Lies, damn lies, and Paul Krugman

February 28, 2011

Scott Sumner points out that Paul Krugman’s latest column makes a basic logical error. Krugman notes a study that finds that stimulus spending leads to more jobs where the money is spent, but then makes the logical leap to the proposition that it leads to more jobs overall. Since stimulus spending is highly uneven (indeed, it is allocated exclusively by political considerations), the one hardly implies the other.

Honest mistake? Well, Krugman is a smart guy, but somehow that hasn’t stopped him from a history of mistakes; mistakes that a smart guy like him should be incapable of. His notorious divide-by-ten error comes to mind. At the time he tried to defend himself:

No, I didn’t forget to divide by 10. (For God’s sake: whatever you think of my politics, I am a competent economist, and know how to use numbers.)

Indeed, Mr. Krugman. That’s one reason we don’t think it was an accident.


Violent politics

February 28, 2011

Democrats accuse Republicans of using violent rhetoric in politics. They say they want more civility. They don’t mean it:

Last Friday…. after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, [Democratic State Representative Gordon] Hintz turned to a female colleague, [Republican] Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: “You are F***king dead!”

(Via Instapundit.)

When the left was trying to pin the Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and other Republicans, they had to stretch to an absurd degree, since they had no real examples. On the other hand, on the Democratic side:

  • Gordon Hintz (D) makes an explicit death threat on the floor of the Wisconsin Assembly.
  • Michael Capuano (D-MA) calls for labor protests to “get a little bloody”.
  • Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) calls for Rick Scott (R, now governor of Florida) to be put against a wall and shot.
  • Rahm Emanuel (D, now mayor of Chicago) recites the names of his enemies, punctuated by plunging a knife into a table and yelling “dead!”.
  • President Obama says “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, and says that a GOP takeover of Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat”.
  • Alan Hevesi (D, then New York State Comptroller, who later resigned as part of a plea agreement in an unrelated corruption case) praises Charles Schumer as the sort of the man who would “put a bullet between [President Bush's] eyes”.

Keep in mind, that’s just from elected politicians. If I were to open it up to entertainers, journalists, bloggers, union thugs, and/or protesters, we would be here all day.

Am I going to let this go? Not bloody likely. Those jackasses started this thing when they tried to blame a mass murder on our free speech. Now they are going to hear about it every damn time they do they very things of which they falsely accused us.

UPDATE: George Noel (D, head of Massachusetts’s Department of Labor) attacked Wisconsin’s Governor Walker (R) saying, “Make no mistake about it. We are at war.”


Fox reporter assaulted

February 28, 2011

How many reporters have been assaulted at Tea Party rallies? Zero. How many reporters have been assaulted at union rallies? Not zero.


Material support

February 27, 2011

The Wisconsin Democratic party is paying the expenses of Wisconsin’s AWOL state senators.


Enforcing the Constitution

February 27, 2011

People are puzzled by President Obama’s decision not to continue enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act even though he has determined it is unconstitutional. As Glenn Reynolds puts it, “Yes, you take an oath to enforce the Constitution. This may give the President the authority to enforce the Constitution as he sees it, but it surely doesn’t give the President the authority to choose not to enforce the Constitution as he sees it.”

So what is Obama doing? I’m certain that any answer that doesn’t center on political considerations is well off the mark.


Quis sistet jurisconsulti?

February 27, 2011

This is wrong in so many ways:

Since 2009, Mr. Heicklen has stood [outside the federal courthouse] and at courthouse entrances elsewhere and handed out pamphlets encouraging jurors to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience.

That concept, called jury nullification, is highly controversial, and courts are hostile to it. But federal prosecutors have now taken the unusual step of having Mr. Heicklen indicted on a charge that his distributing of such pamphlets at the courthouse entrance violates a law against jury tampering.

This man was arrested for handing out leaflets in a public space! His speech was constitutionally protected even if he was urging people to commit a crime. And he was not urging people to commit a crime: a whole series of decisions going back to 1794 affirm jurors’ rights to nullify.

What we have here is the latest instance of a longstanding outrage. Lawyers want to control the legal system; they don’t want anyone outside the priesthood coming in and interfering with their process. If they could, they would get rid of juries entirely. Since they can’t, they have to settle for controlling the juries, spoon-feeding juries exactly what they want juries to hear, and giving them explicit instructions for how to return a verdict. The last thing they want to see is juries consulting their own consciences and deciding to acquit. The courts have even upheld jury instructions that lie, informing jurors they may not nullify.

Here, the lawyers’ eagerness to control the legal process is leading them even to trample our right to free speech. And who is going to stop them? The judicial system is populated entirely with lawyers. Perhaps that is inevitable, but nearly all of our legislators are lawyers too. So is the president. We need to discard our entire political class and start over.


Question

February 25, 2011

If the cause of radical Islamism is resentment over American imperialism and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, why the violence against Egypt’s Copts?


Thoughtcrime

February 24, 2011

The likelihood that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of health care nationalization, already quite high, has now gone to 100%. That’s because, whatever the court ultimately decides about Obamacare, the D.C. District Court’s ruling upholding the law will certainly be overturned.

For what has to be (doesn’t it?) the first time in American jurisprudence, Judge Gladys Kessler has asserted the government’s power to regulate mental activity. I am not making this up (p. 45):

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power. . . However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting”. . . Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.

Note that “mental activity” is her own phrase, not my paraphrase. She says “mental activity” is the same as doing things. Your thoughts can now be regulated under the Federal government’s interstate commerce power. Wow.

I don’t think we’re going to see the Democrats crow about this decision very much. These lower court decisions are mostly symbolic, and regulation of thought is symbolism they can do without.

(Via Patterico.)


Perspective

February 24, 2011

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compares Sarah Palin to Moammar Qaddafi. Let’s see, one of them is oppressive dictator who carpet bombs his own cities to cling to power, the other is a private citizen who sometimes says things that Chris Matthews doesn’t like.

Matthews later allowed that Palin is not as bad as Qaddafi. How magnanimous of him.


We’re winning

February 24, 2011

I’m not referring to the budget battle in Wisconsin (although we are winning there), but to the much more important war against our nation’s enemies in Afghanistan.


The Libyan civil war

February 24, 2011

Strategypage has an optimistic analysis of what’s happening in Libya. (Optimistic in the sense that Qaddafi will lose in the end, not in the sense that he will lose without additional bloodshed, or in the sense that we will necessarily like whoever follows him.) His conclusion:

Out of approximately 50,000 regular troops, only a hardcore of about 5,000 soldiers and special forces can be considered reliable, and it’s simply impossible to retain dictatorial control over a population of almost 7,000,000 people with only a single brigade of soldiers. It is now out of the question as to whether the government can retake the entire country. It can only hold out for as long as possible.

I hope he’s right.

(Via Instapundit.)


Bomb Libya

February 24, 2011

Michael Ledeen says we should destroy the Libyan air force. I was thinking of a no-fly zone, but simply destroying their air force works too.


Some leadership would be good

February 23, 2011

Why aren’t we seeing any leadership on Libya from President Obama? I know it’s too much to hope for him to approve US action against Qaddafi, like a no-fly zone to keep Qaddafi from bombing protesters. But is it too much to ask for a speech or something? So far nothing.

UPDATE: Well, the president gave a speech condemning the violence. Unfortunately, I don’t see anything in it that would give Qaddafi pause, or encourage the opposition.


No loophole in Wisconsin

February 23, 2011

Wisconsin’s Governor Walker is a smart guy:

There’s been a lot of talk about whether, with the budget bill tied up, Republican senators could pull out the collective bargaining provisions and pass them as a standalone measure. The Senate’s rules require a quorum of 20 senators to pass any bill that involves spending but just 17 senators for nonfiscal bills. Therefore, some believe that Republicans, with 19 votes, could pass the collective bargaining measure on their own.

