Paladino, religion, gay rights

The New Neo Posted on by

New York candidate Carl Paladino proves just how politically incorrect he is when he made remarks critical of gays and gay marriage, provoking a firestorm of outrage.

Paladino’s statement will probably lose him votes rather than gain them. Nor is his viewpoint one I share. But it was the mainstream attitude when I was growing up, and most religions in their stricter form still have a policy on homosexuality much like the one Paladino articulated.

As for the word “dysfunctional,” (which he never uttered, but which supposedly was present in an earlier version of the speech, although perhaps placed there by others) until 1973-4 (and even beyond; see this for some of the history) the American Psychiatric Association shared this view.

What do we really know about gay people and society at this point? Here is my own idiosyncratic summary:

(1) Being gay is neither is wholly biological nor wholly environmental, but most likely some roughly equal mix of the two.

(2) The predilection to be gay is not wholly a choice, but the act is. However, the only viable alternative for many or most gay people people is lifelong celibacy, an exceedingly difficult road.

(3) Some people hate homosexuals, by no means all who disapprove of gay marriage hate gay people.

(4) Religious education (which, after all, was the real subject of Paladino’s speech) today runs counter to the prevailing teachings about homosexuality in secular education, which is equality, tolerance, and even pride.

(5) Public schools—which ideally, in my opinion, could ignore the subject and leave it to parents to deal with—are often forced to tackle it due to the bullying and fighting that often go along with the phenomenon.

[NOTE: Paladino’s full statement is here, in case you’re interested:]

The logo Gap

The New Neo Posted on by

Old tried and true Gap logo:

oldgap.jpg

New Gap logo for which the company probably paid a gazillion dollars:

newgap.png

No one seems happy about it. As for me, I tend to be oblivious of logos in general. If you had asked me to describe the old Gap logo before this, I would have been hard-pressed to do so, despite having seen it around for decades. But viewing the old and new in juxtaposition, I can easily say that Gap should have left well enough alone. If it ain’t broke…

Prediction from FredHJr

The New Neo Posted on by

I happened to have been looking back at some old threads last night, and I ran across this, from our sorely missed late commenter FredHJr, who has been gone now for over a year. It was written on April 1, 2009, only two months into Obama’s presidency [emphasis mine]:

Let me reiterate the view I will not move from without a very compelling counterview…[Obama] already knows he’s likely a one-termer. In his gut he knows, as do Pelosi and Reid, that they have to get this stuff they want done before 2010. In fact, they want to try to get it all this year, because they know that in 2010 a lot of Democrat representatives are going to see their party’s “accomplishments” as a millstone around their necks. What they hope for, I think, is that in 2013 and beyond they can hold to just enough seats in both houses to prevent the total rollback of much of what they will have rammed through this year.

Deep down I think these people knew that most of the Middle Muddle they cajoled over their way, starting in 2006, was based upon an effective public shaming of and destruction of President Bush. The Alinsky Rules for Radicals to “freeze it, personalize it”¦” (and you all know the rest of that). Most of these people are not Far Left. The inroads of cultural Marxism are uneven in the body politic and culture of the nation. So, when they have to run on results the game is up. There is only so much the mainstream media can do to jazz up this shit sandwich and cover up its stink…

This guy [Obama] is not a realist. I spotted that right away about him as soon as he was on my radar screen. He’s an idealistic Marxist who is drunk on power and has no F_ing clue as to how to govern. This guy is toast in 2012, and his party will dwindle to a slender majority in both houses in 2010.

I think it holds up pretty darn well. My only quarrel with it (and I hope I’m right about this) is that I don’t think the Democrats will be holding onto a majority next year, even a slim one—at least not in the House.

Lewis: quitting the physics club

The New Neo Posted on by

Professor Harold Lewis has resigned from the American Physical Society in protest over AGW and how it has been treated by the organization. Lewis—who has been a member of the Society for sixty-seven years—doesn’t pull his punches:

The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’éªtre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

Lewis is an elderly man who has had a long and distinguished career, mostly in the field of nuclear physics. One would imagine he has the capacity to understand the science involved a little better than a few journalists and politicians such as Al Gore. But one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that what he is arguing against here is an anti-scientific attitude that refuses to entertain valid threats to its belief system, and that such a stance on the part of scientists is antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry itself.

Individual mandate’s constitutionality upheld in district court

The New Neo Posted on by

District Court Judge George C. Steeh has upheld the government’s right to force people to buy health insurance or face a hefty fine. But, as Randy Barnett writes at Volokh, this is just the first step on a long road that will probably (although not certainly) end with the Supreme Court. Barnett also makes some predictions:

First, that some, perhaps all, federal district judges considering these challenges would uphold the statute was foreseeable. When these challenges were brought, no one believed that all constitutional challenges would be upheld by every district court judges who would consider them. Few believed that any district court judge would have the fortitude to strike down the mandate, regardless of how the Supreme Court might ultimately rule. Heck, many doubt that the Supreme Court has the fortitude to strike down so major a piece of legislation…

[A future] circuit split [would make] a Supreme Court decision far more likely. Indeed, because one circuit would have had to strike down the Act, a circuit split guarantees a Supreme Court decision doesn’t it? However, given the high profile of this Act among the American people, I think it would be hard for the Court to duck the issue even if the Courts of Appeals all uphold the act. If the act continues to be unpopular, would that not be widely perceived by the public as an abrogation of the Court’s responsibility? Indeed, would the Justices not reasonably fear that it would undermine the popular legitimacy of the “Supreme” Court to refuse to decide so highly publicized a constitutional controversy about which so much depends?

