The MSM and liberal blog sites are attempting to conflate comments SCOTUS nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor with “similar” comments made by current Justice Sam Alito during his nomination process. Cacophonous cries of GOP hypocrisy can be heard throughout as a major component of the liberal talking points. Don’t believe it.
It is true that during his confirmation hearings, Alito said, “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” Does this statement suggest Alito has empathy? Sure, and there’s nothing to apologize for. As I’ve said in previous posts, judges are not automatons and the act of judging is not a series of precise, mechanical calculations.
Moreover, context, as always, is key. Alito’s statement was part of a longer response to a specific question from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK about “Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life”. Neither the question nor the answer was designed to seek information about Alito’s judicial philosophy. Alito also responded that he thinks of his own children when he is presented with a case involving children, his immigrant ancestors when deciding a case involving immigration, and disabled friends when a disability discrimination case comes his way. So, he’s human. Duh.
Note, however, the middle part of Alito’s answer most libs leave out: “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” In other words, Alito is not saying that his feelings, heritage and upbringing are insignificant or the guiding forces in his decision making. They are merely a factor as he applies the law and are not a basis for bending the law to fit his feelings.
Compare Alito’s comments and their context with those by Judge Sotomayor. She delivered her quip that she, as a “wise Latina woman” would make better decisions than a white man, during a speech the UC Berkeley law school in 2001. Throughout the speech, Sotomayor stressed the significance of her past, upbringing, sex and ethnic heritage—sounds a bit Alito-esque, right?
Not really. She gave the address at symposium called "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation" and sponsored by La Raza—yes, the same La Raza that, for example, opposes a border fence and other security and illegal immigration measures, and supports driver licenses and in-state tuition breaks for illegals. Certainly a friendly audience for Judge Sotomayor to share her true feelings on race and gender. The entire tenor of her speech was a reflection on the revolutionary impact women and minority judges are having and will have in changing how cases are decided if we can just get more of them on the bench. Don’t believe me? Read the speech and see for yourself.
Her words speak for themselves. For example, in a challenge to another judge’s earlier remarks, Judge Sotomayor wonders whether the goal that “judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law…is possible in all or even in most cases.”
In other words, Judge Sotomayor questions whether judges can ever use the law with fairness and integrity. Nothing remotely this radical can be read into Alito’s comments.
Given Judge Sotomayor’s membership in La Raza, her articulated views, her obvious bias now is being dismissed as poorly chosen words—though completely scripted for that specific occasion—and her documented problems with judicial temperament, it isn’t a stretch to think that Justice Sotomayor would use her racial identity and empathy to reach conclusions driven by those qualities instead of the rule of law.
The comments of Alito and Sotomayor are not the same. And when you see the difference, who would you rather be your judge? If you are anything but a liberal minority, does Sotomayor sound like someone you want judging your case?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The nominee and the empathy continuum
“Empathy” seems to be the judicial buzz word of the day. We are told that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, has it in abundance. This, plus her “personal story” appear to be Judge Sotomayor’s most important qualifications, at least as far as the MSM is concerned.
Admirable qualities, to be sure, but they are not the weightiest qualifications for the highest court, nor should they be. Lots of people, including many lawyers and judges, have compelling personal stories. No doubt their stories provide broad perspective and inform their decision making. As for judges, while empathy might cause a judge to rule with more deliberation, it is not a substitute for sound legal reasoning.
Judge Sotomayor’s legal reasoning has come under fire with her nomination. Most political junkies now know about fellow Circuit Judge and Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes’ dissent to Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci v. DiStefano. Cabranes took the rare step of directly criticizing Sotomayor’s reasoning asserting it lacked a clear statement of the claims and provided a “perfunctory disposition.” You’ll soon hear about the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) overturning her decision in the 2006 class action case Merrill Lynch v. Dabit and the high court’s 6-3 decision reversing her decision in the 2007 environmental regulation case Riverkeeper v. EPA, among other decisions.
My primary focus at this point, however, is on the fallacy that empathy should be atop the list of qualifications. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is exclusively an appellate court, meaning you can’t just file your lawsuit there. Rather, every year the high court reviews the decisions the justices choose to review—a handful of decisions at that—based on petitions filed with the court. And those decisions were authored by judges who have already reviewed the record and one or more lower court decisions at the local level.
It is at the local level, where judges preside over hearings, jury and bench trials, take testimony, review evidence and make rulings, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and reach decisions based on the merits, that empathy is critical. Real world experience can assist a trial judge in making sound decisions in cases every day because the judge is on the front lines, in the best position to evaluate and know when and to what extent empathy should play a role.
Frankly, by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it has been briefed, argued, reviewed and evaluated by numerous lawyers, law clerks and judges. The emotion and basis for empathy have been almost entirely excised. What is left is the smallest number of facts necessary to permit the Supreme Court to evaluate and rule on the decision they are reviewing, and the legal analysis used to accomplish this review. Empathy, while playing a role, is relegated to a minor consideration at this level.
Unfortunately, President Obama has it backwards. Empathy seems to be of paramount importance for his selection of a nominee. This is consistent with his stance during the campaign where he said:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
He’s right in one sense. Judges should not be automatons that parrot back abstract legal theory in a vacuum without regard for the realities of claims and defenses. However, there is no justification for a Supreme Court justice to author an opinion based on whether people feel, for example, “welcome in their own nation.”
