Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Question: Action Jackson. . .
Who is your favorite action hero and why? Is it Papa Smurf and his rough and tumble ways? Maybe it's the Governator, a hero never afraid to show his feminine side. Perhaps you prefer the eloquent types, like Stalone? How about somebody old school like Hercules? Or somebody new school like that dude in that thing?
[+] Read More...
Obama’s Midas Touch
Like history, Greek tragedy repeats itself. You’ve heard the expression that someone has “the Midas touch.” That’s supposed to be a good thing, right? But in Greek Mythology, Midas is a tragic figure. When the god Dionysus offered Midas one wish, Midas asked that whatever he touched should turn to gold. This sounded great, until his food and drink started turning to gold. Later, in a version penned by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Midas even turns his own daughter to gold. Thus, the Midas touch is a cautionary tale of one who destroys all he touches. Obama has the Midas touch. Let’s look at some of his victims.ACORN. The most obvious victim of Obama’s Midas touch has been ACORN, which announced yesterday that it will finally be shutting down. Before its involvement with Obama, ACORN could draw on 400,000 members for left wing causes. It was arguably the most successful organization at funneling federal funds to Democratic voters, getting away with voter fraud, and generally raping taxpayers. But after a one night stand with Obama, conservative activists infiltrated and Troy fell.
Manuel Zelaya. Manuel Zelaya placed himself into Obama’s hands and soon found himself playing the part of blind King Phineas, who lost his kingdom and was prevented from eating by Harpies sent by the god Helios. In this case, Zelaya found himself trapped in the Brazilian embassy, eating hot dogs, after losing his kingdom, as the Honduran Army harassed him. But unlike Jason, who saved Phineus from his fate, Obama left Zelaya to his.
Rahm Emanuel. Democratic Party high-flier Rahm Emanuel was a take-no prisoners up and comer in the Democratic Party. When Obama called upon Emanuel, Rahm saw his chance to add more feathers to his wings. So he guided Obama through the Labyrinth of Washington power. But like Icarus, Rahm was overcome by giddiness and flew too close to the sun, which made him a target for the frustration of other Democrats with Obama’s dithering. Now Rahm plummets to the earth, a burned, waxy mess. Look for Emanuel to quietly disappear from office after November.
Hillary Clinton. With a cold stare that could turn a man to stone, Hillary Clinton came within an eyelash of becoming the first female president. She was that important. But, for reasons unknown, Hillary accepted Obama’s offer and banished herself to the lonely island known as the State Department, where she became a sad, despised creature with bad hair. Now Obama sends challenger after challenger to usurp her authority and take Medusa’s power.
The Democratic Party. Who else has Obama left in his wake? How about the entire Democratic Party. They fell for his siren song and followed his lead as he plotted a course right between the Scylla and Charybdis of party politics: enraging his opponents and demoralizing his supporters. By vastly over-promising and pathetically under delivering, he has guaranteed that the party’s days are numbered. November will be the last hurrah of the Democratic Party as it smashes against the rocks of discontent to which Obama has steered it.
So there you have it, Greek tragedy brought to life by this very administration. Did I miss anyone?
Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no Joe Biden, the only parallel I could find was Moronicus, and he was a fool before he ever met the king.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Perfect Nominee For The Ninth Circuit Court
It should come as no surprise to anyone that a president who thinks the Constitution is an impediment to good social policy would appoint a like-minded lawyer to a position on the federal bench. And what better place to put him than the leftist doctrinaire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Meet Goodwin Liu, professor of law at U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall.This nominee is more dangerous than previous Obama nominees in that he is an exceptional scholar and well-regarded among his legal peers of all political and legal stripes as an instructor and as a legal theorist. A good start for reviewing his worthiness as a legal beagle would be to compare him to Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor was a purely political appointment. Her legal credentials left a great deal to be desired. She is lacking in good verbal, academic, and analytical skills. She also had a rather dismal record on the bench, including an opinion in the New Jersey firefighters case that her soon-to-be fellow justices on the Supreme Court found so riddled with holes that she was criticized even by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Liu suffers from none of Sotomayor's defects. He has never served on the bench, so he has no judicial paper-trail which could establish his record of affirmations or reversals at appellate level courts. He only briefly practiced law before becoming an instructor. His academic record is rather stellar, having graduated from Stanford as a Rhodes Scholar and then obtaining his law degree from Yale. He clerked for Justice Ginsburg at the Supreme Court, and later worked in the Clinton administration in educational reform. At the University of California law school he has earned a distinguished teaching award and was made an associate dean at a very early age.
Appointments to the District Courts of Appeals are among the major qualifiers for a position on the United States Supreme Court, and there's no reason to believe that Obama does not have such a thought in mind for Liu. Obama has already indicated his willingness to appoint controversial people to high positions, and emboldened by his recent success in the health care debate, he will no doubt put considerable political resources behind this nomination.
And why is Liu controversial? He is a strong advocate of the "living Constitution" that conservatives so abhor. He has written intelligent (if not particularly compelling) arguments in favor of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right imposable on the states under several provisions of the Constitution. He has consistently argued that affirmative action is a valid exercise of governmental power. He opposed the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts on the ground that "he has a right-wing vision antagonistic to important rights and protections we currently enjoy." He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose the nomination of Justice Alito, saying that even though he believed that Alito had an exceptionally talented legal mind, still "his deference to government intrusion on individual rights puts him at the margin of the judicial spectrum, not the mainstream."
Without a judicial record to follow, Liu is free to declare that his personal views would not interfere with his ability to follow prevailing law and precedent. That's a handy position to have at a Senate inquiry. Although lack of judicial experience is not a disqualifier, it forms a good basis for more in-depth investigation into his political and legal viewpoints at the confirmation hearings. To start with, if we have only his word for it, what are we to make of his legal opinion that "the originalist views of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, centered on the original meaning of the Constitution when it was written and amended, are 'seriously flawed.'" And where does he stand on the alternative theory of "original wording," a clearer and less theoretical view of the Constitution?
Those on the left who think the Constitution is an archaic document which must be re-written by the high judiciary to keep up with "the evolving norms and traditions of our society" are thrilled by this Obama nominee. That quote was from a book co-authored by Liu, in which the authors oddly called their position "Constitutional fidelity."
Those on the right, and a substantial portion of the American people are not so thrilled. The health care debate showed how willing this administration is to shred constitutional, legal, political and procedural norms to get what it wants. Those on the Judiciary Committee who might normally have allowed this nomination to slide through with little opposition are quickly re-evaluating that position. In a close call on the legality of acts of Congress, they have come to realize that no judicial nominee is unimportant.
Says ranking Judiciary Committee Republican member Jeff Sessions of Alabama: "Instead of nominating an individual who has demonstrated an impartial commitment to following the Constitution and the rule of law, President Obama has selected someone far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence." Just a few weeks ago, Obama might not have had the heart to push such a radical nominee. But that probably changed last Sunday with his success against the odds on health care. Still, at the same time, the opposition has stiffened. Where the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee might previously have merely put up token opposition during the vetting process, this is likely to turn into a real donnybrook.
Sessions and Liu can't both be right about where the legal mainstream is, and I come down on the side of Sessions. Although I have previously discussed the practical political purposes of allowing the president to have his nominees confirmed, I have also talked about those times when the views of the nominee are so extreme as to call into question his ability to perform his duties as required by his oath of office. Liu's opinion of affirmative action alone indicates that he would be unable to abide by the judicial oath requiring impartiality on matters of race and social and economic differences. Without a judicial paper-trail to follow, we should err on the side of believing that the nominee believes exactly what he says he believes, and dismiss the naive belief that he would remain an impartial referee.
One final thought. The "post-racial" president who loves racial quotas indicated that one of Liu's qualifications is that he is Asian-American and there is not a single Asian-American sitting on any of the high appellate federal benches. I agree with his reasoning, and I therefore nominate that great U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall professor of law and fine Asian-American constitutional scholar--John Yoo (Yoo Hoo?). Somehow, I don't think that's exactly what Obama has in mind.
[+] Read More...
Captioning: Gangs of D.C.
Seen below is the first public photo taken of an infamous Washington D.C. street gang known as the "Sozis". They roam the streets with a giant hammer breaking windows because they believe that will spur the economy. Said the gang's leader, San Fran Tran Nan (who was once a man): "when you're a Sozi, you're a Sozi all the way." Oh, and nice purse Steny. . .
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
ObamaCare: What You Can Do Now. . .
There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to fight back. And from what I’m hearing many of you feel pretty frustrated because you think there is nothing you can do now that the Democrats have passed half of ObamaCare. Not so fast amigos. Commentarama has the answers.There are four groups of things you can be doing right now.
The most important thing to do right now is to support the good guys. These are the people who are fighting for you and with you. Here’s how:1. Support the Good Guys
Political representatives need the support of the public to keep them motivated and to firm up their resolve. They also judge the intensity of an issue by the number of calls and letters they get. Writing and calling keeps this a front burner issue.A. Support Your Representatives
Thus, write or call your Republican representatives every other week. Tell them you support them and encourage them to keep fighting. Remind them that you want them to push for a repeal of this atrocity and tell them to make it into a campaign issue.
Remind them that they should point out to the public: (1) every premium hike by a health care provider; (2) every increase in the price of medical equipment or supplies; (4) every tax hike; (5) every promised benefit that has never come; (6) every doctor who leaves the profession; (7) every doctor or hospital who refuses to take new Medicare/Medicaid patients; (8) every lost job; (9) every employer who cuts their coverage; and (10) the number of people who remain without coverage in the country despite this supposedly universal-coverage bill. And they should attribute every one of these to ObamaCare.
Participate in local rallies. Join the Republican Party and participate in its caucuses.B. Participate
Write letters to the editors of your favorite magazines and newspapers. Leave comments on blogs, left, right and center. Do this to keep this issue alive. The media will respond to issues that it believes the public wants to hear. The longer we keep this thing alive in the media, the greater the damage to the Democrats.C. Tell The World
Donate money and time to Republican candidates. I say candidates for two reasons. First, this lets you reward the good ones and avoid helping the bad. Secondly, most groups who solicit funds are not what they seem. I’ve seen these groups in action and most of them are little more than fund raising organizations that will use your money to pay their salaries and to keep their fund raising operation going so that they can raise more funds. You are wasting your money by giving to those groups. Send your money directly to candidates. (This also increases the likelihood that they will read your letters.)D. Donate
2. Demoralize the Democrats
The Democrats are scared to death that the public will not forget and forgive this bill. Keep the pressure up. Write or call your Democratic representatives (or neighboring ones) every week. Tell them how angry you are at them for supporting this bill. Let them know that you are now giving money to anyone who will oppose them and that your new goal is to see to it that they lose their seat. Sending copies of canceled checks made out to their opponents is a great tactic that will get noticed.A. Keep Up The Heat
Show up at their town hall meetings and rallies. Ask them to explain their vote over and over. Don’t let the issue die. Protest every time they try to have an event in your district -- even once will make an impression (especially a month from now, by which time they hope this issue has blown over). Remind them constantly of their mistake and never give them a moment’s peace.
Boycott any business or group that supported ObamaCare. Drop your membership, and tell them why.B. Boycott the Fellow Travelers
For too long, conservatives have lived with the mantra that they didn’t want to offend liberals by speaking their minds. Liberals, on the other hand, have no such qualms. So you put up with them and you never fire back. Stop that now. It’s time to speak your mind. Ridicule this bill. Point out how it doesn’t do what they think it does. Let them know that you are now actively supporting anyone who will repeal it, and that you will, for the rest of your life, support anyone who is working to fight liberalism in any form. They are not used to opposition. Bring it.C. Don’t Give Liberals A Free Pass
There are many self-described conservatives who are wallowing in defeatism. Don’t let them get away with infecting others. If they post that the Republicans can’t do it, counter them. If they whine that we’ve lost, call them on it. Do not let these people go unchallenged.3. Stop the Defeatists
Lastly, if the bill is not repealed, then it will be time to step up to civil disobedience.4. Civil Disobedience
The best way to kill a government program is to bankrupt it. In this regard, there are two things you could do. First, you could abuse the heck out of any benefits that are made available to you. Take every benefit that is offered to you and use it liberally. See your doctor for every single sniffle. Demand brand name products and all the tests. You have that right, take it. And in the process, you will help bankrupt this program.
Secondly, don’t pay the fine. The Democrats have balanced this bill on the assumption that millions of people would rather pay the fines than get the coverage. Without those fines, the program goes broke. So buy insurance. It’s as simple as that. And maybe in the future we’ll talk about whether you can be made to pay the fine should you choose not to buy the insurance.
Finally, if you are a doctor, then stop taking Medicare/Medicaid patients. You are supporting the government on the backs of your other patients. Demand full payment from the government or stop taking government-sponsored patients. Basically, go on strike. Similarly, if a Democratic representative happens to be one of your patients, send them packing. . . "Congressman, heal thyself!"
There you go, practical steps that each of you can start taking immediately to help fix our country. Try some of these on for size. You really can make a difference.
[+] Read More...
Monday, March 22, 2010
From The Golden State To The Garden State
We in California are used to recalls of public officials. They don't always turn out as well as we planned. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a prime example. But we've had the recall ability so long that the California Supreme Court declared long ago that state recall has no validity in federal election matters. Somebody forgot to tell New Jersey.California was among the early entrants in the "term limits" process. Two companion cases were brought before the California Supreme Court when termed-out Congressmen filed for re-election. The Court ruled that there are some areas in which federal supremacy is legitimate, and that the U.S. Constitution made it clear that rules regarding election of federal officeholders were the sole province of federal rules. The Court's opinion was cited later in the federal case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995), which was not a California case but still agreed with the California Court's opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the State of Arkansas where Arkansas had specifically set term limits for federal elected officials. The decision was actually even stronger than the split indicates. Justice Thomas filed a dissent because he disagreed with much of the reasoning, but felt the right conclusion was reached.
New Jersey has now entered the fray. New Jersey has a similar, but much less-tested version of recall than California's. The star of our photo is ultraliberal New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, ironically being sworn in by Vice President Dick Cheney at the beginning of the 110th Congress. It seems to have come as a surprise to some current disgruntled voters in New Jersey that liberal New Jersey elected a liberal Democrat in a liberal year. Menendez is in the fourth year of his six-year term, but angry New Jersey citizens have decided that he should not be allowed to finish out his term.
Upon the filing of the recall papers, supporters of Menendez filed court papers citing U.S. Term Limits as forbidding such a move. In an odd ruling that kicked this political football down the road, a three-judge appellate court declined to rule on the validity of the recall itself, and ruled instead that the case was not "ripe" for adjudication. "Ripeness" is a legal doctrine that prevents lawsuits from being appealed until all the procedural ducks are in a row allowing for a full appellate decision on the entire merits of the case. The panel declared that there was no apparent state constitutional bar to the recall process, and since the required signatures had not yet been collected on the recall petition, it was too early to be deciding on the actual recall.
That may have been a bit of self-serving dodging of an issue. California makes recall a relatively easy process, requiring only a small percentage of the electorate to get the recall on a ballot. But New Jersey set the recall bar very high. In order to get a recall on the ballot, proponents must obtain the signatures of 25% of the registered voters. No mean feat under the best of circumstances. Given the narrow margin of victory of Republican Governor Chris Christie, who rode the tide of voter disaffection in the Garden State, the likelihood of getting 25% of the state's electorate to sign a petition to recall a federal Senator seems very far-fetched. That's 1,300,000 signatures. But since the untested New Jersey statute which allows U. S. Senators from New Jersey to be recalled requires so many signatures, it's a great way for liberal judges to appear non-partisan in a year highly unfavorable for liberals.
By allowing the measure to go forward, the panel may never have to deal with the issue. Arguably, the decision is bad law, but good politics. If the petition drive fails, the judges will never have to face their own recall or, alternatively impeachment, for defying the will of what may be a narrow current majority of New Jersey voters. Well, as the lawyers say, hard cases make bad law. In the unlikely event that the petition succeeds, the panel (or some other appellate panel) will still have to deal with the issue, but possibly in more favorable times. If the petitioners were to fail at that level, the case would undoubtedly be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
I hope they remember that the New Jersey Supreme Court produced future United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, the most notorious constitution-shredder of the twentieth century. Currently, the New Jersey Supreme Court is comprised of five justices appointed by liberal Democrat governors and two appointed by moderate-liberal Republican governor Christine Todd Whitman. It's not hard to guess that a court like that is going to lean toward making a decision which will most favor liberal Democrats.
There is another difference between California law and New Jersey law. In both states, the law creates a two-tier ballot. First, the voters determine if the official should be recalled at all. If the answer is yes, they voters then get to choose the successor office-holder. The latter provision is where the states differ. In California, once the recall itself is successful, the voters get to choose from a wide-open list of candidates who have qualified for the ballot by sufficient ballot-signatures (again, a very low percentage of the registered voters). Schwarzenegger was one of 134 candidates to replace recalled Governor Gray Davis. But in New Jersey, the alternate candidates have been pre-chosen by the major political parties, and it's very likely the Democrats would choose, who else, Robert Menendez.
That sets up a true legal quagmire for those who want Menendez out. If he won the election by a narrow plurality, their constitutional issue would be gone with the wind for all practical purposes. If he lost, he would then have the entire rest of the appellate process, both state and federal, open to him to challenge the validity of a state statute limiting the terms of federal elected officials. However much I may sympathize with the political ideals of the petition-supporters, I can't help but think this is a lose-lose situation.
