Coyote Gulch

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Iraq
Iraq the Model: "We reached a point less than 8 miles from Madae'n when we found that all the roads that lead to the town were sealed, so I got off the mini bus just like the rest of the passengers did and I walked to get a cup of tea from a nearby small cafeteria. While being there I saw a lot of troops (Iraqi and American) moving towards Madae'n while I counted more than 6 fully armed Apache helicopters patrolling the skies above and around Mada'en."
11:21:53 AM

SB 152
The Rocky is running a point/counterpoint on the subject of municipal broadband. Here's the opposing view [April 16, 2005, "Issues of fairness, efficiency, taxation argue against municipal intervention"]. Joseph Bast writes, "Lessig's examples of street lights, toll roads and municipal buses are telling. In most cities, the competitive private sector was delivering those goods and services at low and falling prices before municipalization. Governments intervened, often with price controls and heavy assessments, and drove the companies into bankruptcy or took them over through eminent domain powers. Historically, municipalization of those services didn't follow market failure, it caused market failure. The same would be true in broadband. Municipalities do not have a constitutional right to experiment with socialism. They are creatures of state government and properly subject to the latter's regulations. States regulate municipalities in all kinds of ways, so critics of legislative efforts to pre-empt local authority over broadband shouldn't pretend such rules are an exception to common practice. They are not." Bast is president of the Heartland Institute.
Here's the view in support of municipal broadband [April 16, 2005, "Legislators answer Qwest's call to keep cities out of the 'Net business"]. David Hughes writes, "It is Senate Bill 152, which was approved by the state Senate on Friday and now has to be reconciled with the House-approved version before being sent to Gov. Bill Owens. The bill would gratuitously prohibit all Colorado municipalities from providing a high-speed Internet service to their citizens, and managing it like a public utility or any other essential public service. They are being barred from offering it either by themselves or in joint venture with others, regardless of whether it can pay for itself. Why would any Colorado town or city want to do that? It's because they more clearly understand than any of our dense urban legislators that the future Colorado economy among their constituents - manufacturing, marketing, farming and ranching, as well as medicine, education, and even distance learning from farms ranches and cabins - is ever more dependent on the Internet. Those 125 or more rural Colorado towns are sick and tired of waiting for the worst regional telephone company in America - Qwest - to deliver broadband services to them and thence to their citizens. Qwest and its little brother, Comcast Cable, want only to cherry pick the fat-cat suburbs, big businesses, downtown Denver, and other big metropolitan areas. And block everybody else from competing."
7:37:41 AM

Internet Political Regulation
Here's an editorial from the Rocky Mountain News in opposition to the Federal Election Commission drafting rules governing weblogs and other online publications that engage in political conversations or support candidates. From the article, "The Federal Election Commission is busily working on new rules to regulate political speech on the Internet - not because it particularly wants to, but because a federal judge ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act made such rules mandatory. Now it's up to Congress to set matters straight. The McCain-Feingold act lists broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, telephone bank or "any other form of general public advertising" and the court said that some political material distributed over the Internet reasonably qualifies as 'general public advertising.' Well, perhaps so. If a campaign buys ad space on a Web log, or pays a blogger to boost its candidate, the campaign is responsible for monitoring and reporting its expenses. But what about people who act on their own? Are their posted comments on candidates 'campaign expenditures'? And if so, how would anybody figure out how much they cost?...To address the court's concern, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a bill that says public communication 'shall not include communications over the Internet.' Regulation of the Internet, Reid said, 'would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy.' A Texas Republican, Jeb Hensarling, has introduced the same measure in the U.S. House. This is truly a bipartisan measure that Congress should approve quickly."
7:23:36 AM