It won’t work. Walker put out a statement Monday strongly arguing that the collective bargaining provision is in the budget bill because it has a big fiscal impact and therefore would have to be passed by the higher vote standard.

I admit I thought the collective-bargaining-only maneuver sounded a good idea, but Walker is right; using it would undermine the justification for the measure. It might work to get the bill passed, but it would give Democrats a good political argument where they currently have none at all.

UPDATE (3/9): There was a loophole after all, but it wasn’t that one.


Scrubbed

February 23, 2011

Pundit Press reports UW Health’s Department of Family Medicine seems to be scrubbing its website to remove doctors giving out bogus excuse notes to Wisconsin protesters.

I was able to confirm at least part of Pundit Press’s story. This page confirms that one doctor from the list is indeed a part of the Department of Family Medicine, despite not currently appearing on the DFM’s page. More tellingly, Pundit Press reported last night that one Dr. Hannah Keevil was still on the DFM’s page, but she isn’t any longer. Her page at fammed.wisc.edu is empty now but still appears in the Google cache, which proves that pages really are being removed.

What isn’t at all clear is what this means. I’d like to believe this means these doctors are being suspended, but it seems much too soon for that. So why do it?

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Unscrubbed.

UPDATE (3/8): The Univeristy of Wisconsin Department of Family Medicine tells Pajamas Media that their investigation is still ongoing.


Malpractice

February 23, 2011

Ford Vox writes for the Atlantic about the doctors handing out bogus excuse notes to Wisconsin’s union protesters.

What I find particularly disgusting about the affair isn’t what they did, but how they defended their actions even when caught. Absolutely everyone knows these excuse notes are bogus, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. When you say that your excuse notes, handed out en masse to protesters illegally skipping work, are just the same as any other medical excuse notes, all you are saying is that none of your excuse notes are worth anything. Is that true? Maybe it is.

Meanwhile, the State of Wisconsin has joined the University of Wisconsin Health System in investigating the affair.


Pot calling the lightbulb black

February 22, 2011

In an effort to reverse the pummeling they are getting in public opinion over the Wisconsin affair, Democrats have invented a new line of attack, which the legacy media is repeating uncritically. Here’s MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:

My question of course is why does the Governor pick on the unions that didn’t endorse him in the last campaign but give a free ride to the firefighters and the cops who did and the localities? Why did they get off and are allowed to continue to negotiate collectively?

(ASIDE: I love the “of course”. That’s the Democratic attack narrative; “of course” that’s his question.) And here’s CBS’s Chris Wragge:

You say this is a modest request. Now some state workers have been hit harder than others. Your teachers union, which votes Democratic under normal circumstances, hit very hard. Yet your police, state trooper, firemen unions, who all supported and endorsed you, did not get touched in any of this. Why is that?

The allegation is that Governor Walker is letting his friends off, while punishing his enemies.

Walker says the allegation is ridiculous; he is exempting police and fire fighters because he doesn’t want public safety threatened. And events have proven the wisdom of his policy: police and fire fighters can’t legally strike in Wisconsin, but neither can teachers. That hasn’t kept the teachers from walking off the job illegally for days. When teachers strike it inconveniences people and hurts education, when police and fire fighters strike people die.

But that’s all beside the point, because the premise of the attack isn’t true. Walker did not get most of the police and fire fighter endorsements. As he explains to Wragge:

Well, Chris – Chris that actually is not true. There are 314 fire and police unions in the state. Four of them endorsed me. All the rest endorsed my opponent.

So 310 of 314 opposed Walker. Moreover, the large statewide unions of police and fire fighters both endorsed Walker’s opponent. If the legacy media had made even a cursory effort to check the facts before parroting the Democratic line of attack, they would have learned there was no truth to it.