First, I find it highly unlikely that the recall could ever pass muster at the United States Supreme Court. As a devotee of federalism, I want the federal hands off the state's prerogatives. But in order to believe in federalism, I must also believe that in certain areas (much narrower than our current prevailing situation), the states have to keep their hands off purely federal matters. The United States Constitution specifically defines the rules and roles of United States elections, and leaves state matters to the states. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, and there is no reason to believe that a future New Jersey case before the high court would or should produce any different result.
Equally important, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I might as well throw in the doctrine of unintended consequences as well. The Tea Party movement is heavily involved in the recall. It demonstrates the danger of a large group, meaning well, but stumbling about like a bull in a china shop when it actually gets involved directly in the political process. For one thing, a successful recall could put Republican Governor Christie in a terrible position. Politics and law are more complicated than most well-intentioned "civilians" would like. If the Democrats picked someone other than Menendez, he might be angry enough to resign, in which case Christie would be entitled by law to appoint a candidate of his own choice, relying on the dubious constitutionality of the recall and the time-frame provided for the installation of the most popular recall candidate.
No matter what happened, Christie would be required to take a highly-controversial position when he's trying to get New Jersey's real problems under control. This controversy could have exactly the opposite effect from what is intended. At best, it's a major distraction from the underlying desires of the Tea Party movement and all conservatives, which is for conservative governors to reform the gross overreach of state government and put the citizens back into the formula of governance.
As much as I may enjoy a good bare-knuckles political brawl, my view of the situation is what I've said about other fights. Know when to pick them. This is the wrong time, in the wrong place, and the wrong law to be using as referee over the fight. If Menendez is wise, he will simply ignore the whole thing, knowing that all the odds are in his favor, both at the petition level and in the courts. The Recall Committee will attempt to bring in the moderate and independent voters in a cause that few understand or care much about. If they fail to gain sufficient signatures, which is extremely likely, Menendez stays in office, and the organizers look like fools on a snipe-hunt. Menendez comes off looking like the sensible one, while his opponents come off as slightly nuts. That apparent nutiness could seriously damage any conservative who runs against Menendez in 2012, particularly if the candidate has public support from the same people behind an unsuccesful recall movement. This could amount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
[+] Read More...
There Will Be No Gays In The Future
Oh boy, look at that title. People are going to go ape sh~t. Add in that this post touches upon abortion and maybe it’s time to head for the old bunker? No. It’s cold down there, and the television reception stinks. Let’s just plow ahead. When we started this blog ten months ago, one of the first articles I posted dealt with the reasons I felt that gays should be very cautious about joining hands with pro-abortion groups. In light of some recent statistical evidence out of China and India, it’s time to revisit that discussion.At the start, let me say that I’m not talking today about the morality of abortion or homosexuality. So let’s leave those issues for other days. What I am talking about here is the intersection between political decisions today and the world of tomorrow. All I want to do is ask the question of whether or not there will be gays in the future.
In nature, there are around 105 males born for every 100 females. These numbers have been constant all over the world for many decades. Indeed, these numbers are so constant that scientists are now sure that this is nature’s way to ensure a 1 to 1 ratio at the time of puberty because males are more likely to die than females before reaching puberty.Gendercide: The Parental War On Girls
But China and India are turning nature on its head. In China and India, there is a distinct preference for males. This has led to what has been called “Gendercide” in both countries. Girls in China and India are often considered too expensive to keep. They require a dowry to marry off and they are perceived as “leaving” the family to marry, whereas sons stick around to take care of the parents as they age. Thus, for a long time now, baby girls have often been murdered at birth or left to die (not coincidentally, this resulted in an abnormally high suicide rate among young mothers).
Until recently, however, the effects of this were not very pronounced on the population numbers. Indeed, as late as the 1980s, the sex numbers were only slightly skewed above the 105 to 100 ratio. But in the past decade or so, the effects have become shockingly obvious as the numbers have spiked. In China, the ratio of males to females in the younger generations now averages 124 to 100! In some provinces, this number is as high as 130.
To give you a sense of the magnitude of this problem, the China ratio will translate into 40 million surplus males (or missing females) of marrying age in 2020. That is equal to the total number of expected males of marrying age in Germany, France and Britain combined in 2020. That is also the same number of marrying age males expected to live in the United States in 2020. That’s really bad news for China, as single males mean crime and upheaval. And it could be even worse for China’s neighbors, as war is a great way to thin the male population and bride-napping is becoming big business in some parts of the world.
And before you blame China’s one child policy, that does not appear to be the problem. Indeed, India has a similar ratio, but no similar policy. South Korea hit 117 to 100. The Philippines hit 109. Even somewhat western countries like Serbia (108), Macedonia (108), Armenia (117), Azerbaijan (117), and Georgia (111) have reached unnatural levels. And lest you think this couldn’t happen here, there is evidence of similar ratios starting to appear in Asian-American communities.
So what has caused this sudden surge? Ultrasound equipment. The introduction of ultrasound has coincided with the spike in sex-selection based abortions. Indeed, this is borne out even within these countries, where abortions are much more prevalent where ultrasound machines are introduced. India has tried to combat this by making it illegal to abort a child to choose the sex of the child. But women have gotten around this by getting ultrasounds from one doctor and then having another abort the girls.
What all of this tells us is that people find early term abortion much more palatable than infanticide. We can conclude this because the preference for males has not changed in these countries, yet the number of abortions spiked with the introduction of ultrasound gear. That means that parents are much more willing to abort a fetus than they are to kill a child after it is born. Moreover, the massive numbers indicate that a shockingly large number of parents are willing to make this decision, perhaps as many as a third.
So what does this have to do with gays? Everything.Gendercide Round II: The Coming Parental War On Gays
First, I accept the idea that homosexuality is genetic. I don’t accept this because gays claim to feel born that way. Indeed, our own justifications mean nothing when it comes to explaining human nature, because humans are inherently self-delusion and are extremely good at justifying their own behavior to themselves. What convinces me is the ever-more-proven fact that most of our impulses, especially when it comes to sex, are genetic in nature.
In fact, over the past few years, scientists have discovered that despite our culture’s obsession with skinniness, men and women do not prefer skinny partners. They prefer partners who have the “appropriate” proportion between hips and waist -- no matter what the size of the body. These results transcend culture, race and age, and, apparently, we don’t even consciously realize that we are using this as a search criteria. Similarly, a link has been found between race preferences and body fat percentage when people engage in interracial dating. Other recent studies have shown that all humans, again regardless of culture, find near-symmetry beautiful in humans (but not perfect symmetry, which we find disturbing). They have even found now that the biggest indicator of what will attract mates is smell, which may clue us in regarding the “genetic distance” and health of a potential partner. Interesting.
What all of this tells me is that our sexual impulses are hardwired by our genetic code, and that we are not even consciously aware of why we act the way we do. Thus, I have no reason to think that homosexuality isn’t anything more than a genetic variation.
Now here’s the catch. If this is true, then we will soon find the “gay gene.” If the gene can be repaired, then I have little doubt that parents will have it fixed before the child is born. Why? Because as genetics takes greater leaps into remaking the human being, we are already seeing parents opt for a variety of preferences. If it becomes common to remake children to be stronger or smarter or change their eye color, it will certainly become common to remove genetic defects that lead to diseases or other negative hereditary conditions -- like baldness or stuttering, for example. Under such circumstances, it is simply inconceivable that parents would leave in place a gay gene that gives the child impulses that run counter to what 97% of the general population possess.
In other words, even leaving morality out of this, it is inconceivable that parents would leave in place genes in their children that limit their chances of finding a happy mate to less than 3% of the population (a percentage that will shrink continually as other parents make similar choices).
More importantly, even if no fix is ever found for the gay gene, just being able to locate it will be enough to start the cascade of abortions that will eliminate homosexuality. Indeed, if parents think nothing of eliminating baby girls because they want to control the sex of the child, there is no reason to think that they would be any more troubled in eliminating children with the gay gene, especially if devices like ultrasound allow for the clearly more palatable choice of early term abortion.
Thus, it is likely that parents will start to eliminate homosexuality from our species through these practices, and I suspect that there will be no significant amount of homosexuality within a few generations.
Can this be stopped? Probably not. If you make abortion a right, then you can’t really say “except where we don’t like your reasoning.” Indeed, as I noted in my first article on this, Sweden has now ruled that if abortion is to be a right, then the state cannot prohibit sex selection as a motive. And even if you did prohibit abortion based on the presence of the gay gene, how do you keep parents from doctor shopping as they do in India?
Should this be stopped? I guess that’s up to you. But if you’re gay, then you might want to reconsider who your political friends are. Maybe helping to make abortion a right is not a great idea. In fact, as China and India are demonstrating now, maybe letting people select the “options” their kids will have is not a great idea for anyone?
