We Told Ya--Becker Flexes His Union Muscles

Back in February I discussed the Republican Party flexing its "new found muscles" here. At that time, Scott Brown had just taken over the seat of Ted Kennedy, and among the first votes he participated in was the thumbs-down vote on Obama appointee to the National Labor Relations Board Craig Becker. Thanks to a recess appointment in March, Becker took a seat on the NLRB anyway.

Now it's Becker's turn to flex his muscles. And it's all payback. The man has the ethical backbone of a jellyfish, but he is determined to sting. So let's start with his oath of office and written ethical pledge: "I will not for a period of two years from the date of my appointment participate in any matter involving specific parties that is directly or substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

Maybe Becker thought the declaration said "two days" rather than "two years." This is the man who said that he would institute union card check with or without Congressional approval and declared that employers should have no voice in discussions of whether their employees should join a union or not. More importantly for this discussion, Becker was the chief counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) less than a year ago, and a paid consultant to the AFL-CIO at the same time.

Now comes the so-called "Pomona Valley Case." Becker boldly refused to recuse himself in accordance with his ethics pledge in a matter which revolves entirely around the SEIU. Here are the basic facts. Carole Jean Baderscher is (was?) a nurse at Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center in California. In order to retain her job, she was forced to join the SEIU. When the union contract expired, the SEIU voted to abandon their patients and go on strike. Baderscher took her nurse's oath more seriously than her forced union membership, resigned from the union, and went to work.

The SEIU retaliated by threatening Baderscher with prosecution under an ancient and inoperative California law called "The Professional Strikebreaker statute." The law was originally written to stop paid professional "union-busters" from interfering with union activities. Even if that law had not been preempted by federal law over many decades, Baderscher would not even come close to fitting the description of a paid union-buster. She simply left the union (in complete compliance with Beck v Communications Workers) and crossed the picket line to care for her patients.

Well, at least the SEIU thugs didn't beat her to a pulp, but they used forced union dues to make her life hell. The told Baderscher that she and her fellow nurses who refused to abandon their patients would be fined, barred from employment with any hospital suffering from a union contract, and thrown into jail. They also twisted the words, intent, and precedent which Beck stands for, and told the nurses that they were legally required to keep paying union dues. In fact, Beck makes it clear that while there is a union contract in effect (which is not the case here), those who opt out of the union are required to pay only that portion of union dues related to very narrow and specific purposes. Leftist labor boards have consistently ignored those Beck rules despite losing nearly every court case in which the National Right to Work Foundation filed suit against the unions and/or labor board rulings.

The liars and thugs of the SEIU produced a pamphlet using union dues (in direct violation of Beck law) which said to Baderscher and anyone who might be considering joining her: "You may have been mislead [sic.] into believing that you are not obligated to pay dues and fees during the period of negotiations. This is untrue and retroactivity may occur prior or upon ratification of the contract. Please ask yourselves why all the anti-SEIU leaders are still paying dues. Could it be they don't want the possibility of owing more in a lump sum?" Not only is that a misstatement of law and a pure bullying tactic, but in addition the use of union dues to produce the pamphlet is a clear and unequivocal use of union funds for a purpose specifically forbidden by Beck.

All right, that's the case. And who is actively involved in reviewing the matter? You guessed it, SEIU advocate and recent former SEIU counsel, Craig Becker. He didn't wait two years or even two months since his recess appointment to declare brazenly that he fully intended to participate in this and any case which involved the SEIU. This is not some abstract nexus between a pro-labor NLRB member and some obscure union. This is the former counsel for the SEIU involving himself directly and enthusiastically in an SEIU labor dispute. Frankly, I've been involved in many labor-management disputes and matters involving conflict of interest/incompatibility of office, and I have never seen such a clear and egregious violation of a written and signed ethics pledge.

On the other hand, we're dealing with the Obama administration and the SEIU, so why I'm even discussing ethics is somewhat of a mystery, even to myself. Here's Becker's defense to pending ethics investigations: "It would be appropriate to recuse myself from cases involving the national SEIU but not cases involving the local chapters because they are 'distinct legal entities.'" That is based on an earlier NLRB ruling, written by, you guessed it, Craig Becker.

So what does the SEIU charter have to say about national versus union locals? "The national union has jurisdiction over its affiliated bodies and all Local Unions." In his decision to go forward with the Pomona Valley case, Becker seems to be ignoring his own words. In that earlier ruling which he wrote, Becker said: "Employees [of the administration and/or NLRB] shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards. Whether standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant fact."

Well it sure as hell appears to me that Becker is in clear and open defiance of that statement. But then I guess Becker would say I'm unreasonable. And unlike cases that I argued in court, I didn't get to conclude my argument, then head up and onto the bench to make the decision on my own arguments. But that is exactly what Becker is doing. Does anyone still wonder why Andy Stern, longtime head of the SEIU was the most frequent overnight guest at the Obama White House?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Freedom Of Speech Wins A Round

Some time back, I posted an article about suppression of free speech fomented by Islamics using the courts to shut down any author who dared to criticize any facet of Islam, including discussions of Mohammed, the Koran, and the political nature of worldwide Islam. The legal vehicle used was "libel tourism." For the earlier discussion, go here.

We should thank the Good Lord, and occasionally Congress, for small favors. In a completely unpublicized action, the United States Senate struck a small blow for free speech and getting the courts out of the business of settling religious scores. Last Monday the Senate unanimously passed the SPEECH Act. America is one of the very few nations with a foundational document guaranteeing the right to publish opinions that large numbers of people would find offensive. So it has been hard for Muslim speech-haters to get very far trying to suppress publication in America of reports and opinions concerning the nefarious activities of important international Muslims.

Therefore, the offended Muslims found a way around the First Amendment. If an American writes and publishes a piece highly critical of Islam and its prophet Mohammed, and that piece ends up being read or reproduced outside the United States, use the courts of those other countries, argue one or more of the multiple versions of defamation law available almost everywhere else, obtain a judgment, then bring that big bucks judgment to the United States and demand the courts enforce it. This form of speech suppression via the back door came to be called "libel tourism."

In the earlier article, I made mention of several states which were faced with the demand for enforcement of the foreign judgments, and refused, God bless them. Their logic was that the state has no local jurisdictional obligation to honor the foreign judgment and because the issue directly addressed freedom of speech, a fundamental American right, the court was within the realm of federal precedent by refusing to enforce the judgments. But it was risky business, given the federal supremacy argument and crazed federal appellate jurisdictions such as the Ninth Circuit.

The SPEECH Act just passed by the Senate mirrors the New York State Libel Terrorism Protection Act. If the House concurs, it will be federal law that enforcement of foreign libel judgments against American citizens is prohibited if it is deemed substantially likely that the action, if brought originally in an American court, would have been dismissed on First Amendment grounds. In the case of "egregious misuse" of foreign libel law, the defendant may also be awarded attorney's fees.

This is only a partial victory, yet a very significant one. I would like to have seen a section of the law providing specific rules for counter-claims or cross-complaints for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, but I'll take what I can get. States other than New York had been slow to respond to the massive threat of money judgments shutting down free speech and chilling the First Amendment. The federal government has been even slower, and this Act might make up for their dilatoriness.

There is only so much that a law of Congress (and the assumption of it being upheld by the Supreme Court) can do. Libel tourists can still bring their foreign actions in foreign courts. They can still obtain judgments and immense monetary damages. And if the benighted American makes the mistake of traveling to the country that allowed the judgment, there could be serious financial consequences. In those countries which have lax criminal libel statutes, it could even mean jail.

England is a favorite vacation spot for Americans, and though the Parliament has been giving serious consideration to major revisions of its libel law, they have thus far not accomplished that. It is one of those few areas of English common law that leans toward the continental legal concept of guilty until proven innocent. Once a formal libel charge has been made against an author, it is up to the author to prove it wasn't defamatory. What most Americans consider a basic legal concept is not that basic in other western nations, even those as much like America as England.

Even with the off-kilter Nancy Pelosi in charge, it is considered nearly a sure thing that the House will agree with the Senate on this issue. How quickly this will happen is another matter, since so far Ms. Pelosi has failed to set a date for the vote on the Senate bill.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Four Profiles In Democratic “Courage”

Sometimes the courage and the vision of Democrats can be astounding. Take for example the case of Reps. Peter Welch, Jim Himes, John Adler, and Gary Peters (“WHAP” for short), visionary Democrats indeed. WHAP want to fix this here thing called the deficit, and they have a plan that will truly amaze and shock you. . .

