Two articles in the New York Times today capture just how far out in left field the "newspaper of record" has wandered.
First, we are treated to an essay on the ethics of eating peas. No, the article is not using satire or hyperbole. We're seeing the stirrings of a new movement for people for whom veganism simply isn't radical enough. We are seriously asked to consider the ethics of eating peas, because studies have shown that pea plants can remember, communicate with one another and react to the information received. Somewhere, some insane vegan will decide forego the eating of highly evolved plants.
Second, the author E.L. Doctorow is given space for a screed that is notable for managing to fit more distortion, ignorance and misinformation in 713 words than any piece of writing in history. I hardly know where to begin. It's not an essay so much as a pompous recitation of the most blinkered leftist talking points possible. Since he tosses off each in a sentence without any attempt to explain or support his statements, it's really not worthwhile to try to refute them. He sees evil destructive ideas at work destroying our republic in everything from Bush's illegitimate election (Yes, my lord, still that. BDS will never end, apparently) to concealed carry laws.
The article makes so many ludicrous, fallacious claims, it would be embarrassing as a blog post, no less a selection in what used to be the U.S.'s most respected daily newspaper.
These are on top of the business-as-usual tag team of Maureen Dowd and Nicholas Kristoff both penning columns about how mean and evil the old white men of the Catholic Church are for daring to criticize nuns. Neither of those columnists can ever resist the chance to bash them some old white Catholic men, so I can't really be surprised.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Who Will Nanny the Nannies?
Fox News reports that in the wake of the scandal in Colombia, the Secret Service has established a host of new rules for its agents and that some trips will include chaperones.
This seems to me to be another step in the infantilization of society. Secret Service men have one of the most deadly serious jobs on the planet. They are literally expected to take a bullet for the President or other high officials they are assigned to protect. You expect these men to be the most mature, serious-minded men in any given room.
So, if some of them prove they are not serious of mind, you fire them, or worse, and let that serve as a lesson to the rest. The rules and chaperones are pointless. If they can't be trusted to do their jobs without being chaperoned and micromanaged like ninth-graders on a class trip, then how can they be trusted to protect the President?
If the problem is systemic, you fire (or worse) the director of the Secret Service and get someone in there who knows what he's doing. They say organizations rot from the top down.
This seems to me to be another step in the infantilization of society. Secret Service men have one of the most deadly serious jobs on the planet. They are literally expected to take a bullet for the President or other high officials they are assigned to protect. You expect these men to be the most mature, serious-minded men in any given room.
So, if some of them prove they are not serious of mind, you fire them, or worse, and let that serve as a lesson to the rest. The rules and chaperones are pointless. If they can't be trusted to do their jobs without being chaperoned and micromanaged like ninth-graders on a class trip, then how can they be trusted to protect the President?
If the problem is systemic, you fire (or worse) the director of the Secret Service and get someone in there who knows what he's doing. They say organizations rot from the top down.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Individual and Collective Rights
National Review recently published an editorial opposing the "Peoples Rights Amendment."
Today they published a letter in opposition -- favoring the amendment.
This is my response to that letter.
This article starts off with all alarms ringing as it talks so piously about our "sacred rights" right before it explains to us how gutting them isn't really gutting them.
The authors make no convincing case for their assertion that corporations are not deserving of constitutional protections. In fact, the only difference between a corporation and a group of unincorporated individuals is that a corporation is taking care to operate in an organized, transparent fashion for the benefit of those individuals. This amendment would drastically inhibit the ability of people to form organized political opposition, because it would deprive them of the ability to set up the legal rules to protect the integrity of the funds handled by the group or in the name of the group. That's what a corporation does.
Consider these examples:
Imagine a small business owner with a C Corp. or LLC. Much of his available capital is handled in the name of the corporation for tax purposes. If he discovers that his city council or his state government, or the federal government, is proposing legislation that would harm his business, is it fair that he would not have the right to use his business capital as he sees fit to fight that legislation?
Or imagine that a group of people wish to get together to support second amendment rights. If their free speech is dependent upon them being an unincorporated group of people, then all financial transactions among the group have to be among individuals. The leader of the group has to accept individual contributions and individually purchase radio and TV spots, send out mailings to Representatives and Senators. This opens that individual up to huge tax liability as he has to explain on his own individual taxes where he got all this money to spend. The money would presumably count as individual income, because he is not a corporation or "artificial" entity and thus has no way to characterize the funds apart from his individual financial statements. This is incredibly chilling to free speech!
