Back to the drawing board on same-sex "marriage"?

Yesterday, Maine voters became the 31st state body politic to reject same-sex "marriage," but Maine is unique in that the defeat at the polls came after a majority of the Maine legislature had approved of the concept.

Thus, the results of yesterday's referendum in Maine have national significance inasmuch as they lay bare the political strategy of homosexual activists like Tim Gill ("They won't know what hit them."-- The Atlantic). In sum, it's a little disingenuous to contend that the so-called legislative route is/was, pardon the pun, out in the open, as is implied in this TIME story. After Maine Gay-Marriage Defeat, Activists Look Ahead - TIME From the article:

In order to counter that argument [that homosexual marriage is being "foisted" upon Americans by "out-of-touch" judges], [attorney Mary] Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage there decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers who were friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than by decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign."

I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote, and another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda. The latter looks more like a coup than republican government.

He invented climate-alarmism profiteering

Gore’s Dual Role - Advocate and Investor - NYTimes.com From the article:

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

It's one thing to be in business and another thing to be intimately involved in crafting the policies that lead to GOVERNMENT contracts. And you gotta love the word-smithing of "global warming pollution reductions." Read: Carbon Dioxide. Which reminds me of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

The audacity of spendthriftiness

Wow.
Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. By a lot. - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency:

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.

In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.

Waging Obama's non-war

BBC NEWS--"US warned on deadly drone attacks":

The US has been warned that its use of drones to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan may violate international law.

UN human rights investigator Philip Alston said the US should explain the legal basis for attacking individuals with the remote-controlled aircraft.

He said the CIA had to show accountability to international laws which ban arbitrary executions.

Drones have killed about 600 people in north-west Pakistan since August 2008.

At first I was struck at how this article hardly referenced our current Commander in Chief, but Obama is mentioned in the next-to-last sentence:

Mr Alston's warning came as US President Barack Obama reviews US strategy in the Afghan campaign.

Which leads me to think that drones may perfectly illustrate Obama's uninspired war-by-proxy strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sloppy policy thinking

I came across a great post (and seemingly great blog) via Post Politics this morning.

The writer is pointing out that some women resist Feminism because of its Big Gov't baggage more than its presumed stances on "social issues." From the article (The Libertarian Side of Global Feminism? « Cosmopolitan Conservative):

As a social conservative in America, you would think that my main issue with feminism would be abortion. However, it is feminism’s deep commitment to socialism that bothers me the most. Feminists believe that to empower women, you need to weaken men. In order to help the poor, you have to take away resources from the rich through taxes, lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws or quotas. Feminists believe that in order to change society, the federal government has to step in and pass a law. It’s as though freedom, wealth and liberty are in limited quantities and must be rationed out to the masses in different levels determined by arbitrary perceptions of discrimination.

If feminists spent more time trying to alter society’s perceptions instead of bullying people through lawsuits, mandates and laws, I believe that a lot many more Americans would embrace the movement. However, feminists have allowed their cause to be co-opted by the Democratic party in order to maintain political power and relevancy. They’ve sacrificed the “principles” of their movement for short-term gains. Allowing a political party to take o[]ver your movement only weakens it. (Sadly, that comes from watching Republicans all but destroy the fiscal conservatism on the right. )

As I thought about how easy it is to blur party and principles, I was thinking about the perils of sloppy thinking on policy. For example, her last point about the GOP and fiscal conservatism. It is tempting for all of us to put on the ideological cruise control. And thermodynamically speaking it does not work to just rubber stamp the activities of Political Party.

The Pup tent Dems

Interesting email from my inclusive friends at Democrats.com:

Dear Ned,
After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.
And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.
The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.
These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.
Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option . . .

I have missed the poll that showed "an overwhelming majority of Americans support 'a robust public option'" (though the quotation marks in the original email are indicative of hair-splitting, I think), and I like how they put the word Democrats in quotation marks when referring to those Democrats who are bucking purported overwhelming majorities.

Under moral siege

Somer Thompson Body Found: Sheriff Matches Birthmark, Clothing - ABC News:

As investigators examined a child's body found in a Georgia landfill, they hoped they wouldn't find what they were looking for. But a birthmark and clothing told them that they had, indeed, found 7-year-old Somer Thompson, who disappeared Monday while walking home from school in her Orange Park, Fla., neighborhood.
. . . .
[Clay County Sheriff Rick] Beseler said detectives are following up on leads today and trying to finish locating all of the more than 90 sex offenders who live in a three-mile radius around Somer's home.

(emphasis added) That is astonishing. 90 people who have committed sexual crimes. How could you not feel under siege, morally speaking, in that neighborhood?

While mowing the lawn the other day, I got to thinking about how far my personal morals--about pornography or "adult entertainment"--should influence the public policy I push. How open am I to being a Libertarian in political terms? I had watched some of Penn Jillette's "penn says" online videos and was wondering to what degree I could cooperate with him on public policy. (I had ventured to the site to watch Jillette's comments (profanity advisory) about a nasty confrontation with surely non-mean-spirited, tolerant, Liberal Tommy Smothers.) The report about Obama's laxening of Federal interest in laws (here) relating to marijuana use also got me to thinking about such things.

As I ruminated on the ramifications of Libertarian policies, I was thinking of comparisons with industrial pollution in a community or with other passive dangers to humans, but they all seem to fall short of the danger that messed up humans pose to humans. I suppose what constitutes moral pollution is more subjective than biological/environmental pollution. And though all people aren't affected the same way by their use of pornography or marijuana (or alcohol), laissez faire treatment of such vices would be a difficult argument to make to Diena Thompson today. How could she not be concerned about the impact--on appetites and psyches and families--of cultural messages and public policies reflecting the view that people are objects and self-gratification is harmless? Where are the appropriate moral and political boundaries?

I'm seriously interested in hearing different viewpoints on the matter . . .

Bad actors on several levels

Frankly, after watching a couple youtube clips of the infamous Heenes, there is certainly one element of their story that is rather incredible: the parents, Richard and Mayumi, have received acting instruction. From a CNN story ("Authorities: 'Balloon boy' incident was a hoax" - CNN.com):

The parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, met in a Hollywood acting school . . .

If they're guilty of this costly hoax, they are guilty of bad acting on various levels.

Thanks, AP, for giving us the expert's "qualifications"

This AZ sheriff has always fascinated me--especially the pink prison boxers and tents for inmates, so I was curious to hear about a dust up he is having with the Obama Administration. In the AP's report (here) of the controversy, they are careful to "qualify" the opinion of one legal expert:

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office — like every other local police agency — can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up.

In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said.

'It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much,' said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

(emphasis added) This is almost humorous, if it wasn't so transparently biased and if its source wasn't so unduly influential at framing public debate. I'll be eager to see future background info on every legal scholar with a Liberal opinion.

Hey MSM, we need you to be our eyes and ears for the news, not our brains.

Ramming through healthcare "reform"

Yesterday while leaving the post office, I was targeted for a scam by two conmen (I'll share more about that in another post), and one thing that I realized as I interacted with these guys is how valuable a perception of haste is scamming a "mark."