But here’s what is particularly galling about this attack: What Democrats are unfairly accusing Governor Walker of — rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies — is standard practice for the Democrats. The best recent example is the Democrats’ health care nationalization law, which contains a big new tax on medical devices. The reason they levied the tax on the medical device industry as opposed to some other is because the industry was insufficiently enthusiastic in its support for health care nationalization. Industries that supported the effort were left alone, and those that did not were punished.

(Via Instapundit.)


Awesome

February 22, 2011

Wisconsin state senators are now required to pick up their paychecks in person.


Bravo

February 22, 2011

I didn’t hear about this when it happened last October: The SPEECH Act was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Obama. The act protects American’s free speech from libel tourism by making foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the United States unless they comport with the First Amendment (which they never do). Well done.

Congress could still do more. The SPEECH Act protects me perfectly well, because I have no assets abroad, but those who do have assets abroad can still be victims of libel tourism. Congress should extend the law so that those who lose money to libel tourism abroad can recover the damages from any assets the tourists have in America.


Somali pirates kill four Americans

February 22, 2011

Now that four people are dead, can we please give the Navy a hunting license to go after these thugs? Putting down the Barbary pirates was one of America’s first triumphs. It’s a scandal that piracy is back two centuries later, and it’s the direct result of our treating piracy with kid gloves.


We’re winning

February 21, 2011

How do you know we’re winning the Wisconsin budget battle? Here’s how:

White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests

And can it be any surprise? You could hardly pick a less sympathetic side than the union staging an illegal strike to demand more of the taxpayers’ money during a financial crisis while Democratic legislators flee the state.

It’s crap, though. The president is involved up to his ears.

UPDATE: “White House denies assisting Wis. union, but ties run deep“.


Chaos in Libya

February 21, 2011

Moammar Qaddafi has reportedly fled for Venezuela. Al Jazeera is reporting that military jets are bombing the protesters. Two colonels from the Libyan air force have defected rather than obey those orders.

But in the end, as always, it’s all about the Jews of course.


The police can search your smart phone without a warrant

February 21, 2011

Seriously. Details here.


ATF stonewalls gun-running inquiry

February 21, 2011

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is complaining that the ATF is stonewalling a Senate investigation into the ATF’s gun-running activities (yes, the ATF is engaged in gun-running), and their involvement in the murder of a Border Patrol agent. I don’t think this scandal is going away; subpoenas are presumably next.

(Via Instapundit.)


Paramedic who refused aid reinstated

February 21, 2011

Josie Dimon is the infamous paramedic who left a man to die when she refused to pick him up during Pittsburgh’s blizzard last year:

Beginning early Feb. 6, as the city all but ground to a halt under a crippling blizzard, Mr. Mitchell and his girlfriend repeatedly called 911 seeking help for his abdominal pain. At 5:50 a.m., an ambulance crew headed by Ms. Dimon reached Second Avenue and West Elizabeth Street in Hazelwood.

Citing the snow-covered Elizabeth Street Bridge, Ms. Dimon declined to go any farther and asked for Mr. Mitchell to walk to the ambulance. By 6:09 a.m., city officials said last year, Ms. Dimon had grown tired of waiting.

“He ain’t [expletive] comin’ down, and I ain’t waitin’ all day for him,” she said to a colleague on a call recorded at the dispatch center. “I mean, what the [expletive], this ain’t no cab service.”

Minutes later, Ms. Dimon said, “Is he on his way? Because we are not going to wait all day for him.” . . .

By the time another ambulance reached him Feb. 7, Mr. Mitchell had died.

She left a man to die, because the dying man couldn’t walk to her ambulance. She claims that the dispatcher never told her that this call was serious. I guess you’re under no obligation unless the dispatcher says “we really need you to do your job this time.”

Naturally she was fired, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that her firing was unjustified.

Except for her union, the Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics.

