OBSERVATION: Family members killed in antique car

Associated Press (Aug 3) reported on the tragic death of three family members when there 1929 DuesenberG was hit by a Volvo. Noting that antique autos do not have the safety equipment and manufacturing requirements of modern cars, there is a call for laws to require modifications that would compromise the authenticity and value of the antique roadsters. (And, the Duesenberg carred a $1.5 million sticker price.)

Many inexpensivie foreign cars are barred from the U.S. market becasue they do not meet rigid American safety standards, such as bumper heights, air bags, and cup holders. (Cup holders? Yeah. I was thinking of that lady who sued McDonald's after spilling her coffee in her lap.)

All this concern would be well placed except fo one thing. We allow people to ride the streets and highways at high speeds balanced on two wheeled vehicle lacking every saftey feature conceived my mankind. Drivers and passangers zoom down the expressways with little more protection than t-shirts and jeans. We call the vehicles motorcycles.

Also, despite safety standards, few car will withstand the impact of one of those SUVs on steroids. Check out their bumper heights -- precisely measured to impact on the windshield of the average car.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for people taking risks in their "pursuit of happiness" promised by our Declaration of Independence -- including motorcyclists. My view is more in opposition to the hyper regulators who see government restricitons as the natural response to every tragedy. Given the relative injury and death rates between motorcyles and antique cars, I think the regulators should just back off.

I also believe we should allow importation of some of those sweet little foreign cars that save on gas and provide basic low cost transportation. People do get killed in $150,000 tank-like SUV's (but it usually takes an 18-wheeler) -- suggesting that tragedies are more the product of fateful circumstances and human misjudgements than equipment.

The safety of our freedom is a good thing -- and it is best accomplished by NOT passing excessive legislation. If we could only reign in that urge by our lawmakers.

REACT: Seizing Supreme Court justices' property is supreme justice

By now everyone knows that five of our nine Supreme Court justices advanced the concept of eminent domain so far that the right of private property has been effectively nullified. All levels of government have been handed a carte blanche to seize your property for the enrichment of big time real estate developers (campaign donors?) under the specious argument that the higher tax revenues are sufficient public good. Under the old theory of "public good," private property was taken for public projects, such as parks, highways and water treatment plants. Now, the homes and businesses of average Americans will be transferred to the developers of hotels, parking garages, town houses and strip malls.

The so-called liberal wing of the Court has given big government an option on the property of mostly the middle and lower economic classes. It is eloquent evidence that the liberal instinct is to advance the cause of big powerful government even when the injured are the much patronized disadvantaged.

Now cometh the revenge ... at least I hope so. Seems like some good folks in Vermont have decided that the country home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter would make a splendid site for a hotel. Another effort is being launched to seize the 167-acre farm of Justice Stephen Breyer for a park -- appropriately named Constitution Park.

Many see the effort as a cleaver public relations stunt to draw attention to the awful position endorsed by Breyer and Souter. They are probably right. That would be too bad, however. I really really hope that the effort will be successful. Our supreme jurists should suffer the consequences of their actions. They should suffer the same painful loss of treasured homesteads as they would visit upon thousands of Americans.

If there is truly justice, next year you can visit Breyer Park or the Souter Inn.

BECAUSE YOU ASKED: Not all conservatives agree on "conservative" issues

In my profile, I indicate that I am not in lock step on all so-called conservative issues. I was asked to explain where I might not be in line with the conservative issue de jur. I should first note that just because a policy position is declared to be support by the political right, that does not make it turly a conservative issue. I like to think that I consistently support conservative principles. However, I think many conservative leaders do not.

For example, I cannot find one scintilla of conservative philosophy in the effort to enact a Constitutional ban agains burning the flag. It flies in the face of everything we conservatives are supposed to embrace. We Americans have established a history of symbolic protest against our government. Symbolic means peaceful. To protest government outside of sybolism is to take up arms -- or terrorism. To protect the symbol of America from protest is to make the government more important than the governed. THAT is not conservatism.

In this issue, we have confused conservatism with nationalism. The confusion is due to the fact that we conservatives are usually of a patriotic bent. It is a misunderstanding of conservative patriotism that has meld it with nationalism. Since extreme nationalism takes the form of totalitarianism, it is the antithesis, not the component, of conservatism.

In addition, I am a secular conservative. That does not mean that I do not have a very deep and well defined theology. It does mean, however, that I make distinctiion between conservative philosophy and denominational religious beliefs. In the spirit of "thou shalt not," many of the religous right would impose denominaitonal doctrine on society through legislation and regulation. Conservative doctrine tends to eschew excessive regulation, relying more on personal freedom and accountability.

OP ED: Bush is right on Bolton

President Bush is right on the mark with his "recess appointment" of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. The opposition of congressional Democrats is nothing more than their continuing strident and highly partisan reaction to the ebbing of their power since the Reagan Revolution. They are abusing the "advise and consent" provision in a crass politcal gavotte that places their narrow voter rejected policies ahead of public interest. Far left senators, such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer are attempting to use the limited consent power to make de facto appointments.

They operate in oppositon of the will of the people, who, like it or not, made George Bush president by a convincing margin, and gave Bush more allies in Congress. His public mandate trumps any attempted usurption of power by any other elected individual or even a congressional cabal.

