Quote-a-palooza

“At first the liberal Democrats were coy about reports that they wanted to impose government control on talk radio. When it was reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had discussed the matter with Sen. Barbara Boxer, both denied it. That is characteristic. They lied to the public. Now the Democrats admit to this assault on the First Amendment. There was no point in continuing to lie when it was time to take action against the Rush Limbaughs of this world…Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin [said], ‘It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.’ Well, at least he admits that he is old-fashioned. Unfortunately for him, history really has moved on. The so-called Fairness Doctrine, used for years to keep diversity off the airways, was instituted when all we had in the communications system was radio and fledgling television. Perhaps in those days it was admissible to believe that there were only two sides to a ‘story,’ as Durbin puts it. Today there are many sides to stories, and no government body is equipped to judge what should be on the broadcast media and what is too marginal. In other words, it ought not to be left to government to decide what the sides are in a debate. That is anathema to free debate.” – Emmett Tyrrell

“The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ‘fairness doctrine,’ chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’… History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee. [The ‘fairness doctrine’] simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as [the ‘fairness doctrine’] may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism.” – Ronald Reagan

“[W]riter Leslie Bennetts charges that women who step-back from working are taking an extreme economic risk… Yet if off-ramping is the dangerous ‘high-stakes gamble’ Bennetts and her supporters claim, why are so many smart, rational women laying their money and their futures on the table? Perhaps because even a cursory look at hard data (rather than the collection of sad stories Bennetts has put forth) indicates that, statistically, there is very little to fear from making motherhood a career choice… According to work-first feminists, the scariest bogeyman looming over women who stay home is divorce. Men leave their wives high and dry all the time, she insists. In fact, they don’t. Women initiate about two-thirds of divorces… The statistics are also favorable for stay-at-home mothers in general. During the 90s, stay-at-home wives were 40 percent less likely to get divorced than their working counterparts. A 2004 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family revealed that couples have a much greater chance of splitting when the husband and wife earn equal incomes than when one partner is the primary breadwinner. When the higher-earning partner does leave, it is most often the wife… Taken all together, this makes the average middleclass husband seem about as much of a financial risk as a blue-chip stock.” – Megan Basham

“Today, whole classes of people get their jollies and puff themselves up by denigrating and denouncing American society. Such people are a major influence in our media, in our educational system and among all sorts of vocal activists. Nothing illustrates their power to distort reality like the way they seize upon slavery to denounce American society. Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery. Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent- people of every race, color, and creed. More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed. Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans. What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created. What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well. Reality has been stood on its head so that a relative handful of people can feel puffed up or gain notoriety and power. Whatever they gain, the rest of us have everything to lose.” – Thomas Sowell

“On the eve of Independence Day, the people of this great republic declared their independence from the United States Senate under the stirring battle-cry, ‘No legislation without explanation!’ The geniuses who’d cooked up the ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill’s ‘grand bargain’ behind the scenes in the pork-filled rooms had originally planned to ram it through in 48 hours before Memorial Day. And, right to the end, the bipartisan Emirs-for-life of Incumbistan gave the strong impression they regarded it as an affront to be required by the impertinent whippersnappers of the citizenry to address the actual content of the legislation… Time and again, the remote insulated emirs were offered the opportunity to rise above their condescension and declined to do so. Sen. John McCain, R- Maverickistan, confidently asserted that he’d worked hard on this bill and knew it better than all these no-account nonentities riled up about it and then had to have it explained to him- by bloggers on a conference call- that he’d misunderstood a key provision of his own legislation: There was no requirement for illegal immigrants to pay back taxes. Their amnesty would come tax-free. Blustering senators who claimed to have drafted this thing had to be told what was in it by critics who’d actually taken the trouble to look at it. Immigration isn’t going away: Human capital is the great issue facing all advanced societies. But it’s unbecoming for a mature democracy to discuss a critical matter in such a fraudulent way.” – Mark Steyn

