On some kind of secret mission at the Cannes Film Festival, here making contact with deep-cover agent-in-place Naomi Watts.

Yah, I know, this post makes no sense because she's famous now and obviously not a spy.

So, sure, this post is a cheap shot.

I'm just noting that she's no longer keeping that stealthy deep-cover covert-operations need-to-know secrecy she used have when she was driving every day up the central road to CIA HQ Langley -- you know, the way she used to, before Armitage blew her "legend."

Valerie Plame is/was as much as spy as I am. After all, I know spy-slang like "legend," because I've seen Burn Notice.

Wait, no I haven't. What is Burn Notice?

(I love that sketch... so random.)

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were approved by Congress and ratified by the states after the U.S. CIVIL WAR. Known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, they were designed to protect individual rights. The Thirteenth Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or SLAVERY, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime.

For many decades, however, the goals of the Civil War Amendments were frustrated. Due perhaps to the waning public support for postwar Reconstruction and the nation's lack of sensitivity to individual rights, the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed the application of the amendments. The Supreme Court thwarted the amendments in two ways: by restrictively interpreting the substantive provisions of the amendments and by rigidly confining Congress's enforcement power.

Congress enacted a number of statutes to enforce the provisions of the Civil War Amendments, but by the end of the nineteenth century, most of those statutes had been overturned by the courts, repealed, or nullified by subsequent legislation. For example, Congress enacted the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1875 (18 Stat. 336), which provided that all persons should have full and equal enjoyment of public inns, parks, theaters, and other places of amusement, regardless of race or color. Although some federal courts upheld the constitutionality of the act, many courts struck it down. These decisions were then appealed together to the U.S. Supreme Court and became known as the CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 (1883). The cases involved theaters in New York and California that would not seat African Americans, a hotel in Missouri and a restaurant in Kansas that would not serve African Americans, and a train in Tennessee that would not allow an African American woman in the "ladies" car.

I don't see the point in attempting to relitigate the Civil War. Or, I should say, I see no defensible point in relitigating the Civil War. I see several mistaken reasons for so attempting it (a misplaced notion of Southern honor and very poor choice of selective defiance) and some outright awful reasons to do so.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were specifically enacted with the purpose of eradicating slavery and duly -- constitutionally -- empowered Congress to pass legislation in furtherance of this purpose. To say such laws are "unconstitutional" is simply in error -- previous to the lawful and constitutional passage of those amendments, such laws would have indeed have been unconstitutional and an unlawful overreach of granted Congressional power.

After their lawful passage, however, Congress did have that authority.

That was the whole point of the Amendments -- to amend the Constitution such as to grant it power in a sphere it had previously not had.

One can call Prohibition many things -- unwise, ill-considered, counterproductive, antithetical to liberty -- but one can't call it was unconstitutional. Previous to the 18th Amendment, the federal government had no lawful power to prohibit alcohol. After the passage of the 18th Amendement, however, Congress' power to outlaw liquor could not be doubted -- that was the entire point of the amendment, to grant Congress the power to enforce a ban on the sale and transportation of liquor.

I repeat: This was the entire point, and indeed this is always the point of an Amendment, to change the Constitution.

If you want to keep the Constitution as-is, you don't amend it.

It seems to me that people who wish to doubt the consitutionality of the Civil Rights Act can only do so by ignoring parts of the Constitution themselves, specifically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which together outlawed slavery (and, it was intended, all badges (identifiers) of servitude).

These Amendments are also part of the Constitution. Same as the 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution after it passed. (Until the Constitution was changed again by the 21st Amendment and Prohibition was lifted.)

Note the date of the Civil Rights Acts being discussed in that passage above -- one was promulgated in 1866.

The next was, in 1875. It was not some newfangled, Warren Court Era idea that blacks should not be denied admittance to theaters or service at a public house. Note that date: This is just five years after the last of the Reconstruction Amendments and nine years after the first one. (13th in 1866, 14th in 1868, 15th in 1870.) The Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was comprised of nearly the exact same men who had passed the Reconstruction Amendments -- in other words, they were uniquely positioned to divine the intent of the drafters of that part of the Constitution, since, of course, they did draft that part of the Constitution.

