RedStateEclectic

The Bush That Should Have Been

Many have suggested that Jeb Bush is the Bush brother that should have been President (at least if one of them should have been).  Had he won his race for the Florida Governorship in 1994 as his brother did in Texas, I think it very possible that he would have been the nominee of the Party in 2000.  "W", though won in Texas, and Jeb didn't get around to winning until '98, and didn't have the record of experience to make the run in 2000.

Now comes word that Jeb is considering running for the Senate in 2010, for the seat that Mel Martinez has announced he'll vacate.

Some Bush-haters will despise that thought, and consider it yet another sign of a secret cabal trying to control the one-world government.  But there are a fair number of Republicans in-the-know who believe that Jeb would have been the better President, that he WAS a better governor, and that he's the better political mind in the Bush family.  I tend to agree.

Here's an interview done with him the other day (scroll down the story to see the video).  He seems to have a vision--partially for the ideology, but more for the way that the Republican Party needs to act to resurrect itself.  Generally, I think he's got it right.

LLE

The Madness Has a System to It

Two great posts by my fellow contributors to RedStateEclectic encourage me to publish what were originally comments to Eric Parks' Pointless Pusillanimous Prognostication - the other post is Deborah Yost's recent Picture Worth 1,000 Words:

In my vision of a free society, the three branches of Government - the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial, would have a different character compared to prevalent practice.

The Legislative would be split into two, let's call them, chambers with distinct tasks. Legislative I would be concerned with Law proper, the general legal framework equally applicable and obligatory to all, including, of course, the Executive. Legislative II would be responsible for derivative Law - statutes, or what ever we choose to call it - which do not have the general, abstract character of Law proper, but contain (in large measure) specific directives to regulate and concretely manage the legitimate tasks of the Executive like, possibly, for instance, running the police force). The Executive would have a very much smaller and far less prominent role compared to today.

People would largely run their own lives, and if problems arise between people, they would take their issues to the Judiciary, whose many judges practice the Common Law, which must be in conformity with the Law proper, which in turn will be very circumspectly, very gradually and incrementally altered here and there if the experience of the many judges throughout the country show the need for such careful change.

National elections would not address highly specific issues (it is an idiotic idea to think that the average man is competent to understand and judge any specific issue a campaign happens to touch upon) but the fundamental questions of the Law proper - especially questions concerning alterations to the fundamental Law, and the question whether the Executive has faithfully remained one under the Law.

We can expect a people to form an OPINION on fundamental issues concerning the basic nature of the society they live in (which would focus people's attention on the right issues as opposed to making them "participate" superficially in a flood of undigested special questions, most of which should not be dealt with by the Executive) - what we cannot expect is that there is a uniform will of the majority concerning thousands of detailed issues - and, again, most of these issues should not be dealt with by giving anybody's WILL precedence, but by awaiting the outcome of an overall game played such that everyone observes the same rules of just conduct (Law proper).

Addendum:

The distinction between WILL and OPINION is important, because it helps understand the degeneration of democracy from a protection against tyranny to a source (and proudly believed in source of legitimation) of tyranny. We have good grounds to respect the opinion of the people but not the will of the people.

What is the difference between the terms WILL and OPINION, as used here by me?

WILL implies a specific outcome shaped specifically in the way a person wills that outcome. OPINION has room for a general disposition that does not necessarily entail a specific course of action or outcome. I am of the OPIONION that people should have protected property/ a protected private sphere, but I have no WILL what they should do within their protected property/private sphere. At least, I should not be allowed to exercise such a WILL if I have one.

We should focus on our ideas concerning the rules of the game, but not endeavour to impose our WILL so as to bring about specific outcomes (however desirable they may appear) that are not in line with the rules of the game.

Under the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of man, no one will be granted such a WILL, no king, no government, no majority.

The fundamental question in a free society is: are our rules good, not: what do you want?

-

Undermining the intent of the Constitution, whose daily perversion is the main product of politics nowadays, has a long tradition in America that took its course practically from the time the Constitution was instituted.

One of the most powerful sources of the perversion of the Constitution, possibly THE most important, is the result of merging two entirely different tasks of the legislative in one and the same representative body.

Hence, my above proposal to strictly separate Legislative I (concerned with Law proper) and Legislative II (concerned with derivative Law).

Legislative II issues commands, directives, propositions designed to manage specifically for specific purposes (like how the police should be organised, which budget it should be given etc.)

So long as such directives are applied to legitimate tasks of the executive, i.e. tasks compatible with the Constitution and the rule of law, there is nothing wrong with issuing rather specific commands (compatible with and subservient to Law proper).

