February 26, 2014

Fair and Balanced

Dispassionate. Objectively. That is how the following interview is conducted, and how the reader should view it. It is the first non-libelous thing I can remember ever hearing or reading about Margaret Sanger. Perhaps it's the circles I travel in. More likely, it's her association with Planned Parenthood which, like so many well intended organizations, seems to have been taken over by extremist zealots with a single-minded agenda.

From the Reason article: Margaret Sanger was Anti-Abortion?!?!

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:10 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, I dunnnoooooooo, man..................

My takeaway was "How terrible that the good name of Eugenics has been trashed by these bumpkin pro-lifers!" It means "Good Genes" (Ever been to Old Navy?)

Holmes in Buck v. Bell harmed the good name of eugenics enough for me. I throw Sanger in with him and the whole progressive camp of the time that Jonah Goldberg quite rightly smears as being "proximate to" fascism. I'm going to need a little more than this to rescue her good name.

Posted by: jk at February 26, 2014 6:26 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Some legitimate food for thought, though. "Anti-abortion" was what got me to click but the eugenics stuff took me by surprise. Thinking about it though, it's like almost everything else: Individual choice good - government coercion bad.

Posted by: johngalt at February 27, 2014 9:34 AM
But jk thinks:

I was a "sunshine patriot" and missed my chance to see Jonah Goldberg last week. But I am a big fan of his "Liberal Fascism" and "Tyranny of Cliches." His research strikes me as meticulous and he paints a very dark portrait of Sanger.

Nobody's perfect, and I'm open to the idea of rehabilitation, but I did not find Bagge compelling. Eugenics was okay in the 1920's -- well, yeah, Buck v. Bell was 1927.

Gillespie asks him about charges of racism and eugenics, and Bagge attacks the strawman that "she did not invent abortion."

Posted by: jk at February 27, 2014 10:41 AM
But johngalt thinks:

My take was that her driving motivation was self-directed birth control and that everything else linked back to that. Choosing not to conceive could be beneficial vis a vis genetics, abortions could be reduced by reducing conceptions, etc. But she was villified at the time by the anti-birth control forces and, today, by those opposed to what Planned Parenthood Incorporated has evolved into.

One might say she succeeded in her primary goal, or does anyone in the modern west still maintain that birth control is either of: morally wrong, or should be outlawed? It was illegal in her day.

Posted by: johngalt at February 27, 2014 11:42 AM

February 20, 2014

Century-old Injustice Made Right

At least, that's how Van Jones and Ward Churchill would describe it.

In 1905, Congress acted to reduce the size of Wind River by opening it up to homesteading by non-Indians, a decision affirmed in subsequent court rulings. It was determined that towns settled by homesteaders such as Riverton were not part of the reservation. To the EPA, both history and law are irrelevant.

Wyoming isn't sitting still for this.

"My deep concern," [Wyoming Governor Matt] Mead wrote in a statement issued last month, "is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state's boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law.

"This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?"

We too are concerned that an administration that has repeatedly ignored the courts, the Congress and the Constitution when the rule of law becomes too inconvenient in its pursuit of its fundamental transformation of America has now decided state sovereignty is an inconvenient relic.

Churchill can almost be heard, "Take that, bitches."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:02 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

If you asked me why I posted this I would say because of its utility as another example of this President "doing whatever I want." My sense is that "lame duck" doesn't mean the same thing to him as his predecessors. This sort of dictatorial action is apt to become more frequent. Sort of a "SCOTUS job security program" you might say.

Posted by: johngalt at February 20, 2014 4:17 PM

October 7, 2013

Steyn: That Which Shall Not Be Discussed

John Stossel took a peek into Nancy Pelosi's "bare" cupboard last night to see if she was correct in saying there is nothing left to cut. Brilliantly, he placed Social Security, Medicare and military spending on top of the cupboard since "those are so big they don't even fit in the cupboard." Mark Steyn takes on the same issue today saying, Too Much of the Federal Government Can't Be Shut Down.

"Mandatory spending" (Social Security, Medicare et al.) is authorized in perpetuity -- or, at any rate, until total societal collapse. If you throw in the interest payments on the debt, that means two-thirds of the federal budget is beyond the control of Congress' so-called federal budget process.

