- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Official: Internet 'Morons' Cause Worries in Kentucky Murder Case
Posted by on 9.26.09 @ 11:37PM
"Yes, we are concerned about what people are saying on the blogs," a Kentucky law enforcement official said Saturday night, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The murder of Bill Sparkman in Clay County, Ky., has caused bloggers to engage in widespread speculation about the motive for the killing. Sparkman was employed part-time conducting a Census Bureau survey.
The 51-year-old man's body was found Sept. 12 in the Hoskins Cemetery, about 10 miles east of Manchester, Ky. in the Daniel Boone National Forest. The Associated Press reported that witnesses said Sparkman's body was nude and gagged, with a rope around his neck, his federal identification duct-taped to his neck and the word "fed" written on his chest.
The Kentucky State Police are coordinating the investigation of Sparkman's death. Trooper First Class Don Trosfer, based in the agency's London, Ky., Post 11 is the official spokesman for the investigation, but was unavailable for comment late Saturday.
Another law-enforcement source, not authorized to speak about the case, said state and local officials are working closely with the FBI on the investigation. Internet gossip is a source of concern, he said.
"You'd be surprised what some of these morons write on the Internet . . . that they wouldn't say to somebody's face," the official said in a brief telephone interview.
With a population of less than 25,000, Clay County is located in mountainous southeastern Kentucky, about 75 miles east of the Virginia state line and 60 miles north of the Tennessee state line. The county has one local newspaper, the Manchester Enterprise, with a weekly circulation of 8,000.
Sparkman was a Florida native who worked as a journalist for about 10 years, covering sports and community news for his hometown Mulberry (Fla.) Press.
"He'd never met a stranger," former Mulberry Press Publisher Virgil Davis said of Sparkman in an interview with Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger. "Every day he was out in the community always lauding Mulberry and getting news stories."
Mmm, Mmm, Mm!
Posted by on 9.26.09 @ 12:49PM
The oblivious schoolteachers and administrators still see nothing wrong with what they did. The Obamatron echo chamber doesn't even understand what the "whining fuss" is about. The rest of us who saw the B. Bernice Young Elementary School performance went from queasy to incredulous to infuriated even before the 7-year-olds sweetly exhorted us that "He said that all must lend a hand to make this country strong again." How can anyone not be repulsed?
Mmm, mmm, mm!
By Asher Embry
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
A creepy abnormality,
This cult of personality.
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
What lunatic would think it's fine
To do this to a child of mine.
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
Do teachers have so little sense
To think we wouldn't take offense?
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
We don't recall schools try to push
A song like this 'bout either Bush.
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
Think maybe now we weren't such "fools"
To try to block O's speech to schools?
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Friday, September 25, 2009
Run This Way
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 3:25PM
With Curt Schilling out of the Senate race perhaps Massachusetts Republicans should turn to Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry?
Obama's Media Blitz Doesn't Help Approval Rating
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 1:45PM
Last Friday's Gallup daily tracking poll showed that 51 percent of Americans approved of President Obama, and 42 percent disapproved. Starting last weekend, he launched a full-scale media blitz, which included interviews with five Sunday talk shows and an appearance on David Letterman's show. So how has all of this exposure worked out for him? Not too well, as it turns out. Today's Gallup has Obama at a 50 percent approval rating, with 42 percent disapproving. That actually is tied for the lowest Gallup approval rating of his presidency.
Earmarks Can Be Fun!
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 12:13PM
Picture this: you're a government bureaucrat who just came into nearly $10 million in federal funds, with few strings attached. Your mission: help veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan transition back to civilian life.
Your first order of business? Give half your full-time employees six-figure salaries, bankroll extensive travel for the top brass, pay an out-of-state consultant hundreds of thousands for "critical thinking" (including typing up and distributing your newsletter), and subsidize expenses for your deputy director to travel between her residence in northern Virginia and her office in central North Carolina.
Also, ensure scant oversight of your employees and virtually no accountability from those higher up the food chain for how you spend your funds. Oh, and produce few deliverables to justify your pricey taxpayer outlay.
This isn't a fictitious scenario, sad to say. Several media outlets are now reporting about the Citizen Soldier Support Program, an initiative housed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It's funded, in part, by a $5 million federal earmark obtained by North Carolina U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat. Price, you'll remember, was one of 75 House members recently to vote against de-funding ACORN.
The News & Observer of Raleigh picked up the issue after the publication I work for, Carolina Journal, broke the story late last month. So far, the program has burned through much of its $10 million appropriation, leaving about $2.5 million in a reserve account -- and they have little to show for it.
Reports the N&O:
Half of the eight full-time employees are paid more than $100,000 a year, including a deputy director who has been reimbursed $76,000 for food, travel and lodging when she commutes from her home in northern Virginia to North Carolina.
An internal review found that the program produced reams of paperwork but few concrete results.
"The program has produced volumes of documentation, but the vast majority of this documentation is devoted to conceptual verbiage about how the program will function," the review said. "The CSSP is vulnerable to the accusation that it spends too much money on administrative overhead and low-priority, ‘nice-to-do' activities and not enough time on activities directly relevant to its mission."
SNIP
The deputy director for military relations, Susann Kerner-Hoeg, earns a salary of $129,600. Kerner-Hoeg works from her home in northern Virginia, and the program pays for her travel, lodging and meals when she comes to Chapel Hill. The program has spent $76,558 over the past three years for Kerner-Hoeg's flights, rental cars, hotel rooms and meals.
During the same period, the program paid $313,600 to Kent Peterson & Associates of Kansas City; KA. Peterson, a consultant, served as the director of community relations.
It's examples like these that bring the issue of wasteful government spending home to the average American's kitchen table.
Death Panels by Proxy
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 11:19AM
The Washington Times has the scoop, with a hat tip to the National Right to Life Committee. Yes, there are death panels. But they wear green eyeshades, and they won't even know when they are causing deaths.
Why Is the GOP Still Protecting the Drugmakers?
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 10:56AM
Despite the sweet deal arranged between the pharmaceutical industry and Obama administration (cut reimbursements by $80 billion in return for making everyone buy insurance, inflating the overall demand for pills), many congressional Democrats are not prepared to go along. Only Republican votes on the Senate Finance Committee prevented approval of an amendment imposing much larger price cuts.
President Obama scored a big victory on Thursday as the Senate Finance Committee rejected a proposal to require pharmaceutical companies to give bigger discounts to Medicare on drugs dispensed to older Americans with low incomes.
The victory came at the expense of senators in Mr. Obama's own party who had championed the proposal. The vote, in effect, upheld a deal reached in June by the White House and the drug industry, which saw the agreement as a possible way to avoid more onerous requirements that might be imposed by Congress.
The proposal, an amendment by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, would have required drug makers to provide Medicare with discounts in the form of rebates totaling more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Some of the money would have been used to close a gap in Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. In 2007, more than eight million Medicare beneficiaries fell into the gap, known as the doughnut hole.
Three Democratic senators - Max Baucus of Montana, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey - joined all the Republicans on the panel in defeating the amendment by a vote of 13 to 10.
Pharmaceutical price controls are a bad thing. But the drugmakers are supporting legislation to politicize the health care received by all Americans in order to make a few extra bucks. So if they are willing to have government run more of our lives, why shouldn't government run more of their operations too? If they can work to wreck the U.S. health care system for profit, why shouldn't they suffer from the crash impact as well?
Next time when the pharmaceutical industry comes calling, Republican lawmakers should close their doors to the pill manufacturers and abstain from the fight. Let the industry go back to its newfound pro-regulation buddies for relief. If the result is price controls, so be it. Maybe the industry will learn a valuable lesson for the next political battle.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 10:35AM
- Obama to decrease Border Patrol Agents deployed to Mexican border by 384. This is a rare non-protectionist economic policy out of the administration as the increased supply of crack and marijuana resulting could make it easier to buy drugs (CNS News)
- New York Post reports that Qaddafi's translator collapsed during the dictator's 90-minute rant to the United Nations.
- 11 million Irish-Americans have left the Catholic church. Maybe if Notre Dame football improved, we'd start winning back the faith. (Irish Central)
- Must watch: Students taught to sing praise for Barack Obama in elementary school music class:
Finance Committee to Vote On Government Plan on Tuesday
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 10:13AM
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said this morning that the committee would vote on Tuesday on an amendment to include a government plan in its version of the health care legislation.
The Finance Committee bill is the only Democratic bill in the House or Senate that does not include a government plan, a key provision for liberals.
