Four years: in memory of FredHJr

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP]

This post probably won’t mean much to newcomers to this blog. But I bet most of the oldtimers remember, and still acutely miss FredHJr, one of the most memorable and prolific commenters here.

It hardly seems possible that four years have passed since his tragic and untimely death on June 26, 2009. The loss to this community has been a great one; we could sorely use a large dose of his wit and wisdom.

The loss his family feels is far greater, and I am thinking of them this week and hoping they have found comfort in the memory of his love and faith.

And now I will reprise some words I wrote when I first heard of Fred’s death:

Even though none of us actually met Fred in the real world, most of the regulars here knew FredHjr as I knew him””a brilliant mind containing knowledge of unusual depth and breadth, and demonstrating a rare ability to articulate his thoughts with precision, grace, and logic; a staunch patriot and passionate defender of liberty who never pulled his punches; a “changer” who had been a Marxist in his youth and held a vast storehouse of expertise on how the Left thinks and operates; a seeker of truth with an almost inexhaustible interest in the world around him; and a man of strong religious faith and great and abiding love for his family.

The news of his extremely untimely and tragic death comes as a great shock. It’s also a reminder that people here can become an important part of our lives; we feel as though we know them, even though our knowledge of them is only of the virtual sort. But minds meeting minds is a very powerful thing nonetheless.

Here is Fred’s obituary.

As I did last year, I think it might be interesting to look back at some of Fred’s comments and post some appropriately prescient ones here. Good ones are not hard to find; it really doesn’t take very long, because the quality of his insight was so high.

On March 7, 2008, very early in the Obama campaign, Fred wrote:

But, maybe the under-40 crowd in this country needs a hard lesson in the unreality of socialism. I’m convinced an Obama presidency would be beset with crises and failure. Perhaps even worse than Carter’s. My generation needed to learn from the Jimmy Carter experience in order to appreciate Ronald Reagan and our country. Let’s hope that the kiddies who may put this pair in office can learn from failure and mistake. The even deeper question: are they capable of disillusionment?

Here’s one from about a month later, April 2, 2008:

Barack Obama exhibits two very ugly qualities that we must never allow to be close to the office of POTUS: cowardice and dishonesty. I would at least have some respect for him if he had the courage to proclaim exactly what he stands for and identify with the policy planks of Euro-Socialism. He has no respect for us. Even if I were a Leftist, I would lose respect for him because of his deceitfulness.

And here’s one of Fred’s comments from June 11, 2009, about nine months before HCR was signed into law (and only about two weeks before he died):

I get the sense that government run health care is going to happen. There just are not enough votes to defeat it. That’s the bottom line. And the people who are ramming this through do not care how this is going to impact providers or patients. Their goal is to dismantle capitalism, one brick at a time, and for them to become the new nomenklatura in a social democratic state.

RIP, FredHJr.

[NOTE: I send links to these memorial threads to Fred’s widow.]

And in another court decision…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the French Court of Appeals has ruled against Philippe Karsenty in the al Dura case, in a decision that can be rightly called “outrageous”:

French media analyst Philippe Karsenty was found guilty Wednesday by a French court of defamation for accusing a state television network of falsely depicting the death of a young Palestinian boy in a firefight between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers, the Times of Israel reports.

The footage of the boy, Mohammed al-Dura, was aired by the France 2 network. The start of the Second Intifada in which over 1000 Israelis were killed, was largely attributed to the video, which was circulated throughout the world.

A Paris court fined Karsenty 7,000 euros claiming that he falsely accused the network’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Charles Enderlin, of fabricating parts of the segment.

In an interview with The Algemeiner Karsenty expressed his disappointment. “I think it is a dark day for French democracy and I think it is a dark day for the truth,” he said.

French-Jewish artist and activist Ron Agam told The Algemeiner that the whole case was a set up.

“Karsenty never had a chance here. The television station is a government outfit and the unions are anti-Israeli. This entire judgement is not about justice, but about defending the indefensible,” he said.

The evidence that Enderlin and France2 ignored their own footage and lied about it is overwhelming. But that hasn’t mattered.

I’ve been following this case for many years as it drags through the French court system with its libel laws, which are very different from ours (I refer you to these posts).

Justice has not been served here, to say the least. This verdict is shocking in the sense of dreadful, but it is not shocking in the sense of surprising, because the French courts are dedicated to protecting the reputation of the renowned and esteemed and honored journalist Charles Enderlin as well as the government-supported France2. It has an interest in hiding the fact that Enderlin and France2 colluded in and orchestrated a piece of misleading propaganda that led to enormous anti-Semitism and retaliatory hatred and murder around the world. It would have taken a great deal of moral courage and an interest in justice—two things the French court lacks—to have found for Karsenty.

SCOTUS rules on the DOMA and California Proposition 8 cases

The New Neo Posted on by

Both the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions ended up favoring gay marriage advocates, but SCOTUS avoided ruling on gay marriage itself at all.

The DOMA decision focused on whether the federal government, by an act of Congress that denied federal benefits to married gay couples even in states that have already legalized gay marriage, can limit a state’s intent to give gay marriage the same legal standing as heterosexual marriage. The answer was “no” because it would be a denial of due process (or perhaps equal protection, or perhaps both; it seems a little unclear to me), and so Section 3 of the Act was struck down. The justices split along the usual ideological lines with the usual swing justice (Kennedy) voting with the majority.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress in 1996 (seems like centuries ago, doesn’t it?) and signed into law by none other than President Clinton. Although you may disagree with the outcome of this case, it has the effect of supporting the rights of states (although not explicitly; the case was decided on equal protection grounds). The ruling rested on the idea that:

Because Congress has ventured beyond the usual scope of its powers, DOMA is subject to tighter scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment than it would have gotten otherwise.

Decisions about who is allowed to be legally married within a state and who is not have traditionally been left to each state, unless the state rules violate some basic tenet such as equal protection (for example, laws against miscegenation would do that). This decision’s effect is that, if a state decides that gay marriages within its confines are legal, the feds must go along with that for the purpose of things such as federal tax benefits.

The Proposition 8 case is unusual in that, although the split was also 5-4, it was not along the usual lines: Roberts and Scalia were with the majority (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan) and Kennedy and Sotomayor with the minority (Thomas and Alito). It was a narrow decision that had nothing to do with the merits of the gay marriage or anti-gay marriage arguments; it had to do with whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to appeal the California state court’s decision to overrule it. The Court’s answer was “no,” so it could not decide the case on the merits.

Ordinarily, when a state court declares a proposition passed by a statewide election to be unconstitutional (which is what happened in California), the state itself would be mounting the appeal and defending the vote of its own people. But the state of California—in other words, the governor and other state officials—refused to do this, and it was left to private citizens in favor of Proposition 8 to defend it.

The SCOTUS majority wrote:

Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.”…

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit*…

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

So Judge Walker’s decision—which I wrote about at length here—stands.

I find it very troubling that, if a single judge in a state uses shaky grounds to invalidate a proposition passed by the people of that state, and state officials refuse to appeal because they happen to disagree with the people’s will, the people have no ability to appeal to SCOTUS. Of course, if the proposition came to a vote in California today, perhaps it would not have been passed. But we don’t know that, and it would have been much better if the people had been allowed to decide for themselves.

But they are not being allowed to decide. Recall the history of Proposition 8. It was originally passed in order to counter judicial activism in that state regarding the validity of gay marriage:

By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition effectively overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California’s State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.

The courts and the people have been fighting about this for a long time in California. At this point, the courts are winning, despite the fact that in the present case the Supreme Court has declined to enter the fray. As Professor William A. Jacobson writes, in this case we see:

The death of the ballot initiative movement as Court gives de facto veto power to government officials who want to lose a case.

Exactly.

[NOTE: *If you are confused as to why the California court’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional stands although SCOTUS ruled that the Ninth Circuit had no standing to decide the case either, remember that there was an earlier decision by a district court that does stand. That earlier decision was the one by Judge Walker that I wrote about at the time. See this for some further clarification on the different California court cases involved.]

[ADDENDUM: Interesting comments on the Prop 8 case here.]

[ADDENDUM II: Scalia’s dissent on DOMA. Makes sense to me.]

Zimmerman trial

The New Neo Posted on by

I only have time to write about so much per day, and I’ve pretty much ignored the ongoing Zimmerman trial in my recent posts. But I’ve read about it, and I’ve found that excellent roundups of each day’s proceedings can be found at Legal Insurrection. So if you’re interested in following the trial, that’s the place I’d suggest.

Hey! I’ve got an idea!

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s race through another jumungous game-changing country-transforming bill before the public can turn on it and us!

It worked so well for Obamacare.

Now if I can stop being sarcastic for a moment (it’s difficult), let me observe that I can’t recall another administration or Congress in my lifetime that had the audacity to do this—to pass such huge legislation so quickly without enough due deliberation, hearings, or debate, in the absence of a pressing and imminent emergency or crisis. The bailout bill was quickly pushed through at the tail end of Bush’s second term, but that was in response to a seeming emergency and did not set up transformational change that would inevitably carry forward into the distant future. Another example—although certainly not within my lifetime—would be some of the New Deal legislation that was also a targeted response to a huge and bona fide crisis that had to be met. You can disagree with what was done and its long-reaching effects and precedent, and whether the situation would have gotten better faster if the New Deal had never happened or whether the legislation helped or made things worse, but it’s understandable that the public agreed that speed was of the essence and something dramatic had to happen.

Nothing of the sort is the case now. People saw health care insurance as in great need of reform, sure. And our immigration system likewise, as well as the problem of the permeable border (a problem the new bill, if passed, would almost certainly do nothing about; words are cheap). But not so pressing as to require the circumvention of the lack of due deliberation.

I’m curious: why did previous administrations not do what this administration and Congress are now doing in terms of speed? Did they lack the imagination to do it? Or is it because they didn’t think it could be done in the practical sense—or because they didn’t think it should be done in the moral sense? Did they think the American people would rise up and stop them somehow? Did they think Congress would balk? Or did they think they owed the people a greater service as their elected representatives?

At this point I’m very grateful there’s a House of Representatives. For now, anyway.

[ADDENDUM: And next, of course, it’s time to bankrupt the coal companies (and you can’t say Obama didn’t warn us). Because the people have been clamoring for it so.

The agenda will continue, despite all obstacles. The people hoped, and they will get their change, whether they like it or not.

I wrote about the phenomenon back in January of 2010. Note that Obama is doing now exactly and precisely what he said then—immigration reform and energy:

Did anyone doubt that, emboldened by his “success” in passing the HCR legislation that America didn’t (and still doesn’t) want and that is likely to lead to greater financial ruin, Obama would be inspired to press a cooperative Democratic Congress to enact still more legislation that America doesn’t want and is likely to lead to greater financial ruin?

Well, if you doubted it for even a moment (and I doubt you did doubt it), then doubt no more:

“But what I’m not going to be dissuaded from is us going ahead and taking on these big challenges that are critical in terms of America’s long-term economic health.”

The president said specifically that it was important for Congress to move ahead with legislation on energy and immigration policy as well as financial regulatory reform.

Note the typically Orwellian assertion that the first two have anything to do with our economic health, except to undermine it.

“Legislation on energy”””one may assume that translates to cap and trade which Obama himself said (back in the days when he was still telling a little bit of the truth now and then) would “bankrupt” those who tried to build new coal plants as well as causing utility rates to “skyrocket.”

As for “immigration reform”””that of course is designed to lock in the all-important Hispanic vote as well as the larger purpose of swelling voter rolls by 2012, in order to counter the fact that everything Obama is doing will lose him votes with current American voters.

Don’t doubt for a moment that this is the plan. The only question is whether Democrats in Congress will follow their leader with the same rigid discipline (and disregard for America’s future) they showed in passing HCR.

But I think we know the answer. Now that they’ve given up listening to their constituents, and already have large targets painted on their backs, what have they got to lose by supporting him? So I wouldn’t count on a single Democrat to go against the president, Pelosi, and Reid (unless they’re not needed for passage of the bills), although I suppose it’s still possible that some may surprise us and become profiles in courage . But I, for one, would be shocked were that to happen.

The real question is what will the RINO Republicans do. The Republican Party ultimately held firm in opposing Obamacare, but will this rare moment of unity continue? Watch Lindsey Graham and see.