I've been ruminating over a soundbite I heard from John F. Kerry the other day, something along the lines of, "We've been waiting since Teddy Roosevelt to do this" (in reference to socializing healthcare or whatever he's acting like this bill is going to do). That sounds about right and it's consistent with what I've been reading in Liberal Facism. The Dems' efforts on healthcare seem like a big rush for those of us who appreciate free markets (and free people), but maybe not for people like Kerry.

While radio channel surfing this morning I heard a great interview by Fred Thompson with healthcare expert James Capretta about the blushingly presumptuous (not to mention disingenuous) predictions from the Left about actual costs of current Liberal healthcare reform proposals. For example, the $821 billion estimate presumes $100 billion of reduction in fees paid to physicians that anyone in the know will admit are cuts that will not happen.

Another example was upwards of $100 billion that the Feds are presuming they can pass along to the States. Which was corroborated by candid statements from Gov. Bredesen. Terry Frank links to it at her place. terryfrank.net » Bredesen Predicts Even Larger Costs to Tennesseans

And now there's word (via Drudge) that Harry Reid is admitting the gross underestimate of likely costs for taxpayer-funded health insurance. Let's slow down a little Dems.

Al of Freddy's Fashion Mart fame speaks out on Limbaugh and NFL

From the master of division and incendiary-ness ("Group Cuts Ties With Limbaugh to Buy NFL Team" - FOXNews.com):

[Al] Sharpton added in a telephone interview that major sports leagues shouldn't welcome owners who are "divisive and incendiary."

Way to go TNRtL

It is intriguing to read Tennessee's Left (and Squishy Right) decry the TNDP's (a) failure to appreciate that "the Man" is more important than the party ("Why didn't they recruit a better $?%&@# Candidate?!?!?) and (b) failure to choose a candidate who was strong on their (Democratic) Principles while simultaneously assailing Tennessee Right to Life for making a non-partisan, principled choice to endorse a candidate who was solid on their issues over someone cool/arguably indifferent on their issues.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with Adam Kleinheider's assessment of the race . . . below is some of the less-informed buzz about Pat Marsh's win over Ty Cobb in the special election for Tennessee House District 62:

AuntB

Southern Beale


Left-wing Cracker

And comments at Post Politics.

Obama lets handlers handle this one

The question of where, if at all, the Obamas would attend church in D.C. had not even crossed my mind until I heard today that they were still church hunting. But I thought the following paragraph on the subject was ironic, given Obama's history of apparently indiscriminate pew-filling "Washington Churches Eye the Obamas" - NYTimes.com):

"Mr. Obama’s search for a church home has touched off a frenzied competition among ministers of various colors and creeds who are wooing the first family. The president, in turn, has sent emissaries to observe worship services, interview congregants and scrutinize pastors. (His aides even searched YouTube to vet one local minister.)"

(emphasis added) And later in the article we read this choice detail:

In January, Mr. Obama prayed at his first Sunday service here at Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, where hundreds of black professionals worship in a gleaming white sanctuary well beyond this city’s corridors of power. (The president took notes.)

(emphasis added)

Though I can hardly imagine how it is possible to be a part of a church when you are president or a president's family member, godspeed in finding your church, Mr. President.

Obama's Nobel [Ap]Pea[s]e Prize?

The whole "story" about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is fascinating to me. Sour grapes (here) might explain some of my feelings upon hearing the news, but really it is more of plain ol' disbelief. I think even honest Liberals would admit they couldn't believe the news when they heard it.

And it has led to an interesting car conversation with my 10-year-old. When I told her the news, and my take on it (the award was based on what Obama had promised to do) she really impressed me by referring to a joke she had told me about a year ago (aren't young minds impressive?). Here's the joke.

But what prompted this post was something from Jay Nordlinger at The Corner on National Review Online providing some interesting back story about the Nobel Prize:

I’ve read some commentary that the Nobel Committee has handed Obama a “poisoned chalice,” because now his freedom of action will be constrained: How can he take military action, when necessary — or persevere in war, when necessary — while holding the title of “peace laureate”? As it happens, this issue arose in Norway, about Norway, long ago. Let me explain.

Continue reading about the Nobel Prize's poison chalice history here.

Because Norwegians don't get to vote in American elections . . .

This paragraph provides all the necessary context for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's controversial pick of simply-successful-presidential-candidate Barack Obama ("Nobel Committee Courts Controversy Over Obama Peace Prize Decision" - WSJ.com):

The committee has also been criticized for political bias, especially after it awarded the Nobel to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007 -- moves that were both seen as rebukes to the then U.S. President, George W. Bush.

UPDATE: Thankfully, even Obama supporters are acknowledging--and calling the Nobel Committee out regarding, this silly decision.

PostPartisan - A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks?:

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

'Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

Amazing software not-too-crudely "automates" graphic design

PhotoSketch: Internet Image Montage from tao chen on Vimeo.

Unhealthy healthcare

Deroy Murdock shares some salient data on how unhealthy government-run healthcare is ("Government Medicine Kills"):

The Senate Finance Committee should sink Obama-Baucuscare and instead craft a patient-friendly, pro-market, limited-government approach to health-care reform. Perhaps some senators cannot fathom the Hippocratic Oath’s key insight: First, do no harm. If that’s Greek to them, here it is in language they understand: First, don’t kill your voters.

Iron[ies] of ironies

While reading about Ahmadinejad's Jewish heritage, I happened upon a photo album on the Telegraph's (UK) website. The album's introductory copy reads:

When Lennart Nilsson's pictures of developing embryos were published in Life magazine in 1965, they caused a sensation. Within days, the entire print run of eight million had sold out. More than 40 years later, the photographs have lost none of their power.

(emphasis added) I agree, and I encourage you to give 'em a look see. ("A Child is Born: Photographs of the foetus developing in the womb," by Lennart Nilsson)

But I had to comment on the irony of the caption beneath a stunning photo of a two-month old "embryo" (here):

Eight weeks. The rapidly-growing embryo is well protected in the foetal sac

Well, in light of Liberal American abortion policy, not really protected.

Which reminds me of the 40 Days for Life being conducted locally by Nashville Right to Life through Nov. 1st. I just read this account of a conversation between a crisis pregnancy counselor and a woman who changed her mind about getting an abortion:

She told me that she already had four children, was not financially sound, and had to work full time. She then added, "But that's not my baby's fault."

(40daysforlife.com)

The Olympics whiff

A couple of finger-pointing references in articles over at Drudge got me to thinking about what would have motivated the Obama to go to such lengths on behalf of getting the 2016 Olympics bid. Which led me to this intriguing article about the person--Valerie Jarrett, who led Obama et al down this path. Based on her bio, it's going to be unfortunate if she continues as the proverbial power behind the throne.

Polanski case as litmus test

Jonah Goldberg of National Review nicely states the litmus test-y nature of the Roman Polanski matter ("Polanski Controversy Shouldn’t Be Controversial") From the op/ed:

It all boils down to the fact that Polanski is famous and talented and an Olympian artist, living above the world of mortals. Indeed, if he didn’t rape that girl — and he did — Polanski would still be considered a pig in most normal communities. This is the man who, after all, started dating Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15 and he was in his 40s. His taste for teenage girls is an established fact.

His defenders don’t care. They are above and beyond bourgeois notions of morality, even legality.

