Questions and Observations

Free Markets, Free People

Perhaps We Should Set Up Camps or Something

Bonnie Erbe, writing at the CBS News blog site, has had it up to here with all the hate speech, and its inevitable consequences.  So, she has a cunning plan.

If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is…

Not only have we had three hate crime murders within the last two weeks (Mr. Johns, as noted above, Dr. George Tiller a week ago last Sunday, and Pvt. William Andrew Long by an American-born Muslim convert outside a recruiting station just before that.)…

It’s not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?

Let’s call it “preventative detention”, or something equally innocuous.  Let’s pretend that it isn’t a suggestion that is so totalitarian, and so horribly un-American, that Ms. Erbe should be ahsamed for having publicly presented such an evil proposal. You see, not being privy to the internal lives of my fellow citizens, I don’t know which of them will commit a crime, so I don’t feel comfortable imprisoning for the possible consequences of their thoughts.

Ms. Erbe, on the other hand, seems to have no such compunctions.

This is, by the way, where the logic of “hate crimes” inevitably takes you.  Once you realize that prosecution for hate crimes doesn’t stop them, you move to prevent them by other, inevitably totalitarian–means. And, eventually, the definition of what becomes “hate speech” starts expanding.

And so, we’ve arrived now where a “responsible” journalist can now advocate opening up prisons to house those whose only “crime” is to hold insufficiently pure thoughts.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Ditching The Star-Spangled Banner

Michael Kinsley annoyed some people this week by suggesting that we replace our national anthem with some other, more singable tune. This subject comes up at least once per year, usually around either the Super Bowl or the World Series, when some new butchering of the song prompts the discussion. Personally, while I don’t agree with Kinsley’s reasoning, I favor the change.

Growing up a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I’ve always had a special affinity for “God Bless America” and often wondered why that tune wouldn’t be a better choice. And anyone who has ever heard Ray Charles sing “America the Beautiful” can be forgiven for thinking that this is our country’s anthem. Both are far representative of the nation than a song about one battle in Baltimore’s harbor.

So, I’m curious. Where do you all stand on the Star-Spangled Banner? Would you rather a different song, and if so, which one?

Which song should be our national anthem?
Keep the “Star-Spangled Banner” you unpatriotic simps!
“God Bless America” (even if Michael likes it too)
“America the Beautiful,” athough what’s so great about ocean foam?
“This Land is Your Land” comrades!
“O, Canada”
“Stars and Stripes Forever”
“My Country ‘Tis of Thee”
“Dixie”
“Convoy!”
Other
  
pollcode.com free polls
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

“Lose” An Election, Go To Jail

It’s kind of hard to protest an election in court when you’re in jail.

Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi was reportedly arrested Saturday following the reformist’s defeat at the polls by hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[...]

Mousavi’s arrest was reported by an unofficial source, who said that the presidential contender had been arrested en route to the home of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

My guess – and that’s all it is – is this is a move to defuse the protests. It will also remove the last bit of the veneer from the belief that these were “free and open” elections. In some ways this makes Iran easier to deal with. There’s no longer any doubt that it is a totalitarian regime where no “robust debate” is taking place or possible.

Look – the fantasy that these were “free and open” elections was a sham to begin with. 475 people applied to run for the presidency. 4 were approved by the ruling mullahs. That should tell you all you need to know about this election. Even Mousavi had impeccable revolutionary credentials, or he wouldn’t have been one of the 4.

But the election appears to have taken an unexpected turn. It would seem those that voted for Mousavi and perhaps Mousavi himself, took it a little more seriously than the authorities expected. Supporters turned out in record shattering numbers (85% of eligible voters) to vote and simply aren’t buying this supposed “landslide” win the mullahs and IRG had put together to keep their guy in office.

Crude, certainly, but to be expected. Authoritarians don’t believe in the democratic process – never have. But they understand the power of popular approval – even if they have to fake it and fake it poorly.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Landslide In Iran?

Electoral, of course.

