Racialist politics. It’s tedious. It’s predictable. It’s ugly.
And what makes it so ugly is that it diminishes the depravity of real racism by diluting it with phony indictments and trivializing it with ridiculous and insupportable claims aimed at non-racists. To wit:
A debate Tuesday over a bill to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected turned to race after Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, compared her bill to Brown vs. the Board of Education.But during the debate, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said that his Republican colleagues would support abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men.
“Ninety-nine percent of the all of the white people in here are going to raise their hand that they are against abortion,” he said. “On the other hand, 99 percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion.”
That this tactic — opportunistic and cynical as it is — is now used by so many blacks, who not so long ago had to fight white southern Democrats over real racialist policy before they joined their party, makes it all the more appalling. And all the more tragic.
A note to Rep Holmes: it wasn’t Republicans who were turning fire hoses on you, or promoting segregation, or fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act. So if you’re in the mood to cast around for those who might find race-mixing worthy of infanticide, you might want to dig up old Margaret Sanger, or Bull Connor, or even Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr, and Fulbright, et al., and hash it out with them.
They’d almost have to listen, out of courtesy. Your being a contemporary representative of their party, and a race-baiter, to boot.
Or, “the buck stops there.”
Convenient. But hardly enough. I’m telling you, the GOP establishment would be exposed as complicit — either by commission or omission — in any serious independent investigation. Which is why we will never get one.
We’ll get a few sacrificial lambs. And then be told justice was served. So it’s time to Move On and Shut Up, or else risk being “unhelpful” yet again.
This is who they all are. This is what they all do.
But honestly, can there really be that many people left who this is fooling?
I’d like to launch this post with a shortish monograph on how, per intentionalism, the very idea that by altering the law what Obama is doing is creating an entirely new text, not “reinterpreting” and existing text to allow it to incorporate all his changes — and by so doing, point out once again that the way we believe language operates is crucial to how we allow laws to function and control us — but that would just bore you, and we’d have to end up talking about egrets and thin-skinned elderly black men barking at unconsciously racist kids calling their dogs. So instead I’ll just go with the specifics:
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats. As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements. Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall. The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day. The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber…Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare. It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essentia
The Hill is clearly correct that his move is aimed at providing nervous Congressional Democrats with a fig leaf on Obamacare. Its analysis that this extended “fix” will “avoid another wave” of cancellations isn’t quite accurate, though. This maneuver will mitigate the next wave for some Americans, but many won’t be granted a reprieve from Democrats’ broken promise. A bipartisan group of state insurance commissioners and Attorneys General rejected this “keep your plan” band aid when it was first proposed by Obama, calling it unworkable and/or illegal. Health insurance companies prepared for years to offer plans that complied with Obamacare’s new rules — and those rules haven’t been altered or repealed. The administration has essentially said that they simply won’t enforce them for a little bit longer. Just long enough, in fact, for some Americans to dodge cancellation notices scheduled for this coming fall. The pain will still come; it’s just been pushed back a bit for some consumers.
Another important reminder is that Moody’s credit agency downgraded the health insurance industry in January, citing the endless cycle of policy uncertainty caused by destabilizing political delays and “fixes.” This turmoil may compel some companies to pull out of certain markets, and will almost certainly contribute to premium increases. Those who are covered by this “keep your plan” stay of execution will be allowed to maintain their “sub-standard” (in the White House’s eyes) coverage, which entails fewer mandates and costs less. Insurers who do scramble to keep these plans intact are (a) spending resources to do so and (b) are taking a revenue hit as a result. Under Obamacare’s model, these people are supposed to pay more to offset the new costs of insuring high-risk consumers with pre-existing conditions. Rather than absorb those new costs — profit margins are tight — they will be passed down and spread out across other consumers in the form of higher premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.