However, if you merge the power to instruct people specifically what they are to do with the altogether different task of stating generally applicable rules of just conduct (Law proper, the concern of Legislative I) you are bound to end up with a government that uses the dignity of Law proper to interfere concretely in a million different things that are not the responsibility of the Executive (which is effectively instructed by the Legislative). By this system, Government decides which "rules" it is to follow, it makes its own "rules" at will. That's tyranny.

When the fundamental difference between Law proper (a legal system consciously and adamantly maintained to preclude the humouring of special interests) and derivative Law (my term), which does have specific concerns in mind, escapes people's minds (which it has for a very long time), the sense of what a government's true responsibilities (and the attendant limits of these responsibilities) are disappears.

Law (in the sense of the products, any products of the legislative) becomes a blend sharing the dignity of the rule of law and the arbitrary power of an institution pretending to have the ability and the mandate to micromanage an entire society.

Picture Worth 1,000 Words

I'm at work on a very short break, and have meetings tonight, so this will be oh-so-brief.
Check this out. Holy tapdancing Elvis, Batman....

"The earth provides enough for everyone's need but not every man's greed." - Gandhi

Elitist Snobs in D.C.

The Majority Leader of the Senate must be one of the stupidest, elitist snobs in the Senate. 

Reid
by burghnews

 

Got news for you Senator: many of those hot, sweaty tourists pay your salary.  Criticize them a little more, will you?  My respect for the Democratic Senators--not high to begin with--diminishes every time I see this guy making terribly impolitic statements like this.

 

LLE

Cynical Abuse of Environmental Concern by Government

Just a facet of the cynical abuse of environmental concern by government.

...the 1990 reference date for Kyoto was not just picked randomly.  In fact, on its face, it was a bit odd for a treaty negotiated in 1997 to use a 1990 base year. But 1990 allowed signatory countries to claim credit for a lot of improvements in CO2 output that had nothing to do with the treaty. For example, in Germany, 1990 was after unification [official merger of the two German states GDR and FRG was 3. October 1990, G.T.] but before wildly inefficient east German factories had been shut down.

...

Since the treaty was actually signed, from 1997 to 2005, countries that ratified the treaty had emissions rise 21%.  When the treaty was signed in 1997, the signatories knew they had this pool of 1990-1995 emissions reductions to draw on to claim victory.  To this day, this is the only improvement they can show, improvement that occurred before the treaty and through steps unrelated, in the main, to CO2 abatement.

For the full post, go to Climate Skeptic.

I never tire to point out that CO2 is irrelevant to Global Warming (of which I am very fond, while sadly suspecting that it is on the wane) - or more cautiously: there are no grounds to consider CO2 emissions the problem that they are presented to be, while you are being robbed of billions to finance yet another white elephant.

Also, see the RedStateEclectic post entitled Epistemic Consequences of Totalitarian Democracy.

Going to School

I'm just home for a quick lunch break.  In my role as a school board member, I'm out and about visiting elementary classrooms today, observing what's happening with our new reading program (a highly controversial one from some perspective, it also tends to show good results).  I'll be back on-line later.

LLE

A Great Shopping Experience

For all intents and purposes, we're done with the Christmas shopping. Sure, there's always that last little thing to pick up and a few extra stocking stuffers one might chance upon. But for the most part, it's finished.

One of the things that made my shopping experience much easier was a new wrinkle from Walmart. Their online store has what is called "site-to-store". Most of what you can buy online can be packaged and shipped to your local Walmart store so that you avoid the shipping costs and simply pick up your package at the store when you're out and about. There's a little area within the store dedicated to it so you're in and out in a jiffy.

I hope more stores do this. It looks as if they're all offering free shipping on most items now. Maybe they were caught of guard with Walmart's innovative idea or maybe it's just a way to attract customers in a stagnant economy. No matter what the reason, this new concept will be nice going forward so that I can keep my shopping time to a minimum.

It's Just a Bailout Christmas

As cross posted to my blog (TripleHash), you can download an MS Word document and create your wish list for Christmas this year.  Makes a great Christmas letter if you're looking for a way to spice up the usual communication at this time of year.  Feel free to edit as you wish.

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

Enjoy.

###

Is Ron Paul Too Old for 2012?

Well, I have argued that he might be--if not from a leadership point, from an electability point of view--but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it, and if the opportunity presents itself...well, who knows?  Doug Wead address the question of Ron Paul's age in a series of posts he's had up over the last few weeks.  He doesn't think he's too old.

Here's the first in the series of posts.  You can get all three of the posts in the series here--just scroll down; Wead usually posts once every couple of days, so it won't take you too long to find them all.

LLE

Goldwater for Governor

Hmmm.  A new Facebook group has sprung up promoting Barry Goldwater, Jr. for Governor of Arizona in 2010.  The only thing better than having a man by the name of Barry Goldwater as Governor of Arizona would be having a man by the name of Ron Paul as Governor of Texas.  The former is probably more likely, though.

LLE

The Problem of Liquor Laws

Manuel Lora tells the story at Lew Rockwell of having been carded for an alcohol purchase, and then having his wife (who was with him) carded as well, because she was standing in line with him.

This brought to mind a similarly silly incident that took place at our local "big store" that sells all manner of merchandise from groceries to clothing, to toys.  Yeah, that place that a lot of liberals claim to despise.

My daughters (both the 20 year old and the 10 year old) and I decided to make a quick trip to the store one night last week to pick up some necessities for the Thanksgiving event that was going to be held at our house.  I grabbed the needed grocery items, as well as some miscellaneous other things, and as we walked by the liquor aisle, I indulged in a bit of an impulse, and grabbed a 6 pack of beer.  We got to the check out lanes, and my oldest daughter was at the front of the line while I was placing items on the conveyor.  The beer was toward the front of the batch of items, and the cashier--not realizing that I was the one who was paying for things--set the beer aside to scan at the end, and then told my daughter she'd need her i.d.  At that point, I had finally unloaded the basket and was preparing to write the check, and she said "oh, is that yours?"  I told her yes, but she said that she'd need to see my i.d., since she'd already hit the button that called for that.  She was in training, and one of the other ladies helping her said that she didn't need to see my i.d.--that I could just give her my date of birth so that the computer would let her finish the transaction.  I did, and all was well.

The interesting thing, though, is that I was the only one who was allowed to put the beer in the cart.  My 20 year old daughter, who isn't old enough to drink legally, but who is old enough to serve alcohol and bartend at the place where she works, wasn't even allowed to touch the closed containers.  I chuckled about the whole thing--Jennifer grumbled because they wouldn't let her put the 6 pack in the cart, and I enjoyed having been carded for the first time in 25 years. 

LLE

The Finishing Touches

Well, not quite finished yet, but a little over a year ago, I laid claim to a desk that had sat in my grandfather's veterinary office for as long as I could remember.  My siblings and I had all spent time "working" at that desk--typing statements, or just sitting behind the desk while my grandfather sat next to the other desk, chatting as we waited for the next patient to come in.  When my grandfather died in August of '07, the office needed to be cleaned up, and my siblings and I helped my dad with that project (he had been actively practicing, at age 85, up until about 6 weeks before he died of cancer), and the only thing that I really wanted was that desk.  My husband couldn't figure out why I would want it--it had so many layers of paint and "stuff" on it, that it didn't really look like much, and while I didn't know what was underneath, there was a sentimental attachment to the thing, and I was committed to seeing if I could turn it into a functional--or at least decent looking--piece of furniture for the house.

I started the refinishing process last fall--and got enough of the gunk off that we realized that there was at least some quality buried beneath 5 or 6 layers of paint, varnish, and more paint.  The style of desk looks to be one from about 1910 (or at least the Pre WWII era)--very much like the one pictured here in style--except bigger, with drawers on both sides of the typewriter shelf.  In Granddad's office, there was a big old manual typewriter that we used to type statements (this was in the 70s and early 80s when I was there, and he wouldn't have known what to do with a computer down at the office, even later).  The wood on the model that I'm working on appears to be mahogany.

I got a lot of the work done last fall, but sort of came to a grinding halt when my husband, who is the woodworker in the house, couldn't find the time in his busy schedule to help me with some of the repair work (broken drawer fronts which required some technical expertise beyond painting on wood stripper and scraping it off).  This week, my husband has taken an "at home vacation", and we've committed to getting that desk finished (wood gods and tool gods willing) so that we can get it out of the shop so that he's got some time this winter, he has the space to work on some other long neglected woodworking projects.

The desk will have a prominent place in my office--but will likely result in sort of a domino effect as we move desks around.

LLE

Why Copyright?

In December of 2007, Canadians were made aware of a copyright reform bill that was making its way in Canadian Parliament without any input from consumers, artists, and the public in general that will make illegal many of the creative freedoms Canadians currently enjoy and make them criminals in the eyes of the law. The law proposed was basically a copy of the draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act drafted by the likes of RIAA and MPAA and fostered upon the United States.

