Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Leftists Squeal in Delight at Sotomayor's 'Passionate' Dissent in Schuette v. BAMN

Frankly, Sotomayor attacked the chief justice as "racist," but hey, leftists are down with that!

OMG passionate!

At Free Beacon, "The Media Loves Sonia Sotomayor’s Passion."

Fabulous Tessa Fowler in Green Bikini

Oh my!

What a wonderful little lady.

She's enough to take your mind off the vile collectivists for a few minutes, heh.

At Egotastic!, "Go Big Or Go Home: Tessa Fowler Green Bikini Tease for a Ta-Ta Tuesday."

Thomas Piketty and the Renaissance of Collectivist Hatred

From David Harsanyi, at the Federalist, "Pundits of the World Unite! What Thomas Piketty’s Popularity Tells Us About The Liberal Press."

Karl Marx
As I write this, Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” is #1 on Amazon. It’s been deemed an “important book” by a bunch of  smart people. Why not? It validates many of the preconceived notions progressives have about capitalism: Inequality is growing. Mobility is shrinking. Meritocracy is dead. We all live in a sprawling zero-sum fallacy.  And so on.

The book, as you probably know, has also sparked nonstop conversation in political and media circles. Though it’s best to let economists debunk Piketty’s methodology and data, it is worth pointing out that liberal pundits and writers have not only enthusiastically and unconditionally embraced a book on economics, or even a run-of-the-mill leftist polemic, but a hard-left manifesto.

Now, I realize we’re all supposed to accept the fact that conservatives are alone in embracing fringe economic ideas. But how does a book that evokes Marx and talks about tweaking the Soviet experiment find so much love from people who consider themselves rational, evidence-driven moderates?

Put it this way: It’s unlikely that Democrats would have praised a book like this 20 years ago – or even 10. Nowadays, Jack Lew – better known as the Treasury Secretary of the United States of America - takes time to chit chat with the author.

Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, argues that capitalism allocates resources efficiently but unfairly apportions income. And the excessive accumulation of wealth by the one percent – nay, the .01 percent — is not only corrupt, but an inequality that makes democracy unsustainable. And it’s going to get worse.  So only a massive transfer of wealth could make our nation whole again.

Here is his thesis, boiled down:
When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.

I’d ask if there are any historical examples that prove that skewed wealth in a generally prosperous nation is more damaging to its democratic institutions than the reallocation of wealth by a coercive state. But then I realize, as with any Marxist revival, the answer is: This time we’re gonna do it right!
Judging from the political rhetoric of the day, liberals already believe that higher taxes on the wealthy can create more opportunity for the poor and middle class. While some of us would argue that the nexus between high taxes and economic growth is tenuous, debating whether the top marginal tax rate should be 25 or 33 or 35 percent is well within the boundaries of a centrist debate. But that’s not Piketty’s position.

Here’s how Daniel Shuchman put it in a recent Wall Street Journal review:
Mr. Piketty urges an 80% tax rate on incomes starting at “$500,000 or $1 million.” This is not to raise money for education or to increase unemployment benefits. Quite the contrary, he does not expect such a tax to bring in much revenue, because its purpose is simply “to put an end to such incomes.”
Imagine there’s no rich people. You can say he’s a dreamer, but he’s not the only one.
Keep reading.

Bottom line: Leftists hate wealth. For them people having lots of money, and especially having money and being able to pass it on to their children through inheritance, is evil.

But what's truly evil is the literally pathological hatred leftists have toward the independent and prosperous. Remember, for leftists a free society is rife with "ugliness" and "racism," simply because the natural diversity of the free market conflicts with the grip-of-steel collectivism of the neo-Stalinist left.

The more your read on this Piketty debate the more you will see how terribly wrong politics has turned during this Obama interregnum. The current collectivism hasn't emerged from a vacuum. The real ugliness today is the vicious partisan class warfare the left has waged from the president on down. And now this Piketty dolt has jumped in with a partisan screed to give present-day Marxists a shot in the arm.

I'll have more, because you can't push back enough against these people.

RELATED: "The Misguided Resurgence of Marxist Collectivism," and "Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman Use Thomas Piketty's Capital to Attack America's 'Ugliness' and 'Racism'."

Leftists Spew Hate at Clarence Thomas Following Schuette Decision

It's like a collective pathology. Man, these people are disgusting.

At Twitchy, "‘Worst Negro in history’: Clarence Thomas catches hate after SCOTUS’ affirmative action ruling."



Florida Mom Charged With First Degree Murder in Baby-Slamming Death of Six-Week Old Daughter

The baby, Aubrie, had surgeries for a foot deformity, and was in pain. The mom couldn't take it, apparently, and lifted the child up by the feet, high over her head, and slammed the infant down on a dresser. Baby Aubrie died of skull fractures and bleeding on the brain.

I tweeted this to Steve Ertelt last night:


And he's now posted on it.


God help us.

Toss Out Abusive College Administrators

Oh, I wish, heh.

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today:
Like most professors, I hate doing administrative work. And since somebody has to do it, universities have increasingly built up a corps of full-time administrators. That's fine, but lately, the administrative class has grown too numerous and too heavy-handed. As colleges and universities increasingly face financial pressures, it's time to rethink.

Full-time administrators now outnumber full-time faculty. And when times get tough, schools have a disturbing tendency to shrink faculty numbers while keeping administrators on the payroll. Teaching gets done by low-paid, nontenured adjuncts, but nobody ever heard of an "adjunct administrator."

But it's not just the fat that is worrisome. It's administrators' obsession with -- and all too often, abuse of -- security that raises serious concerns. At the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Clyde W. Barrow, a leading professor, has just quit, complaining of an administration that isolates itself from students and faculty behind keypads and security doors.

Isolation is bad. But worse still is the growing tendency of administrators to stifle critics by shamelessly interpreting even obviously harmless statements as "threats." A recent example took place at Bergen Community College, where Professor Francis Schmidt was suspended, and ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination over a "threat" that consisted of posting a picture of his 9-year old daughter wearing a Game Of Thrones T-shirt. The shirt bore a quote from the show, reading: "I will take what is mine with fire & blood." Bergen administrator Jim Miller apparently thought the picture, which was posted to Schmidt's Google Plus account, was somehow intended as a threat to him. (Schmidt had filed a labor grievance a couple of months earlier.)

What kind of person claims that a picture of a 9-year-old girl wearing an HBO T-shirt is a threat? The kind of person who runs America's colleges, apparently. And Miller, alas, is not alone in his cluelessness and, apparently, paranoia.

Last year at the University of Wisconsin at Stout, theater professor James Miller had a poster from the television series Firefly on his door. It included a picture of Captain Mal Reynolds, a character played by Nathan Fillion, and a quote from the show: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed."

Campus police chief Lisa Walter removed the poster, regarding it as a "threat." After Stout complained to no avail, he replaced the poster with one reading: "Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets."

This poster, too, was interpreted as a threat, which led to a visit from the campus "threat assessment team." After nationwide mockery (Fillion, and fellow Firefly cast member Adam Baldwin, joined in, as did many of the show's fans), the university retreated, and promised to change its approach in the future. Presumably, Chief Lisa Walter carries a gun, and I wonder if that's a good idea in someone so skittish that she sees a movie poster as a "threat."

Meanwhile, at the University of Colorado, the American Association of University Professors has produced a report on the university's running "roughshod" over academic freedom as part of an anti-sexual-harassment campaign in its philosophy department and -- again -- using campus police to strongarm a faculty member over an obviously bogus threat...
Keep reading.

I wish it wasn't so, but my campus is no exception.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Attacks John Roberts as Racist!

Well, not exactly, but she might as well have.

Sotomayor attacked his his legal positions on civil rights, riffing on his famous quote from 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

At TPM, "Sotomayor Attacks John Roberts' Views On Race As 'Out of Touch With Reality'."

People For the American Way got a kick out of this:


But see Ron Christie, at the Daily Beast, "A Lack of Affirmative Action Isn't Why Minority Students Are Suffering."

'CBS This Morning' Gushes Over Elizabeth Warren, Presses Her to Run for President

At NewsBusters.

It's okay to be cordial with your guests, but you've also got to truly interview them. You've got to get down to the controversies, otherwise you're simply giving them free airtime.

Warren's literally a proven liar, and the CBS crew --- whom I admire --- didn't see fit to call her on it.


'Brutally Tortured' Body of Ukrainian Deputy Vladimir Rybak Found Near Rebel-Held Slovyansk

Oh boy, this is getting ugly.

At Toronto's Globe and Mail, "Kiev moves against militants after politician tortured, slain." And Independent UK, "Ukraine crisis: Two bodies found 'brutally tortured by pro-Russian militants' in Slaviansk, says interim President Oleksander Turchinov":
Ukraine’s interim President Oleksander Turchinov has called for an anti-terrorist operation to be re-launched on Tuesday, after he claimed that two bodies were found "brutally tortured by pro-Russian" militants near the eastern city of Slaviansk.

Mr Turchinov said in a statement that one of the bodies was that of Volodymyr Rybak, a member of the ruling Batkivshchyna party, who had recently been abducted by “terrorists.”

Local media said Mr Rybak was kidnapped in Horlivka, a nearby locality, on Wednesday last week.

Police from the regional headquarters in Donetsk said that the body of a man who died a violent death had been found in the Seversky-Donets river and that it resembled Mr Rybak, a local councillor in the town of Horlivka, near Donetsk.

They added that formal identification would require further work...
Also at Telegraph UK, "Russia 'supported torture of Kiev politician’":
Ukraine’s acting president calls for 'anti-terrorist operation’ against pro-Moscow separatists after body of a murdered town councillor is found.