Courts struck down Congress' laws, claiming the amendments only banned slavery itself -- period, full stop -- and completely permitted -- nay, blessed -- the creation of a pseudo-slavery rigid racial caste system.

The Courts were in error, and were rejecting the clear intent and broad powers of enforcement contained in the Amendments because they disagreed with those Amendments. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:42 PM | Comments (213)
Post contains 2726 words, total size 17 kb.

No big deal, really. He just wants you to track your pooping.

He's also into riding bikes.

Thanks to Dave @ Garfield Ridge.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (331)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Above the post update

Via Allah, the video.

The Vice President and the Speaker of the House joined in? Just when you think Democrats can't sink any lower in their contempt for America, they find a way to surprise you.

Original Post:
Of course they did.

(Mexican President) Calderon said the Arizona law, which is meant to stem the tide of illegal immigrants into the state, primarily from Mexico, "introduces a terrible idea that uses racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement."

"I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is crucial to securing our common border," the Mexican president told lawmakers in both parties gathered for the speech. "However I strongly disagree with your recently adopted law in Arizona."

Democrats stood and applauded Calderon's remarks at that point in the speech, while many Republicans remained seated, with no applause.

Republicans had criticized Calderon for using an appearance with President Barack Obama on Wednesday at the White House to attack the Arizona law, which compels law enforcement officials to confront individuals whom they suspect of being illegal immigrants to ask them to produce paperwork proving their legal status in the United States.

"I just don't think it's right for the president of another country to come here and criticize our nation or our states for wanting to stop human smuggling, stop drug trafficking, or, frankly, securing their borders," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Fox News Thursday.

I wish some of the Republicans had responded to this insult by walking out. At the least Joe Wilson could have yelled, "Screw You!"

Democrats, not anti-American, just pro-everyone else.

Just a reminder....Mexico is a very dangerous place. Don't go there if you value your life.

The bodies of four men kidnapped from a wedding in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, have been found in the bed of a pickup truck in the city, municipal police said Tuesday.

The men, kidnapped Friday, included the groom, Rafael Morales; his brother, Jaime Morales; and their uncle, Guadalupe Morales, municipal police spokesman Jacinto Seguro said. The fourth person's name has not been released.

All the bodies showed signs of torture, Seguro said.

Seems President Calderon has some other issues he should be paying attention to. Why don't you tend to your drug cartel fueld insurgency and let us worry about our immigration laws? Kay? Thanks, bye.

Thanks to Dr. Spank for the CNN story.

New Welcome To Mexico tourism video. It's called "Your money or your life!" more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:09 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 491 words, total size 5 kb.

First, the mercenary good news...Rasmussen has him leading the Democrat Conway 59-34.

Then there's the rest.

Yesterday, Paul went on NPR and the Rachel Maddow show (WTH?) and was asked repeatedly whether he supported the “Civil Rights Act” and federally mandated desegregation of things like lunch counters. His answers were nuanced to be charitable, evasive to be accurate.

I get the NPR guys and Maddow are liberal shills who would never ask a Democrat an irrelevant questions like these simply to damage them. It was NPR and MSNBC, what else are you expecting? Still, it represents the danger of nominating a guy like Paul who is a novice candidate and a true libertarian.

ItÂ’s also a taste of what we can expect for the next 6 months as the MFM tries to make Paul the face of the Republican party.

I know and agree that there are problems with the Civil Rights Act but you know what else? It settled law (which Paul concedes). ThereÂ’s no upside to giving the limited constitutional/libertarian lecture on it.

All of that said, hereÂ’s the bottom line...when you're running for office and someone asks you if you support the Civil Rights Act you say "yes". Period. Full Stop. Next question. Why? Because answering anything else paints you as a crank who doesn't need to be taken seriously on anything else.

Personally, I would love to see some adjustments made to the way we deal with civil rights litigation and regulation in this country (disparate impact, contract set asides, etc come to mind). ItÂ’s an almost impossible task in Congress (maybe the courts someday) but it will never happen if people have even the slightest notion that itÂ’s the camelÂ’s nose under the tent for something like pulling the federal prohibition on segregated lunch counters or workplaces.