Quote-a-palooza

“At first the liberal Democrats were coy about reports that they wanted to impose government control on talk radio. When it was reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had discussed the matter with Sen. Barbara Boxer, both denied it. That is characteristic. They lied to the public. Now the Democrats admit to this assault on the First Amendment. There was no point in continuing to lie when it was time to take action against the Rush Limbaughs of this world…Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin [said], ‘It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.’ Well, at least he admits that he is old-fashioned. Unfortunately for him, history really has moved on. The so-called Fairness Doctrine, used for years to keep diversity off the airways, was instituted when all we had in the communications system was radio and fledgling television. Perhaps in those days it was admissible to believe that there were only two sides to a ‘story,’ as Durbin puts it. Today there are many sides to stories, and no government body is equipped to judge what should be on the broadcast media and what is too marginal. In other words, it ought not to be left to government to decide what the sides are in a debate. That is anathema to free debate.” – Emmett Tyrrell

“The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ‘fairness doctrine,’ chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’… History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee. [The ‘fairness doctrine’] simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as [the ‘fairness doctrine’] may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism.” – Ronald Reagan

“[W]riter Leslie Bennetts charges that women who step-back from working are taking an extreme economic risk… Yet if off-ramping is the dangerous ‘high-stakes gamble’ Bennetts and her supporters claim, why are so many smart, rational women laying their money and their futures on the table? Perhaps because even a cursory look at hard data (rather than the collection of sad stories Bennetts has put forth) indicates that, statistically, there is very little to fear from making motherhood a career choice… According to work-first feminists, the scariest bogeyman looming over women who stay home is divorce. Men leave their wives high and dry all the time, she insists. In fact, they don’t. Women initiate about two-thirds of divorces… The statistics are also favorable for stay-at-home mothers in general. During the 90s, stay-at-home wives were 40 percent less likely to get divorced than their working counterparts. A 2004 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family revealed that couples have a much greater chance of splitting when the husband and wife earn equal incomes than when one partner is the primary breadwinner. When the higher-earning partner does leave, it is most often the wife… Taken all together, this makes the average middleclass husband seem about as much of a financial risk as a blue-chip stock.” – Megan Basham

“Today, whole classes of people get their jollies and puff themselves up by denigrating and denouncing American society. Such people are a major influence in our media, in our educational system and among all sorts of vocal activists. Nothing illustrates their power to distort reality like the way they seize upon slavery to denounce American society. Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery. Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent- people of every race, color, and creed. More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed. Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans. What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created. What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well. Reality has been stood on its head so that a relative handful of people can feel puffed up or gain notoriety and power. Whatever they gain, the rest of us have everything to lose.” – Thomas Sowell

“On the eve of Independence Day, the people of this great republic declared their independence from the United States Senate under the stirring battle-cry, ‘No legislation without explanation!’ The geniuses who’d cooked up the ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill’s ‘grand bargain’ behind the scenes in the pork-filled rooms had originally planned to ram it through in 48 hours before Memorial Day. And, right to the end, the bipartisan Emirs-for-life of Incumbistan gave the strong impression they regarded it as an affront to be required by the impertinent whippersnappers of the citizenry to address the actual content of the legislation… Time and again, the remote insulated emirs were offered the opportunity to rise above their condescension and declined to do so. Sen. John McCain, R- Maverickistan, confidently asserted that he’d worked hard on this bill and knew it better than all these no-account nonentities riled up about it and then had to have it explained to him- by bloggers on a conference call- that he’d misunderstood a key provision of his own legislation: There was no requirement for illegal immigrants to pay back taxes. Their amnesty would come tax-free. Blustering senators who claimed to have drafted this thing had to be told what was in it by critics who’d actually taken the trouble to look at it. Immigration isn’t going away: Human capital is the great issue facing all advanced societies. But it’s unbecoming for a mature democracy to discuss a critical matter in such a fraudulent way.” – Mark Steyn