Ultimately, though, this gambit isn’t about health coverage, helping people or righting wrongs. It’s about handing Democrats across the country a thin reed of an excuse when the next batch of cancellations hit. “The president tried to make this right, but some states and greedy insurers refused to go along with this fix for the American people,” they’ll try to argue. This is bogus, and I strongly suspect it won’t work. This administration wrote these rules in such a way that they knew tens of millions of people would lose their existing coverage, contra Obama’s repeated promises. Republicans saw this problem coming years ago and offered a legislative correction to keep the pledge back in 2010. Democrats voted in lock-step to kill it. The catalyst behind the president’s quasi-apology and “fix” idea was a ripple of abject panic among Democrats, who were getting pummeled by terrible headlines last fall. Many began to float freelance ideas to change Obamacare, several of which would have deeply undermined the law’s viability. Obama’s cobbled-together plan was pure damage control. The forthcoming extension is round two of said damage control. It’s that simple. And why am I confident that it won’t move the needle much? One of the Democrats who’s been leaning on this Obama-crafted excuse is Sen. Kay Hagan, whose approval rating has tanked into the low-30′s, with Obamacare submerged in unpopularity among her state’s voters. In other words, she’s been clinging to this lifeline for months and it hasn’t helped her. The president, meanwhile, is mocking Republicans. Why, when he so generously tries to “improve” Obamacare, the GOP calls him a tyrant, those hypocritical ingrates:
He’s being smirkingly obtuse on purpose. Republicans are leveling two separate objections here: First, that Obamacare isn’t working and needs to be changed and repealed, and second, that Obama is overstepping his authority by simply decreeing unilateral changes to a duly-passed piece of legislation. His administration has made one alteration after another, several of which have been deemed legally dubious by legal scholars and media types alike. Indeed, when the House passed a bill to delay the law’s employer mandate (which Obama has now done twice, single-handedly), the White House threatened a veto.
This is always the way of the left: try to sneer off and ironize away the “hyperbolic” nature of the charges against them. Is Obama dressed in fatigues and sporting a Saddam ‘stache? Is he speaking from balconies?
No. So how can he be a tyrant?
Typically, they go for form over function, perception over reality, and expect us all to play along — marking those of us who don’t as throwbacks or constitutional fetishists. You know, students and adherents of the Enlightenment rather than Gramsci, et al.
But the truth is, from both a constitutional, separation of powers perspective — as well as from the linguistic perspective that I’ve pointed out repeatedly gives cover to this kind of lawlessness and creative rewriting of statutes that deconstruct original legislative intent — this is the very definition of dictatorship. That it has the support of a Senate that has worked to cede its power to the Executive, and a Court whose Chief Justice cares more about comity and his “legacy” as it will be written up by the New York Times, is immaterial.
That just means we have, as part of our governmental class, a cabal of ruling elites who have decided to use the law against us.
But we are a representative government. And just because the Courts have decided that the 9th and 10th Amendments don’t hold legal sway does not mean we need accept that. Rather, it means we need to reform the courts and to reaffirm the sovereignty of the states and individuals.
This “law” is clearly being used to benefit some and not others. On its face, that makes equality before the law — a foundational principle of our republic — into a kind of passe joke.
We shouldn’t accept it.
But I’ll shut up now, because I’m having the urge to move into egret talk again. And, you know, wouldn’t want to be caught with the clown nose on…
Congrats to Satch, who took home “Grappler of the Year” at tonight’s Wrestling Awards banquet. He’s been fortunate to have some great coaching over the past couple years, from Joey Gardner to Sonny Yohn (Div I All-American, U of Minn) to Leister Bowling, himself a UFC grappling coach, coach on “The Ultimate Fighter,” and former 3-time State Champion and Colorado State record holder for wins and take downs.
And of course me, some dude who learned a whole lot from Tony Cecchine, who is still the toughest man I’ve ever met.
Great job Satch and great job Warriors — whose 10 and under squad, which I was fortunate enough to help coach this year, took 3rd place in the All-State Team Awards!
Student’s claim of being assaulted at school was “made up.” Discipline? Suspension?
Heaven Mythical afterlife place forbid!
A transgender teenager who said he was beaten and sexually assaulted in a California high school bathroom recanted the story, police said Tuesday.
The 15-year-old student at Hercules Middle/High School “admitted he fabricated the whole story” during an interview with a detective, Hercules police Detective Connie Van Putten said. [...]
The change left open the possibility that the teen could be charged with making a false criminal report, she said.
Mario Trujillo, spokesman for the West Contra Costa Unified School District, said school officials are less concerned with punishing the student than making sure he gets the support he needs to feel safe and comfortable at school. [...]
