perfidy

The US House of Representatives voted to construct a wall along the US-Mexican border. The usual suspects will decry this as racist, or suspect, or even just unfriendly toward our prosperous and friendly neighbors to the south. I don't think this is necessarily the case. I don't have a problem with individual Mexicans. I don't have a problem with Mexicans - even in large numbers - moving northwards in an orderly and legal fashion.

I do, however, have a problem with most of the Mexican nation shouting, "Hey! Look! Terrorists!" and sneaking over the border en masse while we're looking the other way. Despite the predictions of many dreamy-eyed one-world-staters, the importance of the nation-state has not withered away. And one of the essentials of national soveriegnty is control over the borders. If we can't keep the damn furriners out with the existing border, than by god we should build a better one.

Sadly, it looks like the planned wall won't really be a wall, exactly, but rather a security fence with cameras. In other words, looking north from the otherside of the border will, in essence, be much like looking in at any standard issue industrial facility. Which, in essence, is the whole relationship Mexico has with the US anyway. So no worries!

What we should build, just because we can and because it would make a much better statement is a combination of this:

And this:

That would just be fun.

[wik] Bram adds: We’re going to need some cheap Mexican labor to build a wall that big! Good thing there is plenty available.

Christmas Cheer; and of course the traditional Christmas assault and battery:

The Ontario County Sheriff's Department says the shopper flew into a rage after another woman bumped into her while waiting in line at a cash register.

Deputies say she grabbed a tape dispenser and hit a 63-year-old woman in the face, then kicked her several times. She's also accused of punching the woman's daughter when she tried to break up the fight, then hitting her in the face with a cell phone.

Then the woman reportedly screamed obscenities and fought with the deputy who arrested her.

I considered getting this as a Christmas gift for Johno,

but considering what I got him for his birthday, his wife would probably drive down from Massachusetts and kill me.

Attentive readers will be aware that I supported the war in Iraq from the beginning. I had some few quibbles about the Patriot act, but on the whole felt that the powers it granted our government were reasonable given the threats that face us.

But what is entirely unacceptable, if true, is the report in the Times that the administration secretly allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrent.

Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant ­ intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups ­ and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

I can understand that people in the NSA and elsewhere in the intelligence community want to have the ability to act quickly to prevent some very bad people from causing us harm. That is admirable. But in their zeal to prosecute the war on terror, we must be aware of the consequences of the actions that we take. We must be very cautious in granting powers to government, and especially to secret government intelligence agencies. There is already far too much secrecy in government. Vast powers can just as easily - even more easily - be used for ill as for good. To err on the side of caution is a good rule of thumb when it comes to liberty.

However, blatantly violating the Constitution is not a reasonable exercise of executive power no matter how "bad" the people we wiretapped are. No matter how clear the connection to known foriegn terrorists is, the law and our constitution must be obeyed. Liberty is more important than safety. Much more.

This gadget may not have the sleek modernistic styling of my earlier request, but just think of the possibilities with this baby: 

By way of the Claremont Institute blog and someone I can't remember, we find Judge Bork on Original Intent and the Martini:

Martini's Founding Fathers: Original Intent Debatable

Eric Felten's essay on the dry martini is itself near-perfect ("Don't Forget the Vermouth," Leisure & Arts, Pursuits, Dec. 10). His allusion to constitutional jurisprudence is faulty, however, since neither in law nor martinis can we know the subjective "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. As to martinis, the intent may have been to ease man's passage through this vale of tears or, less admirably, to employ the tactic of "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."

What counts in mixology is the "original understanding" of the martini's essence by those who first consumed it. The essence remains unaltered but allows proportions to evolve as circumstances change. Mr. Felten's "near-perfect martini" is the same in principle as the "original-understanding martini" and therefore its legitimate descendant. Such latter-day travesties as the chocolate martini and the raspberry martini, on the other hand, are the work of activist bartenders.

Mr. Felten lapses into heresy only once. He prefers the olive to the lemon peel because the former is a "snack." Dropping a snack into a classic drink is like garnishing filet mignon with ketchup. The correct response when offered an olive is, "When I want a salad, I'll ask for it."

-Robert H. Bork
The Hudson Institute
Washington

I couldn't agree more.

If anyone is looking to spend $500 on a worthy cause, I think one of these would make an excellent Christmas gift for, for example, me.

Via Rand Simberg, we find the Battle for Monrovia, or The Definitive Guide to Gangsta Hip-Hop Urban Combat. A true classic, and one that illustrates why many third world military forces are so... ineffective.

While engaged in a near futile, almost entirely unsucessful attempt to acquire a photograph of the mayor of my hometowan, I discovered this magical place:

The Internet's Most Comprehensive Source of U.S. Political Biography, or, The Web Site That Tells Where the Dead Politicians are Buried

Check it out. Look up your hometown. Enjoy.

When one thinks of stealing, what generally comes to mind is items of easily portable value - jewels, cash, cars, and the like. What doesn't come to mind is silos. Tall, cylindrical structures for storing grain. If you had asked me, I would not have thought it possible to steal a silo. Nevertheless, an Akron, Ohio man was convicted by my mom for doing just that. Retired, and readily available for civic duties like jury service, mom was one of twelve upright citizens who put the kabosh on this silo-thieving maniac.

Who knows what might have happened had his criminal career gone unthwarted? The growing epidemic of silo-grifting might be of serious import. Silos might be gateway structures that lead to even more dangerous building theft. Unpunished for abducting silos and selling them on the brisk farm outbuilding black market, he might have moved on to bigger game. Like turnpike tollbooths. Or stripmall yogurt franchises. Or even U-Store-It warehouses.

However, it should be noted that this guy, Thomas Woosnam, was probably not cut out for a life of criminal wrongdoing. When confronted by the authorities, his only defense was, "He thought when he took these (silos) that he could take them." Apparently he believed that since they were abandoned, and not being used, they were free for the taking. Quipped Assistant County Prosecutor Scott Salisbury, "At age 3 or 4 you learn to keep your hands off other people's stuff. (Woosnam) never learned that lesson.'' We all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a corollary of that bit of folk wisdom might be, "lack of a plausible excuse leads to soggy pepper steak at the county jail."

Hats off to mom, fighting crime in the big city.

[wik] At least the accused wasn't the Medina City Mayor, as has often been the case in the past. Medina has more executive malfeasance per capita than any city I'm aware of. Plus corrupt judges with cross-dressing murderous sons. And crack-smoking ex mayors living with prostitututes. And goofy hippie mayors who take out full page adds in the local paper consisting solely of the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine. And much, much more.