Given the announced size of the victory (62.6% to 34%), we’re to believe that the majority of the country is quite happy to maintain the confrontational course (and style) set by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not that it makes a particular difference (since the candidates all were approved by the ruling mullahs and in the case of Ahmadinejad, his opponent’s “reform” label was a relative one to begin with) in the long run. But given the reported unpopularity of Ahmadinejad and the vast turnout, it’s hard to believe that he was the first choice of the majority of those voting.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the “opposition” candidate, claims there’s bee widespread vote fraud and he’ll take his case to court:

“I’m warning that I won’t surrender to this manipulation,” Mousavi said in a statement posted on his Web site Saturday. He said the announced results were “shaking the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s sacred system” and represented “treason to the votes of the people.” He warned that the public would not “respect those who take power through fraud.”

[...]

“I would like to inform you that in spite of wide-ranging fraud and problem-making, according to the documents and reports we have received, the majority of your votes have been cast in favor of your servant,” the statement said. It concluded with a veiled suggestion of a possible confrontation, calling his supporters into the streets to celebrate his victory Saturday night and warning that if the votes are not fairly counted, “I will use all legal facilities and methods to restore the rights of the Iranian people.”

Meanwhile the mullahs have signaled the voting charade is over:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni praised Ahmadinejad’s election and called on his rivals to cooperate with him.

In Iran, that’s as good as the fat lady singing.

So much for the “robust debate”. So much for the “unclenched fist” as well.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Say “No” To “Cap and Trade” Because China’s Not Playing

And China is making no bones about it:

China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.

Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.

Not only no cuts, but an increase in its emissions.

And Japan – where the Kyoto accord was signed – isn’t very enthused about cuts either:

Hopes that Copenhagen might deliver tougher carbon reduction targets were dashed further when Japan failed to make a significant commitment to reduce emissions.

Instead of the hoped for 15% cut, Japan said it would try for 2%.

The Bush Administration had insisted that it would not agree to mandatory cuts as long as developing nations increased emissions. The Obama Administration has taken a softer line, accepting that China and India could not be expected to make equal commitments to developed economies. However, Mr Stern recently said: “They do need to take significant national actions that they commit to internationally, that they quantify and that are ambitious.”

Well we now know how that “soft line” works, don’t we? China bows up and not only refuses to play but says it is going to increase its admission. And Japan felt confident enough to lower its target from 15 to 2. Not that I blame them or don’t think we should blow this whole thing off too.

But that’s the probem – the US will probably continue to pursue cap and trade because that’s been the left’s wet dream here for years. You see we use too much energy and we need to be punished – punished I tell you! And we’ll commit ourselves to the equivalent of bailing the ocean with a teaspoon while our economy strangles.

Ironic – in the real world “little green shoots” would thrive in increased CO2.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Obama Defends Marriage

Move over, Carrie Prejean.  President Obama apparently thinks that marriage  should be defined traditionally, too.  And he’s sent government lawyers into court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.  And it has some people upset.

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Apparently, some people didn’t beleive Obama when he stated that he opposed gay marriage.  So, more buyer’s remorse from those people.

I wonder if a Cheney Administration would have taken a more reasonable position vis a vis DOMA.  It could hardly have staked out a more conservative one than the Obama administration did.

Here’s the thing:  as Dale Carpenter over at Volokh points out, the DoJ went all the way to the wall to defend DOMA, even though there was no need to do so.

Of most interest is what the DOJ has to say about the due process and equal protection claims, rejecting just about every single variation of an argument that gay-rights scholars and litigants have made over the past 30 years.

Fundamental right to marry that includes same-sex couples? Nonsense under the narrowest approach to such rights, as articulated by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Washington v. Glucksberg, who wrote that in evaluating a fundamental-rights claim a federal court must follow tradition and tradition is to be understood as narrowly as possible.

The Loving analogy? Rejected. Strict scrutiny for laws discriminating against gays and lesbians? Unprecedented. Sex discrimination? Meritless. Romer v. Evans? That dealt with a comprehensive denial of rights, unlike DOMA. Lawrence v. Texas? That was a privacy case.

Ninth Amendment rights? No such thing.

Essentially, the Obama Administration’s justice department filed a brief that attempts to gut practically every constitutional gay rights argument you can think of.  I would have expected Obama’s defense of DOMA–assuming there was going to even be one, which there didn’t have to be–to be more or less pro forma.  Instead of arguing that the law was unconstitutional–which Bush and Clinton did a couple of times–or making boilerplate legal arguments as a matter of form, the DoJ went for the throats of gay marriage advocates.