Here’s the background. WHAP are concerned about the deficit. They are doubly upset that the Democratic leadership and those evil Republicans don’t have the courage to address this issue. Said WHAP: “We have been growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of action and talking about specifics and putting those on the table. We’ve been frustrated with both Democratic leadership and Republicans.”

Well, WHAP is through waiting. They're mad as heck and they're not going to take it much longer. So they’ve decided to form a working group to propose “major cuts” to spending in areas like defense, energy, housing and agriculture! Wow, a “working group.” Sounds like the battle cry of a visionary, doesn’t it?

So what “major cuts” are these deficit hawks talking about? Why, they’re proposing cuts that could be as high as $70 billion over ten years!

What? No applause? Come on people, that ain't small change! That's $7 billion every year! Wait a minute. . . that's less than 0.4% of the $1.7 trillion deficit. Hmmm. Technically, that's not even change then, much less small change. In fact, you'd need three times as many cuts before you could even get a whole penny's change back on your dollar. What a joke!

Yet, these jackasses seriously think this is meaningful: “Our leadership hasn’t put any serious budget cuts on the table so we had to take matters into our own hands. We’re upset.”

Astounding.

I can’t even find the words to express how laughable this is. And it’s all the worse that they seem to think this is somehow courageous: “We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending, and taxation without bankrupting our country.” Yes, and you’re lying to yourself if you think this makes the slightest difference. What WHAP is proposing is less than a rounding error in government accounting. This is trying to empty the ocean by removing one bucket of water. And the fact that they can’t tell the difference between this and a real cut is truly telling. Are they so stupid or have they become so corrupted that they genuinely think a 0.4% cut is meaningful?

Actually, I don't think so. I think this is a political ploy. These guys represent Republican-leaning districts, and this is an attempt to let them go home and claim that they are standing up to the Democratic leadership with "real" spending cuts. Once re-elected, they will propose tax increases to actually cut the deficit, and will claim that their cuts just weren't enough alone. Basically, this an attempt at deception. And the media is supporting their plan by reporting this with a straight face.

So it probably won't surprise you that they're talking tough about their leadership (and the Republicans) who are standing in the way of this fly turd that they're throwing at the Obama-Debt: “We have no support from our leadership, and to this point neither they nor the Republicans have put their money where their mouth is on spending cuts.”

You courageous dears! How brave to stand up to your party on this vital issue. Why, you're almost as brave as those dudes who stopped those red-coated guys when they did that thing way back when. You know the ones, they were on Showtime. And I'll bet you four would have stood up to Hitler too, right? Maybe with a strongly worded letter. . . or two? Your courage astounds!

In any event, if you want to know what’s wrong with the Democrats (and a lot of Republicans), this is it. These jerks think they’re being courageous by offering spending cuts that are so laughably timid that words fail me in how to describe how trivial they really are. Yet, they think this is a huge step. And their leadership won't even support this level of cuts.

Sad. . . pathetic. . . liberals.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Racist Resigns At USDA (Maybe)

Racism is an ugly thing. Sadly, it's also a fairly common human trait, as anyone who has ever spent time on earth can tell you. But one of the great things about human beings is our ability to overcome our instincts and to act rationally. And in that regard, white America has made tremendous strides in eliminating racism within its ranks. Black America has not, as evidenced (again) by the recent flap surrounding Shirley Sherrod.

Shirley Sherrod resigned from the Department of Agriculture the other day after comments she made surfaced because of the work of Andrew Breitbart. Sherrod was caught on video explaining how she chose not to really help a white farmer because of his race when she worked for the Georgia field office of the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund. Said Sherrod:

“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”

Note the “get even” attitude, in which she justifies her misconduct to the white farmer on the basis that black farmers were suffering. There is no more pure expression of racism than to harm an innocent person because of their race. And it gets worse. When the problem moved beyond her ability to handle, she decided to send him to a “white lawyer” for help. Here’s what she said about that:

“So I took him to a white lawyer. . . So I figured if I would take him to one of them, his own kind would take care of him.”

Note the assumptions here. First, the white lawyer is not a person, he’s a “them,” a thing. Secondly, she clearly sees herself apart from “them,” as noted both in her description of the white lawyer as a “them” and as “his own kind.” In other words, in her world, we aren’t all human, we are divided by race and this lawyer isn’t one of her kind. Finally, note the assumption that somehow a white lawyer would take care of a white farmer, because of his race.

NAACP president and CEO Benjamin Todd was “quick” to condemn her:

"Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race. We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.”

Which is nice of him to say, but this is not enough. Indeed, Sherrod’s comments took place at the NAACP’s 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet. So why didn’t anyone from the NAACP call her on this before Brietbart made a big deal of it? And she claims to have said this to dozens of other groups, why did none of them ever speak up?

At least Todd acknowledged that the audience’s reaction was disturbing: “the reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.” We'll see if that means anything, probably not.

Sherrod is now trying to defend herself, and her justifications only show how deeply her racism really goes. Here are her defenses:

1. “This was 24 years ago, and I'm telling a story to try to unite people with that now.” This is an excuse that is not accepted when it is made by whites, particularly white conservatives. Moreover, she’s given no indication of repentance.

2. “I did say that, but they, for some reason, the stuff that Fox and the Tea Party does is scaring the administration.” In other words, yeah I did it, but it wouldn’t be a big deal if the evil right wingers weren’t making a big deal of it or if Obama covered for me. This defense more than anything puts the lie to the idea that she is repentant: repentant people don't blame those who uncovered their sins.

3. “I went on to work with many more white farmers.” This is the “I have white friends” defense that the race industry won’t accept.

4. “I wasn’t working for USDA at the time.” Funny how this distinction doesn’t seem to matter to the race industry who always demand that current employers fire alleged racists, no matter when the alleged racism happened. Also, this was still a federal grant she was administering and that makes her actions a crime.

5. About the lawyer: “What I meant was, I didn’t know anyone else, but it thought taking — I didn’t know another lawyer at that time who was local, who knew something about chapter 12. But I thought if I took him to a white lawyer, he would definitely do all that he could to help save his farm.” Thus, in trying to defend her actions by asserting how she really did think she was helping him (directly contradicting her incriminating statement), she again repeats the racist idea that she believes that each race looks after their own.

6. The family of the farmer to whom she was racist likes her and doesn't think she should have lost her job. This one never works either. In fact, we're told that it's irrelevant how the "victim of the racism" feels because racism is a bigger crime against us all. Not to mention that this is the only incidence she's admitted to, who knows how many other white farmers she discriminated against? But this claim is apparently enough to get the White House to reconsider her employment today. Pathetic.

This is what the NAACP should have condemned: that she mistreated a person because of his race, that she did so in retaliation for blacks, and that she viewed and continues to view race as the driving factor that motivates people to help each other. They also should have apologized for not uncovering this themselves, and they should have condemned (and hopefully still will) all the people who sat through that banquet and many others without ever realizing that they were listening to the rantings of a black racist.

It sounds like they need a refresher on what actually constitutes racism.

If we are ever to move beyond race as a people, then it’s time for groups like the NAACP to stop looking for racism under every rock they don’t like but turning a blind eye to the racism in the black community.


*** Addendum: As an interesting aside, the day before Shirley Sherrod was appointed to her position by Tom Vilsack, who heads the Department of Agriculture, she was awarded $13 million in her lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture for racial discrimination. Interestingly, her award includes $300,000 in “pain and suffering.” By comparison, the average result of all other plaintiffs was only $72,000 (“Track A” plaintiffs are receiving $50,000 each plus debt forgiveness). The cost to the taxpayer from this class action suit has been over $1.15 billion. I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but at the very least is makes her own racism all the more hypocritical.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Molly Norris and May 20th Draw Mohammed Day (UPDATE)

On May 19, I posted an article announcing the "Draw a Likeness of Mohammed Day". It was a call to arms (or call to pencil) started by Seattle artist Molly Norris in reaction to a censored "South Park" episode featuring a likeness of Mohammed. Fearing violent objections by radical Islamicists similar to reactions to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Comedy Central's brass decided to take the appeasement approach and blocked out the offensive likeness so as not offend.