Put simply, the level of empathy that is relevant to a judge’s job decreases the further away from the trial court a case gets. The foot soldier who is on the ground is in a much better position than the general at the Pentagon to assess the immediate situation, evaluate the options and choose the best one based on the rules of engagement. If the justice system is a continuum, then empathy should be greatest in the local court and the least at the Supreme Court. And, of course, a judge should have empathy to all sides in litigation since neutrality is vital.
During a 2002 speech when she recounted a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Conner that “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding case”, Judge Sotomayor commented, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Strangely, even if President Obama is correct and empathy should be a critical element, he has chosen a nominee who by her own words doesn’t show it. At least not toward white men. Maybe that’s the whole point.
Admirable qualities, to be sure, but they are not the weightiest qualifications for the highest court, nor should they be. Lots of people, including many lawyers and judges, have compelling personal stories. No doubt their stories provide broad perspective and inform their decision making. As for judges, while empathy might cause a judge to rule with more deliberation, it is not a substitute for sound legal reasoning.
Judge Sotomayor’s legal reasoning has come under fire with her nomination. Most political junkies now know about fellow Circuit Judge and Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes’ dissent to Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci v. DiStefano. Cabranes took the rare step of directly criticizing Sotomayor’s reasoning asserting it lacked a clear statement of the claims and provided a “perfunctory disposition.” You’ll soon hear about the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) overturning her decision in the 2006 class action case Merrill Lynch v. Dabit and the high court’s 6-3 decision reversing her decision in the 2007 environmental regulation case Riverkeeper v. EPA, among other decisions.
My primary focus at this point, however, is on the fallacy that empathy should be atop the list of qualifications. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is exclusively an appellate court, meaning you can’t just file your lawsuit there. Rather, every year the high court reviews the decisions the justices choose to review—a handful of decisions at that—based on petitions filed with the court. And those decisions were authored by judges who have already reviewed the record and one or more lower court decisions at the local level.
It is at the local level, where judges preside over hearings, jury and bench trials, take testimony, review evidence and make rulings, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and reach decisions based on the merits, that empathy is critical. Real world experience can assist a trial judge in making sound decisions in cases every day because the judge is on the front lines, in the best position to evaluate and know when and to what extent empathy should play a role.
Frankly, by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it has been briefed, argued, reviewed and evaluated by numerous lawyers, law clerks and judges. The emotion and basis for empathy have been almost entirely excised. What is left is the smallest number of facts necessary to permit the Supreme Court to evaluate and rule on the decision they are reviewing, and the legal analysis used to accomplish this review. Empathy, while playing a role, is relegated to a minor consideration at this level.
Unfortunately, President Obama has it backwards. Empathy seems to be of paramount importance for his selection of a nominee. This is consistent with his stance during the campaign where he said:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
He’s right in one sense. Judges should not be automatons that parrot back abstract legal theory in a vacuum without regard for the realities of claims and defenses. However, there is no justification for a Supreme Court justice to author an opinion based on whether people feel, for example, “welcome in their own nation.”
Put simply, the level of empathy that is relevant to a judge’s job decreases the further away from the trial court a case gets. The foot soldier who is on the ground is in a much better position than the general at the Pentagon to assess the immediate situation, evaluate the options and choose the best one based on the rules of engagement. If the justice system is a continuum, then empathy should be greatest in the local court and the least at the Supreme Court. And, of course, a judge should have empathy to all sides in litigation since neutrality is vital.
During a 2002 speech when she recounted a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Conner that “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding case”, Judge Sotomayor commented, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Strangely, even if President Obama is correct and empathy should be a critical element, he has chosen a nominee who by her own words doesn’t show it. At least not toward white men. Maybe that’s the whole point.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The 1960's, transgender tots, and parental abdication
I wasn’t born until the late 1960’s so I have no personal connection to the social and cultural upheaval happening then. However, I do know some aging hippies and, well, we all seem to hear about how cool the 60’s were. The era when “America came of age.” Oh sure, there was lots of sex, drugs, peace, drugs, tie-dye, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. And drugs. But we struggled as a nation with race relations and civil rights, the Vietnam War, the assassinations of President Kennedy, his brother and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few of the major events.
It seems fair to say that America “grew” in the way we all do when we face adversity and come out the other end. We become stronger and gain new perspectives. Usually that’s a good thing.
Usually.
In response to the sexual taboos of the 1950’s, the sexual revolution was beginning to hit its stride as well and, as an outgrowth, the so-called gay rights movement. A lot was happening behind the scenes with sex and gender research courtesy of studies and publications by Masters and Johnson and others. Among the others was Dr. John Money.
Dr. Money “pioneered” new definitions of “gender roles” based on his belief that gender was not innate but could be assigned to a child before age 3. In other words, your DNA, sexual organs and hormones (to name a few things) don’t have to determine your sex. If Dr. Money got to you early enough in your childhood, he could help you choose your sex. Not surprisingly, Dr. Money also was a strong advocate of sex change operations while working at Johns Hopkins University.
To prove his theory, Dr. Money experimented in 1967 on a set of young twin boys, one of whom had had a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. With the parents’ consent, Dr. Money removed the boy’s sex organs and put him on an aggressive hormone regimen so he could be raised as a girl. The result? An epic tragedy that ultimately led to the boy unsuccessfully reversing Dr. Mengele—sorry—Dr. Money’s plans several years later, the boy’s suicide in 2004, and his twin brother’s drug overdose in 2003. Ruined lives, broken relationships, a devastated family and generational lines lost.
