Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama's Immoral Choice

In choosing the forces of socialist autocracy in Honduras over the forces of law (the Honduran Supreme Court), order (the Honduran military), and democracy (the Honduran Congress), President Obama has probably shown us all his true colors. His brusque and imperialistic meddling in the affairs of Honduras in support of the attempts of the Castro regime in Cuba and the Chavez regime in Venezuela to destabilize Honduras in pursuit of their "war against the bourgeoisie," clearly shows Mr. Obama is no friend of democracy. Couple this with his practiced silence while Iranian demonstrators were being shot like dogs while clamoring for free and fair elections, and the depth of his antipathy to democracy becomes apparent. And make no mistake, there is no ambiguity to what is going on in Honduras:

Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

That Obama can look at these facts and declare there has been a "coup" is nothing short of despicable.

I know for most Americans the troubles of the Honduran people don't amount to much. It's rare for the country to even get a mention in the newspapers far too few Americans read. But this matters. That Obama has taken the side of dictators in support of the creation of another dictator matters.

We have a President who seemingly believes less in the ideals of the United States then he does in the mad ravings of leftist autocrats.

It's wrong.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Obama Is Either In Over His Head Or A Marxist...

...maybe both.

Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras' national palace Monday, leaving at least 15 people injured, as world leaders from Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez [ed. yeah, that's a real wide spectrum. /eye roll] demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup....

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."

The Organization of American States called an emergency meeting for Tuesday to consider suspending Honduras under an agreement meant to prevent the sort of coups that for generations made Latin America a tragic spawning ground of military dictatorships.

The new government, however, was defiant. Roberto Micheletti, named by Congress to serve out the final seven months of Zelaya's term, vowed to ignore foreign pressure.

"We respect everybody and we ask only that they respect us and leave us in peace because the country is headed toward free and transparent general elections in November," Micheletti told HRN radio.

He insisted Zelaya's ouster was legal and accused the former president himself of violating the constitution by sponsoring a referendum that was outlawed by the Supreme Court. Many saw the foiled vote as a step toward eliminating barriers to his re-election, as other Latin American leaders have done in recent years.

Despite the protests at the palace, daily life appeared normal in most of the capital, with nearly all businesses open. Some expressed relief at the departure of Zelaya, who alienated the courts, Congress, the military and even his own party in his tumultuous three years in power.

"A coup d'etat is undemocratic and you never want to support it, but in the case of this guy and his government, maybe so," said Roberto Cruz, a 61-year-old metalworker.

It's amazing that a country's attempt to forestall a dictatorship, which required the cooperation of the Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran military, is labelled by Obama as "moving backwards."

Heaven forbid we don't foster leftist autocrats.

Keep dreaming big Obama baby.

Really, Paul Krugman Is A Moron

Really he is.

Lysenkonism lives!

UPDATE:

My point here was simple, and in all of its particulars complete (or as complete as it needs to be when dealing with a boob and ideological hack like Krugman). However, that doesn't mean that other were not more prolix on the matter. Take Stephen Barr at First Thoughts:

...this morning, I read the statement of that noted physicist Paul Krugman proclaiming that to doubt the global warming peril is “treason against the planet.” One can hear the rumbling of the tumbrels, the crash of the guillotine, and the roar of the crowd in the background. Treason Against the Planet! Set up a Committee of Planetary Safety! What the hell, if I may ask, does Krugman know about it? Is he calling [MIT climatology Prof. Richard] Lindzen, [Harvard physicist Will] Happer, and [Institute for Advanced Study Freeman] Dyson traitors against the planet? Yes, in effect, he is. And that is truly disgusting.

Unfortunately for Krugman he brought his jack-booted ideology to a science fight.

Obama: Dictator In The Making?

Well, based upon Obama's open and enthusiastic support for Honduran dictator-in-the-making Manuel Zelaya, it is difficult to say Obama has much respect for the rule of law.