And that’s the main reason I am grateful for this controversy. It is a dye marker, “lighting up” a whole archipelago of morally wretched people. With their time, their money, and their craft, these very people routinely lecture America about what is right and wrong. It’s good to know that at the most fundamental level, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

The American Infant Mortality Myth

Speaking of (ahem) lies in the healthcare debate Ann Coulter e_v_i_s_c_e_r_a_t_e_s the we-need-socialized-medicine-because-of-infant-mortality-rates myth* here.





*here, here, here . . .

Yarbro--now THAT'S progressive!

In announcing a District 21 primary challenge against "Dean of the Senate" Douglas Henry (D-Nashville) Jeff Yarbro offers this critique of Henry:

Too often, our elected representatives have spent more time playing partisan politics than supporting our schools, creating jobs, fighting crime, and improving our health. The Tennessee General Assembly is failing to address either the short-term economic crisis or the long-term challenges facing our state.

(emphasis mine) Surely Yarbro isn't accusing Doug Henry of this? Yarbro doesn't showcase any Liberal policies on his campaign site, but he is careful to sprinkle the word "Progressive" here and there. No doubt Henry gets under the skin of folks like Chip Forrester. I guess Yarbro wasn't willing to take on Jim Cooper?

The Whoopi cushion speaks . . . on "rape-rape"

Roman Polanski: backlash as Whoopi Goldberg says director didn't commit 'rape-rape' - Telegraph:

Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film director Roman Polanski didn't commit 'rape-rape' when he had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

And her flatulent ignorance on the facts of the case are astonishing.

Whose pro-life priorities?

Adam Kleinheider pronounces Tennessee Right to Life unwise in endorsing the more pro-life candidate (Post Politics: Right to Life makes wrong choice endorsing Democrat):

So why, on the cusp of victory for the political party that carries it's legislative portfolio, would the premier pro-life organization in Tennessee endorse the Democratic candidate? Why did TNRTL endorse Cobb?

The TNRTL endorsed him for the same reason a child defies a parent or a wife cheats on an emotionally distant husband. They wanted to be noticed. If the TNRTL had simply gone along and endorsed the Republican candidate, it would have been expected. But, by endorsing the Democrat, the TNRTL got to make a splash. They sent a message.

Yeah, and what is the message? That after 36 years of abortion on demand--an overwhelmingly minority position (here--and btw, ACK is relying on old polling data), Tennessee Right to Life expects more than lip service on their issue.

At least the sex predators are safe . . .

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar.

McCarthyism motivates the Hondurans!

The AP (here)nicely slants this story against those supporting Rule of Law in Honduras with this nice characterization of what happened there . . . they were skeered of them Commies!!!

In June, the country's Congress and courts, alarmed by Zelaya's political shift into a close alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba, backed the president's removal.

Vols make us proud

I liked this sentence from CBS' Dennis Dodd (While Vols stand tall, Gators at a loss after win):

Oh, you haven't heard? Tennessee defeated Florida 13-23.

A legal but perverse stimulant

I've always heard (and believed, for the most part) that aggressive tax-avoidance measures (aka "availing oneself of tax benefits") were justified because we were doing what the government wanted us to do. Well, it was interesting to find that exact line of reasoning in this blog post about how citizens are spending their stimulus-sourced monies.

“We did exactly what the government wanted us to do,” said Ms. Myers, a third grade teacher. “We stimulated the economy.”

Sorry, but no. All of these Cash for ________ programs do not "stimulate the economy." They encourage people to spend instead of save and buy this instead of that. Tax rate cuts, on the other hand, encourage people to work harder, increase productivity and grow the economy. Under Obama, we're getting more redistribution and higher tax rates — exactly the opposite of economic stimulus.

I find it hard to fault the couple in this article, but I have to concur with NR's Stephen Spruiell that no matter how innocuous the stimulus' intentions, it very often would qualify as a perverse incentive.

Racism behind every tree (UPDATE)

I was disturbed by the headline on Drudge that mentioned the race of a victim in a "beat[ing]": "WHITE STUDENT BEATEN ON SCHOOL BUS; CROWD CHEERS." I am bothered by racism, wishing that we could somehow move beyond or through our country's (and our world's) troubled history on the subject. Indeed, a flippant accusation of racism by Mike Lupica today gave me a similar feeling (criticizing Conservative protestors thusly: "Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren't enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.") Accordingly, I am always concerned that race be injected into--or hastily raised as a factor in, a given situation.

So I followed Drudge's link ("Tape shows beating on bus of Belleville West student" - STLtoday.com), and from reading the story, it appears that this is an example of a bully or bullies (or in a more modern articulation, "thugs") who perpetrated on a harmless victim--a guy who had the audacity to sit where a thug told him he couldn't.

I don't know anything about Belleville, Illinois, but a police spokesman seemed to jump to a racist conclusion:

"In my estimation, it's racially motivated," said Capt. Don Sax of the Belleville Police Department. He said one reason he had formed this opinion was that many of the students, most of whom were black, yelled their support for the beating.

"There was absolutely no justification for the beating either time," Sax said.

The still picture of the incident seems to reflect that a majority of the kids close to the incident were non-caucasians, yet the article says that, "students intervened to help the victim both times" (though "the crowd's" reactions generally reflect a disturbing moral poverty, too).

I won't deny that our society is coarsening, in general, but it is counter-productive in a variety of ways to summarily categorize such problems as motivated by race.

UPDATE: Ex-President (yes, picture the "Ex" who could never get the message) Jimmy Carter weighs in on the racial aspects of socializing healthcare . . . maybe Carter reads Mike Lupica.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE II: It gets worse . . . from RealClearPolitics.com:RealClearPolitics - Why Can't We All Just Get Along?:

"'Surrounded by middle-aged white guys -- a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't,' declared Maureen Dowd in her Saturday New York Times column. 'But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!'

Of course, it's fair. If inserting a racial epithet into a quote is wrong, I don't wanna know what's right. It is, moreover, common knowledge that middle-aged white men are bigots. If there's a problem with Dowd's premise, it's that Wilson likely lacks the intellect to string together more than two words per sentence. He is from South Carolina, after all."

Joe Wilson and there's safety in numbers

This op/ed from Mike Lupica, "whoever he is," inspired me (way to go Mike Lupica!!) to revisit the subject of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). ("Shrill shouters betray post-9/11 promises to be best we can be")

While I do not condone what Wilson did, I also didn't condone what other joint sessions of Congress have done during presidential addresses. The same could not be said of many from the Left who are attempting to make hay from the Wilson incident. As I've pointed out previously, it appears that the key in avoiding Lefty fire and brimstone for such a thing is to (a) be a Democrat, (b) make sure you have a crowd of other hecklers on your side, or (c) make sure you have the MSM on your side (that's kind of redundant with (a), isn't it?)

Marriage should be honored by all

Here's a great op/ed from NR's K-Lo on the state of marriage (and adultery) in America.

Wilson was rude, but "precedented"

I posted earlier this week (here) about Joe Wilson's outburst during the Obama's healthcare homile, in sum, I thought his heckling was not cool even if his assertion was correct. But it appears that he may have gotten the wrong idea about how to conduct oneself during a presidential address from . . . (drumroll) . . . Democrats:



From this video, it is fair to conclude that Wilson's problem was that his rudeness wasn't lost in a sea of rudeness from his fellow party members.