The 60’s weren’t all bad and neither is some blurring of traditional gender roles. What is truly disturbing about the 60’s legacy is the indifference to and devaluation of life. People and traditional roles have become much less valuable with the approval and growth of abortion, assisted suicide, pornography, hedonism, and a culture that says it’s OK for anyone to do anything he wants as long as no one gets hurt. You’d think this legacy and the work of quacks like Dr. Money would teach us not to mess with God’s order.
Apparently the lesson hasn’t been taught in Omaha.
This past week, the Sioux City Journal reported that a local family planned to enroll their 8-year old son in a different school next year. Why? According to them, he is transgender and has wanted to be a girl since he was 4. The evidence? He says he’s wanted to be a girl, been allowed to wear girl clothes at home, and claims his inside doesn’t match his outside. No news on whether surgery will be involved.
Of course, the child’s family is responsible for making this decision and encouraging their son to live a heartrending lie. But we shouldn’t be surprised that this would happen in our “enlightened” post-60’s age. It used to be that men were men and women were women. And historically each sex was primarily responsible for certain familial and societal obligations. It is also true that these distinctions were the result in part of, as feminists might put it, male hegemony and a desire to keep women subjugated.
Most of it, however, was due to the fact that boys are boys and girls are girls. They are inherently different from each other! That’s God’s design. Boys will make guns out of any nearby toy because they are wired to be boys. Same with girls and tea parties. Yes, there are (very) few exceptions. I don’t know what causes the exceptions but I’m sure they are not the result of a choice one makes to be one sex or the other.
The approach of the Omaha parents is that their boy wants to be a girl, so let him be a girl and we’ll raise him that way. This has happened because either the parents have given up or society has deteriorated such that they’ve concluded their decision is valid and won’t be condemned. Either choice is a reflection of the changes in society that grew out of the 60’s—ambivalence and spiritual malaise, or free love, hedonism and the devaluation of life. Since the parents refused to permit publications of their names for fear of retribution, I suggest that they’ve given up. This family can likely expect broken relationships, heartache, and family devastation, courtesy of the “progress” our society has made.
Dr. Money’s work should be a cautionary tale to them and all of us. Thankfully, he died in 2006. He can’t mutilate anyone physically anymore, but his legacy and that of the era of his most prominent work will continue to mutilate families, lives, and life itself.
It seems fair to say that America “grew” in the way we all do when we face adversity and come out the other end. We become stronger and gain new perspectives. Usually that’s a good thing.
Usually.
In response to the sexual taboos of the 1950’s, the sexual revolution was beginning to hit its stride as well and, as an outgrowth, the so-called gay rights movement. A lot was happening behind the scenes with sex and gender research courtesy of studies and publications by Masters and Johnson and others. Among the others was Dr. John Money.
Dr. Money “pioneered” new definitions of “gender roles” based on his belief that gender was not innate but could be assigned to a child before age 3. In other words, your DNA, sexual organs and hormones (to name a few things) don’t have to determine your sex. If Dr. Money got to you early enough in your childhood, he could help you choose your sex. Not surprisingly, Dr. Money also was a strong advocate of sex change operations while working at Johns Hopkins University.
To prove his theory, Dr. Money experimented in 1967 on a set of young twin boys, one of whom had had a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. With the parents’ consent, Dr. Money removed the boy’s sex organs and put him on an aggressive hormone regimen so he could be raised as a girl. The result? An epic tragedy that ultimately led to the boy unsuccessfully reversing Dr. Mengele—sorry—Dr. Money’s plans several years later, the boy’s suicide in 2004, and his twin brother’s drug overdose in 2003. Ruined lives, broken relationships, a devastated family and generational lines lost.
The 60’s weren’t all bad and neither is some blurring of traditional gender roles. What is truly disturbing about the 60’s legacy is the indifference to and devaluation of life. People and traditional roles have become much less valuable with the approval and growth of abortion, assisted suicide, pornography, hedonism, and a culture that says it’s OK for anyone to do anything he wants as long as no one gets hurt. You’d think this legacy and the work of quacks like Dr. Money would teach us not to mess with God’s order.
Apparently the lesson hasn’t been taught in Omaha.
This past week, the Sioux City Journal reported that a local family planned to enroll their 8-year old son in a different school next year. Why? According to them, he is transgender and has wanted to be a girl since he was 4. The evidence? He says he’s wanted to be a girl, been allowed to wear girl clothes at home, and claims his inside doesn’t match his outside. No news on whether surgery will be involved.
Of course, the child’s family is responsible for making this decision and encouraging their son to live a heartrending lie. But we shouldn’t be surprised that this would happen in our “enlightened” post-60’s age. It used to be that men were men and women were women. And historically each sex was primarily responsible for certain familial and societal obligations. It is also true that these distinctions were the result in part of, as feminists might put it, male hegemony and a desire to keep women subjugated.
Most of it, however, was due to the fact that boys are boys and girls are girls. They are inherently different from each other! That’s God’s design. Boys will make guns out of any nearby toy because they are wired to be boys. Same with girls and tea parties. Yes, there are (very) few exceptions. I don’t know what causes the exceptions but I’m sure they are not the result of a choice one makes to be one sex or the other.
