Of lawyers, judges and Justices

The nomination of Harriet Miers, to the position of Justice of the SCOUS, is raising quite a stir within the Republican party and among Conservatives in general.

We have charges of cronyism and betrayal on one side and counter charges of elitism and sexism on the other. Meanwhile the the "loyal" opposition seems rather self satisfied, in hope of a "meltdown", while their point-men and self-aggrandizing agents spout their seeming support for the nomination of, Ms Miers, with all the believability and sincerity of a used car salesman.

There is just one point I would like to address.

In this instance, are we not all guilty of elitism?

Why do we put so much faith in the legal profession, why should a Justice of the Supreme Court be required judicial experience, why should a law degree be of paramount importance for this position? I could understand if the SOCUS performed only its Constitutional duties, but it has usurped the roll of arbiter of the Constitutional and performs little of its original roll.

Originally, the Supreme Court was solely the court of final appeal and you cannot find anything in the Constitution that gives it the power to interpret the Constitution outside of its roll as final court of recourse.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

If you read, "Clause 2" (above), you will see that it is subject to the exceptions and regulations of Congress. I can only assume the Supreme court has usurped its present "authority" with the tacit approval of Congress. In effect we have a new branch of government as it seems to hear cases of Constitutional "importance".

I find this troublesome. We have, in effect, a branch of government, created by lawyers. A group that makes its living seeking to "bend" the law and rules for monetary consideration and notoriety.

If the SOCUS is the final "interpretor" of the Constitution, then may only lawyers be capable of understanding it?

Somehow, I don't believe that to be the case. I know that was not the intent of the founders. They meant for the Constitution to be understandable to any moderately intelligent person. A wealth of information about the thought that went into the Constitution can be read in the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers.

Some important points to ponder:

The Constitution, by its nature, is a conservative document. It is not meant to be easily changed.

The meaning of the Constitution can be derived by historical context and examination, that context is available and readily understandable.

A Lesson

Once, many years ago, my youngest brother found a fledgling sparrow hawk.

If you are unfamiliar with the sparrow hawk, they are the smallest of the falcons, (birds of prey). They are hunters that eat mice, insects and other birds.

He took care of it, intending to release it to the wild when it was old enough. One day he decided that it was old enough and released it. It flew off in a rush and he had thought that he would never see it again.

The next day it returned, landing on its cage, squawking and generally making a pest of itself.

He thought that it returned because it loved him!

The truth is it returned because it didn't know how to obtain food and water, it had no idea how to shelter itself or do all the things that hunting birds do in the wild.

I showed him how to train the bird to hunt, (a time consuming process). When I thought it was time, I told him to leave its cage open. It stayed around for a few days, then one day it left. Occasionally the bird would return and watch from the top of a nearby tree.

My point?

For over forty years we have clothed, feed and took care of people that are perfectly able to take care of themselves. Why are we surprised that they refuse to leave the cage?

Isn't it time we quit treating them like tamed animals?

A most marvelous rant!

From, Eject! Eject! Eject!:

Bill Whittle, lays it all out and takes no prisoners!

[...]

In New York, we had a governor who got every available resource on the ground as fast as it could get there, and in Louisiana we have a governor who...cried. Governor, your job is to not cry. Your job is to be strong. We have plenty of civilians crying. You want to cry, cry in the car on the way home like everybody else did four years ago. Crying Governors, race-baiting mayors and looting police do not a Finest Hour make.

In New Orleans we have a mayor who left some 400-500 buses sitting fueled and underwater in the Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool saying that evil white conservative America was selling out his people within 24 hours of the catastrophe, from a safe and dry and adequately toileted location, while four years ago we had a Mayor who ran to the site of the disaster so quickly it is a full-blown miracle he was not killed when a building collapsed literally on top of his magnificent, combed-over head.

Now, much has been made of the fact that Ray Nagin is an incompetent, race-baiting black man, and Rudy Giuliani, who was neither, is white. Also, feminists are upset that people dare attack Governor Blanco because she is incompetent, weak, indecisive, and also a women. And no doubt there are salivating long-haired, short-cortexed idiots just waiting for this to be over so they can sail into the comments section and tell me what a racist and misogynist I am.

[...]

A 'very' small part of a much, much larger rant.

I wish I'd said that!

Sean Penn, a capital ship?

A capital ship for an ocean trip, was the galloping window blind.

