Standards and Grudges

Search:

The Supreme Court’s recent rewriting of the Fifth Amendment has angered many. I wonder if Justice Souter thought Eminent Domain might be used to seize his home when he cast the deciding swing vote in favor of destroying property rights. I honestly hope he didn’t. This situation is much more pleasing if it hits him completely unexpected.

A request has been filed to seize Justice Souter’s property in order to develop a hotel named “Lost Liberty Hotel” and a museum open to the public which chronicles the destruction of various liberties in America. Currently Justice Souter’s property nets the government $2,895 in property taxes. The developer, Logan Darrow Clements, contends that a hotel and museum at that site will create more tax revenue, which serves a greater public benefit and therefore a lawful use of Eminent Domain as redefined by the Supreme Court.

I was reading through Michelle Malkin’s blog again today and followed a link to Smash, The Indepundit. Smash has a blog entry about the tactics of those trying to block military recruiters from schools. There are many comments, from both sides, but it was a person writing in support of the military that caught my attention.

The individual goes by the name Trantor and is definitely someone I would have trouble being nice to in a face to face conversation. In the course of arguing that the military doesn’t prey on uneducated individuals, Trantor made the following comments.

I disagree that less education will place you in combat. It depends on a lot of variables. Certainly, in the Air Force less education will exclude you from combat because only the officers fight. The enlisted guys stay back on base. The most educated guys are the only ones who fight in the Air Force.

I was struck back by such an arrogant and ignorant statement. Luckily it wasn’t left uncontested, but Trantor’s reply was seriously lacking.

Point taken, Billy Hank. You’re right, there are enlisted who fight in the USAF though the bulk of the warriors are officers.

I’ve love to know how Trantor defines “warrior”. The officers whom he is referring to are most likely pilots. I don’t mean to downplay the risks of being a military pilot, but currently pilots have a fairly low risk of receiving hostile fire. Most instances where a pilot is injured or killed are due to some sort of mechanical or human error. The enlisted aircrews are exposed to those risks as well. When it comes down to it, the numbers don’t back up Trantor’s statements.

The Military Casualty Information website has several reports that can quickly dispel the myth. The first I would like to point out the Wounded In Action Report, dated from March 19th 2003 to June 4th 2005. This lists only hostile action in Operation Iraqi Freedom. No accidents, suicides or homicides are included in these figures. During this time period, 12 officers and 153 enlisted were wounded. Think about that. Just under 93% of Air Force Wounded In Action are enlisted.

Now let’s look at the Military Deaths Report for the same time period. There were 6 officers and 13 enlisted military deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 63% of the total Air Force personnel killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom were enlisted.

I’d love to see Trantor try to tell some enlisted Air Force personnel stationed in Iraqi that they aren’t warriors. Airbases are routinely attacked. Some bases were mortared on a daily basis. Enlisted make up the vast majority of personnel designated to defend airbases. It’s also commonplace for Air Force Security Forces to participate in patrols and assist Iraqi Police. There’s also Air Force Special Forces which are primarily enlisted. While most enlisted jobs in the Air Force are considered non-combat, if their base or convoy is attacked and they’re killed, injured or fight back, then they are warriors. Also, pilots aren’t much use if the enlisted aren’t building the bombs and fixing the aircraft. It’s the enlisted that get the jets in the air, not the pilots.

The Supreme Court strikes again with another bad decision. Earlier today the Supreme Court ruled that companies that make software that can be used to share digital media may be held accountable if a customer uses the software to distribute or acquire copyright protected intellectual property. It’s not immediately clear whether or not this ruling overturns the 1984 Sony Betamax ruling, which protects hardware that may be used to duplicate intellectual property, but this ruling does severely restrict future development of software.

This ruling creates an unfair situation where companies are forced to assume responsibility for the actions of their customers. This would have never happened if software wasn’t an abstract product that cannot be held in a person’s hand. Imagine if this case was about hammers. A hammer has a purpose, but may be used improperly. Should the manufacturer of the hammer be responsible if a customer uses the hammer to kill or damage property? This ruling is obviously the result of heavily financed lobbying by the RIAA and MPAA.

The RIAA has been leading the march to destroy technology that can share digital media. They claim they lose a substantial amount of income due to filesharing. That’s an outright lie. Two independent university researchers performed a 17 week study in 2002 and concluded that filesharing not only does not inflict loss on the recording industry, but actually increases sales. The RIAA study which has been used to lobby the government promotes the false basis that every downloaded song would have been purchased had it not been available for free on the internet. The fact is a majority of people that download would not have purchased the music. Most users are sampling music, much like listening to the radio or lack the luxury income to purchase all the music they would like to have.