[+] Read More...
Sunday, March 21, 2010
In Praise of the Republicans
Wandering through the blogosphere this weekend, I’m amazed at the number of so-called conservatives who were busy taking shots at the Republicans over health care. In rants as ignorant as Glenn Beck’s they claim not to see what the Republicans have done and they whine that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same. Boo hoo. Idiots. Enough of you whiners. For the rest of you, let’s talk about what the Republicans have been doing, because it’s been impressive.The Republican strategy has several parts and each have been executed perfectly.
1. Unity. The Republicans’ most impressive achievement has been maintaining unity in the face of intense pressure. And make no mistake, unity has been achieved. Even Joseph Cao (R-La), the sole Republican YES the first time through, will vote NO this time, just as RINOs Snowe and Collins did. Said Eric Cantor (R-Va): “The American people don't want this to pass. The Republicans don't want this to pass. There will be no Republican votes for this bill.”
Complete party unity is rare, and it is this unity that has put the Democrats’ rear ends in the ringer, because they cannot hide behind the “bipartisan bill canard.” They own this bill and its consequences. This also makes repeal easier as this bill is now seen as purely partisan, rather than for the benefit of the public.
2. Exposure. This bill is hanging around the necks of Democrats like a lead Albatross. And make no mistake, it’s not the blogosphere that made this happen, it was a concerted Republican strategy of constant attacks.
A. Defeating Obama’s Health Care Trap. Obama created the health care summit with the idea of trapping Republicans. He planned to expose them as the “party of no,” bereft of ideas, and thereby regain the public’s support on health care. But the Republicans, particularly Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), exposed Obama as a fool, who didn’t know the contents of his own bill and couldn’t explain how to sell Dan Rather watermelons. This denied Obama the momentum he needed and brought us to the present situation where the Democrats are terrified to vote on this beast.3. Undercutting the Democrats’ Confidence. The biggest problem for House Democrats has been fear that the Senate would not be able to pass the “fix” portion of the bill. To calm them, their leadership has been putting out a series of puffery statements about the process these bills will undertake. Specifically, they describe the process by saying that after the Senate bill is passed, the House will pass the “fix” bill, which will then be fast-tracked in the Senate, where Reid promises to have the 51 votes needed. The end.
B. Exposing The Crooked Deals. The Republicans pounced on, exposed, and exploited every one of the crooked deal the Democrats made to buy votes:• The Louisiana PurchaseAnd don’t believe for a minute that these issues had any traction if the Republicans hadn’t been pushing them. It was Republican staffers who found these deals, Republican Congressmen who exposed them, and Republican politicians who went on the offensive -- everyone from Republican Governors who disclaimed these payouts, to state Republican Attorneys General who threatened to sue over them, to every Republican Congressman who could find a microphone.
• Excluding union plans and raising the limits on the Cadillac tax in union-friendly states.
• The Cornhusker Compromise
• Medicare Money for certain districts in Florida
• A hospital for Chris Dodd
• Water in California
• And most recently, the special treatment for Kaiser Permanente, the biggest provider in Nancy Pelosi’s district.
Indeed, when the fix doesn’t happen, it will be Republican Attorneys General who lead the legal charge against these special treatments and who blast huge holes in the bill’s provision on 10th Amendment grounds.
C. Slaughtering The Slaughter Rule. Just as the cover-up from Watergate was worse than the act itself, the Democrats’ attempts to hide their votes have proven to be far worse than the vote itself. And it was the Republicans who’ve beaten this drum.
The Republicans took on the “deem and pass” provision and instantly named it the Slaughter Rule. Then they blasted the Democrats all over the country for trying such a sneaky, responsibility-avoiding technique. Add in that, at the same time, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh) went on the air and blasted the Democrats for their cowardice in being unwilling to put their votes on the line. He not only slammed the Slaughter Rule, he opposed Pelosi’s plan for a voice vote, demanding that Pelosi force her members to go to the floor before “God, their countrymen and their constituents” to unveil their votes.
When the Republican States Attorneys General announced they would challenge the Slaughter Rule on a constitutional basis, the Democrats finally abandoned it, but not before doing incredible harm to themselves. . . including voting to clear the path for the rule. When they announced they would challenge the Cornhusker Compromise, panicked Democrats tried to remove it from the bill, but couldn’t.
At the same time, the Republicans even opened their closed-door caucus meetings to the public just to contrast their open and honest position with the closed-door dealing the Democrats are doing.
The blowback from all of this has been intense. Most Americans don’t buy the “it’s socialist” argument, but they do understand evasion and cowardice when they see it. And it was the constant drumbeat from elected Republicans that exposed this.
But the Republicans have cleverly tossed a thousand wrenches into this. The Republicans in the Senate have been busy preparing challenges to every single page of the reconciliation bill, in the hopes of turning the bill into Swiss cheese. They have also been busy preparing thousands of amendments with the idea of delaying any vote until right before the election, to keep this wound fresh in the public’s mind. Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn has taken the lead on this. At the same time, normally collegial Senators like Orin Hatch (R-Utah) have been tossing the Democratic leadership's lies back in the faces of their wavering members: “If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts.”
The effects of this on Democratic psyches cannot be overstated.
4. Abortion Brilliance. When the Republicans in the House backed the Stupak amendment, many bloggers whined that it was a sell out by the Republicans to support any portion of the bill. Why couldn’t these weak Republicans be as strong willed as these iron blogger, they insisted from their anonymous safety. Some of us, however, pointed out that it was a brilliant move to keep the abortion issue alive. This has now proven to be correct, as that issue has torn the Democrats apart. And even though it appears they've solved the issue for now, the price they paid among their supporters is heavy.
5. Taking It To November. In addition to the above, the Republicans have undertaken an aggressive campaign against the Democrats who have decided to vote for this atrocity. Every Republican who could find a microphone has blasted the Democrats on these issues and said, as Minority Leader Boehner said this morning, that this vote will haunt the Democrats in November and that the Democratic leadership is “sacrificing a big number of their members.” Warns Boehner: “I don’t think any American is going to forget this vote anytime soon.”
Or as Mike Pence (R-Ind) says: “I don’t know, quite frankly, whether victory will come on the third Sunday in March or on the first Tuesday in November, but victory will come.”
The Republicans have also begun running ads in the districts of every Democrat who switches from a NO to a YES, attacking their decision. In one entertaining moment, they even released a press release when Ohio Democrat John Boccieri announced his switch, that read: “Ohio Dem Uses Press Conference to Announce End of Stint in Congress.”
Coburn and Hatch have also promised to filibuster any pork promised to the Democrats to get their votes, and they have sworn to hold up the appointments of any Democrats who lose their seats in the coming backlash.
Again, do not underestimate the psychological effect of this.
6. Grinding Everything to A Halt. Since the Republicans can’t stop the health care bill, they have taken out other targets in retaliation. Indeed, Schumer and Dodd, and others, have all complained that the health care bill has killed their efforts to reach agreements on an immigration bill and financial regulation, as well as everything else.
7. The Big “R” Word. Finally, this morning, John Boehner trotted out the “Repeal” word. While the blogosphere has been whining for this for weeks, Boehner was smarter. By waiting to raise this word until today, he not only avoided giving the Democrats a reason to circle the wagons, but he prevented any sense from arising that the passage of this bill was inevitable, which has kept the heat on wavering Democrats. Now is the perfect time to use the big R word:
“If this bill passes, we will have an effort to repeal the bill, and we'll do it the same way that we approached health care on a step by step basis. I'd have a bill on the floor the first thing out, to eliminate the Medicare cuts, eliminate the tax increases, eliminate the mandate that every American has to buy health insurance and the employer mandate that's going to cover jobs.”Great work Republicans.
[+] Read More...
Saturday, March 20, 2010
A Glimpse At The March On Washington DC
There are just some times in one's life that you have to stand up and be counted. Today was such a day for me.
Me and well, about 30,000 other people. I know numbers don't matter, but they might have today. We got at least one victory today. No "Deem and Pass" [or Demon Pass, as some called it]!!! Each Congressperson will have to vote "Yea" or "Nay" on the record.
Views from the front -
One of the many signs -
After the main event, some moved to the Congressional office to speak with their Congressional representatives. Frankly, I thought talking to my Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney would be a waste of time, so I went to the East lawn.
Obama was supposed to come to the Capitol, so many of us moved to the East lawn to greet him. Instead, we greeted many "No" Congressman and at least one very brave "Yes" Congressman...
A "No" Congressman and a very brave Rep. Maxine Waters of California. She showed her scorn for us as she walked by. I think she expected all of us to shout racial slurs, but we just booed her instead...
Another Congressman -
There is a special breed of person who becomes a Congressperson. Another two "No" votes...