The approach of the Omaha parents is that their boy wants to be a girl, so let him be a girl and we’ll raise him that way. This has happened because either the parents have given up or society has deteriorated such that they’ve concluded their decision is valid and won’t be condemned. Either choice is a reflection of the changes in society that grew out of the 60’s—ambivalence and spiritual malaise, or free love, hedonism and the devaluation of life. Since the parents refused to permit publications of their names for fear of retribution, I suggest that they’ve given up. This family can likely expect broken relationships, heartache, and family devastation, courtesy of the “progress” our society has made.
Dr. Money’s work should be a cautionary tale to them and all of us. Thankfully, he died in 2006. He can’t mutilate anyone physically anymore, but his legacy and that of the era of his most prominent work will continue to mutilate families, lives, and life itself.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Obama's failure to know the enemy leads to Gitmo gaffs
It’s been a week of detainee drama for the Obama administration, none of which would have been necessary but for President Obama’s self-inflicted policy problems.
Obama rode (and stoked) the fire of anti-Bush liberals into the White House by being The Anti-Bush: Everything was Bush’s fault. Pertinently, Obama promised during the campaign to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claiming it and the military tribunals enacted by Bush were “an enormous failure.” On only his third day as president, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast.
Obama still wants to close Gitmo but closure is a tougher sell when you haven’t figured out what you’ll do afterwards. The Senate today voted 90-6 to scrap funding for Obama’s closing plans meaning every Republican and virtually every Democrat rejected the plans. The administration spins this—with Democrat support—as a matter of Congress needing more details before agreeing to fund the closure. That’s putting lipstick on a pig.
President Obama can say he’s keeping his campaign promise, and he is to a point. But promises made in the heat of a campaign, where facts are few but finger-pointing is plentiful, are difficult to keep once the campaign stops and the facts become known. Now that Obama is receiving the most top secret of information, closing Gitmo still sounds good publicly but makes him wince privately.
Any closure plan—no matter how specific or detailed—will face huge obstacles. Primarily there’s the pesky matter of what to do with the 240 or so detainees. No one save the ACLU seems to like the idea of housing them in US prisons. Other nations are smart enough not to take them. That was one of the problems President Bush ran into when he wanted to close Gitmo, a fact liberals conveniently forget. Nevertheless, even most liberals don’t want the detainees released into our population, though ACORN could use the volunteers.
Then there’s the justice angle. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year, Obama has the green light to prosecute detainees in our federal courts. You’d think that would please The Anti-Bush, except that Obama recently expressed support for the very military tribunals he criticized during the campaign. And the administration successfully convinced a federal judge this week that some Gitmo prisoners can be held indefinitely without charges—just like the previous administration Obama so eagerly disparaged. Would the real Obama please stand up?
Worst of all were the comments of administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today. In response to questions about Gitmo, Gibbs reiterated that the president believes it should be closed because (Bush is evil and) Gitmo is a “rallying cry” for terrorists.
This, the administration’s official position, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemies. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't need a “rallying cry” to plan and carry out terror attacks against us. Our very existence is their rallying cry! Our stench as the Great Satan has led them to war against us for decades, only we didn’t wake up and smell the jet fuel until 9/11.
Gitmo itself is not a rallying cry. Rather, the claim that Gitmo must be closed is a rallying cry that plays into the terrorists’ notion of America as the Great Satan. If America would just close Gitmo, liberals claim, our evil (read: Bush/Cheney) would be vanquished and the Muslims would like and respect us again. That will stop them from wanting to hurt us.
Hogwash. The terrorists have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. You can’t compromise a dispute with someone whose singular objective is your death. The enemy publicly expresses support for the nicest, most compassionate outreaches but privately views them with derision and as weakness.
Obama boxed himself into a corner during the campaign and by so quickly ordering Gitmo closed. In recent weeks, he has vacillated between his promised Change and his continuation of Bush’s policies. Now he has yet to come up with a viable plan to deal with closure and the related issues comprehensively. The right answer is to keep Gitmo open and stop the self-flagellation.
Being The Anti-Bush isn’t so easy after all.
Obama rode (and stoked) the fire of anti-Bush liberals into the White House by being The Anti-Bush: Everything was Bush’s fault. Pertinently, Obama promised during the campaign to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, claiming it and the military tribunals enacted by Bush were “an enormous failure.” On only his third day as president, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within a year. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast.
Obama still wants to close Gitmo but closure is a tougher sell when you haven’t figured out what you’ll do afterwards. The Senate today voted 90-6 to scrap funding for Obama’s closing plans meaning every Republican and virtually every Democrat rejected the plans. The administration spins this—with Democrat support—as a matter of Congress needing more details before agreeing to fund the closure. That’s putting lipstick on a pig.
President Obama can say he’s keeping his campaign promise, and he is to a point. But promises made in the heat of a campaign, where facts are few but finger-pointing is plentiful, are difficult to keep once the campaign stops and the facts become known. Now that Obama is receiving the most top secret of information, closing Gitmo still sounds good publicly but makes him wince privately.
Any closure plan—no matter how specific or detailed—will face huge obstacles. Primarily there’s the pesky matter of what to do with the 240 or so detainees. No one save the ACLU seems to like the idea of housing them in US prisons. Other nations are smart enough not to take them. That was one of the problems President Bush ran into when he wanted to close Gitmo, a fact liberals conveniently forget. Nevertheless, even most liberals don’t want the detainees released into our population, though ACORN could use the volunteers.