Judge Steeh ruled essentially that Congress can do whatever it wants as long as there is some connection to commerce. This seems to be an excessively steep and slippery slope. According to Steeh’s ruling, the individual mandate:

…qualifies as an example of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce”—the standard that the U.S. Supreme Court set for Congress’ compliance with the Commerce Clause, the New York Times reports (Sack, New York Times, 10/7).

“Far from inactivity, by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants,” Steeh wrote.

I am hard-pressed to think of a personal economic decision that doesn’t affect interstate commerce, according to this ruling. That’s some penumbra.

[NOTE: More here and here.]

Obama the continually likable

The New Neo Posted on by

I missed this poll when it first came out about two weeks ago, indicating that, although only 38% of respondents say that Obama should be re-elected, 65% still view him favorably “as a person.”

My question is: why? I confess I am puzzled by this continuing “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude towards Obama.

Perhaps Americans don’t want to be called racist, and have learned that any criticism of Obama automatically opens them up to that charge. Some may continue to have a favorable impression of Obama as a person because they are thinking of his family life, which seems fine. I have no problem imagining that he’s an exemplary father, or an attentive and faithful husband, or a great owner of companion animal (otherwise known as “pet”) Bo.

But that’s his private life, which is not the primary way I evaluate any president “as a person.” It is, after all, unknown because it is private. It is an indication of character, to be sure—especially when flawed, such as Clinton’s behavior as a husband. But still, it’s not enough, not nearly enough, to give a POTUS a favorable personal rating in my book.

And I will hereby go on record as saying that I, for one, have never had a favorable view of Obama as a person. I would not want to have a beer with him, even if I drank beer. I find him humorless, cold, sneaky, prevaricating, whiny, blaming, narcissistic, insular, and cutthroat. And if ever I had been inclined to like him, my exposure early on to the story of what he did to Alice Palmer, one of his first political mentors, would have disabused me of that notion.

Here’s the tale of Obama and Alice Palmer again, in case you missed it the first, second, or third time around. Most of America did—unfortunately. Do a survey of your friends, just for fun, and asked them whether they have ever heard of Alice Palmer and what Obama did to her in 1996, when he was cutting his political teeth (to coin a phrase). My guess is that—unless they happen to live in Chicago, or are political junkies—virtually all of them will draw a blank.

Pity. Because it’s an anecdote from Obama’s life that’s especially revealing about his character. Not a very likable guy, to say the least.

[NOTE: If any on the left read this piece, no doubt the predictable, empty, and repetitive charges of “racist!” will be brought out once again.]

[ADDENDUM: In a related matter, David Paul Kuhn wonders whether Obama can regroup after the election and win back the center:

Obama must win back independents to win reelection. The more interesting question is, therefore, how can Obama retake the electoral middle ground?…Clinton returned home. Not to the place called Hope. He returned to the moderation of the New Democrat platform. He took up Republican causes and took on Democratic sacred cows. The president who pushed healthcare reform and gays in the military was gone. This Clinton was fighting for a balanced budget and welfare reform. He was once more the centrist-reformist.

Kuhn goes on to write that Obama will have a more difficult time of it because his pre-presidency persona was a great deal more vague than Clinton’s. And this is true; Clinton had a moderate track record as governor of Arkansas, whereas Obama only has some moderate rhetoric during the campaign. Clinton had been a leader of the New Democrats, who represented a counterforce to the liberal drift of the Democratic Party of the time. Obama had been (albeit briefly) one of the most liberal senators in Congress.

The significance of this is that Obama, unlike Clinton, is seen by many as a liar and betrayer in his public life. Clinton was actually both in his private life—which bled over into public life when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” But the people he betrayed were his wife and daughter. Obama is perceived as a public and political liar and betrayer by those very moderates and Independents who voted for him and whom he must woo again in order to be re-elected. Unless their memory is shorter than I think it is, this is likely to cause some trouble for him in any attempt to convince them in 2012 that he’s changed his errant ways.]

Obama meltdown?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “physics guy” asks:

As has been predicted by others: when do we see the full-blown BHO in total meltdown?

I don’t pretend to have the inside track on this, so my answer is just a hunch, but this is it: never

I see Obama as very emotionally controlled. Yes, intermittent signs of trouble and stress leak out, especially in his ad lib remarks or attempts at humor. But a meltdown is not in the cards.

Narcissists such as Obama (and many other presidents and politicians, although he is one of the most extreme examples) tend to be very well-defended. After all, that’s one of the basic points of narcissism—to defend the ego against threats—and it is usually very successful in doing just that.