Zelaya was violating his country’s constitution with his referendum that would have, Chavez-style, repealed term limits on the presidency. The Honduras Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and the military refused to distribute the ballots. Instead of backing down, Zelaya fired the head of the military, which precipitated the ouster.

Clearly, democracies cannot abide armed overthrow of elected governments, but that presumes that the government acts within the rule of law. Zelaya had no intention of doing so, and his flagrant violations and attempt to accrue personal power made that crystal clear. Zelaya had begun seizing dictatorial powers, and the military responded by arresting him. The military then handed power back to the legislature rather than keeping it for themselves, which makes this less of a coup and more of a military impeachment.

Obama's attempt to interfere in the domestic politics of Honduras is, of course, the exact opposite of the position he espoused on the campaign trail, and the fact he attempted to interfere to allow for the taking of dictatorial powers by Zelaya should worry all of us. Basically Obama is saying if you are a leftist president everything is permitted and the law should be no hindrance.

That is a scary, scary position for an American president to hold.

Add this to the Democratic penchant to support communist rebels in Columbia instead of the democratically elected government, and you have to ask: What is wrong with these people? Are they stupid or something?

Thanks For Your Peculiar Understanding Of "The Law" Justice Ginsburg...

...but no thanks.

Basically she claims the following:

White people, who work harder and are more accomplished then their co-workers by any objective measure, should not believe they deserve promotions or pay raises or any other perk, while there is a minority around who can receive said promotion or pay raise. In fact, white workers deserve nothing, and the reson they deserve nothing is that they are white.

She, rather laughably, finds this notion completely in keeping with the Constitution. Maybe her copy has a reverse 3/5th provision in it.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Beware: Anti-Liquor Fascists On The March

I hate these people. They are evil and should be resisted by any and all means. Alcohol link to one in 25 deaths

One in 25 deaths across the world are linked to alcohol consumption, Canadian experts have suggested.

Writing in the Lancet, the team from the University of Toronto added that the level of disease linked to drinking affects poorest people the most....

The paper says that, although there have been some benefits of moderate drinking in relation to cardiovascular disease, these are far outweighed by the detrimental effects of alcohol on disease and injury.

In addition to diseases directly caused by drinking, such as liver disorders, a wide range of other conditions such as mouth and throat cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, depression and stroke are linked to drinking.

Drinking patterns do vary around the world, and the researchers point out that most of the adult population - 45% of men and 66% of women - abstain from drinking alcohol for most of them for their life.

Across the Americas, average consumption is 17 units per week, while the Middle East was the lowest at 1.3 units per week.

Not only is this all the basis for evil bullshit, it is also a lie. The numbers do not lie. Let's compare life expectancy for the top five European alcohol consumers with those with the top five Middle East nations in life expectancy (where alcohol is generally banned.)

Germany: 77 years
Ireland: 76 years
Spain: 78 years
Denmark: 76 years
United Kingdom: 77 years

vs.

Israel: 78 years (alcohol legal)
Kuwait: 77 years (alcohol recently legalized)
U.A.E.: 75 years (alcohol mostly legal)
Oman: 73 years (alcohol illegal)
Saudi Arabia: 72 years (alcohol illegal)

In fact a full 30% of countries in the Middle East have rates under 70 years (12% are still in the 50's), while not a single Western European country is below 70.

But facts never stop a fascists drive for power, and this is expressly what this is about.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said: "This study is a global wake-up call.

"We need an international framework convention for alcohol control, similar to that on tobacco, as soon as possible, to put into practice the evidence-based measures needed to reduce alcohol-related harm.

"These include increasing the price of alcohol, reducing its availability and banning advertising, and the action needs to start now."

See, for fascists like Ian Gilmore, personal choice is never a variable to even be discussed. For such monsters (in the sense of their not having a soul, which seems all too likely) human beings are cattle which the elite have the right, nay duty, to control because said cattle are too stupid to do what the elites want them to do.