Then there’s the justice angle. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year, Obama has the green light to prosecute detainees in our federal courts. You’d think that would please The Anti-Bush, except that Obama recently expressed support for the very military tribunals he criticized during the campaign. And the administration successfully convinced a federal judge this week that some Gitmo prisoners can be held indefinitely without charges—just like the previous administration Obama so eagerly disparaged. Would the real Obama please stand up?
Worst of all were the comments of administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today. In response to questions about Gitmo, Gibbs reiterated that the president believes it should be closed because (Bush is evil and) Gitmo is a “rallying cry” for terrorists.
This, the administration’s official position, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemies. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists don't need a “rallying cry” to plan and carry out terror attacks against us. Our very existence is their rallying cry! Our stench as the Great Satan has led them to war against us for decades, only we didn’t wake up and smell the jet fuel until 9/11.
Gitmo itself is not a rallying cry. Rather, the claim that Gitmo must be closed is a rallying cry that plays into the terrorists’ notion of America as the Great Satan. If America would just close Gitmo, liberals claim, our evil (read: Bush/Cheney) would be vanquished and the Muslims would like and respect us again. That will stop them from wanting to hurt us.
Hogwash. The terrorists have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. You can’t compromise a dispute with someone whose singular objective is your death. The enemy publicly expresses support for the nicest, most compassionate outreaches but privately views them with derision and as weakness.
Obama boxed himself into a corner during the campaign and by so quickly ordering Gitmo closed. In recent weeks, he has vacillated between his promised Change and his continuation of Bush’s policies. Now he has yet to come up with a viable plan to deal with closure and the related issues comprehensively. The right answer is to keep Gitmo open and stop the self-flagellation.
Being The Anti-Bush isn’t so easy after all.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Wanda Yikes!
Well, the dumpster fire that was the Wanda Sykes stand-up routine for the White House Correspondents dinner this weekend continues to smolder and drive the news. The MSM’s treatment of Ms. Sykes is tediously predictable. Remember the pass Alec Baldwin got when he “joked” on Late Night with Conan O’Brien that then Republican Rep. Henry Hyde should be “stoned to death” and his family killed? Yuk, yuk. As long as the object of ridicule is conservative, or Republican, or Christian—or even better all 3—then it’s all in good fun and the MSM is quick to justify or excuse, and taciturn in its criticism.
I’ve seen Ms. Sykes stand-up on late night comedy shows and she can be quite funny, though frequently off-color and “edgy”. This night, however, she was cringe worthy at best.
Let’s take her remarks about Rush Limbaugh first. It wasn’t the attack on him that bothered me. Rather, it was the personal nature of it. Rush’s painkiller addiction is no funnier than jokes about Owen Wilson attempting suicide, or Anna Nicole Smith’s fatal overdose. Nevertheless, Ms. Sykes crosses the line by “joking” that she hopes Rush’s kidneys fail.
Hysterical.
Is it ever funny to joke about someone dying? Rush is a big boy who can defend himself if he feels the need so I won’t do it here. However, liberals like Ms. Sykes can’t honestly think that joking about drug overdoses and particular people dying painful deaths is funny. Unless of course the target is an outspoken critic of a guy you support and then jokes or wishes for death are perfectly fine—like liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux hoping Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife “feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
But Ms. Sykes didn’t stop there. Apparently, 9/11 is now fair game for comedians too as she suggested Rush was the 20th hijacker but missed his flight due to his drug use. Nothing like a good Holocaust joke, or Pearl Harbor bit to keep the crowd rolling. Heard any knee-slapping Katrina jokes lately? There aren’t many sacred cows in comedy but it seems that terror attacks should make the short list along with genocide and deadly natural disasters.
Some conservatives have criticized Obama for not storming out of the dinner in protest of Ms. Sykes’ bit. Under the circumstances, it was certainly poor taste for Obama to guffaw to his table mates. I’ll give him a bit of a pass since most of us have been present for the telling of an off-color or offensive joke and not left the room in righteous remonstration. However, he can be legitimately criticized for not showing some form of disapproval especially over the 9/11 comments.
Sadly, while skewering 9/11 is de rigueur thanks to Ms. Sykes, President Obama is still off limits to comedians! Ms. Sykes mustered up a joke about Obama being “half white” and photographed with his shirt off. That’s it. And David Letterman’s recognition on a recent Late Show that he hasn’t figured out how to poke fun at Obama generated a rollicking bit—filled with hackneyed jokes, not about Obama, but about George W. Bush. Now that’s entertainment.
We all need tougher skin when it comes to comments and jokes. Political correctness has created a culture of hypersensitivity about the words we use or “can’t” use. But I suspect not even the fiercest opponents of PC liberalism would sanction stand-up directed at the addictions and painful death of specific known individuals, much less terrorist attacks.
Just wait until Muslim extremists set off a WMD on American soil. Thanks to liberals like Ms. Sykes, we’ll be able to laugh it off. It’ll be a gas.
I’ve seen Ms. Sykes stand-up on late night comedy shows and she can be quite funny, though frequently off-color and “edgy”. This night, however, she was cringe worthy at best.
Let’s take her remarks about Rush Limbaugh first. It wasn’t the attack on him that bothered me. Rather, it was the personal nature of it. Rush’s painkiller addiction is no funnier than jokes about Owen Wilson attempting suicide, or Anna Nicole Smith’s fatal overdose. Nevertheless, Ms. Sykes crosses the line by “joking” that she hopes Rush’s kidneys fail.
Hysterical.
