ShrinkWrapped shares his Thoughts on Freedom,
A powerful argument can be made that democracy and freedom are not inevitable outcomes of human striving and in fact, are very likely to be completely in opposition to the most basic aspects of human nature. That our experiment in freedom has lasted for over 200 years is a testament to the remarkable foresight of the men who founded this nation.
And that’s just the start (h/t Larwyn).
Powerline comments on the “living Constitution” the Dems love so:
I don’t think that we need to look for clues to Obama’s views in a 1989 Harvard Law Review article. The views of Democrats and their judicial nominees toward the Constitution have followed lines laid down in the Progressive Era by Woodrow Wilson and others. As Ryan Sager suggests in his comment on Shapiro’s article, liberals already treat the Constitution as a plaything subject to the doctrine of “the living Constitution.” It is a view that derives from belief in “progress” and a hostility to the Founders’ belief in natural rights and limited government. In the view of the Progressives, limited government was the enemy of progress.
The assault on the Constitution in the name of progress can be seen most clearly in the academic work of Woodrow Wilson. Paul Mirengoff summarized Wilson’s views in a Standard column — “From Wilson to Hegel to Breyer” — to which I contributed the research assistance (as Obama did for Tribe’s 1989 law review article) and Paul the brainpower. Wilson drew on modern science to express his view that the Constitution was obsolete, perhaps most memorably in his 1913 book The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People.” Wilson frankly detests and rejects the principles of the Founding, which he describes as “Newtonian,” in favor of Darwin and the idea of Progress: The makers of our Federal Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way,—the best way of their age,—those fathers of the nation. Jefferson wrote of “the laws of Nature,”—and then by way of afterthought,—”and of Nature’s God.” And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery,—to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.”
The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.
Links and more at Powerline.
Michael Fumento, who was my Blog Talk Radio guest last week, has a new article at Tech Central Station, An Idle Computer Is the Lord’s Workshop
IN SPANISH: Gustavo Coronel’s De Presidente Electo a Dictador, round por round. If you understand written Spanish, this is a must-read.
From Maria, First, the dogs and cats die …
While officials attempt to identify all aspects of the contamination, the company deals with the recall and liability, veterinarians deal with sick and dying animals, pet owners deal with concern about their animals, and lawyers race to handle the current and future lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada, there are other serious issues that must be confronted and questions that must be answered. Quickly.
Was this grain contaminated because the end product was pet food? Was it done intentionally, by whom and why?
If the ”end use” made no difference, does that mean other imported grains, including those for human consumption, might also be contaminated?
In fact, how would we know?