You might be able to get people to move with you in smaller steps if they know you are with them on the larger issues but if they sense you are using the small change to undermine something big they care about, they won‘t start down that road. It’s basic politics.

Right now my biggest concern is undoing Obamacare. Trust me, we will win no converts to the small government, anti-ObamaCare cause by linking it, even rhetorically and dreamily, with a free market approach to desegregation. You can say that Commerce Clause overreach in the 60s got us here. Okay, so what? Here is where we are. We donÂ’t need to get buy in from people to undo 80+ years of lousy Commerce Clause jurisprudence to get people to support repealing ObamaCare, we need to get them to support repealing ObamaCare.

This is my problem with many (L)libertariansÂ…they often seem more interested in purity of thought and winning an argument than actually accomplishing something. At the risk of over generalizing, it seems agreeing on an ad hoc basis isnÂ’t enough for many (L)libertarians you also have to buy into the whole intellectual frame work. Deviate for one second in pursuit of some real world goal and you are a useless sellout. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:08 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

He's like the the Energizer Bunny.

...“Let's be fair about this. This is a New York Times gotcha story planted by the opposition,” said Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “It was planned by the opposition. The New York Times did not acknowledge that in their front page article.”...

I'm sympathetic Howard, I really am -- the sinister forces of darkness are everywhere these days, fracking everywhere. The only "safe" place for you is probably an underground bunker on Shemya. They won't be able to touch you there.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:57 AM | Comments (177)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

The trick is to keep breathing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:12 AM | Comments (115)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I think one of the most terrifying moments of my life happened during my childhood when my mother drove me home from my grandmother's house one night. My grandmother watched me during the day while my Mom was at work. One night she was very late coming by to pick me up -- hours late. When she did finally arrive, she was drunk. My grandmother pleaded with her to stay for the night, but she insisted on going home and taking me with her. The drive home was a nightmare, and I truly thought we were going to die: she was weaving all over the road, and very nearly ran head-on into oncoming traffic more than once. At last, a police officer pulled her over. At that moment, I realized: my mother could act irresponsibly, even childishly, and had put both me and herself in incredible danger. She didn't do it out of spite or malice. She did it out of thoughtlessness and a misplaced sense of her own ability to handle the situation.

I have the same feeling now about the politicians who are supposed to be guiding us out of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history. In both Europe and America, politicians seem to be flailing about wildly, desperate to be seen to be "doing something" but as often as not making the problem worse.

As Leo Isaak at Minyanville says,

I think Europe could very well destroy any hope of a recovery that we thought we might see. Not only that, I think it could push the world off of a precipice of debt that, if it were to occur, would create something resembling outright disaster. Austerity combined with savage debt service issues and crushing currency devaluation is impacting the entire world, and we're now starting to see the economic domino theory I wrote about a month ago. Frankly, I'm nothing short of terrified. These aren't words I use lightly.

I don't think our politicians are acting out of malice (even I am not that much a cynic -- not yet). But I do have the feeling that they are, as a group, simply in over their heads. That they are simply not smart enough or courageous enough to do the hard things that are necessary to get the world economy back on track. They are blown to and fro in every political wind, and fear for their jobs more than they fear for the future of their country.

And now I find myself wishing that the same thing would happen now that happed to my drunk mother so long ago: that a responsible adult would simply make them stop making the situation worse. I suspect that we -- the citizens of this debt-ridden Republic -- will have to step up and be that cop who pulls the drunk over.

Posted by: Monty at 05:05 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

ROK foreign minister says they have enough evidence to take to the UNSC.

Sounds like the ROK's plan on playing hardball.

[UPDATE] AP is playing magical morphing story tonight. NOW, the part of about the FM taking it to the UNSC is missing! That vanished within 2 minutes of the story update (which is now missing) being posted.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:43 PM | Comments (266)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening and happy Hump Day all.

The Porn Parody of the Batman Show

This is the SFW trailer for BATMAN XXX: a Porn Parody, a porny version of the 60's TV show. Amazingly the production values are pretty good and it really captures the look of the original show. Plus it seems like a funner movie than some of the more recent Batman incarnations. Maybe they should just cut the naughty parts and release a PG version.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:35 PM | Comments (807)
Post contains 363 words, total size 5 kb.