“There is still an important piece of the story, which is that trans youth do face elevated levels of bullying and violence including physical assaults at school,” said Carolyn Laub, executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. “Even if this particular story isn’t true, the school’s response, to put in place plans for bringing the community together and addressing school safety and climate, is a good outcome.”
Oh where have we heard that Fake but Accurate meme before?
While the poor wittle hoaxer teen-girl-who-”identifies”-as-boy is being cosseted by such an enlightened school administration, an actual ten-year boy is suspended three days for the crime of not realizing his finger is a verbotten firearm
A central Ohio principal says she suspended a 10-year-old boy from school for three days for pretending his finger was a gun and pointing it at another student’s head.
The boy’s father says he thinks it’s the adults who are acting childish after the boy was suspended from Devonshire Alternative Elementary School in Columbus last week.
The fifth-grader said he was “just playing around.” But district spokesman Jeff Warner tells The Columbus Dispatch (http://bit.ly/1jO1rL7 ) that Devonshire Principal Patricia Price has warned students about pretend gun play numerous times this year, and everyone should know the rules by now.
Black is white, up is down, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with Putin.
So, you know all this brouhaha, all these hysterics about how bakers, and photographers, and other service-providers who routinely work for gay clientele (but draw a line at serving gay weddings because they feel it imperils their souls) are horrible people?
And you know the whole “if you think that way, then you’re a bigot,” thing, because governments and pundits have taken it into their heads that it is their job to define “sin” to another person?
And you know that whole, “refusing to serve someone because they think differently than you is all Jim Crow-y and immoral?”
Yeah, well…so much for that.
A gay stylist in Santa Fe refused to cut New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s hair due to her stance on same-sex marriage. KOB-TV’s Stuart Dyson reports.
A Santa Fe hairdresser is waging his own boycott of sorts: He is denying service to the governor of New Mexico because she opposes gay marriage.
Antonio Darden, who has been with his partner for 15 years, said he made his views clear the last time Gov. Susana Martinez’s office called to make an appointment.
“The governor’s aides called not too long ago wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden told KOB.com. “Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides, ‘no.’ They called the next day asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in, and I said ‘no’ again.”
Martinez has said marriage should be between a man and a woman. Darden, who said he has cut the governor’s hair three times, said he won’t serve her unless she changes her mind about gay marriage.
Darden apparently feels that it would go against his own personal moral code — his individual conscience — to cut the governor’s hair. He does not see this decision as an act of “intolerance.” In his mind, he believes that to cut her hair would be to co-operate with evil — a kind of sin, if not against God, then against his own reason and beliefs. He may fear that serving to the governor could be misconstrued as an affirmation of her views.
And no one in the press is arguing differently on the governor’s behalf. No one is suggesting that, by refusing to cut the hair of a person whose position is in alignment with the law, Mr. Darden is denying her a basic civil-right. Quite the opposite; many on social media are saying he is within his rights to refuse her.
I concur. If he is, though, then so are the Christians refusing to serve gay weddings. You can’t have it both ways.
But sadly, you can. That’s the beauty of adopting anti-foundationalism as your go-to philosophical stance: you are undaunted by accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy; you reject the logical rigor reinforced by outmoded Enlightenment ideas that assume a kind of symmetry in thought; and you are allowed — as part of your philosophical and intellectual model — to just pick and choose your arguments based on the individual context.
Or, to put it another way, you grant yourself permission to change every intellectual rule on the fly, and advance sophistry as a kind of elevated, legitimate art form.
What we, as classical liberals, must do to combat such nonsense is not merely point out the hypocrisy, or the inconsistencies in logic, that make up the progressive’s self-serving form of “pragmatism.” Instead, we must simply refuse to comply — to engage in civil disobedience, and to bring our case to the American people when the government tries to run us out of business for insisting on our first amendment protections, even and especially if the courts, which have moved increasingly in the direction of activist superlegislatures granting themselves leave to act as philosopher kings and social engineers, rule against us.
Which brings us back to the states and the Article 5 conventions of the states process. The power of the government comes from our willingness to comply with its edicts. But once it rejects the rule of law in favor of selective enforcement and creating its own police state, in which the law is used as a weapon to beat back legitimate policy opposition, then what you have is tyranny, plain and simple.
I reject the lie of anti-foundationalism just as vehemently as I reject the institutionalization of a form of “interpretation” that is nothing of the sort, but rather is a will to power, a rule by consensus, a rejection of individual autonomy reinforced by an incoherent set of linguistic rules many on the right have been too blind to reject and too eager to internalize — creating the conditions for a steady movement leftward.
This movement is not accidental, nor is it incidental. It was planned and, under the current epistemological assumptions coming from the left we’ve allowed to take root, it is also inevitable, as I’ve been at pains to explain over the years here.
The time is coming when we will not have many choices left should we wish to preserve a representative republic. That’s not hyperbole; it’s fact. If we don’t reject the left’s institutional assumptions and refuse to abide them, we will have to find other ways to save ourselves.
Either that, or we sink into the morass of humankind’s persistent lot, to be ruled over by those who assert a dominance over us, Eloi to their Morlocks, sheep to their wolves, Hillary to their Bills.
And that ain’t my style.
Will post more later, but today could be one of those grieving days.
On a more upbeat note, congrats to Satchel, who over the weekend became the Colorado Youth All-State Champion, 10 and under 50 lb division, then turned around and took second up in Brush Colorado, where he lost an excellent and very tough match to a kid who’d come down from Nebraska. Satch lost two scrambles after being the aggressor and taking the only two shots of the match. Those were the only points of the contest. Satch rode the kid, who chose bottom, in the second quarter while down 2-0 and didn’t give up an escape. The final 2 points in the 4-0 loss came on a last ditch effort to tie the score with a shot while the Nebraska kid played keep away. The scramble could have gone either way. Still, a coachable moment, because Satchel’s become so quick with his double legs and ducks that he thinks he can shoot from a bit too far out and without a really good fake or set up.
Against a skilled defensive wrestler, that may or may not work, but to make sure it does, he has to be able to peek or duck or sucker drag right out from under a sprawl. Or better yet, work better set ups. So we’ll be drilling peeks, shortside firemans, and drags — along with setups — so that it becomes second nature and happens instantly. The tough part is getting kids to shoot without fear. Satch doesn’t have that problem: he’s one of the better shooters on our club. Now he has to learn that even if his shot is stuffed he can still finish it and get the take down — even if doing so involves chaining a series of moves together.
He’s fine at that against less skilled wrestlers. Against kids with a lot of experience, any hesitation can cost him in a close scramble — a lesson he learned by taking a tough loss.
See what happens to your mad scientific skillz once you leave Obama’s progressive employ? They turn to absolute shit:
Marcia McNutt, former head of the U.S. Geological Survey under President Barack Obama until 2013 and now top editor at Science magazine, is no longer opposed to the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.“I believe it is time to move forward on the Keystone XL pipeline to transport crude oil from the tar sands deposits of Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin in Montana and North Dakota to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast,” McNutt wrote in a Feb. 21 editorial in the magazine.
Keystone is a proposed 1,179-mile 36-inch diameter pipeline that will transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Neb., according to the website of TransCanada, the company in charge of the project.
“Along with transporting crude oil from Canada, the Keystone XL Pipeline will also support the significant growth of crude oil production in the United States from producers in the Bakken region of Montana and North Dakota,” the explanation on the company’s website stated.
A summary of McNutt’s commentary is available on Science magazine website, but subscription is required to access the whole article:“I drive a hybrid car and set my thermostat at 80°F in the Washington, DC, summer,” McNutt wrote. “I use public transportation to commute to my office, located in a building given ‘platinum’ design status by the U.S. Green Building Council.
“The electric meter on my house runs backward most months of the year, thanks to a large installation of solar panels,” McNutt wrote. “I am committed to doing my part to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and minimize global warming.
“At the same time, I believe it is time to move forward on the Keystone XL pipeline to transport crude oil from the tar sands deposits of Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin in Montana and North Dakota to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast,” McNutt wrote.
In a Feb. 20 article in the National Journal, more of McNutt’s editorial is quoted, including her stating that the pipeline could be safer and more regulated than transportation of crude oil by rail or truck.
“No method for moving hydrocarbons can be considered completely fail-safe,” McNutt is quoted as saying in the article. “At least the current permitting process can, and should, be used to ensure that Keystone XL sets new standards for environmental safety.