Obama didn't drive by the crowd. Apparently he came in through the tunnel. It was at this point that one of the Congressmen told us that at least they defeated the "Deem and Pass" (or Demon Pass as everyone was calling it!) Yey! They will have to vote "Yea" or "Nay" on the bill.
Tonight there was a candlelight vigil and another rally on Sunday during the vote. Keep your fingers crossed. One of the Congresspeople said it was close and could go either way. More tomorrow, but I am beat... [+] Read More...
Low Friends In High Places
California has now joined a number of other states in hosting Congress Crooks whose votes are being bought by sweetheart deals. But in California's case, it won't even benefit the whole state, or even a large part of it. I want you to know the names of the two political whores who will likely be voting in favor of the bill after receiving a pathetic bribe.The two California Democrats who represent agricultural areas in California's San Joaquin Valley are Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa. These two pathetic excuses for elected representatives aren't just political whores. They're cheap political whores. They were allegedly among the "undecided" votes, supposedly leaning "no" on the health care bill. They've even been called "conservative Democrats" (which I consider to be a factual impossibility). The bribe they've been offered is utterly incomprehensible, and the damage it will do is incalculable. Unlike the more famous Gator-Aid, Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and Dakota Deal, this bribe won't even help the citizens of their districts, let alone the state that is in desperate economic distress.
A little background on why this is such a reprehensible move on the part of these two fools. Since 1992, there has been an incremental attack on California agriculture by the liberals and their beloved Environmental Protection Agency. Each move by the EPA crippled the farmers and farm-workers just a little more with each new initiative and each new obscure and/or worthless animal or plant that needed "protection." The farmers in the San Joaquin (Central) Valley worked the most productive land in America, which by careful garnering of resources and creation of immense water projects begun at the start of the 20th Century turned a vast desert into America's food basket. But a recent EPA suit dealt what may be the final blow.
In order to protect a fish species that was dying out anyway and serves no known purpose in the scheme of macro-ecology, the abundant water available to feed the farmlands in the Central Valley was effectively shut off entirely. This past year alone, rain levels (and obviously water availability) were at 129% of average. Yet the starving and thirsting Central Valley gets not a drop. Shut down those pumps. Close those valves. Dry up those streams and channels. All in the name of protecting the Delta smelt. For those of you who may not be familiar with this travesty, here's a link that will give you the details: Meet The Fish That Conquered California.
Remembering the fact that the water needed to slake the thirst of the Central Valley has already been nearly 100% cut off to protect a lousy fish, what did these two amateur goodfellas get for their votes? A temporary 25% increase in the amount of water allowable in their districts only. The expression "a piss in the Pacific Ocean" comes quickly to mind. Or maybe "a teaspoon of water to put out the Chicago fire." These two cheap dates sold out their votes for a trickle of water that wouldn't do much more than water a few lawns.
In theirs and surrounding districts, the unemployment rate is between 20% and 40%. Bankruptcies are being filed at a rate to rival that of the Great Depression. The Central Valley is beginning to look like the midwest during the dustbowl of the 30s. And nature has nothing to do with it this time. It took eco-zealots to block the water that is the lifeblood of the Central Valley farms.
How much effect will the actions of these mental midgets have? One courageous Republican in an adjoining district, Devin Nunes, called them out. "They are getting a 25% temporary increase in water for their districts in exchange for 100% yes vote on the health care bill." An influx of water that is grossly inadequate for the purpose of getting the farms back in business and the food being moved all over the world in exchange for a socialist, statist national health care scheme that will bankrupt America, destroy our medical community, and make California even worse off.
Normally, the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation would announce any changes in allocations of water on March 22. That doesn't mean there would have been any increased allocation, just that if there were, that would be the date to do so. But for some strange reason known only to God, the two losers, and Senators Feinstein and Boxer, March 17 seemed like a good time to get ahead of the curve. The foursome (God chose not to participate) announced the brilliant move together, just in time for the two to sell out their constituents and switch to yes votes for the Sunday showdown.
If these two political prostitutes had gotten a 90% permanent increase in the water allocations for the entire Central Valley, it would still have been extortion. But at least I could have understood that they might believe such an increase helped a huge portion of Californians more than the health care bill damaged America. But this! It's like selling your children so you can buy that used black and white television at the pawnshop. Junkies sell their bodies for more than this to get a quick fix.
Like most of you, I will be watching the train-wreck on Sunday. If these two clowns vote against the health care bill, I will sincerely apologize and commend their courage in the face of immense pressure from Washington D.C. But if they vote in favor, they will have earned the utter contempt of the majority of Californians. There is quite literally no reason for them to vote in favor of the bill they formerly questioned except for the political bribe. Thousands upon thousands of Californians who count on their representatives to save them from the predatory EPA will be asked to believe that it was so important to get a piddling 25% temporary increase in water allocation that these morons voted to destroy American health care while doing nothing to fix California's problems. At least UFO hunter Dennis Kucinich got a ride on Air Force One in exchange for his principles. They may also have offered Dear Dennis the name of a tailor so he could get rid of that hideous mud-colored polyester suit and gigantic green tie he was wearing when he announced his sellout.
Any Californian (or any American, for that matter) who finds this to be a contemptible sellout can call the offices of the two miscreants. Cardoza's phone number is (209)383-4455. Costa's number is (559) 495-1620.
[+] Read More...
Friday, March 19, 2010
Question: Representin'
Just a simple question tonight, to ease you into a lazy weekend, where nothing at all significant is going to happen. Do you think Congress types should vote their own beliefs, seeing as how they were chosen by the voters to represent their districts, or should they vote the way the majority of the voters in the district want, seeing as how they were chosen by the voters to represent their districts. Or would you choose some middle ground? Perhaps random voting? Thoughts?
[+] Read More...
Captioning: Don't Touch My Medicare Sonny
I understand the Democrats are regretting last year's prescription fire arms benefit they passed as part of Medicare. Seen here, Myrtle Johnson prepares to do a little lobbying with extreme prejudice.
[+] Read More...
[+] Read More...
The Problems Of Action Heroes
Next week, we’ll get back to specific movies. This week, let’s talk about another problem modern movies face. This problem is associated with action heroes. Action heroes change with the times, and these days they’ve run into a wall. Between conflicting moral codes and the problems of “adrenaline addiction,” there isn’t much left for an action hero to do.Action heroes have been around since Odysseus took his band of merry pirates to Troy for the Friday night fights. At that point, a hero was a man who was mortal, but also the offspring of a god. And action stories were about the exploits of these heroes, as they overcame challenges that were beyond mortal men. This set the ground work for much that followed.
Indeed, even today, action heroes need to be able to do things that regular humans can’t. It is the rare hero who doesn’t quickly demonstrate some far-above-average skill -- no matter how much the movie facially tries to sell the hero as “just a regular person” when the story begins. Moreover, action stories tend to be epic in nature as the hero goes through a series of successively more difficult challenges. And it is within these requirements that action heroes suddenly find themselves in a bit of a jam.
The reason humans suffer from addiction is the competing demands of two hard-wired behavioral responses within the human being. First, we seek pleasure. Pleasure sets off all kinds of chemical reactions that make us want more. That’s nature’s way of telling you to do something. If it feels good to eat something tasty, then do it. And if it doesn’t give you any pleasure, like that none-too-succulent rock you’re sucking on or the banana you’re trying to jam in your ear, then don’t bother doing that again. In this way, nature steers us toward the things we should be doing.
Secondly, humans have a coping mechanism that takes the emotional edge off our experiences. This lets us cope with trauma and loss, as it softens their sting over time. It also lets us put up with horrible conditions, like prison camps, as we grow accustomed to them. Without this, our suicide rate would probably be extremely high. Unfortunately, this dulling mechanism also dulls pleasure. Thus, we soon find that the things that brought us pleasure aren’t as pleasurable as they once were. That means we need more than before, to achieve the same high. This is true of everything that delivers pleasure, from foods to drugs to the adrenaline we derive from watching action heroes blow things up, engage in fights, and narrowly escape death. Action heroes basically make us adrenaline junkies.
As junkies, the more we get, the more we will need the next time just to recreate the same thrill. That means that each successive action movie must have bigger explosions, more frenetic fights and bigger stakes to keep us entertained. If an action hero simply did what the last guy did, we would be bored. And this creates a problem. How do you keep upping the ante to keep generating that adrenaline rush? Bigger explosions? Ok, so a car bomb turns into a huge car bomb turns into a semi-trailer bomb, turns into a city-wide nuclear bomb turns into. . . hmm. Ok, maybe we increase the shock level. The bad guy goes from being some dude to being some corporate lackey to a corporate president to a senator to the president to. . . shoot, not again.
