The media have derived immense satisfaction from tearing apart South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, and it's easy to figure out why. Cheating on one's wife isn't so bad in their eyes -- as evidenced by their dispensations for JFK, MLK, and Bill Clinton on that score -- but refusing to accept the unlawful plunder of federal "stimulus money" constitutes a mortal sin.
A "hate crimes" bill sailed through Congress recently, in contradistinction to the "love crimes" bills Congress ordinarily considers. Nobody bothered to mention during the debate that the Constitution empowers the federal government to criminalize only counterfeiting, piracy, offenses on the high seas, violations of international law, and treason. Additionally, nobody bothered to mention that a constitutional amendment is necessary to criminalize any other behaviors, such as with Prohibition during the 1920s and '30s. Then again, thousands federal criminal laws have unconstitutionally cropped up over recent decades, so there's no reason to stop now.
Hardly pausing for breath, Congress approved a bill empowering itself to regulate every activity that has an imaginable impact on the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, since our modern Earth-bound religion dictates that humankind may not affect the environment in any notable way (asteroids, pole shifts, ice ages, periodic mass extinctions, and solar expansion are all okay because they are "natural" -- and because they offer no political rewards). As with the debate over hate crimes, nobody bothered to mention that atmospheric carbon dioxide was several orders of magnitude greater during the Mesozoic (Dinosaur) Era, and nobody bothered to mention that 96% of carbon dioxide currently entering the atmosphere would continue to do so even if humanity completely vanished. What's especially entertaining is that Congress is no longer satisfied to believe it may regulate activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce -- a realm that the Constitution entrusts at least somewhat to Congress's attention -- but now seeks to regulate activities that "substantially affect" the atmosphere, which I'm pretty sure the Constitution never mentions in any way, shape, or form.
Pausing from its efforts to play God and control the climate, Congress has expressed its outrage over the conduct of elections within a sovereign nation on the other side of the planet -- Iran, which must adopt a "democratic" system of government or risk a U.S.-funded and fomented rebellion. Of course, Iran once had just such government in the 1950s, but the U.S. helped to destroy that government and install the brutal Shah. Someone might conclude that the political philosophy of Iran's government is irrelevant, so long as Iran does the federal government's bidding, but that would be cynical and unpatriotic. Someone might also suggest that freedom is impossible without independence -- similar to the sentiments expressed in our own Declaration of Independence -- but they don't teach that stuff anymore.
Last, the American public has not expressed any notable interest or pathos about any of the foregoing. The American public has, however, gone positively nuts over the recent demise of an entertainer.
Hardly pausing for breath, Congress approved a bill empowering itself to regulate every activity that has an imaginable impact on the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, since our modern Earth-bound religion dictates that humankind may not affect the environment in any notable way (asteroids, pole shifts, ice ages, periodic mass extinctions, and solar expansion are all okay because they are "natural" -- and because they offer no political rewards). As with the debate over hate crimes, nobody bothered to mention that atmospheric carbon dioxide was several orders of magnitude greater during the Mesozoic (Dinosaur) Era, and nobody bothered to mention that 96% of carbon dioxide currently entering the atmosphere would continue to do so even if humanity completely vanished. What's especially entertaining is that Congress is no longer satisfied to believe it may regulate activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce -- a realm that the Constitution entrusts at least somewhat to Congress's attention -- but now seeks to regulate activities that "substantially affect" the atmosphere, which I'm pretty sure the Constitution never mentions in any way, shape, or form.
Pausing from its efforts to play God and control the climate, Congress has expressed its outrage over the conduct of elections within a sovereign nation on the other side of the planet -- Iran, which must adopt a "democratic" system of government or risk a U.S.-funded and fomented rebellion. Of course, Iran once had just such government in the 1950s, but the U.S. helped to destroy that government and install the brutal Shah. Someone might conclude that the political philosophy of Iran's government is irrelevant, so long as Iran does the federal government's bidding, but that would be cynical and unpatriotic. Someone might also suggest that freedom is impossible without independence -- similar to the sentiments expressed in our own Declaration of Independence -- but they don't teach that stuff anymore.
Last, the American public has not expressed any notable interest or pathos about any of the foregoing. The American public has, however, gone positively nuts over the recent demise of an entertainer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment