The Second Opinion

Prayers and best wishes for NYgirl

Blogger NYgirl, often cited here, has been injured in a car accident.  Please join me in praying for a quick and complete recovery.

Running out of people to kill in Darfur

(hat tip: The Emporer at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

The genocide in Darfur may at last be coming to an end.  Not because of international action.  Not because the Muslim Janjaweed militia have suddenly decided to stop the killing.

They're simply running out of people to butcher.

According to Johann Hari of the UK's Independent:

At last, some good news from Darfur: the genocide in western Sudan is nearly over. There's only one problem - it's drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill. The National Islamic Front government has culled over 400,000 "Zurga" - a word which translates best as "niggers" - and driven two million more from their homes in its quest to make western Sudan "Zurga-free".

Their racist Janjaweed militias would love to carry on rampaging, but the black villages have all been burned down and the women have been raped with "Arab seed" to "destroy their race from within" - what's a poor militiaman to do? The first genocide of the 21st century has proceeded without a hitch, and the genocidaires have won.

The UN was founded to stop exactly this kind of thing.  Did it?  Did it even try?  No.  In fact, the UN couldn't even quite bring itself to call the mass murders in Darfur 'genocide'.  Seems that some countries, such as Red China and Pakistan, have business interests in Sudan and didn't want the UN to rock the boat.  Obligingly, the UN kept quiet about the whole thing. 

Well, it IS one way to deal with a genocide: wait around long enough until everybody's dead.

The world should hang its head in shame.

I guess some pigs ARE more equal than others...

(hat tip: Ith at Absinthe and Cookies)

Porcelain pigs offend Muslims

LEICESTER -- Police here in central England seized a collection of porcelain pigs from a house's window sill after Muslims complained that they were offensive.

"I just couldn't believe it, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry," Mrs Nancy Bennett, the owner of the 17 miniature pigs, told the Sun tabloid newspaper.

The porcelain figures were held at the local police station, while Mrs Bennett was threatened with prosecution if she replaces the collection. Her house is located in the same street as the city's main mosque, meaning that Muslim worshippers often passed by her front window where the pig figurines were on display.

"Muslims find pigs highly offensive," explained police officer David Griffiths. "That is why the complaints were made".

I wonder what those Muslims who complained would think about the average main street in North Carolina, where images and statues of pigs adorn our beloved BBQ restaurants?

This is just pathetic.  I hope that the story is a gag (it certainly makes me gag).  Unfortunately, it sounds true: I can see the PC police in Britain, sacrificing Mrs. Bennett's right to freedom of speech on the altar of not offending some whiny Muslims.  I wonder how long John Bull is going to put up with this kind of silliness before he starts fighting back?

NC a leader... in the price of gas

According to a recent AAA survey, North Carolina leads the nation in the price of gasoline.  Only DC and Alaska (!) have higher gasoline costs.  Part of this is due to the fact that our state gets most of its fuel from the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast.  However, as noted by the AP:

A key reason for that dubious title here is North Carolina's gas tax. The 27 cents paid on each gallon is the highest among Southern states and fifth-highest nationally. By comparison, Virginia's gas tax is 17 cents per gallon and South Carolina's is 16 cents.

Natch, there have been calls on Governor Easley (known without affection as "Tax Hike Mike") to suspend or at least reduce the gas tax.  One would think that this would be a no-brainer.  After all, politicians seem to spend a lot of time and hot air talking about how much they want to do for 'the common man' or 'working families' and even 'the poor'.  Well, there are a few million people here in North Carolina who could use a little help dealing with the high price of fuel.  What does Tax Hike Mike say?

Even as Hurricane Rita appeared poised to disrupt Gulf Coast oil supplies again, Gov. Mike Easley said Wednesday he has no plans to roll back state gas taxes to curb shock at the pumps.

It seems that our governor has been taking lessons from Gov. Blanco.  Though we elected him to govern our state, he won't do what he can to lower gas prices.  Rather, he whines that the feds ought to do something about it:

Instead, Easley joined other Democratic governors who are pressuring the federal government to solve the problem of higher gasoline prices.

"I hope everybody is waking up, that we've got to do something better than we're doing now on energy in this country," he told reporters. "We want to see Washington take up this issue."

In other words, I and my fellow Tar Heels can get stuffed as far as Tax Hike Mike is concerned.  If we start feeling too much of a squeeze at the pump, we can go to Washington to cry on Uncle Sammy's shoulder.

Just remember to fill 'er up before crossing into VA: Tax Hike Mike needs the money.

If at first you don't succeed...

Ronnie Earle has apparently read some of the scathing criticisms of his 'indictment' of Tom DeLay, because he's gone and got another one.  According to the AP's April Castro:

The latest indictment, for one count of conspiring to launder money and one count of money laundering, was brought hours after DeLay's lawyers attacked on technical grounds another indictment handed down last week.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle did not return repeated phone calls from The Associated Press, but legal experts say the new charges from the Democratic prosecutor were likely filed to head off a potential problem with the previous charge.

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003 — a year after the acts in question.

Money laundering is a much more serious charge than... um... er... Well, it's a much more serious charge than whatever Ronnie Earle charged DeLay with in the first indictment.  DeLay and his supporters, natch, are none to thrilled with this turn of events:

"The judicial incompetence and political hatred that Ronnie Earle showed today demonstrates that Texans did not elect their best and brightest to the position of Travis County DA," DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said. "Ronnie Earle may truly be the Elmer Fudd of politics."

Again, I don't know if DeLay is innocent.  As many people have observed, one doesn't reach such a high position in American politics without having some bodies buried SOMEWHERE.  However, Ronnie Earle's indictments certainly seem to be more political hatchet jobs than serious criminal investigation.  His first indictment, handed down on the last day of the grand jury's term, was completely non-specific and indeed appears to charge DeLay under a statute that wasn't even law when the alleged crime was committed (can you say ex post facto, anyone?).  Now he's gone back to the well to find other charges.

DeLay has been pilloried by the liberal press and the democrats in Congress, mostly because he isn't nice to them.  Ronnie Earle publicly called him a bully.  Well, being a bully isn't a crime.

It may well be that nothing DeLay did was a crime, either.

Spoiling for a fight

Many Republicans, including Michelle Malkin, Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry, are less than thrilled with President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers to replace Madame Justice O'Connor.  It seems to me that their problem is not with Miers per se.  Though they complain a bit about her lack of judicial experience and the appearance of cronyism, their real problem seems to be that they were spoiling for a fight with the democrats in the Senate and hoped that Bush would appoint a person of unquestioned conservative principles.  Instead, they got... a cipher.  The fact that some democrats actually seem happy with the choice of Miers doesn't help their mood.

I would be happier with a nominee of the sort that Malkin et al want, and not only for partisan reasons: I think that a Supreme Court justice really ought to have experience on the bench, though I accept that there are good arguments for having justices who have experience outside the bench.  However, I don't see that any good is served by having a battle with the Senate dems unless it's unavoidable.  Let them bear the onus for picking a fight; let them look foolish and petty by picking apart the private life of the nominee; let them hang themselves.

Miers may not be the best legal brain in the country.  She may not have the solid conservative credentials that so many of us would like to see.  But she does have one major point to recommend her: George Bush, who knows her well, thinks she'll be a good justice.

Only time will tell if he's right.

What does the government owe us?

Sir George, wielder of the devastating Cluebat o' Doom at the Rott, tore up an NYT editorial by Michael Ignatieff called "The Way We Live Now: 9-25-05; The Broken Contract".  Ignatieff wails that the government somehow reneged on its "contract" with the people of New Orleans by letting the levees around the city break.  Sir George has left nothing to be said about this Ignatieff's drivel, but I am interested in the question of what the government "owes" us.

Ignatieff writes:A contract of citizenship defines the duties of care that public officials owe to the people of a democratic society.  The Constitution defines some parts of this contract, and statutes define other parts, but much of it is a tacit understanding that citizens have about what to expect from their government.  Its basic term is protection: helping citizens to protect their families and possessions from forces beyond their control.

In principle, I agree with Ignatieff.  As our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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 to 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.

Many of Jefferson's contemporaries preferred 'life, liberty and property'; clearly, they believed that the government's job was to protect the citizen.  But from what?  And to what extent?

Historically, I think that government's 'protective' role has been limited to defense against breaches of the peace, whether from invasion, civil unrest, or crime.  Hence, states from time immemorial have had armies and police forces (often these were identical).  As the power of the state has increased, it has been able to provide more 'protective' services, ranging from fire fighting, environmental protection, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, and disaster relief / mitigation.

Let's be clear about one thing, however: the state does not do this solely from altruistic motives.  Rather, it has a considerable stake in providing such services to its population.  First, citizens are a vital resource for the state.  Not only do we pay taxes, we also produce goods and services which are also taxed, filling the government's coffers.  We serve as soldiers.  Our inventiveness and industry  enriches and empowers the state.  This is a cynical view, but I think that, at bottom, there is a great deal of truth to it.

If the state allows too much damage to its people and their possessions, it not only endangers its source of revenue and power, but also its own existence.  Mr. Jefferson wasn't simply engaging in a rhetorical exercise when he wrote that the people have the right to alter or abolish their government: he was stating a cold fact to which the ghosts of innumerable deposed kings, despots, and dictators could bear witness.  In a democracy, the stakes are usually not so high, but individual politicians are very aware that their reelection often hinges upon how well they provide services to their constituents. 

This is not to say that there isn't an element of altruism in government.  We Americans are a rich people, and I think that we are also a fundamentally decent people.  Americans saw people suffering along the Gulf Coast and responded magnificently, opening their hearts, wallets, and even homes.  Our government is going to spend billions to rebuild the area, and the only real quibble that the average American might have is that some of it might be siphoned away by fraud.  We want and expect our tax dollars to be used to help our fellow Americans in time of distress.

But does the government 'owe' this to us?  Is there, as Ignatieff, some more-or-less unwritten contract between government and citizen?

No.

Our government provides the services it does because WE want it to do so.  There is no 'contract of care' between John Q. Public and 'the government'.  Rather, it exists between him and his neighbor, between him and every other American from Bangor to Honolulu, from Miami to Barrow: we take care of each other.  We request and require that the government, because of its size and power, act on our behalf, but it is our SERVANT, the instrument of our desire to help each other.  I pay taxes not only because I want some services from the government, but also because I'm willing to chip in to help Americans who I don't even know who've gotten a bad break and need help, whether in the form of unemployment insurance, Social Security pension, or a grant to help rebuild their houses or businesses after they've been flattened by a hurricane.

Ignatieff is making the same mistake that so many liberals make when he assumes some contract between citizen and government: he assumes that government is some independent entity aside from the people.  It is not.  It exists at our pleasure and to serve our collective wants and desires.  We hand stewardship of it over to elected and appointed officials from the president all the way down to the local dogcatcher, but it belongs to us.  They may be good stewards or poor stewards, but they serve at our good pleasure like any employee. 

Katrina and the media

Rapes.  Murders.  Gang violence.  Cannibalism.

Katrina was a reporter's dream: so many juicy, bloody stories to cover, each more shocking than the last.  Jack the Ripper meets Sodom and Gomorrah amidst the Plagues of Egypt.

Trouble is, most of the stories weren't true.

With so much of what was breathlessly reported from New Orleans now having proved to be wildly exaggerated or flat untrue, what does this mean for all the judgments that have been made in the past several weeks?  FEMA and especially outgoing chief Michael Brown were roasted for their slow and inept response.  The people of New Orleans are regarded in some quarters as a pack of thieving, murderous savages.  Their government, including Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco, are thought to be almost criminally incompetent.  Race relations have been damaged.

Is it time to reevaluate?

Yes.

It's also time to start looking at who was really responsible for the hysteria over Katrina.  It seems to me that the finger points to one guilty party: the BM.  They took every rumor, every hysterical ranting of every nutcase or distraught official and reported it without bothering to check to see if it was true or not.  Mark Steyn has written about this in today's Washington Times:

Dan Rather was on "Larry King" the other night and was asked about the Katrina coverage. Say what you like about Dan, but he knows his meteorological phenomena. I've always thought there was something quintessentially American about Dan's hurricane editions of the CBS news -- not the part of the show where he's reporting on the actual hurricane, but the bit where he says "And today's other headlines," as if it's the most normal thing in the world to be reading "The Dow closed 19 points down today" while wrapped around a lamppost in your sou'wester with a rusting doublewide flying over your shoulder.

Yet Hurricane Dan professed himself delighted with his successors. "They took us there to the hurricane," he told Larry. "They put the facts in front of us and, very important, they sucked up their guts and talked truth to power."

Er, no. The facts they put in front of us were wrong, and they didn't talk truth to power. They talked to goofs in power, like New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass, and uncritically fell for every nutso yarn they were peddled. The media swallowed more bilge than if they'd been lying down with their mouths open as the levee collapsed. Ten thousand dead. Widespread rape and murder. A 7-year-old gang-raped and then throat-slashed. It was great stuff -- and none of it happened. No gang-raped 7-year-olds. None.