I really do wonder why.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

The Coming World Of Obamacare and AGW Taxes

Nothing makes it clearer than a real world examples. From socialized Canada:

The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.

Critics say the payments mean the government’s strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.

“You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency,” NDP health critic Adrian Dix said.

“That just doesn’t make sense.”

Heh … it would really be funny if it wasn’t so absurd or headed in our direction like a runaway freight train.

Enjoy those “little green shoots” of growth, because they’re going to be as dead as the Mojave desert if “health care reform” and “cap and tax trade” are passed.

And don’t even try to throw the “these people have your best interest at heart” canard out there either:

Dix warned that some of the potential cuts – such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital – would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.

“Obviously when you shut down regional centres it makes people travel farther to get to their health care facility,” he said.

Vancouver Coastal chief financial officer Duncan Campbell said his health authority believes the payments are appropriate and isn’t asking for any exemption from Victoria.

“For us to go back and ask for an exemption wouldn’t fit in well with our green care plans,” he said.

IOW, your health is secondary to their sacred green mission.

Freakin’ amazing. And yes, it is entirely possible you’d be treated the same way here when government controls health care and is collecting on “cap and trade”. Remember, it was Obama who said he didn’t believe in cap and trade exemptions.

~McQ

[HT: Wm Teach, RWN]

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Brilliant! (Update)

That Obama guy really knows what he’s doing! Yessir – we’re in good hands. And he’s sure making our friends in the world like us more than when that evil Bush was in the White House. Umm hmm:

The British Government responded with ill-disguised fury tonight to the news that four Chinese Uighurs freed from Guantanamo Bay had been flown for resettlement on the Atlantic tourist paradise of Bermuda.

The four arrived on Bermuda in the early hours, celebrating the end of seven years of detention after learning that they were to be accepted as guest workers.

But it appears that the Government of Bermuda failed to consult with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the decision to take in the Uighurs – whose return is demanded by Beijing – and it could now be forced to send them back to Cuba or risk a grave diplomatic crisis.

Foreign Policy 101 – coordination and negotiation with friendly countries before doing something like this for which they now have to take responsibility.

What has happened to our State Department? Lobotomies?

UPDATE: It only gets worse:

Pressed on whether the US had told the British government, an unnamed state department official was quoted as saying: “We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane.”

Now a senior US official has told the BBC it was a deliberate decision not to consult London on the resettlement, after other countries came under pressure from China not to accept the Uighurs.

In a highly unusual move, a senior US official said Washington opted to keep details of the deal from London until the last minute to enable Britain to deny all knowledge of the deal and thus avoid China’s anger, says the BBC’s Washington correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The official said they expected London to be upset but added he felt the deal was made on solid ground, in direct talks with the Bermuda government, who accepted the men as part of guest worker programme.

Yeah — no arrogance there, huh? Kind of like the UK doing the same thing on Puerto Rico. Who would China go after – the governor or PR or the US?

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Krugman Goes Off The Deep End

Two nuts apparently equal vindication of the Department of Homeland Security report on “right-wing extremists”. And Paul Krugman, like many of his ilk, ignores the dearth of statistical support his premise has to make this claim:

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

I noticed that one of our more asinine and logic-challenged commenters has picked up these talking points now that they’ve been published. Big surprise.

Noticably missing from the Krugman litany of right-wing extremists is the converted muslim and black man who shot and killed a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the Krugman statistical model I assume I can interpolate that into a rise in “muslim extremist violence” in the US. In fact, one could certainly credibly argue that it is a 100% increase in such violence.

But of course, people would laugh and point at me and say how utterly stupid it is to use one whacked out nut-job to try and brand a whole religion through implication.

Well, friends, that’s precisely what Mr. Krugman and the rest of the moonbats on the left are attempting with their nonsense. Michael warned you about it and here it is. Nevermind that the right-wing Weekly Standard was apparently on the “right-wing” whack job’s hit list. Facts only get in the way of an unsubstantiated rant.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

Buy Dale’s Book!