“A very calm and understated manner.”

Got that? That’s the new standard for political debate; whatever you say in a calm and understated manner must not be alarming, and thus people must not act as if they are alarmed, no matter what it is.

This notion of an overblown reaction to understated remarks merely continues the stupid emphasis (by both left and right) on means rather than ends, form rather than substance, and the idiotic principle of proportionate response.

While administration flacks may not be going over-the-top in the way that Democrats at large, and especially the lunatic left, did over the last eight years, the velvet fist is the perfectly predictable result of adding “the Chicago Way” to the mix by electing as president a total unknown with exceptionally thin skin from the nation’s most politically corrupt city. How is it understated to say, as David Axelrod did last Sunday, that Fox News is not even a news organization and should not be treated as such by other news organizations? It’s just another way of saying that the single television news organization that doesn’t regularly suck the president’s dick must be shut out for that reason. Is it somehow less offensive or threatening because he said it calmly?

Attorney General Eric Holder was asked about being a finalist for the 2009 “Robert Goulet Memorial Mustached American of the Year” award during a press conference in his office Tuesday afternoon.

White House adviser David Axelrod is also in the running.

You call those mustaches? Where’s the gravitas?

John Bolton’s mustache could strangle those scrawny ’staches in its sleep.

Does either of those moustaches smell of death?  No.

Can Holder’s or Axelrod’s moustache preside over a meeting by itself?  No.

Can either put a BBC interviewer in his place; or even want to?

Holder heads up the Department of Justice, but he doesn’t sport the “moustache of justice.”

These guys need to be reminded of what Ann Coulter said: “I know John Bolton’s moustache, and you couldn’t handle John Bolton’s moustache.“

As if I am not worrying enough, along comes Stacy McCain, writing about Obama’s new, $4 billion dollar “education initiative,” to shame me into doing just about anything to come up with the scratch necessary for church school tuition or to arrange to home school:

Everyone remembers Obama’s plan for education reform, right? Uh, actually, no. Never mind that. Does anyone remember when $4 billion was a lot of money?

The rush is on for $4.35 billion in “Race to the Top” grants, targeted to leverage historic reforms in US public schools.
“This is one of the largest investments in education reform in American history,” said President Obama at the US Department of Education on Friday. “And rather than divvying it up and handing it out, we are letting states and school districts compete for it.”
The high-stakes grants are targeted to reward states and school districts that are “ready to do things that work,” the president said. “That’s how we can incentivize excellence and spur reform and launch a race to the top in America’s public schools.” . . .

***

The problem with the public education system is the system itself. Parents who send their kids to public schools are constituents of the world’s largest welfare program. Whatever the total federal expenditure is on K-12 education, every dime of it is “waste, fraud, and abuse,” a stupid idea with stupid consequences.

You cannot defend public education and call yourself a conservative.[My emphasis.] The entire history of public education shows that it has been, from Day One, a liberal project aimed at achieving liberal policy objectives that have nothing to do with actual education.

Ouch. I don’t mind being shamed. Christians are often grateful for being convicted of sin or other poor behavior.

And believe me, I’d much rather have my daughter in a church-run school. And I know lack of money sounds like a bogus excuse, but you have no idea how badly I’ve been struggling since I struck out on my own. It’s not like I’m refusing to sacrifice for the good of my daughter’s education. It’s that we can’t send her to private school and eat at the same time. (OK, there you go, I guess I am refusing to sacrifice, because I could always stop eating. And I know, with finances like this, I sure don’t sound like a conservative, either.)

Anyway, give his post a look and enjoy the video of his proposed public school reform.  And learn the answer to this political trivia question: Newt Gingrich referred to public education as “subsidized ___________.”

UPDATE (7/24/09): It occurred to me an hour or so after I put up this post that I assumed McCain was looking at this from a purely political viewpoint, as opposed to a moral or theological one. That’s because some of my good Christian friends (i.e., good friends who are Christians, not friends who are good Christians, but they could be both) made a point of sending their kids to public school. They were prepared to supplement the teaching as necessary in order to have the kids grow up in the world and even have their kids evangelize.

This generally cuts across the grain of the typical Christian outlook on public schools. Some Christians who have their kids in private school think you’re a horrible Christian if you send your kid to public school. But the Christians with kids in private schools are then looked down upon by some Christian homeschoolers!

