Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
THE "UNFAIRNESS" DOCTRINE
Customers who peruse the Current Affairs section at a prominent Oceanside bookstore may be getting a preview of what access to contrary opinions will be like if the Obama Administration reinstitutes governmental regulation of radio broadcasts.
Whether a left-wing patron or some Obama-worshipping employee is responsible, I don’t know. What I do know is how frequently I find conservative books concealed behind leftist volumes or scattered about the shelves in alphabetical disarray.
My most recent visit to this establishment provided an egregious example of ideological rearrangement—with Bill O’Reilly’s mug obliterated by some “pinhead’s” oeuvre, Ann Coulter’s books given a minimum of semi-orderly exposure, and works by Bernard Goldberg, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich distributed across the a-to-z spectrum.
By contrast, a veritable shrine was devoted to publications by and about Barack Obama. (Mind you, this is the Current Affairs section, not the coffee table memorabilia shelf.)
Not surprisingly, the store didn’t have the book I was looking for—or perhaps it was in stock (as their computer indicated) but had been moved to an undisclosed location for politically incorrect titles.
The good news is that a same-brand store in Encinitas seemed to have a handle on things—with almost all Current Affairs material displayed in proper alphabetical order. There was a nice “Obama” section, but not one that dominated the racks. Furthermore, face-front displays seemed evenly divided between left and right opinion. Finally, the Encinitas store had the un-PC book that had apparently gone missing in Oceanside.
My “where’s Waldo” browsing experience foreshadows the difficulty most Americans will have gaining access to dissenting opinions if Obama’s leftist allies succeed in reimposing, either through the front or back door, the Orwellian-titled “Fairness Doctrine.”
It’s staggering to think that Democrat Senators like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have expressed support for this Constitution-trampling relic of a world where electronic media outlets could be counted on one hand. But then leftist politicians tend toward a totalitarian mentality where opposition to their own thinking is denounced as “divisive” but a 24/7 attack machine on their side (replete with character, and real, assassination scenarios) is taken for granted.
Not content with the overwhelming left-wing bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, Hollywood, Letterman, Leno, “Law and Order” and most of the nation’s major newspapers, Schumer and friends want to stifle opposition voices in the one medium where conservatives, by dint of commercial success, have achieved a modicum of balance in the total media universe.
While President Obama has said he opposes reinstituting the “Fairness Doctrine” (more honestly called The Anti-Limbaugh Democrat Enabling Act), FCC commissioner Robert McDowell warns that the policy will probably be rebranded and promoted in the name of localism and diversity—a likelihood reinforced by Attorney General Eric Holder’s evasive “Fairness Doctrine” responses to a Senate committee.
Under McDowell’s worst-case scenario, community advisory boards, filled with book-squelching ACORN activists, would determine whether Rick Roberts or Roger Hedgecock are serving what they conceive to be “the public interest.” For leftists, that’s “fairness.”
Whether a left-wing patron or some Obama-worshipping employee is responsible, I don’t know. What I do know is how frequently I find conservative books concealed behind leftist volumes or scattered about the shelves in alphabetical disarray.
My most recent visit to this establishment provided an egregious example of ideological rearrangement—with Bill O’Reilly’s mug obliterated by some “pinhead’s” oeuvre, Ann Coulter’s books given a minimum of semi-orderly exposure, and works by Bernard Goldberg, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich distributed across the a-to-z spectrum.
By contrast, a veritable shrine was devoted to publications by and about Barack Obama. (Mind you, this is the Current Affairs section, not the coffee table memorabilia shelf.)
Not surprisingly, the store didn’t have the book I was looking for—or perhaps it was in stock (as their computer indicated) but had been moved to an undisclosed location for politically incorrect titles.
The good news is that a same-brand store in Encinitas seemed to have a handle on things—with almost all Current Affairs material displayed in proper alphabetical order. There was a nice “Obama” section, but not one that dominated the racks. Furthermore, face-front displays seemed evenly divided between left and right opinion. Finally, the Encinitas store had the un-PC book that had apparently gone missing in Oceanside.
My “where’s Waldo” browsing experience foreshadows the difficulty most Americans will have gaining access to dissenting opinions if Obama’s leftist allies succeed in reimposing, either through the front or back door, the Orwellian-titled “Fairness Doctrine.”
It’s staggering to think that Democrat Senators like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have expressed support for this Constitution-trampling relic of a world where electronic media outlets could be counted on one hand. But then leftist politicians tend toward a totalitarian mentality where opposition to their own thinking is denounced as “divisive” but a 24/7 attack machine on their side (replete with character, and real, assassination scenarios) is taken for granted.
Not content with the overwhelming left-wing bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, Hollywood, Letterman, Leno, “Law and Order” and most of the nation’s major newspapers, Schumer and friends want to stifle opposition voices in the one medium where conservatives, by dint of commercial success, have achieved a modicum of balance in the total media universe.
While President Obama has said he opposes reinstituting the “Fairness Doctrine” (more honestly called The Anti-Limbaugh Democrat Enabling Act), FCC commissioner Robert McDowell warns that the policy will probably be rebranded and promoted in the name of localism and diversity—a likelihood reinforced by Attorney General Eric Holder’s evasive “Fairness Doctrine” responses to a Senate committee.
Under McDowell’s worst-case scenario, community advisory boards, filled with book-squelching ACORN activists, would determine whether Rick Roberts or Roger Hedgecock are serving what they conceive to be “the public interest.” For leftists, that’s “fairness.”
Friday, March 06, 2009
PROP 8: THE CRITICAL ISSUES JUDGES MAY IGNORE
The March 1 Perspective pages of the North County Times contained a spirited two-on-two reprise of arguments for and against Proposition 8.
I say “two-on-two,” but supporters of the November measure doubtless noted that one of the arguments against overturning Prop. 8 was authored by an editorialist who opposed the law but hopes to preserve the integrity of the amendment process. Thus, only one of the four pieces agreed with Proposition 8 on the merits—a law approved by about 60% of North County voters.
On the positive side, at least there were two substantive reasons given for upholding the will of the people when it comes to maintaining as normative the male-female definition of an institution as it exists in all but a handful of “progressive” bastions in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe.
Still, little was said that countered the hyperbolic rhetoric in the anti-8 piece that claimed citizens throughout California were in grave danger of losing their rights unless an institution that’s existed for millennia is redefined to post-modern specifications. Ignored in this argument were the two central questions at issue: Are there persuasive reasons for defining marriage as male-female? Are there persuasive reasons for defining homosexuality in the same class as race?
The answer to the first question is clear. The reason marriage is male-female is because only male-female unions produce children, and without children a compelling rationale for marriage as a state-sanctioned institution disappears.
The fact that some men and women get married and don’t have children doesn’t alter the basic link between marriage and raising children. Laws are general, and the essential component of reproduction is male plus female.
On the other hand, changing the definition of marriage to include unions that by their nature exclude procreation sends a quite different message—that marriage is not about children but rather about “feelings of affection.”
Beyond the biological facts of life, sociological evidence demonstrates that children are best raised in families with a mother and a father. Thus, laws promoting this ideal are warranted and can’t be logically equated with segregation codes rooted in notions of racial superiority.
One race isn’t superior to another, but male-female households are better (in general, and thus in law) than households where one sex does all the child-raising or (presumptively) where only one sex is represented in the parental mix. Similarly, Western societies have long presumed the superiority of monogamous over polygamous households.
Concerning parallels drawn between homosexuality and race, there is no compelling evidence, after decades of partisan research, that sexual inclinations are in the same genetic class as skin color. What’s obvious, however (from Greek antiquity to the present) is that social mores greatly impact sexual behavior, whatever the hormonal or genetic givens.
Unfortunately, I suspect that four of California’s Supreme Court jurists have already made up their minds and that same-sex marriage will soon become a “right” like abortion—conjured out of emanations from “progressive” penumbra. Judges rule—history, nature, and democracy be damned.