2004 Presidential Transition
Senator Salazar, despite voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales, is one of the targets of the Focus on the Family kids that want the U.S. Senate to "consent" but not "advise" on the President's judicial nominations, according to the Rocky Mountain News [April 16, 2005, "Focus on the Family targets Salazar"]. From the article, "The group's for-profit lobbying arm plans to attack Salazar and other senators in an advertising campaign in 45 newspapers and 70 radio stations. They are critical of the Democratic senators for holding up some of President George Bush's judicial nominees."
Mt. Virtus: "Even before I read Captain Ed's post, I had already taken a very solemn 'Not One Dime' vow. In fact, this week I mailed back a solicitation to renew my Republican National Committee membership with a big ZERO next to the contribution amount and a concise but pointed note to Ken Mehlman indicating that no Republican candidate or organization is going to get any of my hard-earned money until they follow up on their campaign promises and make use of the majority in which we have work so hard to help elect them to serve. Those of us who have faithfully supported the Republican Party, like Mike and Clay and myself (not to mention eminent center-right Republican icons like Hugh Hewitt and Bob Schaffer), are strongly urging Senate Republicans to break the judicial filibuster. Many of us have also expressed our profound disgust at the lack of leadership on this issue. Say it with me: 'Not One Dime!'"
Bull Moose: "The Moose was once again reminded why he would crawl over a field of broken glass for John McCain. That is why it is inspiring for one leader to dare to commit the truth, even if it jeopardizes his popularity with a key constituency. The Moose's former boss did that just this week on 'Hardball' when he announced his opposition to the nuclear option."
LeftInTheWest: "Now that Sen. Frist and his cronies have officially declared their intent to shatter the (ironically) bible-sworn oaths they made to uphold the Constitution, one must assume that we're about to enter bizzaro-judicial-land. In this parallel universe, sound justices who base their decisions on the law of the land or the Constitution can expect to be demonized and labeled as 'activist.' At the same time, newly installed judges can be expected to toss silly informalities like judicial restraint par fenetre in favor of their religious beliefs."
The Moderate Voice: "But readers should know that in private emails, phone calls, and a centrist Internet discussion group, TMV has been struck by the wave of absolute revulsion and alarm expressed by centrist Democrats, libertarian Republicans and independents over something we have not experienced up to this point in American history: an attempt to blatantly use the precious concept of religion as a divisive tool for the transparent purposes of getting political power."
Here's an in-depth piece about Constitution in Exile movement and it's possible effect on judicial nominations from the New York Times [April 17, 2005, "The Unregulated Offensive"]. From the article, "'Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain,' still in print 20 years after its publication, purports to specify the conditions under which government can rightfully impose regulations and taxes that reduce the value of private property. Drawing on the political philosophy of John Locke, Epstein argues that before the existence of government, individuals in what political theorists call the 'state of nature' have an inherent right of autonomy, which entitles them to acquire property by dint of their labor and to dispose of it only as they see fit through voluntary transfer of goods. Epstein also maintains that any form of government coercion -- including taxation or other forced transfers of wealth -- can be reconciled with the principles of personal freedom only if it makes individuals at least as well off as they were before the tax or regulation was imposed. Epstein's key insight, as the Constitution in Exile adherents see it, is that economic regulations are just as coercive as other involuntary wealth transfers. He insists that if the government wants to reduce the value of an individual's property -- with zoning restrictions, for example -- it has to compensate him for the lost value."
"Advocates of the movement are entirely sincere in their belief that the regulatory state is unconstitutional as well as immoral and that a principled reading of the Constitution requires vigorous enforcement of fundamental limits on state power. Nevertheless, it is a troubling paradox that conservatives, who continue to denounce liberals for using courts to thwart the will of the people in cases involving abortion and gay marriage, now appear to be succumbing to precisely the same temptation. If the lessons of the past 60 years teach us anything, when judges try to short-circuit intensely contested democratic debates, from the New Deal cases to Roe v. Wade, they may provoke a fierce political backlash that sets back the movement they are trying to advance. In this sense, even if the Constitution in Exile movement manages to transform the courts before it has transformed the country, it may find that it has won less than it hoped."
Thanks to TalkLeft for the link.
Category: 2004 Presidential Transition
7:17:37 AM

e-mail John: