Supression of religion, Judge made law style

The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion o prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Modern judges interpret this as preventing bible reading in school, prayer at school assemblies, creches on town property, ten commandment monuments in courthouses and other rulings that have given offense to many good citizens.
In actual fact, the establishment clause says no such thing. Establishment of religion means the sort of deal King Henry VIII gave the English church, namely, you churchmen all work for me, the king, and you no longer work for the pope. After a controversial attempt to return England to Catholicism, it was required that all English kings and high officials be members of the Church of England. Catholics, Quakers, Puritans and Presbyterians need not apply. The Church of England was "established", the dissenters were out in the cold. In fact, belonging to these unestablished dissenting churches was a reputation destroyer, as bad as belonging to the communist party in current day America.
Dissenters set up colonies in North America, Puritans in Massachusetts, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland. Lots of Presbyterians came over too but didn't set up a special colony for themselves.
Naturally when the Constitution was written, each American church feared that one of their competitors might become "established" with all the benefits and perks that the Church of England enjoyed back in England. And so, a compromise was placed into the Constitution, namely that no church could be established.
This compromise worked very well up until the 1960's when judges highly trained in nit picking and ignorant of American history decided that "establishment of religion" meant any religious expression.
Today the TV is alive with stories of a federal judge ruling that a national day of prayer (how harmless can that be?) is unconstitutional.
The country would be better off if law school required two credits of American history for graduation. Morison and Commager would be a good text.

Financial regulation, need therefore Part III

Tim Geithner was on Meet the Press this morning talking up the financial reform bill. Geither kept talking and talking about regulation, without ever saying what the regulations might be. Presumably guv'mint bureaucrats will be given authority to give orders to the banks. That's a lot of power for a bureaucrat.
Geithner did say he favored an exchange for "derivatives" by which he meant credit default swaps.
I suppose an exchange would keep records, from which regulators could figure out how much money the banks had wagered on the swaps. Me, I think financial regulations should outlaw swaps completely. Credit default swaps don't grow the economy, instead they divert money from useful investments into high stakes gambling. Credit default swaps killed AIG , Lehman, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns. These are clearly dangerous gambling games with the power to crush mighty brokerages with a single email.
Geithner stressed that "his" regulations would protect taxpayers from future Wall St bailouts. He didn't say how. The bill has a $50 billion bailout fund built into it, but that's chicken feed. TARP was $750 billion, 15 times as much, and it wasn't enough.
We need to put the fear into Wall St. Every trader making risky bets should fear losing his job, loosing his house, loosing his life savings, loosing his reputation, and going to jail if the bet doesn't pay off.

Is the Tea Party full of wierdoes?

A TV newsie reported that 58% of tea party members have guns in their homes and that 60+% of them watch Fox News. Obviously a sign of dangerous radicals.
Most Americans do have firearms somewhere, and most of them do watch Fox News. That makes the Tea Party people main stream Americans.

John Yoo on Justice Stevens

Interesting op ed piece in the Wall St Journal today. John Yoo, the author, is the Justice department lawyer from the Bush administration who dared to give written guidance to CIA about the difference between legitimate interrogation and torture. Yoo provided useful and clear cut guide lines as to what was legal and what was not. For this service Yoo has been vilified by democrats and his guide lines denounced as torture memos.
Yoo tells the story of way back during WWII, John Paul Stevens was a Navy intelligence officer who was in on the Yamamoto operation. American code breakers intercepted and decyphered Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's travel schedule. A squadron of P-38 fighters was dispatched to intercept Yamamoto's plane. The mission was successful, the Betty bomber carrying Yamamoto was shot down into the jungle. Yamamoto was killed in action by P-38 machine gun fire.
Sixty years later, the now Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens opined that "The targeting of a particular individual with the intent to kill him was a lot different than killing a soldier in battle and dealing with a statistic".
Wow. Stevens believes knowing the enemy's name makes some kind of difference in the morality of killing him. There is some difference between the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers killed by Marines who didn't know their names, and a high ranking navy officer killed by Air Force pilots who did know who they were gunning for?
Far as I am concerned, killing uniformed enemy in war time, although distasteful, is necessary, legal, and moral. Certainly more moral than nuking enemy cities. That a US Supreme Court justice fails to understand this is appalling.
Could Obama nominate a replacement with better sense?

Tea Party Manchester NH April 15 2010

I went. Large enthusiastic crowd. We filled up Victory Square in downtown Manchester.


That's a whole city block covered with people. Everybody was polite, the crowd listened to the speakers and applauded the applause lines. There were no hecklers. Lots of speakers, Congressmen, former Congressmen, and New Hampshire activists. A common thread among speakers, the country is going down the tubes and the only chance of salvation is get to the polls in November and vote the rascals OUT.
All the Republican candidates were there, I saw Kelly Ayotte, Karen Testerman, and Bill Binder.



I'm told Bill Binnie and Jennifer Horne were present. The place was wall to wall campaign yard signs. No Democrats attended. The organizers mentioned they had invited democrats but none accepted.

Some more pictures are here



Skip Murphy of GraniteGrok, a leading NH blog, set up a "Meet New Hampshire Bloggers thing" with tables, chairs, WiFi, and electric power. Some 5 or 6 of us brought laptops and live blogged the affair. Aside from difficulty reading LCD screens in daylight, and typing fingers stiffened by the cold, it worked out well. Thanks Skip for doing that. We bloggers are covering the event. I didn't see anyone from TV stations or newspapers. So this, and other humble blogs, may be the only public record of the event.

Keep this up and we can have a Republican landslide in November.

--
David J. Starr

Obama blames Big Branch Mine Disaster on Management

Obama just got off national TV. He is blaming management for the accident. He gave no facts, just his conclusion "Management did it". Union people are always happy to hear that.
The real cause of the explosion was methane gas, which escapes from the coal. There are published standards for this, how much methane is allowable, periodic tests that must be run, and a requirement for ventilation. Obama did not discuss these issues at all. He did not show that mine management allowed methane to exceed published limits, failed to run required tests, or failed to ventilate the mine.
Management is strongly motivated to prevent their multi billion dollar mine from blowing itself to kingdom come. There is no return on investment after the investment blows itself away. If management was venal or incompetent Obama gave no evidence to support that view.
Citing a number of safety writeups from government inspectors is unconvincing. I used to be in that business. When I was inspecting, I could always find things to write up. Longer I looked, the more I could find. Unless it can be shown that methane was allowed to accumulate before the accident, it ain't management's fault.

Z1485 Point&Shoot as a video camera

I'm going to a tea party tomorrow. The net is warning us all to bring video cameras to record any SIEU thuggery or liberal attempts to discredit the tea party. So I got out my trusty Kodak Z1485 point-n-shoot. This little wonder has a video mode. To give the camera some breathing room, I transferred all my still photos to computers and zapped the camera memory card clean.
Taking videos is simplicity squared. Just turn the knob to video (icon of a movie camera) and press the button. It even records sound. It consumes about 2 megabytes of memory per second. With the smallest 2 Gigabyte memory card it will record 1000 seconds (15 minutes) of very decent looking video.
Playback on the camera is done the same way you review still photos. You can move the video off the camera and onto your computer with nothing more than Windows Explorer. Just plug in the camera's USB cable, and Explorer will "see" the camera as if it were a CD or floppy disc. The video is stored in files named xxxxxx.mov where xxxxxx is a arbitrary number. Just drag the .mov file onto hard drive. From hard drive it will play back with QuickTime or my son's media play program "VLC".
Should I capture anything worthy tomorrow I will figure out how to upload it to U-Tube. Presumably that isn't too hard since zillions of people are doing it.