…such a happy area of the country?
I dunno; must like cold and snow, I guess.
But the northern midwest is the happiest part of all—brrrr!
More on the “Obamacare will let you quit your job” front
I happened to catch this segment last night. It shows how far liberals and the left are willing to go these days in admitting their devotion to the idea that people who decide not to work should be supported by others who do work. I guess that’s what the word “entitlement” has come to mean:
[ADDENDUM: (I added this in a comment to this post, but I’m going to highlight it here, too.)
This clip from the Hannity show is also strange (although hardly unusual) in that the premises of the discussion are never made clear (nor did Biden make them clear).
Are we talking only about single mothers? If a single mother can afford to quit her job to raise her children just because of Obamacare, where does her money come from? Is she independently wealthy, and if so, why did health insurance premiums hold her back before and keep her in her job? Or is the discussion only limited to single mothers with pre-existing conditions, a small group? And how are they to eat and clothe and house themselves and their children if they now quit their jobs? Is health insurance their only expense? Plus, even prior to Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance on the individual market (not tied to employment) in most states, often subsidized or at least with premiums capped by law, and in some states at the same rates as other people without pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue” states, for example).
Plus, if the idea was to subsidize mothers (or fathers) to stay home with young children, why clothe that idea in the guise of Obamacare? Why not pass a bill to subsidize mothers or fathers to stay home with young children? Because, of course, it wouldn’t have been passed and could not be sustained financially. So is it “fair” to allow some to stay home at the expense of those who must work? What are the criteria to decide who the lucky ones will be?]
Jim Crow—not
The constant comparisons of Arizona’s now-defunct effort (SB 1062) to protect the religious rights of vendors to refuse to be part of gay marriage ceremonies to southern Jim Crow laws requiring de jure discrimination against blacks represent a tower of ignorance and exploitation.
Ignorance of history is always a good bet these days, and can be exploited by unscrupulous propagandists (is that an oxymoron?). Their goal is to equate the struggle for gay rights to the older struggle for equal rights for African-American people. Whether or not that parallel is correct, there is absolutely no parallel between the Arizona law and Jim Crow laws of the antebellum South.
Jonah Goldberg sums it up nicely:
The ridiculous invocations of Jim Crow are utterly ahistorical, by the way. Jim Crow was state-enforced, and businesses that wanted to serve blacks could be prosecuted. Let the market work and the same social forces that have made homosexuality mainstream will make refusing service to gays a horrible business decision ”” particularly in the wedding industry!
Throwing words like “Jim Crow” around with no knowledge of their meaning except that they mean BAD!!! would never be effective if people were not historically illiterate as well as lacking in the ability to think logically. But that’s what it’s come to, and that’s no accident either.
The use of the Jim Crow analogy has become so widespread that I was shocked to see it misused by conservative writer Ben Domenech in an article he wrote for The Federalist. Although it appears he’s mocking the exaggerations by the law’s critics, his article reads as though he also might not understand why the term is completely inappropriate in the first place:
Let’s get a few things straight. Jim Crow for gays was not prevented by Jan Brewer’s veto of their religious liberty bill last night. Indeed, most Arizona businesses ”“ like most businesses across the country ”“ are free under the law to discriminate according to sexual orientation or anything of the kind. …
The reality is that discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodation and in numerous other ways is for the most part totally legal at the state level. Yes, this crazy Jim Crow reality that has been fearmongered to death is already the law in most states. Most people think it’s illegal, but it isn’t ”“ last night I heard a sports radio host describing America as a place where “no one has any right to deny anyone any service any time for any reason”, which is pretty much the opposite of freedom of association. But while it is legal, it rarely comes up ”“ because it is so infrequently an issue!
To clarify: “Jim Crow for gays” was never an issue in the Arizona law one way or the other, and not just because people are free to associate or disassociate with gay people even without it. “Jim Crow for gays” would be a law that ended freedom of association rather than protecting it, a law that mandated separation, a law that prevented heterosexuals from serving gay people (at weddings or otherwise) rather than protecting their right to decide not to if it violated their religious beliefs. The fact that many states allow certain kinds of “discrimination on the basis of sex” (or rather, on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what I believe Domenech actually means) is not a “crazy Jim Crow reality,” either, whether you agree with those laws or not. Prescribing disassociation would be.