I say “two-on-two,” but supporters of the November measure doubtless noted that one of the arguments against overturning Prop. 8 was authored by an editorialist who opposed the law but hopes to preserve the integrity of the amendment process. Thus, only one of the four pieces agreed with Proposition 8 on the merits—a law approved by about 60% of North County voters.
On the positive side, at least there were two substantive reasons given for upholding the will of the people when it comes to maintaining as normative the male-female definition of an institution as it exists in all but a handful of “progressive” bastions in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe.
Still, little was said that countered the hyperbolic rhetoric in the anti-8 piece that claimed citizens throughout California were in grave danger of losing their rights unless an institution that’s existed for millennia is redefined to post-modern specifications. Ignored in this argument were the two central questions at issue: Are there persuasive reasons for defining marriage as male-female? Are there persuasive reasons for defining homosexuality in the same class as race?
The answer to the first question is clear. The reason marriage is male-female is because only male-female unions produce children, and without children a compelling rationale for marriage as a state-sanctioned institution disappears.
The fact that some men and women get married and don’t have children doesn’t alter the basic link between marriage and raising children. Laws are general, and the essential component of reproduction is male plus female.
On the other hand, changing the definition of marriage to include unions that by their nature exclude procreation sends a quite different message—that marriage is not about children but rather about “feelings of affection.”
Beyond the biological facts of life, sociological evidence demonstrates that children are best raised in families with a mother and a father. Thus, laws promoting this ideal are warranted and can’t be logically equated with segregation codes rooted in notions of racial superiority.
One race isn’t superior to another, but male-female households are better (in general, and thus in law) than households where one sex does all the child-raising or (presumptively) where only one sex is represented in the parental mix. Similarly, Western societies have long presumed the superiority of monogamous over polygamous households.
Concerning parallels drawn between homosexuality and race, there is no compelling evidence, after decades of partisan research, that sexual inclinations are in the same genetic class as skin color. What’s obvious, however (from Greek antiquity to the present) is that social mores greatly impact sexual behavior, whatever the hormonal or genetic givens.
Unfortunately, I suspect that four of California’s Supreme Court jurists have already made up their minds and that same-sex marriage will soon become a “right” like abortion—conjured out of emanations from “progressive” penumbra. Judges rule—history, nature, and democracy be damned.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
LIES, DAMN LIES, AND OBAMA RHETORIC
Here's an AP story, for goodness sake, that exposes the "emptiness" (i.e. deceptions, lies) in the Obama-Messiah's Congressional Address last night.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html
FIREFIGHTER HARASSMENT MINIMIZED IN GAY PRIDE PARADE TRIAL
Last week a jury determined that four San Diego firefighters who were ordered to participate in a 2007 Gay Pride parade had been sexually harassed.
The four were awarded a total of $34,300 in damages—a figure that clearly suggests a “separate and unequal” calculus when it comes to harassment of straight employees by a sexually demonstrative crowd. One can hardly imagine any jury coming up with figures of this diminutive size if the roles were reversed—if, for example, four gay firefighters had been subjected, because of department orders, to demeaning taunts from an unsympathetic crowd.
Still, a positive verdict for the plaintiffs is better than no verdict at all—as was the case last October when another jury fell one vote short of the required nine votes to sustain a harassment verdict.
Plaintiff’s attorney Charles LiMandri also noted that a judicial ruling in the earlier trial had found that the firefighters’ freedom of speech hadn’t been violated—“even though the courts have consistently held that participation in a gay pride parade is a form of constitutionally protected expressive conduct, and the right to speak on a controversial public issue includes the right not to be compelled to speak.”
According to plaintiff John Ghiotto, the firefighters (who had all objected to their last-minute assignment to this public relations “duty”) were subjected to verbal abuse and sexual gestures throughout the parade route—the most explicit of which exceeded even crotch-grabbing and requests for mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Elsewhere in California’s culture wars, a student at Los Angeles City College, Jonathan Lopez, is suing a professor, John Matteson, for allegedly calling him a “fascist bastard” in class and not allowing him to finish a speech in favor of Proposition 8.
The incident took place in a public speaking class shortly after the November vote in favor of the constitutional amendment that defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman. According to Lopez, the speech professor also informed him that he should “ask God what your grade is.”
Lopez is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a group that, alongside the Thomas More Law Center, represented the San Diego firefighters. In a letter to ADF a school dean observed that two students were “deeply offended” by Lopez’s speech and that one of them said, “this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.”
Lopez is reportedly asking for a jury trial—a good idea in view of the emerging gap between public sentiment and the views of our black-robed betters when it comes to matters like marriage, freedom of speech, and sexual harassment.
For many of California’s judicial legislators freedom of speech and sexual harassment are one-way streets. Maximum latitude is allowed to groups with “victim” status, whereas individuals without this prestigious moniker must carefully observe the “do not offend” signs erected by “victims.”
All awards, of course, (even those for only $34,300) are subject to judicial review.
The four were awarded a total of $34,300 in damages—a figure that clearly suggests a “separate and unequal” calculus when it comes to harassment of straight employees by a sexually demonstrative crowd. One can hardly imagine any jury coming up with figures of this diminutive size if the roles were reversed—if, for example, four gay firefighters had been subjected, because of department orders, to demeaning taunts from an unsympathetic crowd.
Still, a positive verdict for the plaintiffs is better than no verdict at all—as was the case last October when another jury fell one vote short of the required nine votes to sustain a harassment verdict.
Plaintiff’s attorney Charles LiMandri also noted that a judicial ruling in the earlier trial had found that the firefighters’ freedom of speech hadn’t been violated—“even though the courts have consistently held that participation in a gay pride parade is a form of constitutionally protected expressive conduct, and the right to speak on a controversial public issue includes the right not to be compelled to speak.”
According to plaintiff John Ghiotto, the firefighters (who had all objected to their last-minute assignment to this public relations “duty”) were subjected to verbal abuse and sexual gestures throughout the parade route—the most explicit of which exceeded even crotch-grabbing and requests for mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Elsewhere in California’s culture wars, a student at Los Angeles City College, Jonathan Lopez, is suing a professor, John Matteson, for allegedly calling him a “fascist bastard” in class and not allowing him to finish a speech in favor of Proposition 8.
The incident took place in a public speaking class shortly after the November vote in favor of the constitutional amendment that defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman. According to Lopez, the speech professor also informed him that he should “ask God what your grade is.”
Lopez is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a group that, alongside the Thomas More Law Center, represented the San Diego firefighters. In a letter to ADF a school dean observed that two students were “deeply offended” by Lopez’s speech and that one of them said, “this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.”
Lopez is reportedly asking for a jury trial—a good idea in view of the emerging gap between public sentiment and the views of our black-robed betters when it comes to matters like marriage, freedom of speech, and sexual harassment.
For many of California’s judicial legislators freedom of speech and sexual harassment are one-way streets. Maximum latitude is allowed to groups with “victim” status, whereas individuals without this prestigious moniker must carefully observe the “do not offend” signs erected by “victims.”
All awards, of course, (even those for only $34,300) are subject to judicial review.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
SAVING TREES VS. SAVING BABIES
Cutting down large trees is a mortal sin according to the green mores of many Californians—an offense that prompts significant television and newspaper coverage when someone decides, as recently happened in Encinitas, to take a stand (or a seat) in the branches of an endangered leafy organism.
Even health concerns engendered by bird poop right outside an Oceanside restaurant don’t mitigate the righteous indignation of some environmentalists who viscerally feel the pain that neurology suggests is denied our wooden neighbors.
On the other hand, an individual who protests the termination of a nascent human life is unlikely to get much media coverage—much less media sympathy. The same can be said about the attitude of most state legislators toward ending the development of what used to be called “a baby.”
Indeed, Sacramento is so unconcerned (or embarrassed) about the culling of human fetuses that it no longer keeps track of the state’s annual contribution (around 100,000) to the estimated 1.2 million abortions that are performed in the United States each year.
What the state does apparently care about is access to abortion providers—a practice known in the Orwellian language of the Healthcare Workforce Pilot Project as “early pregnancy care.”