The union filed a grievance saying the Dimon was fired without “just cause”, which is prohibited under the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the City of Pittsburgh. An arbitrator, one James Duff, agreed with the union, and ordered that the city reinstate Dimon with full back pay. The city is appealing the decision.

In his decision, Duff said it was really the fault of the city, the mayor, and the director of public safety. No question, the mayor screwed up by the numbers. But one failing that cannot be blamed on Luke Ravenstahl is Josie Dimon’s unwillingness to get out of her ambulance and walk across a bridge to save a man’s life.

This is where our public-sector unions have taken us: a world in which you can’t even fire a paramedic for leaving a man to die.

(Via That’s Church.)


Fools

February 21, 2011

Some Washington State Democrats are calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would declare that corporations are not persons and are entitled to not of the protections of persons. They are targeting the Citizens United decision, but, as Eugene Volokh points out, they haven’t thought through the ramifications of their proposal: Media corporations would lose the right to a free press, non-profits (e.g., the ACLU) would lose their right to free speech, the government could take corporate property without compensation, the police could search the premises or wiretap the phones of any corporation without a warrant, etc.

In addition to that, these fools continue to misunderstand what the Citizens United ruling actually said. (Probably they are getting their information from the legacy media.) They decry the notion that corporations are persons, but the ruling never said that corporations are persons. On the contrary, the ruling found that corporations are made up of persons who have chosen to organize their efforts as a corporation. Restricting the speech of a corporation means restricting the speech of those persons who make up the corporation.

The average liberal would understand the danger of allowing the government to search the desks in a corporate office without a warrant, but somehow they fail to see the same danger in suppressing their speech.


Political violence

February 21, 2011

Actual political violence, as opposed to the bogus metaphorical kind being hyped by the legacy media, comes from the left, particularly from the unions. At a Tea Party rally in Madison, a thug tried to disable the sound system, and became violent when bystanders tried to stop him.


Casus belli

February 20, 2011

I didn’t notice this when the story broke last October:

The three American hikers arrested by Iran last year were on the Iraqi side of the border, according to US military documents released on Friday by WikiLeaks, reported the New York Times. The internal US document highlights military grids where the group was detained, which the Times said were on the Iraqi side of the border.

Iran crossed the border into Iraq to abduct three Americans. That is an act of war. Unfortunately, the world is learning that America will brush off nearly any provocation.


Columbia sucks

February 20, 2011

All of that talk about excluding ROTC from campus because of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is revealed as just a pretext:

Wounded Iraq vet jeered at Columbia

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

(Via Instapundit.)

They are anti-military, plain and simple. We need to start enforcing the Solomon Amendment on these jackasses. (Of course, that will never happen during this administration.)

I have to add that Columbia University really, really sucks. In addition to their hostility to our military, they play host to a genocidal madman, and they steal their neighbors’ property.


NYT integrity: endangered or extinct?

February 20, 2011

The New York Times says that talking about someone being on the Endangered Species List constitutes a threat. Now, if you’re thinking that the Times has surely used that metaphor themselves, you’re thinking more clearly than the Times.


Ah, the civility

February 20, 2011

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) says we need a watchdog group to grade politicians on their civility. Yeah, because nothing says civility like false accusations of racism.


Making stuff up

February 20, 2011

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow says that Wisconsin — the home of this week’s budget battle, illegal strike, and truant state senators — has a budget surplus. “What?!” I hear you cry. “That can’t be right!”

Indeed it’s not. The Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel explains. Most charitable explanation: poor reading comprehension and useless editors. (There’s much more to the budget than just the general fund.) Most likely explanation: she’s just lying.

(Via Instapundit.)


Malpractice

February 19, 2011

Doctors (or people who claim to be) are giving out medical excuses to Wisconsin teachers who skipped work to protest. What’s even more disgusting than watching them do it (yes, there’s video), is watching them defend their actions. These quacks should be called before the medical licensing board.