Unreasonable Democrat opposition disregards the needs of America, and the importance of having a person at the U.N. during these critical times. Sensitive international negotiations and the world fight against terrorism are more important than the petty partisan anxieties of the diminishing opposition.

In addition to the process, John Bolton is a good pick. Nothing in the prolonged, intense and sometimes vicious vetting process surfaced that would disqualify Bolton. The fact that accusations were limited to his management demeanor attests to the vacuous arguments of the senate Democrat leadership.

The facts that Bolton is aggressive and forceful, demanding of underlyings, and a sometimes harsh critic of the U.N., are all in his (and our) favor. The U.N. is rife with anti-American and anti democracy sentiments. It has been ravaged by monumental scandals that have risen to the very top leadership. If this was not an international body, some U.S. attorney would be issuing indictments about now. If Bolton turns out to be a hardliner for America, so be it. We do not need another Chamberlain-esque, pin-stripped, pale-pallard mildtoast.

Finally, this is one job where the president is entitled to having HIS person. The U.S. ambassador does not set policy, but only advocates. He is the eyes, ears and voice of the Executive Branch, not the spokesperson for the the minority malcontents in the Congress. To have it otherwise would cripple U.S. foreign policy.

It is stunning to see just how much damage a few senate Democrats will wreak on America in the name of their own partisan interests.

OBSERVATION: Locksmiths overcharge.

Could not let this one go by. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that locksmiths are overcharging locked out people. We are talking about folks paying $500 to more than $1000 to get into their houses. I cannot imagine what these people are thinking. I have been locked out lots of times. Never cost me a dime to get in. I am thinking of going into a new business. If any of you get locked out, send me a mere $150, and I'll messenger you a brick to throw through your back window -- and Mapquest directions to your local hardware store. The first 100 customers will get a gift certificate to cover the cost of the new glass, but you have to install it yourself.

REACT: Iraq and the Constitution

The news is full of reports suggesting that the possibility of missing the deadline for the new constitution in Iraq is some sort of sign that things are going badly (the constant mantra of the left and much of the press). Well, we prevailed over England in 1776, but did not get a Constitution in place until 1789 -- thirteen years later (for those of you who attended urban public schools). Frankly, things are going as well as can be expected in Iraq.

OUTRAGE: Parents too involved with kids going to college.

According a Wall Street Journal article published in the Chicago Sun-Times, college administrators are concerned that parents are too involved with the incoming freshman class. They are called "helicopter parents" for "hovering over" the registration process. Contrary to conventional wisdom, your institutions of higher learning want nothing to do with parent involvement. I know this from my own case.

I attended an introductory session for a son entering college. The guy at the podium told the students that they (students) were there to shed their parents values and prejudices, and to take up the values of the greater society. During the year, I made an inquiry regarding my teenage son, and I was told that school officials would not talk to parents regarding their children. All issues were between my son and the school. I reminded them that I was the "paying customer," but to no avail.

In the news article, school officials speak condescendingly of parent involvment. Now remember, we are talking about 16, 17, and 18 year old kids leaving home for the first time. We are talking about kids who want parent involvement. Here is some direct quotes from the Sun-Times article.

"Schools are assigning full-time staffers or forming new departments to field parents' calls and e-mails. Others hold separate orientations for parents, partly to keep them occupied and away form the student sessions."

"The University of Vermont employs "parent bouncers," students trained to divert moms and dads who try to attend registration and explain diplomatically that they're not invited."

"At the Universtiy of George, students who get frustrated or confused during registration have been known to ... whip out a cell phone, speed dial their parents and hand the phone to the adviser, saying 'Here, talk to mom'."

Is this a bit outrageous? From bottom to top, the educaton industry does everything possible to make sure the "state" has more to do with the education of our children than the parents. As parents, your values are meaningless to the those who harbor an Orwellian noblise oblige to create "politically correct" drones.

REACT - Chicago to get Tower of Babel?

If developers get their way, Chicago will acquire the tallest building in the world -- a screw-ish tower rising 115 stories. Given Chicago's reputation for political double-speak, it seems appropriate to erect a modern day Tower of Babel. Just as the bibilical Babel led to destruction and confusion, the proposed Chicago ediface will do the same. Developers, and a few politicians, say that the presence of the world's tallest building will not invite terrorism -- although that concern caused Donald Trump to reduce his new building in Chicago to less than record breaking heights. One has to wonder what logic the proponents employ. I guess if we parse their language, it would not be "a" terrorist target, because it would be "THE" terrorist target. Do we need to remind them that the Sears Tower was on the target list, but spared for lack of nutty extremists to highjack plans. Attractive as the design by Santiago Calatrava may be -- and it is stunningly beautiful a building -- half the size would be a nice addition to the impressive skyline, and draw attention away from the dull, repititious and irrelevant Meis garbage -- and the even worse Meis imitators. In defense of the world record option, they point out that new consturction will prevent sturctural failure and collapse. Hey! But what about the people killed if a plane slams into the thing.

FOOTNOTE: I know that my dump on Ludwig Mies van der Rohe will upset more than a few architecture elitists, but I am sorry. Mies work is a blight on the skyline. Its only value in the school of architecture is to serve as a bad example.