Do you see the problem? As each film ups the ante, we slowly run out of room to keep upping the ante. As it is, the bad guys these days need to sit at the highest levels of power (always the most powerful person in the film), they need to plan to destroy the country or the world, and they need to set off explosions that bring down landmarks. Nothing lesser will do. But this doesn’t leave us any room to keep going up either. There just isn’t much “more” left.
That’s why a movie like Ronin was so refreshing. Unlike most action movies that traffic in bigger-is-better, Ronin went for realism. And in the process, it brought a whole new form of adrenaline rush because the action actually felt real, something you hadn’t really see before on the screen. But even there, how far can you go with realism before people get bored again?
This catch 22 is slowly killing action movies.
But there’s another problem too, and it deals with action movies falling into a very boring formula. And that formula derives, of all things, from the contradictory human moral code to which we subscribe.
On the one hand, humans love revenge. Forget the turn the other cheek stuff, we are all for an eye for an eye and bringing a gun to a knife fight. But on the other hand, we find it morally repugnant that someone would kill without a reason or that they would kill someone once they’ve been disarmed and defeated.
How does Hollywood reconcile this? Well, it’s found two mechanisms. Let’s call the first one drone slaying. To satisfy the audience’s blood lust without running afoul of the audience’s revulsion at unjustified killing, Hollywood has learned to take the humans out of the film. Now, the hero can slay an army of robots or orcs or zombies, and the audience doesn’t think twice. (Even in war movies, it is rare that we see the faces of the uniformed drones that get gunned down en mass by the hero.) Since the audience doesn’t see these as human, the moral code doesn’t kick in. Thus, the hero can kill all the drones they want -- which, not coincidentally, also gives the hero his (or her) bona fides as a hero, because they’ve shown themselves to possess skills that far exceed the helpless humans around them. But sadly, because these are drones, the hero’s actions still ring hollow.
Thus, the hero must kill a couple of “faced” humans. This bring us to the second mechanism. Hollywood has learned to manufacturer ways that the good guy can still kill the bad guy without running afoul of the moral code. Indeed, the two primary rules on this code are: (1) never kill without reason and (2) never kill anyone who has been beaten. So Hollywood always starts the movie by giving us a clichéd, easy to understand reason why the hero must act -- and forget doing the right thing, we want easy. . . they've got my daughter!. . . they're going to blow up the city! Gone is Clint Eastwood’s anti-hero in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly who killed for money, and in his place are a series of heroes who need to suffer a proportional loss or threat of immediate proportional loss before they can kill the bad guy. Moreover, have you noticed how many movies end with the good guy defeating the bad guy, but not killing him -- because you can’t kill someone who has been defeated and is now helpless -- only to turn his back as the bad guy picks up a random gun, thereby allowing the good guy to turn around and blast him? This manufactured ending satisfies the audience’s blood lust, without making them feel morally uncomfortable about their choices. That’s kind of sad.
Indeed, this cliché changes the nature of the hero. The hero goes from taking command of the world around them to becoming a victim of chance. In other words, they no longer make their own destiny, they need to wait for the bad guy to make it for them. It’s like Lucas re-editing Star Wars to make Greedo shoot first. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. In one lousy edit, Lucas has changed Han Solo’s character dramatically. Gone is the rogue and in his place is the victim who acted in self defense. Yuck. Well, that’s exactly what Hollywood has done to the action hero generally.
Thus, the modern action hero faces a series of problems. Everything that can be blown up has been blown up, and there’s no higher authority that can be a criminal that isn’t already being used in movies today. Further, the action hero now needs to waste most of the movie picking on drones until he (or she) is ready to fight a highly choreographed main fight to end the movie in a morally acceptable way that still results in a dead bad guy. What a lousy time to be a hero.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, March 18, 2010
San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile
The Port of Oakland has taken most of the commercial shipping which used to thrive on the San Francisco docks. But sometimes, in order to get their supplies, the ships heading for Oakland have to get past our first line of defense--the Golden Gate Bridge. This one just scraped past.Three massive cranes being imported from China (no comment) had to be folded over to pass under the bridge. The ship made it with 14 feet to spare. It later had to pass under the Bay Bridge, and did so with a mere 9 feet between the top of the cranes and the lower deck of the bridge. That's a hair's-breadth in maritime terms, and even though the event unfolded very slowly, it was breath-holding time. Any miscalculation, a shift in the currents, or a surge in the tides could have spelled disaster. The California Highway Patrol ran traffic breaks on the Bay Bridge, just in case.
Although this raises the obvious question about why these cranes couldn't have been manufactured in the United States, it is still a fact that the cranes will provide cargo capabilities at the Port of Oakland that will create jobs. Real jobs. So it isn't all bad. This gives Oakland 22 Super-Post Panamax cranes. Those are cranes that are large enough to service container ships which are too wide to pass through the Panama Canal. Oakland is the nation's fifth busiest port, and the three additional cranes could put Oakland in fourth place. So--I guess it was worth the risk.
NOTE: Apparently, eating nothing but veggies doesn't make one a peaceful lamb. Lierre Keith, a recovering vegan, had a book-signing at the Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair. The title of her apostate book is The Vegetarian Myth. I say "apostate" because Keith has not abandoned her beliefs that lots of veggies are good for you. But she was a vegan for 20 years, and that means no animal products, of any kind, ever. She has not only decided that an occasional egg or hamburger might be a more natural thing for omnivorous humans, but that agriculture is destroying the world (I said she was an apostate, I didn't say she had attained sanity).
Around 2:15 PM on Saturday, Keith was anarchically touting her book at the lectern of the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park when she was set upon by three militant vegans shouting "go vegan!" while hitting her in the face with chili pepper-laced pies. Said Keith later from her sister's home in Kansas: "We're supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me. It's insane. My entire book is about how the world is being destroyed. You should not eat factory-farmed meat."
Frankly, I don't have a dog in this psycho fight. Keith believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change. She rails against "factory farming" (which is probably nut-speak for anything larger than a mom and pop farm) and insists on the restoration of prairies and forests. Since she has abandoned pure veganism, I guess she supports everybody running around in the forest primeval with bows and arrows chasing down prey. A luddite anarchist doesn't suddenly become sane or logical simply because she might occasionally give in to the temptation to have a nice steak. If there's one thing "true believers" won't tolerate, it's the least deviation from the pure party line. I'm just trying to imagine what a hot chili pepper pie tastes like. Chicken, maybe.
Final comment: Keith and her people called the police. The primary group taking credit for the chili pie attack is the North American Animal Liberation Press. Their printed reaction online was that "Keith was wrong about veganism, she is an animal holocaust-denier, and betrayed the cause when she called in the "agents of state oppression (i.e., the police)."
NOTE: Mayor Gavin Newsom made an impromptu appearance at San Francisco International Airport. Newsom, unlike his Board of Supervisors, has actually run a successful business. His appearance at the airport was to tout his successful renegotiation of the contracts between The City and the airport vendors by which The City gets 15% of the concessions' revenues. Sure, we all hate paying more for airport food, snacks and books, but it has never actually damaged airport business. And the estimate is that the new contract will provide $330 million in revenue for The City that would otherwise have been lost. That ain't peanuts in a city deeply in deficit.
Some of Newsom's old competitiveness seemed to be coming back out. He pointed out that San Francisco Airport (SFO) is top-dog nationally in getting money per passenger from the activities of merchants at airports. And SFO is number three in collection of total revenues. He wants to make SFO number one. Since he isn't actually increasing the percentage of price which goes to The City, he is merely doing good P.R. for the city he represents. Where was this Newsom during the gay marriage rancor, or when he was testing the waters to become California's governor? I'm actually beginning to like him.
NOTE: A local San Francisco attorney, Daniel Balsam, started suing internet spammers even before he graduated from law school. He just received a $7,000 court award against one of those spammers, Trancos, Inc. Balsam was horrified to have received a personal e-mail from Trancos in 2007. Balsam has been a frequent beneficiary of the 2004 anti-spam law passed by California. In fact, he considers it more important than representing clients who have actually been harmed by something. The law Balsam sued under provides for private persons to collect money damages for advertising that is false or misleading (emphasis added). Mere puffery can be defined as "misleading" if you serve it up right. And that's what Balsam relied on. He won on the grounds that Trancos (which is a provider of advertising access to small companies) sent him e-mails with titles such as "Your promotion," "Paid Survey," and "Join elite." The California law provides for up to $1,000 for each serving of spam, even if the recipient didn't accept any of the offers and lost no money.
The defendant's attorney says Trancos will appeal. Though many cases of this type have been won in small claims court, this appears to be the first case decided at a full trial in Superior Court. His argument is that spam is the province of the federal law, which allows for damages only when someone has actually been harmed in some concrete way. As much as I'm a fan of state's rights, I'm with the defendant on this one. California has too many laws providing for money damages for people who have not actually been harmed in any real way. It would seem that Balsam is collecting legal (if not realistic) damages for being, what, inconvenienced? Annoyed? Has anybody informed him there's a thing called a "spam filter?" Are our courts not tied up enough with frivolous lawsuits that we need more like this?