So, is McCain’s point a moral one as opposed to a political one? I suspect he meant it that way, but there may be more room for debate about the appropriateness of sending your kid to public school than he’s letting on.

None of which is to say that I wouldn’t prefer a church-run school for my daughter.

]]> http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/07/24/what-will-my-7-year-old-learn-in-school-this-year/feed/ 4 http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/07/09/is-obama-favoring-friendly-areas-with-stimulus-bucks/ http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/07/09/is-obama-favoring-friendly-areas-with-stimulus-bucks/#comments Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:48:23 +0000 Deuce Geary http://www.skepticrats.com/?p=1981 I’m skeptical of Ed Lasky’s conclusion at American Thinker that “Chicago rules” are at play in the way stimulus funds are being doled out. In support, Lasky quotes this from a USA Today piece:

STIMULUS POLITICS: USA Today takes on a different analysis, however, that shows that Obama districts seem to be getting more money: ‘Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election. That aid – about $17 billion – is the first piece of the administration’s massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

‘Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.’

Is that enough to conclude that the Obama administration is intentionally favoring friendly counties? Nah, not really. First, we’re only talking about the first $17 billion of nearly (gulp) $800 billion, or a little more than the first 2% of the funds to be spent. Second, note that the counties at the head of the pack are old hands at milking the government: “Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.”

(By the way, it looks like Lasky was quoting someone else quoting the USA Today piece — nothng outside the quotation marks is actually in the piece — but he only links to USA Today.)

A skeptic cited in the USA Today piece likewise noted these considerations and others for doubting that politics were at play. The scariest comes at the end (emphasis mine):

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. “Even if they wanted to, I don’t think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that,” he says.

“Most of what they’re doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out,” Hughes says.

Chew on that last line for a few minutes.

UPDATE (7/9/09): Gateway Pundit sees something nefarious in the division of spoils, and Donald Douglas says conservatives will benefit from even the perception of payback, whether it’s there or not. Should we be happy about that?

1. Homosexual married (to each other) guys in California file suit against the U.S. and the State of California challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
2. United States files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
3. Department of Justice — the United States’ “law firm,” if you will — files a document supporting its client’s motion to dismiss. (Since everyone is calling this document a “brief,” I will do likewise, even though it isn’t.)
4. Lefty and LGBT bloggers go absolute apeshit and start spewing dishonest attacks on the brief’s substance.

Among the hysterical descriptions of the brief: it is a “hate brief against gays,” includes “gratuitous demeaning statements,” is “filled with hate and bigoted religious right talking points,” is “breathtakingly bigoted” and repeats “countless spurious and unnecessary slurs against gay people.”

I can fully understand why they’re covering it this way. What the brief is really about — and I’ve read every word of it — consists mostly of dry arguments about jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, jurisdictional standing, prudential standing, full faith and credit, equal protection and due process. None of that makes for very exciting blogging or other media coverage. Much better to scream Bigot! Homophobe! Hater! That will get everyone’s attention. In a normal world, it would also thoroughly discredit these folks, but the media will not challenge them on it at all.

In fact, the brief explicitly disclaims any argument regarding the morality of homosexual relationships. After noting that states have taken different approaches and acknowledging that some states have reaffirmed traditional marriage “as a matter of profound moral and religious conviction by many of their citizens” the brief carefully notes that “[t]his case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment, however, on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married.” Now, if the case doesn’t call for the court to decide the morality of gay marriage, why would the brief spend any time on it?  Answer: it doesn’t.

Andrew Sullivan writes: “I also understand the need to defend existing law. But the zealous defense of DOMA – including repeating countless spurious and unnecessary slurs against gay people – need not be a lawyer’s duty.” The part about slurs is a plain lie, and the remainder demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of an attorney’s ethical obligations. Sully, pick up a legal ethics textbook or look at the the ethical code for attorneys in any state, and you’ll see that zealous representation of one’s client — in this case, the United States — is exactly what is required of an attorney.

The passage (or at least one of them) that seems to have set these folks off is this:

The courts have followed this principle [that a state may refuse to enforce another state's law that is at odds with its own public policy] moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

This merely notes that states have refused, apparently legitimately, to accord married status to couples whose union would be unlawful  in their own state. It does not equate homosexuality to incest or pederasty.