Jim Crow laws did not protect freedom of association, nor did miscegenation laws in the states where they were passed. Au contraire.
Slashing defense: tying his successors’ hands
This exactly coincides with my own opinion about the main motive behind Obama’s desire to drastically slash the military:
Limiting the power his successors can wield is, for Obama, not just an unalloyed good idea but an imperative. Call it the “stop America before my successors sin again” imperative.
Obama has always played the long game. That’s part of what Obamacare is all about, and it’s not over yet; there are more twistings and turnings in that story, including the single payer goal.
True, also, of these changes in our military capability. Obama is not content to draw down our capacity to wage war while he’s president. His goal is to extend his reach into the future and make it very difficult for whoever follows him—if that person be so inclined—to reverse the trend. He also wishes to signal his stance unequivocally to the world at large: the withdrawal of the US as the main military enforcer of order in the world.
I’ve written before (don’t have time to find the link at the moment) that Obama’s foreign policy has already caused other countries to see the US as less steadfast, and this holds true even if the next president is a conservative foreign policy hawk. American foreign policy has always been relatively stable and reliable. No matter who was president, there has been a general tendency to stand by allies and go against enemies, although the degree to which these things have been done varied.
Obama has already changed that game. The world knows that if there could be one president who reverses those rules there can be more, and America no longer can be relied upon.
So this proposed reduction in arms is part of that big picture. A future president who would want to reverse this would need the support of Congress, and time. That was part of England’s difficulty during the Chamberlain years—the Prime Minister was, among other things, playing for time because England was unready to fight the Nazi menace, even had it been willing.
Sometimes I wonder how much Obama knows about history. But mostly I think he knows the history he needs to know all too well.
[NOTE: This proposal would not fly if it didn’t tap into a generalized unwillingness on the part of the American public to understand that waging war is not necessarily bloodthirsty warmongering. Most people hate war—I include myself in that group—and many people seem to think it now unnecessary. This feeling has been building since the Vietnam War, and if it continues it will make it nearly impossible for us to defend ourselves or others. Its parallel in private life has to do with the desire to ban guns, as though that would solve the problem of guns in the hands of criminals rather than just give those criminals more and more power.
By the way, a personal note: some of my Communist and pro-Communist relatives were in the forefront of the nuclear disarmament (unilateral, of course!) movement while I was growing up. So I am well aware of the historic influence of the left on these movements, from personal experience.]
This news…
…may render you speechless.
But it won’t render your dog speechless. Au contraire.
De-extinction: should we do it?
The NY Times Magazine has an article about the looming possibility of what’s called “de-extinction”—that is, bringing back extinct species such as the passenger pigeon, or something close to them. It seems to be within our grasp to bring to life a few individuals, anyway; it’s hard to believe that the flocks of gazillions that darkened the skies could be revived, because the habitat on which they depended has changed also.
I wrote the world “could” in the above sentence, but the more appropriate word might be “should.” Humans have brought science to the point where we can (or think we can) do a lot of things that used to be science fiction dreams, but should we? Science fiction, in addition to speculating about what might be possible someday, has usually dealt with the more philosophical question of how it would effect human beings and the world itself.
There are people with the idea that any creature that vanishes, especially a pretty bird like the passenger pigeon whose demise was in large measure the result of human predation, represents a tragedy at the hands of a guilty humankind—and that it follows that if humans can undo that tragedy, they should. But it ain’t necessarily so.
A group called “Retrieve and Restore” has scientific arguments for the process:
Just as the loss of a species decreases the richness of an ecosystem, the addition of new animals could achieve the opposite effect. The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting ”” a benefit with global significance, as the Arctic permafrost contains two to three times as much carbon as the world’s rain forests. “We’ve framed it in terms of conservation,” Brand told me. “We’re bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic.
Others who argue for de-extinction just think it would be cool.
Those who argue against it mount the habitat argument I mentioned above, as well as the idea of introducing opportunities for pathogens. Some conservationists are worried that de-extinction will inure the public to the idea of extinction, and that people will then start to see extinction as a temporary and reversible thing.