Update: Franken party trick

This is impressive. Al Franken freehands a surprisingly accurate map of the U.S.



I'm kind of interested to hear the audio of his running commentary . . . (UPDATE: here's an example of it--not flattering to Franken, candidly).


UPDATE II: While I still think it's cool, its sheen was a little diminished when I realized that he has been doing this for more than 20 years.

Re. healthcare reform lies and distortions . . .

You've likely heard the Dems' focus-grouped talking points about "lies and distortions" from opponents of socializing medical insurance. Well, in this week's column, Ann Coulter addresses the following Liberal lies about (Liberal) healthcare reform proposals: (Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series)

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job"

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

Republican Joe Wilson's heckling not cool

The outburst by Joe Wilson (Wilson the congressman, not the one who outed his CIA agent wife) during Obama's umpteenth national address last night was not cool. ("Obama heckled by GOP during speech: 'You lie!'" It was a breach of decorum and it was unprofessional.

That being said, I've always admired and kind of enjoyed the Brits' practice of Prime Minister's Questions.

Obama's speech: loco parents or in loco parentis?

One last thing (maybe) about Obama's homeroom assembly for public school kids K-12. The Left's response to criticism about the speech and accompanying lesson plans has been intriguing. Sure, some of the outrage was from people who see a socialist plot behind every Obama-era tree. But a lot of the outcry is/was from parents because the Obama Adminstration's strategy (yes, "strategy") upset, in my estimation, the delicate relationship parents have with schools. Parents rely on teachers and schools to exercise discretion in how they influence our kids, and the intent of this campaign (based on the pre-public-outcry lesson plans, really) was unsettling to many. Charles Krauthammer said something along these lines late last week:

Look, this was never about content. We were not going to have the president urging eight-year-olds to come out in favor of high taxes as patriotic. And anything he said would be perfectly OK, it will be “tie your shoelaces and be nice to your neighbor.”

What is odd and creepy is the conception of government that underlay whoever it was in the Education Department — and it could have been a plural — to have a question [for the kids to write about]: 'How can you help your president?'

That is not innocuous. Look, it is not going to do any real damage. We're not going to have people chanting poems about their Dear Leader. The question is that that kind of thing — about a relationship between the child and the president — is extremely odd. A child has a relationship with a parent or with a teacher, later a mentor or a coach, but not a president.

A child swears allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, but not the man who happens to be sitting in the White House. That's the difference between a 'popular democracy' (which is really a dictatorship) and a constitutional democracy.

And the idea that you would want a child to have any relationship with a president is odd. He shouldn't have any at all.

Update: NBC says (here), "A lot of the parents complaining aren't smart enough to raise them very effectively." I'm just sayin' . . .

Re. Van Jones: "lies"? "distortions"?

Of course Van Jones would shamelessly would flat-out deceive about his critics, but what is Dr. Dean, M.D.'s excuse?Van Jones decries 'lies and distortions,'quits as Obama's environmental advisor -- latimes.com:

The only person Sunday to offer a defense of Jones was former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has emerged as a titular leader of the country's liberal movement.

Dean told 'Fox News Sunday' that Jones was "brought down," and he called it a "loss for the country."

He said that he had spoken with Jones, and that Jones should not be held responsible for signing the Sept. 11 petition.

"He was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else," Dean said. "I think that's too bad."

Well, I think it's too bad that you have such contempt for Americans' intelligence. And it is interesting to see that Democrats aren't apologizing for Jones' Commie-ness.



For the record, I don't ever recall demanding or calling for Van Jones' resignation . . . I just think it's valuable to tar and feather a Marxist, though not run him out of town on a rail. Maybe people like me are who Jones was thinking of when he stated he had, "received encouragement from across the political spectrum to 'stay and fight.'"

Elementary principles of Obama's cookie jarred hand

Well, Liberals and Obama supporters are mocking concerns about plans by the Obama administration to speak directly to every school-aged child in America. But even though Democrats are flooding the media with fresh claims that the message was "to be about the need to work hard and stay in school," the facts are that this is their revised message. From reports:

"The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to 'help the president.'
. . . .
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.'

Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what 'the president wants us to do.'
. . . .
Presidential aides also acknowledged to [the Washington Times] that they helped the U.S. Education Department write the suggested assignments, which stirred criticism by many who say Obama is trying to indoctrinate the education system."

In light of the creepy Pledge of Allegiance (to Obama) video (here), and the original lesson plans disseminated by Obama's Department of Education (and "presidential aides") non-koolaid-drinking parents legitimately questioned the motives and intent of this virtually unprecedented maneuver.

UPDATE: Libs (in this case blogger Mark Brown) are pulling out all the Soros-funded tools to defend the Obama administration's blatant political overreach. Holding up a Q&A by Reagan with four groups of middle school-aged visitors to the White House (here) and history teaching mat'ls available at the Reagan Library. Come on, just admit that you got busted Libs and we can all move on.

Ferrier's flagellation and flailing

Lindsay Ferrier waxes nostalgic about the heyday of divorce and career-obsessed parents in today's City Paper. (Suburban Turmoil: "Blame Bellevue’s zombies," Nashville City Paper). Speaking about how children of That 70s Single Mom are screwing up, Ferrier writes:

Now, their children quietly go about the business of undoing all their work. We will give our kids the happy playground, the landscaped flowers, the cookie-cutter house, the neighborhood pool. We will fight harder to stay married, and beat ourselves up more if we fail. We will haunt our children’s schools and recitals and sporting events. We will be there, dammit, when they get home from school.

We will stumble through parenthood together, a generational mob with only one thing on what remains of our minds: giving our kids the childhood we think we should have had. And in true horror tradition, we will do far more damage than mere mortals could.

Look, I typically enjoy Ferrier's writing, and she is understandably troubled by quasi obsessive-compulsive parenting and living. But this essay constitutes a non-curative combo of self-flagellation and flailing at all the wrong culprits.

Lindsay, go buy your mother an afternoon at the spa or communicate your appreciation in a keepsake letter on nice stationery. I'd bet that she wouldn't take up arms for either side in the Mommy Wars. Ultimately, life/parenting/marriage are simple, though they're rarely easy. But please spare us any paeans to the mythical Enjoli ethic.

Classless and stupid

Not only is the statement--by Obama czar Van Jones, that "Republicans are a**holes," offensive, the premise of it is laughable: that Republicans were able to ram through unpopular legislation while "bi-partisan" Obama and the Democrats have been stymied these past eight months:

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark

"Republicans are the ones really pulling the plug on grandma."

Lefty partisan hackery (from Jacob Weisberg writing in Slate) takes one on the glass chin: Weisberg Unplugs the Logic Machine - Ramesh Ponnuru - The Corner on National Review Online. Hopefully Weisberg is embarrassed, but hey, whatever it takes to socialize medicine, right?