In 2006, for the sake of this “Pilot Project,” the state legislature suspended regulations that required abortion providers to be licensed physicians. According to State Senator Sam Aanestad, a trenchant critic of the program, Planned Parenthood has since employed procedure-trained nurses, midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions by suction aspiration.
Aanestad further notes that HWPP #171 exploits a program that was established in 1973 to address shortfalls in the gerontology workforce in order to expand access to abortion in “underserved areas” of California—including San Diego.
Perhaps the proper name for this little-advertised “research project,” designed to facilitate abortions in poor communities where they are already common, should be “No Abortion Left Behind.”
This “clinical study” has been conducted under the auspices of the University of California San Francisco, Kaiser of Northern California, and several Planned Parenthood affiliates. The program is scheduled for renewal in March—in case there are readers out there who care to climb down from their trees long enough to contact their legislators about Healthcare Workforce Pilot Project #171.
It is unlikely, however, that tree-climbers who weep over the fate of vegetative life will show similar concern over the loss of human life in utero. After all, the former activity is popular and demands only episodic commitment on the part of the activist. The latter activity is likely to invite ridicule from powerful media sources (Hollywood and major television networks) and requires, on the part of those most intimately involved in the decision, years of commitment to the welfare of a child.
The psycho-dynamics of these moral priorities are as follows: As crucial moral standards are increasingly ignored by the public, matters of marginal moral significance take their place—filling a yawning void with moral distractions.
Even health concerns engendered by bird poop right outside an Oceanside restaurant don’t mitigate the righteous indignation of some environmentalists who viscerally feel the pain that neurology suggests is denied our wooden neighbors.
On the other hand, an individual who protests the termination of a nascent human life is unlikely to get much media coverage—much less media sympathy. The same can be said about the attitude of most state legislators toward ending the development of what used to be called “a baby.”
Indeed, Sacramento is so unconcerned (or embarrassed) about the culling of human fetuses that it no longer keeps track of the state’s annual contribution (around 100,000) to the estimated 1.2 million abortions that are performed in the United States each year.
What the state does apparently care about is access to abortion providers—a practice known in the Orwellian language of the Healthcare Workforce Pilot Project as “early pregnancy care.”
In 2006, for the sake of this “Pilot Project,” the state legislature suspended regulations that required abortion providers to be licensed physicians. According to State Senator Sam Aanestad, a trenchant critic of the program, Planned Parenthood has since employed procedure-trained nurses, midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions by suction aspiration.
Aanestad further notes that HWPP #171 exploits a program that was established in 1973 to address shortfalls in the gerontology workforce in order to expand access to abortion in “underserved areas” of California—including San Diego.
Perhaps the proper name for this little-advertised “research project,” designed to facilitate abortions in poor communities where they are already common, should be “No Abortion Left Behind.”
This “clinical study” has been conducted under the auspices of the University of California San Francisco, Kaiser of Northern California, and several Planned Parenthood affiliates. The program is scheduled for renewal in March—in case there are readers out there who care to climb down from their trees long enough to contact their legislators about Healthcare Workforce Pilot Project #171.
It is unlikely, however, that tree-climbers who weep over the fate of vegetative life will show similar concern over the loss of human life in utero. After all, the former activity is popular and demands only episodic commitment on the part of the activist. The latter activity is likely to invite ridicule from powerful media sources (Hollywood and major television networks) and requires, on the part of those most intimately involved in the decision, years of commitment to the welfare of a child.
The psycho-dynamics of these moral priorities are as follows: As crucial moral standards are increasingly ignored by the public, matters of marginal moral significance take their place—filling a yawning void with moral distractions.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
SET ASIDE CHILDISH BUDGETS
Barack Obama in his inaugural address observed that “the time has come to set aside childish things”—that the time “of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions…has surely passed.”
That rhetoric is sound advice for Californians who just last November, in the midst of an economic recession and rising budget deficits, voted to approve a 10 billion dollar high-speed rail program designed to get folks from Escondido to San Francisco in three-and-a-half hours--for only $67.
The childish aspect of this proposal was right there in the proposition voter guide, which declared IN CAPS that the 10 billion dollar project (20 billion according to opponents) would be funded “without raising taxes.” Well, if billions in bond indebtedness is a tax-neutral event, why not fund the state government with bonds—in perpetuity?
As the proposition’s “adult” opponents pointed out in the voter guide, the “full faith and credit of the state of California” is pledged for the payment of these bonds—a pledge with profound fiscal implications for a state sporting a budget deficit projected to reach forty billion dollars by June, 2010.
The city of San Diego was only recently able to float infrastructure bonds after starting to get its pension-happy finances in order. And North County residents should be familiar with the huge cost overruns associated with construction of the Sprinter.
Those children who believe there’s “free money” available to build a really fast choo-choo probably also believe that governments can (as candidate Obama frequently promised) create “five million green jobs” with the stroke of a pen.
As for the state’s yawning budget gap, the Governator has no good options. Higher taxes are sure to depress an already bad economy and send even more residents scurrying out of state. (During the last fiscal year 135,173 more people moved out of California than moved in from other states.)
On the other hand, cutting business taxes isn’t going to stimulate growth soon enough to balance the books—which is mandated by law.The only realistic solution is to muddle through with smoke and mirrors--tactics (like fees and accounting gimmicks) that represent the legislative equivalent of bonds unrelated to taxes.
For the long run, “adult” solutions might include undoing the auto-pilot budgeting that’s been put in place for education and other items by California voters, developing the state’s energy reserves (including offshore drilling), providing tax incentives for businesses, and implementing policies aimed at reducing costs associated with illegal immigration.
Based on passage of the high-speed rail proposition, however, I’m not optimistic that California voters and legislators will be adopting the aforementioned suggestions in the near future. Instead, I anticipate more “green” taxes and fees that are magically expected to generate thousands of “green jobs” as opposed to creating an even longer wagon train of U-Hauls headed out of state.
I also expect the kids in Sacramento to throw tantrums to get their hands on bailout funds dispensed by the teenagers in Washington D.C.
That rhetoric is sound advice for Californians who just last November, in the midst of an economic recession and rising budget deficits, voted to approve a 10 billion dollar high-speed rail program designed to get folks from Escondido to San Francisco in three-and-a-half hours--for only $67.
The childish aspect of this proposal was right there in the proposition voter guide, which declared IN CAPS that the 10 billion dollar project (20 billion according to opponents) would be funded “without raising taxes.” Well, if billions in bond indebtedness is a tax-neutral event, why not fund the state government with bonds—in perpetuity?
As the proposition’s “adult” opponents pointed out in the voter guide, the “full faith and credit of the state of California” is pledged for the payment of these bonds—a pledge with profound fiscal implications for a state sporting a budget deficit projected to reach forty billion dollars by June, 2010.
The city of San Diego was only recently able to float infrastructure bonds after starting to get its pension-happy finances in order. And North County residents should be familiar with the huge cost overruns associated with construction of the Sprinter.
Those children who believe there’s “free money” available to build a really fast choo-choo probably also believe that governments can (as candidate Obama frequently promised) create “five million green jobs” with the stroke of a pen.
As for the state’s yawning budget gap, the Governator has no good options. Higher taxes are sure to depress an already bad economy and send even more residents scurrying out of state. (During the last fiscal year 135,173 more people moved out of California than moved in from other states.)
On the other hand, cutting business taxes isn’t going to stimulate growth soon enough to balance the books—which is mandated by law.The only realistic solution is to muddle through with smoke and mirrors--tactics (like fees and accounting gimmicks) that represent the legislative equivalent of bonds unrelated to taxes.
For the long run, “adult” solutions might include undoing the auto-pilot budgeting that’s been put in place for education and other items by California voters, developing the state’s energy reserves (including offshore drilling), providing tax incentives for businesses, and implementing policies aimed at reducing costs associated with illegal immigration.
Based on passage of the high-speed rail proposition, however, I’m not optimistic that California voters and legislators will be adopting the aforementioned suggestions in the near future. Instead, I anticipate more “green” taxes and fees that are magically expected to generate thousands of “green jobs” as opposed to creating an even longer wagon train of U-Hauls headed out of state.
I also expect the kids in Sacramento to throw tantrums to get their hands on bailout funds dispensed by the teenagers in Washington D.C.
A CASE OF STATISTICAL DECEIT
A popular aphorism identifies three types of lies—lies, darn lies, and statistics. A variation on that theme declares that figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Both observations apply to the widely publicized study by Northeastern criminologist James Fox that touted an “alarming” increase in murders by and of black teenagers and attributed the spike to (what else) cuts in federal programs during the Bush years.
Fox’s spin on his numbers was released in late December and was reproduced without critical scrutiny by newspapers throughout the country. (See Dec. 29, North County Times: “Study: Murders among black youths on rise”)
A few weeks earlier Southern Californians had the rare privilege of hearing Mayors Jerry Sanders and Antonio Villaraigosa announce that crime in their cities had been reduced to levels not seen since the 1960s. Then came Fox’s black cloud standing ominously within those silver linings.
According to news accounts of Fox’s study the “rate” of black teenage murders had increased precipitously (40%) from 2000 to 2007. This “rate” of increase, however, was illustrated by providing absolute numbers, not ratios. As anyone of modest intellectual ability knows, official crime statistics are always translated into ratios (usually per 100,000) in order to take into account population shifts. (A numerical increase of 20% in a population that increases 20% produces a statistical straight line, not a 20% increase.)
I found the omission of ratios odd and was pleased to see that “Freakonomics” author and University of Chicago economist, Steven Leavitt, felt the same way. Indeed, Leavitt isolated for analysis the same ratio chart within Fox’s data that I found revealing of a publicity ruse.
That chart, taking demographic changes into account (a 15% increase in the 14-17 year old black population), showed only a modest increase in black teenage murders during the last seven years—a virtual straight line that remained near the bottom of the precipitous statistical slide that began in the mid-1990s. As Leavitt notes, this statistical “blip…doesn’t seem so frightening.” The ratio chart, of course, was absent from Fox’s publicity spin or any newspaper accounts that I saw.
While no increases in murder figures are welcome news, it would be nice to see some skepticism on the part of journalists vis-Ã -vis academic reports that are funded by government grants and whose bottom line focuses on the need to devote more public money to their area of concern.
The problem of gang violence, which ticked up in San Diego during the first 9 months of 2008 (but declined in L.A.) is a continuing source of concern. But according to County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, the feds last year targeted $1.3 million for the San Diego region to help address this problem.
What’s sure to boost crime rates among blacks, whites, teenagers, and adults is a policy of early release of criminals that’s been proposed by California lawmakers and may be required by a panel of jurists intent on capping the state’s prison population. That story line, however, doesn’t warm the cockles of most journalistic hearts.
Both observations apply to the widely publicized study by Northeastern criminologist James Fox that touted an “alarming” increase in murders by and of black teenagers and attributed the spike to (what else) cuts in federal programs during the Bush years.
Fox’s spin on his numbers was released in late December and was reproduced without critical scrutiny by newspapers throughout the country. (See Dec. 29, North County Times: “Study: Murders among black youths on rise”)
A few weeks earlier Southern Californians had the rare privilege of hearing Mayors Jerry Sanders and Antonio Villaraigosa announce that crime in their cities had been reduced to levels not seen since the 1960s. Then came Fox’s black cloud standing ominously within those silver linings.
According to news accounts of Fox’s study the “rate” of black teenage murders had increased precipitously (40%) from 2000 to 2007. This “rate” of increase, however, was illustrated by providing absolute numbers, not ratios. As anyone of modest intellectual ability knows, official crime statistics are always translated into ratios (usually per 100,000) in order to take into account population shifts. (A numerical increase of 20% in a population that increases 20% produces a statistical straight line, not a 20% increase.)
I found the omission of ratios odd and was pleased to see that “Freakonomics” author and University of Chicago economist, Steven Leavitt, felt the same way. Indeed, Leavitt isolated for analysis the same ratio chart within Fox’s data that I found revealing of a publicity ruse.
That chart, taking demographic changes into account (a 15% increase in the 14-17 year old black population), showed only a modest increase in black teenage murders during the last seven years—a virtual straight line that remained near the bottom of the precipitous statistical slide that began in the mid-1990s. As Leavitt notes, this statistical “blip…doesn’t seem so frightening.” The ratio chart, of course, was absent from Fox’s publicity spin or any newspaper accounts that I saw.
While no increases in murder figures are welcome news, it would be nice to see some skepticism on the part of journalists vis-Ã -vis academic reports that are funded by government grants and whose bottom line focuses on the need to devote more public money to their area of concern.
The problem of gang violence, which ticked up in San Diego during the first 9 months of 2008 (but declined in L.A.) is a continuing source of concern. But according to County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, the feds last year targeted $1.3 million for the San Diego region to help address this problem.
What’s sure to boost crime rates among blacks, whites, teenagers, and adults is a policy of early release of criminals that’s been proposed by California lawmakers and may be required by a panel of jurists intent on capping the state’s prison population. That story line, however, doesn’t warm the cockles of most journalistic hearts.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Mark Steyn: Gaza has its version of rocket scientists
Mark Steyn on Gaza, crucifixion, and Western wishful thinking.
Monday, December 22, 2008
BAG BANS AND COW FLATULENCE
It’s amazing what people focus on in order to avoid having to deal with really serious problems. Psychologists see this phenomenon all the time, where toilet seats and personal ticks become the ostensible reason for huge rows out of all proportion to the alleged offense.
The same mind-games apply in the world of politics. While public budgets and economic activity in California are going to heck in a handbasket, politicians in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now San Diego are focusing on matters of monumental triviality—such as the urgent need to ban those ultra-thin plastic bags that stores have used for decades.
A committee of the San Diego City Council recently passed a resolution (2-1) to support a ban of these grave environmental hazards that apparently aren’t biodegradable and allegedly have damaged some marine animals. Encinitas is considering a similar proposal.
For retrograde heathens who might persist in the sinful habit of toting their groceries in paper bags, a 25-cent fee per bag is being considered. This “fee” (not a tax, of course) has also been pondered by our nothing-else-to-do state legislators. Perhaps these geniuses hope to close California’s 12 to 20 billion dollar budget deficit with this new assessment—thus balancing their books on the back of seniors who have enough trouble getting purchases from the check-out counter to their deadly carbon-emitting vehicles.
The words of Gaia priestess and city council member Donna Frye sums up the over-the-top argument against these dastardly petro-gauzes: “The fact of the matter is that when you think that almost every single piece of the planet probably has a piece of plastic on it, at some level you have to start asking yourself, 'Is that the kind of planet we want to pass on to our kids?’”
Personally, I can remember when these gossamer-thin containers were considered the P.C. thing to ask for—as opposed to those evil (but biodegradable) paper bags that only “wascally Wepublicans” were insensitive enough to use. Now our cultural commissars want to give us a new choice: Bring your own reusable bag or pay 25 cents for each paper bag.
This polyethylene crisis came upon us quite suddenly, and alternatives to an outright ban have been considered as little as objections raised by that large chorus of scientists who reject global warming alarmism.
What about those biodegradable organic-based bags? What about recycling alternatives? How about providing some definitive evidence of the grave environmental damage done by those wispy polyethylene sacks that have the great virtue of sealing up refuse thrown in trash bins at apartment complexes—thus reducing the bins’ allure to flies and minimizing wind-blown debris?
On the other hand, in the midst of a significant recession with ballooning budget deficits and out of control pension obligations, what better issue for clueless politicians to tackle than plastic bag pollution. Maybe the matter can even be placed on the next ballot as a constitutional amendment—alongside urgent global warming, cow flatulence legislation.
The same mind-games apply in the world of politics. While public budgets and economic activity in California are going to heck in a handbasket, politicians in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now San Diego are focusing on matters of monumental triviality—such as the urgent need to ban those ultra-thin plastic bags that stores have used for decades.