Shortly after word got out what Comedy Central had done, Ms. Norris, an up-and-coming young cartoonist, reacted as any artist should when faced with censorship of any kind. She showed her disdain by drawing a cartoon "thought balloon" titled ""Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" and posted it on her website. As these things go in the internet age, someone saw it, passed it on, and within a few days, her cartoon went viral. Her idea spread like wildfire.  Facebook pages were started and blogs across the world were touting May 20th as the official day everyone would strike a blow for freedom lovers everywhere. Every news organization in the country was clamoring for an interview with Norris, the newest cult-hero in the War on Islamic Terrorism. "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had taken on a life of its own, but Norris began to have serious doubts about what she had so innocently started. She never intended that anyone should actually draw a likeness of Mohammed. She was just thinking out loud. As the appointed day drew closer, she began to furiously backtrack and did pretty much everything short of burning her driver's license and donning a burkha to denounce the movement stating emphatically that she "never meant to offend anyone" and to "...Please stop drawing Mohammed".   Her doubts and fears were not unfounded.

Unfortunately for all of her protestations and denunciations, she put it out there and it did not go unnoticed either.  Last week, Ms. Norris was informed by the FBI that she has now been named the next new inductee onto Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki's hit list. This is the same peace-loving Islamic cleric who brought us the Fort Hood terrorist killer, Malik Nadal Hasan, and the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisel Shazhad.  I guess this is one of those Obama "teachable moments" - when you want to make a stand these days especially on the internet, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. These people are not kidding around and they will kill anyone even innocent cartoonists in Seattle when they are offended. But we know all of this.

But here is something that makes this a little bit worse. A New York Daily News poll  indicates a real lack of sympathy for her plight. Here is the poll and results:

A radical cleric has called for the execution of a U.S. cartoonist after she launched a project called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Do you support the cartoonist's lampoon?
• Yes. She was making a statement protected under the First Amendment. That's her job. 37%
• No. She knew Islam forbids drawing the likeness of Mohammed. This is insulting, not fun. 56%
• Not sure. 7%

Taking into consideration that the Daily News is just left of the NY Times on most days, this is a big surprise. One would think that liberals would want to stand up against censorship of any kind and would support any artist who made a stand even if it might offend Muslims. I know I am reading a lot into this very unscientific poll, but it a little scary that only 37% support her First Amendment rights. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Miraculous Recovery For Terrorist Bomber, And BP May Have Helped

It has now been a year since Scotland released convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on the humanitarian grounds that he had terminal cancer and only three months to live. Looking at it another way, the murdering bastard has already lived nine months longer than they said he would, and seems to be recovering nicely.

There's no need to rehash the original story. Scotland made a horrendously bad decision releasing a terrorist who murdered 270 people, mostly Americans, on Pan Am Flight 103. There is simply no "humanitarian balance" in showing mercy toward one vile inhuman beast when 270 innocent human beings went to their graves with justice denied. But now it appears that the picture of the Libyan mass murderer returning home in triumph [above] may be at least partially the result of efforts by British Petroleum (BP).

Now BP isn't exactly every American's favorite oil company at the moment anyway. BP executives continue to treat the Gulf oil spill as an unfortunate public relations mistake instead of a major disaster. Their statements regarding the events leading up to and following the oil spill have ranged from simple obfuscation to outright distortion. And now it seems that this is a pattern. Dead fish and birds and lost wetlands are bad enough, but murdered Americans being denied justice is at least as bad. When queried on their alleged involvement in the release of the mass murderer, BP at first remained silent (typical), then issued one of those infamous non-denial denials.

The Wall Street Journal hopped on the story early, and made multiple requests of BP officials for a confirmation, denial or explanation of the reports that BP influenced the decision to release the terrorist. But it wasn't until loud noises coming from members of Congress about a possible investigation into the allegations began to be heard outside the Capitol that BP felt it could no longer stonewall. So it sandbagged instead. BP's response to the Journal reads as follows:

"The decision to release Mr. Al Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government. It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish Government. BP was not involved in any discussions with the UK Government or the Scottish Government about the release of Mr. Megrahi." That is what the military academies call "a quibble." The answer is true, but not truthful. And it's dishonest and dishonorable. Here is what BP really said to both governments in late 2007:

"We are concerned about the slow progress that is being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya. We are aware that this could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan Government of BP's exploration agreement (emphasis added). OK, the memo doesn't specifically reference al-Megrahi. And if that's all we had, their current explanation would be at least somewhat believable.

BP was deep in negotiations with the Libyan government, and specifically with madman Muammar Qadaffi's son, Saif. From a legal viewpoint at trial, this is only hearsay, but we're not in court, and this is pretty nasty stuff. Says Saif: "At all times we (Libya and Scotland) talked about the prisoner transfer agreement it was obvious we were talking about him (terrorist al-Megrahi). And when we talked to BP, we all knew that was what we were talking about." Qadaffi is only one of several Libyan officials who have tied BP, the UK and Scottish governments, and Libya together.

So what we're left with at this point is BP claiming it had no direct part in the government negotiations (true, apparently), but was very much involved in negotiations regarding economic matters and prisoner exchanges, which had at their pinnacle the unspoken but well-known exchange of BP oil exploration agreements in Libya for the release of a mass murderer. That is a distinction without a difference, and if BP can't come up with something better than that, they should earn at least a major consumer boycott of their products in America.

In all fairness, the WSJ writers say "what we still don't know is how hard BP lobbied the British government to secure the transfer agreement. One key figure is Mark Allen, a politically connected former MI6 officer who became an adviser to BP in 2004 and raised the matter with then-UK Justice Minister Jack Straw in 2007. The company hasn't answered our request for details of Mr. Allen's conversations with Mr. Straw." The Journal was being generous in not pointing out that Straw was notorious for being in the hip-pocket of Middle East Oil money men.

The only thing that prevents this from being a clear and provable quid pro quo is that the transfer agreement was signed in 2007. BP immediately thereafter received a $900 million deal from the Libyan government in Tripoli to drill deep water wells off the Libyan coast. Still, bureaucratic matters held up the specific release of al-Megrahi until 2009. That might give BP a little room to maneuver around this latest revelation, but not enough to satisfy me without considerably better answers. I don't ordinarily jump to conclusions, but where there's oil, there's lies. As I mentioned earlier, we're not in a court of law, and all things being equal, it seems right to me to consider BP guilty until proven innocent.

ADDENDUM: Before anyone asks, I did indeed see the entire joint press conference between the President and the British Prime Minister. That display of bonhomie was both necessary and appropriate. That said, nothing either of them said allays my suspicions of BP's possible involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, nor I suspect it will have much affect on the Wall Street Journal. In fact, Cameron's comment that the British government will cooperate in any investigation but doesn't see the point of it only adds to my suspicions. I don't see anything sinister in his statement, but I do see an attempt to minimalize what may be a very important story.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Paradise Lost

I suspect the last election was something more than it seemed. I suspect the last election was the Democrats’ last chance to win back the American people. . . an all or nothing offer, like a cheating spouse being given one last chance. They blew it. And now I suspect a permanent change in their relationship with the American people has begun.

As strange as it may sound, I believe the “natural” party for America is (or was) the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party traces its history all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, whose views came to dominate American thinking. Indeed, he believed in the rights of the individual over the state, he believed in state’s rights and he did not subscribe to large national interests or an interventionist foreign policy. These are all themes that remain at the core of American thinking today, even when we observe them only in their violation.

Later came Andrew Jackson. Jackson added a strand of populism to Jefferson’s beliefs. He stood for breaking up the corrupt elite that was taking hold in Washington and replacing it with a system that was more open to competition from small business.

Skipping ahead, came Roosevelt. FDR introduced the idea that the working man should be protected. But unlike the Europeans who flirted with socialism, the American version remained rooted in an ethos of self-reliance. Social security was billed as self-savings with the help of the government, not as a government granted pension like the European versions. FDR’s “New Deal” was billed as a way to put rural Americans and poor Americans to work, not on the dole. And FDR (because of the Supreme Court) avoided government sponsorship of industrial champions, something which became the basis for fascism in Europe. Thus, like him or not, you have to admit that FDR’s programs satisfied the American belief in self-reliance. And they were highly popular.

Moreover, until the 1960s, the Democratic Party was also highly patriotic and subscribed to a policy of strength, beliefs which fit perfectly with those of average Americans.