No gale that blew dismayed her crew or troubled the captains mind.

The man at the wheel was taught to feel contempt for the wildest blow,

But it often appeared, when the weather had cleared, that he'd been in his bunk below...

From The Herald Sun News:

Sean Penn's rescue bid sinks
From correspondents in New Orleans
05sep05

EFFORTS by Hollywood actor Sean Penn to aid New Orleans victims stranded by Hurricane Katrina foundered badly overnight, when the boat he was piloting to launch a rescue attempt sprang a leak.

Mr Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.

When the boat's motor failed to start, those aboard were forced to use paddles to propel themselves down the flooded New Orleans street.

Asked what he had hoped to achieve in the waterlogged city, the actor replied: "Whatever I can do to help."

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

I am the very model of a modern Major General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

Note to Mr. Penn:

People of "Forest Gump" like intelligence shouldn't attempt to perform heroic, like, actions. Leave New Orleans and return to Hollywood where you can pretend to be a hero on the big screen instead of becoming another problem. You might actually save someones life that way, (maybe yours), by not taking up the valuable time and resources of rescue workers!

Question asked, and answered

As we have seen in the last week, there are many unanswered questions in reply to those that wish to fingerpoint about the (seemingly) slow response of the government to Hurricane Katrina.

For those that wish answers, and those that need ammunition, here is a link with answers about the logistical problems encountered.

COUNTERCOLUMN: All your bias are belong to us.

Start reading at the Sunday, September 04, 2005, entry and scroll downward.

If you are more interested in fact that bureaucratese babble and sensationalist propaganda, you will find a wealth of information in easily understood language.

Hat tip to the instapundit.

Of Looters and Lefties

It the aftermath of the hurricane, in New Orleans we see the pictures of total idiots looting partially destroyed shops and stores.

I see nothing wrong with a person looking for the means of survival and taking bottled water, food, blankets and diapers, maybe even a 6 pack or two. But will someone tell me what the hell are they taking designer clothes, jewelry and big screen TV's for.

Its theft, pure and simple, brought on by opportunism. Their first thought is their advancement at someone else's expense. The idiots don't even realize that eventually they will be rounded up and forced to leave their loot behind.

In the same vein, we see leftist nut cases blaming the President for everything from the hurricane to fuel prices.

These glowing jewels of ignorance are also opportunists, awaiting any reason to bring om their idiotic charges in a fit of ideological hatred that would make a white supremacist blush. Their first thought is their advancement at someone else's expense.

Here we see the looter mentality through its full spectrum.

Amazed!

Composing is a creative process, a process that I find almost impossible to do when depressed.

Lately, I have found it increasingly difficult if not impossible to post as an ever increasing sense of gloom seemed to overwhelm me.

Tonight a weight has been lifted! A burden has been remove, abet temporally.

You might think it was news from Iraq or the idotiarians in the ditch in Crawford Texas.

Well you would be wrong!

A co-worker has decided to take a few days of vacation. His incessant bitching, back biting and shear oneryness has sapped the life from me.

He's gone! I won't have to listen to him degrading the company or his constant complaints and ridicule of our fellow workers. No more smarmy insults that deserve a good bitch slap.

I'm free! FREE! FREE AT LAST!
MMMWWWAAAAA HA HA HA HA.

But he will be back Monday.


Anyone know a good hit man?

The only good constitution is a dead constitution.

Dahlia Lithwick, a Slate senior editor, posted a column titled, "Reasons To Go On Living". In the article she asks for help:

"So, I turn to you, dear readers, smart thinkers, and posters of great wisdom in the Fray, to ask simply: Is the living Constitution dead? Are the critics correct-was it all just a great drunken binge of Brennan and Thurgood Marshall's? What is left in its place? Is there room for a Brennan-esque defense anymore? Or am I correct in guessing that Scalia is right this time?"

In order, I answer her questions, yes, yes, The Constitution of the United States of America, no and Hell Yes!

In effect, she is saying that there is no comprehensive, logical defense for the myth of the "Living Constitution".

The "living Constitution" is dead.
Long live the Constitution of the United States of America!

Read the link for what intelligent jurists and legal scholars have to say .

Thoughts on the Iraqi Constitution

Sometimes, (as a history buff), I assume that my friends and others know their history and have the same perspective that I do. Sometimes, we know these things and fail to put them in their proper perspective.

As many of you, (no doubt, figuratively), have heard me say; all things lose their meaning when taken out of context. I do not mean words or sentences taken from a statement, paragraph, chapter or book. I mean that, literally, 'everything' loses its meaning when taken as a singular event.

I am going to attempt to 'not' make assumptions about historical matters and make an effort to provide context for events in the news.

As my first effort I will point out that the US Constitution did not get created overnight and some of the things we thing of as "normal", (e.g. a bicameral legislature), are actually compromises that required years to negotiate.

Now lets look at what Professor John Eastman had to say about the Iraqi Constitution.

From a transcript of the "Hugh Hewitt" radio program:

[...]
HH: And so they convene in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, and there are deep divisions. Identify some of those divisions for people.

JE: Well, the big divisions, often unspoken, but sometimes explicitly addressed, was slavery. By then, most of the northern states had outlawed slavery. Most of the southern states not only kept it, but thought it was critically important to their economy. And so, the balance of power in the new central government was going to have to be pretty even, so as to not interfere with this issue, because they couldn't grapple with that at the same time they were trying to establish a new union. They had just defeated the British, but the British were still salivating over coming back in and taking over again. The second thing is big states versus small states. If you give power in the central government's legislature based on population, New York, Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania run everything, to the detriment of New Jersey and Maryland and Rhode Island and what have you. If you give it equal votes to each state, then the small states are going to have a much greater role in the national government than their population would warrant. And this was an intractable problem, finally settled by the compromise that gave population-based control to the House of Representatives, and state-based control to the U.S. Senate.

[...]

HH: Now given that background, are you surprised that it is so difficult in the birthing in Baghdad?

JE: No. I'm not at all surprised. In fact, if anything, you add to it the deep religious animosities, and cultural animosities that exist between the peoples there, that we didn't have. We were a largely homogeneous population in 1787, in a way that Iraq is not. The fact that they have gone as far as they have, as quickly as they have, is the real story here.

[...]

Read the whole thing and I think you will be more optimistic about the future of democracy for Iraq.

Remember that democracy isn't an event, it is a process.

What ya think?

I know this will seem a little strange, but please read the first five posts on this message board and tell me what you think.

LINK HERE



:^)

For wintermute

Islamic terror bombings in Bangladesh.

Must have been a reaction to the American presence... Oh, sorry wrong country!

Well, maybe they just need to set down and have a dialog.

LOL

Always On Watch

Always On Watch, Id like to apologize.

I just realized that I haven't blogrolled your wonderful site.

I'm sorry, I thought I had.

I'm correcting that error now

Branching out

Our friend, Drumaster, of Nicotine & Rock has created a new blog, High Voltage.

Where his first blog is mainly about music with some interesting side trips into electronic media and UFOs. This blog will deal with current events. (I'm the guilty party on the UFOs) ;^)

In his first post he asks us our opinion about sex offenders working among the unaware public.

Go read it and voice your opinion.

Of Apologists and Enemies

I must admit, I do not understand the penchant that many on the left have for apologist attitudes. I think that much of it is Orwellian in nature.

They have divided the world into two political camps, (how absurd). America = Imperialism = bad, all else, revolution = good. They have become totally thoughtless reactionaries and actually see the totalitarian Islamists as an ally. They oppose any American policy or action in a Pavlovian fashion that would embarrass even the most hardened student of aberrant psychology.


Normblog
[...]

So, there are apologists among us. They have to be fought - fought intellectually and politically and without let-up. What is it that moves them to their disgraceful litany of excuses? This is doubtless a complex matter, but here are a few suggestions. One thing seems to be the treatment of those who practise terror as though they were part of some natural environment we have to take as given - not themselves free and responsible agents, but like a vicious dog or a hive of bees. If we do anything that provokes them, that must make us morally responsible, for they can be expected to react as they do. If this isn't a form of covert racism, then it's a kind of diminishing culturalism and is equally insulting to the people transformed by it into amoral beings incapable of choice or judgement.

[...]

Revolution

If allowed to poison the well, (once again), the ANSWER types will make sure we are the losers. We will lose much more than a war!

There is a formula for revolution that was perfected by Stalin and used as a model for modern revolution.

(Loosely):
First unrest is generated against the government in power. Individual groups are loosely banded together under a common cause. Shrill accusations and propaganda is disseminated to achieve "popular" support. Rumors are spread and accusations fly. Martyrism is encouraged to provide more fuel for the fire until a type of critical mass is achieved where revolution becomes possible.

The Soviets were rather adroit at this and used the cell system and sleeper cells to lessen the chance of detection. Subversive elements are recruited and encouraged to pass information and if possible seek advancement that will allow the access to privileged positions inside of a government and civil services. (see the Verona papers)

Once the revolution is achieved and the remains of the old system are mopped up a new "threat" is found in the form of "counter revolution". The leaders and upper echelons of the separate groups that once formed a "popular revolution" are gathered up and "dealt with".

Power is consolidated and any descent from the party line is not tolerated. Gulags, et al ensue.

This model was used in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and all of the "Peoples Republics"

In an interesting twist, this formula was used by the mullahs of Iran. But this time the Communists were gathered up in the "counter revolution" phase and were hanged.

These, ANSWER, people are the rightful inheritors of Communist style revolution. They do not give a damn about Iraq or the war except as a propaganda tool. The war isn't the issue, the "cause" is the issue. If tomorrow it was decided that the Iraq war "issue" did not further the "cause" of "International Socialism", The next day ANSWER would be no more or find a new "issue".

Have you ever wondered why these people support the "Palestinians", or why so much anti-Zionist propaganda comes from that quarter? A rational view of the situation doesn't seem to warrant the absurd charges of, "Human Rights Abuses", we so often hear. Especially in the face of the barbaric actions of the PA/PLO.

If they supported Israel they would have no issue to point out the "evils" of Western Civilization. In short, it would not further the "cause".

No doubt there are many well meaning people among them, (Stalin called them useful idiots), but at their core they are the most deceitful cold blooded murderers on the face of this earth.

For the present, they are content with subversion and seeking disruption through propaganda and attempt to gain power through the ballot box. Regardless, they further their "cause". If exposed they will not go away, they will change the names of their groups then duck their heads, while planning for tomorrow.

The Supreme Courts, Kelo Decision

A quick summation.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to condemn private property and compensate the owners if the land is for public use.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may use the governmental right of eminent domain to seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

********************************

IMO, at the heart of the matter is this.

Individual rights vrs group rights.

Should the Government be able to 'take' the possessions of an individual to enhance itself, (in this case by increasing the amount of property tax revenues)?

Almost all Conservatives, all true Libertarians and probably an overwhelming majority of self described Liberals are against this decision. But why?

Conservatives and Libertarians are for limitation of government and individual rights as a matter of political and moral philosophy.

The Liberals, I have talked to, seem to hold some kind of nebulous position that they are for "the little guy". That position is about as deep as the scratches in the paint on my car!

Can we assume that if Mrs Kelo had millions of dollars and wasn't blind, Liberals would be for taking her house?

Lets remember what actually happened. As a result of this decision, cities have the wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Justices said, local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

A sad, sad, day on the Supreme court. I can think of no better reason to appoint Justices that will interpret according to the original meaning of the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution would not allow condemnation because the land will go to a private developer and not be for public use.

A Former POW's Opinion of Senator Durbin's Comments

From a Washington Times Op-Ed, (HERE).

For 5 months 'I stayed in the box'

By James H. Warner
June 29, 2005

As a Marine Corps officer, I spent five years and five months in a prisoner of war camp in North Vietnam. I believe this gives me a benchmark against which to measure the treatment which Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat, complained of at the Camp of Detention for Islamo-fascists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The senator's argument is silly. If he believes what he has said his judgment is so poor that his countrymen, assuming, of course, that he considers us his countrymen, have no reason not to dismiss him as a witless boob. On the other hand, if he does not believe what he said, the other members of the Senate may wish to consider censure. [...]


The argument that detainees at Guantanamo are being treated badly is specious and silly. In the eyes of normal Americans, Democrats believe this argument because, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said 20 years ago, they "always blame America first." This contributes to the increasing suspicion, in red states, a problem that Democrats are aware of and are trying to counter, that Democrats cannot be trusted with our national security. Only the Democrats can change this perception, most recently articulated by White House adviser Karl Rove. The ball is in their court and I am certain there are steps that they can take to change this perception, but making silly arguments about imaginary bad treatment of enemy detainees is not a move in the right direction.