However, if the group wishes to incorporate to avoid the individual liability, then they would sacrifice ALL right to free speech under this amendment!
"Individuals acting in collaboration with others are, by default, in an unincorporated association unless they choose to incorporate. The constitutional rights of individuals are always protected by the Constitution, both now and under the People’s Rights Amendment; the amendment only affects corporations."
This is extremely disingenuous. For a large group of unincorporated people to rationally and sensibly cooperate to achieve a goal, such as the promotion of an ideal or political position, almost requires some sort of incorporation to allow the people to handle pooled funds fairly, transparently and legally. High-impact speech: radio, TV, film, major web sites, etc., is expensive. This would drastically limit the ability of people to make their speech effectively heard.
"Your editorial also makes false claims that the People’s Rights Amendment would adversely impact freedom of the press."
That statement is not compatible with:
"Finally, it is important to point out that the People’s Rights Amendment applies equally to all corporations. Unlike other amendments currently in play, the People’s Rights Amendment contains no exemption for nonprofit corporations, or for incorporated labor unions."
Almost all media/press outlets are, in fact, corporations. So which is it? All corporations are treated equally, or media corporations have special rights? Who gets to define what the press is? Hmm, the government, eh? Convenient.
Additionally, though the *amendment* may treat all non-press corporations equally, it just makes them equally subject to legislation and regulation of their speech. There is no reason to expect that the subsequent legislation and regulation will treat all corporations equally! We would be surprised if we did not find a myriad of special exemptions, loopholes and provisions that ended up allowing certain favored groups more free speech than others.
Constitutional rights can very clearly be collective as well as individual. In the first amendment there are at least three references to collective rights: religion, the press and assembly. It is utterly false to claim that "constitutional rights, such as free speech, belong only to natural persons, and not to corporations." Being able to exercise rights in a collective fashion is every bit as important as exercising them in an individual fashion. There's nothing special about a corporation that would make it deserving of being stripped of our right to exercise our freedoms collectively. A corporation is just a way for groups of people to pool their resources in an honest, rational and manageable fashion.
Today they published a letter in opposition -- favoring the amendment.
This is my response to that letter.
This article starts off with all alarms ringing as it talks so piously about our "sacred rights" right before it explains to us how gutting them isn't really gutting them.
The authors make no convincing case for their assertion that corporations are not deserving of constitutional protections. In fact, the only difference between a corporation and a group of unincorporated individuals is that a corporation is taking care to operate in an organized, transparent fashion for the benefit of those individuals. This amendment would drastically inhibit the ability of people to form organized political opposition, because it would deprive them of the ability to set up the legal rules to protect the integrity of the funds handled by the group or in the name of the group. That's what a corporation does.
Consider these examples:
Imagine a small business owner with a C Corp. or LLC. Much of his available capital is handled in the name of the corporation for tax purposes. If he discovers that his city council or his state government, or the federal government, is proposing legislation that would harm his business, is it fair that he would not have the right to use his business capital as he sees fit to fight that legislation?
Or imagine that a group of people wish to get together to support second amendment rights. If their free speech is dependent upon them being an unincorporated group of people, then all financial transactions among the group have to be among individuals. The leader of the group has to accept individual contributions and individually purchase radio and TV spots, send out mailings to Representatives and Senators. This opens that individual up to huge tax liability as he has to explain on his own individual taxes where he got all this money to spend. The money would presumably count as individual income, because he is not a corporation or "artificial" entity and thus has no way to characterize the funds apart from his individual financial statements. This is incredibly chilling to free speech!
However, if the group wishes to incorporate to avoid the individual liability, then they would sacrifice ALL right to free speech under this amendment!
"Individuals acting in collaboration with others are, by default, in an unincorporated association unless they choose to incorporate. The constitutional rights of individuals are always protected by the Constitution, both now and under the People’s Rights Amendment; the amendment only affects corporations."