Following the science indeed . . . on "global warming"

"Global Warming and the Sun" by Jonah Goldberg. From the op/ed:

I applaud [Climatologist Gerald] Meehl’s reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. For all I know, he’s right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

A different kind of Kennedy

Ross Douthat writing in the NYTimes . . . "A Different Kind of Liberal":

Only 13 days separated the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder of the Special Olympics, from the death of her brother Ted last week. But amid the wall-to-wall coverage and the stream of retrospectives for the senior senator from Massachusetts, it was easy to forget that he wasn’t the only famous Kennedy sibling to enter eternity this month.
. . . .
Along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, Eunice belonged to America’s dwindling population of outspoken pro-life liberals. Like her church, she saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life.

Lockerbie perp's release: "justice" or "compassion"?

The AP headline reads, "Scotland: Lockerbie decision based on 'justice.'" I'm assuming that Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's deputy first minister was referring to capital J Justice (as in the Ministry of Justice) in this statement (here:)

"What I do know, and what I can state categorically ... is that these deals — if such deals existed — played no part whatsoever in the decision that Kenny MacAskill took to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds," Sturgeon, said. "That was a decision taken entirely on justice grounds, and there were no influences relating to political or economic interests that played any part in that."

"Nothing personal" . . . re. Ted Kennedy's passing

Here's an insightful op/ed from Mona Charen on the difficulty of separating the partisan/political from the personal.

And here's an op/ed that pretty closely articulates my perspective (even the spiritual aspect) on Kennedy's death.

Lies or just stupidity on healthcare?

As they say, the truth hurts, and--in all candor, truth delivered by Ann Coulter hurts even more. But this op/ed is a must read on the issue of Democrats' proposed "reforms" to healthcare delivery. Here's an excerpt:

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight!

Love advice from, of all people, Ann Heche . . .

Heche let 'er rip on ex-husband, and father of one of her children, Coley Laffoon while appearing on David Letterman last evening . . . view the video here.

MA Dems show their principle after Kennedy's death

Well, Sen. Ted Kennedy has passed away, and his loved ones deserve our condolences, but his passing has exposed some of those deep-seated democratic principles of Mass. Democrats clawing to keep control of his Senate seat:

Last week, Kennedy asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to give Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy's seat should Kennedy be unable to continue serving.

"It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election," Kennedy wrote in a letter to Patrick.

Lawmakers are weighing a bill now that honors Kennedy's request. Lawmakers are expected to hold a public hearing next month on the proposal, moving up the consideration date from October, and allowing legislation to be passed and signed into law before the deadline for a special election.

But a change in the law isn't a sure bet. Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, all Democrats, have stayed mum on whether they would support the change.

But Patrick told a local radio station Wednesday that he believes the proposal was "entirely reasonable" and said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.

Less oversight, over interrogation practices

This story, announcing the intention of the Obama administration to bring interrogation of certain detainees under the White House's direct authority, is interesting as the KOSsacks are surely foaming at the mouth to try anyone (ANYone!!) from the Bush administration for a war crime.

Though I think it is appropriate to review and criticize policies of current and past administrations, it seems ironic to me that Obama appears to be choosing to insulate these important actors from oversight from outside the Executive Branch (and even from outside the White House).

In addition, it is ironic to me that Obama is commissioning people to analyze various aspects of interrogation and provide a report to him . . . which is what people like Jay Bybee and John Yoo are being crucified for. From the article:

Still, the Obama task force advised that the group develop a "scientific research program for interrogation" to develop new techniques and study existing ones to see whether they work. In essence, the unit would determine a set of best practices on interrogation and share them with other agencies that question prisoners.

Guys, you better be careful what conclusions you reach after your analysis.

Where will Canadians go for healthcare?

You can hardly fault a Canadian guy with a $38k medical bill for feeling indebted to--heck, even shilling for, Canada's healthcare system, but this story demonstrates the "kernel of truth" behind the joke, "where will Canadians go for healthcare if America adopts socialized medicine?" From the article:

Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

On "fishy" White House email controversy

I have not been as concerned as others about sinister motives of "fishy information" gathering by comrades in the White House (here), but I thought their response to the controversy was kind of ironic:

"Despite reports by some bloggers and others in the media that have invoked a variety of sinister conspiracy theories, more people signed up for updates last week than during the entire month of July."

Hey! The White House collected a ton of email addresses last week? Wow!!

About "democracy" and town halls

For the record, I do not subscribe to the idea that legislators in a republic have a duty to care what polls from their constituents or phone calls from their constituents are saying about a given issue. Of course, it is seemingly more difficult to be re-elected if you ignore such pressure, but it is not wrong or a dereliction of duty to ignore it, in my humble opinion.

And the kind of rhetoric in the video below--of a man at a town hall forum hosted by PA's U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, is a little troubling. And I have no love for Specter, I just think that some folks need to dial it down and realize that accusations and near-threats are counter-productive.

Rove and US Atty firings: where's the injustice?

The first line of this story is tantalizing, but where's the beef? Where's the injustice? From the story:

White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door interviews with former Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers reveal involvement as early as May 2005 by Rove's office in the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Voter fraud (which is of the certifiable and Democratic Party variety) may not be important to certain DOJ attorneys, but it is to me and to most Republicans.

Stossel on healthcare reform

I encourage you to listen to John Stossel's latest piece on healthcare reform (here), and here's one his salient assertions in this Obama age of steamrolled schemes like "cash for clunkers" and "cap and trade":

When politicians interfere with free markets, unintended consequences harm everyone, except the companies that lobby hard enough to protect themselves.

Is it too much to expect our rulers to understand this?

That term "rulers" has bite, doesn't it?

Newt Gingrich expounds on Obamacare

I just wish that Newt could have kept his wedding band in mind over the years . . . watch this video of his appearance on ABC "This Week" on Healthcare reform and the debate over the debate about Healthcare reform . . . or, as Democrats are insisting "health insurance reform."

Whatever happened to "dissent isn't un-American"?

Is Pelosi really so stupid as to put these words in writing?

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,'' the two leaders write. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.''

I guess a fawning press coupled with an enormous bullhorn allows you to say just about anything.

They're just not that in to Paula Abdul

I don't watch American Idol, and though I've always marveled at how (dumb) lucky Paula Abdul was to be on the show, I haven't been following the subject of her future with the show at all. Accordingly, I was curious to read that she was leaving the show and curious to see that it appeared to be her decision. Her twitter statement read,

With sadness in my heart, I've decided not to return to IDOL. I'll miss nurturing all the new talent, but most of all being a part of a show that I helped from day 1 become an international phenomenon.

The self-congratulatory phrase was intriguing, too.
But then, all the way at the end of the article, they report that auditions for the show begin TOMORROW, and American Idol's producers had not even offered her a contract. Indeed, Abdul and her agent are "very sad[]" that she lost this gig.

On Obama's healthcare agenda . . . survey says?!?

Interesting CNN Poll (here) about public's views on the Obama (and Democrats') healthcare agenda. At first I was impressed (depressed?) by the favor/oppose numbers, then I was impressed by the whats-in-it-for-me numbers . . . but this "revelation" from the poll kind of undermines the credibility of the opinions given as well as the poll's overall value/utility:

Some lawmakers are holding town hall meetings or other public forums on health care reform over the next few weeks, where voters will get a chance to speak out about the various proposals for change. The poll indicates that seven in 10 Americans say they're very or somewhat likely to attend such events.