Plus, Legal Insurrection makes the connection to nationalized health care:

We have seen the future of the health care system, and it is the doctors on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, handing out free sick notes to public sector union members so they can fraudulently collect their pay for missing work.

Boy, oh boy, I can’t wait for Obamacare. Politicized medicine, massive fraud in the name of progressive politics, and a callous disregard for the law free from fear of prosecution for those aligned with the Democrats.

UPDATE: The University of Wisconsin Health System is investigating.


The Internet kill switch

February 19, 2011

I guess I hadn’t been paying attention. I’ve been hearing people talk about a proposed Internet kill switch, but I assumed that it was either hyperbole or a fringe proposal. Nope. This is an actual bill proposed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Susan Collins (RINO-ME).

Its supporters defend it thus:

Proponents of the bill say it is narrowly crafted and does not intend to limit speech but to eliminate the vulnerability of critical systems such as banks, the power grid and telecommunications from attacks by terrorists or agents of hostile countries.

Indeed, the bill specifically does not grant the president power to act unless a cyberattack threatens to cause more than $25 billion in damages in a year, kill more than 2,500 people or force mass evacuations. The president would have the ability to pinpoint what to clamp down on without causing economic damage to U.S. interests, for anywhere from 30 to 120 days with the approval of Congress, according to the bill.

“This is not Big Brother,” says Tom Kellermann, vice president of security awareness at Core Security Technologies, and a former security expert for the World Bank. “It’s not about shutting off the Internet, but taking a scalpel to command control to key services to protect them.”

Call me unreassured. Who issues the finding that one of this parade of horribles is going to happen, thereby allowing the president to shut down the Internet? The president, of course. The bill specifically prohibits judicial review, and the Congress merely has to be notified. So the limitations are meaningless.

Remember that the Democrats have made it clear that they believe that Sarah Palin can singlehandedly instigate a mass shooting merely by posting a web page calling for the defeat of some Democrats. Against that backdrop, it’s very easy to imagine a Democratic president deciding that Republicans communicating on the Internet are going to cause mass casualties.

Worse still, the proposal is not really for a nationwide kill switch. Such an extreme power could be used only in a legitimate emergency. Instead, the proposal would give the president a “scalpel”, with the power “to pinpoint what to clamp down on.” The president can easily choose precisely who to silence without inconveniencing the general public.

But the president would never do such a thing, right? Wrong. The administration is already shutting down tens of thousands of domains, without any due process at all, for literally no reason other than its confusion about how the Internet works.

Neither is the limitation of the power to dealing with “cyberattack” likely to be any protection. We have seen many times before how racketeering and money-laundering laws have been creatively interpreted to prosecute political activity, and that was with the approval of the courts. Here, the power of creative interpretation would lie with the same person who would exercise the power (remember, no judicial review). That’s no protection at all.

This proposal needs to be soundly defeated.


US vetoes UN’s latest anti-Israel resolution

February 19, 2011

President Obama actually offered to approve it, if only the Palestinians agreed to make it non-binding. Abbas refused, apparently deciding that a defeated binding resolution is better than a unanimous non-binding resolution. Good thinking!

Still, the administration was determined to get its anti-Israel on, and followed its veto with a tirade against Israel’s settlements. (On that note, let’s recall that the US and Israel had a deal to extend Israel’s settlement moratorium, but the deal fell through when the US refused to put it in writing.)


Helen Thomas spouts again

February 19, 2011

Helen Thomas is a real piece of work. Now that she’s started spouting her hatred of Jews, she seems unable to stop. In a recent interview with Joy Behar (tough interviewer there!) she added to her already voluminous record:

