This land('s values) is your land('s values) - c'mon, sing along!

Yahoo! News - Canada to Sell Medical Marijuana to Seriously Ill

I have already mentioned my intense belief that our Supreme Court should not be referencing other nations' legal opinions.

So keep this in mind when reading:

Canada's approach is markedly different to that of the United States, where the Supreme Court in 2001 upheld a federal ban on medical marijuana.


U.S. authorities have strongly criticized Canadian plans to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, arguing it could result in highly potent pot flooding across the border.

Ahh.... but now... Now that we have the Supreme Court emphasizing 'values we share with a wider civilization' we can just take Canada's opinion into account the next time marijuana legalization is before the court.

It is clear that when the federal ban on marijuana was upheld in 2001, justices weren't considering the 'values we share with a wider civilization'. Next time, I'm sure they'll wise up.

We may be in for a surprise in CA

Why state firefighters root for governor / Union has lots to lose if Davis fails looming recall vote

Few groups oppose the recall of Gov. Gray Davis more vehemently than California firefighters. Their labor union was the first special-interest group to donate thousands of dollars, key staff and enthusiasm in support of the governor.

And few organizations have more to lose if the Democratic governor disappears.

This is not a direct illustration of my following point, but dovetails:

I think conservatives may be in for a surprise as the recall approaches.

Soon the recall election will be a given. Conservatives will be hoping for any high profile good name recognition candidate to have on the recall ballot. If Schwarzenneger goes for it, his victory will be nearly a foregone conclusion.

At that point, the most hideous painful thing we could experience would be for Davis to resign. The recall would be over, a Democrat would replace Davis. All of the marvelous possibilities we had stopped dreaming about and had actually begun planning for would be dashed, and we would find ourselves in the same round and round exercise in political futility that is California politics.

But we would have been first thrown down from the heights of anticipation that we never even should have stood upon (myself included), by Gray Davis himself.

I mean, let's put it this way. Realistically, Republicans just have little or no hope of much of anything in California. Then, suddenly we have all the hope in the world and all kinds of possibility - but it depends on our arch-nemesis, Davis actually not resigning.

Our hopes are predicated on Davis' demise. But if he just does himself in instead, he decimates our hopes in the process.

He might even work it out with other leaders in such a way as to become a hero for it - I wouldn't really be surprised.

Aren't judges the final word on truth??

JUDGE FINDS OSAMA-SADDAM LINK

"It seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts," Merritt, a Democrat and longtime family friend of Al Gore, wrote in a dispatch for The Tennesseean newspaper - charges similar to those previously reported by The Weekly Standard.

This is a judge saying he believes that there is proof of collaboration between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Just an easy question: If this were a story about a conservative judge visiting Texas and declaring a link of corruption between George W. Bush and Halliburton, wouldn't most of the press and many common observers claim that the judge's opinion was damning? Wouldn't it be reported again and again as SO MANY weak implications have been played about Bush and Halliburton?

The Liberals love to let judges on courts have the final say in what we should and shouldn't do, think, and believe (a la abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action). They LOVE proof that is opinion based on circumstance (Halliburton gets contract for Iraq - Bush's vice president used to work for Halliburton - deal MUST be corrupt).

But, of course, when those circumstances that they rely on for liberal assumptions do not support the ongoing villification of Bush - well, they just ignore it.

Have you heard this story on the news? I dare say not.

What'll kill you, green ham or salmonella?

local6.com - News - Hundreds Of Texas Prisoners Ill From Food

"HOUSTON -- Hundreds of inmates at a state prison are being treated for symptoms consistent with those of a food-borne illness and health officials suspect salmonella poisoning."

This is so great. We've never heard a peep of the deplorable eating conditions in Texas, but our very own Joe Arpaio has been villified constantly for his green ham and other tasty entree's - so much so that even Texans have probably heard about it.

But who gets sick? Not Joe Arpaio's inmates.

Book race

DRUDGE REPORT 2003®

Just have to admit, this is painful. I think that more people view Ann Coulter in a negative view because she is so vitriolic, than I thought, and it certainly appears that more people are interested in Ms. Clinton than I thought.

"BOOK RACE (**NIELSEN'S BOOKSCAN, SOLD COPIES AT BORDERS, B&N, AMAZON, COSTCO, TARGET, OTHERS...):

1. HARRY POTTER & THE ORDER - Rowling - 527,126 (YTD: 6,444,120)
2. EAST OF EDEN - Steinbeck - 74,267 (YTD: 335,745)
3. LIVING HISTORY - Clinton - 65,473 (YTD: 780,534)
4. DA VINCI CODE - Brown -- 54,797 (YTD: 673,058)
5. JOHNNY ANGEL - Steel - 48,309 (YTD: 49,309)
6. TREASON LIBERAL TREACHERY - Coulter - 46,057 (YTD: 115,633) "

Just have to hope that the opinions about Coulter do not represent general attitudes towards conservatives, and that the interest in Clinton does not represent support for her, politically.

I think it'll certainly be interpreted as support, however - which I think is incorrect. At the '08 polls, we'll find out who's really on what side.

Dean - his own worst nightmare

Dean: U.S. becoming Argentina

Dean:

"We cannot have a foreign policy which relies on the deception of our own people and the rest of the world."

If, somehow, Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans and, more broadly, conservatives, will be his greatest advertisers. We will be repeating his own words over and over and over again.

(edit..)

oh... and further illustrating his eminent grasp of global politics

"I'd like a different foreign policy than, 'Get out of my way or I'll see you in the parking lot after school.' "

Let's put it this way. I bought a lottery ticket today. Not because I think I'll win, or can consider it as even remotely possible, but just 'cause it's fun if.. just.. maybe...

No, we admit, it is terribly unlikely that we'll 'win the lottery' and face Dean in '04, but its fun to look at those numbers on the ticket once or twice, and just... fantasize a little......

The Supreme Court should never cite other nations' laws

Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant

Scalia:

''The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.''

and further:

''the court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.''

This is one of those principles that is so simple, Americans simply don't see it or don't believe that the Supreme Court would subvert what is right so obviously. It is this: Our nation's laws are predicated on the endurance of the Constitution. The Constitution's endurance is utterly dependent on its absolute sovereignty (and independence) among every other form of governmental authority.

Therefore, any dependence of Constitutional interpretation on the opinions of other nations is either superfluous (because it is already in agreement), or, if it opposes the Constitution, then it is not so much unnecessary as destructive.

Put another way: If it is actually necessary to include the opinions of other nations, then we have to assume that those opinions oppose the Constitution. If they didn't oppose the Constitution, then those opinions could be found within the Constitution. And if they can't be found within the Constitution, they are not constitutional.

Any dependence at all upon other nations' laws for our own laws implies that we are to one degree or another not entirely sovereign. Our freedom is absolutely dependent on our absolute sovereignty, so we cannot accept as reasonable the slightest compromise on this principle.