(emphasis added)

Comparing the numbers of people who seem to be "supporting" the proposal with the numbers of people whose support seems to be based on a vague perception that somebody else will be helped by it, you can appreciate why Obama & Co. have to cram this legislation--unread and undebated and unipartisan, down the throats of America.

On healthcare, how stupid . . .

. . . do they think we are?

Linda Douglass, of the Obama Administration, has responded via youtube (sure to go viral!!! Not.) to evidence (see here) that the Obama Administration and Democrats may be using their health insurance proposal as a trojan horse for socialized medicine. (here's the WH video response) The problem is that the response is premised on naked assertions ("nothing could be further from the truth") and on video clips from June and July of THIS year . . . kind of like looking at the fine exterior of the benign-looking trojan horse to determine if there are soldiers inside of it waiting to pounce on you once you put your polearm in the corner for the night.

This is insulting.

Healthcare debate bombshell

With one exception (see below) this compilation of video clips is bound to hugely impact the debate about Obama's (and the Democrats') proposed healthcare reforms.



What is the exception? I think that one can fairly conclude that Obama wants to do away with "[the system of] employer-provided health insurance" (at 34sec and 54sec, which I think is a good idea, if you're talking about removing the favorable tax treatment for buying healthcare insurance that self-employed people do not enjoy) . . . even as these words roll off my fingertips, though, I realize that he is probably using "employer-provided" as shorthand for "private." And I should probably stop giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

So it is reasonable to conclude from these clips that Obama and Democrats are pushing trojan horse legislation. And the interesting thing about trojan horses is that once the subject has come up, every "gift" offered is suspect.

Yelling at cops and stuff

I hate to keep revisiting the Gates arrest story, because it will lead some people to assert or conclude that I'm piling on or that I'm a racist, but I think--like Gates purports to believe, that this is a teachable moment on this issue of race in America.

Here's the best op/ed I've read on the subject; it's by Barry Saunders. It has a bit of a surreal feel to it because it's hard to believe that Saunders--who claims to have been stopped "a hundred or so times" by police, is able to have such an easygoing attitude about the subject. However, I think Saunders strikes the perfect balance between objectivity and empathy on the subject. For the record, I am very concerned that officers not prejudicially make traffic stops, but that isn't what's at issue here, in my opinion. Apparently, this black Boston police officer agrees with me.

And one other comment-worthy thing that I've heard of late (from a handful of Conservative talk-show people, as best I can recall) is, "it's not illegal to yell at a police officer." That's not true. Police are involved in very dangerous work. I'd say at least once per week it crosses my mind that I would not want to walk up to a vehicle in a traffic stop on a dark, deserted highway (or during broad daylight). And they are often in the minority under very tense circumstances that can readily escalate or spin out of control; thus, officers have a legitimate basis for expecting citizens to not be disorderly in such a situation. Those conditions may or may not have been present in the Gates arrest, but it is not correct to flatly say, "it's not against the law to yell at a cop."

Not so fast, Professor Gates

In the wake of reports (here) that Cambridge police were contemplating the release of audio surrounding his arrest for disorderly conduct, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. says he's "ready to move on . . ." From the AP:

In an e-mail to the Boston Globe late Friday, [Gates] said: "It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience."

In a statement to The Associated Press, Gates promised to do all he could so others could learn from his arrest.

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."

Based on reading these statements, Gates appears eager to move on as well as intent on maintaining his victim status. I suspect Gates is not eager for the facts behind this incident to come out, but this will not truly advance the debate about "racial profiling" if it incorrectly continues as race-merchant fodder.

The Left's mortal sin: hypocrisy

AC Kleinheider has linked to a Memphis TV story about past allegations about Paul Stanley.

As I stated in response to the comments (mostly from Left-of-Center internet personalities across TN) beneath ACK's post:

I love Dems and Libs telling me/Evangelicals that I/we need to get all judgmental and moralistic and unforgiving.

I and others have said that Stanley is unqualified–by our standards, to serve in the state senate. Any ambivalence on the issue reflects the very real tension between idealism and pragmatism in the political realm. A candidate/official’s character is difficult to assess, and the ultimate objective in choosing elected officials is the implementation of wise public policy, not selecting role models.

For me, these events engender feelings of betrayal and disdain toward Stanley and his ilk within my Party, and though this post by ACK is attractive like an auto accident, and though this information seems to affirm all my worst sentiments/conclusions about Stanley, I’m not sure that the article/post is altogether relevant. Unless our purpose is to provide more opportunities for Liberal tongue-clucking and discordant moralizing about hypocrisy.

If their lips are moving . . .

Today I heard a political commentator (okay, it was a local talk radio guy) repeatedly using the word "lie" in relation to Obama's presser this week on health insurance. It kind of got on my nerves, because I hesitate to use that word, and always bristled at the cavalier accusations from Lefties that Bushitler had lied or was lying about this or that ("or everything!!").

That being said, it got me to thinking about how I would characterize Obama's words and actions on healthcare and other issues. Jonah Goldberg has an insightful essay today about what he terms Obama's "bait and switch" on healthcare. From the article:

Now, Obama has come nowhere near meeting the burden of proof that the still inchoate and murky proposals in a still half-baked health-care bill will do anything of the sort. Indeed, so far the more persuasive argument — backed up by the Congressional Budget Office and others — is that Obamacare will cost a lot of money. And the only way it can actually “save” money is by rationing care. But Obama understands that he cannot sell his health-care reform in the language of the Left.

So, it’s a bait and switch. If anything, the overriding idea behind Obama’s approach seems to be to rush his “public plan” into law and expand its generosity over time. This is the tribute a center-left president must pay to a center-right country.

He’s in such a hurry because he senses Americans understand a bait and switch when they see one. On Monday he even proclaimed, “The time for talking is through.”

In ascribing the I think what motivates most Libs is an Elitism which leads them to believe they or gov't "experts" know what's best for average people; thus, it is proper for the gov't to impose that "best" policy, whether or not the average folks agree. And, charmingly, in order to get citizens of our republic to go along with what Liberals know to be in their best interest, it is not wrong to mislead citizens a little bit . . . sometimes.

A witness in a court room must swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That's probably an impossible standard for most political discussions, but problems with "truth" are utterly predictable if moral relativism is presupposed.

Tough vote on Sotomayor

As announcements trickle out regarding GOP senators' intended votes on the Sotomayor nomination, I can't help but feel (a teeny bit of) sympathy for them. Why? Because the Sotomayor who testified on Capitol Hill last week is different than the Sotomayor who has judged and seminared and opined over the past 17 years (and who is also the Sotomayor likely to reappear once seated on the Supreme Court). As Jay Nordlinger writes at NationalReview.com:

Well, that was an amazing performance by Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate committee. The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone. Gone was the woman who talked about the role of “physiology” in judging, who insisted that impartiality, objectivity, neutrality — all of that — was a fantasy, and a bad one. In her place was a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law: the rule of law, and nothing but. Doesn’t make a difference whether you’re a Latina or a whitey or whatever. “Empathy”? Never heard of it. Certainly has no role in the courtroom.

A funny thought occurred to me: Maybe President Obama should withdraw Sotomayor’s nomination? I mean, she seemed to repudiate everything he stands for in judging.