This is especially true when, as is the case with Obama, a person has attained heights of power undreamed of by ordinary men and women. That person’s narcissism has been rewarded and reinforced time and again. When there’s a rough patch in the road, it’s the fault of others. Blaming may increase, but not self-blame, which seems foreign to Obama’s nature.

Obama has the added advantage of the insulation of the presidency. He moves in a bubble of admirers and sycophants. In this he is not unique; it’s true of most presidents, unless they have the foresight (and the strength of character) to make sure there are critics and outsiders in their entourage. Obama has surrounded himself with an unusually insular group and is unlikely to hear much true criticism from them.

No, between his iron emotional control and his group of advisers, don’t expect any kind of meltdown from him. Interesting also that Obama plans to be away quite a bit after the November elections (see this and this), perhaps the better to distract himself with more important things than what has happened to his Congressional majority. And, if Victor Davis Hanson is correct, he will weather the post-election storm quite nicely.

Investigating Dobbs

The New Neo Posted on by

Lou Dobbs has raised the ire of the left because he’s against illegal immigration, and has criticized firms that hire illegals. Now the intrepid Nation has mounted a year-long investigation to turn up illegals in Dobbs’s past, and they have struck pay dirt.

This is what investigative journalism on the left has come down to. Any you ready? Hope you’re sitting down.

Dobbs has two large estates with horse farms, one in New Jersey and one in West Palm Beach. For both, he hired firms to deal with the groundskeeping and the care of the horses. The Nation has found five undocumented (and pseudonymous) illegals who say they worked for these contractors on Dobbs’s estates, and that he and/or his daughter (who rides some of the horses) didn’t realize it, although they should have:

When I asked whether the Dobbs family knew that undocumented workers were caring for their horses, Gomez responded by saying that at least in the case of Hillary Dobbs, “I believe she knew.” The stable owner knew “that some people didn’t have papers,” Gomez said, and had even taken precautions to keep the workers away from the immigration agents who often patrol the areas around horse shows. Gomez said it was hard to believe that Dobbs’s daughter, who was in close contact with these undocumented workers almost every weekend, could have been unaware of their status…

I also asked Missy Clark, the owner of North Run Farm, the stable in Warren, Vermont, where the Dobbs Group horses are housed, whether Dobbs or his daughter had ever inquired about the immigration status of the workers caring for Hillary’s horses. She said, “They’re very well aware that the people taking care of the horses are 100 percent legal,” and said she’d given the Dobbs family assurances to that effect.

This is the latest line of attack at those who would fight against illegal immigration, is was already obvious from the Gloria Allred/Meg Whitman flap. It goes this way: illegals are everywhere. That’s part of the reason the problem is so serious; it has reached critical mass. So anyone who hires household or other types of service help through an agency—be it cleaning, groundskeeping, horse tending, care of the elderly and/or infirm, catering, you name it—is almost undoubtedly going to be at risk for dealing with workers who are “undocumented.” This will be true whether the hirer knows it or not, and no precautions will protect him or her from the charges of hiring illegals, as Meg Whitman has recently learned. And this despite the fact that it is the agency’s duty to check these things, and that agencies usually assure the hirer that all standards for legality are met, and that the illegals themselves lie through their teeth and often present false documents.

The beauty of it is that those on the left who embrace illegal immigration are off the hook, but those who oppose illegals, such as Whitman and Dobbs, need only have dealt with an agency that was slipshod in its work to be accused of blatant hypocrisy. And it doesn’t hurt the left’s cause either that, as part of the case made against Dobbs/Whitman-type offenders, they are revealed as (gasp!) the nefarious Rich.

[NOTE: What is a person like Dobbs to do, short of handing over his estate to the People and spreading the wealth around? He could hire several investigators to research the papers of every single worker who entered his employ though an agency, but I’m not at all sure that’s not illegal itself. Couldn’t the workers claim that they had already given documentation to the agency, and that Dobbs has no right to discriminate against them, and no right to their papers? Or I suppose he could have tried to hire people himself rather than using agencies at all. But this would be incredibly time-consuming, and would open him up to making errors in checking their papers. After all, this is the sort of risk that using a bonded agency is supposed to help avoid—the agency is assumed to have done the checking, as it claims. Lastly, if Dobbs had tried to hire Americans born and bred, not only would they apparently have been very hard to find in the horse care industry, but it would have opened him up to charges of discriminating against Hispanics.]

Obama to McDonald’s: never mind

The New Neo Posted on by

McDonald’s got its waiver for mini-med plans.

It’s a good idea, and no doubt was expedited because of the huge swarm of negative publicity attendant on the original story. But, as Ed Morrisey of Hot Air points out:

Dictating percentages for administration costs in insurance plans isn’t the job of the federal government anyway, but more to the point, that issue is obviously not determinative in value to the consumer ”” as these waivers proved. This shows what happens when people with no experience in an industry decide that they can construct it better than the market has structured itself.

The proper action would have been to repeal at least this portion of the law in order to give a level playing field to everyone. By granting a few dozen waivers at the outset, though, the White House has amplified the uncertainty and arbitrariness in ObamaCare even further. At least insurers and employers had a figure that they could use for planning. Now there is no standard at all, except for whatever Kathleen Sebelius decides she likes ”” and whom she wants to favor.