This is extremely disingenuous. For a large group of unincorporated people to rationally and sensibly cooperate to achieve a goal, such as the promotion of an ideal or political position, almost requires some sort of incorporation to allow the people to handle pooled funds fairly, transparently and legally. High-impact speech: radio, TV, film, major web sites, etc., is expensive. This would drastically limit the ability of people to make their speech effectively heard.
"Your editorial also makes false claims that the People’s Rights Amendment would adversely impact freedom of the press."
That statement is not compatible with:
"Finally, it is important to point out that the People’s Rights Amendment applies equally to all corporations. Unlike other amendments currently in play, the People’s Rights Amendment contains no exemption for nonprofit corporations, or for incorporated labor unions."
Almost all media/press outlets are, in fact, corporations. So which is it? All corporations are treated equally, or media corporations have special rights? Who gets to define what the press is? Hmm, the government, eh? Convenient.
Additionally, though the *amendment* may treat all non-press corporations equally, it just makes them equally subject to legislation and regulation of their speech. There is no reason to expect that the subsequent legislation and regulation will treat all corporations equally! We would be surprised if we did not find a myriad of special exemptions, loopholes and provisions that ended up allowing certain favored groups more free speech than others.
Constitutional rights can very clearly be collective as well as individual. In the first amendment there are at least three references to collective rights: religion, the press and assembly. It is utterly false to claim that "constitutional rights, such as free speech, belong only to natural persons, and not to corporations." Being able to exercise rights in a collective fashion is every bit as important as exercising them in an individual fashion. There's nothing special about a corporation that would make it deserving of being stripped of our right to exercise our freedoms collectively. A corporation is just a way for groups of people to pool their resources in an honest, rational and manageable fashion.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Dissing Festus Is Pretty Cold!
Following the death of James Arness, Fox News put up a then-and-now slideshow of major stars of the long-running Gunsmoke. And they left out Festus. Seriously? Festus was one of the most famous, iconic characters on the show, second only to Miss Kitty and Marshall Dillon himself. Ken Curtis was a tremendous, entertaining character actor. Show a little respect, Fox!
The First Amendment Is Not a Directive to Banish All Mention of God From the Public Sphere
Atheist group demands Rhode Island city remove cross from atop war memorial
I'm not sure if there's actually more of these sorts of challenges recently, or if it's just a particularly trendy news topic. That happens a lot -- one story gets really good play, so news outlets start promoting that sort of story. It's like when a particular genre TV show does well, it spawns imitators.
In any case, there is at least a perception on my part that these sorts of stories are increasing lately: atheists pursuing legal challenges against a public display of a religious symbol.
I am all for enforcement of the First Amendment to the Constitution, including the part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
However, I must object to the current trend. There is unmistakable malice in the way in which these suits are pursued. Does anyone seriously believe that an atheist is in any meaningful way persecuted by strolling by a war memorial featuring a cross? Is he inhibited in any way from living by his atheist beliefs or from promoting them to others? Is he treated unequally under the law?
"An establishment of religion" actually means something. It means to establish a state religion that is given favorable treatment under law from other religions (or no religion). It doesn't mean "ever mentioning God, anywhere, even in a non-specific sense." We are so far from a theocracy in this nation that it's ridiculous. We don't have religious tests or requirements for employment or elective office: indeed, such things are expressly forbidden. There are absolutely no government-supported barriers in our society holding an atheist down, keeping him from advancing in public and private life. Thus, atheist groups are reduced to attacking harmless memorials, forcing people to expend vast amounts of money to protect an honored community symbol. Who, exactly, is really being persecuted here?
The memorial in question is 91 years old! It reflects the cultural and religious traditions of the community in which it was built, and of the soldiers it honors. It takes a particularly petty, mean-spirited individual to find offense in this. I cannot, in my heart or in my mind, believe that this was the use to which the First Amendment was intended to be put.
Update: The Freedom From Religion Foundation -- the plaintiff in the above suit is also suing the Woonsocket Fire Department to remove this prayer from their website:
I'm not sure if there's actually more of these sorts of challenges recently, or if it's just a particularly trendy news topic. That happens a lot -- one story gets really good play, so news outlets start promoting that sort of story. It's like when a particular genre TV show does well, it spawns imitators.
In any case, there is at least a perception on my part that these sorts of stories are increasing lately: atheists pursuing legal challenges against a public display of a religious symbol.