But by far the best argument against de-extinction, to my way of thinking, is the possibility of “unacceptable ecological or socioeconomic impacts.” The re-introduced creature could disrupt the ecology of the environment into which it is placed, in unforeseen ways. What’s more, these are not really clones; they are composites resulting from the insertion of the extinct animal’s DNA into an already-existing and somewhat-related species.
Even though the details are new, the dilemma is an old one: Frankenstein, Faust, Prometheus, the introduction of the dandelion into the Americas. Be careful what you wish for.
The lawless lawyer of the Obama administration
Attorney General Eric Holder to state AGs: disregard your oaths of office. I did!:
Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.
“It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.”
That last sentence is Holder’s idea of an Orwellian joke.
To clarify what the law should be: a state attorney general is sworn to uphold and defend his/her state’s laws. If he/she can’t do that, resign. Better yet, stay and uphold one’s oath by defending the law competently in an appeal. That way the issue will have its day in a higher court with a proper defense, so that the higher court can decide the law’s constitutionality and determine how that particular case stands in terms of a “core constitutional issue” such as equal protection.
An AG is not a judge. If an AG wants to become an appeals court judge and decide such questions, he/she is free to attempt to do so. AGs have some discretion, of course, in the cases they choose to prosecute in their own state. But they should not have discretion in choosing whether or not to defend a duly-passed and never-declared-unconstitutional law of their own state. And the AG of the US should not be encouraging them to choose not to defend such laws, either.
Eric Holder knows that. And the fact that he is ignoring it, and dictating otherwise to state AGs (a highly unusual action for a US Attorney General, as even the NY Times admits), is in fact “political and based on policy objections.”
Disgraceful. And yet so typical of this administration.
Fukushima cancer risk negligible
It turns out that the amount of radiation exposure from the Fukushima reactor accident and any resultant projected increase in cancer cases has been minimal.
But people in the comments section at the article refuse to believe this, so strong is the assumption that it must be otherwise.
My previous, fairly lengthy article on the real health consequences of Chernobyl et. al., can be found here. Fukushima, of course, involved a much smaller amount of radiation exposure.
So much of what people are certain they know is actually wrong. The after-the-fact facts don’t seem to ever reach them. This seems to me to be a combination of media hype, scientific illiteracy, and how difficult it is to change one’s mind about something, even when preconceptions are confronted by evidence.
D’Souza versus other campaign finance cases
[NOTE: I originally wrote some of this as part of a comment of mine, but I thought I’d highlight it in a post of its own.]
The D’Souza case has sent a chill up the spines of conservatives and other Obama opponents, exactly as it probably was intended to do. The talking point about the case from the left is that, of course, there’s nothing special about D’Souza and that he is not the subject of special “consideration” in being prosecuted for this offense. Others have been so prosecuted—including, for example, Hillary Clinton contributor William Danielczyk.
But the Danielczyk case is not really parallel to the D’Souza case. The similarity is that campaign contributions were involved, and straw donors. However, the Danielczyk case involved direct corporate contributions (which have been banned for a century), ten times as much money as with D’Souza, as well as many more people:
Prosecutors had accused Danielczyk and Biagi of lining up individual donors to contribute to former secretary of state Clinton’s senate and presidential campaigns in 2006 and 2008, then reimbursing them with money from Galen. They used at least 35 other employees or friends to disguise more than $186,000 in contributions, then paid back the so-called straw donors with money from Galen’s corporate coffers, court filings show.
A better comparison to the D’Souza case would be the Pierce O’Donnell case. Here are the facts in O’Donnell:
O’Donnell was indicted in 2007 and charged with arranging “conduit contributions” to John Edwards’ presidential campaign. O’Donnell was accused of working with an unnamed co-conspirator to solicit contributions for Edwards from employees from O’Donnell’s law firm, with the promise to reimburse them for the contributions. In all, O’Donnell and his co-conspirator raised $26,000 in conduit contributions, according to the grand jury’s indictment.
But O’Donnell was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors and got by with basically a wrist slap. And in fact, it was his second campaign finance offense, not his first (see this), which may explain why authorities decided to prosecute him.
So, cases such as D’Souza’s are indeed sometimes prosecuted. Accent is on the “sometimes.” In fact, compared to the frequency of the offense itself, one can assume that they are probably quite rare. But there’s no doubt that sometimes Democrats are prosecuted as well as Republicans, and that it can be hard to know what motivates any particular prosecution.