The acting Ukrainian president, Oleksandr Turchynov, said on Tuesday that Russia had supported the torture and murder of a local politician in the east of the country loyal to Kiev.

The president called for the re-launch of an “anti-terrorist operation” against pro-Moscow separatists that was suspended only last week.

The remains of Vladimir Rybak, a town councillor and member of Yulia Tymoshenko’s Our Ukraine Fatherland party, along with an unidentified body, were believed to have been found in separatist-held Slavyansk.

“These crimes are being carried out with the full support and indulgence of the Russian Federation,” said Mr Turchynov. “I call on the security agencies to re-launch and carry out effective anti-terrorist measures, with the aim of protecting Ukrainian citizens living in east [Ukraine] from terrorists.”

Ukraine’s security forces had largely suspended what was a fairly limited operation to respond to the takeover of the eastern town by pro-Russian separatists after an accord with Moscow last week to try to defuse the crisis...
Still more at NYT, "At Funeral, Expressions of Grief and Anger Toward Kiev Officials," and at the Times of Israel, "Ukraine relaunches operation after Biden leaves."


Bureau of Land Management Preps for Massive New Land Seizure?

At Big Government, "BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land."

Also, "BLM Attempting to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers' Land!"



More from Dana Loesch, "Is Harry Reid Trying to Incite Violence With More Volatile Bundy Ranch Rhetoric?"

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman Use Thomas Piketty's Capital to Attack America's 'Ugliness' and 'Racism'

Well, I'm sure most readers have read my initial piece on the Piketty book by now, "The Misguided Resurgence of Marxist Collectivism."

It turns out I was on to more than I realized at the time.

Every now and then you have a book that catches the moment's zeitgeist, and Capital in the Twenty-First Century sure has the makings of another earth-shaker. (I'm finding myself reminded of the urgent reception of Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers back in 1987, a time when the country's was awash in massive Reagan-era deficits and frightened to death of the prospect of Japan as No. 1.) At the very least members of the Washington establishment will be gleefully brandishing this tome while demanding an increase in top tax rates reminiscent of the "glory" days of the Roosevelt administration.

And right on cue, the big bloviating, hypocritical luxury leftists are pumping this book like there's no tomorrow. I watched this full 20-minute Bill Moyers interview with far-left economist Paul Krugman earlier today. It's a classic "highbrow" PBS joint. Behold these two left-wing know-it-alls pontificating on how horrible is the U.S. economy in this new "Gilded Age" of allegedly extreme economic inequality. And not long into the discussion we get to the root of the left's disgusting and divisive racism and class warfare. At around 14:30 minutes Moyers bemoans society's alleged "ugliness," an obviously coded attack on those conservatives in particular who've worked to prevent a return to the confiscatory tax rates of last century. And not to disappoint, Krugman intercepts the dog whistle and launches into a typical attack on certain groups in society (ahem, tea party types, cough, hack) who are animated by those ever-present "underlying racist" motivations that are the standard fall-back trope of the congenitally stupid MSNBC crowd.



I find it particularly interesting that we're having a fairly vigorous to-do about income inequality at precisely the moment that leftist political fortunes are fading, and fading fast. Krugman even laments that we're not likely to see the political pendulum swing toward passing the left's obscene tax policies until 2024.

But never forget that these people, while bemoaning the corporate excesses of "untrammeled" wealth, are themselves some of the most privileged media and educational insiders in American life. "Pampered" would be putting it much too mildly for these epic hypocrites lounging in the lap of leftist luxury.

Bill Moyers, for example, as Discover the Networks points out, "Has received at least $20 million in taxpayer money from public broadcasting, but refuses to disclose his income." Naturally.

And don't miss this laugh riot report on Paul Krugman at Instapundit, "HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Krugman’s CUNY Sinecure":
Whether or not Krugman’s scholarship and teaching ability warrant such a superior salary is certainly worthy of debate, but the real issue for most commentators is not how much CUNY will pay Krugman, but how little they are asking him to do. CUNY is essentially offering him what used to be called a sinecure. Like ecclesiastical appointments “without the care of souls,” the terms of Krugman’s contract require him to do almost nothing his first year and then teach just one graduate seminar each year for as long as he would like to stay at CUNY. This required teaching in the second year is less than half of the usual course load for most distinguished professors at the Graduate Center, some of whom teach three classes per year and advise several dissertations at a time. Whether Krugman will advise or sit on any dissertation committees remains to be seen.

It is clear from his acceptance email however, that he is interested in doing as little work as possible.
So, kind of like his columns, then.
Heh.

And Krugman's shaking down CUNY for a cool $225,000 annually. Man the barricades!

So, yeah, it's a Marxist renaissance we're in, for sure. The leftist establishment media is definitely in the tank, so be on the lookout for a passel of fawning reviews of Piketty's work in the weeks (perhaps even months) ahead. And then it will all subside and leftists will retreat into their collectivist fortress, working feverishly on their next attack on salt-of-the-earth Americans. It's depraved, I know. But a patriot's day is never done. Just keep exposing these hypocritical hacks for all they're worth, which not surprisingly is quite a bit.

Vulnerable #Democrat Kay Hagan Falsely Accuses GOP Opponent of Supporting #ObamaCare

It's come to this.

Hagan's political fortunes are so dire that she's mounting bald-faced lies in radio ads, attempting to smear her opponent of --- wait for it! --- actually supporting the ObamaCare cluster that passed both chambers on a straight party line vote.

Just when you think you've seen it all, at Free Beacon, "Obamacare Supporter Kay Hagan Attacks Opponent in Ridiculously Dishonest Radio Ad."



And where's Obama now? Well, anywhere Kay Hagan ain't. She's literally --- literally --- running from the President and his signature health care fiasco.


Thomas Piketty's Capital is #1 Best Selling Book on Amazon

According to Emily Cohn on Twitter.

As noted, the book's stirring quite a hubbub.

I stopped by Barnes and Noble yesterday, at the Tustin store, but didn't see the book available.

Don't know if I'll need it. At this point I've pretty much got most of the argument down. Leftists are literally creaming over it. And there's going to be lots more jizz going forward. But who knows? Maybe I'll order a copy.

In any case, if you're so inclined, check Amazon: Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

Sally Kohn LOL! — RWNJs Trying to 'Emasculate' Obama

Yes, because we all know Baracky's a Real Manly Man!

From the whacked Ms. Kohn, at the Daily Beast, "The GOP’s Limp ‘Emasculate Obama’ Ploy":

Manly Obama photo Obama_Manly_Nude_Putin_Meeting_zps74ff45dc.jpg
If Cold War-era fear mongering, our-stockpile-has-to-be-bigger-than-their-stockpile machismo and plain “might is right” male insistence as a path to unquestioned power is no longer the accepted in the living rooms and bedrooms and boardrooms and classrooms across America, let alone in the war room, what do Republicans have left? Put another way, through eras of women’s liberation and racial equality movements and calls for peace and justice over war and tyranny, the patriarchy has remained intact increasingly not because of its popularity nor long list of great achievements for society but out of sheer will—its tight grip not yet fully dislodged by the simple passage of time that plainly advantages these forces of change.

But when masculinity itself starts to transform, to acknowledge the problems and even shackles of such strict gender norms and embrace a more open and experimental version of itself, traditional masculinity is defeated from within. When masculinity transforms to become a tall, athletic, African-American liberal who achieves peace and prosperity through words rather than weapons, when the new generation of billionaires are not muscle-y factory men but geeky and somewhat effeminate tech entrepreneurs, and when there are strong and powerful women increasingly comfortably and populously mingled within and sometimes hard to distinguish from the back because both have buns on the tops of their heads … well, who the hell is going to vote for a political party not just predicated on but deeply invested in exactly the opposite, let alone embrace any of their machismo-fueled militaristic ideas?
Heh, that Sally Kohn's a regular laugh riot!

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube.


Far-Left BAMN Coalition Attacks Supreme Court's Schuette Decision as 'Racist'

Via Jennifer Gratz:


How hum:
Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on affirmative action in Michigan is a racist decision. It is this Court’s Plessy v Ferguson. The decision of the Court today makes clear that this Court intends to do nothing to defend the right to equality in politics, opportunity, rights, hopes and aspirations of its Latina/o, black, Native American and other minority citizens. At the very moment that America is becoming a majority minority nation this Court is declaring its intention to uphold white privilege and to create a new Jim Crow legal system.
Remember, these people aren't too smart, lol.

Freakin' communists too, heh.



Single Mother Shanesha Taylor Arrested After Leaving Kids in Hot SUV During Job Interview

And in Scottsdale, Arizona!

The kids were prolly boiling! But hey, milking out those tears on cue for the mugshot? That's gold Jerry! Gold!

At LAT, "Plight of child abuse suspect Shanesha Taylor tugs at public's heart."

Shanesha Taylor photo 25040796_SA_zps3bed0394.jpg
PHOENIX — Depending on the point of view, Shanesha Taylor is either a negligent mom who deserves being charged with child abuse or an overwhelmed single mother who made a mistake while trying to provide for her children.

Taylor, 35, was charged last month with felony child abuse after leaving her two young boys in a hot car while she interviewed for a job.

Taylor's situation, and her tearful mug shot, moved 45,000 people to sign an online petition that calls for charges to be dropped. Her case even prompted a stranger to raise more than $100,000 on her behalf.

Her attorney, Benjamin Taylor, said Monday that he hoped a deal could be reached to reduce or drop the charges.

"You have a single mother with children who is trying to do her best to provide for her family," said the attorney, no relation to Taylor. "We all make mistakes and nobody is perfect and … she was doing her best. But now does she deserve two felonies on her record because she made a mistake? If she's convicted, it will ruin her life."
Actually, no.

