Groundhog Day

…and he didn’t see his shadow. So theoretically spring is on the way, at least in Gobbler’s Knob. Just what an oversized rodent in Pennsylvania has to do with weather in Portales is beyond me. But, Hey! America.

This is interesting…in an academic sort of way. I’m somewhat surprised to find my beloved USAF could be unconstitutional. Really.

Who claims that Textualism and Originalism lead to the Conclusion that the Air Force is Unconstitutional?

Commenters on my recent post about the constitutionality of the Air Force wonder whether there really are any serious constitutional law scholars who use the supposed unconstitutionality of the Air Force as an argument against originalism. A quick (and by no means comprehensive) Westlaw search reveals several examples. The use of the Air Force as an argument against originalism and textualism is not just a straw man. It's actually quite common.

Here's a sampling:

And serious arguments follow. Take that, Scalia! (Full disclosure: the preceding Scalia comment was tongue-in-cheek. I generally agree with the man. As a matter of fact, he just might be my favorite Supreme. Sorry, Diana, Mary, and Flo.)

You have to be living under a rock if you haven’t heard about that twit William Arkin and the several WaPo columns he’s written the past couple of days. You know, the ones in which he called members of the military “mercenaries,” and his subsequent rant against the folks who (rightly so) expressed outrage over his original column, and the third one where he apologized (sorta). Much, perhaps too much, has been written about this idiot, but Iowahawk, in his own special way, has the absolute best post on the subject. A few excerpts:

Equal Time: The Arkin Controversy

In compliance with the Fairness Doctrine and other proposed federal rules aimed at balancing online media opinions, I am introducing Iowahawk's new "Equal Time" feature. From time to time, I will be opening these pages to those with opposing viewpoints, where we will be debating the various top issues of the day. Please welcome today's guest dissenter, retired US Marine Corps LTC Mike Williams, as we debate today's Equal Time question: "Should Washington Post Military Analyst William Arkin Be Beaten Like the Repulsive Sack of Shit He Is?"

The Iowahawk View

Washington Post Military Affairs correspondent William Arkin recently stirred controversy with a blog post that termed active duty soldiers "mercenaries" who are "indulged" and given "obscene amenities" who should be "explained... why it isn't up to them to disapprove" of anti-war opinions. After the initial dustup, Arkin responded to critics by calling them "arrogant and intolerant," and after time for reflection, termed soldiers "worse" than mercenaries, and secretly harboring desires for a military coup.

Some policy analysts have proposed that in response, Arkin should be beaten for being the repulsive sack of shit he is. We at Iowahawk strongly disagree, and for a number of compelling reasons.

[…]

Rebuttal: LTC (Ret.) Mike Williams

Iowahawk's "case" is so weak and misguided, on so many levels, that I scarcely know where to begin. So let's take it point-by-point: First, vigorous public beatings of repulsive shit sacks are not necessarily at odds with the First Amendment, as long as no taxpayer dollars are involved. I agree that all due effort should be taken to insure that any beatings Mr. Arkin receives are only by private sector individuals, using privately-supplied tire irons. Further, any inconvenience Mr. Arkin experiences would be temporary, and he would be free to return to writing his column after recuperation and reconstructive dental surgery.

I hope this is the last word on Arkin… really, I do. We all have much better things to do than worry about an ill-informed, opinionated (I repeat myself) moonbat who just happens to have a column in a newspaper with a national readership. Nothing unusual about that, now, is there? And just for the record: no tire irons, please. Good ol’ fashioned fists would do nicely.

Signs of the Impending Apocalypse, Part XXVI:

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Algore has made a difference? How, pray tell? C’mon…tell me! Enquiring minds wanna know!

Jeebus Crow…an Oscar nomination and now this. Further from the AP:

The winner is traditionally announced in mid-October, with the prize always presented on the Dec. 10 anniversary of the death of its creator, Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel.

About which Kos hissownself says:

The prize will be announced in mid-October. So say Gore scores an Oscar and Nobel in the same year, he can announce in November and still become THE story in the primaries. It's not as if he'll need the full year to get his name recognition up or make the case for his candidacy. He would instantly raise gobs of cash (I'd bet on tens of millions in the first 24 hours) and become the media sensation of the winter. He would instantly make hundreds of millions spent by his primary opponents obsolete. Talent would flock to him, decimating the staffs of his opponents.

Talk about worst-case scenarios. And here we were worrying about Hillary… I’ll bet she’s just beside herself over this development.

This is pretty rich:

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."
"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

Why, Hell Yes! Give her a C-130 of her very own. A standard C-130, with the “troop configuration” aluminum scooped-out bucket seating, manned by aircrew from the California ANG, with PAX earplugs optional. Nothing else would be available, of course. All other airlifters would be otherwise engaged doing real work, like moving troops and supplies to the sandbox. Take it or leave it, Nancy. There’s no such thing as “Air Force Three.”

(Full disclosure, in case you didn’t chase the link: Hastert was provided military aircraft for trips to and from Illinois while he was Speaker. So there is a precedent.)

Today’s Pic: A rerun, of sorts. A sunrise pic from last August. I took 67 shots of the sunrise on August 16^th and posted numbers 66 and 67 that same day. This is number 46.