  • She does not regret her earlier pro-Holocaust comments. Since she already retracted her apology, this part isn’t really news.
  • She said Jews didn’t need to leave Europe after World War 2, because they weren’t being persecuted any more. I guess they were supposed to stick around where they had been nearly exterminated, trusting that Europe had had its last pogrom ever.
  • She defended her earlier remarks saying that Jews should return to Germany and Poland, adding ”I also said Russia.” Terrific, another country with a history of persecution against Jews.
  • When Behar pointed out that Russia has a history of persecution against Jews, Thomas said “They also had 25 million who died in World War II”. It’s hard to see how that’s even relevant; does Russia’s fight against Nazi Germany somehow excuse its persecution of Jews? Moreover, we should remember that Russia opened World War 2 as Nazi Germany’s ally. The Holocaust was well under way when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa.
  • She defended herself against charges of anti-Semitism saying that she can’t be anti-Semitic when she is a Semite herself. Despite being the lamest defense ever, you hear this all the time from Jew-haters in certain ethnic groups.
  • Finally, she blamed “the” Ari Fleischer and “the” Abraham Foxman for causing her troubles by “distorting everything”. No matter how many different people criticized her after she came out as an anti-Semite, I guess it’s always about the Jews in the end, isn’t it.

(Via Hot Air.)

UPDATE: Corrected a typo that made point 2 confusing.


The gift of clarity

February 19, 2011

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and planning similar protests in other state capitals. . .

The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

This is the President Obama that we know and, well, don’t love. To win re-election, he doesn’t actually need to move to the center. The legacy media will say he is moving to the center, whether he is or not. All Obama has to do is not sabotage that narrative. And that is exactly what he is doing by siding with Wisconsin’s disgusting public sector unions. These guys illegally walk off their cushy taxpayer-funded jobs to demand more taxpayer money, and are rightfully reviled by just about everyone for it.

This is political malpractice, but it seems Obama just can’t help himself. In the next election, Republicans are going to be able to tie Obama to these jackals very effectively; not only has Obama expressed support for the unions, he has been instrumental in furthering their efforts. And the unions are going to look very bad on television.


Hmm

February 19, 2011

A good point:

BTW…in no MSM coverage I have seen is there ANY note that the crowd is “predominantly white”…. Why is that?

Of course, we all know the answer.


I don’t want to hear anything from the left about civility ever again

February 18, 2011

More of the same union thuggery, this time from Idaho. (Via the Corner.)


Good luck with that

February 18, 2011

The White House is asking Judge Vinson, the federal judge in Florida that struck down Obamacare, to order states to obey it nonetheless. I read an analysis somewhere (can’t find it now, sorry) that suggested that Vinson’s decision contained some pretty strong hints that he would not issue such an order. But even that aside, isn’t it pretty unusual for a judge to order the winning party to do what the losing party wants?

I think we have to see this as a political decision. Rather than waiting for an appeals court to hear the case, the White House has decided it wants a confrontation with this judge, right now.

UPDATE: This isn’t the same analysis, but it mentions many of the same things.

UPDATE: Here it is:

Also, it should be noted that a few commentators have considered the failure of the anti-Obamacare forces to obtain an injunction against the act as some kind of victory. It really isn’t. Instead the court reasoned that a judgment declaring the law to be unconstitutional is sufficient relief to the plaintiffs because “there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” (internal quotation marks removed.) In other words, he felt that the Federal Government would try to obey the law without the court formally ordering its obedience. But believe you me, if the Obama administration ignores this ruling, the court can and certainly will revisit the matter and issue an injunction.


Transparency

February 18, 2011

The Obama administration has censored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s report on the safety evaluation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. Presumably this means that it disagrees with administration policy, which is to stop the Yucca facility regardless of what the science says.

NOTE: I’m not being bombastic here. The administration’s policy is literally to ignore the science. Specifically, the NRC chairman gave orders last October to stop looking at the science.

(Via Instapundit.)


The Battle of Madison

February 18, 2011

The battle going on in Madison, Wisconsin today is truly consequential. Schools are closed as Wisconsin teachers continue their illegal strike for a third day, protesting the budget being considered by the state legislature.