Thus, the values of the Democratic Party were the values of middle America, which consisted mainly of factory workers and small businessmen, all striving to be middle class. These people were practical, patriotic, favored a strong military (and felt American values were worth exporting), favored a small “safety net” for workers, but also wanted that safety net to be sustained by the contributions of the people who would eventually use it, and they despised privilege.

But in the 1960s, everything changed. Suddenly, the Democratic Party tore itself apart. On the one hand, you had traditional Democrats who lived in places like the deep South or western farmlands, and who still saw the Democratic Party as the party of Jefferson/Jackson/FDR. On the other hand, you suddenly had whiny, effete anti-American intellectuals and radical socialists. The bad guys won. Indeed, along came Johnson and he destroyed the Democratic Party’s reputation as fiscally responsible, as pro-worker and pro-small business. Instead, they became the party of the poor, the lazy and the vengeful; they became the party that thought America owed them something. Moreover, the opposition to Johnson’s war in Vietnam destroyed their reputation as patriotic, pro-military, and pro-American.

For the next thirty years, the Democrats sank further and further into their new form as race baiters, tax and spenders, destroyers of responsibility, and America-haters. As they sank, the public turned away from the Democrats. First came the South, then the West, and then any area outside of big cities turned against them. Finally, in 1994, the public tossed out the Democrats.

Yet, I honestly think that the whole time, the public wanted to continue to be Democrats because of their memory of what the Democrats had been. Their parents had been Democrats, everyone they knew was a Democrat, and they could point to FDR, Jefferson, and JFK as heroes. That’s why so many people remain Democrats today even though they don’t subscribe to a single belief espoused by the modern party.

So when Obama came along, I think the public saw an opportunity to give the Democrats one last chance to return to the party of old:

“You Barack hold the promise of a return to the old style Democrats. You talk about fiscal responsibility. You promise a break from the corrupt incestuousness that has beset our government. You say you favor strong military action. You want to put the race wars of the 1960s-1990s behind us. And you say you want to bring back responsibility. If you do this, then we will happily return to being Democrats; we will make you the permanent majority party again and we will even accept a little liberalism at the edges.”

Said differently, I think the last election was a test for the Democrats. The public gave them an absolute majority to see how they would react, i.e. they couldn’t hide behind the Republicans anymore. The public wanted to see if the party could shed itself of its crazies and return to Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/FDRian beliefs. If they could, I believe the public would have shifted back to the Democrats on a permanent basis.

But the Democrats blew it. They saw the election as a mandate to push hard along the same lines they’ve been travelling since the 1960s: anti-Americanism, tribalism (race, gender and union spoils), and transferring responsibility from the individual to the government -- the very things that pushed the public away. Because of this, I think the public is done with them. And I don’t just mean in one election cycle or two. I suspect they have now permanently lost their status as the “natural” party for America.

I base this on a variety of things -- the unchanging poll numbers which indicate a public that is no longer listening to the pleas of the Democratic Party; the public’s sudden dislike for each group that makes up the Democratic tribal system; and the loss of male voters, white voters, and the elderly, all of whom are needed to be a majority party. And there’s one more thing, something I’ve begun to notice a lot suddenly: moderates are no longer describing themselves as “moderate Democrats” or even “independent Democrats.” Instead, they are calling themselves “libertarians.” I don’t think this will make libertarians very happy, because they really aren’t philosophically compatible, but it is significant that so many moderate Democrats think they have found a new home.

In the end, I think the Democrats had a chance to regain their half-century of dominance, but they squandered it through the horrible leadership of Obama and Pelosi. Can the Republicans seal the deal and become the new natural party? I don’t know yet. But I do suspect that the Democrats are finished.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Democratic Civil War

The Democratic uncivil war has begun. Pelosi’s minions are hypocritically blasting Obama off-the-record for leading them off a cliff, progressives are whining and pointing fingers, moderates are abandoning Obama’s agenda, and in Iowa the Democrats are even running ads attacking the Republican’s health care plan for being too much like ObamaCare. Oh my. Over the past few weeks, I’ve written various articles explaining why the left is falling out of love with Obama. Today it’s time to speculate what will happen next.

Falling out of love is never a smooth process. So expect the uncivil war to take place in fits and spurts.

The first thing you’re going to notice is that over the next couple months, you will read a lot of off-the-record finger pointing. Fall guys will be vetted, and a list of people will be compiled to be purged after the election, including White House people, political directors, party leaders, pollsters, and consultants.

As the election nears, one of two things will happen. If the polls get closer, look for everyone except the extreme left to close ranks until the election. The extreme left will continue to attack moderates (and now Obama) because they have come to realize that this crew will not deliver the socialist utopia they crave, but the rest will talk about a “Democratic resurgence” and how much they love each other. If the polls don’t get closer, look for a true blood bath, with moderates literally running against Obama/Pelosi and leftists openly threatening to purge their party. This will be so bad that even the MSM will need to take note.

Once the election happens, behaviors will depend on how badly things turn out for the Democrats. Obama has been trying to lower expectations. His spokespeople have gone from “we always knew we were going to lose a few seats, but we’ll maintain our majorities” to “people are angry and I can’t blame them (Republicans and weak Democrats betrayed us)” to “we might lose the House.” And in truth, this has been somewhat effective. At this point, expectations are so low that anything less than losing the House could conceivably be considered a victory within Democratic ranks, which is why Obama is stupid to let Biden try to raise expectations as he is doing now.

Yet, "win" or lose, the Democrats face a huge problem. The Democrats’ loss will be the result of their leftist talk and leftist actions. But the people most likely to lose their seats will be the moderates, because the leftists represent socialist ghettos and are immune from the American people. With the moderates gone, the remaining crew will be made up of the most lunatic and most angry members of the party. They will not accept any interpretation of the election other than: “we need to go as far left as possible.” And the words “lost opportunity” will be their battle cry.

That presents a recipe for chaos. The Senate is likely to be even more moderate than before (especially with the loss of reconciliation -- something I think was done intentionally to give Democrats an excuse to moderate (see below)), and Obama is one of the most indecisive Presidents we’ve ever had. So this could turn into a battle royale between the desperate and the crazy, with Bozo the Clown mediating.

If the election does turn out as badly as expected, then look for open warfare, with both on and off-the-record sniping, challenges to committee chairman and party leaders, sponsoring of primary opponents, typical leftist tactics like protests and disrupting speaking engagement, attack ads, withholding of money, and calls for purges based on purity, rather than just looking for a few fall guys.

The war (open or guerrilla) is likely to continue right up until the early part of 2012, when the presidential election season really begins. If a prominent leftist chooses to challenge Obama, which will happen if their losses are big enough, e.g. they lose the Senate and 100 seats in the House, then look for a truly bloody war of leftist versus Obama, with all the recriminations including “sell out” and “failure” being thrown at him. A weakened Obama still would win the primary and then go on to a landslide defeat in the general election, unless we choose an unelectable Republican, which is always possible.

If the losses are not big enough to bring out a challenger, then look for behind the scenes sniping at Obama, but few public attacks. Although, the wild card will be how Obama handles the House-Senate war. His best bet would actually be that the Republicans win both houses of Congress. That would let him talk big to the left, but simultaneously would keep him from having to enact anything leftist because the Republicans would never send him anything like that. But it looks unlikely that we will win the Senate, so expect that Obama will need to mediate between the two wings of his party, and look for that to lead to disaster.

After November 2012, which I can’t see Obama winning -- to win, he would need to move far to the right to meet the American people, but his instinct and his party will demand a strong move to the left -- look for the floodgates to open. That’s when they will abandon Obama and treat him like they treated Jimmy Carter in the 1980s, as an incompetent pariah. (We might even hear, as some on the left incredibly claimed about Carter during the later part of the 1980s, that he was really a right-wing President.)

Of course, by then, they will have their new Messiah, so odds are that the savaging of Obama will be short and nasty and that they’ll quickly move on to worshiping their new hero.

That’s how I see things over the next two years.


*** The reconciliation thing: By not passing an omnibus budget this year, the Democrats have lost the power to use reconciliation next year. This means they can't get around the filibuster with a 51-49 vote. Some have suggested this was a mistake by Harry Reid, but I think it was intentional. I think that Reid did this either (1) to prevent a possible Republican majority ramming things through -- which means Reid sees things as much worse for Democrats in November than others are saying, or (2) it means that Reid wants to ensure that the filibuster is there to allow them to argue that a far-left approach (the one that will be advocated in the House) is not possible in the Senate. Thus, he could protect moderate Democratic Senators from an out-of-control House minority or, even worse, a very small ideological-lockstep majority.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Dodges Congress And The People Again

Barack Obama has once again demonstrated his complete disdain for Congress, the Constitution and the American people with a recess appointment for which there can be no reasonable explanation. Recess appointments in the face of strong opposition from the minority party are not unusual nor are they unprecedented. In fact, the liberals are pointing to George Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN ambassadorship as an example. There is no comparison.

Presidents are known for making recess appointments when their chosen nominee has been vetted by the Senate and turned down or not confirmed by stalling tactics. And so it was with Bolton. Frustrated with the Senate's refusal to confirm Bolton without sound reasons, Bush made the recess appointment. Bolton wasn't pretty enough for the Democrats for starters. More importantly, he was highly critical of the UN's bad habit of wasting billions of dollars on failed projects and thieving officials. His outspoken criticism of the UN's open obeisance to dictatorships and human rights violators cost him support from the party of appeasement. Democrats love the UN because it works so hard to destroy American sovereignty.

In addition, though the United States spends ungodly amounts of money at the UN, the ambassadorship is really not much more than a pulpit for the ambassador to enunciate the policies of the President. Other than threatening to withhold funds, the American ambassador can't do much more damage individually than the ambassador from Zimbabwe or Burqina Fasso. But the UN ambassador doesn't set US policy, nor does he or she have vast power over major segments of the American economy.

Obama, on the other hand, made a recess appointment of leftist Donald Berwick as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Unlike Bolton's case, Berwick has never been vetted, nor have there been any hearings on his qualifications since the President announced Berwick's nomination. Unlike Bolton's UN, CMS has immense power over a segment of government which affects every single American and has a budget considerably larger than that of the Defense Department. And unlike Bolton's outspoken and public persona, practically nobody outside the confines of the halls of the left had ever heard of Donald Berwick.

Obama wasn't reacting to huge political criticisms of Berwick coming from the opposition party, nor was he trumping a recalcitrant Senate Committee that wouldn't give Berwick a fair hearing. The best that can be said for this recess appointment is that Obama didn't want the public to know the kind of person he would nominate to control much of the health care system. In addition, since there was little public knowledge of the nominee, it is rather apparent that Obama didn't want to embarrass his nominee by having him appear in front of a Senate Committee to answer hard questions about his utilitarian socialist agenda.

Rather than bravely stand up to a Senate which might oppose his nominee, the sneaky and dishonest President simply ignored the process entirely, and installed his boy without any Constitutional provision to back him or thwart him. Two of Berwick's stands on medical care are real beauties, and Obama couldn't risk that getting out before Berwick already held the position of administrator. The first is Berwick's sick and fawning admiration for the miserable failure that is the British National Health Service. The other is his bold advocacy of statistical and fiscal analyses of how much health care any American is entitled to ("rationing health care").

Berwick's admiration for the British NHS sounds more like a schoolgirl crush on the captain of the football team than the reasoned conclusions of a high-level government official. Says Berwick about the NHS: "I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. All I need to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." And if that doesn't turn your stomach sufficiently, consider his view on the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which makes life and death decisions about NHS patients. He enthusiastically applauds the British concept that "the decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

What you mean "we," paleface? That "we" includes the vast majority of Americans, but not the elites such as Congress and, oh, the former CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, one Donald Berwick. Although the IHI is ostensibly a not-for-profit organization, it was able to take in enough cash to pay Berwick $2.3 million dollars in his final full year as CEO, and at the same time write him a lifetime health care plan that even Bill Gates couldn't afford. It's rationing for us, and spare-no-expense for Berwick. "We're all going to suffer through this together, aren't you?" is Berwick's position.

In June of last year, Berwick was interviewed by a specialty magazine called Biotechnology Healthcare. His major thesis for the magazine was "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit such as a new drug or medical intervention is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time." That was the lead up to his comment about rationing "with our eyes open."

While the mere peasants are treated to the vicissitudes of the miserable Medicare program that has recently gotten even worse after major funding cuts, Berwick and his family won't have to give it a moment's thought. They're covered for everything, literally, and then some. Yet Obama thought that a man so divorced from the daily lives of normal Americans was such an important nominee that he wouldn't even subject him to minimal investigation or Senate hearings.

In fact, it wasn't just those pesky fascist Republicans that Obama was worried about. His socialist agenda and lack of concern for the lives of average Americans has shaken even some of his former Democratic hangers-on. Sen Max Baucus (D-Montana) said "I'm troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess-appointed. Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americansby ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee--and answered." Even Baucus, who stumped for Obamacare in his home state, can see that his President is dodging the normal process for nefarious reasons.

Obama's genius press secretary danced all around the issue, neither explaining the reasons for the failure to hold hearings nor giving any indication that he saw any reason for holding hearings at all. After all, the President wanted Berwick for the job--isn't that good enough? Asked by CNS News "did the President ever ask chairman Baucus for a hearing?" Gibbs answered, "Not that I'm aware." Gibbs then babbled on about the importance of moving forward quickly on all health care fronts (before the people get any more pissed off?). Those contentious Senate hearings would have slowed the process down, and we can't have that.

Senator John Barasso (R-Wyoming) is one of two doctors serving in the United States Senate. He looked at the rationing argument and the immense power, prestige and wealth of the CMS, and concluded: "Medicare and Medicaid are going to disburse over $800 billion in benefits this year. It is larger than the economies of many nations. This is a position that deserved a hearing. This is a position that deserved a vote."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Does Everyone Think Obama Is Smart?

With the Democrats blaming Obama for their pending beat-down, the handwringing journalists keep asking: “how could someone so brilliant as Obama be failing?” But a better question is, what made anyone think Obama was brilliant to begin with?

It seems to be “a given” that Obama is a brilliant man, but I honestly don’t know why. I’ve heard him speak in public, and when he’s not on a teleprompter, he stumbles over words, his thoughts are disorganized and simplistic, and he speaks more in slogans and clichés than coherent ideas. That’s a sign of a weak, poorly informed mind. Moreover, he’s shown he can’t debate. He's indecisive. And what’s worse, his performance on health care shows that he’s either unwilling or unable to grasp policy details. That means he’s either so lacking in intellectual curiosity as to be professionally negligent, or he lacks the raw intellect needed to understand what he’s been told. In either event, we’re not talking about a very bright man.

So why do people think he’s smart? Let’s look at the evidence. The first thing they always mention is he went to Harvard. Ok. Harvard admits some of the smartest kids on the planet, and it’s one of the most competitive schools to get into. But we don't know if he got in on merit. In fact, his background would make an admissions officer drool, no matter what his grades and test scores looked like. Moreover, beyond admissions, Harvard is notorious for massive grade inflation and a not-very rigorous education (and always has been). Compounding this, Obama won't release his grades, so we have no way to know if he just bounced along at the bottom of the class until they graduated him. Thus, we can’t use this as a basis for calling him intelligent, much less brilliant.

But he was on Harvard Law Review! Yeah, well, there was a time when law review was only for the very top students, but those days are long gone. Now many schools have multiple law reviews just to make sure that a huge percentage of the class can put it on their resumes, and it's often no longer grade dependent. What’s worse, there’s no proof Obama even wrote an article, which is usually a requirement to get onto law review. So again, this tells us nothing.

What about Obama the “community organizer?” Being a community organizer is a job that any high school drop-out ex-con can do. So how does this prove anything? Further, what exactly did he accomplish in this job? Seriously, if we're supposed to believe he's brilliant because he was a brilliant organizer, then what exactly did he organize? He's never pointed to a single accomplishment. There is no Selma March that he organized, no Million Man March. . . not even a Three Guys And Dog Day Trip.

But he was a law school professor! Actually, no. He was a lecturer. Lecturers are like part-time help at law schools. Some are brought in for particular expertise, others are brought in for public relations. My law school had dozens of these people: politicians, local attorneys, former court clerks. Basically, all you needed was a resume that sounded more impressive than the other applicants. Obama was a Harvard grad and a state legislator/U.S. Senator at the time he was a lecturer. That makes him a public relations ploy, that’s it. Indeed, the real tip off here is that Obama never published anything. Real professors, i.e. the "learned" kind, are expected to publish constantly. He went eight years without publishing. That’s a sign he was just hired help.