“There is no similar leverage on the truck and rail transportation options, which produce higher GHG emissions and have a greater risk of spills, at a higher cost for transport,” McNutt wrote.
When interviewed for a National Public Radio article on Feb. 21, McNutt said Canadian crude oil would be used one way or another.
NPR’s Morning Edition host David Greene asked McNutt why she had changed her mind.
“Just because there hasn’t been a pipeline really did not stop the development of the Canadian tar sands,” McNutt said.
“They were going to be developed anyway, you’re saying?” Greene said.
“Yeah,” McNutt said. “In fact, they are developed anyway.
“Rather than putting the oil in a pipeline, they are now putting the oil on trucks and railway cars, and trucks and trains actually use more fossil fuels themselves to get that crude oil to market than a pipeline,” McNutt said.
Greene then stated that the pipeline “might be the cleanest of the options.”
“Not only the cleanest, but potentially safer, because the pipeline is still to be permitted. Environmentalists can demand the pipeline be the safest ever engineered,” McNutt said.
Wait. You mean to tell me that moving fuel through pipelines rather than over roads is potentially less environmentally “dirty” than using fleets of trucks and trains to move the same stuff?
Balderdash. And just because you cited your environmentalist bona fides up front doesn’t make you any less a traitor to the movement to snuff out cheap energy — the very stuff that allows us to gain world affluence and so keep a large imperial standing army designed to rape and pillage foreign lands and the noble savages that live peacefully in them.
I predict an IRS audit in your future, Ms McNutt. If that is indeed even your real name.
Sounds to me like you’re a stooge for the right and BIG ENERGY. You’re a puppet of the 1%-ers, the kind of fat cats who fly around in private planes and keep multiple mansions and yachts.
But only the bad kind — those who don’t profess to a certain public self-loathing by way of keeping all that shit even as they denounce others for having it. It’s okay to fly your dog in a helicopter or keep fleets of SUVs and take innumerable vacations all over the world just so long as while you’re doing so, you’re scolding the little people for their wasteful ways.
Just as it’s okay to eat that Kobe beef burger and cavier just so long as, before you take your first bite, you tell a school kid he can’t have potato chips and needs to suck it up and eat a sliced bell pepper, instead.
The pundits — including the high-brow wonks at Foreign Policy Magazine — sniffed and made fun of her at the time. But then, to do so back then was de rigueur, so you can’t really blame them. After all, easy pile-ons against a wolf-slaughtering tundra hoochie and her outdated Willa Catheresque-type first wave feminism are more socially rewarding, among the elites in DC, then is allowing that real pragmatism comes from looking at the world as it is and taking honest assessments of the political terrain, not beginning from the premise that the world is what you wish it to be and then mapping your Utopian fantasies atop it.
Quipped Palin this weekend, “Yes, I could see this one from Alaska.”
Here’s what the insipid, folksy state college grad offered up in 2008:
“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
Foreign Policy’s then-editor, Blake Hounshell, who now is an editor for Politico Magazine, wrote on the magazine’s blog that warns Palin’s comments were “strange” and “this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.”
Man. We sure dodged a bullet with this uppity bint, didn’t we? I mean, how could we face our liberal friends if we admitted that this bumpkin might have something to offer a nation poised to run off its constitutional rails?
That would be like, oh, voting for some old stooge who was most famous for starring in some B-movies with a monkey. And what kind of intellectual could do something like that…? Right, George Will?
Really. We need to get over our “cultish” admiration for such obviously empty-headed symbols of conservative extremism. And hand the reins over to President Romney in 2012.
You get this line from Oscars host Ellen DeGeneres (who I always thought was one of the best female stand-ups) at last night’s Oscars, which I didn’t watch — ironically and precisely for the very reason that is hinted about in the joke:
“Possibility No. 1: 12 Years a Slave wins best picture. Possibility No. 2: You’re all racists. And now, welcome our first white presenter, Anne Hathaway.”
Luckily, no one in the academy is racist. Though despite granting both major male actor awards to the AIDS movie, they are, as it turns out, wretchedly homophobic.
Sometimes I find my life so recursive that I fear one morning I’ll wake up if not a giant cockroach, then at least completely inside out.