These fascists really believe that the common people (i.e. schlubs like you and me) exist not for their own ends, they exist for the well-being of the state. So if you make a decision the fascists don't like they will remove your ability to make that choice. As fascist Don Shenker put it:

Many countries are investigating new ways to cut deaths and disease and reduce the burden on health services by using the price of alcohol to lower consumption.

"As the chief medical officer has identified, putting a stop to the irresponsible sale of low cost alcohol would be an effective step in the right direction.

Hmm...finding any notion of personal autonomy there? Nope. We are all beholden to the state in such a vision. That is their ideology, and that ideology is fascist in intent and execution.

All fascists are evil bastards that deserve to be stopped.

So let's stop them while we still have the democratic processes to do so. God knows they will not allow their anti-alcohol measure to be put to a democratic vote. Once again, sounds pretty fascist doesn't it?

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

If You Think Paul Krugman Is A Dishonest Idiot...

...but want further confirmation on that fact go here.

If you don't think Krugman is a dishonest idiot then you are wrong.

More Idiots At Work (Law School Division)

You know, its a good rule when you read something like Slate to not believe a word their "experts" put forward. Today gave a classic example. If Frank Ricci Loses, Blame Scalia

Many conservatives have taken up the cause of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter who sued the city, claiming that officials discriminated against him when they rejected the results of a promotion exam, on which he did well, because all but one of the top scoring candidates were white. Ricci's claim is now before the Supreme Court. I've written about it once to explain why Ricci's argument is a threat to an important part of modern civil rights law, and I'm writing again now because a lot of people have suggested that Ricci has been treated unusually and unfairly in the courts. In fact, he's been treated just like any other plaintiff suing for employment discrimination. The anger and frustration of the top-scoring firefighters who expected promotions is understandable. But the outrage on the right is also ironic, because the reason that people who sue for employment discrimination—like Frank Ricci—rarely win their cases is that conservative judges have spent decades making sure they usually lose.

A reverse-discrimination lawsuit like Ricci's is, legally speaking, no different from a conventional discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on every factual issue. This was firmly established by Justice Antonin Scalia's 1993 majority opinion in a case called St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, in which a black correctional officer, Melvin Hicks, sued for race discrimination after he was demoted and later fired from his job at a halfway house. The plaintiff must first establish some basic evidence that makes it plausible that he was a victim of discrimination—he was fired or turned down for promotion, for example, for reasons that weren't obviously due to his own lack of performance or across-the-board staff reductions. Once a plaintiff makes this showing (as Ricci did), then the typical case proceeds by a process of elimination. If the plaintiff can prove that there was no good reason for his firing or nonpromotion, the law will conclude that the decision must have been discriminatory.

But, as Justice Scalia made clear in Hicks, the employer doesn't have to prove that there was a good reason for its decision; it needs only to claim that there was one.

Oh good Lord. What part of "The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on every factual issue" does this author (Stanford Law School prof Richard Ford) not understand? Look, we are dealing with individuals who have been accused of breaking the law. Since when have we thought it was OK to presume guilt? This is exactly what Ford is advocating, and acting as if the Conservatives are off their rocker for upholding the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Additionally, Ford seems to indicate that as soon as some employer puts forward any reason whatsoever the plaintiffs case is automatically dismissed. This is complete nonsense. All the Court has said is that the original task of a plaintiff (i.e. proving they were discriminated against unlawfully) does not cease and cannot be replaced by the lesser task of poking holes in the defence.

It is worrying that someone teaching at a law school could so blithely embrace the concept of having people prove they are innocent, and thus negate a basic protection of the law. It's even scarier that Prof. Ford doesn't seem to realize he's doing this.

I May Have To Pick Myself Up One Of These

My motto has always been, What would Homer do?



Luckily we can all get the real thing.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Unconstitutional, Illiberal, And Fascistic (Welcome To Connecticut!)

Free speech certainly lacks supporters among the Democrats these days.