Beyond that, Obama has no other professional accomplishments to show. He never held a job or ran a company. He never practiced law, appeared in court, served as a judge, or did anything else that would tell us that (1) he was competent and (2) other people trusted him. He was a state legislator/U.S. Senator at one point, but that means nothing. You can be a total moron and get that job. A better measure is what he did when he was a legislator. In that regard, he is remarkably accomplishment free. Indeed, the only thing he really did was run for President and miss a lot of votes.

But he wrote two books you say? Actually, there is very strong evidence that Bill Ayers ghostwrote “Dreams of My Father.” This actually isn’t unusual, as most politicians let others write their books: Ted Sorenson wrote John Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage,” Barbara Feinman wrote Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes A Village,” and Lynn Vincent wrote Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue,” and so on. But it means we can’t count this book as evidence of intelligence. Conversely, he may have written “The Audacity of Hope,” but that book was pedantic and cliché ridden. At best, it shows an un-thoughtful hack writer with little to say and even less ability to say it with.

Thus, we have no academic achievements to inform us, no professional achievements to inform us, and no other accomplishments to inform us. So what exactly tells us he's brilliant? Nothing. So why do people simply accept his brilliance as a fact? Because they were impressed with his speeches. But he didn’t write those speeches, Jon Favreau did. Obama was just the empty suit who read them.

Obama highlights the dangers of getting excited about charisma. Just because someone delivers a good read doesn't make them intelligent or capable or someone you should support. Always look behind the image and ask what this person has really achieved in their lives that shows the kinds of traits they will need. If the left had looked closer at Obama, it's doubtful they would be in this kind of trouble today.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

New York State of Mind

It is so hot here in NYC that you could probably fry an egg right on the sidewalk. As a matter of fact, I had to escape to the cool breezes of South Texas last week just to get away from this oven. But the heat is not the only news...

Sports: It has been a sad week for baseball and especially for the New York Yankees. On July 11, Bob Sheppard, long time Yankee announcer known as the Yankee's "Voice of God" passed away at the age of 99. He announced the play by play for all the home games from 1951 to 2007. For you baseball buffs, the first game he called in 1951 against the Boston Red Sox included baseball legends Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Johnny Mize, Yogi Berra, Phil Rizzuto and Bosox great Ted Williams.

Sadly, Mr. Sheppard was joined two days later by George Steinbrenner, long time owner of the Yankees who died suddenly of a heart attack at age 80. Steinbrenner built the Yankees into a winning-est team in baseball (while at the same time repeatedly firing and rehiring legendary manager Billy Martin) in the 37 years as owner. He had recently turned over the everyday operations to his son. Both of these great men will be missed.

Local: So, a few week ago I reported that the MTA was going to cut my bus line, but some free-enterprising young man with a small bus company was going to pick up the route privately for the same fare and everything. I think my exact words were "Take that you, Marxist scum". Well, this industrious young man did take over the bus route and, just as we were working out the kinks and barely two weeks in service, the City Legal Department filed an injunction to shut the operation down and with no real explanation as to why. The New York Daily News reported that the Transit workers' union was not happy that someone would get paid to drive a bus and they wouldn't get a cut of the action. A hearing was held this week on the injunction, but to my knowledege, the judge did not make any final decision on the fate of this new little busline. But, at this point, it really doesn't matter. Even if the judge were to rule for the bus line owner, the damage has already been done. The young entrepeneur's opportunity to slide right in and expand his business, hire additional employees, and with an already willing customer base has all but slipped away. The delay and uncertainty in service has already forced the would-be riders to make other, more concrete arrangements and are much less likely to want to change back. Once again, the small businessman is denied an opportunity because of stupid, short-sighted Government bureaucrats in cahoots with Big Union thugs.

Terrorist Updates - In November 2009, I reported about Lynne Stewart, former Civil Rights Defense attorney who was convicted of conspiracy for helping her client Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, had just lost her appeal and had been immediately remanded into the care of our state Penal system to await final disposition. The Appeals Court had upheld her conviction, but sent the case back down to the sentencing judge for reconsideration because they felt his original sentence of 28 months was too lenient for such a serious crime amongst other considerations. Well, this week the judge finally weilded that hammer of justice and sentenced Ms. Stewart to a hefty 10 years in prison. He attributed her arrogance and unrepentent attitude about her earlier sentence (for which she told the judge that she could do the time "standing on her head") to his new, much harsher decision. Needless to say she was shocked by her sudden change of fortune and threw herself on the mercy of the court boo-hooing that she was just too old to be in prison and wouldn't survive. The judge was unmoved and, well, the air in NYC got a little bit sweeter...

In other terrorist news - Protests continue around the proposed building of "Cordoba House", a new Islamic Cultural Center to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society of Muslim Advancement along with her husband, Feisel Abdul Rauf made an offer on a 100+ year old building damaged on 9/11 that they want to convert to a cultural outreach center where all will be welcomed and swear on a stack of Korans that it will not be a mosque. In May, they passed one of many hurdles by winning a ringing endorsement for the very liberal local Community Board. This week they presented their case to the Historical Preservation Board which has been stalling for years on an application to give the former coat factory building historical status. Depending on which way the Board decides, this could possibly be the last hurdle the Khan-Raufs have before they can actually become the owners of the property. Everyone waits with bated breath for the Board to render its decision and, as you can imagine, many people in NYC are upset by the prospect of an Islamic anything just 200 feet from the WTC site.

And finally in State related news - Governor Patterson has been furiously vetoing 6000+ new bills that our worthless Legislature passed right before the summer break and against all common sense. Patterson stated that "...[r]ather than act in the interests of the people of New York state, they have engaged in legislation that is in self-interest and presented us with a series of bills that have the same gimmicks, chicanery and avoidant conduct that has characterized fiscal management in this state for far too long." He is making good on his promise to veto any bill that did not reduce the budget. And now he has until the middle of August to complete the veto process which includes reading and signing each and every bill personally. This job is made doubly difficult since Patterson is also legally blind, but he determined he will complete his task. As of July 4th weekend, I believe he was about a quarter of the way through. I can't wait to see what the Legislature will do next since who knows which legislator will be sent to prison next, but that is for the next installment. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

University Officials Act Like Kindergarteners

Just when I think academic idiocy, political correctness, and group-victimology can't get any sillier or more destructive to free thinking, they do. The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign has relieved a professor of his duties for teaching the Catholic view on homosexuality, in a course on Catholic teaching. Well--what can we expect from a University system which would hire Obama buddy William Ayers?

Dr. Kenneth Howell may or may not subscribe to the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and to his credit has never expressed his personal view on the matter. But he was paid by the university to teach about Catholic doctrine, and it would have been academically dishonest of him to lie about Catholic teaching on homosexuality. And an issue so much in front of the public certainly couldn't be ignored in a university course about Catholicism either. So without making judgments or expressing his approval or disapproval, the professor proceeded to state the doctrinal facts.

In an e-mail to all his students expanding on the theme, again expressing neither approval nor disapproval, Howell restated the Catholic position in response to a student question. One student apparently was asleep or listening to his I-Pod during the in-class lecture, so when he got the e-mail he was so stricken with horror, fear and loathing that he immediately reported the professor to school officials. Says this young budding academic genius: "Allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable." Hate speech my arse. I'm assuming he hasn't yet taken the uncensored course on Islam.

Howell wasn't even solely discussing, and therefore wasn't specifically emphasizing, the Catholic view. He had been asked to compare the utilitarian and natural moral law views on homosexuality as they relate to Catholic doctrine. That is a very intelligent question which calls for careful analysis and discussion, which Dr. Howell provided. But it may also have been a setup. Perhaps the ultrasensitive homosexuals and their supporters didn't have enough hard evidence against this horrible homophobe and simply wanted some kind of documentation. On the other hand, it could just be that a really stupid student missed the lecture and didn't know his tender lily soul had been attacked until he read the e-mail. Who knows? Who cares?

Ya know, when you sign up for a course on natural fertilizer, you should be prepared for someone to talk shit. And when you sign up for a course on Catholicism, you should be prepared to hear a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from those of your fellow liberals. You should also be prepared to accept the concept that giving the facts about a viewpoint is hardly the same thing as advocating that viewpoint. But try to explain that to college students who have heard only the left wing revisionist version of pretty much everything their entire lives.