The music industry as a whole has seen a reduction in sales, but that is a deceiving figure. Music companies are offering fewer albums, less variety and releasing more products that receive poor or moderate reviews. Bad business and marketing decisions are undermining their sales more than any other factor. This past decade the music industry has focused on selling music that sounds so similar to a selection from another artist, that many consumers didn’t bother purchasing the product. I believe the music industry also made a terrible mistake by focusing more on the boy band and teen diva pop genre and failing to offer adequate variety for consumers outside of the teen or young adult demographics.

The people and artists need to stand up and send a message to the media companies. The only reason entertainment media is so overpriced and artists receive such a small percentage is because the media companies take an unreasonable share of the profits. As a consumer, you need to modify your purchasing habits. Buy your music directly from the artists when possible or purchase music only from record labels that are not RIAA members. This does mean you won’t be buying the latest album from Britney Spears or Coldplay, but is that really such a loss? There are literally hundreds of artists out there that aren’t owned by the RIAA that can fill their shoes.

Property rights aren’t what they used to be.

The Supreme Court has recently given possibly the most damaging ruling in the past 20 years. The ruling expands Eminent Domain to include government seizing of private property for the purpose of private development. Eminent Domain used to be invoked only to expand roads, put in schools, parks, or other such government buildings and utilities. This ruling is the result of the suit Kelo vs. The City of New London. City officials in New London are hoping to revitalize their city by declaring the homes of some residents condemned and then leasing the property to a private developer to create a riverfront hotel, a health club, office buildings, a river walk along the Thames River, a Coast Guard museum and a research center for Pfizer Corporation. This ruling allows the powerful or rich to persuade local officials to steal the property of common, less powerful people.

The Supreme Court came down with a 5-4 decision against the property owners of America. It wasn’t conservative justices in favor of this decision either, as some would automatically assume. I’m starting to believe that liberals in this country want some form of modified socialism melded with capitalism. Basically, enterprise and profit are allowed, although heavily regulated, but property is owned by the government, not the individual. This attack on property rights goes hand-in-hand with Madison’s smoking ban in bars, which strips business owners of the right to choose if they will allow an otherwise legal activity on their property.

The government is failing the people. It’s supposed to protect the rights of everyone, not just the rich and powerful. It’s time for a Constitutional Amendment to protect rights of property owners.

I suggest everyone gets involved with protecting property rights. Read more about this issue at Ann Althouse’s blog and Michelle Malkin’s blog here and here.

UPDATE: Friday, 24 June 2005, 13:19

Let’s look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Supreme Court ruling on Kelo vs. The City of New London of course redefined “public use” to include the leasing of seized land for private use. The Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the Constitution by weakening the Bill of Rights. It’s time for Congress and the President to step in and exercise the power of checks and balances and amend the Constitution to protect property owners. While they’re at it, they should end the lifelong appointment of Judges. At the very least, appointment to the Supreme Court should include a Sunset Clause. After 12 years on the bench, approval of another 12 year term should be determined by a simple majority vote by Congress.

UPDATE: Fri, 24 June 2005, 14:07

The Truth Laid Bear has created an aggregator and community for blogs discussing Kelo vs. The City of New London ruling. There’s a lot of information to be found there. Give it a read. The blogosphere is really getting on top of this issue.

Some Democrats believe Karl Rove owes them an apology or he must resign. During a fund raising event for the Republican Party of New York, Karl Rove compared the response recommended by liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party to that of the Republican Party in the wake of 9/11. Apparently it’s inappropriate to criticize what the Democrats considered to be the proper course of action, but completely appropriate to criticize the Republican course of action, as Democrats have done incessantly from nearly the day after 9/11.

The Democrats are trying to play the victim card during this current outbreak of rhetoric. I don’t know who they’re trying to fool when they’re paying Howard Dean to run all over the country continually spouting off much more disrespectful and reckless statements about Republicans. Let us not forget the comments made by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin or a recent portrayal of Karl Rove in the cartoon American Dad either. The Democrats basically turned up the heat and are now complaining that it’s hot.

I wish the Democrats would just be honest about why they want Karl Rove to resign. Democrats can’t understand how Bush could get reelected. It couldn’t possibly have been the candidate they choose to run against Bush, John Kerry or the fact that the Democratic Party is loosing touch with most of America outside high density urban areas. It must have been something Karl Rove did. He’s evil. Bush made a deal with the Devil and the Devil is Karl Rove.

Karl Rove had a job and he did his job well. If the Democrats had someone running their campaigns that well, they wouldn’t be complaining. Instead they have Howard Dean running amok across the country spouting garbage and failing to raise funds for campaigns. If Democrats want someone to resign to improve their chances in the next election, it’s Howard Dean, not Karl Rove that needs to step down.