The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., says he's a man of God, not a lobbyist. But state officials say he's both.

According to the Connecticut Office of State Ethics, the diocese acted as a lobbying organization in March when it rented buses to transport people to a rally in Hartford — the state capital — to protest a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances.

Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.

You heard that right. According to the dimwitted Demcorats in Connecticut, if you organize a protest (something explicitly protected by the Constitution) you can be charged with a crime if you spend more than $2000 to do it. Funny thing is, the Constitution doesn't mention anything about a $2000 limit. Let's look at that pesky First Amendment, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nope, nothing about $2000 there. In fact, it explicitly prohibits legislatures making any law abridging free speech, peaceable assembly or petitioning the government. Democrats in Connecticut, being morons presumably, believe this allows them to criminalize all of the said activity because more than $2000 was spent in doing it.

If this is what "just what Ethics Panels do" well then all "Ethics Panels" are unconstitutional.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama Is A Disgrace

And quite possibly the biggest scum-bag we have ever elected to the office of the Presidency.

What makes me say this? Just look at this:

Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: “For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation” — disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

Evidently, for Obama, funding the killing of Jews is a religious obligation for Muslims. In one sentence Obama has digraced himself, all Muslims, and every American.

Who was dumb enough to vote for this man?

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Unreal

You know, I've never had all that much respect for the Left in this country. Ideologues of all stripes always struck me as rather mindless and, frankly, simple. However, I didn't imagine how close to Fascism they would really be willing to go into order to squelch political opposition.

Take Bucknell University, which has been engaged in an ongoing battle to keep Conservative student organizations for doing much of anything political. (See here and here.)

Of course, it is all a symptom of the Left's intellectual collapse. They have adopted "theories" ranging from Marxist nonsense (variations of Gramsci's shallow Hegemony Theory) to "post-modern" nonsense (akin to Derrida's Deconstruction lunacies) and everything in-between, in order to arrive at the point where all they can do is put there hands over their ears and yell, "LA LA LA LA I"M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!! LA LA LA LA!!!"

Of course, since they are also the ones in the positions of power at America's colleges and universities they haven't passed up the opportunities to attempt to punish those they disagree with politically. Power corrupts. Power in the hands of stupid people corrupts in a stupid fashion.

The sad fact is these people are unable to make a real intellectual argument anymore. They will only engage in "arguments" where the first axiom is "If you disagree with me you are evil." They may as well be the medieval Catholic Church.

Asked And Answered

The Question: What separates Daily Kos style "patriots" who hate just about everything this country has ever done and most everything it stands for, and avowed spies and traitors like Kendall Myers?

The Answer: Not a whole hell of a lot. After all, they both have the means and the motive. The Kos'ers only lack opportunity.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Sad And True

It turns out The Onion was following me around during my college years: But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship Where I Ask You To Do Things And You Do Them

I really like you. I do. You're so nice, and sweet, and you listen to all my problems and respond with the appropriate compliments. But, well, I don't really see a relationship in our future. It would be terrible if we let sex destroy this great friendship we have where I get everything I want and you get nothing you want. Don't you think?

I knew you would understand. You always do.

We're so perfect as friends, you know? I can tell you anything, and you know you can always come to me anytime you need to hear me bitch about work or how ugly I feel. You wouldn't want to ruin a friendship like that just so you could be my boyfriend, and have me look at you with desire and longing in my eyes, if only once—would you? Of course not. Well, if we started dating, it would only complicate this wonderful setup I've got going here.

It's just…you're like my best friend, and I would hate for something you desperately want to change that. I mean, sure, we could go on some dates, maybe mess around a little and finally validate the six years you've spent languishing in this platonic nightmare, but then what? How could we ever go back to the way we were, where I take advantage of your clear attraction to me so I can have someone at my beck and call? That part of our friendship means so much to me.

I guess it is kinda comforting to know my brand of stupidity wasn't exclusive to just me.