I am all for enforcement of the First Amendment to the Constitution, including the part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
However, I must object to the current trend. There is unmistakable malice in the way in which these suits are pursued. Does anyone seriously believe that an atheist is in any meaningful way persecuted by strolling by a war memorial featuring a cross? Is he inhibited in any way from living by his atheist beliefs or from promoting them to others? Is he treated unequally under the law?
"An establishment of religion" actually means something. It means to establish a state religion that is given favorable treatment under law from other religions (or no religion). It doesn't mean "ever mentioning God, anywhere, even in a non-specific sense." We are so far from a theocracy in this nation that it's ridiculous. We don't have religious tests or requirements for employment or elective office: indeed, such things are expressly forbidden. There are absolutely no government-supported barriers in our society holding an atheist down, keeping him from advancing in public and private life. Thus, atheist groups are reduced to attacking harmless memorials, forcing people to expend vast amounts of money to protect an honored community symbol. Who, exactly, is really being persecuted here?
The memorial in question is 91 years old! It reflects the cultural and religious traditions of the community in which it was built, and of the soldiers it honors. It takes a particularly petty, mean-spirited individual to find offense in this. I cannot, in my heart or in my mind, believe that this was the use to which the First Amendment was intended to be put.
Update: The Freedom From Religion Foundation -- the plaintiff in the above suit is also suing the Woonsocket Fire Department to remove this prayer from their website:
The FireFighters PrayerOnce again, it takes a pretty mean-spirited person to object to something like this. The removal of these sentiments, their banishment from the speech and pronouncements of government, can only coarsen and diminish our culture.
When I am called to duty, God, wherever flame may rage,
Give me strength to save some life, whatever be its age.
Help me embrace a little child, before it is too late,
Or save an older person from the horror of that fate.
Enable me to be alert and hear the weakest shout,
And quickly and efficiently, to put the fire out.
I want to fill my calling, and to give the best in me,
To guard my every neighbor, and protect his property.
And if according to my fate, I am to lose my life,
Please Bless with your protecting hand, my children
and my wife.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Overreacting Parents and Restaurant
Boy, 10, taken to the hospital after being served rum at Indianapolis Olive Garden
I'm trying to picture myself taking one of my kids, at 10, to the hospital because they had 2 oz of a 4 oz. fruity rum cocktail. Seriously? What, exactly, did they expect the hospital to do? Pump his stomach?
"Oh noes! Our precious sweetums has tasted demon rum! Surely he now faces a life of alcoholism and debauchery!" Maybe they should try an exorcism, just to be sure.
These must be painfully over-protective and humorless parents.
And the poor waitress has been fired. For a harmless mistake she corrected as soon as she could. Poor thing. I hope the parents and restaurant owner feel good; in their ambition to be the world's most annoyingly over-protective parents and self-righteous restauranteurs they've screwed up some poor girl's life. I bet she's wishing she'd kept her mouth shut about the drink and hoped for the best, because honesty really didn't earn her anything here, whereas if she'd kept quiet and feigned ignorance, it's possible nobody would have noticed, and the 10-year-old boy would have quietly enjoyed the best non-alcoholic wildberry frullato daiquiri ever!
That may be technically unethical, and I'm normally pretty big on ethics, but the punishment here was so great and the harm so small that I'm more concerned with the ethics of powerful people -- the parents and restaurant owners -- self-righteously abusing their "zero tolerance policy" to screw some hapless and clearly honest waitress out of a job, and probably make their kid irreparably neurotic. Heck, I know for a fact I'd tasted a lot more than 2 oz. of alcoholic drinks a lot stronger than a "wildberry frullato daquiri" by 10.
When you make the punishment so disproportionate to the "crime" you're basically encouraging people to hide their mistakes. It seem par for the course, though, having heard stories from people who've worked at big restaurant and retail chains. They'll basically fire employees for the tiniest infractions, because at that skill level, in this job market, employees are essentially fungible.
I'm trying to picture myself taking one of my kids, at 10, to the hospital because they had 2 oz of a 4 oz. fruity rum cocktail. Seriously? What, exactly, did they expect the hospital to do? Pump his stomach?
"Oh noes! Our precious sweetums has tasted demon rum! Surely he now faces a life of alcoholism and debauchery!" Maybe they should try an exorcism, just to be sure.
