chances were taken with potentially inept terrorists. Before the NYFD could fully assess and begin putting out the fires from the jet crashes, the buildings were blown down. A missile was shot into the least-populated side of the Pentagon. Flight 93 was blown out of the sky before it could get to wherever it was going.

You know what it all means. Although the terrorist’s acts caused several hundred deaths, the remaining deaths, almost 3,000, were caused by some other group. Why? Isn’t it obvious? Look at what’s happened to our country and our world since then. . . and what is yet to come.

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

– Osama bin Laden,
September 28, 2001