That's why you're reading government "shutdown" stories about the PandaCam at the Washington Zoo and the First Lady's ghost-Tweeters being furloughed.

He segues from there to what passes for a spending prioritization process in the capitol of our national, nee federal, government.

Pace Sen. Reid, Republican proposals to allocate spending through targeted, mere multi-billion-dollar appropriations is not only not "irresponsible" but, in fact, a vast improvement over the "continuing resolution": To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, but continuing power corrupts continually.

America has no budget process. That's why it's the brokest nation in history. So a budgeting process that can't control the budget in a legislature that can't legislate leads to a government shutdown that shuts down open areas of grassland and the unmanned boat launch on the Bighorn River in Montana.

I've been Tweeting and Facebooking that we're witnessing day whatever-it-is of "Essential Government." In reality, what's still steaming ahead full is well beyond what is essential.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM | Comments (1)
But nanobrewer thinks:

How's about we put all the mandatory items in Al Gore's lockbox?

Posted by: nanobrewer at October 8, 2013 12:21 AM

May 7, 2013

Otequay of the Ayday

"[United States Attorney General Eric] Holder's understanding of the United States Constitution is incorrect." -- Kansas Secretary of state Kris W. Kobach

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:03 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

If you don't mind it in an intemperate wrapper, ChicksOnTheRight.com has both letters in their post: Kansas To Eric Holder: "Jump Up And Bite Us, And Then Try Reading The Constitution, Whydontcha?"

Posted by: jk at May 7, 2013 3:36 PM
But jk thinks:

....and, um, that would be the same link my blog brother provided... carry on, itchy typing fingers...

Posted by: jk at May 7, 2013 3:51 PM

April 25, 2013

"Assault Rifle" Intimidation

Br'er JK mentioned "a new Martial State." This was the Boston P.D. searching for the "little brother bomber" suspect. Some are suggesting a 4th Amendment infringement. I'm still looking.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:01 PM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2013

Senator Cruz Strikes Again

I pumped my fist when he said, "And yet at the same time I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked."

Robert Laurie explains the "child porn" canard here:

It's a false premise, since the very act of creating underage porn represents a felony. This is not true of manufacturing or owning a gun. Firearms can be used for perfectly legal, ethical, reasons. No crime takes place until someone uses the weapon for a specific criminal purpose. There is no non-criminal purpose behind the manufacture or ownership of child porn, thus its illegality.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:39 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Soon I expect him to declare that the IRS is a de facto violation the 13th Amendment. Tell me how it ain't!

Posted by: johngalt at March 14, 2013 3:33 PM
But jk thinks:

Surely, the 2200 books on our exemption list are enough -- who wants to read more than that?

Posted by: jk at March 14, 2013 4:28 PM

March 12, 2013

Colorado is America's Canary

Dear America,

If you care to see what happens when a single political party controls the executive and both houses of the legislative arms of government, just look at what is taking place in Colorado. Editorialist Anthony Martin suggests Colorado Democrats appear determined to start a civil war.

A state that was once friendly to gun rights has now become a hotbed of leftwing political activism that directly challenges citizen rights -- unless that citizen wishes to smoke pot legally.

This scenario only further enrages gun rights activists who view such things as the height of hypocrisy -- touting citizen rights to smoke pot while at the same time attacking citizen rights when it comes to guns.

If you want to read about the "civil war" part you'll have to click through. I'll not be accused of incitement.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:31 PM | Comments (4)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

"If you care to see what happens when a single political party controls the executive and both houses of the legislative arms of government..."

Dude. Been there, done that, lived to tell the tale. http://is.gd/ASoCyG

Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 12, 2013 5:37 PM
But johngalt thinks:

See how easily we fail to notice when the pot is warmed gradually? We just glibly refer to the "Californication" of our state without looking to see how much further Kalifornia is trying to go at the same time. I'll share this around in Colorado circles.

My caution was meant for those in swing districts who might choose to replace their Republican congressman with a Democrat in 2014 because some Republican somewhere "frightens" them.