However, see this for an overview:
Dominic Gentile of Gordon Silver, who represented Nevada campaign finance defendant Harvey Whittemore, conducted exhaustive research on so-called conduit payments of the sort D’Souza is accused of making. In Whittemore’s sentencing memo, he documented civil and criminal penalties in “straw donor” cases. “Twenty thousand dollars?” Gentile told me. “I’ve never heard of a $20,000 criminal case” for campaign finance violations.” And at D’Souza’s arraignment Friday in Manhattan federal court, his own lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told U.S. District Judge Richard Berman that whatever D’Souza did, his conduct wasn’t criminal.
So even if one concedes that D’Souza was guilty, he is not guilty as charged. The charge is excessive and highly unusual.
Would there have been the same sort of headlines had D’Souza been charged with a misdemeanor? I doubt it, although the MSM would still have made the most of it. But criminal charges are so much more effective, and how many people pay attention to these fine distinctions?
Perhaps the goal (other than tarnishing D’Souza) is to make him plead guilty to a misdemeanor in some sort of plea bargain. That would at least make the punishment fit the crime, although there would always be the added punishment of harming his reputation. But if he is guilty and copped a plea to a misdemeanor, at least that would be roughly equivalent to what happened to other people (such as lawyer Tab Turner) under somewhat similar circumstances.
Note that, as in the O’Donnell and Danielczyk cases, Turner solicited the contributions from co-workers or employees. In addition, Turner (as in Danielczyk) used corporate funds for the reimbursement of the straw donors. Turner, like O’Donnell, was also a lawyer:
Tab Turner solicited four $2,000 contributions from his co-workers at Little Rock law firm Turner & Associates in January 2003 and illegally reimbursed them for their contributions using a company credit card, according to the FEC. He also used a company credit card to make an illegal campaign contribution in his own name and to pay for various campaign expenses. Federal law prohibits donors from making contributions in others’ names and prohibits direct corporate contributions to a federal candidate.
I’ve been having difficulty finding the names/status of the people D’Souza is alleged to have involved as straw donors. But so far I have found no evidence his actions involved a corporation, corporate funds, or co-workers or employees. If there is no such involvement, that would further bolster the argument that D’Souza should be charged with a lesser offense, not a greater one, than the others, and would support the idea of political motivated prosecution/persecution—or, at the very least, politically motivated overcharging.
The latest salvo in the war to discredit Scott Walker…
…would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that this sort of stuff works.
First let’s look at the offense, which occurred in 1988 while Walker was running for student body president at Marquette University. Yes, you heard that right:
By speaking before a meeting of the Delta Chi fraternity Jan. 24, Walker, an arts and sciences sophomore, violated the rule which states, “No campaigning may begin before a candidate is registered,” the committee ruled…
At the meeting, according to a student in attendance, Walker asked the fraternity members, “What can ASMU do for the Inter-Fraternity council?” and told them he intended to run for president of ASMU in a few weeks.
There’s more, some of it involving the improper distribution of flyers (under doors at the Y) by a supporter.
How does this sort of thing work? Well, read the comments at the article, for starters. The first thing it does is rally the troops for a rousing good anti-Walker hate-and-mockery fest. Walker is obviously crooked as the day is long, and a Koch Brothers tool as well (not that the brothers had anything to do with his campaign back in college, but they’re so evil that they must be brought in somehow).
The second way it works is by innuendo, because the article clearly links Walker’s behavior with the email problems some of his underlings have had more recently, the ones he was cleared of any involvement with or culpability for. What’s the link? Why, he’s blaming things on subordinates, you know. And the article further links all of this with Christie and Bridgegate, in a vast and nefarious right-wing loosely-connected-yet-dangerous web of corruption.
Never mind the parallels that could be drawn to Obama’s early career and his presidency, acts and denials and buck-passing so much worse that they belong in another realm. Never mind.
One other thing that comes up fairly early in the comments section of the article is mockery for Walker because he did not actually get his college degree. You can bet that little bit of elitist glee will surface, big time, if Walker ever does run for president.
But all of this is not just preaching to the choir. The whole thing also works on the low information voter, who (outside Wisconsin) doesn’t know much about Walker yet and might even like him if he/she learned something about him. Might even vote for him, for goodness’ sake. So the idea is to get in on the ground floor, to brand Walker as corrupt and get people to form a negative opinion of him before they know much else.