Then the lefties thought they were on to something when they discovered that W. Scott Simpson, the junior attorney on the brief (and presumably its principal writer) is a “Bush holdover” and — horror — a Mormon. To Andrew Sullivan, this explained everything, even in the absence of any reference in the brief to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. (To his credit, Sullivan removed the reference to the attorney’s religion). I don’t expect others who picked up on this to back off, though.

These people are both stupid and bigoted. Stupid because they jumped on the “Bush holdover” language to infer that Simpson was a political appointee instead of the DOJ career lawyer he is. Bigoted because they assume Simpson can’t stick to the law when writing the brief.

The most unhinged response to the identify of Simpson that I ran across is Jim Yeager at Skippy the Bush Kangaroo revising his evaluation of AMERICAblog’s reaction to the brief (lack of capitalization in original):

i owe john aravosis a big apology…

you know that department of justice brief calling to dismiss the case against the defense of marriage act i mentioned in this post? at the time, i thought while obama’s defense of doma was a real downer, it was also legitimate, and john was overreacting to it.

well, it turns out he wasn’t: one of the people who wrote the brief, w. scott simpson, is both a holdover from the bush administration and a mormon. i didn’t know that yesterday.

john? i am very sorry for calling you hysterical. obama has some explaining to do for this one after all.

The content of the brief (and the decision to file it) all remained exactly the same before and after Yeager knew the author. But it only became objectionable once Yeager knew a Mormon drafted it. And he thinks Simpson is the bigot. If anything, this is proof that Simpson kept religion out of the brief.

And that wasn’t all. Yeager also wrote that Obama “letting a mormon co-write his policy on anything concerning marriage — when mormons are probably the last group of people who should be lecturing the rest of us on marriage — is unacceptable.” Like Sullivan, he demonstrates no knowledge of the role of the attorney in the attorney-client relationship. The client makes the policy. The attorney carries it out with his actions in court.

Oh, and never forget, the same people that want Simpson run out of the department (what else are we to make of the “Bush holdover”coment?) are the same folks who object to politicization of the justice department. And, at the same time, complain that the gay community wasn’t consulted before this brief was filed. And the same people who think empathy is a valuable component for a supreme court justice, but who show none at all for people who think differently on the issue of gay mariage.

You want to argue that Obama’s promises meant he would direct the DOJ to do otherwise? Fine. Complain that the legal arguments are insupportable? Great! (I find some of them rather weak.) Want to represent the brief as some hateful screed virtually calling for homosexuals to be burned at the stake and insinuate that the (presumed) principal author injected religious tenets that are wholly absent from the brief? Not cool. Not cool at all. But predictable.

But the best commentary by far is Andrew McCarthy’s announcement at The Corner that he is “Getting Healthier by the Day!” It reads:

I just did or saved 100 push-ups — and I never had to leave my chair! Plan to do or save 200 tomorrow.

Now that’s an exercise program anyone can follow!

McCarthy’s follow-up isn’t bad, either.

UPDATE: Pundette is all over this with a great round-up. She looking for more links, so send ‘em if ya got ‘em to pundette at gmail dot com.

I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum . . . barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing[.]

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

I know, I know, the White House will say you’re still free to put your gripes in writing. But as Ace points out, does this mean no more phone calls to your congressman to complain about the stimulus?

The irony is that the White House blog post trumpeting this policy comes from “special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.”

(Follow the link. It’s funny, even though I think my side of the blogosphere is making too big a deal out of that particular remark and should be concentrating on the substance of her jurisprudence.)

As noted in the title of this post, McCarthy asks Holder, “Do you think I’m an idiot?” But he does it politely (Yid with Lid calls it “diplomatic”):

[I]n light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

A “prudent lawyer would have to hesitate.” Talk about your understatements!  More like, “A lawyer would have to be freakin’ insane to provide an opinion when you have already threatened to prosecute lawyers for providing their opinions.”

Which means, of course, that the lawyers participating are expected to rubber-stamp whatever kid-glove treatment the Obama administration has already decided on:

Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

McCarthy makes a number of other great points.  You really should read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey makes an excellent point at HotAir: 

If the Obama administration wants Andy’s input, they can read his book,Willful Blindness.  If they’re interested in diversity of opinion, they can prove it by making appointments that demonstrate a different policy direction.  “Roundtables” are nothing more than window dressing, and McCarthy rightly rejects this effort to exploit him for a bit of political cover.  He’s obviously more effective staying where he’s at.