At least three Democrats on the committee have expressed opposition to a government plan: Baucus himself, as well as Sens. Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln. Should the amendment get defeated as expected, we'll have to see if any liberal Democrats still vote the plan out of committee. That may be an early indication of whether liberals will ultimately cave on the idea when it comes up for a vote in the Senate as a whole -- i.e. if they literally face the choice between abandoning the government plan, or getting no health care bill at all.
Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is on the Finance Committee, insisted that the final legislation would include a "robust public option," but his thinking was that it could be added on down the road, even if it doesn't get passed at the committee level. Last week, Sen. Jay Rockefeller said he would vote against the bill at the committee level if it was not changed substantially from the original draft, and the lack of a government plan was his leading criticism of the legislation.
The Finance Committee will be debating amendments today until noon, and then recess until Tuesday. Monday is the Yom Kippur holiday.
Conservatve Leaders Speak Out Against Obama's Apology Tour
9.25.09 @ 9:54AM
MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT
Obama continues his Apology and Appeasement Tour-
with a stop at the United Nations
RE:
Having declared himself a "citizen of the world," President Obama has apologized to the rest of the world for the perceived transgressions of Americans with whom he does not agree, and has broken agreements with our friends in order to curry favor with our adversaries. President Obama now proceeds to the chair of the United Nations Security Council to continue his path of appeasement and violation of the canons of statecraft.
Iran Admits to Secret Nuke Plant
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 9:46AM
This morning brings news that Iran has been buiding another secret nuclear plant that is has been hiding from the international community. While this shouldn't be a surprise to those who do not trust the regime and have long held that the nation is racing toward building a nuclear weapon, it does complicate President Obama's ability to argue that we can negotiate with this regime and trust them to honor their agreements.
"The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program," Obama said this morning, according to USA Today.
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime," he also said. "denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world."
He added, according to the Washington Post account, "International law is not an empty promise."
Dukakis the Great
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 8:22AM
In a post that otherwise nails the political logic of appointing Paul Kirk to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat on an interim basis, E.J. Dionne seems a bit wistful about their being no Senator Michael Dukakis: "[Dukakis] was actually a very good governor. He is smart about health care. He's fun to talk policy with -- for those who find talking about policy fun. He is a thoroughly decent and honest person."
Well. I agree that Dukakis is wonkier than your average pol, and is a decent and honest person. But, as you might guess from my column on the main site today, I think even "mediocre governor" would be a stretch, much less "very good governor."
Europeans Against the Lisbon Treaty
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 7:21AM
The Irish will soon be voting again on the so-called Lisbon Treaty, which would create a stronger consolidated government in Brussels. Now some Europeans have organized a new website against this approach, arguing democracy yes, Lisbon no.
Shock! Taxpayers Won't Get their Bail-Out Money Back
Posted by on 9.25.09 @ 7:11AM
Shock, shock. It looks like taxpayers won't get their money back from TARP. Who would have imagined that!?
Nearly one year after Congress approved the $700 billion financial bailout, it was attacked by Republicans and fiscal watchdogs as an expensive failure that has not stopped home foreclosures or jobs from disappearing.
"This has been a failed program," Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said at today's Senate Banking committee hearing. "The very promises made to the taxpayer of what was going to happen with this money, in my judgment, have not been kept."
Johanns cited what he called "very damning" testimony by the bailout's Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky that said it is "extremely unlikely" that American taxpayers will get a full return on their $700 billion investment. Moreover, Barofsky observed, the Troubled Asset Relief Program has failed to increase bank lending, stop rising unemployment, or stem the rash of home foreclosures.
"In the last year," said the Congressional Oversight Panel's Elizabeth Warren, "the apprehension that pervaded this country has turned into something else: frustration and anger. Today's fragile stability has come at an enormous cost to the American people." Barofsky noted that "a lot of this frustration and cynicism and anger comes out of the lack of transparency in the TARP program." This, he said, was his group's "biggest frustration" with the Treasury Department and "one of the great failures of the past year."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
NEA's Yosi Sergant Resigns
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 6:03PM
Yosi Sergant, who led a conference call encouraging artists to promote the Obama administration's agenda in his role as the National Endowment for the Arts communications director, has resigned.
Bibi to UN: "Have You No Shame?"
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 2:46PM
Earlier this afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu gave a stirring speech in which he called the United Nations to task for legitimizing the Holocaust-denying Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and for sanctioning a report charging Israelis with war crimes for defending themselves against terrorism from Gaza.
Early in the speech, he held up a copy of the meeting minutes of the 1942 conference in Wannsee in which Germans made plans to exterminate the Jews, and asked, "Is this protocol a lie?" Then he held up the original construction plans from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, which he received on a recent trip to Germany, and asked, "Are these plans of the camp where one million Jews were murdered a lie too?"
Netanyahu commended those who walked out on or boycotted the Ahmadinejad speech to the chamber yesterday, then continued: "But for those who stayed - I say on behalf of the Jewish people, my people and decent people everywhere - have you no shame? No decency? What a disgrace, what a mockery of the charter of the UN."
He said, "Perhaps some of you think [Ahmadinejad] and his odious regime only threaten the Jews. Well, if you think that you are wrong, dead wrong." He explained that, "the struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism."
Later in the speech, he blased the UN report drawing moral equivelence between Israel and Hamas for the conflict in Gaza earlier this year, accusing Israelis of war crimes for defending themselves against a terrorist group that hides among civilians.
"By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals," he said. "What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice."
Should the broader UN endorse the report's findings, he said, "It would send a message to terrorists everywhere, saying: terrorism pays. All you have to do is launch your attacks from densely populated areas, and you will win immunity."
Netanyahu said Israel was willing to negotiate peace with Palestinians, noting that historically Israel has always been willing to make deals with Arab leaders genuinely interested in peace, as it did in the cases of Egypt and Jordan.
"We want to live side by side with them - two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity," he said of Palestinians. "Peace, prosperity, and dignity require one other element. We must have security."
I've posted some of the video below. Well worth watching.
Doug Wilder, Democrats Refusing to Back Deeds
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 2:33PM
Yesterday John Gizzi reported that a number of former Mark Warner supporters have decided to support Republican Bob McDonnell for governor of Virginia this time around. Now former Gov. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor, has announced that he won't be supporting Creigh Deeds either, though he stopped short of endorsing McDonnell. McDonnell has consistently, if narrowly, led his Democratic opponent in recent polls.
Breaking: Treasury I-G Agrees to Probe ACORN
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 1:32PM
From a press release from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:
Treasury Department Inspector General, J. Russell George agreed to comply with a request submitted by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-Maine) to conduct a review of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and of the IRS's oversight of nonprofit organizations.
"The lack of an appropriate firewall between ACORN's charitable activities and its political arm has raised significant questions regarding the appropriateness of their status as a taxable nonprofit corporation and their management of federal dollars," Issa said. "Cutting ties with ACORN is a good first step for the federal government, but since they have been the recipients of taxpayer dollars, we have an obligation to investigate to discover whether or not those dollars were misused in anyway."
"I am heartened by the agreement of the Treasury Department's Inspector General to examine the troubling financial questions that have been raised about ACORN," said Senator Collins. "This is the first step in the right direction toward much-needed transparency. As I've noted before, at a time when so many American families are facing difficult economic situations, it is completely unacceptable that even one penny of taxpayer money be misused. We must bring all agencies and groups that use taxpayer funds into the spotlight of accountability."
Last week, Senator Collins and Rep. Issa made a formal joint request that seven Offices of Inspectors General, including Treasury, probe the activities of ACORN, a community advocacy organization. [...]
Small Refiners Back Out of Cap and Trade
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 12:38PM
In the latest blow to the coalition behind cap and trade, small oil refiners who broke with the oil industry to support the Waxman-Markey energy bill -- after House Democrats added a provision favorable to them -- now oppose it advancing in the Senate. The Hill quotes one such company's CEO as saying, "We agreed only that the legislative process should move forward, with a view toward working subsequently with the Senate. We did not agree to support H.R. 2454."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 11:16AM
- When in doubt, blame the Israelis. Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya claims Israeli mercenaries are using mind altering radiation on him and threatening to assassinate him at the Brazilian Embassy (Miami Herald)
- Czech President Klaus: UN climate meeting "propaganda." (Reuters)
- A grungy jihadi. Culprit in last week's Somali suicide bombing last week believed to be from Seattle (Washington News)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue Abercrombie & Fitch for refusal to hire a woman who refused to take off the hijab (Time)
The Question Michael Moore MUST Be Asked . . .
