People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Power To The People!

While paid activists up in Richmond squeal about the environmental damage that is going to be done by the coal-fired power plant that Dominion Power is building over in Wise, locals seem better able to weigh the pluses (jobs, electricity) against those minuses. The poll results are in.

From the Coalfield Progress: The people have spoken. Loudly. Clearly. 72% of area residents want the power plant to be built. A larger mandate one won't find.

Power to the people!

Click on image to enlarge.

Dream With Me

You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can. No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people sharing all the world.

Trail aims to attract locals, tourists
By Teresa Mullins, Staff Writer, The Dickenson Star

Cranesnest — Imagine hordes of people hiking, biking and horseback riding across scenic countryside in the Appalachian Mountains. Although many might guess those folks are enjoying the well-known Virginia Creeper Trail in Abingdon, it may not be long until people are coming to Dickenson County to enjoy the Cranesnest Trail. (link requires paid subscription)
Imagine that. Dickenson County can expect "hordes" of tourists flocking to its new hiking trail. The same hordes that officials in Smyth County, Carroll County, and Grayson County are soon to be forced to turn away for lack of capacity. The same hordes that Bland County, Wythe County, Montgomery County, and Pulaski County are forced to beat away with a stick ... soon. Not to mention Buchanan County's hordes. And Wise County's. Tazewell County. Washington County. Dickenson again. Lee County. Giles.

Did I leave anyone out?

A wealth of tourists coming to a Southwest Virginia County near you. Some day.

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Obviously Someone's Not Reading Them

How about this for a newspaper quote?

"My profession’s future depends on today’s kids reading tomorrow’s newspapers."

The quote comes from an article in Sunday's Bristol Herald-Courier. The headline?

Read it again. Slowly.

If I may: Your profession’s future depends on your reading today’s newspapers.

What Does This Remind You Of?

Can there be something sinister behind the many doomsday reports coming out of the United Nations in recent months relating to global warming, including this one released just days ago? From Craig Timberg, writing in the Washington Post:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (my emphasis)
Okay. Ms. Epstein was referring to the alarmism that the U.N. used to drive the AIDS prevention debate, not the U.N. alarmism that fuels the global warming prevention debate.

Still, it makes one wonder ...

I Have Just One Question

I get really annoyed at historians and journalists who dredge up stories about the Holocaust, about what we knew and when we knew it, and then draw conclusions from them relating to our supposed failure to prevent the slaughter of six million European Jews.

Case in point:

Devastating New Revelation of Holocaust Warning and Missed Opportunity
By Ron Rosenbaum

My friend and former colleague Craig S. Karpel often e-mails me eye-opening links to stories that don’t get the attention they deserve.

This piece from the Jerusalem Post is an example, a true
shocker: it’s about a new book published in Hebrew that reveals that an explicit warning of Hitler’s plan for exterminationist death camps for Jews was passed on to British officials, perhaps even Churchill himself, in the spring of 1942, months before what had been previously regarded as the first explicit report of the industrialized mass murder the one that came in August of ‘42.

But to my mind even more important than the timing is what the book reveals accompanied the warning: a proposed practical course of action that might—who knows now?—have made a difference in forestalling it. (

What would these guys have us do? Go to war with Germany? Oh. Wait ...

Let's see. This information was passed on to the British (supposedly) in the spring of 1942. By then:

● The Nazis had invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Sudetenland.

● They then seized all of Czechoslovakia.

● The Germans had by then invaded Poland.

● Britain retaliated by declaring war on Germany (Sept., 1939, two years before that Holocaust information made its way to London).

● The Nazis then invaded Denmark and Norway.

● They followed up with invasions of France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

● They then launched an attack on Britain.

● The Germans then invaded Romania.

● They then invaded Greece and Yugoslavia.

● Then the Soviet Union was invaded.

● The United States declared war on Germany on December 11, 1941.

All this before the information regarding "The Final Solution" came into British possession. The question needs to be asked (again): What should we have done with it? Gone to war?

We were at war! A war that brought the U.S.
over a million casualties. The British 800,000 wounded and dead. A war that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 72 million people worldwide.

What more would you have us do?


Now that the Supreme Court has decided to take up the D.C. handgun ban case, it's worth considering where past courts have stood on the issue of the 2nd Amendment and that "right of the people." It's generally thought that the last time the high court dealt with the issue of gun control was in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. But according to Dave Kopel, that's not true. He wrote in the Saint Louis University Public Law Review:

Among legal scholars, it is undisputed that the Supreme Court has said almost nothing about the Second Amendment. This article suggests that the Court has not been so silent as the conventional wisdom suggests. While the meaning of the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case, the 1939 United States v. Miller decision remains hotly disputed, the dispute about whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments. (link)
Read the whole thing. Be informed. The founding fathers didn't outline for us ten rights that are inviolable just to have a government declare them to not be so. We the people must prevail. Now and always.

The man didn't say "Give me liberty or give me death" for nothing.

Showdown II

On the importance of the Supreme Court's having decided to take up the D.C. 2nd Amendment case:
There has been extensive and lively discussion of [District of Columbia v. Parker], yet I think the legal commentariat has not quite grasped how momentous a cert grant would be. It's not often that the Supreme Court takes up the core meaning of an entire Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in a context where it writes on a mostly clean slate from the standpoint of prior holdings. If the Court takes the case, then October Term 2007 becomes The Second Amendment Term.

How many Americans would view District of Columbia v. Parker as the most important court case of the last thirty years? The answer must run into seven figures. The decision would have far-reaching effects, particularly in the event of a reversal.
"The Second Amendment Term? " Mike O'Shea, Concurring Opinions

Showdown III

To those who look to disarm (and make helpless and subservient) the American people, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights don't really matter at all. As the editorialists at the New York Times make clear this morning (in "The Court and the Second Amendment"):

Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.
According to these guys, modern-day realities preclude any need for critical interpretation of the Constitution. We therefore are not a nation of laws but of political ebbs and flows. Welcome to the New York Times vision of The Banana Republic of America.

E.J. Dionne, pleading in this morning's Washington Post, makes the same argument:
The Supreme Court took a big case on Tuesday that will determine whether our elected representatives can write sensible laws on guns, or instead have to sit by helplessly in the face of rising gun violence.

Here is hoping that a conservative activist court does not block the democratic process, upholds the 1939 precedent, and let's DC's law stand.
Sensible laws? To him maybe. But then there are those who believed in sensible poll tax laws. And laws barring women from voting. And "separate but equal." Even in sensible laws that allowed for one individual to own another.

Sensible? To which constituency? On which given day? At what cost?

On The Wrong Side Of History

Glenn Reynolds asks, with regard to the Democrats' refusal to admit that they have been grievously wrong about the Iraq War:

"Democrats in Congress failed once again Friday to shift President Bush’s war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: 'What else are we supposed to do?'

How about admit things are going much better, and try to help?
Try to help. Fat chance.