These must be painfully over-protective and humorless parents.
And the poor waitress has been fired. For a harmless mistake she corrected as soon as she could. Poor thing. I hope the parents and restaurant owner feel good; in their ambition to be the world's most annoyingly over-protective parents and self-righteous restauranteurs they've screwed up some poor girl's life. I bet she's wishing she'd kept her mouth shut about the drink and hoped for the best, because honesty really didn't earn her anything here, whereas if she'd kept quiet and feigned ignorance, it's possible nobody would have noticed, and the 10-year-old boy would have quietly enjoyed the best non-alcoholic wildberry frullato daiquiri ever!
That may be technically unethical, and I'm normally pretty big on ethics, but the punishment here was so great and the harm so small that I'm more concerned with the ethics of powerful people -- the parents and restaurant owners -- self-righteously abusing their "zero tolerance policy" to screw some hapless and clearly honest waitress out of a job, and probably make their kid irreparably neurotic. Heck, I know for a fact I'd tasted a lot more than 2 oz. of alcoholic drinks a lot stronger than a "wildberry frullato daquiri" by 10.
When you make the punishment so disproportionate to the "crime" you're basically encouraging people to hide their mistakes. It seem par for the course, though, having heard stories from people who've worked at big restaurant and retail chains. They'll basically fire employees for the tiniest infractions, because at that skill level, in this job market, employees are essentially fungible.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Just Shut Up And Make Your Art
I was just watching the last DVD of the last season (4)* of Heroes. Right after the penultimate episode, instead of going to the big final episode, the creator breaks in.
"I just found out that Heroes won't be renewed for another season so I insisted that we put this spot on the DVD, blah, blah, blerg, zzzzzzzzzzz"
I fast-forwarded through it. Really, guy, I like Heroes. Not you. Shut up.
I see that a lot lately. Brooke McEldowney is actually re-running an entire Pibgorn storyline with commentary. And Pibgorn storylines are long. So, he's taking something like a year to basically replay the storyline with the commentary track turned on. I almost never listen to commentary tracks. At least, it's been fodder for endless snarking on The Comics Curmudgeon.
I've been reading my way through the archive of another great strip, Questionable Content, and each strip comes with a little news post, and the author actually seems guilty sometimes if he doesn't have anything interesting to say. Even if he has nothing to say, he says something like "Here's the strip!" which is fairly redundant and pointless, if you ask me.
This modern penchant for the artist or creator to inflict his thoughts on us outside his work is really grating. Frankly, very few producers of entertainment (painters, playwrights, fiction authors, and so on) are particularly interesting in and of themselves. They have a talent. They should shut up and use it. Let their work speak for itself.
I can imagine if we had to listen to a composer commentary track of Mozart, a lot of people would be like, "Oh. My. God. Shut up already, you weirdo!" That's the thing: at its worst, creator commentary cheapens and demystifies. A very rare writer -- a C.S. Lewis -- can expound thoughtfully on his own writing, but most creator/actor commentaries these days aren't thoughtful expositions, they're "Uh, yeah, in that seen, Ali Larter had to hold really still for about two hours while we sprayed the fake ice on her. She hated that, but she was a real trooper. Hah, hah." (I'm just making that up, by the way. If that's a true story, it's entirely coincidence).
Thankfully, I'm usually able to just skip past such things, thank goodness. I suppose they're popular in the fan market, but I really think they detract from the art or entertainment itself.
* Mostly off-topic, but God-damnit, can't the studios have a little respect for the fans and let shows go a full run, so they can wrap up the plots in a satisfying manner? Do they have to make all these renewal decisions on a yearly last-minute basis? I am pretty freaking sick of shows like Heroes and Firefly getting the axe without even getting a chance to finish their story arcs while trash like Jersey Shore and America's Next Top Model goes on and on. Can't they have a little self-respect and show faith in shows with some depth, creativity and quality? Shows you can't necessarily "get" with a 10-second synopsis? It really shakes your faith in humanity to see what's popular.
"I just found out that Heroes won't be renewed for another season so I insisted that we put this spot on the DVD, blah, blah, blerg, zzzzzzzzzzz"
I fast-forwarded through it. Really, guy, I like Heroes. Not you. Shut up.
I see that a lot lately. Brooke McEldowney is actually re-running an entire Pibgorn storyline with commentary. And Pibgorn storylines are long. So, he's taking something like a year to basically replay the storyline with the commentary track turned on. I almost never listen to commentary tracks. At least, it's been fodder for endless snarking on The Comics Curmudgeon.
I've been reading my way through the archive of another great strip, Questionable Content, and each strip comes with a little news post, and the author actually seems guilty sometimes if he doesn't have anything interesting to say. Even if he has nothing to say, he says something like "Here's the strip!" which is fairly redundant and pointless, if you ask me.
This modern penchant for the artist or creator to inflict his thoughts on us outside his work is really grating. Frankly, very few producers of entertainment (painters, playwrights, fiction authors, and so on) are particularly interesting in and of themselves. They have a talent. They should shut up and use it. Let their work speak for itself.
I can imagine if we had to listen to a composer commentary track of Mozart, a lot of people would be like, "Oh. My. God. Shut up already, you weirdo!" That's the thing: at its worst, creator commentary cheapens and demystifies. A very rare writer -- a C.S. Lewis -- can expound thoughtfully on his own writing, but most creator/actor commentaries these days aren't thoughtful expositions, they're "Uh, yeah, in that seen, Ali Larter had to hold really still for about two hours while we sprayed the fake ice on her. She hated that, but she was a real trooper. Hah, hah." (I'm just making that up, by the way. If that's a true story, it's entirely coincidence).
Thankfully, I'm usually able to just skip past such things, thank goodness. I suppose they're popular in the fan market, but I really think they detract from the art or entertainment itself.
* Mostly off-topic, but God-damnit, can't the studios have a little respect for the fans and let shows go a full run, so they can wrap up the plots in a satisfying manner? Do they have to make all these renewal decisions on a yearly last-minute basis? I am pretty freaking sick of shows like Heroes and Firefly getting the axe without even getting a chance to finish their story arcs while trash like Jersey Shore and America's Next Top Model goes on and on. Can't they have a little self-respect and show faith in shows with some depth, creativity and quality? Shows you can't necessarily "get" with a 10-second synopsis? It really shakes your faith in humanity to see what's popular.
Friday, April 13, 2012
A Threatening Characterization of U.S. Education
Report warns US educational failures pose national security threat
Attempting to frame inadequacies in the education as a "national security threat." Isn't just happenstance. National security is a valid federal concern, so framing the problem this way is a clear justification for more federal involvement in the education system.
The problems are, first, after about 40 years of federal involvement in U.S. education, the federal government has not shown itself to be capable of improving U.S. education in any fashion whatsoever. U.S. educational standards have actually deteriorated or remained flat with every increasing federal involvement. Second, education is really a core part of liberty. The freedom to control what and how our children are taught at a local and individual level is fundamental to a free, dynamic society.
The article gives lip service to parents getting involved themselves and giving parents choice, which is good, but it also offers a host of centralized federal educational controls and standards that will make the idea of "choice" a lie -- if every restaurant is McDonalds, then it doesn't matter so much which one you go to.
Attempting to frame inadequacies in the education as a "national security threat." Isn't just happenstance. National security is a valid federal concern, so framing the problem this way is a clear justification for more federal involvement in the education system.
The problems are, first, after about 40 years of federal involvement in U.S. education, the federal government has not shown itself to be capable of improving U.S. education in any fashion whatsoever. U.S. educational standards have actually deteriorated or remained flat with every increasing federal involvement. Second, education is really a core part of liberty. The freedom to control what and how our children are taught at a local and individual level is fundamental to a free, dynamic society.
The article gives lip service to parents getting involved themselves and giving parents choice, which is good, but it also offers a host of centralized federal educational controls and standards that will make the idea of "choice" a lie -- if every restaurant is McDonalds, then it doesn't matter so much which one you go to.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Apparently Rich Lowry Is The Kind Of Friend Who Bails On You The Minute Things Get Tough
Seriously, Lowry? You throw Derb under the bus and then lock comments?
"Needless to say, no one at National Review shares Derb’s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here."
I bet you can't even point to any point in Derb's article where he's factually or statistically wrong. You were too busy wetting your pants.
When you're throwing a long-time National Review contributor under the bus, you should at least try to explain how and why he is wrong.