In the last election, voters turned control of the state House and Senate and the governorship over to the GOP. The GOP is keeping its promise to fix the state budget, and — as in most states — Wisconsin’s key problem is the public sector unions. The unions won’t accept the verdict of the voters, and are bringing pressure (ugly, ugly pressure) to defeat the budget.

Politicians across the country are paying close attention to Madison. If the unions succeed in scuttling this reform despite losing the election, that will be a signal to the rest of the country not to take on the unions. That will mean the fiscal ruin of the states, and probably an end to our federalist system. But a victory in Madison will encourage reformers around the country, in addition to saving the state of Wisconsin.


Who questions the patriotism?

February 17, 2011

Once again, while the left always accuses the right of attacking their patriotism, it is the left that actually does it.


The continued decline of Great Britain

February 17, 2011

British homeowners can’t put wire mesh on their windows. It might hurt burglars.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: This might not be true.


Hide out at Hooters

February 17, 2011

While Wisconsin teachers were staging an illegal and very ugly strike to protest a bill the would cut the state budget, Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators skipped town to prevent a vote from taking place. The legislators were located at a resort in Rockford, Illinois. To get a sense of the nature of the resort, a picture is worth a thousand words.


Violent rhetoric

February 17, 2011

UPDATE: More violent rhetoric, and still more. And more yet.

UPDATE: And more.


No Christians, please

February 17, 2011

The religious discrimination policy at UC Davis specifically exempts Christians from protection. The policy is now being changed; the administration previously ignored complaints about the policy, but the threat of legal action and some press scrutiny quickly got them to see the light (so to speak).


The Associated Press picks a side

February 16, 2011

The Associated Press is taking a page from the McClatchy playbook: taking as fact the unsupported allegation of one party to an incident.

The scene of the incident was a meeting of the Dallas County Commissioner Court, at which many citizens attended to complain about the dismissal of the elections administrator. One such attendee named Jeff Turner referred to Commissioner John Price (who happens to be black) as the “chief mullah of Dallas County.”

As I’m sure any reader of this blog knows, the mullahs are the unaccountable religious leaders in the Islamic theocracy of Iran. It’s a strange insult in context, but one without any racial implications.

John Price didn’t see it that way. Price thought Turner had said “chief moolah”. Price claims that “moolah” is a racial slur against black people. It is not, as far as I can tell, but after some googling I believe Price confused the word ”moolah” with “moolie”, which is an obscure racial slur in Italian slang.

The incident culminated in Price dismissing the complaints, saying “All of you are white. Go to hell.” Price, incidentally, is a piece of work. He previously gained notoriety by taking offense at the term “black hole” (he says it’s racist), and he has a long history of assaults (although he always manages to get acquitted of the most serious charges).

When the Associated Press reported the story, they accepted Price’s version as fact, reporting that Turner called him “chief moolah” (false) and that “moolah” is a racial slur (also false):

Note that the AP’s bogus history of “moolah” as a racial slur is cribbed from Price’s press release. The local CBS affiliate later corrected its story as to what Turner said, but has yet to correct its description of “moolah” as a racial slur.

This, it seems, is how the Associated Press reports a controversy now: Pick one party and report his side, and don’t bother checking any facts. Moreover, the party they picked to support is the one who said “All of you are white. Go to hell.” Nice work, AP.

(Via Patterico.)


Due process

February 16, 2011

Last weekend, the Department of Homeland Security seized 84,000 domains, and replaced those sites with a banner asserting that they were trafficking in child pornography. All but ten of them (at most) were innocent. None of the owners had the opportunity to fight the action, nor were any of them even notified it would happen.

Homeland Security is unembarrassed.

(Via Instapundit.)


What is tenure for?

February 16, 2011

Widener University seems confused about what tenure is for, as they consider revoking a professor’s tenure for controversial content in his lectures. Then again, this isn’t the first time Widener University has been confused about basic ideas.

UPDATE: The more we learn about this, the worse it looks.

UPDATE (3/10): A Widener committee recommends that the charges be withdrawn.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers