Whether unemployment goes up or down, whether the statistic is for the U.S. or overseas, whether it repeats a pattern or reverses direction, there is one unifying factor in the headlines. A modest sampling:
“New Unemployment Claims Rise Unexpectedly to 627,000” – FoxNews (AP), June 25, 2009
The demise of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a McCain-Feingold) is cause for celebration.Flimsily justified as a means of preventing corruption, McCain-Feingold gave established media outlets a near monopoly on political speech in advance of elections – precisely when such speech is most likely to persuade.The law constituted the most odious and cynical use of government censorship to protect incumbent elected officials.
As its title suggests, the law was passed in bipartisan fashion (an excellent example of the limited value of bipartisanship) and was signed into law by President Bush.It represented in my opinion the worst decision of his presidency as he simply kicked the constitutional can down the road, leaving it for the courts to decide. All branches of government, however, have an equal responsibility to safeguard the Bill of Rights.McCain-Feingold represented the best and an entirely sufficient reason to oppose McCain’s presidential bid (unfortunately counter-balanced by even more compelling reasons to oppose Obama’s).
The Supreme Court has finally reached the right conclusion, years later and with the barest majority.A good synopsis of the ruling can be found here.Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion says many of the right things.For example:
[T]he FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests.If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, theymust either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.
* * *
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminalsanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucialphase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favorslogging in national forests; the National Rifle Associationpublishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Unioncreates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech.These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
* * *
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. . . .The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition toenlightened self-government and a necessary means toprotect it. The First Amendment “‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaignfor political office.”
* * *
The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the “financial ability to engage in public discussion.”
* * *
When Government seeks to use its full power, includingthe criminal law, to command where a person may get hisor her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.This is unlawful.
On the other hand, the opinion does not go far enough.Justice Thomas provided the lone voice in pointing out the increasing dangers of disclosure requirements in the Internet age.Donors are discovered immediately and targeted by opponents.As experience proves in the wake of California’s Proposition 8, taking sides can cost you your job, your business, and your physical safety. Thomas concludes:
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”
Precisely, just as I (as a lawyer) have to think seriously about the consequences of contributing to a judicial candidate. Do I really want to be on the list of contributors to a candidate running against a judge who will decide my case? Disclosure is a sure recipe for the kind of corruption McCain-Feingold claimed to prevent – a roadmap for favors and retaliation.
Count on the established media and the politicians favored by the established media to mount a concerted effort to reclaim their favored position by equally unconstitutional means.
The peerless climate-science community kept criticism at bay by forming a clique that excluded all dissenting voices.Those who doubted the AGW line were labeled as quacks whose writing was not “peer-reviewed.”The media of course bought this hook, line, and sinker.In fact, the clique hid the data precisely to prevent their own shoddy work from being reviewed by their peers.
It’s all a question of how you define your peers.
Today we are learning about that threatened meltdown of Himalayan glaciers.The vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said those glaciers would likely disappear by 2035.
The peer-reviewed science behind that finding goes like this:
Unknown scientist in India speculates while talking to reporter.
Reporter writes that glaciers will melt by 2035.
IPCC reads newspaper.
Yes, I’d say this is a fine example of peer review.An unknown scientist with no supporting data speculates that the glaciers will melt, getting his name in the press and a career boost.A reporter with no sense of curiosity about the science speculates that the scientist is correct and spreads the opinion as fact.There could be a Pulitzer in this.The IPCC figures if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true, and besides, gullible governments will throw money at this and ensure the continuation of their little bureaucracy.
They are all peers in promoting junk science at the expense of the rest of us.
But the public is fed junk across the board and seems to prefer it to anything more rigorous. We have a “pop” version of everything, from music to economics, from education to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t science be admitted to the peer group?
In the ongoing effort to normalize the public display of everything sexual, Adam Lambert has caused people to pause (probably only briefly) to consider whether this is a necessary or even good thing.
Lambert argues that he is subject to a double standard since same-sex kisses and other displays of intimacy among female entertainers have been broadcast by the TV networks.
Reuters reports that ABC received 1,500 complaints from Lambert’s recent antics – a pitifully small number.That may reflect the size of the audience, but it probably says more about the nature of the audience.A vast swath of normal people from almost every demographic has surely tired of the increasingly feckless efforts of the entertainment industry to shock us.
Long ago broadcasters stopped giving us any reason to tune in, and they are now running out of ways to convince their dwindling audience to tune out.
Lambert says he didn’t mean to offend anyone by sticking his co-performers’ heads in his crotch.And his protestation rings true to an extent.He wants his own peculiar amusements to be perceived not as offensive, but as normal.
On the other hand, when the public display of such things becomes truly normal, entertainers may have to rediscover art as a means of attracting and holding an audience.And therein lies Lambert’s problem.Is he an artist or just a queer?Can he offer his audience something they value, or is it all about him?
In short, do Lambert’s talents extend to music? People who happened to be homosexual have made tremendous contributions to the arts.Their art is widely celebrated; their homosexuality is celebrated only in college classrooms.
On a somewhat related topic, I was intrigued by the ironic title of Mary Eberstadt’s recent article in First Things: “How Pedophilia Lost its Cool.”The article demonstrates, however, that the title is not ironic at all.In fact, pedophilia was recently making a play for mainstream acceptance among self-appointed sophisticates.For example:
In 1998 the prestigious Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, printed a subsequently notorious study called “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.” In it, three researchers took issue with “the common belief that child sexual abuse causes intense harm, regardless of gender.” The authors further criticized the use of conventional terms such as victim and perpetrator and recommended that “a willing encounter with positive reactions” be labeled “simply adult–child sex.”