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 10:14AM
I was telling my boss, Robert Sloan (former Baylor president and current president of HBU), about Michael Moore's new film Capitalism: A Love Story. We briefly discussed an interview of Moore by the Wall Street Journal yesterday in which Moore asserted that the auto workers should own 100% of the auto companies.
Sloan responded, "The interviewer should have asked Moore if the crews on his films own the projects they work on for him." That would be a nice question for the filmmaker, wouldn't it?
"Mr. Moore, do you pay your workers a wage to perform their functions or -- consistent with your philosophy -- do they own the films you make along with you?"
I suspect we know the answer to that one. Michael Moore probably places a premium on his own intellectual property, creativity, and personal drive and thus maintains ownership of the fruits of his own labor. He likely thinks his unique work product and his unorthodox and risky career as a filmmaker should benefit him personally and that he should own and control his projects.
Why not believe that for all the other capitalists, Mr. Moore?
Reporters, we need the answer to this one, please. "Mr. Moore, do your crews own your film projects or are they simply paid a wage?"
I wonder how much the key grip made on Fahrenheit 9/11?
Ted Kennedy's Replacement
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 10:07AM
Is going to be former Democratic National Committee head Paul Kirk, a confidante of the former senator. An announcement ceremony including the Kennedy family and Sen. John Kerry is expected later today. The 71-year-old will only serve on an interim basis and will be replaced by the winner of the Jan. 19 special election. The Massachusetts legislature just changed the succession law back to where it was in 2004, when the Beacon Hill Democrats feared Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican interim senator should Kerry have been elected president that year.
Of Two Minds on the Medicare Debate
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 9:55AM
In his health care speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this month, President Obama said that his proposed cuts to Medicare "will ensure that you – America's seniors – get the benefits you've been promised."
But Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, disagrees. He testified yesterday that the proposed changes would "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans." That is, the privately-administered plans that will see a funding cut to help pay for health care legislation.
I've been of two minds about the recent Medicare debate. On the one hand, I worry about the long-term impact of the Republican decision to make protecting Medicare from any cuts a focal point of their opposition to health care legislation. Not only does it distract from other arguments that attack the very idea of government-run health care, but it helps perpetuate the third rail status of a program that, if its growth is left unchecked, will bankrupt the country. If Democrats are unable to touch Medicare, then there's absolutely no hope that somewhere down the line a conservative administration would be able to do so.
At the same time, I do think it's important to point out that Obama is lying through his teeth when he says that cutting Medicare by $500 billion to as much as $622 billion will have absolutely no effect on anybody's benefits. Additionally, it would be one thing if Obama were proposing these cuts as part of a larger entitlement reform, but instead he's proposing them in the name of creating a new entitlement.
I Guess I'm Unreasonable
Posted by on 9.24.09 @ 9:08AM
Who knew Mr. Whipple was really advocating for the destruction of old growth forests? That nice fluffy T.P. (no one wants others to see "toilet paper" spelled out on their shopping list) requires longer wood fibers, while the coarse stuff is made of younger trees and recycled newspapers and computer printouts (ouch!). The Washington Post in yet another environmental wackjob report:
"The problem is not yet getting better," said Chris Henschel, of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, talking about logging in Canada's boreal forests. He said real change will come only when consumers change their habits: "It's unbelievable that this global treasure of Canadian boreal forests is being turned into toilet paper. . . . I think every reasonable person would have trouble understanding how that would be okay."
All I know is I've never seen the Canadian boreal forests and probably never will, but I probably use its products every day. Thanks olde growth!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Barney Frank Throws ACORN Under the Bus
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 9:19PM
"And I reiterate that my own view is that the appropriate response here would be to have the Obama administration continue what it began with regard to the Census and withhold any funding or authority from ACORN pending a very serious examination of their past behavior and significant changes regarding the future." [emphasis added]
-from a statement by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a longtime ACORN ally and current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
Wow.
ACORN Sues Filmakers, Breitbart
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 5:57PM
ACORN has filed suit in Maryland Court against James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and Breitbart.com, the Politico reports:
In the complaint, ACORN alleges that the filmmakers entered into the organization’s offices in July with a “hidden camera and microphone” and taped employees Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams. Both employees are listed as plaintiffs on the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
ACORN is seeking $500,000 for each employee and $1 million for the organization in damages.
The lawsuit recalls a case in the 1990s of Food Lion v. ABC News, in which reporters for the show Primetime Live applied for jobs at the grocery store chain and worked with hidden cameras to reveal unsanitary practicies. As Wikipedia recounts:
Food Lion was awarded USD$5.5 million by a jury in 1997. The award was later reduced by a judge to $316,000. The verdict was then overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. According to the court, even though ABC was wrong to do what they had done, Food Lion was unable to show that they had been directly injured by ABC's actions - essentially that it was the actions of Food Lion that caused the damages, not the publication of those actions.
Edmund Phelps on Capitalism
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 4:45PM
The Nobel-winning Columbia economist Edmund Phelps has a provoking essay in the October issue of First Things. Phelps notes that the arguments over morality in capitalism vs. socialism tend to focus on growth vs. distribution and inequality. But Phelps identifies another factor, often ignored: the human need for sel-expression and innovation that is only met in capitalism. Read it here.
CJR Explores Whether Washington Post is Giving ACORN Story Too Much Attention
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 2:29PM
The Columbia Journalism Review, evidently concerned that the Washington Post has caved into conservatives by providing excessive coverage of the ACORN scandal, has explored the controversy in an interview with Nixonland author Rick Perlstein.
"I mean, why would a newspaper like the Post be training its investigative focus on ACORN now?" Perlstein asks rhetorically in the interview. "Whether you think well or ill of ACORN, they’re a very marginal group in the grand scheme of things—and about as tied to the White House as the PTA."
Understatement of the Decade
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 1:21PM
From Political Wire:
"I think if anything is off the table, it's that I'm not running for president. It's 100 percent believable now." -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford
"What Happened to Notre Dame?"
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 1:20PM
Notre Dame Law School professor Charles Rice is still on the case of America's largest religious university's sell-out. The Obama commencement speech episode is not over, as Rice explains in an open letter to the school's president begging him to have the charges against the "Notre Dame 88" dropped. Rice also delves into the school's still unaddressed, deeper problems in a comprehensive account in his new book What Happened to Notre Dame?
In an effort to undo some of the PR damage wrought by his invitation to the president to speak at commencement, president Fr. John Jenkins has announced that he will participate in the 2010 March for life in DC. But as Rice argues in an open letter to Jenkins, such an action would be tinged with irony in light of Fr. Jenkins's own indifference to the fate of the Notre Dame 88, a group of protesters facing jail time for pro-life demonstration.
The Notre Dame 88 are the people who were arrested during the May Notre Dame commencement for trespassing. They were all pro-life protestors, and among them were Norma McCovey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, and 79-year-old Fr. Norman Weslin, a veteran soldier and anti-abortion protester. The 88 are scheduled to face trial for their protests, which the school could easily prevent by asking the prosecutors to drop charges. But the school refuses to do so, although the protests were peaceful and took place across the campus from the commencement activities. In his letter to Fr. John Jenkins, ND president, Rice explains why the schools should help these protesters avoid jail and writes that Fr. Jenkins's refusal to drop the charges against Fr. Weslin "may be the lowest point in the entire history of Notre Dame." The entire text of the letter is here; it lays out how unconscionable Fr. Jenkins's actions are.
In What Happened to Notre Dame, Rice explains the devolution of Notre Dame from a refuge for Catholics to a secularized school with some religious trappings with clear logic and in laborious detail.
The crux of Rice's explanation for Notre Dame's loss of religious authenticity is that the school's experience conforms to Neuhaus's Law: wherever orthodoxy is optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed. In this case Notre Dame made Catholic orthodoxy optional in the 1967 "Land O'Lakes" statement, when it asserted its academic autonomy from the Church and made orthodoxy contingent on the faculty's goals. And sure enough, Rice demonstrates, within decades orthodoxy's proscription was so advanced that not only did the school's academics often run out-of-bounds, but even in specifically ecclesiastical matters the school flouted Church teaching, as most clearly seen in the university's rogue interpretation of the USCCB's statement on politics in Church life without reference to the local bishop.
The historical detail Rice provides for this narrative is extensive -- the reader will become acquainted with not only the history of the topic going back to the '50s, but also with all the players in the recent commencement incident, right down to students who helped organize the alternative commencement exercises. But Rice is at his best when illustrating what Notre Dame has lost in its doomed quest for autonomy.
Rice provides introductions to Church teachings on the topics of life issues and education, from Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Humanae Vitae, and Deus Caritas Est through the most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritatae. He hints at the profound insight of these documents, which reflect the wisdom not only of thinkers like Pope Benedict XVI, one of the most respected theologians in the world, but also that of centuries of Christian scholars who wrestled with these problems. Then Rice contrasts those masterpieces of serious thought, which even if rejected must be at least addressed, with the rock-bottom abdication of intellectual responsibility of the current administration, displayed in Fr. Jenkins's justification for the showing of the obscene and anti-intellectual Vagina Monologues in 2006: that they were a "creative contextualization."
The reader of What Happened to Notre Dame will feel sorry for Rice, who joined the Notre Dame faculty four decades ago, for realizing what Notre Dame could be.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 12:59PM
- Tent-pitching Gaddafi rejects the veto power of the UN (Reuters)
- Arctic ice likely to last decades longer "because of cold summer" (National Geographic)
- Clinton says no more troops in Afghanistan until the disputed election is resolved. Ok, but what about those other 68,000 American troops that are already there? (The Hill)
- Reports surfacing that McChrystal will resign if not given more troops in Afghanistan (McClatchy)
Democrats Kill Amendment Requiring Bill To Be Fully Written Before a Vote
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 12:18PM
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Bunning that would have required the committee to have the legislative language of its health care bill evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office before voting on it.
Currently, the only version of Chairman Max Baucus's proposal we have is a 223-page draft (PDF) that is written in plain English and explains the bill in conceptual terms. Republicans argued that until the bill is written in legislative language it will be impossible for the CBO to provide an accurate cost estimate.
The Bunning ammendment would have required the committee to have the legislative language of the bill, along with the CBO cost estimate, posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote.
Democrats argued that waiting for the legislative languange to be written, and for the CBO to evaluate it, would needlessly delay the process by weeks.
"Let's be honest about it, most people don't read the legislative language," Sen. John Kerry said.
The Bunning amendment was defeated by a 12 to 11 vote, with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln the only Democrat voting in favor.
Instead, the committee adopted an amendment by Baucus that doesn't require the legislative language to be written, but that does require a CBO estimate based on the plain English version.
GOP Governors Write Letter To Baucus Opposing His Medical Innovation Tax
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 10:01AM
Five Republican governors have sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to voice their opposition to his proposed $40 billion tax on medical device makers arguing that it would kill jobs and stiffle medical innovation.
"We all support health care reform, but special taxes on the companies that bring high-quality, innovative solutions to health care professionals runs counter to the goals of better health care for America," reads the letter, which is signed by, Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, and Gary Herbert of Utah.
The tax would raise the price of as many as 80,000 products, according to the letter, including toothbrushes, eyeglasses, artificial heart valves, and diagnostic equipment.
The letter notes that the industry employs 360,000 people in the U.S., but that the tax hike would be the equivelent to a 10 percent to 30 percent income tax surcharge, depending on the business, which would make the U.S. "the highest tax jurisdiction in the world in which to produce medical technology."
Not only would the tax cost jobs, the governors argue, but would increase health care costs.
You can download a PDF of the full letter here.
PoMoCon Beck
Posted by on 9.23.09 @ 9:54AM
Here's something to consider alongside today's lead story. Nate Silver looks through some numbers and determines that Glenn Beck is not your average conservative rabblerouser like Rush Limbaugh. He isn't hated by everyone on the left. Instead, he appeals to anti-establishment types, and is more or less disregarded otherwise.
In other words, Silver concludes, Beck is a postmodern conservative. I guess then he'd fit right in with these guys.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Re: Yes, ACORN Does Cheat...
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 5:27PM
I thank Matthew for his hat tip, and for his longstanding, indefatigable work to expose ACORN. As for the lien, this is indeed a NEW lien filed by the IRS on Sept. 3, but it does appear that it includes almost entirely old tax debts, so it might be an updating of the previous lien noted by Matthew last year. Please do clck through the links at the Pelican Institute web site to see for yourselves. By the way, Pelican is a great success story. It grew out of an email suggestion that Deroy, a real lover of my hometown of New Orleans, sent around to about ten of us after Katrina, saying that New Orleans really needed such a free-market think tank. Amazingly, the wonderful Kevin Kane, a onetime New Orleans resident who was then living in New York, took the idea and ran with it, absolutely from scratch, and has made a real success of it. Kevin and Pelican are rising stars. Many kudos.
Yes, ACORN Does Cheat on Its Taxes
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 4:18PM
Kudos to the Pelican Institute for excellent research, and to Deroy Murdock and our own Quin Hillyer for resurrecting the issue of ACORN's tax cheating.
I had this story almost a year ago.
The piece, Lien on Me, ran in TAS online on Oct. 28, 2008.
It begins:
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its affiliates are content to impose crippling big-government laws, regulations, and taxes on Americans, but when called upon to obey those same rules, ACORN's network of scofflaws and deadbeats simply refuses to comply.
The most egregious example is the fact that more than 200 federal, state, and local tax liens adding up to more than $3 million have been filed against the ACORN network since 1989. All of these liens, which are only issued by creditor tax agencies after a tax debt has become seriously delinquent, are associated with ACORN's 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue address in New Orleans, Louisiana. That address is the official headquarters for nearly 300 ACORN-affiliated groups.
The most recent lien ($23,383) was filed by the IRS against an ACORN affiliate, American Workers Associates Inc., on Sept. 9. The largest lien ($547,312) was filed against ACORN itself by the IRS on March 10. [...]
Murdock references a $548,000 lien. If in haste he rounded up, it might be the $547,312 lien I discovered.
ACORN also sold out its poor constituents in Brooklyn in exchange for a cash bailout from Forest City Ratner, a wealthy developer trying to build the Atlantic Yards project.
GOP Report Charges AARP Getting "Kickbacks" In Dem Health Care Bills
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 4:15PM
One of the subplots to the health care debate I've been following is the cozy relationship between AARP and the Obama administration, as the group has thrown its full-throated support behind the Democrats' health care push even though their membership comes from the age group most opposed to Democratic health care proposals. Today, House Republicans have issued a report providing evidence that AARP is in a position to recieve tens of millions of dollars in "kickbacks" if Democratic health care legislation becomes law.
President Obama and Democrats have proposed saving money to pay for health care legislation, in part, by cutting $162 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage, which allows Medicare recipients to choose privately-administered coverage. If these changes go through, millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage would lose their current coverage, forcing them into government-administered plans with less generous benefits. As a result, many of them would have to purchase policies to supplement traditional Medicare. Enter AARP.
In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP.
"In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund 'kickbacks' to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans," the GOP report charges.
But this isn't the only way that AARP is getting special favors, according to the report.
Earlier this month insurer Humana Inc. sent customers who enrolled in the company's Medicare Advantage plan a letter warning them that their benefits would be in danger if the Democratic health care legislation passed. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which not only ordered Humana to stop sending the letters to its customers, but prohibited any other private insurers from doing the same. Except, that is, AARP -- which sponsors a Medicare Advantage program in addition to the Medigap policies it offers, but was exempt from the Obama administration's gag order.
I have a call into AARP, and will update the post once I get a response.
UPDATE: AARP emailed this statement from its executive vice president, Nancy LeaMond, as a response, though it doesn't address any of the specific charges raised in the report:
"Any effort to derail AARP’s commitment to reform will not succeed. Similar to “death panels” and other scare tactics, this latest effort is a misguided attempt to talk about anything other than the health care reform this country needs. AARP will continue to work on reform for our members that prohibits insurers from discriminating based on health status or pre-existing conditions, strengthens Medicare by improving quality of care, cutting out fraud and abuse, and closing the so-called ‘doughnut hole’ for prescription drugs.
"AARP was started more than 50 years ago to fight for older Americans and their need for health care – our fight continues today. Over those 50 years our public policies have always dictated every decision we have made.
"The only benefit AARP is looking for in health reform is relief for the millions of Americans who are crushed by soaring prescription drug prices, relief for the millions of Americans who are told they can’t get coverage because they’re too old or too sick, and relief for the millions of Americans who need Medicare strengthened. Period."
Steven Chu: The Man With His Finger on the Pulse of America
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 4:08PM
Or, as he may prefer, that nation of illiterate teenagers
How To Outwit Dirty Hippies & Mad-At-Their-Dad Anarchists...
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 3:26PM
Ted Kennedy Vacancy Update
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 3:06PM
The Massachusetts State Senate has now passed a bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The House already passed the bill. It needs to pass both houses of the legislature one more time and be signed by the governor to become law. Expect lobbying for the interim slot to intensify, though the governor is unlikely to appoint anyone who plans to run in the special election to fill the remainder of Kennedy's term.
Union Boss, Pro Obama, From Fed Office
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 2:20PM
Brian Faughnan has another scoop on another scandal of improper polticization, this one at the Wash Times other good new blog, The Conservatives.
ACORN Cheats on Taxes, Too
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 2:17PM
Deroy Murdock and the Pelican Institute have the story, which I discuss at the Water Cooler blog of the Wash Times. Please follow all the internal links to the story.
If Big Government Health Care Doesn't Succeed, Try Try Again
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 2:04PM
The Manhattan Institute has released an instructive new study by Stephen T. Parente and Tarren Bragdon showing the damaging effects of government meddling in the health insurance market. Though the report focuses on New York, it's worth a look because many of the same policies that have helped destroy the market for insurance in the Empire State are now being proposed by Congress and President Obama at the national level.
Among the onerous regulations New York places on insurers are "guaranteed issue" and "community rating," which in plain English mean that they force insurers to cover individuals with preexisting conditions, and to charge everybody the same premiums, regardless of health status. The state also has 51 mandates requiring insurers to cover all sorts of treatments, including hormone replacement therapy. It also outlaws cheaper, more basic health insurance plans, which could be paired with health savings accounts.
The results of these laws have been catastrophic, driving up the cost of an average insurance policy in New York to more than double what it is in neighboring Connecticut. As a result, the number of those who purchase insurance on their own has tumbled a staggering 96 percent since 1994.
Instead of seeing failed experiments in New York and other states as a clear example of why government interference makes things far worse, Democrats have decided to impose most of these same policies on the nation as a whole, while attempting to solvie problems created by government by calling for yet more government. So that's why we end up with proposals mandating that individuals purchase insurance or pay a tax, subsidizing the purchase of insurance, creating a government-run exchange, and creating a new government-run plan modeled after Medicare to be offered on the exchange.
However, the authors of the study argue that New York could improve their insurance market with several reforms: repealing guaranteed issue and community rating laws, allowing health savings accounts in New York, allowing residents to purchase insurance out of state, and allowing insurers to offer cheaper plans with fewer benefits. Based on a Zogby survey of currently and recently uninsured residents commissioned for the study, the authors find that repealing guaranteed issue and community rating alone would reduce the number of uninsured in the state by 37 percent. Separately, the authors concede that "even a robust individual-insurance market would not meet the needs of all applicants, particularly those with a serious chronic illness that predates their application for insurance." Their solution is to create a non-profit high risk pool for those who are otherwise uninsurable, with their premiums subsidized through a tax on private insurance plans, which the study estimates would only be $6 per month if the tax is limited to individual insurance, and $2 a month if it is broadened to include small group health plans.
One issue that the paper doesn't address explicitly, but is worth noting, is that liberals argue that we need to create a government plan because there isn't enough choice and competition in the private insurance market. But a major reason for that is the heavy regulations passed at the state-level, which drive away companies, hurt smaller insurers that don't have the money to deal with regulatory compliance costs, and deny individuals the ability to choose a health insurance plan that suits their own health needs.
Speaking of Larry King
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 1:28PM
This exchange with Tyra Banks is a good example of why Larry King is an absurd interviewer
Banks: I've -- OK, I might be doing a little TMI -- do you know what TMI is? Too much information?
King: Well, give it to me anyway.
Banks: I always feel great when I don't have clothes on. So at home, by myself, walking past ...
King: Oh, we're glad you mean that now.
Banks: Just too much information. But I always feel good that way.
King: So you don't look at yourself nude and say, "Oh, I don't like this." You like it?
Eat your heart out, Charlie Rose.
Man Bites Dog, Bill Clinton Speaks Truth
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 1:04PM
"I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president," the former president told Larry King on CNN last night.
"But I don't believe that all the people who oppose him on health care -- and all the conservatives -- are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then."
He ought to know!
...But he did stay at the Waldorf-Hysteria last night
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 12:42PM
For a fisking of the run-o'-the-mill alarmism specifically touted by President Obama in his speech today, referenced below, see Myron Ebell's refutation here.
Byrd Taken to the Hospital
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 11:38AM
Multiple news outlets are reporting that West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd has been rushed to the hospital this morning. Byrd is 91 and already spent time in the hospital earlier this year for infections, so his health is very precarious.
I'll update this post if more information on his condition comes out.
UPDATE:
Marc Ambinder tweets that Byrd's office says that he is fine, that it was only a case of a little postural hypertension, and that he will be released from the hospital soon.
Finance Committee Markup Begins
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 11:12AM
The Senate Finance Committee this morning is beginning the process of marking up, or writing, its version of health care legislation, using the proposal by Chairman Max Baucus as a starting point. Originally, this was supposed to happen in mid-June when Democrats were hoping to pass a bill before August recess. But after word got out that the Congressional Budget Office would slap the initial proposal with a $1.6 trillion price tag, Baucus spent three months stripping down the cost of the bill in negotiations with five other members of the committeee, including three Republicans.
Given that it's the first day of markup, Senators are making opening statements, before they formally start debating and voting on all of the ammendments. Earlier this morning, all eyes were on Olympia Snowe, the only remaining Republican at this point who could potentially vote for the bill. During her statement she argued that the legislation shouldn't be rushed because they needed time to get it right, and expressed several concerns -- over affordability, the high penalty for those who do not obtain insurance, and the overall cost of the legislation. The problem is that two of her positions are contradictory. The biggest cost in the health care bill is the subsidies provided to individuals to purchase insurance -- if you want to increase the subsidies, then it means you're advocating a more costly piece of legislation rather than a less costly one.
As the process moves forward, Baucus is in a tight spot. He needs to do more to win over liberals who are upset about the lack of a government plan and believe the subsidies are too weak, while wooing moderates who are concerned about the cost. In a New York Times interview, Baucus said that a potential compromise exists around the "trigger," supported by Snowe, that would allow for the creation of a government plan if the new system doesn't meet certain targets. Thus far, liberals have rejected that idea. Even if the Baucus bill emerges from committee, it still has to be patched together with the more liberal legislation that has already passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The HELP bill is far more costly, has more generous subsidies and includes a government-run plan. And even if the two Senate committees reach an agreement and manage to get a bill through the Senate, it would still have to be combined with whatever comes out of the House. So, there's still a long way to go. And as Jon Kyl noted during his remarks, it's difficult for Senators to make concessions when they don't know whether those agreements will be hornored further along in the process.
Carter Called Obama "This Black Boy"
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 10:55AM
Well, Maureen Dowd will be furious when she hears this one. It is Ms. Dowd, as noted in my column nearby, who said she heard Congressman Joe Wilson really yell "You Lie...Boy!" in a racially derogatory fashion even though she admits he only said the first two words. Her point, of course, is that to refer to the President as a "boy" is a racial insult.
In case Ms. Dowd -- or White Mo as we fondly refer to her in these quarters based on her proclivity for judging people by skin color -- saw the video linked here she might, well, never write about it! After all, you don't want to see Jimmy Carter actually call Mr. Obama "this black boy" and get written up as an actual news event in the New York Times, do you. As the rest of us learned long ago, all the news really isn't fit to print.
Gene Koprowski, president of the Illinois Assembly, pointed us to this video, courtesy of Frances Rice, in which the illustrious Jimmy Carter during last year's Democratic Convention refers to Barack Obama as "this black boy"... Rice, by the way, is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.Info
We all remember the media horror that ensued over this, right?
Serious hat tip to both Rice and Koprowski.
Obama to World: It's Not You, It's Us
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 10:43AM
Well, today in New York with his speech that actually was unremarkable in its genus except that it comes from a head of an erstwhile serious nation, President Obama continued his tour of singling out his own country, the greatest force for good the world has ever known, today implicitly pinning on us the global warming industry's hysterical claims of apocalypse.
This set the tone for the UN's climate talks this week and related discussions at the G-20 in Pittsburgh. But it's got me wondering. The world's fourth-largest economy (way back behind #s 1 and 2) in the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and shooting up with a bullet. Yet this treaty is all about us (read today's rather absurd compendium of environmentalist howls and snivels making up today's Financial Times).
Numerous far smaller economies are in the top-15 list of emitters, all of whose emissions are rising rapidly, including Brazil at #11 yet the fourth largest emitter. Yet this is about us.
In fact, many of the top emitters are growing their emissions rapidly, none of them are us.
Emissions in the U.S. have fallen flat since 2000. This appears to be about us and not about GHGs. Sadly, however, the agenda fits nicely with the current administration's agenda of bringing us down to our proper place and under proper international supervision, so things will move forward until the voters say hold, enough.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 10:20AM
- Taking our friends for granted. Obama is not meeting with Gordon Brown at G-20, but is meeting with President Hu of China and President Medvedev of Russia (Telegraph)
- Biden on 2010 elections: If GOP Succeeds, It's "The End of the Road for What Barack and I Are Trying to Do" (ABC News)
- Joe Wilson has raised $2 million since his famously uttered remark, his opponent has taken in $1.5 million (CNN)
- Lou Dobbs jumps on the Malthusian green bandwagon, says the best way to fight global warming is birth control (News Busters)
Why Obama Is Pulling the Rug Out from Under Paterson
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 10:16AM
President Barack Obama has taken the unprecedented step of trying to persuade New York Gov. David Paterson not to seek election to a full term in his own right. The conventional wisdom is that Obama fears that Paterson's unpopularity will drag down the rest of the Democratic ticket in New York. But New York Post columnist Frederic Dicker goes further: he argues that Obama is worried about the political revival of Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani rose to prominence by taking out New York City's first black mayor after the public grew dissatisfied with the incumbent. Polls show him poised to defeat New York's first black governor under at least roughly comparable circumstances. Dicker suggests that Obama might be concerned he'll do the same to the first black president.
Lawrence Auster disagrees. I also have my doubts. If Obama's concerns truly ran along these lines, why would he not similarly undermine Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, whose rise and appeal to voters is much more similar to Obama's than Paterson's? I suppose Dicker would argue that neither Charlie Baker nor Christy Mihos -- much less Tim Cahill -- pose a Giuliani-style threat to Obama in 2012. But how much of a threat can Giuliani really pose if he imploded after a year atop the national polls, with memories of his mayoralty and 9/11 leadership still at least somewhat fresh, after a stint as governor that will be too brief too allow him to accomplish much of anything before running for president?
The Latimer Stupidity
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 10:04AM
Well, Matt Latimer has a book out.
Don't all rush at once to your Barnes and Noble.
The real scoop on young Mr. Latimer, a Bush speechwriter who has now penned the requisite poison pen letters to his president and colleagues, is revealed in this great piece over in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn -- Matt's boss in Bushland.
Ouch!
Since I don't know Mr. Latimer and haven't read the book, there's no contribution here on his substance. But if McGurn is right, and there's no reason to suspect otherwise, this book is just another one of those insipid White House aide books in which the disgruntled author uses the gift bestowed on him by trusting superiors to turn the boss and colleagues into human fire hydrants, with the author playing the role of Spot the dog.
There is zero intellectual effort, just an attempt to use the publishing industry to make a quick buck and get a fast fifteen seconds of face time on cable TV. The hero of the piece is apparently Donald Rumsfeld. No problem -- I like Rumsfeld. But the author apparently never tells the reader he's helping Rummy with his, Rumsfeld's, memoirs, a necessary fact if one is going to dump on others but not the former Defense Secretary.
Latimer's post-White House career has gotten off to a rocky start. As future employers realize this is the way he treats a former President-boss and the people he worked with -- who wants to work with a guy like that?
Once upon a time, before I actually got to the White House, I loved reading books like this as a kid, on the mistaken assumption they were real history. In fact, books like this are to history what McDonald's is to a gourmet meal in a four star restaurant. So once on the scene and understanding a bit better how the world worked, I adopted a rule if I felt the need to buy. Never buy these odious missives in a bookstore. Wait until that next summer vacation when you are ambling through a used-book sale and -- voila! -- what once was twenty-something bucks is now a nickel.
Mr. McGurn's advice, it is clear, is to go the nickel route.
I think he's on to something. If the late spy novelist Robert Ludlum were telling this tale, I suspect he'd call it "The Latimer Stupidity."
The Real Problem with Glenn Beck
Posted by on 9.22.09 @ 9:32AM
Bill O'Reilly is more of a populist than a serious conservative, but I don't read many conservative denunciations of him. Glenn Beck might get the boot because he occasionally says things like this: John McCain would have been worse than Barack Obama.
Hard to say, obviously, since McCain didn't become president. On the plus side, a President McCain would have probably spent a little less on the stimulus (though there would still have been one) and pushed for some of the earmarks to be taken out, would have retained the Mexico City policy, and would have appointed a Supreme Court justice to the right of Sonia Sotomayor. On the negative side, we might be at war in three countries simultaneously, cap and trade would have been more likely to pass, and there'd be more action on the amnesty front than the occasional speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.
Personally, I'd like to know the outcome of the health care debate and what we end up doing in the Middle East before making such a pronouncement. But Beck's interview where he says the unsayable is here.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Peter Wehner: Harmful to the Conservative Movement
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 11:16PM
Actually, I don't know Peter Wehner and have not been authorized to pronounce official anathemas on behalf of the Conservative Movement. What's the point of ex-communicating heretics if (a) nobody pays attention to you because (b) you're not actually the Pope?
However, from the Olympian heights, Wehner/Zeus hurls this thunderbolt:
You can actually go read Zeus's entire anti-Beck encyclical, or not. The remarkable thing is the atavistic impulse: "Hey, you know what the conservative movement needs? A purge! And I say we start with a successful talk-radio host, the most popular new personality on cable TV, the guy whose book is now No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list!" Some excerpts of the Wehnerian anti-Beck anathema:
I don't pretend to be an expert on Beck. In the past I assumed he was a typical figure in the pundit and cable-media world. Only recently have I watched portions of his television program, as well as interviews with him, and heard parts of his radio program. And what I've seen should worry the conservative movement.
I say that because he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. . . .
[T]he role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now-and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn't the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism.
As opposed to Peter
Wehner, who is the face and disposition that should
represent modern-day conservatism but who, alas, doesn't have a
No. 1 book, a hit Fox
News program or a successful talk-radio show.
However, Wehner is supremely qualified for leadership, on the basis of . . .? Oh, wait, I've got it! Along with Michael Gerson, Wehner co-authored a 5,000-word opus entitled "The Path to Republican Revival," which attracted widespread notice, prompting one critic to call it "a Brompton cocktail of bad writing in service of bad ideas, a surefire formula for Republican suicide."
That treatise will live in infamy for a single four-word sentence that sums up the essence of the Gerson-Wehner ideology: "Herewith, a brief primer."
Who is more "harmful to the conservative movement"? The exciting populist Beck or the boring elitist Wehner?
Maya, Malia … Whatever
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 8:31PM
Everyone assumes the big news from Sunday’s TV Barackathon was the President’s false and condescending statements that there are no middle class tax increases which fund ObamaCare (proving, yet again, he hasn’t read the ObamaCare bills). In fact, the biggest news was made during his interview with CNN wherein he called his daughter, Malia, by the wrong name, Maya. He then proceeded to spend the afternoon with buddies on the golf course.
Maya, Malia …
Whatever
By Asher Embry
We oughta know our children’s names; it’s something we should
do.
And if Barack stopped playing golf, he’d know his own
two, too.
(And gander at McChrystal’s grave Afghanistan review.)
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Socialized Medicine Failure Explained in 90 Seconds
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 5:59PM
My friend David Knight won second prize for his excellent video (he's got others) in the Galen Institute's "Do No Harm" contest a couple of months ago. Watch and learn quickly why Britain's and Canada's systems are failures, while ours needs an overhaul, but not of the kind the Democrats are proposing.
Romney Makes Case For Government-Run Health Care
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 4:25PM
There he goes again. Newsmax has published an interview with Mitt Romney in which he once again touts his big government Massachusetts health care plan as a monumental success:
"What we were able to accomplish was to get almost all of our citizens insured without breaking the bank and without having a so-called public option," Romney says. "I think the program is a real success and that it can teach lessons to other states, and to the nation."
To start with, Romney is wrong on the merits. Michael Cannon has done an excellent job documenting what a colossal failure Romneycare has been, bringing higher costs and longer wait times to citizens of Massachustetts. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation numbers Romney cites in his interview understated the cost of the legislation by, among other things, ignoring the program's cost to the federal government. Even the state's Democratic State Treasurer, Timothy P. Cahill, has told the Boston Globe that the promised savings from the universal health care legislation never materialized, and he cautioned that, "It's a warning for the federal government as it looks to do something similar.''
It's bad enough that Romney would be so dishonest about conditions in Massachusetts, but its worse that at a crucial time in the national health care debate, Romney is publicly defending liberal policies, giving ammunition for Democrats to argue that their proposals are moderate when in reality they would amount to a government takeover of health care. While Romneycare did not include a "public option," neither does the Baucus bill, which is nearly identical to Romneycare in every meaningful way. Like the Massachusetts plan, Baucus would mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a tax, expand Medicaid, and provide government subsidies to individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies from a government-run exchange. While free market conservatives have been trying to push back against Obama's insistence that mandates are not a middle-class tax hike, Romney is out there defending the idea of a mandate, by making the same arguments as Obama.
If Romney wants to advocate government-run health care policies, that's his business -- but he should not be viewed in any way as an economic conservative, and should not be seen as a credible conservative standard bearer in 2012. He's gone from being dishonest about his record to advance his own political career, to being dishonest about his record in a way that helps expand government and advance liberal policy goals.
New Breitbart Bombshell! White House Pushed Pro-Obama Propaganda on NEA Call
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 12:46PM
Rush Limbaugh is talking right now on his radio show about the widening scandal related to a teleconference call in which the White House used the NEA to push artists to produce pro-Obama art.
The story comes from Patrick Courrielche of Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.
What's new here is the proof Courrielche just now revealed that the Obama White House was actually participating in and coordinating the conference call.
It turns out Buffy Wicks, deputy director of President Obama's White House Office of Public Engagement, was on the teleconference call.
Wicks is a political operative who was worked with ACORN.
My sources in the progressive movement say Wicks handled the Obama campaign in Missouri last year. Obama lost in Missouri and activists in that state and people within the Obama campaign placed the blame for the defeat squarely on her shoulders.
After failing to win Missouri for Obama, Wicks had a very hard time finding a job but somehow she landed a job in the Obama White House. It's unclear how she did that.
Wicks used to work for Wake Up Wal-Mart (wakeupwalmart.com), which is not a formal affiliate of ACORN but is an ACORN-sponsored spinoff group. The group works very closely with ACORN and is modeled after ACORN's own anti-Wal-Mart affiliate W*A*R*N* (Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now).
Wake Up Wal-Mart entered into a national partnership with ACORN in 2005. In a Wake Up Wal-Mart press release from 2005, ACORN national president Maude Hurd said: "This is a new day in the fight to change Wal-Mart. We have created an unprecedented, bottom-up force for change which will demonstrate why Wal-Mart needs to change now."
The group's legal name is Change Wal-Mart Association. It has a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) of 20-2643179. It is a 501(c)(5) nonprofit, which means it is a labor-oriented organization. The group was formed in 2006 but no tax return (IRS Form 990) is available for the group at guidestar.org. This is unusual.
Donations to the group do not appear in philanthropy databases. Fortune reports that the group is funded entirely by UFCW.
Nexis reports that its office address is 1775 K St. NW, Washington DC 20006. This is the same address as the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). This is not surprising because Wake Up Wal-Mart is a project of UFCW.
Wicks is identified as a Wake Up Wal-Mart employee in a press release issued by the group.
Michael Kelly Weeps
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 12:33PM
There was a time, for about 15 years, when The New Republic represented the sensible center-left. No more. Now, this piece of blather passes for informed opinion. Actually citing James Madison, of all people, in support of universal health coverage (which is akin to citing Abe Lincoln on the virtues of states' rights), TNR went on to whine at great length that those meanies in the GOP have turned into the "Party of No." (Gee, that's original. Next thing you know, TNR will accuse Republicans of "bickering.") Calling Sen. Max Baucus' bill a "rough consensus" (how can it be a consensus if it can't actually get people to sign on?), TNR calls the GOP "an implacable" "interest group." Oh, woe is the GOP. Because Baucus is willing to throw a few bones to the GOP in favor of a proposal whose overall mission violated every tenent of mainstream GOP thinking, the editors of TNR think it just godawful that the Republicans won't play ball.
Somehow, I don't remember TNR similarly tut-tutting when it was the Democrats who were unanimously opposing GW Bush on Social Security reform. Somehow I don't remember TNR having conniption fits about Democratic unanimity against a whole score of Republican presidential proposals. When it's the Dems who all say no, they are not the "Party of No," but instead are merely principled. But when Republicans all say no, suddenly opposition is a sign that the whole political system is "broken."
This is the sort of logic that 8th Graders use. This is the sort of self-absorption that 7th Graders exhibit. This is narcissism, pure and simple. It is the attitude that they, the liberals, define the world, and that those who don't come on board are by very definition not playing fair, because of course all fair play involves playing on the ground of and by the rules as the liberals define or redefine them.
Yes, of course Max Baucus deserves credit. He really, seriously, sincerely tried to find middle ground. But that doesn't mean he succeeded in finding middle ground. It just means that he tried and failed. Just because one person failed doesn't mean that the other person acted in bad faith.
And as long as the left continues to assert that demonstrably accurate criticisms of the main Demo plan (H.R. 3200) amount to "bogus claims" and "false" statements, etc., and to portray all of its opponents as "cynical and irresonsible," then the left itself will be guilty of failing to provide any ground fertile enough to negotiate on.
Oh, yes, I realize that TNR wasn't actually, directly saying that Madison would support unviversal health coverage. Instead, it was saying that the "factions" Madison warned against had become evident in the GOP as a whole through the GOP's tactics and its obstinance. The effect is the same. The effect is to say that only an evil faction could oppose universal health coverage as defined by the left. But TNR utterly misrepresents Madison. What is happening right now is that Madison's beloved "multiplicity and diversity of interests" is acting, as they should, as Madison invited them to act, to slow down change of a radical and monumental scale. Entire little platoons (to use do Tocqueville's terminology to describe a very Madisonian notion) of self-motivated Americans are standing up and saying stop. (Perhaps they are standing athwart history!) They are saying this is too much, too fast, too radical, too big, and utterly ill-advised. And the GOP senators are listening. Maybe TNR's ivory tower blatherers should listen as well.
The Obama-Baucus Middle-Class Tax Hike
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 11:59AM
President Obama, who opposed a health insurance mandate during the campaign and has vowed not to support a middle-class tax hike, has come out in favor of a mandate that would raise taxes on those in the middle class who do are uninsured.
During an exchange with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, President Obama tried to deny that a mandate was the same as a tax increase, even when confronted with a dictionary definition:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...
OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.
Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Yet the idea of a mandate as a tax does not merely come from Stephanopoulos, or critics, or Merriam Webster, but from language in the current draft of the Baucus bill itself. In fact, on page 29, the Baucus proposal reads, "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax....The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed."
Obama argues at another part of the interview that, "right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." But there are many reasons why this is a flawed analogy. Most importantly, car insurance mandates, which apply at the state level, only apply to people who drive a car on public roads. If I don't drive, I don't have to purchase car insurance. By contrast, the health insurance mandate would apply, with few exceptions, to everybody in the United States. Also, people aren't forced to report car insurance in their federal tax returns, and fines are not assessed through the federal tax code. And if car insurance mandates are the model, then they certainly aren't effective, with an estimated 13.8 percent of drivers going without coverage in 2007, according to the Insurance Research Council.
Obama also argued:
You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on.
If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
So, Obama is saying that nobody who can't afford health insurance will be forced to buy it, but he has an odd definition of "affordable." Under the Baucus plan, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while the proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if it does not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950. While the proposal would in fact waive the requirement for individuals who can prove they can't afford a minimal health insurance policy as defined by the government, to qualify for the exemption, premiums would have to exceed 10 percent of adjusted gross income -- or somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for somebody with income of $32,490.
Then there's this larger idea of uncompensated care. While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there's two things that Obama isn't taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn't mean you eliminate the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care.
In a prior article for our magazine, I looked at the Massachusetts example -- the only state with a health insurance mandate:
In 2006, Massachusetts enacted a landmark health care reform that increased coverage by expanding Medicaid eligibility and providing subsidies for citizens to purchase coverage on a state-run insurance exchange. As more people obtained insurance to comply with a mandate, uncompensated care declined by 38 percent between 2006 and 2009 (projected), saving the state $246 million. However, the Commonwealth Care subsidy program created as a result of the 2006 reform is projected to cost $820 million in 2009 alone, and during the same time period, the state’s expanded Medicaid program saw its price tag swell by $1.1 billion. So in other words, while costs declined by a quarter of a billion dollars in one area, they increased by nearly $2 billion in other areas.
The other thing to keep in mind is that while Obama likes to describe those who are uninsured by choice as freeloaders, there's a flip side to this. Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn't about eliminating freeloaders, it's about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.
I think candidate Obama had this one right when he talked about mandates last year. "In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were,” candidate Obama said during a February 2008 debate, referring to conditions under the Massachusetts mandate. "They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine."
Wastin' Time
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 10:44AM
CNN interviews Dave Matthews, political soothsayer:
I found there's a fairly blatant racism in America that's already there, and I don't think I noticed it when I lived here as a kid... There's a good population of people in this country that are terrified of the president only because he's black, even if they don't say it. And I think a lot of them, behind closed doors, do say it.
Maybe I'm paranoid about it, but I don't think someone who disagreed as strongly as they do with Obama -- if it was Clinton -- would have stood up and screamed at him during his speech.
Can anbody old enough to remember the Clinton era -- and Dave Matthews is, since I was listening to his CDs at the time -- take seriously the idea that conservatives were less angry at Clinton than Obama? Perhaps Matthews was stuck under the table and dreaming.
Rude Awakening
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 10:43AM
Oddly, the key population to be hit with the effect of mandatory health insurance coverage are young adults, which are also the biggest supporters of Obama and health reform generally. The recent Census Bureau survey notes that 28.6% of young adults from 18 to 24 years old are uninsured, as are 26.5% of those from 25 to 34. That is double the rate of those of age 45 to 64.
Many of these people are in very good health, so don’t feel a strong need for coverage, but in the proposals before Congress, they will not be allowed to benefit from their good health and will pay the same premium as people who are very sick.
These young people often have other priorities for their money. They are looking for a mate or starting a family. They are setting up their household from scratch and need to buy furniture, or save for the down payment on their first house. They are getting rid of the beat-up Toyota they used in college and buying a decent car to get to their new jobs. They are buying clothing that is suitable for the workplace.
They are also more supportive of ObamaCare than any other age group. The Washington Post reports, “According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week, young adults are more optimistic about the outcome of health-care reform than those age 30 and older, but they are evenly divided on the cost implications, with 32 percent expecting their costs to decline and 27 percent expecting an increase. About 52 percent of young adults support the idea of the individual mandate, about the same proportion as in other age groups. But in terms of the overall package, the under-30 group broadly supports the Democratic effort, with 60 percent favoring the proposed reforms vs. 42 percent among older adults.”
Man, if this thing passes, these folks are in for a rude awakening. But, I guess growing up involves a whole series of disillusionments. This will be just one of many for the new generation.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 10:20AM
- Congressional Research Service finds that Supreme Court removal of Zelaya from the Honduran Presidency was legal, Hillary doesn't seem to care (Wall Street Journal)
- DeMint holding up ambassador appointees in protest (Hill)
- Paterson to run for re-election in New York, despite the Obama administration's requests to give it up (New York Times)
- Stimulus spending has been inconsistent, inflated to meet deadlines (Washington Times)
- Senate votes to uphold what is basically Murtha's private airport, funded by taxpayers (Washington Examiner)
Leaving Out the Big Fragment
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 10:15AM
Howard Kurtz this morning surveys the broadcast news networks about "Saturation Sunday," also known as President Obama's media blitz on the television news talk shows yesterday. As most information junkies know by now, the president visited every major program (plus Univision's "Al Punto") except for "Fox News Sunday." Here's the administration's reasoning:
"It's simple," explains White House communications director Anita Dunn. "In an increasingly fragmented audience that gets information from a number of different sources, putting a huge amount of his time behind one medium increases our ability to really break through and get a message out. The effect of one interview, given how rapidly the news environment moves, doesn't last as long as it used to."
Pretty huge fragment he's leaving out there -- sometimes three million viewers. Even if it's not the audience that are the president's natural allies, he's perpetuating the perception that he sees them as fringe racists with a mob mentality, who are unworthy of any explanation of his policies.
But "FNS" host Chris Wallace boils the administration down to this: "They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."
How to Argue As Tendentiously As Possible
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 10:07AM
Matthew Yglesias offers a primer, using an unfortunate Irving Kristol quote unearthed by Brad DeLong as a jumping-off point: "The presence of a major ideological movement in the United States of America dedicated to the dual propositions that taxes must never go up, and that government expenditures don't need to relate to government revenue in any real way as long as the Republican Party is in charge simply makes it almost impossible for the country to be governed in a responsible manner."
Well. Certainly Republicans deserve criticism for increasingly substituting borrow-and-spend economics for the Democrats' tax-and-spend economics. But one might at least point out that the national debt declined as a percentage of GDP under Clinton without returning to pre-Reagan tax rates. Or that Barack Obama explicitly promised to reduce federal revenues "to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan" while increasing federal spending. Or that the economic picture looked quite a bit different after the policy mix intended to whip stagflation went into effect, a mix that included Reagan's tax cuts.
The political class' "rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems" has been bipartisan and transideological. So has been the realization that at least some of the basic observations of supply-side economics are sound.
American People Say Government Doing Too Much
Posted by on 9.21.09 @ 8:20AM
How the latest Gallup Poll must hurt in the White House. The American people believe government is trying to do too much. Gee, that wasn't the sort of "change" the Prez & Co. wanted!
Americans are more likely today than in the recent past to believe that government is taking on too much responsibility for solving the nation's problems and is over-regulating business. New Gallup data show that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals, and 45% say there is too much government regulation of business. Both reflect the highest such readings in more than a decade.
With results like this, moderate Democratic congressmen might want to think once, twice, and three times before voting to nationalize the health care system.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sleazy, Criminal, Radical ACORN Finally Gets the Tabloid Treatment It Deserves
Posted by on 9.20.09 @ 11:59AM
I really like the way the ACORN story is told in today's New York Post.
ACORN is sleazy, criminal, and dangerous and the tabloid style of storytelling is ideal for explaining what the group is all about.
I spent quite a bit of time with reporter Ginger Adams Otis on the phone this past week and she turned out an excellent summary of what ACORN is all about.
Here it is in today's New York Post.
ACORN's Pre-Prostitution Troubles
Posted by on 9.20.09 @ 10:12AM
ACORN's problems long were evident even before ACORN members were giving advice on how to take tax deductions for employing underage El Salvadoran prostitutes. So serious are those problems that--wonder of wonders!--even the Washington Post now has noticed.
The liberal political organizing group ACORN faced internal chaos and allegations of financial mismanagement and fraud long before two young conservatives embarrassed the group with undercover videos made at field offices in Washington and across the country.
Internal ACORN documents show an organization in turmoil as last year's presidential election approached, with a board torn over how to handle embezzlement by the founder's brother and growing concern that donor money and pension funds had been plundered in the insider scheme.
Minutes from a meeting ACORN held in Los Angeles last summer reveal a group then on the brink of financial collapse. "Currently owe over $800k to IRS," the minutes note. "Haven't paid medical bills of over $300k. We are essentially 'broke' nationally and lots of offices are struggling."
Some top ACORN officials tried to shield the scheme, which involved Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. "Leadership has no faith in staff. Wade betrayed them," the minutes said.
There's something almost too delicious for words about a self-styled "social justice" organization which does not pay the medical bills of its workers. Or its taxes--its contribution supposedly for our collective good. A few years ago ACORN even sued the state of California attempting to avoid paying the minimum wage because, well, they said they were so busy promoting social justice that they just couldn't afford to take care of their own workers. Rather like unions which attempt to prevent their own workers from unionizing.
You know ACORN is bad when, as Matthew Vadum points out, even Jon Stewart points to the mainstream media's enormous failure in discovering the facts and covering the story.
The UN Investigates the US in Afghanistan
Posted by on 9.20.09 @ 7:42AM
If we needed a reminder why the International Criminal Court is a bad idea, we have one. The ICC plans on investigating U.S. actions in Afghanistan. Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation report:
the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) stated that investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan may result in the prosecution of U.S. policymakers or servicemen. The potential prosecution of U.S. persons by the court over incidents that the U.S. deems lawful is one of the prime reasons why the Bush Administration did not seek U.S. ratification of the treaty creating the court, rejected ICC claims of authority over U.S. persons, and sought to negotiate agreements with countries to protect U.S. persons from being arrested and turned over to the ICC.
The investigation is not complete, the prosecutor has not determined if he will seek warrants against U.S. officials or servicemen, and Afghanistan is constrained from turning over U.S. persons to the ICC under existing agreements. However, the potential legal confrontation justifies past U.S. policy, emphasizes the need to maintain and expand legal protections for U.S. persons against ICC claims of jurisdiction, and should lead the Obama Administration to endorse the Bush Administration's policies toward the ICC.
The Obama administration reportedly is prepared to increase cooperation with the ICC. Instead, President Barack Obama should reaffirm present U.S. policy, refusing both to be bound by the so-called Rome Statute and to acknowledge UN jurisdiction over American personnel.