Mr Warner gives examples of his treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese and compares it to the prisoners at GTMO. Read the whole thing.

I really must say that I was as deeply impressed by Sen. Durbin's emotional apology as I was by the circus act a few weeks ago when Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), had a zoloft moment.

Too bad that Sen. Durbin didn't actually apologize for 'what' he said. I imagine that, right now, he wishes that he had.

Durbin Digs, Finds More Dirt!

Via, WuzzaDem.com

;^)

On Guantanamo

I usually don't do this but I thought that some of my friends would like to see this and I'm pretty sure that most of you don't read Power Line.

From Lt. Peter Hegseth, a Minnesota native who has just returned after a year at Guantanamo Bay. Today, Lt. Hegseth sent the following letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which editorially endorsed Dick Durbin's comparison of our troops to Nazis, Communists and Khmer Rouge killers:

As a recent veteran of Guantanamo Bay, I've been troubled by the willingness of some (namely this editorial page) to make uninformed inflammatory statements about the detention operations at GTMO. I believe that if any one of them had the opportunity to visit GTMO and witness the operation first hand, they would change their tone, if not their minds altogether.

Not only are the detainees treated humanely (top-notch medical care, hearty meals, recreational facilities, full access to religious observance, etc..) but I personally witnessed instances when detainees did not want to leave. It was not uncommon for my platoon to guard an airfield for hours in preparation for sending a detainee home, only to turn around and bring him back to the detention facility because he refused to leave! These detainees are not stupid they know that real torture and inhumane treatment await them at home. And while I know they are not happy to be in GTMO, they rest assured that they will be treated well because Americans play by the rules.

I feel sheepish even having to defend this issue. While our servicemen (and innocent Iraqi citizens) are being blown-up and tortured overseas, the media obsesses over a handful of "mishandled" Korans and excessive air conditioning. (It is also worth noting that these so-called instances of "abuse" at GTMO were all uncovered by internal Army investigations! Its not as if the Army is torturing people and covering it up. On the contrary, the minute the Army gets wind of minor misconduct it swiftly removes and prosecutes those involved. This is an institution upholding the highest moral traditions of our country.) Would the terrorists do the same? No, I think they'd just wink at us and then cut our heads off.

LT Peter Hegseth
Forest Lake, MN
U.S. Army National Guard, Infantry

****************************

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports survey has shown that the MSM and the despicable Senator Durbin have overplayed their hand and it has blown up in their smarmy faces.

20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%).

The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics. Sixty-nine percent disagree with that comparison. This helps explain why Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized for making such a comparison.

Partisan differences concerning prisoner treatment are huge. Only 7% of Republicans believe Guantanamo prisoners are treated unfairly. Thirty percent (30%) of Democrats hold that view along with 22% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Republicans say the prisoners are treated better than they deserve. That view is shared by 28% of Democrats.

Seventeen percent (17%) of men say that the prisoners are treated unfairly along with 22% of women. Eighteen percent (18%) of married Americans hold that view along with 22% of those who are not married.

Among white Americans, 18% believe the prisoners are treated unfairly, a view shared by 23% of other Americans.

I'm not much for polls but these figures show such a small percentage that actually agree with Senator Turban err, Durbin, that I thought it was significant.

Old Europe, Who Cares?

Last year, Vice-President Cheney, caused quite a stir speaking of "Old Europe". It seemed to me that it was much-a-do about nothing.

Our home grown Europhiles and many of the self-styled intelligentsia of the European 'upper crust', were all in a huff. Their collective nose out of joint, they castigated Mr Cheney and in general, acted like offended dilettantes.

There was an unsaid message in Mr Cheney's statement. Europe is growing old and set in its ways. Unwilling to change its path and ridgedly hidebound to a system that supposedly combines the best of the freedom of western style Democracy with the "compassion" of Socialism; it has instead become the cross between an elephant and the rhinoceros, (the ell-if-i-no).

Robert J. Samuelson _ Washington Post

Europe's birthrates have dropped well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children for each woman of childbearing age. For Western Europe as a whole, the rate is 1.5. It's 1.4 in Germany and 1.3 in Italy. In a century -- if these rates continue -- there won't be many Germans in Germany or Italians in Italy. Even assuming some increase in birthrates and continued immigration, Western Europe's population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030 that would be one-fourth, and by 2050 almost one-third.

Read the whole thing.

My question is, do we care?