NOTE: Strange things are happening in California politics. The once and future wannabe governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, was far ahead of all his potential rivals in both major parties right up until he announced his formal candidacy at the last possible minute. Although it is still very early in the actual race, Republican newcomer Meg Whitman is actually tied with, or ahead of Brown in several major respected polls. Brown has not started his campaign in earnest yet, but the idea of a California Republican, however liberal, being ahead of a well-known and well-financed former Democratic governor was simply unimaginable just a few short months ago.
Although Brown hasn't yet deigned to enter the fray, the basic strategy may have to be altered rather quickly for Brown to win. Whitman has already demonstrated a "take no prisoners" assault on her closest Republican rival, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Fair or not, she has demonstrated that she will not be the usual good-natured pushover that Democratic candidates for governor in California have faced over the past few election cycles (Schwarzenegger was a seeming exception, but he joined the goo-goo Republicans holding hands with the liberal Democrats shortly after his election). Poizner, a Silicon Valley moderate gazillionaire fellow of Whitman's is now trailing by nearly-insurmountable numbers for the Republican nomination.
Brown had been counting on the two rich Republican candidates knocking each other off in the primaries. That didn't happen, and Whitman is in a very powerful position at this point. The unions and left think-tanks have poured beaucoup bucks into anti-Whitman ads, and they've had next-to-no effect. It has reached the point where Whitman can largely abandon her attacks on Poizner and start to turn her attention to going after Brown. Brown, his staff and his supporters are what the military calls a "target-rich environment."
Traditional Republican conservatives are at best lukewarm toward Whitman, but have a long history of opposing Brown. The Massachusetts Miracle has turned pollsters toward looking carefully at the group that was largely responsible for electing Scott Brown to "Ted Kennedy's seat" in the Senate. And independents currently lean 50% to 36% toward Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown in the most recent Field Poll. Among all potential voters in the greater Los Angeles area, a traditionally Democratic demographic, Whitman is slightly ahead of Brown. Whitman leads Brown statewide among women, men, and voters over age 40.
Brown has some very canny and successful advisers. And he's certainly no stranger to electoral politics. He is not intimidated by strong opponents, even when he's running behind. His confrontation with Bill Clinton over Hillary's questionable political and legal activities is practically legend in California. Still, at the early stages of the Republican race, Whitman defined Poizner's role in the race with her ads and her speeches, leaving him on the defensive ever since. If Brown allows Whitman to do the same thing to him, he might very well be in serious danger of losing the election. Much remains to be seen.
NOTE: More unexpected (but wished-for) good news. Her Majesty and Royal Painness, Senator Barbara Boxer, has dropped behind Republican Tom Campbell for the first time in matchups against her potential GOP rivals. She is also for the first time within the margin of error with all three Republicans in the most recent Field Poll. Campbell: 44-43%. Fiorina: 44-45% DeVore: 41-45%. Field says its margin of error is 3.7%. No doubt this partially reflects the anti-incumbent feeling that is growing nationwide, since Boxer's name recognition is much higher than the three Repubicans. 60% of the respondents said they have no opinion of Campbell and Fiorina, while 78% said the same of DeVore. Still, I'll take all the "throw the bums out" votes we can get. It's now up to the ad agencies and the grassroots to make sure that by election day, the Republicans have name-recognition as well.
[+] Read More...
Why ObamaCare Will Be Good For You!!
Several of you have asked, how exactly do the Democrats plan to sell this health care monster to the public? Well, believe it or not, they do have a plan. A little while ago, they started circulating the game plan. Here it is. At the end, I’ll tell you why it won’t work.The Democrats will, of course, start by letting you know that. . .
The current system is broken. Greedy doctors and evil insurers have stood too long in the way of much needed reform. In fact, the current system was heading toward bankrupting our country, and it left millions of Americans to die without health care. Even those who had health care were just one job change away from losing their benefits or one rotten insurer away from being left hung out to dry.
Next the Democrats will tout the benefits of their monster: Access to affordable care for the poorest of Americans and for people with pre-existing conditions!Notice that the first sales point has nothing to do with the new bill, it’s just an attack on the existing system, and not even an honest one. The fact is that only around 2% of the American population cannot get insurance, for financial reasons or because they are uninsurable. Bankruptcy puts a floor under your debt burden. Few doctors are greedy, at least not as much as the people wanting to take what they have. And it’s the misguided Medicare program that is going broke, not the country as a whole. We could fix that without punishing everyone else. . . but where’s the fun in that?
This bill closes the gap in the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit!Of course, the poorest already get Medicaid, so this is false solution. Secondly, they fail to tell you that unless you’re poor, then you will be paying more for health insurance or you’ll be fined. As for pre-existing conditions, yes those people will be covered. . . by you. So rather than finding a real solution that problem, we’ll just hide it.
This bill puts an end to Medicare fraud!Yep, by bankrupting the rest of Medicare and killing Medicare Advantage. Think of it this way, this is like fixing that too tight shirt, the one with the buttons you can’t close, by ripping a huge whole in the back of the shirt. Problem solved. . . Democratic style.
This bill prohibits insurers from requiring prior authorizations, and establishes an effective appeals process for coverage denials and claims!Hurray! Just like how we ended murder when we made it illegal. Of course, you might find yourself slightly inconvenienced as the boys at the FBI start calling you about your bills because they’re doing a random audit and they think you or your doctor just might be criminals. But that’s a small price to pay for the end of fraud.
This bill protects your choice of doctors.Oh yes, more for trial lawyers to do! How sweet it is.
There can be no lifetime or annual limits on coverage, you can never be turned down, you’ll never grow old, and you can always eat oatmeal.Which is actually an odd claim to make, as this isn’t really a benefit so much as a “it could have been worse, hurray!” Of course, there is the other problem too, that by “protects” they mean wiping out something you have now, but soon won’t.
This bill extends coverage to children until they turn 26.Ok, you got me here. I can’t possibly see how it’s going to hurt anyone that everyone can now get as much “health care” as they want. Speaking of which, where did I put that prescription for daily therapeutic massage? Oh, and little Michael wants another nose job. . . and a sex change. Fortunately, those things grow on trees now, taxpayer funded trees.
”Free” prevention benefits.Ok, we’re hitting the bottom of the barrel here. But at least, this will be great if you have an unemployed 26 year old living with you. . . the American dream at its finest.
And best of all, the government will be looking out for you.That’s right, it won’t cost you a penny toward your deductible. So if you believe in the free lunch, then you’re in luck . . . and you’re a fool.
So why do I think the public isn’t going to buy this? Hmmm. Well, I can’t really come up with a reason. Maybe Marjorie Margolies can help. She was a freshman Democrat who lost her House seat in 1994 after voting for Clinton’s budget. She recently confided to the world that she thought she was safe because she had reached a point where she could explain her vote “in a fairly coherent cogent manner” in about “four minutes.” Unfortunately, she adds, her opponents figured out how to explain her vote in a few seconds: “she raised your taxes.”Yep, with the efficiency of the post office, the heart of the IRS, the manners of the DMV, and the budgetary restraint and fairness of Congress. You’ll love it, or else.
I wonder how many minutes it will take for Democrats to go through the arguments above? And how long it will take to say, “they raised your taxes, drove your doctor out of practice, made you a criminal, destroyed Medicare, and raised your health care bill.”
Hmmm. A genuine poser. . .
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Revisiting the DOJ Guantanamo Lawyers
A few posts back, we reviewed some of the Obama appointees in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. There has also been a public debate about some of the DOJ appointees in the Division which will be charged with making the decisions about detainees at the Guantanamo facilities. There's little to be done about those already in place, but why is the Holder Justice Department so reticent to release information about those lawyers?We've discussed the concept that the President ought to be allowed to have his appointees confirmed, but that there are limits to that political rule of thumb. As a conservative and retired attorney, I also explained why a lawyer generally ought not to be judged by the makeup of his clients. Several of the DOJ lawyers previously represented Guantanamo detainees, and I argued that this alone should not be a reason for delving into the past of those lawyers who are now in the DOJ. Having said all that, I have altered my opinion of the alleged "witch-hunt" against these DOJ lawyers. If their prior representation of the Gitmo detainees was mere advocacy, why is the Justice Department stonewalling on questions being asked about them?
As more information keeps leaking out, the story begins to change from mere representation to active pursuit of terrorist defendants chosen by some of those DOJ lawyers back when they were in private practice. When I first went into practice, an attorney could be disciplined for seeking out the particular business of a particular client, no matter how lofty the alleged cause or how noble the defendant. Bar rules have been relaxed so much over the years that such solicitation is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Standing alone, then, the solicitation of terrorist clients at Guantanamo might raise a few patriotic eyebrows, but it's not forbidden.
Therefore, if it is valid to look into the credentials of lawyers in the DOJ who have represented terrorists in the past, it is more important to find out why they did it, and under what circumstances. As a followup question, there is the issue of just how ethical they were during the time they represented the detainees. Those questions are being raised, and some DOJ lawyers are coming up seriously wanting.
It's not unfair to look first at the potential defendants. Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and currently a writer for National Review describes them as follows: "They are anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-individual liberty, pro-totalitarian, pro-collectivist and hold that American interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially our military interventions, are exploitations of the Muslim world aimed at robbing its natural resources and spreading Western principles that are anathema to the indigenous culture." Anyone assigned to represent such people is doing a job (for most of us, an unpleasant job). But that doesn't explain lawyers who actively seek out such clients. Nor does it include leftist cause-chasers who represented domestic terrorists such as William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn (pals of Obama's).
Historically, America hasn't had much experience with radical lawyers representing foreign terrorists. But there is a similar pattern unrelated to terrorists which we have known about for many decades. We call them "mob lawyers." They don't just represent major criminal enterprises. They profit heavily from them, and in many instances are part of the very criminal enterprise they purport to be "merely defending." There seems to be a parallel emerging among the DOJ Obama/Holder appointees as to terrorists. Several of the lawyers (and some of their firms) said "Aha! There's a cause after our own hearts. Let's pack up those bags, grab our briefcases, and demand to be allowed to enter Guantanamo forthwith to represent those helpless freedom fighters against the persecution of the Bush administration lawyers." That's more than mere advocacy.
Before moving on to specifics, it's important to point out a couple of relevant facts. First, in all of American history, until we were greeted by the post-911 terrorists, nobody in the legal profession believed that persons captured on a battlefield had any rights beyond humane treatment as prisoners of war--until the war was over. In a strange lapse of judgment, the Supreme Court held for the very first time that such prisoners had the uniquely Anglo-American right to habeas corpus. Still, it only allowed for the detainees to demand a simple statement of the reason for their detention. If the government could show that the detainee was an armed combatant or allied with armed combatants on a foreign battlefield, that was that. Have a nice stay, we'll leave the lights on.
Which leads to the second point. If the government was unable to establish such a basis for the detention, or more importantly, if the detainee was charged as a terrorist, he was immediately entitled to defense counsel, as determined by the detaining authority, in a military tribunal. In other words, we don't allow people charged with crimes against humanity to go unrepresented in court. But to listen to the leftists, best represented by some of the lawyers now safely ensconced in the Obama/Holder Justice Department, those mass murderers would have been charged, tried and convicted without the assistance of able and competent counsel. Aw, hooey.
Those, like Liz Cheney, who are raising the alarm about some of the DOJ lawyers may or may not have purely political motives for questioning the bona fides of the DOJ lawyers who formerly represented terrorist detainees. But a cursory view of some of those attorneys has caused me to stop worrying about her motives and start worrying a lot more about the lawyers who will theoretically be prosecuting terrorists in the future.
Let's start with the leftist Center for Constitutional Rights. This group seeks out the most radical of lawyers in the big, well-funded liberal law firms to take on cases which stand peculiarly for changing America's long-established and long agree-upon rule of law and turn the Constitution on its head. The pickings were very good. Meet current Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal. As chief counsel for Al Qaeda kingpin Salim Hamdan, Katyal pulled out all the stops to convince the court that Hamdan was a low-ranking nonentity who was merely caught up in an overzealous military action. Never mind that Katyal knew (or had reason to know) that Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's personal driver and close confidant, and that Hamdan had surface-to-air missiles and anti-personnel IEDs under his personal control when captured.
The result was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006). For the first time ever, a prisoner of war was granted habeas corpus to challenge the basis of his incarceration. It didn't set Hamdan free, and after ruling that the Rumsfeld/Bush military tribunals had no Congressional authorization, the Court determined that sufficient grounds were found for his incarceration, but that until Congress passed enabling legislation, he could not be tried by the then-constituted military tribunals. Congress promptly passed the enabling legislation.
Still, Katyal is no bomb-throwing radical. He is actually largely pro-American, and though he is proposing special treatment for the Al Qaeda terrorists, what he has proposed is not at all outrageous. He wishes to establish a comprehensive system of preventive detention under the auspices of a national security court. I consider it to be another unneeded category of "prisoner of war," but the idea isn't entirely crazy. My objection to Katyal is that his rush to Guantanamo was unseemly, particularly since Hamdan was provided with able and competent counsel already. More importantly, I think Katyal's fairness is not consistent with his support for many of his fellows in DOJ who don't take such a favorable view of America and its courts. He was also far too enthusiastic about A.G. Holder's decision to start trying terrorists in civilian courts as if they were common criminals.
Holder tapped one of those radicals for a post at DOJ. Jennifer Daskal is now a prosecutor in the DOJ National Security Division. The idea of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse comes immediately to mind. Aside from her total lack of experience as a prosecutor at any level, Daskal earlier campaigned actively for the United Nations Human Rights Committee to condemn America for its waging of what she called "the so-called war on terrorism." She has written multiple treatises on how our "cloak of federalism" allegedly allows states to skirt international treaties by prosecuting terrorists on state or local charges which are sustainable on grounds other than the war on terrorism. She puts all terrorists and domestic violent criminals in the same category as "oppressed victims of an unfair legal system which puts them in 'supermax' prisons."
Daskal actively advocated for Al Qaeda agent Omar Khadr, who at age sixteen murdered an American soldier on the battlefield while the soldier was attempting to assist civilians in the area. Needless to say, Daskal's heart bled for the poor youthful offender. She also attempted to become an intervener in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed case, claiming that the very-talkative terrorist was coerced into his confession by torture. After joining the DOJ, Daskal continued to advocate Mohammed's cause, and were it not for the angry outcry from the citizens of New York City, might have succeeded in getting him tried in a civilian court while suppressing all evidence obtained in the confession.
We've also had some close calls, and it may not be over yet. One attorney whose name was bandied about at DOJ for a post in the anti-terrorism unit is Julia Tarver Mason, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Early in the gold rush to Guantanamo, Mason and the firm represented eight separate Guantanamo detainees. The eight, plus four more detainees, had received attorney/client confidential legal mail from the firm. Such correspondence must contain only exchanges between the detainees and their lawyers regarding their legal cases, and must not discuss any details of the cases of any other detainees. Many of the detainees are not very bright, so at least one of them left the Paul, Weiss envelopes and contents out in his cell in plain view.
And what was in those mailings? A brochure prepared by Amnesty International, written in Arabic (which Mason doesn't speak or read), showing America as waging a campaign of torture against Muslims around the globe. It said: "One thread that runs through many of the testimonies from prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from Guantanamo is that of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, and other racist abuse." Not exactly related to the specific detainees in question, nor particularly related to anything having to do with attorney/client privilege. Detainee Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi wasn't even coy when asked where the brochure came from. "I got it in the mail from my lawyer."
The action resulted in an investigation after which Guantanamo Major General Jay W. Hood expelled the attorneys from Guantanamo. That produced more habeas corpus petitions than anyone could have previously imagined. But the ultimate rule became that attorneys representing terrorists in the future must be carefully screened for national security purposes, and their activities monitored (not their conversations with the detainees).
During Paul, Weiss's massive legal attack on the Bush DOJ and America, suspicious activity did not cease. One lawyer was caught hand-drawing a map of a detention camp's layout, complete with guard towers and how to avoid them, and another attorney sending messages of support for their cause to detainees who were not his clients. Some lawyers were taking daily updated reports from the internet and passing them on to their clients and non-client detainees on IED attacks in Iraq while American soldiers were being blown up on a daily basis by just such IEDs.
When the tough rules for lawyers were relaxed in 2006, Mason and her team resumed their field trips to Guantanamo. At that time, three lawyers representing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators showed them photos of covert CIA officers, allegedly to find out if any of them were the operatives who had obtained information from them. The photos were then passed about willy-nilly to any defense attorney for detainees who wanted to see them. None of the names of these lawyers have been released, but it is not too hard to see why many reasonable people would want to know if any of the current DOJ lawyers or potential attorneys are among them.
The unnamed attorneys have come to be known as the "Al Qaeda 7" (some have even suggested there ought to be a "Notorious 9,") and A.G. Holder has absolutely refused to acknowledge if any of his DOJ attorneys are on that list, and if so, why he won't simply clear their names by answering "yes" or "no," and naming those for whom the answer is "yes." This could all end up being a tempest in a teapot. But once again, the Obama/Holder arrogant belief in their own righteousness, and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of the American people create a situation of extreme distrust. And right now, I want to know that my federal prosecutors are dedicated to serious pursuit of convictions for terrorist murderers.
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)