I must say I was especially grateful to those liberals who said, publicly, they were disappointed in Sotomayor’s choices: who said that her testimony before the committee was dishonest and disingenuous. They scored her for perpetuating the childish belief that judging can be impartial. They wanted the old, candid, racialist Sonia back. I would like to add that I think the old, candid, racialist Sonia would have been just fine. What I mean is, the Senate would have confirmed her anyway — there is that mountain of Democratic votes. She could have let it all hang out. She did not have to dissemble to stymie people like me.

The Sonia Sotomayor who testified before the committee, people like me could endorse and vote for. Somebody’s lying: either the Sonia Sotomayor of the past or the Sonia Sotomayor of the present. Or she has undergone a conversion. I doubt that such conversion has taken place. You?

So which vote should they cast? The one that will be characterized as partisan (and perhaps bigoted) or the one that will not avert her confirmation and is fairly rooted in a concern for Rule of Law and sound judicial philosophy?

Thank you Cathy McBroom

This story about the sexual and ethical misconduct (I don't separate the two, actually) of Federal Judge Samuel B. Kent is very troubling--on a variety of levels, but apparently the story will have a somewhat satisfying ending because of the courage of Cathy McBroom in risking her job to come forward with charges against the judge.

One section of the report is particularly inspiring:

In the most emotional moment [of her testimony before a House impeachment body], Wilkerson described trying to tell her teenage daughter to never endure any sexual misconduct, even if it meant harsh consequences such as losing her job.


"How could I look her in the face and tell her these things when I couldn't do it myself," she said, her voice cracking. "So I had to come forward. I had to do the right thing."

Here's the latest on the case.

Slow down, Big O

Rich Lowry's got it right ("Like the Stimulus, ObamaCare is Reckless"):

When Barack Obama pilfered Martin Luther King Jr.'s line about the 'fierce urgency of now,' he wasn't kidding. The line has come to define his presidency. His legislative strategy moves in two gears - heedlessly fast and recklessly faster.

As with the stimulus package, Obama's health-care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now.

Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama's poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program.

Record lows in Mr. Hot Air's hometown

Via the Drudge Report, Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. - WHNT.

Which is a good reason to link to An Inconvenient Truth's beat down, The Great Global Warming Swindle, watch the first episode here.

Go viral young man--"Just Tax" video

Below is the "Just Tax" parody of the Lady Gaga hit "Just Dance." The video was shown to House Republicans in a GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning. I suspect Peter Cowman may be busy in the coming year.

No license to rant

I am committed to racial reconciliation, and I'm always hesitant to touch the true third rail of politics--race, but a couple of stories of late have motivated me to point out that the color of your skin does not give you a license to rant (more than anyone else, at least).

You have no doubt heard about the man (Harry Alford) who confronted Sen. Barbara Boxer because she was lumping him in with other racially-designated organizations during a recent hearing. While I have to admit it was somewhat gratifying to see someone treating Mrs. Boxer ((grin) rudely, I have to admit that I never quite sympathized with Mr. Alford's indignation. After all, he is the head of an organization (the National Black Chamber of Commerce) that exists--ostensibly, to represent a group of people based on race (we have a purely "business" Chamber of Commerce). As a person is opposed to just about every policy preference of Barbara Boxer, it is difficult to care about what Mrs. Boxer is/was feeling, but I did sympathize with her predicament . . . Mr. Alford shouldn't lead with race and expect not to be categorized on that basis. That being said, maybe Mr. Alford and Boxer are now appreciating the sharp-edged nature of racial politics.

And on that note, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, should not be a news story (or not as it is being spun by the MSM (""Black scholar's arrest raises profiling questions"). I would bet that Gates (or at least Race Merchants) would have been up in arms if he had ended up dead or otherwise victimized because the police had ignored a report that two men with backpacks had seen forcing entry into an apartment. The facts as reported, even slanted in favor of Gates and even characterized as an example of possible racial profiling, do not justify Gates' actions.

Update: Charges Dropped Against Gates

Virginia harbinger

Reeling from the relative Obama landslide in '08, the GOP could make a splash in governor's races across the U.S. in the next two non-presidential election cycles--and 38 states will hold elections for governor this year or next year.

And here's a bomb shell from Virginia which is electing its gubernatorial race on November 3 (along with NJ):

Sheila Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and the former chairwoman of Democratic Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's inaugural committee, crossed party lines Monday to endorse Republican Bob McDonnell as Kaine's successor, arguing McDonnell would do a better job of spurring economic development in Virginia.

Kathleen Parker's identity politics sinkhole

Kathleen Parker has an off-target essay up today about the Sotomayor hearings. In particular, Parker misinterprets legitimate questions about Sotomayor's wise-latina-makes-better-judge views as sexist/chauvinistic/racist. From the article:Kathleen Parker - The GOP's Sotomayor Sinkhole - washingtonpost.com:

But those who picked the wrong battles during her confirmation, reminding Americans that they are blind to their own biases and attitudes, may find themselves increasingly lonely in that great big tent.

By questioning Sotomayor about her race- and sex-based ideology and judicial philosophy, the Senators (who are jurisprudentially Conservative, but only happen to be male and white) are appropriately establishing a standard for Rule of Law and the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional republic.

I believe that a sparsely populated GOP big tent is a predictable result of cluelessly (or worse, insidiously) demagoguing legitimate questions of public policy. Way to go, female, people-pleasing Kathleen Parker.

Healthcare reform on the bottom shelf . . .

The Democrats' Legislative Anschluss continues with a rushed vote on socializing health insurance. And fast action requires fast talk.

VP Joe Biden was speakin' to the "folks" over at AARP yesterday; speakin' down to them, might be more accurate (here):

Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance and that people who cannot afford insurance will be covered by the plan.

“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

“And those people who can’t afford to get in there, up to a certain income, we’re going to subsidize them, you get in there and we’ll help you pay for it,” Biden said.

Isn't he reassuring?

Easy on Labor . . .

I'd like to hear some from the Left (Obama supports it!) explain why "card check" (or "majority sign-up," as Labor is calling it) is good or even "moral." From the NYTimes (here):

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

Coburn pickin' a fight?

I agree with Sonia Sotomayor's handling (at least in the context of this video) of this poorly framed question from Sen. Coburn on "personal self defense."

I think he's driving at the 2nd Amendment, but that is a distinct question from "personal self defense." I also sympathize with her unwillingness to tell her personal opinion (apart from legal considerations) about any such right. It is appropriate to ask her whether she believes that the Constitution provides for such a right or whether a particular statute provides that "right," and a good judge (one acting within his/her proper role) need not go beyond such consideration.

Who the grown-ups are (on foreign policy)

Andy McCarthy has a great op/ed about Congressional Dems' immature politics (Another Phony Scandal).

From the essay:

That is, while Democrats politicize “torture,” “domestic spying,” the Patriot Act, and now the CIA’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda, Republicans are generally supporting Obama’s Pakistan policy for the greater good of protecting our national security.

Eventually, people do figure out who the grown-ups are.

French healthcare scandal

Interesting "scandal" regarding France's socialized healthcare system.

Note: story translated from here with www.translate.google.com .

About Cheney's "secret" program . . .

One story about the recently-revealed "secret program" (that "Cheney lied about" and Panetta (heroically!) reported and terminated) ominously states that the program was related to "assassinations." Well:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.

