Given the TSA's "grope'em all and let god sort'em out approach", its not surprising academic supporters are now crawling out of the woodwork to support the notion that fondling 90year old Scandinavian grandmothers is just as valuable in security terms as fondling travelers more likely to be terrorists.

Stop using racial profiling, says Professor William Press from the University of Texas at Austin. He claims that as well as being politically and ethically questionable, racial profiling does no better in helping law enforcement officials in their task of catching terrorists than standard uniform random sampling techniques...

If UT math professors have a spare $2,300 just laying around to lavish on politicians, perhaps they're being overpaid. I'm just saying...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 11:09 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

From John Avlon.

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from Ground Zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11th, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

. . .

The application was submitted under a “community and cultural enhancement” grant program administered by the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation (LMDC), which oversaw the $20 billion in federal aid allocated in the wake of 9/11 and is currently doling out millions in remaining taxpayer funds for community development.

Once again, the question is not whether they have a legal right to federal dollars; it's wether they should access them. The ground zero mosque developers seem to have little interest in propriety and a stunning lack of empathy. Of course. That's how you bring people together. By stepping on their feet.

Thanks to DrewM and Ben.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:34 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

At Legal Insurrection.

Gawker was foolish to publish so much of Sarah Palin's book, and now the same people who did that ugly, one-night-stand hit piece on Christine O'Donnell get to go through the most invasive of probes:

It's called discovery. In a litigation your lawyers are entitled to e-mails, and all Gawker's internal documents regarding not only this theft, but you. Because you will want to prove that their intent was to harm you and damage you, so everything they ever have written off-the-record, everyone with whom they ever have communicated about you, every strategy they have employed to take you down, now is fair game.

And your lawyers also get to take depositions under oath of the people at Gawker, and to subpoena for testimony others who may have relevant evidence as to the issue in the case. The Palingate people would be a good start.

Gawker has given you an opening large enough to drive a truck through. Please go there, if not for yourself, then for all the conservative women who have been targeted by Gawker and the other Gawkers out there.

It couldn't happen to a nicer outfit. I do hope Sarah Palin goes through with it. More at Politico.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:28 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

The news of new TSA overreach is becoming a daily occurrence. Everywhere you turn you are bombarded with stories of TSA incompetence, harassment, and mission creep. In the past two days alone weÂ’ve seen video of a boy being strip searched, the story of a man's urostomy bag being ripped, and a grandmother having to explain to her granddaughter why the TSA is touching her no-no spots.

Enter CNN reporter Jessica Ravitz, who is magnanimous enough to let us on in a little secret. You travelers ain't exactly hot stuff either.

The poor TSA agents have had to :

chase cats through terminals, watched an escaped bird fly overhead and come face-to-face with pet monkeys and other exotic creatures. One agent, while previously working at Washington's Dulles, opened a cooler to find a live penguin.

You read that right. They had to chase cats. Those poor tortured souls. CNN would like you to keep that in mind the next time you are in line at the airport and hesitant to spread you legs so a TSA Agent can pick at your dingleberries.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:26 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

The most prominent lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare are filed in Federal District Court in Pensacola, Florida and Federal District Court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both are expected to proceed by early 2011.

These are very important cases because it is expected they will provide clarification on the so-called General Welfare and Commerce clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Since Obamacare, as written, does not include a severability clause, any element of the law deemed to be unconstitutional, will render the whole of Obamacare unconstitutional. Yet, whatever the outcome in the lower court(s), it is expected that at least one of the subject lawsuits will end-up before the United States Supreme Court.

I have spent a great deal of time over the past few months studying and debating these two clauses with local progressives. Our debates centered around the greater issue of how to read the U.S. Constitution.

Literalists, like me, read the words and meanings in the Constitution based on the English language in plain form and how they were defined at the time they were written, without nuance. Simply put, I believe the Constitution means what is says and says what it means. The Constitution should be regarded in this manner since it functions as the framework for the United States government and the supreme law of the land. It should be particularly noted, the Constitution is explicit that the people and the states delegated specific enumerated powers to the federal government and retained all others for themselves. This is a declarative statement that clearly displays the founding fathersÂ’ desire for a much limited central government.

Despite the clear constitutional limitations enunciated by the founding fathers, case law adherents read not the words in the Constitution, but rather precedents established through stare decisis. The flaw in that process is the fact many cases, which now form precedent, were based on ideological influences at the time they were decided, as opposed to the ConstitutionÂ’s plain English intent.

From 1787, when the general welfare clause was written, until 1937 when it morphed into a justification for Great Depression era social programs, the clause was clearly understood to deal with the “General Welfare” of the United States (as an entity), and not necessarily as individuals, per se. I think that is clear from Article I Section 8 in the Constitution. In 1792 James Madison, generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, wrote: “If that clause was meant to allow Congress to pass anything it wanted to ensure creature comforts of all citizens, then you may as well throw the Constitution in the fire.”

The “Commerce Clause” reads, in part: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes”. If read literally, the clause suggests it is intended to be external, not internal. Foreign Nations, Indian Tribes and the States are external to the federal government. The clause does not authorize unlimited regulation by the federal government. If trade between two states be free of any duties, there is no need for the federal government to intervene and “regulate.” But if one state were to impose a duty on goods coming in from another state, the clause authorizes the federal government to intervene and “regulate.”

The case law adherent reads the Commerce Clause as encompassing any number of regulations placed on the citizens of the United States, corporations, businesses, schools, state and local governments, or any other entity where commerce has transpired or may transpire in the future. Such an interpretation seems to suggest the federal government has unlimited authority over the lives of its citizens. I consider that to be tyranny, as opposed to Federalism and the limited government intended by the founders.

The Commerce Clause issue will be a challenge in deciding Obamacare because it would require the court to disregard stare decisis, the practice of honoring previous rulings without convincing reason to revisit them. But I think the mandate of forcing individual citizens to buy health insurance or be fined, etc., to be a convincing reason. If the federal government can force citizens to buy health insurance, is there any limit to what it can do or force us to buy?

The federal court cases in Florida and Virginia challenging ObamacareÂ’s constitutionality will be critically important ones to watch. For the future of states rights hang in the balance.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:32 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

Algore apparently had a "Biden Moment" and unwittingly admitted the truth by accident.

..."First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small."...

..."One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:31 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

It could vastly increase your brain power. Or it could possibly kill you.

Increase my killing power? Let's do it!

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:34 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess the state-controlled media hasn't seen fit to celebrate it yet, but another terrorist scumbag has achieved room temperature. I suppose since Hugo Chavez supports FARC, the media won't say much about it. That's probably why I saw it on Instapundit first.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:44 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Crap. I missed tonight's episode due to an Iowa State basketball game and my niece's 3rd birthday party. Consider this to be a zombie "open thread" and discuss amongst yourselves.

First suggested topic? "Fences: Would they have helped?"

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 07:58 PM | Comments (159)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

With the regular crew taking a break I'll be here to abuse Ace's hospitality fill in on the ONT a couple times this week. Let's start with the serious stuff first:

Thanks Oh So Much For Coming By:

(h/t Hot Air) more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:53 PM | Comments (501)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.