There are two things I’d change in the above excerpt (other than time-limited things like “2012” and “targets on their backs”). The first is the word “Pelosi,” because the House is now controlled by Republicans. Of course, that could change in 2014, and she could be back in her old leadership role. The second is “cap-and-trade,” because I think (as best I can determine) Obama is now planning to wage his war on coal by executive action through the EPA.

Those who think Obama undisciplined or unfocused or a failure should read the above and ruminate on it. He’s extremely disciplined and focused about what matters to him. He is following his game plan exactly, and so far he has been succeeding.]

[ADDENDUM II: And read this for some interesting news on recent developments in the science of climate change.]

Stop me before I snack again!

The New Neo Posted on by

Saw a link to this at Ace’s:

It’s a simple concept, but one that many people could use. The Kitchen Safe measures 6 x 6 x 6.5 in. (15.2 x 15.2 x 16.5 cm), which is large enough to fit a variety of items. The time-lock can be set for any amount of time between one minute and 10 days, so you can specify exactly when something will be released.

Once an item is locked inside, there is no way of opening the Kitchen Safe until the timer reaches zero. Even if the batteries are drained or taken out, the lock will stay sealed and the countdown will resume once they’re replaced. Other than cracking the container open with a hammer, there’s almost no chance of cheating.

Prediction: a hammer will be used.

And then the buyer will probably go out and buy another Kitchen Safe.

Don’t think I’m mocking those who might need it. I most definitely am not. People who don’t have to diet have no idea what it’s like for people who do (me, for my entire life since puberty, fairly rigorously).

Of course, some of you diet and have absolutely iron willpower. But most of the thin people I know can eat (for example) a doughnut every couple of days and not have to worry, whereas most of those who tend to be heavier can’t do that.

The way I deal with it all is to try to avoid even buying anything tempting, except on rare occasions. That makes a trip to the grocery store an exercise in self-denial, a contradiction because I still get to fill the cart with things I do happen to like—fruits, vegetables, etc.—but can’t eat an indefinite amount of, either (I’m a fairly small woman, and I’m not a lumberjack).

So long ago I had the concept of something like the Kitchen Safe, and even tried to design one. Mine was grander in scope and involved the entire fridge and all the pantries and cabinets—not very practical, especially for families.

And with all-night grocery stores, not very effective either. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

SCOTUS: the South has finally learned its lesson?

The New Neo Posted on by

Today, in a 5-4 decision with the usual ideological split, SCOTUS ruled:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday freed states from special federal oversight under the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying the data Congress used to identify the states covered by it was outdated and unfair…

The court did not strike down a provision allowing special federal oversight but said Congress must come up with a new formula based on current data to identify which states should be covered. Proponents of the law, which protects minority voting rights, have said it will be extremely difficult for a Congress bitterly divided along partisan lines to come up with such an agreement.

The states involved are mostly in the South, with a few more: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as Alaska and Arizona, and parts of seven other states.

The decision seems rather ho-hum on the surface, a sort of compromise. But it may be stronger in its effects than it seems at first glance, because it may be impossible for Congress to agree on new standards. But liberals would like to punish and monitor the South forever, as well as to preserve the idea that the South is completely riddled with racism (i.e. racist Republicans, of course) and the North is not.

I was thinking about the make-up of the Court itself, too. It’s crystal clear that, if (heaven forbid!) anything were to happen to any of the conservative (or one swing) justices before the end of Obama’s term, he would get to appoint a liberal replacement and the entire makeup of the Court would change dramatically. And if the Democrats succeed in passing the immigration law and that has the expected consequence of locking in Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future, the question of whether or not all the conservative justices manage to last through Obama’s term will be almost moot, because Obama’s successor would do the same and ensure the liberal makeup of the Court.

A liberal Court would have extremely far-reaching effects, and those effects would be felt strongly in our lives and society at large, accelerating the pace of liberal change. The people would be powerless to stop it at the ballot box once the appointments had been made. That’s one of the main reasons I was so intent on trying to speak up for Romney, and discouraged disaffected conservatives from staying home in 2012.

It’s interesting to look at the makeup of the Court right now in terms of where each justice is from. The answer is: mostly the northeast (including the conservatives), with one Californian (Kennedy), and one (Roberts) who moved from New York to Indiana in fourth grade. The only black person currently on the Court—and one of the most conservative—is of course Clarence Thomas, who is also the only one from the South (Georgia). He grew up when it really was a pretty racist place.

Mickey Kaus…

The New Neo Posted on by

…explains the way the Republican suicide pact that is the latest Gang of 8 amendment to the immigration bill would work. Or rather, not work.

You know, I’ve never been one to reflexively knock the so-called “Republican establishment” or even RINOs, but I am coming to despise them more with every passing day.

Hide and seek: the “seek” part not working out so well for Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

In the game of hide and seek he’s playing with the US, Snowden seems to hold the upper hand.

That’s not really because he’s so very clever, or because he has a lot of help from Wikileaks and others (although he does). It’s because, after four and a half years of the Obama presidency, the countries that usually dislike us anyway are every bit as numerous as they were under the nefarious Bush, and now they no longer fear us.

Machiavelli (no dummy, he) famously concluded that for a leader it is better to be feared than loved:

In addressing the question of whether it is better to be loved or feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” As Machiavelli asserts, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity; however, commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. Yet, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible.

This chapter is possibly the most well-known of the work, and it is important because of the reasoning behind Machiavelli’s famous idea that it is better to be feared than loved ”“ his justification is purely pragmatic; as he notes, “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared.” Fear is simply a means to an end, and that end is security for the prince. The fear instilled should never be excessive, for that could be dangerous to the prince.

Machiavelli was focusing more on a leader’s relationship with his own people rather than the international world at large, but the principal is the same.

At this point it’s questionable whether Obama is loved all that much any more, either, out in the big wide world. But no one seems to fear him—except, perhaps, the same reporters who swooned over him, and what they fear is his threatened withdrawal of access to him. The right also fears Obama, of course, for what he has already done and could do to this country.

But the nations of the world at large, fearing consequences from Obama for their actions? Why on earth would they?

Say what you will about Bush, agree or disagree with his foreign policy or his personality, both told other countries that they had something to fear from him and from the US if they stepped out of line. Except for eastern Europe, the world sure didn’t seem to love him, but his threats were not empty, unlike Obama’s—and the world knew it.

The Pakistani government…

The New Neo Posted on by

…condemned as a “brutal act of terrorism” the killing of five Ukrainians, three Chinese, and one Russian who were tourists in the mountains of northern Pakistan, as well as a Pakistani guide.

But in reporting the story the AP just could not bring itself to write the dread and forbidden t-word. Here’s the lede, which would be funny if it weren’t so horrific and chilling, offensive, sad, and suicidally and relentlessly PC:

At least a dozen Islamic militants wearing police uniforms shot to death nine foreign tourists and one Pakistani before dawn Sunday as they were visiting one of the world’s highest mountains… officials said.

You know what? I bet those Pakistani officials didn’t say “militants,” or even the Urdu equivalent. They’re not that dumb. It’s only the AP, and its insane cousins Reuters et al who can’t bear to use the word, even in unequivocally bloodcurdling situations like this (and note how the AP switches to the even-more-neutral “gunmen”):

The gunmen were wearing uniforms used by the Gilgit Scouts, a paramilitary police force that patrols the area, said the interior minister. The attackers abducted two local guides to find their way to the remote base camp. One of the guides was killed in the shooting, and the other has been detained and is being questioned, said Khan…

Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan claimed responsibility for the attack, saying their Jundul Hafsa group carried out the shooting as retaliation for the death of the Taliban’s deputy leader, Waliur Rehman, in a U.S. drone attack on May 29.

“By killing foreigners, we wanted to give a message to the world to play their role in bringing an end to the drone attacks,” Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location…

The attackers beat up the Pakistanis who were accompanying the tourists, took their money and tied them up, said a senior local government official. They checked the identities of the Pakistanis and shot to death one of them, possibly because he was a minority Shiite Muslim, said the official…

The attackers took the money and passports from the foreigners and then gunned them down, said the official.

Actually, “terrorist” is a mild and inadequate word for what these people are.

One of the sad things about this incident is that the perpetrators know full well that much of the left will take their words to heart and “play their role” in blaming the whole thing on the drone attacks and demanding that they stop.