What exactly is "historic" about her?

Patrick Leahy betrays (here) his identity politics:

Noting that only 101 people get a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court, Mr. Leahy highlighted Judge Sotomayor's credentials.

"President Obama has done his part and made a historic pick, now the Senate has to do its part," he said.

I knew he failed out of Vandy, but . . .

I knew that he failed out of grad school at Vanderbilt, but was Al Gore really stupid enough to use the phrase "awareness [of "global warming"]" and "driving change through . . . . global governance" in the same sentence?

(Here's the source doc; video at 1m10s)

Here's some historical context for Gore's statements (though the article mischaracterizes Gore's statement, in my opinion).

I know the window for credibly misusing climate statistics is probably closing on Al, but he better not get ahead of himself.

Speaking of maneuvers to the rear . . .

President Obama is getting some razzing (though much of it is the "boys will be boys" variety) for supposedly getting caught ogling a young woman during a G8 photo op, but I, for one, do not believe he is guilty.

Here's a video of the "incident."

On the other hand, Sarkozy (unsurprisingly) does not seem to be acting nobly . . .

Administration's recent strategic maneuver to the rear

Someone is probably keeping track of the Obama administration's various retreats from overheated campaign rhetoric about the GWOT (a campaign, the political one, not the military, which for the Democrats has lasted the past 8 years). Here's one "strategic maneuver to the rear" I spotted in a WSJ article this a.m. in relation to claims that CIA Director Panetta has admitted that the CIA misled Congress:

The flap over Mr. Panetta's recent disclosures reignites a broader debate between Congress and the executive branch over the limits of executive power. The release of the letters came the day before the House is scheduled to debate an intelligence bill that will test those limits once again.

The White House issued a veto threat on Wednesday over provisions in the bill that would require more expansive briefings of intelligence committee members on covert actions, taking a position against Democratic lawmakers and in line with what the Bush administration had advocated.

The provision would raise "significant executive privilege concerns," according to a White House policy statement. The broader bill contains several measures to bolster Congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

[Democrat House Member] Holt said he was surprised Mr. Obama continued to support the practice of more limited briefings.

Exploiting McNair

Mike Lupica (of the NY Daily News) is seizing upon July 4th's high-profile murder (and likely suicide) in Nashville to decry America's "gun culture." ("Steve McNair's famous face becomes just another victim of American gun culture") From the article:

According to the The Tennessean newspaper, McNair had a permit to carry a handgun. The weapon found next to the bodies was a semiautomatic.

There were so many wonderful statistics attached to McNair's career, the most important being the one Super Bowl, the four Pro Bowls to which he was selected, all the games he won. But the last was the only one that mattered. He is the 36th homicide victim in Nashville this year. That is down from 41 at the same time last year.

Only in a country of gun lovers is that considered progress.

Only to a gun grabber is that statistic not considered progress.

Franken doesn't bring me flowers . . .

I was reading an Al Franken story this a.m., and was reminded of what I like about him. Franken said that he wanted to be "the people's proxy" during the Sotomayor hearings. From the story:

"As someone who will have been in the committee a grand total of six days and isn't an attorney I kind of see myself fulfilling a certain role for Americans watching the hearings," Franken said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"So I kind of see myself as people's proxy, not that the other senators aren't, but certainly that's the kind of role I want to play," he said.

For the record, I always enjoyed the pre-political Al Franken's work . . . I can hardly believe that anyone wouldn't, so that's no big story, I guess. I think he would be a fun guy to know, as long as he didn't fly off the handle about Bushitler or something when we were hanging out. He's a real intellectual and creative talent and one common trait of a comedian is that they are able to laugh at themselves.

But it is hard for me to look past his decade-long vitriol for, and demonization of, anyone who holds Conservative political views. I guess he is akin to our Ann Coulter, and I'm even tempted as I type this to distinguish her from Franken or to offer a defense of her; but I can understand why some people don't like her.

Sort of like when the class clown becomes teacher for a day, here's hoping that Franken's new job--one in which bomb-throwing is disfavored, will change him for the better. I think it already has, based on the news coverage I've seen of him during his campaign and after the election.

McNair's home

Here's a link to McNair's home-for-sale site. Beautiful home: one room pic has a poster-sized picture of McNair and one of his sons at LP Field; another pic shows the oven bearing a Baltimore Ravens sticker on the glass.

Re. Palin: lame is as lame does

The "Palin Resigns" story comes as a shock, and I think the "lame duck avoidance" rationale she has offered is lame. ("Sarah Palin Says She Will Resign as Alaska Governor" - NYTimes.com). From the article:

Ms. Palin said that she had decided not to seek re-election when her term expires at the end of next year and that, given that, she did not think it was fair to her constituents to continue in office.

“As I thought about this announcement that I would not seek re-election,” she said, “I thought about how much fun other governors have as lame ducks. They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions.”

“I’m not going to put Alaskans through that,” she said. “I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That’s not how I’m wired. I’m not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual.”

What? I think that's a load of moose dung. This smells like quitting to me, and I can't see that it will help her in a run for president. Our country would benefit from more, not fewer, elected officials who are serving without devoting half of their attention and resources to being re-elected.



Update: This John Fund report helped to give context to Sarah Palin's decision. For example, I didn't realize that political enemies had filed 150 FOIA requests and various ethics "complaints," resulting in nearly $500k legal expenses, over the past 9 months. That's wrong. And I suspect that my assessment of her decision may well be wrong, too.

Parody against homosexual adoption in NC?

Hey, did the Onion or Scrappleface dream up the child rape/incest case in Durham, NC? It is even more suspicious, given how little it is being covered by the MSM. This guy is the poster child for all the concerns that people have about endorsing adoption by folks who engage in homosexual activity.

According to the indictment:

On Monday, . . . Det. Timothy Palchak of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, chatted online with a person using the name “F.L.” Palchak said “F.L.” described specific sex acts he had performed on a 5-year-old child and said that he lived in Durham.
. . .

[The perpetrator--Frank Lombard] is asked how he got access to a child so young. "Adopted," he replied, and said that the process was "not so hard ... esp (sic) for a black boy."

In the chat, "F.L.” told Palchak that abusing the child was "easier when he was too young to know what was happening and when he couldn't talk ...He had a little too much Benadryl. Was knocked out."

According to the report, the perp, who again is alleged to have performed sex acts on the child and offered the child to others for the same purpose, is "associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy" and more specifically directs the "Health Inequalities Program" doing AIDS education -- which gives new meaning to the term "extension program."

But it gets even more cliche'd. I had never heard of a "co-housing" community, but the article gives some context:

Neighbors of Lombard had nothing to say about him Saturday to a reporter who visited Eno Commons, a co-housing community in north Durham.

Residents ordered the reporter to leave the neighborhood, which emphasizes communal life.

A roadblock with a "no trespassing" sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood.

Co-housing communities allow residents have a say in the area's design, and they manage and maintain the community together. Decisions are made through consensus, and residents share common space.

Sounds like a corny, Liberal place, frankly. But the website highlights that people of all "affectional preferences" are welcome. And you gotta love the gay-friendliest make of car helping the neighborhood to circle the wagons of one of their own. Nice.

Thanks for the assist, Mr. Lombard!