Where Howell went wrong was in actually presenting an adult, intelligent, serious, and accurate description of one point of debate among the utilitarians and natural moral law advocates. But these students are used to nothing more complicated or intellectually challenging than professorial grunts such as "Marxism good, capitalism bad." Natural moral law, properly analyzed, says that morality must be a response to reality. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at reality. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons who are fitted for that final act."

That is not an expression of Howell's opinion (though outside the academic arena he may or may not agree with it). It is an entirely accurate description of natural moral law as announced by the Catholic Church. How refreshing to have a professor who can intelligently discuss an actual point of view held by millions (billions?) of people and most religious institutions in direct answer to a question posed without adding his own editorial comments on the truth or falsity of the position.

Catholic doctrine and natural moral law also posit that there must be a connection between sex and procreation. Is that my opinion? Is that Dr. Howell's opinion? What difference does it make in an academic setting? It's an accurate description of Catholic doctrine, the course is about Catholic doctrine, and the question posed was about Catholic doctrine. For once, we actually have a professor who simply gives an accurate answer rather than a predigested opinion of a subject that he may or may not agree with.

University president Michael Hogan responded to inquiries about the dismissal with the usual academic gobbledygook about academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. In other words, he did the exact opposite of what professor Howell did. He dodged the question and left nobody knowing more after his speechifying baloney than they did before it. He also paraphrased the UI Handbook, which says: "Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both faculty and students."

Of course he neglected to mention that the professor who is now not allowed to teach anything at UI had received the plaudits of his students and an academic award from the faculty and administration for teaching exactly the same subject in exactly the same way just the previous semester. The most effusive words of praise for Howell had come from the entire faculty of the UI Department of Religion.

These tender reeds who can't survive the statement of facts without opinion should all be kicked out on their sensitive butts and the professor should be reinstated immediately with an open public apology from all the cowards and bullies involved in his dismissal. I'm not holding my breath for that. However, the Alliance Defense Fund has already sent a demand letter to the school demanding reinstatement for professor Howell no later than July 16 (yesterday, by the time of this publication) or face a lawsuit. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has also indicated an interest in the matter, but has made no formal statement or taken any action thus far.

I am alternately annoyed and infuriated by liberals who can't get it through their heads that there are actually people who don't hold the same point of view. But even that's not the issue here. Howell didn't state either his view or his opinion. He gave a yeoman's answer to a direct question about a subject that he was hired to teach openly, honestly and accurately. Try to get that out of a lefty professor. These nervous nellies who go to the university to have their own opinions validated are going to be the death of genuine university learning. University administrators who act on these complaints from silly students with heads full of Jell-O without even considering that a dismissal of a highly qualified professor could be seriously injurious to academic freedom and solid thought should be tossed out along with the students too weak to handle the truth.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Barbara Boxer Goes Off The Rails--Again

One very important issue in the matchup between incumbent Senator "Her Majesty" Barbara Boxer and Republican candidate Carly Fiorina will be one that didn't play a big part in the primaries. The Republican primary candidates ranged from moderate to absolutist on the issue of abortion, with Fiorina in the moderate camp. It's one reason I voted for a different candidate.

But the issue becomes a different one in the general election. Boxer is among the most adamant pro-abortionists in the Senate, while Fiorina, who is moderate about "choice," is a hawk on forbidding federal funding of abortions. That is a principled position, even though I think moderation in relation to abortion is a moral mistake. Still, it means that Fiorina is taking a stand in favor of a "woman's right to choose" (bad), but neither encourages abortion nor wishes to have antiabortion taxpayers foot the bill (good). I've lived in this State and its liberal environment long enough to think that on this issue, Fiorina is about as good as we're going to get.

The illustration is a representation of an eight week old baby in the womb. Abortion advocates call that a "thing," a "problem to be dealt with," a "fetus," or "that mistake." I'm just a simpleton, so what I see is a small, helpless, innocent human being. Fiorina isn't sure what she sees, but at least she doesn't want to kill it, or have us pay for its death. Boxer, of course, sees the rotten little troublemaker who is going to send innocent women into deadly back alleys for their abortions and the source of imprisonment for conscientious doctors who are only trying to help.

Boxer is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill abortion supporter. She absolutely exalts in it. But she's facing a California electorate that only recently rejected a ballot measure which would have required that underage pregnant girls to inform their parents that they are considering having an abortion. So this isn't as simple for Fiorina as it might seem on its face. Boxer once faced Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum in a Senate abortion debate. He pushed and pushed, and then pushed some more to get Boxer to state at which point a baby becomes a human being with rights.

Boxer waffled, dodged and obfuscated. But Santorum kept pushing. Finally, probably out of exhaustion and failure to deflect the question by calling it unfair, Boxer answered. "I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born, the baby belongs to your family and has rights." Thanks, Babs. And before then, while you're still at the hospital, I assume it's not a human being, so you can just toss it into the medical waste container. "Reprehensible" is far too mild a word to describe your viewpoint. And at least in the past, California voters seemed to find that to be a perfectly reasonable position.

Although I deeply disagree with the law, science and moral philosophy inherent in the original version of Roe v Wade, I can at least recognize that at a very early stage of pregnancy, there is a difference of opinion even among antiabortion folks about when life actually begins. There are also those of us who are reluctantly willing to make early term exceptions for incest, rape or the physical survival of the mother. But those are areas of genuine, thoughtful and theological disagreement.

Boxer, on the other hand, supports both partial-birth abortion and funding of partial-birth abortion. In the debate with Santorum, he kept asking her "if X part of the baby still remains inside the mother's body, should it still be morally and legally acceptable to kill the baby so long as it hasn't completely emerged?" Boxer dodged that question on multiple occasions by deflecting the question with indignant charges that Santorum was "losing his temper." But she finally had to capitulate and answer the question. As far as I'm concerned, her answer not only disqualified her from being in the Senate, but disqualifies her from being a member of decent society.

Her position is even clearer than that of Hillary Clinton at around the same time. Clinton was asked, "if the abortion is scheduled at noon, but the baby is born in the elevator on the way to the abortion table at 11:50 AM, should it be legal to allow the baby to die, since the legal decision had already been made to terminate the pregnancy?" Unlike Boxer, Clinton actually had to consider the question for a moment before giving an answer that ignored the issue entirely. Boxer's answer probably would have been "of course--just toss it down the elevator shaft."

Boxer has already tested the waters on abortion by tossing out the usual attack on Fiorina's modest pro-life stance. "She wants to make abortion a crime, and that would mean women and doctors in jail." Fiorina didn't waffle or shrink from the attempted attack. "That's a ridiculous statement. I happen to believe in the sanctity of life, but the great majority of Californians disagree with Barbara Boxer, who believes that taxpayers should be funding partial-birth abortion."

Wherever Fiorina stands on early and mid-term abortion, she's very clear on late-term. She abhors it, and will fight to keep it from being funded by the taxpayers. If she continues to use the real words "partial-birth abortion," and continues to explain her opposition to the homicide of a fully viable tiny human being, she could very well bring along even the pro-choicers. At least those pro-choicers who aren't cold-blooded baby haters like, say, Barbara Boxer.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Newsvertising

A lot of people talk about the blurring between news and entertainment. That’s certainly a problem because it’s led to the dumbing down of the news to a point where you need attention deficit disorder just to watch it. But I’m more concerned about the blurring of news and advertising. I see this as a very serious problem.

I first noticed this phenomenon when a free subscription to Entertainment Weekly appeared in my mailbox. Not only was this turd of a “magazine” written at the first grade level, but it didn’t take long to realize that this “magazine” was nothing more than one giant ad for the movie industry. Page after page were “stories” whose sole purpose was to get me to go see various films. Even when they panned a film, they still somehow managed to suggest that I see it. . . just not in the first week.

Soon I realized that the entertainment “news” presented on the nightly news was no different. The days of a reviewer cautioning you to avoid a lousy film were gone. In their place were pretty boys and ditzy girls who showed you promotional clips and gushed about every film; they even developed ways to sell the bad ones. . . “so bad it’s good.” And when they weren’t selling the movie directly, they did stories hyping these films as “events,” and encouraging you to take part in the “excitement” leading up the film. Basically, they ceased being reporters and became salespeople.

Then they added “gossip.” But there’s something you need to know about this gossip: most of it is manufactured to promote a film. It’s no coincidence that you will see a “random” story about Actor X’s new house or some “funny moment” Actor X had at a night club, the week before Actor X’s new film hits the screen. This is all intended to create a buzz. . . which will, of course, lead to stories about the buzz. That's called marketing, not reporting.