A committee of the San Diego City Council recently passed a resolution (2-1) to support a ban of these grave environmental hazards that apparently aren’t biodegradable and allegedly have damaged some marine animals. Encinitas is considering a similar proposal.
For retrograde heathens who might persist in the sinful habit of toting their groceries in paper bags, a 25-cent fee per bag is being considered. This “fee” (not a tax, of course) has also been pondered by our nothing-else-to-do state legislators. Perhaps these geniuses hope to close California’s 12 to 20 billion dollar budget deficit with this new assessment—thus balancing their books on the back of seniors who have enough trouble getting purchases from the check-out counter to their deadly carbon-emitting vehicles.
The words of Gaia priestess and city council member Donna Frye sums up the over-the-top argument against these dastardly petro-gauzes: “The fact of the matter is that when you think that almost every single piece of the planet probably has a piece of plastic on it, at some level you have to start asking yourself, 'Is that the kind of planet we want to pass on to our kids?’”
Personally, I can remember when these gossamer-thin containers were considered the P.C. thing to ask for—as opposed to those evil (but biodegradable) paper bags that only “wascally Wepublicans” were insensitive enough to use. Now our cultural commissars want to give us a new choice: Bring your own reusable bag or pay 25 cents for each paper bag.
This polyethylene crisis came upon us quite suddenly, and alternatives to an outright ban have been considered as little as objections raised by that large chorus of scientists who reject global warming alarmism.
What about those biodegradable organic-based bags? What about recycling alternatives? How about providing some definitive evidence of the grave environmental damage done by those wispy polyethylene sacks that have the great virtue of sealing up refuse thrown in trash bins at apartment complexes—thus reducing the bins’ allure to flies and minimizing wind-blown debris?
On the other hand, in the midst of a significant recession with ballooning budget deficits and out of control pension obligations, what better issue for clueless politicians to tackle than plastic bag pollution. Maybe the matter can even be placed on the next ballot as a constitutional amendment—alongside urgent global warming, cow flatulence legislation.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A HOPEFUL CHRISTMAS TRAGEDY
Another thousand meters, a matter of seconds, and the F-18 jet would have crossed I-805 and crashed in the uninhabited western terrain of Miramar Air Base. Assuming the pilot’s successful ejection, the event would have been a scary and costly “incident.” As it was, the aircraft destroyed two houses and killed four members of a family—an infant, a 15-month old child, a wife, and her mother. The “incident” thus became a Christmas-season tragedy.
I suspect the pilot was following the railroad valley that separates the apartment-rich area around University Towne Center from the residential housing to the south. I once lived in an apartment to the north and spent many hours walking through the canyon’s trails. Amid the usual finger pointing and outrage that the deadly crash has spawned, the amazing comments of the grieving husband and father, Dong Yun Yoon, haven’t received the attention they deserve.
During a gut-wrenching seven minutes before national media cameras (with jets flying overhead) this simple man of faith, backed by his pastor and members of his religious community, exhibited qualities seldom seen under such circumstances.
Of the pilot Yoon said, “Please pray for him not to suffer from this accident.” Yoon also referred to the pilot as “one of our treasures for the country” and said that he didn’t blame him for the accident: “I know he did everything he could.”
Remarkably, Yoon also said, “I know there are many people who have experienced more terrible things”—a statement that’s certainly true, but not for most Americans whose current “catastrophes” center on 401(k)s, home values, and job security.
Rather than expressing bitterness, Yoon said, “It was God’s blessing that I met her about four years ago… She was such a lovely wife and mother... I just miss her so much.” He also expressed confidence that God would take care of the loved ones that had been so violently ripped from him. Yoon was uncertain, however, what he could say to his father-in-law, whose grief he also took upon himself: “I don’t know if he will ever forgive me.”
Whether this attitude will survive contemporary pressures toward litigation and recrimination is unclear. I recently saw a news scroll that said Yoon was seeking legal representation—a reasonable action for which he can hardly be criticized. I suspect that many folks would be reassured by a more “typical” response from Yoon—especially those folks who discount religious faith and who view Yoon’s willingness to forgive as a sign that he hasn’t yet been Americanized.
Then there are those who feel that Yoon’s response harks back to a spirit of grace and gratitude that many of us have lost—to the ability to think of others and thank God, even in the midst of great suffering. What’s undoubtedly the case is that the spirit exhibited by Dung Yun Yoon reflects the true spirit of Christmas—the spirit of divine hope and forgiveness in a world filled with darkness.
I suspect the pilot was following the railroad valley that separates the apartment-rich area around University Towne Center from the residential housing to the south. I once lived in an apartment to the north and spent many hours walking through the canyon’s trails. Amid the usual finger pointing and outrage that the deadly crash has spawned, the amazing comments of the grieving husband and father, Dong Yun Yoon, haven’t received the attention they deserve.
During a gut-wrenching seven minutes before national media cameras (with jets flying overhead) this simple man of faith, backed by his pastor and members of his religious community, exhibited qualities seldom seen under such circumstances.
Of the pilot Yoon said, “Please pray for him not to suffer from this accident.” Yoon also referred to the pilot as “one of our treasures for the country” and said that he didn’t blame him for the accident: “I know he did everything he could.”
Remarkably, Yoon also said, “I know there are many people who have experienced more terrible things”—a statement that’s certainly true, but not for most Americans whose current “catastrophes” center on 401(k)s, home values, and job security.
Rather than expressing bitterness, Yoon said, “It was God’s blessing that I met her about four years ago… She was such a lovely wife and mother... I just miss her so much.” He also expressed confidence that God would take care of the loved ones that had been so violently ripped from him. Yoon was uncertain, however, what he could say to his father-in-law, whose grief he also took upon himself: “I don’t know if he will ever forgive me.”
Whether this attitude will survive contemporary pressures toward litigation and recrimination is unclear. I recently saw a news scroll that said Yoon was seeking legal representation—a reasonable action for which he can hardly be criticized. I suspect that many folks would be reassured by a more “typical” response from Yoon—especially those folks who discount religious faith and who view Yoon’s willingness to forgive as a sign that he hasn’t yet been Americanized.
Then there are those who feel that Yoon’s response harks back to a spirit of grace and gratitude that many of us have lost—to the ability to think of others and thank God, even in the midst of great suffering. What’s undoubtedly the case is that the spirit exhibited by Dung Yun Yoon reflects the true spirit of Christmas—the spirit of divine hope and forgiveness in a world filled with darkness.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT ART CENTER BUDGET DEFICITS
When belt-tightening time comes, every group has reasons for preserving its share of the public pie—for explaining why a budget cut will precipitate an apocalypse of Katrinaesque proportion.
My favorite self-serving rationale was put forward by an arts group that claimed cuts in its budget constituted an attack on the poor. I don’t know if the perpetrators of this argument actually believed what they were saying or if they were just employing a logical ruse they thought might succeed.
To me it’s clear that the primary beneficiaries of government support for the arts are individuals in the artistic community, especially managers who pull down salaries well north of a hundred grand. I also suspect that poor folks, given a list of government programs, wouldn’t put art subsidies high on their priority list—which brings me to the annual “quo vadis” inquiry about the California Center for the Arts.
I’ve not yet heard the Arts Center called a poverty program, but I suppose anything’s possible, as cutbacks get closer to the bone. What’s true, I think, is that the Center was conceived as a status symbol and merchant magnet by individuals who wished to change Escondido’s image from that of a “migrant-rich” bedroom community to that of an inland haven for artistic sophistication.
The tug-of-war between those two cities played out year after year in terms of program offerings, ticket prices, and empty seats. The winner of that struggle, as burgeoning deficits suggest, is a community more at home with concerts on the green than with a majestic venue comparable to one recently built in Mesa, Arizona—a Phoenix “suburb” with a population nearing 500,000.