Most of the media are still in Dan mode, sucking up their guts and congratulating themselves about what a swell job they did during Katrina. CNN producers were advising their guests to "be angry," and there was so much to get angry about, not least that no matter how angry you got on air Anderson Cooper was always much better at it. And Mayor Nagin as well. To show he was angry, he used a lot of profanity. "That... Superdome," he raged. "Five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

But nobody got killed by a hooligan in the Superdome. The problem wasn't rape and murder, but the rather more prosaic lack of bathroom facilities. As Ben Stein put it, it was the media that rioted. They grabbed every lurid rumor and took it for a wild joy ride across primetime. There was a real story in there -- big hurricane, people dead -- but it wasn't enough, and certainly not enough for damaging George Bush.

As Steyn points out, if the BM got it so wrong on Katrina, how can we trust their reporting on Iraq?  Or, really, on anything else?

Harriet Miers for SCOTUS

Well, the dems said that they wanted a woman to replace Madame Justice O'Connor on the bench.  Think that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers will make them happy?

NAH!

The idea that President Bush MUST appoint a woman to replace O'Connor is witless, of course: it implies that the law somehow applies differently to women than it does to men, and therefore only a female justice can judge such cases correctly.  Should we then have an all-female Supreme Court to judge cases that apply to women?  How about an all-black Court, or an all-Latino Court?

The idea is ludicrous, but is a logical outgrowth from the politicization of the Court.  Those who call for judges and justices to be appointed on the basis of gender, skin color, ethnic heritage or any other physical trait is confusing the job of a judge with that of a politician.  It is the job of an elected politician is to cater to one or more interest groups.  The role of a judge is and should be to say what the law is without fear or favor.  If the president and the Senate would keep this firmly in mind, it would greatly smooth the process of appointing judges and justices, and I think the cause of the law would be much better served.

Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle

Now that more right-wingers have had time to react to the indictment of Tom DeLay, they've been able to dig up a bit more about the case and the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle.  To put it mildly, this guy seems to be a malicious fruitcake.  He has a history of bringing charges against political opponents, charges that are shown to be baseless in court.  In 1993, he indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson on a variety of charges which he dropped after the case went to court.  Michelle Malkin has a great deal more about this guy. 

The Washington Times' Hugh Aynesworth has this to say about Earle under the headline "A Tough Prosecutor":

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has long been a nemesis of Texas Republicans, particularly of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He called the man Washington knows as "the Hammer," for his partisan toughness, a "bully."

He has persuaded grand juries to indict several prominent Texas politicians of both parties, including the current senior sitting U.S. senator, although several of those high-profile cases failed.

The late Bob Bullock, a Democratic lieutenant governor, once compared Mr. Earle to "a little boy playing with matches."

John Podhoretz is less charitable in a New York Post editorial:

DeLay's prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has a long history of using his office in questionable ways against political rivals. DeLay played some major political hardball back in Texas a few years ago when he masterminded a successful effort to redraw the state's congressional districts — behavior about which Texas Democrats remain plum loco — and Earle has been on his tail ever since.

Earle was humiliated in 1994 when he sought to drop a case he had brought against Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on the eve of trial just so he could switch judges and give it a second shot — only to see the judge swear in a jury to assure that Hutchison receive a full acquittal.

Some liberals defend Earle on the strange grounds that he isn't guilty of using his office to play politics because he's also indicted fellow Democrats. But in the highest-profile case he had before Hutchison, Earle was also humiliated when an absurd bribery charge he had brought against Democratic state Attorney General Jim Mattox led to a quick jury verdict of "not guilty." He also indicted himself once — on some campaign-finance charge — so there's some reason to believe he might be a bit cracked.

Attorneys Mark Levin and Barbara Comstock believe that the case will collapse simply because there's nothing to it.  Says Levin:

Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something!

Comstock (e-mail to Michelle Malkin):

The Problems with Earle's case:

In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.

However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.

In addition:

No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.

No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.

What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.

Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.

Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.

There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?

But sending DeLay to jail may not be what it's all about.  After all, Earle - who spoke about the case at a democrat fundraiser in May - has provided the dems with the ability to attach the word 'indicted' to Tom DeLay's name.  It may even be that he'll be able to persuade a judge to have DeLay brought to his arraignment in handcuffs... with LOTS of photographers in attendence.  DeLay has already had to step down from his post as Majority Leader.  Even if the charges are baseless, Earle's actions have been VERY good for the DNC.

As I've already said, justice should be done.  If DeLay has broken the law, he should be punished.  But something certainly stinks about Ronnie Earle.