I try not to resort to name calling very often but sometimes it's fun, and easy.  So.  The Wicked Witch of the West, Junior Circuit, was at it again today.  She's a one woman QOTD machine!

Yes, Nancy Pelosi was making the Sunday talk show rounds today.   Pelosi premised her conversation by pointing out that Japan has, "the most violent games and the rest and the lowest mortality from guns." This, Pelosi imagined, was because Japan "might have good gun laws." Now THERE'S the kind of scientific analysis the GOP just can't match.

The kicker for me was strike two: "We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where ever, and that they--and their workplace--and that they, for recreation for hunting and the rest. So we're not questioning their right to do that."  That's right - the WWotW(JC) doesn't even know which Amendment she's mangling. For those not familiar with the doecument, it DOESN'T say we have that right.  It says the government SHALL NOT ABRIDGE the right we have as human beings.  But I'm picking at nits.

Stike three came when discussing the current fiscal debate.  "Well, I'm with the 11th Amendment, so... or is it the 11th Amendment that, uh, (laughs)? 14th is it? Whatever it is I'm with the Constitution of the United States."

Makes me feel so safe and secure.

POTUS (through the EPA) has ordered refiners to us Pixie Dust when refining petroleum.  When the don't, hefty fines are levied against them.  And who actually pays the fines?  Since no corp EVER paid a fine or tax, they are passed on to us, the consumer.  So I'm pissed about havingf to pay a fine for not using Pixie Dust.

PD doesn't exist, you see.  Bt that doesn't stop POTUS from ordering people to USE it.  Administrative over-reach at it's worst?  Close to it.  Whole thing hear

Words mean things.  Lately Jefrey Toobin in the New Yorker has been taking on those of us who prefer to rely on original intent in our Constitutional study.  Jason Mazzone has been fighting the good fight.

First Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker:

Some Justices like to assert, or pretend, that the Constitution has a single meaning, and that each case thus has only one correct resolution. This view is especially pronounced among conservatives, who, in recent years, have claimed that they can identify the original intent of the framers and use their eighteenth-century wisdom to resolve any modern controversy.

Then Mazzone comments:

Perhaps some dumbing down is needed for readers of The New Yorker but surely it isn't hard to describe originalism accurately. Originalism's proponents on the Court (and in the academy) don't seek to "identify the original intent of the framers" because (a) their focus is on original public meaning not intent and (b) the framers' views/intent are not decisive in determining that meaning. Moreover, it takes a remarkable obtuseness to conclude that originalists believe eighteenth-century meaning can "resolve any modern controversy." Just the opposite: originalists often say that the Constitution is entirely silent on an issue presented--abortion, say--and resolution of it must therefore be left to the political process.

Brad DeLong has a brief comment: The fact that "originalists" are now embarrassed by the phrase "original intent" doesn't mean the rest of us have to pretend.  Pejman Yousefzadeh replies at length to DeLong: The fact that Brad DeLong doesn't understand conservative jurisprudence doesn't mean that the rest of us have to pretend.

 I LOVE it when "great minds" do the back and forth on the picky stuff.  That's where the arguement lies.  Base of the V.

doesn't see itself as we see them.  This applies to BOTH sides of course.  And it applies to any two sides you'd care to menation.  In THIS post I'm applying it to poilitcial alignment. 

My wife is a Greenist.  I was raised Methodist.  Green is her religeon, although she and her family don't see it that way.  Their arguments can be used to support ANY outcome (God willed it vs Anthropomorphic Global Warming caused it) and it is composed of a series of non-falsafiable arguments. This same application can be made to most of their political dogma.

R R Reno wrote an interesting piece last month that says it quite nicely.

Reno concludes “It’s the sociological lack of awareness—the liberal blindness—that accounts for the paradox of liberal intolerance, at least to some degree. If you can’t see your identity as in some sense contingent, then you’ll have a hard time restraining the imperial necessity of your convictions.”

In another note it struck me this weekend as quite disconcerting when I realized that during my lifetime we have gone from Lockean, quickly passing through Rousseau and are now slipping into a Hobbesian worldview, all based on our POTUS' inclinations. Thoughts?

edit to add link

I don't usually enjoy movies when I figure out how it'll end in the first 10-15 minutes.  I usually stop watching after 45 minutes or so unless I'm given a good reason to stay.  Eastwood and Amy Adams kept me interested.  Throw in a handful of irascable old "that guys", the always (by me) unlikeable Matthew Lillard and the always (by me) likable John Goodman and you have a pleasant little movie that'll appeal to the chicks (did I mention there's a slight love story involving some guy named Timerlake?) with a final 15 minutes that can be seen almost from the opening credits but stil satisfies.

Need a chick flick?  You could do worse.  MUCH worse.

that someone wants to discuss the recent Super Bowl with you.  You're a football fan.  Have been for decades.  You follow the game at several levels, know the history, the teams, the players, the strategies.  You LOVE the game.  You love CONVERSING about the game.  You welcome the fact that someone else has shown an intrest and wants to chat.

Your interlocutor is from California.  Didn't watch the game.  Doesn't even know the RULES of the game. But they INSIST San Fancisco should've won because California has a thriving entertainment/movie industry, the redwoods up north are magnificent, the wine country is beautiful, and they have ports which greatly increase our trade with the Pacific Rim.

THIS is what virtually EVERY conversation I have about current events and/or Constitutional Law feels like to me. 

and that in itself is scary.  Here's what I've been reading that's scaring me:

John Stossel on Why Obama Should Stop Acting Like He’s King

I'm gonna miss Gregg Easterbrook this off season because, well, I miss him EVERY off season.  Here's an excerpt of his send off to the NYT:

New York Times Corrections on Fast-Forward: During recent months the Paper of Record has, according to its corrections box:

[+] Enlarge

Courtesy of United ArtistsBond with -- what letter is she?

• Misidentified James Bond's boss: "His boss is M, not Q."

• Mistook a woman for a man. It's so hard to tell these days!

• Mistook Saudi Arabia for Iraq. Several presidents have made this error.

• A correction "was delayed because emails pointing out the error went astray at The Times." Emails have minds of their own?

• Admitted a story contained errors in calculating how much college costs. Subject of the story? Parents victimized by inaccurate estimates of college cost.

• Said America has one car per 600 people; one car per .6 is correct. Only in Manhattan could this error go unchallenged.

• Admitted several answers to its Year in Trivia quiz were factually inaccurate. So that's why I didn't get a perfect score!

• Confused billions of dollars with millions of dollars. Reporter responsible, would you like to be Secretary of the Treasury?

• Confused borrowers with lenders. Reporter responsible, would you like to be CEO of Fannie Mae?

• Clarified that rams butt each other in the fall, not the spring. And …

• Said penguins are indigenous to Louisiana.

But they got all the OTHER stuff right, right?

re the bruhaha regarding recess apointments

1.  This isn't about Obama, it's about the POTUS.

2.  This isn't about Congress vs the POTUS, it's about "We the People" vs the Gubmint.