This result doesn’t reflect badly on the Hidden Valley, especially given the fact that the arts, at least in recent decades, haven’t clearly served to elevate the culture or to present a reasonably accurate portrait of reality. Instead, what many of the arts have regularly provided has been an elite community’s warped view of the world—a view through the eyes of what critic Lionel Trilling long ago dubbed the “adversarial culture.”
A prime example of this perspective is the Broadway smash musical “Rent”—an “updated” version of Puccini’s “La Boheme” that features a cast of struggling New York artists, half of whom have contracted AIDS or are HIV positive. Not surprisingly, this slice of self-referential artistic life didn’t fare all that well at the CCAE in 2007. By contrast, “Jesus Christ Superstar” packed ‘em in—an audience preference the programming director described as fickle.
I suspect that the avant-garde, Vietnam-centered dance-play “Movin’ Out” ($52-67) and “The Mortified Guide to…Epic Romance” ($27) will meet with the same tepid reception as “Rent.” Clips of the latter production (that invites audiences to “witness personal redemption through public humiliation”) are available online. Here is one of its tamer comic lines: “Social (life) in college means beer drinking and cheap fondling of ugly girls.”
Given fare of this caliber, CCAE budget deficits reflect well on the community.
My favorite self-serving rationale was put forward by an arts group that claimed cuts in its budget constituted an attack on the poor. I don’t know if the perpetrators of this argument actually believed what they were saying or if they were just employing a logical ruse they thought might succeed.
To me it’s clear that the primary beneficiaries of government support for the arts are individuals in the artistic community, especially managers who pull down salaries well north of a hundred grand. I also suspect that poor folks, given a list of government programs, wouldn’t put art subsidies high on their priority list—which brings me to the annual “quo vadis” inquiry about the California Center for the Arts.
I’ve not yet heard the Arts Center called a poverty program, but I suppose anything’s possible, as cutbacks get closer to the bone. What’s true, I think, is that the Center was conceived as a status symbol and merchant magnet by individuals who wished to change Escondido’s image from that of a “migrant-rich” bedroom community to that of an inland haven for artistic sophistication.
The tug-of-war between those two cities played out year after year in terms of program offerings, ticket prices, and empty seats. The winner of that struggle, as burgeoning deficits suggest, is a community more at home with concerts on the green than with a majestic venue comparable to one recently built in Mesa, Arizona—a Phoenix “suburb” with a population nearing 500,000.
This result doesn’t reflect badly on the Hidden Valley, especially given the fact that the arts, at least in recent decades, haven’t clearly served to elevate the culture or to present a reasonably accurate portrait of reality. Instead, what many of the arts have regularly provided has been an elite community’s warped view of the world—a view through the eyes of what critic Lionel Trilling long ago dubbed the “adversarial culture.”
A prime example of this perspective is the Broadway smash musical “Rent”—an “updated” version of Puccini’s “La Boheme” that features a cast of struggling New York artists, half of whom have contracted AIDS or are HIV positive. Not surprisingly, this slice of self-referential artistic life didn’t fare all that well at the CCAE in 2007. By contrast, “Jesus Christ Superstar” packed ‘em in—an audience preference the programming director described as fickle.
I suspect that the avant-garde, Vietnam-centered dance-play “Movin’ Out” ($52-67) and “The Mortified Guide to…Epic Romance” ($27) will meet with the same tepid reception as “Rent.” Clips of the latter production (that invites audiences to “witness personal redemption through public humiliation”) are available online. Here is one of its tamer comic lines: “Social (life) in college means beer drinking and cheap fondling of ugly girls.”
Given fare of this caliber, CCAE budget deficits reflect well on the community.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
TOLERANCE ON PROP 8: A ONE-WAY STREET
In the wake of California’s Proposition 8 vote, the rhetoric against its supporters has grown increasingly strident. In the name of freedom of speech, I presume, letters have been published on the page opposite that blatantly accuse those who oppose same-sex marriage of bigotry.
I doubt that messages exhibiting the same degree of animus toward “No on 8” activists would make it to print (nor should they) given the epithets they might contain. On this issue, and many others, tolerance is a one-way street.
No matter who’s tossing around the slurs, such tactics undermine the essential attitude of respectful disagreement that makes democracy possible. It’s one thing to insult marginal groups whose publications make clear their hostility toward Catholics, Jews, and blacks. It’s something else to employ similar terms to describe people whose views are embraced by a large majority of human beings of earth—views that have been accepted for millennia for reasons as obvious as the complementary biological structure of males and females.
If Prop 8 supporters are bigots, then most Americans and most of the people in the world are bigots. Included in this burgeoning sphere of bigotry are major world religions that have long served to undermine ethnic and racial prejudices and to shape the consciences of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and the great anti-slavery advocate William Wilberforce.
Given the scope of this presumed bigotry, it must also be the case that these same-sex marriage advocates are among the few enlightened individuals who’ve ever lived on the face of the earth—persons whose Hollywood-based insights could only be questioned by rubes whose arguments and votes need not be taken seriously.
Indeed, not only can these adversaries be ignored and vilified, they can also be economically decimated. Developer Doug Manchester was targeted by “No on 8” activists prior to the election. Now like-minded forces have assembled “black-lists” of individuals (several from North County) who contributed sums as little as a thousand dollars to the “Yes on 8” cause.
A Hillcrest businessman whose establishment wrongly appears on one list reported a plethora of hate-messages from individuals who confidently ascribe that trait to their opponents.
In Sacramento the artistic director for the California Musical Theater resigned after his support for Prop 8 was disclosed—a grim but unsurprising reminder of what the term “diversity” really means in the arts community.
Since election day the most convenient target for abuse has been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But given the number of “bigots” available, Mormons seem to be receiving an inordinate share of opprobrium.
African-Americans constitute an as-yet unchastised class of bigots—a group whose support of Prop 8 (70 to 30% in one poll) clearly showed what they thought about the “homosexuality equals race” argument.
It’s time for reasonable “No on 8” supporters to reject the heavy-handed tactics being employed by its frenzied partisans before these zealots start aiming fire at blacks and that 64% class of bigots known as parents with kids.
I doubt that messages exhibiting the same degree of animus toward “No on 8” activists would make it to print (nor should they) given the epithets they might contain. On this issue, and many others, tolerance is a one-way street.
No matter who’s tossing around the slurs, such tactics undermine the essential attitude of respectful disagreement that makes democracy possible. It’s one thing to insult marginal groups whose publications make clear their hostility toward Catholics, Jews, and blacks. It’s something else to employ similar terms to describe people whose views are embraced by a large majority of human beings of earth—views that have been accepted for millennia for reasons as obvious as the complementary biological structure of males and females.
If Prop 8 supporters are bigots, then most Americans and most of the people in the world are bigots. Included in this burgeoning sphere of bigotry are major world religions that have long served to undermine ethnic and racial prejudices and to shape the consciences of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and the great anti-slavery advocate William Wilberforce.
Given the scope of this presumed bigotry, it must also be the case that these same-sex marriage advocates are among the few enlightened individuals who’ve ever lived on the face of the earth—persons whose Hollywood-based insights could only be questioned by rubes whose arguments and votes need not be taken seriously.
Indeed, not only can these adversaries be ignored and vilified, they can also be economically decimated. Developer Doug Manchester was targeted by “No on 8” activists prior to the election. Now like-minded forces have assembled “black-lists” of individuals (several from North County) who contributed sums as little as a thousand dollars to the “Yes on 8” cause.
A Hillcrest businessman whose establishment wrongly appears on one list reported a plethora of hate-messages from individuals who confidently ascribe that trait to their opponents.
In Sacramento the artistic director for the California Musical Theater resigned after his support for Prop 8 was disclosed—a grim but unsurprising reminder of what the term “diversity” really means in the arts community.
Since election day the most convenient target for abuse has been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But given the number of “bigots” available, Mormons seem to be receiving an inordinate share of opprobrium.
African-Americans constitute an as-yet unchastised class of bigots—a group whose support of Prop 8 (70 to 30% in one poll) clearly showed what they thought about the “homosexuality equals race” argument.