Posted by: johngalt at March 12, 2013 5:56 PM
But AndyN thinks:

If you care to see what happens when a single political party controls the executive and both houses of the legislative arms of government...
Were you worried that if you didn't appear balanced you'd offend someone? I believe that there are currently 24 states in which the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches. Is there any evidence that those state governments are attempting to trample on the rights of their citizens?

The GOP has many problems, but this particular problem is specifically a Democratic party problem.

Posted by: AndyN at March 12, 2013 6:43 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Good question! I love good questions.

I wasn't concerned about offending anyone, as yesterday's "On Legislation and Human Rights" post should illustrate, but I was seeking to illustrate a general principle rather than a partisan lament. Now I will try to defend it.

I am less affected by the anti-liberty of Republicans than that of Democrats but I do recognize it when I see it and, as a proponent of consistency in ones principles, oppose it. For example, Arkansas just overrode the veto of its Democrat governor to implement what some call the nation's most restrictive abortion ban. If one accepts the premise that a state prohibition on abortion tramples a right of the mother, namely to control her own bodily functions, then this is an example of Republicans doing exactly what I condemn Colorado Democrats for: A partisan infringment of individual liberties.

Posted by: johngalt at March 12, 2013 7:08 PM

February 23, 2012

Constitutional Sheriffs

Among the "gifts" afforded us by the advent of the Obama Administration has been talk of state nullification of federal authority over American citizens. Now there are similar musings at the next closer level of government to the individual - counties.

I could highlight some between-the-lines disdain in author Nancy Lofholm's write up but instead I choose to commend the Denver Post for running the story at all, much less on its February 12, 2012 front page under the headline: Emerging movement encourages sheriffs to act as shield against federal tyranny

The headline tells enough of the story for my purposes here so I won't excerpt. Please click through if you want the details. Unsurprisingly, news of the Arizona Convention that prompted the story has generated controversy. A Denver blogger wrote about it as "Sheriffs for Treason." But is it? Does our nation not operate under the "consent of the governed?"

I wanted to post this as a companion to JK's Craig Colorado vs. Renewable Energy Mandates post last week. The mental image of Moffat County Sheriff Tim Jantz and his deputies meeting briefcase-wielding EPA bureaucrats at the front gate of the Craig power plant is a reassuring prospect. And today's story about the Gibson guitar raid is another case where one starts to wonder, Who is the sheriff in that county and what was he doing that day?

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:22 PM | Comments (1)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

WHOA. The article you link to includes this:

"Colorado had the largest representation at this convention, along with California and Utah."

California? Can it be?

Well, just as Boulder is not Colorado Springs, California outside of the big metropolitan areas - the big eastern and northeastern counties especially - might fit right in with this. I've visited their website, and am very interested in what I see.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 23, 2012 5:48 PM

August 14, 2011

First Amendment "Right" to Cell Service

"The idea that we're going to keep people from talking about what they might or might not do, based on the idea that they might all agree to violate the law, is positively Orwellian," he said.

So ends a story on Bay Area Rapid Transit's (BART) decision to temporarily suspend cell repeater service in underground train stations to help thwart a planned flashmob protesting a shooting by Transit Police.

The decision was made after agency officials saw details about the protest on an organizer's website.

OK, what's wrong with that? Lynette Sweet of BART's Board of Directors explains:

"It was almost like an afterthought," Sweet told The Associated Press. "This is a land of free speech and for us to think we can do that shows we've grown well beyond the business of what we're supposed to be doing and that's providing transportation. Not censorship."

Does Ms. Sweet not realize that the phone equipment is owned and operated by BART as a convenience to riders and is beyond the auspices of "transportation?" Does she not see the parallel between disabling a local communications node and setting traffic signals to blink 4-way red? Would she prefer that the fully predictable mob form and become unruly and then see the tear gas and rubber bullets? (Well, maybe not in SF but you get my point.) No, Sweet and her ilk see this as analgous to the Arab Spring.

"BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on its website. Echoing that comparison, vigorous weekend discussion on Twitter was labeled with the hashtag "muBARTek."

People, please. How long until you compare them to Hitler? And what would the same people have said if this "political protest" led to injuries or damage? Anti-authority rallies are loads of fun until someone gets an eye put out.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)