Being charged and convicted of manslaughter would have ruined her life. She's lucky her children aren't dead. This is a wakeup call for her to get her act together.

But needless to say, this grossly irresponsible woman has become a cause célèbre on the left. See Melissa McEwan, for example, "This Is Not a Solution; This Is the Problem," and "Fundraiser and Support for Shanesha Taylor." And from the idiotic attack monsters at Think Progress, "Homeless Mother Gets Job Interview But Doesn’t Have Childcare, Ends Up In Jail."

Yes, an irresponsible black woman who nearly killed her children provides the justification for yet more nanny state leftist entitlement. Perfect. More crime equals more progressivism!

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

And the full case at the Supreme Court's page, "SCHUETTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRATION RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN) ET AL."



And from the news reports, at the New York Times, "Justices Uphold Michigan’s Ban on Use of Race in Admissions" (at Memeorandum), and the Washington Post, "Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in university admissions."

Also at Legal Insurrection, "U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action in Higher Ed."

The progs are gonna be bawling about "racism" and "white privilege." And on Twitter, the resurrection of Lochner? I'm still processing this, man!



Responses at Althouse, "The way to get a concurring opinion out of Chief Justice Roberts is to rewrite his famous aphorism, 'The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race')," and Volokh, "What was the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action thinking?"

Mary Willingham, Fake-Classes Whistle-Blower at University of North Carolina, Resigns Under Pressure

Here's an update on my report from January, "University of North Carolina Apologizes for Fake Classes, Promises Real Change."

So, I guess that "real change" is pushing out the whistle-blower.

At Business Week, "UNC Fake-Classes Whistleblower Resigns After Meeting With Chancellor." (Via Instapundit.)

And following the links, a scathing report from UNC history professor Jay Smith, "On Mary Willingham’s Enemies." (On cue, the very first comment at the post attacks Smith as a racist who should be fired: "I hope the UNC administration takes appropriate action." Perfect leftist response!)

RELATED: ICYMI, the Business Week cover story from February, "In Fake Classes Scandal, UNC Fails Its Athletes—and Whistle-Blower." And the university's response, "UNC Responds to Our Cover Article on College Sports and Fake Classes."

Thomas Piketty Revives Marx for the 21st Century - UPDATED!

From Daniel Shuchman, at WSJ:

Thomas Piketty photo unnamed1_zps85838d7b.jpg
Thomas Piketty likes capitalism because it efficiently allocates resources. But he does not like how it allocates income. There is, he thinks, a moral illegitimacy to virtually any accumulation of wealth, and it is a matter of justice that such inequality be eradicated in our economy. The way to do this is to eliminate high incomes and to reduce existing wealth through taxation.

"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is Mr. Piketty's dense exploration of the history of wages and wealth over the past three centuries. He presents a blizzard of data about income distribution in many countries, claiming to show that inequality has widened dramatically in recent decades and will soon get dangerously worse. Whether or not one is convinced by Mr. Piketty's data—and there are reasons for skepticism, given the author's own caveats and the fact that many early statistics are based on extremely limited samples of estate tax records and dubious extrapolation—is ultimately of little consequence. For this book is less a work of economic analysis than a bizarre ideological screed.
Heh.

Well, it's only "bizarre" if you're a regular American who understands how markets work (and who doesn't covet what they haven't themselves earned).

But keep reading.

See also Clive Crook's takedown, "The Most Important Book Ever Is All Wrong."

UPDATE: Don't miss this, "Bill Moyers and Paul Krugman Use Thomas Piketty's Capital to Attack America's 'Ugliness' and 'Racism'."

Marxist Failure Proves Nothing

Via Moira Fitzgerald, "YESTERDAY'S HEADLINES TODAY - VOL. 285."

(Linking, "The Misguided Resurgence of Marxist Collectivism.")

Marxist Failure Proves Nothing photo cea53a44-4d9d-43ce-8d89-74b2bdd3ab5a_zps9f2ad755.jpg

Cliven Bundy and the Rural Way — #BundyRanch

From VDH, at Pajamas Media:
I’m sure that Cliven Bundy probably could have cut a deal with the Bureau of Land Management and should have. Of course, it’s never wise to let a federal court order hang over your head. And certainly we cannot have a world of Cliven Bundys if a legal system is to function.

In a practical sense, I also know that if I were to burn brush on a no-burn day, or toss an empty pesticide container in the garbage bin, or shoot a coyote too near the road, I would incur the wrath of the government in a way someone does not who dumps a stripped stolen auto (two weeks ago) in my vineyard, or solvents, oil, and glass (a few months ago), or rips out copper wire from the pump for the third time (last year). Living in a Winnebago with a porta-potty and exposed Romex in violation of zoning statutes for many is not quite breaking the law where I live; having a mailbox five inches too high for some others certainly is.

So Mr. Bundy must realize that in about 1990 we decided to focus on the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen and to ignore the felony of the lawbreaker. The former gave law enforcement respect; the latter ignored their authority. The first made or at least did not cost enforcers money; arresting the second began a money-losing odyssey of incarceration, trials, lawyers, appeals, and all the rest.

Mr. Bundy knows that the bullies of the BLM would much rather send a SWAT team after him than after 50 illegal aliens being smuggled by a gun-toting cartel across the southwestern desert. How strange, then, at this late postmodern date, for someone like Bundy on his horse still to be playing the law-breaking maverick Jack Burns (Kirk Douglas) in (the David Miller, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Abbey effort) Lonely Are the Brave.

But the interest in Mr. Bundy’s case is not about legal strategies in revolving fiscal disagreements with the federal government.

Instead, we all have followed Mr. Bundy for three reasons.

One, he called attention to the frightening fact that the federal government owns 83% of the land in Nevada. Note that “federal” and “government” are the key words and yet are abstractions. Rather, a few thousands unelected employees — in the BLM, EPA, Defense Department, and other alphabet soup agencies — can pretty much do what they want on the land they control. And note, this is not quite the case in Silicon Valley or Manhattan or Laguna Beach. The danger can be summed up by a scene I see about once a month on a Fresno freeway: a decrepit truck stopped by the California Highway Patrol for having inadequate tarps on a trailer of green clippings, just as a new city garbage truck speeds by, with wet garbage flying over the median. Who will police the police?

Two, this administration has a long record of not following the law — picking and choosing when and how to enforce immigration statutes, depending on the particular dynamics of the next election; picking and choosing which elements of Obamacare  to enforce, again depending on perceived political advantage; and picking and choosing when to go after coal companies, or when not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, or when to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, or when to allow Lois Lerner to destroy the credibility of the IRS for partisan advantage.

In other words, the Obama administration regularly breaks the law as it sees fit. So we wonder why a federal agency sends out swarms of armed security agents to the empty desert on behalf of a tortoise, when it could just as easily storm Jay Carney’s press conference and demand that the president promise to enforce the Affordable Care Act. Or start apprehending those who are not just violating immigration law, but also serially signing false federal affidavits or providing employers with fraudulent identities.

Finally, Bundy, for all his contradictions, is a throwback to a different age...
Keep reading.

'Our Youngest Hostage'

This is so evil I can't believe it.

At Gateway Pundit, "Jihadists Post SHOCKING PHOTO of Their “Youngest Hostage” in Syria."

But the source Raymond Ibrahim has the links to Arabic-languages websites. So, there's that. Horrifying.

 photo 599x517xsyria-baby-hostagejpgpagespeedic1w4H5bnl00_zps24cf48d8.jpg

And in related news, "Advanced U.S. Weapons Flow to Syrian Rebels: Supplies of Anti-tank Missiles Will Test Whether Fighters Can Keep Arms Out of Extremist Hands."

Yeah, better be careful not to arm the "extremists." (Eyeroll.)


#Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal Nearly Hit by Train During Presser on Commuter Safety

Democrat f-king morons.

Via SDA, "Riding Mass Transit Is Like Inviting 20 Random Politicians Into Your Car."



'Inside Edition' Host Megan Alexander Speaks Out on Marriage

At Young Conservatives, "“Marriage Still Matters”: Reporter talks about why she waited until marriage to have sex."

Boy, that's pretty romantic. She'd be quite the catch.

Megan Alexander photo 9PFiZ4gy_zps105efd5f.jpeg

Monday, April 21, 2014

The Last Jew in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, 1941

Via Blazing Cat Fur, "Rare historical photos."

Never forget that history has a way of repeating itself: "Anti-Semitism and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions." Today's leftists seek nothing short of total annihilation of the Jewish state.

Nazis Murder Jews in Ukraine photo yx21jRP_zps97756514.jpg

Anti-Semitism and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

I just had a flashback: My depraved stalker Walter James Casper is a vile anti-Semitic hate-monger, but you knew that.

Click through at the Twitter link.



And from Robert Fulford, at Toronto's National Post, "The BDS Smokescreen":
The people who defame Israel and wish to undermine its status in the world are not anti-Semites — or so they will tell you, every chance they get. Their denial of anti-Semitism is essential to their moral position. In their own view they are good progressives, therefore absolutely innocent of racial or religious discrimination. Their propaganda campaign, which they hope eventually will escalate into economic warfare, is intended merely to reshape Israel’s policies.

What they oppose, they want to assure us, is Israel’s position in the West Bank. Their increasingly loud and self-confident BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) is not, as they tell it, a struggle against the Jews. They simply want to bring Israel into line with enlightened leftist opinion in Europe, the U.S. and Canada.

Scarlett Johansson, the film star, found herself the enemy of BDS in January, when she appeared in advertisements for SodaStream, an Israeli home carbonation device that eliminates cans and bottles. SodaStream’s offence is to have one of its factories in the West Bank, where it employs Palestinians who might otherwise have no work at all.

BDS adherents began denouncing Johansson as “the new face of apartheid.” They love applying that South African term to Israel, no matter how unjustified it is. Oxfam, for which Johansson had served as an ambassador in past years, decided to accept her resignation. Oxfam opposes all trade with Israeli settlements and has no place for dissenters among its associates. Johansson said she and Oxfam “have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.” Oxfam likes BDS. She doesn’t. She says she researched SodaStream and found it an ethical operation.

Like the great majority of Americans in the film industry, Johansson is a liberal Democrat. She took part in the last three presidential elections and raised money for Barack Obama. Unlike many who fall into that category, she also thinks for herself.

The May issue of Vanity Fair carries a cover story about Johansson. The author of the piece, Lili Anolik, asked her how she explains why she has been viciously criticized for the SodaStream ads. Johansson answered, “There’s a lot of anti-Semitism out there.” ...

My own belief is that the BDS people and their fellow travellers, whatever their background, are anti-Semites. They do all they can to stigmatize the Jewish state and reduce its ability to defend itself. They know that Israel is surrounded by neighbours who will never recognize its existence, much less sign a treaty developed in a “peace process” quarterbacked by Washington. The Palestinians and the Arab states who claim to support them are not hoping for a more generous Israel or a BDS-approved Israel or an Israel willing to hand over the West Bank. They are working for a day when Israel will be gone forever.

In order to satisfy this generation’s anti-Semites, Israel must meet standards that no other country in the world has ever met or ever will. At the United Nations Israel is condemned more often than all other countries combined.

It is, of course, an imperfect democracy, like Canada and all other free countries, and its human rights record could certainly be improved. But its treatment of Palestinians has never been even remotely comparable to China’s oppression of Tibetans or Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, two among many outrageous practices that apparently never trouble the students who direct their anger at Israel.

In devising their purposes the BDS campaigners have never shown even the beginning of a sense of proportion. It’s remarkable that the world needs a 29-year-old movie star to point this out.
Israel is held to standards no other country is required to meet. It's disparate treatment, specifically against against the Jews. And it's derived from nothing but hatred of the Jews. It's racism straight up. It's also what my deranged hateful stalker Walter James Casper III is all about.

William Jacobson on the Mark Levin Show

Awesome!

At Legal Insurrection, "On The Mark Levin Show talking Israel and the boycotters."

California's Meb Keflezighi Wins Boston Marathon

The guy's from San Diego, it turns out.

At the Union-Tribune, "San Diegan wins Boston Marathon."



Also at the Boston Globe, "With 2014 Boston Marathon, Boston moves forward."

And at NBC Sports, "Meb Keflezighi stuns to win Boston Marathon (video)."

Ukraine Photos Link Russia to 'Green Men' in the East

Pretty interesting, at the New York Times, "Photos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Russia":
KIEV, Ukraine — For two weeks, the mysteriously well-armed, professional gunmen known as “green men” have seized Ukrainian government sites in town after town, igniting a brush fire of separatist unrest across eastern Ukraine. Strenuous denials from the Kremlin have closely followed each accusation by Ukrainian officials that the world was witnessing a stealthy invasion by Russian forces.

Now, photographs and descriptions from eastern Ukraine endorsed by the Obama administration on Sunday suggest that many of the green men are indeed Russian military and intelligence forces — equipped in the same fashion as Russian special operations troops involved in annexing the Crimea region in February. Some of the men photographed in Ukraine have been identified in other photos clearly taken among Russian troops in other settings...
More, "Ukraine Provides Evidence of Russian Military in Civil Unrest."

And see the latest at the Wall Street Journal, "Russia, U.S. Trade Charges of Violating Ukraine Deal: Vice President Biden Arrives in Kiev Amid Threats of New Sanctions on Moscow."

Plus, at the Independent UK, "Ukraine crisis: Interview with Irma Krat - the journalist and activist being held in Slovyansk: 'I came over here to give voice to people who have not been heard'."

And at the New Republic, "Which Former Soviet State Could Be the Next Ukraine?"

PREVIOUSLY: "Putin's Westward March."

NBC News Conducted Psychological Assessment of 'Meet the Press' Host David Gregory

Now this is something else, at WaPo, "As ‘Meet the Press’ struggles in the ratings, plenty of questions for host David Gregory." (At Memeorandum.)

I'm sure William Jacobson will get a load out of this, heh.



More at Althouse, "What is NBC going to do about the post-Russert crashing ratings of 'Meet the Press'?"

Sharyl Attkisson: 'I didn't sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration...'

Of course not.

But hey, any criticism of the Democrat administration of President Barack Obama is completely out of line!

This is perhaps the most devastating indictment of the mainstream media I've heard throughout the Obama interregnum. Attkisson's says after 2009 there was a dramatic shift in press censorship at CBS News. This is precisely the news programming that's only going to air the accepted narrative, the administration's line. Attkisson was personally attacked by Democrats and left-wing bloggers, some of whom she argues, like Media Matters, were paid to take her down and banish her reporting from the public forum. Fast and Furious and green energy, for example, triggered enormous recriminations. That is, anything that could endanger the Emperor With No Clothes.

More from Ed Morrissey, "Attkisson: CBS News too “ideologically entrenched” to air stories critical of the Obama administration."

Also from Ed Driscoll, "Sharyl Attkisson: CBS Too ‘Ideologically Entrenched’," and "Attkisson: Media Matters ‘Used to Work With Me,’ Turned Once I Reported on Fast and Furious, Green Energy Cronyism":

Former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed that the far-left watchdog “Media Matters for America” turned against her once she reported on stories unflattering to the Obama administration like the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal and green energy cronyism for CBS.

Attkisson made the remarks during a Sunday interview on the CNN media show Reliable Sources.

Media Matters has made a special case of attacking Attkisson, who ruffled many left-wing feathers when she resigned and said that her work for CBS had been stifled by liberals within the network. That is not an old charge, as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg wrote in the best-selling book Bias, explaining how the truth was often distorted at the network because of political bias.

“Media Matters, by my understanding, is a far-left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent media watchdog group,” Attkisson said. “And, yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories, try to help me, you know, produce my stories and at some point–”

“That’s interesting,” said host Brian Stelter.

“Well, don’t they call you? They call journalists and they try to provide material and information,” she replied.

“Right, they are always emailing things, making us try to act outraged about something,” Stelter said.

“And I was certainly friendly with them as anybody,” Attkisson said. “Good information can come from any source. But when I persisted with Fast & Furious and some of the green energy stories that I was doing, I clearly at some point became a target. I don’t know if someone paid them to do it or they just took it on their own.”
More.

And Part II of Attkisson's interview, "Sharyl Attkisson takes on her critics."

Intellectuals Attacking Inequality Silent on the Decline of the Two-Parent Family

In my essay last night on the Marxist renaissance, I argued, "Real reform [of policies on inequality], indeed, must begin not at the level of the nation state but at the level of communities."

And moving down to an even more basic level of organization, consider the family. Leftists don't want to focus on those family and individual level factors, instead arguing that inequality is consequence of "structures" of racism, classism and disadvantage (or whatever else is in vogue these days).

But real success in eliminating inequality must focus on these lower levels of analysis.

From Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch, at the Wall Street Journal, "Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families":
Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can't change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn't some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something—ideology, tobacco money—other than science?

Yet in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.

The two-parent family has declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. This trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. From economist Susan Mayer's 1997 book "What Money Can't Buy" to Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" in 2012, clear-eyed studies of the modern family affirm the conventional wisdom that two parents work better than one.

"Americans have always thought that growing up with only one parent is bad for children," Ms. Mayer wrote. "The rapid spread of single-parent families over the past generation does not seem to have altered this consensus much."

In an essay for the Institute for Family Studies last December, called "Even for Rich Kids, Marriage Matters," University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox reported that children in high-income households who experienced family breakups don't fare as well emotionally, psychologically, educationally or, in the end, economically as their two-parent-family peers.

Abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues of all kinds, such as developmental behavior problems or concentration issues, are less common for children of married couples than for cohabiting or single parents, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control study of children's health. The causal pathways are about as clear as those from smoking to cancer.

More than 20% of children in single-parent families live in poverty long-term, compared with 2% of those raised in two-parent families, according to education-policy analyst Mitch Pearlstein's 2011 book "From Family Collapse to America's Decline." The poverty rate would be 25% lower if today's family structure resembled that of 1970, according to the 2009 report "Creating an Opportunity Society" from Brookings Institution analysts Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. A 2006 article in the journal Demography by Penn State sociologist Molly Martin estimates that 41% of the economic inequality created between 1976-2000 was the result of changed family structure.

Earlier this year, a team of researchers led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty reported that communities with a high percentage of single-parent families are less likely to experience upward mobility. The researchers' report—"Where Is the Land of Opportunity?"—received considerable media attention. Yet mainstream news outlets tended to ignore the study's message about family structure, focusing instead on variables with far less statistical impact, such as residential segregation.

In the past four years, our two academic professional organizations—the American Political Science Association and the American Educational Research Association—have each dedicated annual meetings to inequality, with numerous papers and speeches denouncing free markets, the decline of unions, and "neoliberalism" generally as exacerbating economic inequality. Yet our searches of the groups' conference websites fail to turn up a single paper or panel addressing the effects of family change on inequality.

Why isn't this matter at the center of policy discussions? There are at least three reasons...
Well, those reasons aren't too hard to guess, but do read the rest.

Here's More on Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century

From Steven Erlanger, at the New York Times, "Taking On Adam Smith (and Karl Marx)."

And ICYMI, "The Misguided Resurgence of Marxist Collectivism."