Then Hollywood hit upon a brilliant stroke. You know those interviews where some reporter sits down with Actor X to "discuss" their new film? Do you know how those are done? It's not actually a one on one experience. Instead, a slew of reporters show up to a pre-set location. Actor X sits in front of a blue screen as each reporter is cycled through. Each reporter is usually allowed only a couple questions, so they know to stay on script. And what's really key is that the actor will pretend to know the reporter. Thus, each reporter gets to look like they are “players” in Hollywood because their viewers think they managed to finagle an interview with a busy actor that they know personally. In exchange, the studio gets a couple hundred free ads on the local and national news. This is a quid pro quo, and reporters aren’t supposed to do that.

And it’s not just Hollywood. Sports “news” also has entered the pimping world. For generations, sports news meant providing a box score, a quick description of the key moments in the game, and a few quotes from one side or the other. No longer. First, they added highlights, which is understandable as television is a visual medium. But then they started adding “top ten hits of the week” and other segments that look an awful lot like advertisements for the league.

Then the NFL hit upon a great idea: use the promise of access to control the media. In exchange for locker room access and press access to Super Bowl week, the NFL began telling the media what they could or could not report. This included, for example, removing the journalistic “credentials” of people who criticized the NFL, and it included limits on what kinds of videos the media could use and for how long they could use them (nothing longer than 45 seconds and must be removed from websites in 24 hours). The media caved without even a whimper. Soon, the NFL was providing canned “news” stories to the media, which the media dutifully reported without change. Suddenly stories about brain damage resulting from concussions, drug use, arrests and labor unrest disappeared or became dismissive. In their place were NFL-approved stories about “the NFL experience,” the importance of new stadiums to cities, and NFL efforts to make sure that merchandise was high quality. . . usually accompanied with a mention of where you could buy said merchandise.

And lest you think, “well sports and entertainment people really aren’t journalists,” it’s hit the business news as well. CNBC doesn’t send reporters out to uncover news and report upon it. No, they let the "news" come to them. Thus, their programming days are packed with fund managers who come to say something generic about the market as they pimp their funds. They bring in CEOs to talk about new products or their latest books. And they’ve become a vehicle for damage control. Whenever a company gets caught doing something it shouldn’t, you can bet the CEO will appear on CNBC within a couple days to provide a whitewash version of what happened and to tell us about all the great things the company is doing. And don't think the reporters use this moment for a couple of hard-hitting questions. No, they put on well-practiced stern looks and then pitch a few softball questions before concluding: “I’m glad to hear you’re fixing this.” Then they trot out an analyst to tell you that now (or maybe in a week) is the time to buy the company’s stock, right before they cut to commercial, which (purely by “coincidence”) will be a paid ad for the company. Finally, they take the segment highlights and replay them ad nauseum.

Even the “regular” news is slowly giving way to product tie-ins and segments that look like sponsored ads. That story about how hard it is to find certain toys? That was suggested and assisted by the marketing department at ToyCo. That story about which national chain has the best fries or “will Company X’s new product sell”? Ditto. The story about the new healthy menu at Restaurant Z, or the new innovations at Tech Company A? Same thing. The story about the “latest trend” that just happens to tell you what brand you need to buy and where to buy it. . .

In each instance, what you have is a symbiotic relationship between the media and business. Business has learned that it can use the news to advertise its products. It offers ready-made stories and incentives to the media to report these “stories,” and the reporters accept them because it makes their jobs easier. . . just sit back and a script will come to you.

So why does this bother me? Two reasons. First, I want news that I can trust, and that requires an impartial media that seeks out the truth, rather than just passing along marketing-department-created propaganda.

Secondly, I hate sounding like the left, but I am concerned about the effects of this on society. Science has shown that humans are very susceptible to the cumulative effects of advertising; and the effects are much stronger when the advertising comes from a trusted source. I suspect that advertising is largely responsible for driving consumers to the point of bankruptcy, increasing patient demands for drugs, increasing obesity, and a host of other bad behaviors. But as bad as this is, at least with advertisements, people know that Madison Avenue is attempting to brainwash them. That’s no longer true when “the news” starts telling you what to buy and where to buy it. And that is truly insidious.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Finally Upset At Al Qaeda, Over "Racism"

Look out al Qaeda, now you’ve done it. You’ve finally given Obama a justification to wipe you out with extreme prejudice. . . no pun intended. What is it that al Qaeda did? Did they kill Americans? No. Did they kill Christians so they could spread Islam with murderous force? Nope. Did they kill young girls trying to get an education? No. They’re RACISTS!!!

For those who don’t know what happened recently, al Qaeda set off a series of bombs in Uganda, killing 74 people. Did Obama suggest careful restraint on the part of the Ugandans? "Don't jump to conclusions?" "Give peace a chance?" No. Instead, Obama finally realized that al Qaeda is evil:

“It was so tragic and ironic to see an explosion like this take place when people in Africa were celebrating and watching the World Cup take place in South Africa. On the one hand, you have a vision of an Africa on the move, an Africa that is unified, an Africa that is modernizing and creating opportunities; and on the other hand, you've got a vision of al Qaeda and Al Shabaab that is about destruction and death.”

Yes, Mr. President, al Qaeda wants to destroy and kill. What could possibly have finally taught Obama this basic lesson that the other six billion of us already knew? Hmmm. What could it be? If only Obama had said more. . . wait, he did:

"What you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

Ah, now I see. Wanting to blow up honkus maximus in New York City? That’s understandable. Wipe out those dirty Jews? Totally justified. Teach old Europe a bloody lesson? Heck, that’s nothing. But seeing African life as not valuable!! What an outrage!!!

And in case you think I might be overstating this, try this on for size. Explaining Obama’s comments, an administration official said the following:

“[Mr. Obama] references the fact that both U.S. Intelligence and past al Qaeda actions make clear that al Qaeda -- and the groups like al Shabaab that they inspire -- do not value African life. The actions of al Qaeda and the groups that it has inspired show a willingness to sacrifice innocent African life to reach their targets.

Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations. In short, al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.”

So it’s not the tens of thousands of murders that bother Obama. It’s not the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the murder of American soldiers. It’s not the killing, the destruction, the attempt to impose a religion by force, the enslaving of women, or the attempts to wipe out Israel. It’s that al Qaeda has a glass ceiling for Terrorists Of African Descent (TOADS)?

WTF?!

Presumably, an NAACP boycott will now follow. And if they don’t start treating TOADS right, then Jesse Jackass will show up at Osama bin Laden’s cave and stage a protest. Maybe Obama will even hold a Falafel summit? Or Eric Holder can bring suit against al Qaeda in federal court to enforce equal rights for TOADS?

Let me explain something to our Dipsh*t in Chief. Sir, al Qaeda hates us all. They don’t care if you are black or white or yellow or purple: if you are an infidel, then you are marked for death. They do not respect you, they do not want an accommodation or to live in peace. They want to kill, that is all they want. The outrage is that they want to kill anyone, not that they want to kill "black Africans." Only a black racist would see that as THE problem.

Obama whines: “They see [Africa] as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

Wrong, jackass. They see THE PLANET EARTH as a place where they can carry on an ideological battle. And it’s not “ideological,” it’s religious. And they aren’t engaged in a battle "that kills innocents," they kill innocents -- there is no collateral damage here, it's all intentional. If you don’t understand this, then you are stupider than Joe Biden.

Our readers know that I am not prone to hyperbole. So when I say that this bothers me deeply, I mean it. When I see a President who tells us not to get worked up when Islamic terrorists kill Americans, who tells the Arab world that we are at fault for terrorism, and who can only get himself worked up when Africans are killed, I find that truly despicable.

Moreover, this is not just a single off-the-cuff mistake, it's part of a disturbing pattern: from Michelle's comments about finally being proud of America, to Obama's bizarre repeated insults to Britain (and France and Germany), to his instantaneous accusation of racism in the arrest of a belligerent black professor, to his claims that the Tea Party is racist, to his Justice Department turning a blind eye to the racist Black Panthers who engaged in voter intimidation, to his hiring of open race-haters like Van Jones, to his appointment of a "wise Latina," to his attempts to stoke race-hate in response to the Arizona immigration bill.

Racism is ugly, no matter what race practices it.

You, Mr. Obama, are a disgrace.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...