Roman Polanski’s arrest pushed this issue to the forefront and highlighted the isolation of those who jumped to Polanski’s defense.Only Hollywood, it seems, failed to understand that art is not a defense to child abuse.
So there is something to be thankful for on this Thanksgiving Day.We can hope that the world took a look a pedophilia and indeed decided that it was not cool.We can hope that the entertainment industry, despite having an enormous megaphone for its opinions, truly is out of touch with society.
We can hope that Adam Lambert will either discover aesthetics and find an audience, or be largely forgotten – merely a social commentator with nothing much to say.
Michael Goldfarb notes the rich irony of the New York Times declining to publish the Climategate emails. Never mind that the people writing the emails have had an inordinate influence on environmental policies around the world, created a global industry, and bamboozled millions with false data. It just wouldn’t be fair to report the fraud that they didn’t intend to make public.
Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation by the nation’s paper of record. But in this case — the documents were “never intended for the public eye,” so the New York Times will take a pass.
Bill Ayers confirmed rumors that he helped Obama with his book Dreams From My Father.How?By writing it.
No, not editing or contributing or co-authoring.According to Dennis Byrne:
In a chance meeting with conservative blogger Anne Leary, Bill Ayers makes a stunning claim that he wrote–not just edited–President Barack Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from my Father.
Now go back and read what FactCheck.org had to say during the campaign:
Obama never said Ayers was “just” a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. . . .
Instead, Obama said this:
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. . . .
So, I guess Obama didn’t even collaborate with Ayers on Dreams From My Father.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.
FactCheck.org concluded with this:
Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former “terrorist,” he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
“More than a terrorist”?Wow.There’s an accolade.Nice work FactCheck.org.
Wow—I did not see that coming. The way I figured it, this White House is far too protective of the president’s strategically crafted image to allow him to travel thousands of miles only to fail on the world stage.
No, he can do that just a couple of hundred miles away at the U.N.Heck, he can do that without leaving the office!But I digress.
Here’s how the argument goes: Obama had no choice but to support the Olympics as he did. But because Olympics generally hit tough times and cost more than they bring in, the public would eventually become disenchanted and blame Obama for saddling them with this nightmare.
This is a tad humiliating for the president, but his embarrassment will be short-lived, especially if he demonstrates some good humor about it. Republicans will probably criticize him for skipping the country for a day instead of focusing on Iran or Afghanistan, but those attacks won’t stick. . . .This will be fodder for late-night comedians and talk-back radio for a day or two. But winning the Olympics could have bogged down his entire presidency. And this way, next time he goes to Tokyo, he’ll have something in common with Prime Minister Hatoyama.
Really?According to this logic, Obama would be better off losing on health care, too.Think of the cost overruns and disgruntled public if that were to take effect.In fact, Obama would be better off losing just about everything he’s taken on.
But don’t bet on these failures being a topic of discussion for only a day or two.Not everybody is as mesmerized by Obama’s strategically crafted image as his gaggle of supporters in the press.
Whoopi Goldberg says there are boneheads in all organizations, and we didn’t dismantle the banks or Congress.So why can’t we leave ACORN alone and let them work out their minor problems with child prostitution and sex slavery?Keep giving them money.Everybody on The View agrees.And the loudest applause came when they noted that there were boneheads in the Catholic Church and we haven’t dismantled it.
Yes, there are boneheads in every organization, but The View can claim the distinction of having nothing but.
Calvin Klein has pulled its orgy billboard (see prior post) and replaced it with one depicting a lone female wading through the surf in a skimpy bikini.Reaction from local residents was positive.
Adolfa Arena, 48, a dog walker in the area, said the ad was effective without being provocative.
“I think this one is brilliant,” he said. “It’s the beginning of summer, so it works out perfectly.”
Brilliant?Well, maybe not quite, and not very original either.But not offending the public gets more original every day.
Told of the complaints last week, Calvin Klein officials had defended the ad, saying the intent was to create “a very sexy” campaign.
Calvin Klein apparently doesn’t understand the basic fact that “sexy” and “sex” are not necessarily synonymous.Here’s a lesson.The lone female on the beach looks unavailable, but she is potentially available.She looks preoccupied with thoughts that have nothing to do with you.If you approached her and offered your best line, she would probably keep walking without giving you the slightest nod.But if she were to acknowledge you, or give the slightest smile, . . .
The female in the orgy ad looks very available, but she is presently occupied with a group of guys that doesn’t include you.You could get in line behind guy No. 3 who seems to have fallen off the too-crowded couch.Before you could even offer your best line, she would say, “Take a number.”And her acknowledgment of you, or the slightest smile, would mean nothing.
But let’s give Calvin Klein credit for not offering the nonsense that they were just trying to sell blue jeans.
Defending Western Culture and traditions through a rational discussion of the arts (emphasis on durable music) with unavoidable references to politics, religion, law, ranching, and the quest for a good martini.
Professor Carol now offers a complete self-study course covering 300 years of music.
This romp through music history (and many other historical topics) combines 13 hours of DVD video with a 3-disc listening set from Naxos and a 236-page course book.
From the birth of opera to the Leipzig coffeehouses frequented by Bach and Schumann, from the Orthodox cathedrals of Moscow to Tin Pan Alley, from scientific discoveries to bloody revolutions, spooky dramas and shoe styles, Carol chronicles it all with her unique commentary.