Is it ever funny to joke about someone dying? Rush is a big boy who can defend himself if he feels the need so I won’t do it here. However, liberals like Ms. Sykes can’t honestly think that joking about drug overdoses and particular people dying painful deaths is funny. Unless of course the target is an outspoken critic of a guy you support and then jokes or wishes for death are perfectly fine—like liberal columnist Julianne Malveaux hoping Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife “feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.”
But Ms. Sykes didn’t stop there. Apparently, 9/11 is now fair game for comedians too as she suggested Rush was the 20th hijacker but missed his flight due to his drug use. Nothing like a good Holocaust joke, or Pearl Harbor bit to keep the crowd rolling. Heard any knee-slapping Katrina jokes lately? There aren’t many sacred cows in comedy but it seems that terror attacks should make the short list along with genocide and deadly natural disasters.
Some conservatives have criticized Obama for not storming out of the dinner in protest of Ms. Sykes’ bit. Under the circumstances, it was certainly poor taste for Obama to guffaw to his table mates. I’ll give him a bit of a pass since most of us have been present for the telling of an off-color or offensive joke and not left the room in righteous remonstration. However, he can be legitimately criticized for not showing some form of disapproval especially over the 9/11 comments.
Sadly, while skewering 9/11 is de rigueur thanks to Ms. Sykes, President Obama is still off limits to comedians! Ms. Sykes mustered up a joke about Obama being “half white” and photographed with his shirt off. That’s it. And David Letterman’s recognition on a recent Late Show that he hasn’t figured out how to poke fun at Obama generated a rollicking bit—filled with hackneyed jokes, not about Obama, but about George W. Bush. Now that’s entertainment.
We all need tougher skin when it comes to comments and jokes. Political correctness has created a culture of hypersensitivity about the words we use or “can’t” use. But I suspect not even the fiercest opponents of PC liberalism would sanction stand-up directed at the addictions and painful death of specific known individuals, much less terrorist attacks.
Just wait until Muslim extremists set off a WMD on American soil. Thanks to liberals like Ms. Sykes, we’ll be able to laugh it off. It’ll be a gas.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Prosecute Yoo? You too, Madam Speaker
Yesterday, I wrote a defense of former US Justice Department lawyer and current Berkeley law professor John Yoo for the so-called "torture memo" he wrote in August 2002. I encourage all my fans to read Yoo's memo for yourselves. Yes, it's a bit dry and sounds like a stuffy lawyer wrote it. But it is a concise analysis of the issue on which Yoo was tasked with opining.
Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.
Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.
Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.
Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.
Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.
Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.
Today, the CIA revealed a memo showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of the Agency's plans to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"...in September 2002. In other words, one month after Yoo's memo hit Attorney General John Ashcroft's desk, Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed by the CIA on the very issues discussed in Yoo's memo. What's worse, Yoo's memo speaks in generalities never mentioning any specific techniques being reviewed while, by contrast, Pelosi's briefing included details.
Pelosi raised no objections during the briefing or afterward. That is, until about 18 months ago when Bush Derangement Syndrome manifested itself in the form of Attorney General Michael Mukasey's confirmation hearings. Over the past months, Pelosi has gotten out in front of the parade and formally endorsed a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
Tell you what, we'll make you a deal. Let's shine the light of truth on everyone involved, including you and your fellow members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may. I propose we establish jointly with Congress and the Obama administration a blue-ribbon "torture truth" investigative team. If waterboarding or other techniques are torture, then everyone who actively approved or participated in the practices, or tacitly supported them through failures to object when alerted, should be investigated and tried for federal crimes. Yes, that includes you, Madam Speaker, many of your fellow representatives, and Professor Yoo, too.
Of course, the Anointed One would also have to go back on his promise and allow investigators to pursue the CIA agents and operatives who actually did or supervised the dirty work. And it would all have to be made public so we'd be providing invaluable intelligence to our enemies. Hmmm, that could get ugly. America would be in significantly greater danger, the CIA would be further emasculated, and terrorists would be emboldened. The damage would likely be catastrophic.
Ah, no matter. That's the price we pay for full disclosure.
Or we can recognize this issue for what it truly is--a half-baked, hysterical, hypocritical attempt at political gamesmanship, rewriting history, and blaming that Evil Bush, his puppet master Cheney, the war-mongers in his administration and those mean-spirited Republicans for every perceived ill--and realize that the rare American misdeeds (if they can be categorized as such) are not the equivalent of anything our brutal, misogynistic, Stone Age enemy does on a daily basis.
Choose your side, Madam Speaker. I'll pick the American patriots, who willingly do whatever it takes to protect us, over your blue ribbon commission every time.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Leave Yoo Alone
Let me see if I have this straight.
It’s 2002. The US is still reeling in the aftermath of the terror attacks on 9/11. Al Qaeda is now Enemy No. 1 and we are at war. A lawyer for the US Justice Department is given the assignment to research the issue of whether interrogation methods proposed to be used on al Qaeda suspects constitute torture under US and international law. He reviews applicable federal statutes, treaties and agreements. He concludes that the proposed interrogation methods do not violate US or international law or treaties.
So he puts it on paper.
His reward? If some have their way, it’ll be disbarment and criminal prosecution..
Liberal lefties are having a conniption over Prof. John Yoo, the former Justice Department attorney who drafted the now infamous memo. They call him a war criminal, picket and protest his speaking engagements, and are demanding he be fired from his position as a Berkeley law professor. Nothing gets under a socialist hippy’s skin quite like a “person of color” who achieved high levels of success the old fashioned way (see e.g. Justice Clarence Thomas).
Whatever happened to free speech? I thought the liberal loons were all for it. Unless it’s racist. Or not politically correct. Or Christian or mentions God (or “god”). Sorry, I digressed.
Back to free speech. If you read Yoo’s memo you’ll find a thoughtful analysis of the issues presented. You won’t find any mention of “waterboarding” or other techniques some describe as torture. Instead, Yoo dispassionately interprets the relevant language in statutes and treaties and concludes the proposed (but unspecified) techniques are not torture. You might disagree with his analysis but he clearly is not war-mongering or out for blood.
The dean of Berkeley’s law school, Christopher Edley Jr. has rejected calls to fire Yoo but, like the good lefty he is, couldn't miss the chance to throw more fuel on Yoo's bonfire. “Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” Gee, thanks Dean Edley for the words of support. In other words, I agree with you liberal lefties about Yoo and even though the sight of him makes me vomit I just can’t fire him unless he's committed a crime...so keep it up and I'll have my chance to fire him.
Unlike Yoo, the liberal left is out for blood. They are all too ready to frog-march Yoo from his office directly to Gitmo. Maybe we should waterboard him to see if he knows anything about the Valerie Plame case. That way he can feel what it’s like. Yank his law license, vandalize his house and threaten his wife and kids while you’re at it. They deserve it for hitching their wagon to him. And get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice at the same time.
Calling Yoo a war criminal is ridiculous and reprehensible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to project Bush Derangement Syndrome on anyone and everyone involved with the War on Terror. The lefty wackos should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently being a lefty means having no shame.
How do you expect an attorney to provide honest and comprehensive legal analysis of a complicated and controversial issue if he knows that he can be disbarred and prosecuted if he doesn’t come to the “correct” conclusion? I’m sure lawyers will be lining up for that job.
Prosecute Yoo and you might as well eliminate the Justice Department. In its place we’ll establish the Department of Peace, American War Crimes Prosecution, and International Criminal Court Enforcement. That’ll scare the crap out of al Qaeda.
It’s 2002. The US is still reeling in the aftermath of the terror attacks on 9/11. Al Qaeda is now Enemy No. 1 and we are at war. A lawyer for the US Justice Department is given the assignment to research the issue of whether interrogation methods proposed to be used on al Qaeda suspects constitute torture under US and international law. He reviews applicable federal statutes, treaties and agreements. He concludes that the proposed interrogation methods do not violate US or international law or treaties.
So he puts it on paper.
His reward? If some have their way, it’ll be disbarment and criminal prosecution..
Liberal lefties are having a conniption over Prof. John Yoo, the former Justice Department attorney who drafted the now infamous memo. They call him a war criminal, picket and protest his speaking engagements, and are demanding he be fired from his position as a Berkeley law professor. Nothing gets under a socialist hippy’s skin quite like a “person of color” who achieved high levels of success the old fashioned way (see e.g. Justice Clarence Thomas).
Whatever happened to free speech? I thought the liberal loons were all for it. Unless it’s racist. Or not politically correct. Or Christian or mentions God (or “god”). Sorry, I digressed.
Back to free speech. If you read Yoo’s memo you’ll find a thoughtful analysis of the issues presented. You won’t find any mention of “waterboarding” or other techniques some describe as torture. Instead, Yoo dispassionately interprets the relevant language in statutes and treaties and concludes the proposed (but unspecified) techniques are not torture. You might disagree with his analysis but he clearly is not war-mongering or out for blood.
The dean of Berkeley’s law school, Christopher Edley Jr. has rejected calls to fire Yoo but, like the good lefty he is, couldn't miss the chance to throw more fuel on Yoo's bonfire. “Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry.” Gee, thanks Dean Edley for the words of support. In other words, I agree with you liberal lefties about Yoo and even though the sight of him makes me vomit I just can’t fire him unless he's committed a crime...so keep it up and I'll have my chance to fire him.
Unlike Yoo, the liberal left is out for blood. They are all too ready to frog-march Yoo from his office directly to Gitmo. Maybe we should waterboard him to see if he knows anything about the Valerie Plame case. That way he can feel what it’s like. Yank his law license, vandalize his house and threaten his wife and kids while you’re at it. They deserve it for hitching their wagon to him. And get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice at the same time.
Calling Yoo a war criminal is ridiculous and reprehensible. It’s nothing more than an attempt to project Bush Derangement Syndrome on anyone and everyone involved with the War on Terror. The lefty wackos should be ashamed of themselves, but apparently being a lefty means having no shame.
How do you expect an attorney to provide honest and comprehensive legal analysis of a complicated and controversial issue if he knows that he can be disbarred and prosecuted if he doesn’t come to the “correct” conclusion? I’m sure lawyers will be lining up for that job.
Prosecute Yoo and you might as well eliminate the Justice Department. In its place we’ll establish the Department of Peace, American War Crimes Prosecution, and International Criminal Court Enforcement. That’ll scare the crap out of al Qaeda.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Cautionary Tale of the Costly Crappers
“It’s a toilet, what else do ya wanna know?”
Well, not quite. Butch Behn of Tenino, Washington is being coy when he downplays his classy new commodes. They actually have quite a story.
If you’ve taken the “Seattle Underground Tour” you’ll know that plumbing has played an important role in the city’s history. With the arrival of the “water closet” Seattleites could flush with their more sophisticated cousins in the east. However, the local sewer system had a tendency to flow both ways thanks to the tides in Puget Sound. Imagine a toilet one minute, sewage fountain the next. A great fire in 1889 that burned much of the city also provided the opportunity for sewer modernization.