It works. The template, of course, is what happened to Sarah Palin at the hands of Democrats and the MSM during the campaign of 2008. I saw and heard it occur in real time, and it happened quickly and was incredibly effective.
They are starting earlier now, that’s all. And although Walker’s life doesn’t give them much ammunition, they will find what they can and make the most of it.
RIP Harold Ramis
Funny, funny guy Harold Ramis has died at 69.
I wasn’t a big “Ghostbusters” or “Caddyshack” fan. So sue me. But I’m one of the biggest “Groundhog Day” fans in the world. If Ramis had only helped to provide the world with that one movie I’d be intensely grateful. But he was prolific in directing, writing, and acting in a long string of films that gave extraordinary pleasure to so many people. Let’s include “Animal House,” of course.
Here’s a New Yorker profile from a few years ago.
And although this interview unfortunately can’t embedded, if you click on it and watch, you’ll get an idea of Ramis’ personality as well as some of his thoughts on “Groundhog Day.”
RIP.
The bell tolls not just for D’Souza
The D’Souza case: a warning to all who would challenge or offend Obama. You’ll be next.
The activities with which he’s charged are unlikely to have been uncovered in a “routine review,” as John Hinderaker writes at Powerline:
Here is a prediction: the four [Republican] senators will never get coherent answers to their questions. In particular, they will never get a truthful answer to question number four, “How and why was this particular review initiated?” I think the U.S. Attorney’s claim that D’Souza’s prosecution resulted from a “routine review” of FEC filings by FBI agents was a lie, for these reasons: 1) I don’t believe that the FBI carries out such “routine reviews.” 2) Routinely reviewing FEC filings would be a colossal waste of time for FBI agents. 3) A “routine review” of filings relating to the New York Senate race in question would not have generated any suspicion with regard to D’Souza. The violation with which he is charged would not have been revealed by a “routine review,” but would have required further digging to discover relationships between D’Souza and the friends for whom he allegedly reimbursed campaign donations. 4) Felony prosecutions for the sort of violation with which D’Souza is charged are unheard of. 5) If the FBI conducted a “routine review” of contributions to President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, particularly online donations, they would find many obvious violations, like my contribution in the name of “Illegal Contributor,” residence, Stillwater State Prison, Stillwater, Minnesota”“a donation that was returned by the Obama campaign after I wrote about it here on Power Line. Mine was one of many contributions to the Obama campaign, the illegality of which would, in fact, be disclosed by a “routine review.” Yet there have been no prosecutions arising out of any such investigation, because there has been no such investigation.
And here’s an excellent comment to Hinderaker’s post:
This stuff is scary and I suspect it chills the enthusiasm of backers of conservative causes and candidates. Even more scary is the fact most of the media haven’t covered it. I suspect the percentage of Americans who know about the political prosecution of D’Souza, the federal attack on Gibson Guitars, the multiple federal bureaucracies bullying Catherine Engelbrecht and others is very small. Without heavy news coverage of these events and the potential public outcry it “should” generate, there is little hope of stopping this stuff. Are there NO Democrats who are appalled by this or are they just as scared as the Republicans or are they all totally in the tank for a totalitarian leftist government (or should I say regime)?
I think it’s option 3 for most Democratic pundits and politicians: “totally in the tank.” For regular liberal folk, most are just not aware. But I fear that if they were to become aware they would shrug, because it’s done by their guys. “Taking the gloves off” and all that.
It turns out that most people aren’t that concerned with their own liberty, until they really and truly lose it. Even then, not enough are concerned.
Obama has a long, long history—in fact, his entire political history—of using legal means to destroy and/or discourage his opponents. By “legal” I don’t just mean “not against the law;” I mean using the legal system and the law itself, as in lawsuits or challenges to petition signatures (scroll down to the second comment at the link to find the text of the article I’m talking about). I also mean legal proceedings initiated by others, which Obama can use to harm his opponents by making sure that hidden and private information that is potentially embarrassing (for example, sealed divorce proceedings) becomes public.
Obama has always been dangerous in just this fashion. Too bad Americans haven’t paid much attention to his history.