I forwarded his article to my daughter immediately. Of course, in her case, it wasn't really necessary. She lived her later high school and all her college days in a heavily black neighborhood and went to a community college with a heavily-black student population. She'd already learned most of this first-hand.
My son's experience in a majority-black middle and high school was even worse. Thank goodness we got him out of there as soon as he started to be physically bullied.
Update: The bus-throwing-under is complete.
"Needless to say, no one at National Review shares Derb’s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here."
I bet you can't even point to any point in Derb's article where he's factually or statistically wrong. You were too busy wetting your pants.
When you're throwing a long-time National Review contributor under the bus, you should at least try to explain how and why he is wrong.
I forwarded his article to my daughter immediately. Of course, in her case, it wasn't really necessary. She lived her later high school and all her college days in a heavily black neighborhood and went to a community college with a heavily-black student population. She'd already learned most of this first-hand.
My son's experience in a majority-black middle and high school was even worse. Thank goodness we got him out of there as soon as he started to be physically bullied.
Update: The bus-throwing-under is complete.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Update: Obama the Crook (NOT hyberbole)
Over at PowerlineBlog they're exposing what ought to be the biggest story of the 2012 election.
The Obama campaign contribution website is deliberately set up to facilitate illegal campaign contributions.
Here's a donation I just made. First the initial donation form, as I filled it out, minus my credit card info:
I then filled in my actual credit card number and the transaction was successfully processed -- without providing ANY correct name, address or CVV information. Below are the success screen and a clip of my credit card activity page showing the pending transaction:
This is in violation of every principle of e-commerce out there. Any shopping cart and transaction processing software readily available will prevent this sort of transaction from ever being submitted. You can't buy anything online without going through that sort of verification. This could have been someone stealing my card. It could have been an illegal foreign donor. It could be someone racking up donations beyond their maximum by creating fake identities. It is literally impossible that this is accidental. The Obama campaign just allowed an illegal campaign contribution because it wants to!
Why are Congress and the Attorney General's Office not investigating this? Why hasn't a special prosecutor been named? I don't care if you support Obama or not, you can't, as an American with any sort of regard for our electoral system, stand by and allow this to continue. This represents election fraud of the highest level!
I'll update when/if the transaction moves from "pending" to "sale."
Update: Right on schedule:
The Obama campaign just accepted a donation with entirely fictitious identifying information. They make no attempt at all to ensure that I am a legal contributor or that the card is being used by its legitimate owner. Try finding any halfway reputable place on the internet that lets you do that. This makes me sick.
Update: On 5/1/2012, the Obama campaign finally refunded the transaction. Clearly they went back and manually refunded shady-looking donations after they were getting heat about it. That's the only explanation for why they would use such an inefficient "security" method.
More here.
The Obama campaign contribution website is deliberately set up to facilitate illegal campaign contributions.
Here's a donation I just made. First the initial donation form, as I filled it out, minus my credit card info:
I then filled in my actual credit card number and the transaction was successfully processed -- without providing ANY correct name, address or CVV information. Below are the success screen and a clip of my credit card activity page showing the pending transaction:
This is in violation of every principle of e-commerce out there. Any shopping cart and transaction processing software readily available will prevent this sort of transaction from ever being submitted. You can't buy anything online without going through that sort of verification. This could have been someone stealing my card. It could have been an illegal foreign donor. It could be someone racking up donations beyond their maximum by creating fake identities. It is literally impossible that this is accidental. The Obama campaign just allowed an illegal campaign contribution because it wants to!
Why are Congress and the Attorney General's Office not investigating this? Why hasn't a special prosecutor been named? I don't care if you support Obama or not, you can't, as an American with any sort of regard for our electoral system, stand by and allow this to continue. This represents election fraud of the highest level!
I'll update when/if the transaction moves from "pending" to "sale."
Update: Right on schedule:
The Obama campaign just accepted a donation with entirely fictitious identifying information. They make no attempt at all to ensure that I am a legal contributor or that the card is being used by its legitimate owner. Try finding any halfway reputable place on the internet that lets you do that. This makes me sick.
Update: On 5/1/2012, the Obama campaign finally refunded the transaction. Clearly they went back and manually refunded shady-looking donations after they were getting heat about it. That's the only explanation for why they would use such an inefficient "security" method.
More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)