It’s time for reasonable “No on 8” supporters to reject the heavy-handed tactics being employed by its frenzied partisans before these zealots start aiming fire at blacks and that 64% class of bigots known as parents with kids.
Friday, October 31, 2008
HATE THY POLITICAL NEIGHBOR
Why are some folks so eager to brand political opponents as hateful bigots? And what follows, logically, from the widespread acceptance of this practice?
One thing that follows from viewing adversaries as ranting haters is sign vandalism—as numerous statewide stories about the disappearance of “Yes on Prop 8” signs indicate. The rationale one enthusiastic North County sign-snatcher gave for her actions was that government should only be in the business of giving rights, not taking them away.
It didn’t occur to this speech-suppressor that she was violating someone else’s First Amendment rights or that the issue in question is precisely what rights California should recognize when it comes to marriage.
I’d be surprised if this petty political thief would cling to her rights-only logic if the topic were smoking cigarettes on the beach or allowing her Carlsbad neighbors the “right” to do whatever they please with their property. In those critical cases (as opposed to the question of changing a basic, millennia-old social institution) pros and cons would surely need to be discussed.
The real beauty of branding political opponents as haters is that one doesn’t have to deal with specific arguments. Mere declarations of rights and ad hominem invective are all that’s required. By stigmatizing the other side as less honorable than pond scum, one can ignore arguments as smokescreens.
A common inference made by advocates of same-sex marriage was that Prop 8 supporters fell in the same class as individuals who denied rights to black Americans or interned Japanese-Americans during World War II. By this logic the reasonable assertion that male-female marriage reflects natural law and promotes the optimum child-rearing framework was transformed into hate-speech—not a category of discourse that voters need to accord a respectful hearing.
It’s ironic that the lion’s share of negative epithets in the marriage campaign came from the supposedly “tolerant” side of the debate. Just check the Letters page and review the TV ads for derogatory terms that concerned personal character.
Moreover, while I’m sure that some “No on 8” signs were snatched or defaced by Prop 8 proponents, every indication I’ve seen (including a prominent YouTube video) is that most of the vandalism came from the side that was utterly convinced it occupied the high political ground.
That’s because traditional folk tend to honor long-established ethical rules (like “Thou shalt not steal”) and are somewhat less likely to violate mom’s oft-repeated injunction against name-calling. “Progressives,” on the other hand, are more likely to embrace an “ends justify the means” philosophy, to view personal morality and f-bomb language as flexible conventions, and to impute the basest of motives to political enemies—all for the sake of political goals that are embraced with religious fervor.
The future of democracy isn’t bright when half the voting population are routinely labeled as bigots. After all, bigots deserve no respect, and trivial democratic procedures needn’t be observed by partisans whose political ideas (like religious dogmas) are considered beyond questioning.
One thing that follows from viewing adversaries as ranting haters is sign vandalism—as numerous statewide stories about the disappearance of “Yes on Prop 8” signs indicate. The rationale one enthusiastic North County sign-snatcher gave for her actions was that government should only be in the business of giving rights, not taking them away.
It didn’t occur to this speech-suppressor that she was violating someone else’s First Amendment rights or that the issue in question is precisely what rights California should recognize when it comes to marriage.
I’d be surprised if this petty political thief would cling to her rights-only logic if the topic were smoking cigarettes on the beach or allowing her Carlsbad neighbors the “right” to do whatever they please with their property. In those critical cases (as opposed to the question of changing a basic, millennia-old social institution) pros and cons would surely need to be discussed.
The real beauty of branding political opponents as haters is that one doesn’t have to deal with specific arguments. Mere declarations of rights and ad hominem invective are all that’s required. By stigmatizing the other side as less honorable than pond scum, one can ignore arguments as smokescreens.
A common inference made by advocates of same-sex marriage was that Prop 8 supporters fell in the same class as individuals who denied rights to black Americans or interned Japanese-Americans during World War II. By this logic the reasonable assertion that male-female marriage reflects natural law and promotes the optimum child-rearing framework was transformed into hate-speech—not a category of discourse that voters need to accord a respectful hearing.
It’s ironic that the lion’s share of negative epithets in the marriage campaign came from the supposedly “tolerant” side of the debate. Just check the Letters page and review the TV ads for derogatory terms that concerned personal character.
Moreover, while I’m sure that some “No on 8” signs were snatched or defaced by Prop 8 proponents, every indication I’ve seen (including a prominent YouTube video) is that most of the vandalism came from the side that was utterly convinced it occupied the high political ground.
That’s because traditional folk tend to honor long-established ethical rules (like “Thou shalt not steal”) and are somewhat less likely to violate mom’s oft-repeated injunction against name-calling. “Progressives,” on the other hand, are more likely to embrace an “ends justify the means” philosophy, to view personal morality and f-bomb language as flexible conventions, and to impute the basest of motives to political enemies—all for the sake of political goals that are embraced with religious fervor.
The future of democracy isn’t bright when half the voting population are routinely labeled as bigots. After all, bigots deserve no respect, and trivial democratic procedures needn’t be observed by partisans whose political ideas (like religious dogmas) are considered beyond questioning.
WHAT DEREGULATION?
This Wall Street Journal article by James Freeman analyzes the "deregulation" that did NOT occur under the presidency of George W. Bush.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PROPOSITION 8: ARGUING THE OBVIOUS
Injustice is good and justice is naiveté. That’s the proposition Socrates’ irascible interlocutor put forward in The Republic—a viewpoint the Greek philosopher admitted was hard to counter because it fell so far outside the norms of ethical discourse.
The debate about gay marriage falls in the same category. Who would have thought twenty years ago that politicians and activists would seriously propose changing the definition of marriage? Who would have suspected that a state Supreme Court majority of one would equate inherently barren same-sex relationships with male-female unions whose reproductive consequences are typically enormous?
Who would have believed that rational individuals would repeatedly declare with a straight face that males and females are essentially identical when it comes to child rearing—or that natural and obvious biological differences are as irrelevant as variations in skin pigmentation and eye color?
Yet same-sex unions for which promiscuity can have absolutely no reproductive consequences are blindly said to be identical to unions for which marriage has constituted (by promoting fidelity and on-going responsibility to offspring) the greatest institutional protection for women and children.
Logically, if these two types of union are the same, then children and sexual fidelity can’t be central to the definition of marriage. Instead, deconstructed marriage will become (even more than it already has) a mere matter of legal benefits between two or more individuals with amorous feelings toward each other.
Only persons with constrained imaginations could assert that this radical redefinition won’t significantly impact society. Indeed, it’s already had an impact.
In San Francisco first-graders in a public school were recently taken on a field trip to witness their teacher’s lesbian wedding—another lesson in diversity by folks who assert, incredibly, that defenders of traditional marriage are injecting government into people’s private lives.
Yet it was gay activists who “injected” their lifestyle into government via parades in which San Diego firemen were ordered to participate. And it was a lesbian who sued a North County doctor for declining to participate in her insemination—thereby “injecting” government into the doctor’s own conscience.
Indeed, were it not for an unprecedented judicial fiat, the issue of gay marriage wouldn’t have been “injected” into politics at all.
Now this radical innovation, justified by the narrowest of legal margins, is being advertised (thanks to Jerry Brown’s linguistic revision of Prop 8's voter summary) as a “right” that presumably existed from eternity alongside the rights to life, liberty, and abortion on demand. Other anti-8 ads claim that same-sex marriage will have no educational consequences—just as the aforementioned first grade field trip was occurring.
Anyone who believes that public schools won’t take the defeat of Proposition 8 as a signal to aggressively promote a “King and King” educational agenda is also probably unaware of the million dollars donated by the California Teachers Association to oppose Prop 8.
Unfortunately, students in public school won’t be the only casualties of calling black, “white”. Children throughout the state will also be victims—along with freedom of conscience.
The debate about gay marriage falls in the same category. Who would have thought twenty years ago that politicians and activists would seriously propose changing the definition of marriage? Who would have suspected that a state Supreme Court majority of one would equate inherently barren same-sex relationships with male-female unions whose reproductive consequences are typically enormous?