Fast forward about 100 years. Seattle is a thriving metropolis, a cosmopolitan port of entry with modern facilities and amenities. And one of the most liberal cities in the US. Seattle politics and city government are owned by liberal Democrats. How else to explain Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott and virtually every mayor and city councilman coming from the left? Republicans have not had a controlling presence in the city since the 1980s. Conservative locals identify Seattle as existing “behind the Emerald Curtain”.
Thanks to growth, industry and positive media coverage, Seattle is a world leader. But, like all cities, it still struggles with urban problems.
Apparently, one pressing problem in 2004 was adequate toilet facilities for tourists. Seattle’s solution? Buy 5 enormous, shiny, stainless-steel self-cleaning toilets for $1 million each and install them at popular tourist locations for people to use for free. Tourists would appreciate the extra facilities and city leaders figured they’d get the added benefit of the homeless using the toilets to relieve themselves instead of alleys and parks.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, once the costly commodes were installed, they quickly became popular with [surprise!] drug users and prostitutes. Self-cleaning, free toilets large enough for two sure beat crack houses and hourly-rate motels. Seattle’s outstanding outhouses had become the butt of jokes, just the latest classic liberal spending boondoggle.
Four years later, city leaders put the toilets up on eBay and eventually sold them to Butch Behn—for $12,549. Of that amount, the city recovered about $10,000. In other words, Seattle’s $5 million investment failed to serve its designated purpose and created additional, more serious problems than the one it was supposed to solve. Oh, and the city recovered a meaningless two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the original cost.
When we conservatives rail against runaway government spending, we don’t do so just to gainsay liberals. We do it because we believe government at all levels should spend less overall and the money government spends should be targeted to the issues government is in the best position to solve. We also believe people are enterprising enough to find a toilet to use on their own.
Back to Butch Behn. He recently installed a couple of his new toilets as a novelty item at his South Sound Speedway in time for this year’s racing season. Now the shiny crappers will be preserved by a local capitalist entrepreneur. Monuments to government waste and excess in service to Puget Sound race fans, a suburban/rural demographic that doubtless would have opposed the toilet project had they lived in the Big City. Congressional Democrats and President Obama should take note.
Behn’s son Nick summed it up this way: “Everybody’s gotta take a dump in a million dollar toilet.” Unfortunately, thanks to runaway liberal spending, we’ll all probably get that chance
Well, not quite. Butch Behn of Tenino, Washington is being coy when he downplays his classy new commodes. They actually have quite a story.
If you’ve taken the “Seattle Underground Tour” you’ll know that plumbing has played an important role in the city’s history. With the arrival of the “water closet” Seattleites could flush with their more sophisticated cousins in the east. However, the local sewer system had a tendency to flow both ways thanks to the tides in Puget Sound. Imagine a toilet one minute, sewage fountain the next. A great fire in 1889 that burned much of the city also provided the opportunity for sewer modernization.
Fast forward about 100 years. Seattle is a thriving metropolis, a cosmopolitan port of entry with modern facilities and amenities. And one of the most liberal cities in the US. Seattle politics and city government are owned by liberal Democrats. How else to explain Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott and virtually every mayor and city councilman coming from the left? Republicans have not had a controlling presence in the city since the 1980s. Conservative locals identify Seattle as existing “behind the Emerald Curtain”.
Thanks to growth, industry and positive media coverage, Seattle is a world leader. But, like all cities, it still struggles with urban problems.
Apparently, one pressing problem in 2004 was adequate toilet facilities for tourists. Seattle’s solution? Buy 5 enormous, shiny, stainless-steel self-cleaning toilets for $1 million each and install them at popular tourist locations for people to use for free. Tourists would appreciate the extra facilities and city leaders figured they’d get the added benefit of the homeless using the toilets to relieve themselves instead of alleys and parks.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, once the costly commodes were installed, they quickly became popular with [surprise!] drug users and prostitutes. Self-cleaning, free toilets large enough for two sure beat crack houses and hourly-rate motels. Seattle’s outstanding outhouses had become the butt of jokes, just the latest classic liberal spending boondoggle.
Four years later, city leaders put the toilets up on eBay and eventually sold them to Butch Behn—for $12,549. Of that amount, the city recovered about $10,000. In other words, Seattle’s $5 million investment failed to serve its designated purpose and created additional, more serious problems than the one it was supposed to solve. Oh, and the city recovered a meaningless two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the original cost.
When we conservatives rail against runaway government spending, we don’t do so just to gainsay liberals. We do it because we believe government at all levels should spend less overall and the money government spends should be targeted to the issues government is in the best position to solve. We also believe people are enterprising enough to find a toilet to use on their own.
Back to Butch Behn. He recently installed a couple of his new toilets as a novelty item at his South Sound Speedway in time for this year’s racing season. Now the shiny crappers will be preserved by a local capitalist entrepreneur. Monuments to government waste and excess in service to Puget Sound race fans, a suburban/rural demographic that doubtless would have opposed the toilet project had they lived in the Big City. Congressional Democrats and President Obama should take note.
Behn’s son Nick summed it up this way: “Everybody’s gotta take a dump in a million dollar toilet.” Unfortunately, thanks to runaway liberal spending, we’ll all probably get that chance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