Cory Doctorow warned:

If this law passes, it will mean that as soon as a device has any anti-copying stuff in it (say, a Vista PC, a set-top cable box, a console, an iPod, a Kindle, etc), it will be illegal for Canadians to modify it, improve it, or make products that interact with it unless they have permission from the (almost always US-based) manufacturer. This puts the whole Canadian tech industry at the mercy of the US industry, unable to innovate or start new businesses that interact with the existing pool of devices and media without getting a license from the States

Furthermore, as reported by Canada's Globe and Mail, the law will make it illegal for consumers to remove the highly illegal Sony Rootkit Trojan from their own computers:

Further, informed sources are getting steamed already. In his blog, copyright lawyer and litigator Howard Knopf is predicting that the bill will “put digital locks on our computers, cellphones, iPods, other gadgets and tools and, ultimately, our culture,” just like the DCMA does. He goes on to speculate that the bill would make it a copyright infringement (as it is in the United States) to try to remove Digital Rights Management and Technical Protection Measures from your computer, such as the infamous Sony anti-infringing technology of a few years ago that was based on a very dangerous hacker’s tool called a “rootkit.”

Michael Geist, a heroic law professor that was so instrumental in help defeating (or at least delaying) the passage of C-61, the Canadian DMCA, has released a video titled "Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law" on YouTube.

The video tackles the controversial Sony Rootkit incident, in which Sony employs the use of hacker technology to cripple consumers' computers (and an interesting irony, the very same technology they were using to combat copyright infringement was "stolen" and infringed copyrights; it seems that in their zeal to combat copyright infringement, they were willing to violate copyrights). (View BoingBoing's timeline of all the coverage in six parts.) Sony's actions were so odious that the State of Texas sued Sony for violating its anti-spyware laws.

But what finally forced Sony to make amends was the lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). They were forced to recall millions of intentionally infected CDs.

It's A Sinatra Kind of Day

 

Neither left, nor right, but further up and deeper in!

The Validity of End User License Agreements Redux

I have been reading The Technology Liberation Front (libertarians critiquing developments in the fields of the internet and technology) and came across Tim Lee's repost of the popular webcomic XKCD regarding End-User License Agreements (EULA) with a question, "Legally enforceable?"

Wendy Grossman explained the legal gray area that surrounds every EULA software companies use for their softwares:

If you did read the terms, you might be surprised. Eulas typically specify that the software's publisher is not liable if anything goes wrong. They typically specify the publisher's preferred jurisdiction for legal disputes. And some are even more restrictive: some graphics packages have been known to specify that they cannot be used in the production of pornographic images. Yet these licences are, as Hanlon complained, not really contracts: you generally cannot read them before you buy (rather than use) the software, and you can't negotiate terms.

I have tackled the question before in Copyfascism Watch, where I raised another point that EULAs are not voluntary contracts as they are not agreed upon prior to the purchase of the software. And there is the bizarre claim by manufacturers that consumers are merely purchasing the physical CDs and not the software it contains. I asked, "How legitimate are the claims of manufacturers that consumers are merely buying the CDs and not the permission to install and use the software for which the consumer (rightly, I might add) believed he is paying?"

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Blog responded:

[R]estrictive covenants do this all the time with houses for example. You buy the house in a particular neighborhood and it is really yours, but you can't paint your shutters pink and you have to mow your grass and can't leave a sofa on the porch etc. Why can't EULAs amount to a sort of covenant?

In the Mises Blog, Tucker also asked this question, "Are EULAs contrary to property rights?" Tucker seems to be of notion that is similar to a covenant, but therein lies the issue and the difference between physical property covenants and EULAs: covenants are known and agreed upon prior to purchase, EULAs are hidden contracts that is then revealed to you after the purchase.

A commenter named PR raised the same point:

Since the EULA isn't revealed until after the buyer has handed over his money, of course it shouldn't be considered a valid agreement. All the examples of convenants I know of are presented to the buyer before the sale, but a EULA is more like a legal Trojan horse that restricts the use of property one already owns.

Many of the responses seem to miss that point and the important issue regarding this unconscionable agreements: it is secret, it is hidden, and cannot be agreed to prior to purchase. A commenter pointed out that you can always return the software, but most stores I purchase software from only have a return-policy for unopened boxes of software. Of course, one can argue that one can choose not to patronize the store that has taken one's money for a software crippled by an agreement one cannot agree to prior to purchase and afterwards, but since when do libertarians make excuses for theft?