Who would have believed that rational individuals would repeatedly declare with a straight face that males and females are essentially identical when it comes to child rearing—or that natural and obvious biological differences are as irrelevant as variations in skin pigmentation and eye color?
Yet same-sex unions for which promiscuity can have absolutely no reproductive consequences are blindly said to be identical to unions for which marriage has constituted (by promoting fidelity and on-going responsibility to offspring) the greatest institutional protection for women and children.
Logically, if these two types of union are the same, then children and sexual fidelity can’t be central to the definition of marriage. Instead, deconstructed marriage will become (even more than it already has) a mere matter of legal benefits between two or more individuals with amorous feelings toward each other.
Only persons with constrained imaginations could assert that this radical redefinition won’t significantly impact society. Indeed, it’s already had an impact.
In San Francisco first-graders in a public school were recently taken on a field trip to witness their teacher’s lesbian wedding—another lesson in diversity by folks who assert, incredibly, that defenders of traditional marriage are injecting government into people’s private lives.
Yet it was gay activists who “injected” their lifestyle into government via parades in which San Diego firemen were ordered to participate. And it was a lesbian who sued a North County doctor for declining to participate in her insemination—thereby “injecting” government into the doctor’s own conscience.
Indeed, were it not for an unprecedented judicial fiat, the issue of gay marriage wouldn’t have been “injected” into politics at all.
Now this radical innovation, justified by the narrowest of legal margins, is being advertised (thanks to Jerry Brown’s linguistic revision of Prop 8's voter summary) as a “right” that presumably existed from eternity alongside the rights to life, liberty, and abortion on demand. Other anti-8 ads claim that same-sex marriage will have no educational consequences—just as the aforementioned first grade field trip was occurring.
Anyone who believes that public schools won’t take the defeat of Proposition 8 as a signal to aggressively promote a “King and King” educational agenda is also probably unaware of the million dollars donated by the California Teachers Association to oppose Prop 8.
Unfortunately, students in public school won’t be the only casualties of calling black, “white”. Children throughout the state will also be victims—along with freedom of conscience.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
OBAMA'S ABORTION EXTREMISM
Princeton Professor Robert George discusses "Obama's Abortion Extremism."
This is a withering critique of Obama's extreme stand on abortion that promises to make all Americans complicit in this slaughter by doing away with the Hyde Amendment, funding abortions with taxpayer money, and ditching parental notification laws in all the states. With Barack, even living babies will be in danger.
"Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket...."
This is a withering critique of Obama's extreme stand on abortion that promises to make all Americans complicit in this slaughter by doing away with the Hyde Amendment, funding abortions with taxpayer money, and ditching parental notification laws in all the states. With Barack, even living babies will be in danger.
"Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket...."
Monday, October 13, 2008
EXAMPLE OF OBAMA THUGGERY TO COME?
Obama's treatment of political opponents in Chicago (see THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA) foreshadows this fascist-style intimidation on the part of Obama workers and the Feds.
Roger Hedgecock's World Net Daily article.
Roger Hedgecock's World Net Daily article.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
REAL CULPRITS OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: GOVERNMENT COMPASSION AND CRONYISM
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” That’s the simplified version of H. L. Mencken’s sound bite unfriendly proposition.
As evidence in favor of the maxim, I point to the popular wisdom that “deregulation” got America into its current financial straits—a mess whose local consequences are happily exaggerated by gee-whiz graphs that transform a leveling off of prices into a precipitous drop in the rate of price increase, before proceeding to the really bad news. (Graphs that show the huge ups and halfway downs of actual home prices in San Diego aren’t nearly so exciting.)
Returning to the “blame deregulation” line that Pelosi and press pundits are peddling to a docile public, here are the actual facts:
In 1998 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a document called “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.” This influential policy statement asserted that lending standards in the U.S. were “unintentionally” racially biased and urged lenders to employ new underwriting standards that would expunge this moral blot from their books.
These “new and improved” standards essentially pressured banks to abandon prudent norms that had been employed for decades—debt-to-income ratio, credit history, and ability to make down payments from personal savings. While aimed at minorities, these new rules naturally applied to all borrowers. Ignored in the process was the obvious fact that folks who have bad credit, low income, and little money invested in an asset are more likely to walk away when its value declines.
In 1999, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began easing their credit standards, and between 2004 and 2007 these Government Sponsored Enterprises became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages. Other lenders, “encouraged” by “fairness” politicians, followed in the steps of Fannie and Freddie—none more aggressively than Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, who was honored by Harvard’s Center for Housing Studies for his “socially conscious” approach to mortgage lending.
When the Bush administration and other Republicans pushed in 2004 to rein in Fannie and Freddie’s irresponsible practices and to expand regulation of these GSEs, they were met with a chorus of Democrat opposition led by that voluble choirmaster, Rep. Barney Frank. (See www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs) Their uncritical praise of Fannie and Freddie extended to Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, the former Clinton budget director whose alleged book-cooking ingenuity netted him a cool $90 million.
Thus, the money kept flowing (especially to the coffers of Democrat Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Obama) as long as prices were going up. When the inevitable happened and prices turned south, then all those homes purchased in Oceanside zip code 92057 by folks who had no business assuming a $500,000 mortgage were transformed into “bad paper” —and Angelo Mozilo was no longer a Harvard hero.
Long story short, it wasn’t deregulation that precipitated the financial seizure we’re now experiencing. It was benighted government lending standards promulgated in the name of fairness and instituted within the framework of K Street cronyism.
As evidence in favor of the maxim, I point to the popular wisdom that “deregulation” got America into its current financial straits—a mess whose local consequences are happily exaggerated by gee-whiz graphs that transform a leveling off of prices into a precipitous drop in the rate of price increase, before proceeding to the really bad news. (Graphs that show the huge ups and halfway downs of actual home prices in San Diego aren’t nearly so exciting.)
Returning to the “blame deregulation” line that Pelosi and press pundits are peddling to a docile public, here are the actual facts:
In 1998 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a document called “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.” This influential policy statement asserted that lending standards in the U.S. were “unintentionally” racially biased and urged lenders to employ new underwriting standards that would expunge this moral blot from their books.
These “new and improved” standards essentially pressured banks to abandon prudent norms that had been employed for decades—debt-to-income ratio, credit history, and ability to make down payments from personal savings. While aimed at minorities, these new rules naturally applied to all borrowers. Ignored in the process was the obvious fact that folks who have bad credit, low income, and little money invested in an asset are more likely to walk away when its value declines.
In 1999, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began easing their credit standards, and between 2004 and 2007 these Government Sponsored Enterprises became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages. Other lenders, “encouraged” by “fairness” politicians, followed in the steps of Fannie and Freddie—none more aggressively than Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, who was honored by Harvard’s Center for Housing Studies for his “socially conscious” approach to mortgage lending.
When the Bush administration and other Republicans pushed in 2004 to rein in Fannie and Freddie’s irresponsible practices and to expand regulation of these GSEs, they were met with a chorus of Democrat opposition led by that voluble choirmaster, Rep. Barney Frank. (See www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs) Their uncritical praise of Fannie and Freddie extended to Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, the former Clinton budget director whose alleged book-cooking ingenuity netted him a cool $90 million.
Thus, the money kept flowing (especially to the coffers of Democrat Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Obama) as long as prices were going up. When the inevitable happened and prices turned south, then all those homes purchased in Oceanside zip code 92057 by folks who had no business assuming a $500,000 mortgage were transformed into “bad paper” —and Angelo Mozilo was no longer a Harvard hero.
Long story short, it wasn’t deregulation that precipitated the financial seizure we’re now experiencing. It was benighted government lending standards promulgated in the name of fairness and instituted within the framework of K Street cronyism.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
DEREGULATION THE PROBLEM? NO, DEMOCRAT POLS!
Give this article by Peter Ferrara a look if you think deregulation is the root of the financial crisis.
Note especially this YouTube video of Democrat perfidy.
Note especially this YouTube video of Democrat perfidy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)