Quote-a-palooza

“At first the liberal Democrats were coy about reports that they wanted to impose government control on talk radio. When it was reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had discussed the matter with Sen. Barbara Boxer, both denied it. That is characteristic. They lied to the public. Now the Democrats admit to this assault on the First Amendment. There was no point in continuing to lie when it was time to take action against the Rush Limbaughs of this world…Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin [said], ‘It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.’ Well, at least he admits that he is old-fashioned. Unfortunately for him, history really has moved on. The so-called Fairness Doctrine, used for years to keep diversity off the airways, was instituted when all we had in the communications system was radio and fledgling television. Perhaps in those days it was admissible to believe that there were only two sides to a ‘story,’ as Durbin puts it. Today there are many sides to stories, and no government body is equipped to judge what should be on the broadcast media and what is too marginal. In other words, it ought not to be left to government to decide what the sides are in a debate. That is anathema to free debate.” – Emmett Tyrrell

“The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ‘fairness doctrine,’ chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’… History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee. [The ‘fairness doctrine’] simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as [the ‘fairness doctrine’] may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism.” – Ronald Reagan

“[W]riter Leslie Bennetts charges that women who step-back from working are taking an extreme economic risk… Yet if off-ramping is the dangerous ‘high-stakes gamble’ Bennetts and her supporters claim, why are so many smart, rational women laying their money and their futures on the table? Perhaps because even a cursory look at hard data (rather than the collection of sad stories Bennetts has put forth) indicates that, statistically, there is very little to fear from making motherhood a career choice… According to work-first feminists, the scariest bogeyman looming over women who stay home is divorce. Men leave their wives high and dry all the time, she insists. In fact, they don’t. Women initiate about two-thirds of divorces… The statistics are also favorable for stay-at-home mothers in general. During the 90s, stay-at-home wives were 40 percent less likely to get divorced than their working counterparts. A 2004 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family revealed that couples have a much greater chance of splitting when the husband and wife earn equal incomes than when one partner is the primary breadwinner. When the higher-earning partner does leave, it is most often the wife… Taken all together, this makes the average middleclass husband seem about as much of a financial risk as a blue-chip stock.” – Megan Basham

“Today, whole classes of people get their jollies and puff themselves up by denigrating and denouncing American society. Such people are a major influence in our media, in our educational system and among all sorts of vocal activists. Nothing illustrates their power to distort reality like the way they seize upon slavery to denounce American society. Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery. Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent- people of every race, color, and creed. More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed. Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans. What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created. What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well. Reality has been stood on its head so that a relative handful of people can feel puffed up or gain notoriety and power. Whatever they gain, the rest of us have everything to lose.” – Thomas Sowell

“On the eve of Independence Day, the people of this great republic declared their independence from the United States Senate under the stirring battle-cry, ‘No legislation without explanation!’ The geniuses who’d cooked up the ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill’s ‘grand bargain’ behind the scenes in the pork-filled rooms had originally planned to ram it through in 48 hours before Memorial Day. And, right to the end, the bipartisan Emirs-for-life of Incumbistan gave the strong impression they regarded it as an affront to be required by the impertinent whippersnappers of the citizenry to address the actual content of the legislation… Time and again, the remote insulated emirs were offered the opportunity to rise above their condescension and declined to do so. Sen. John McCain, R- Maverickistan, confidently asserted that he’d worked hard on this bill and knew it better than all these no-account nonentities riled up about it and then had to have it explained to him- by bloggers on a conference call- that he’d misunderstood a key provision of his own legislation: There was no requirement for illegal immigrants to pay back taxes. Their amnesty would come tax-free. Blustering senators who claimed to have drafted this thing had to be told what was in it by critics who’d actually taken the trouble to look at it. Immigration isn’t going away: Human capital is the great issue facing all advanced societies. But it’s unbecoming for a mature democracy to discuss a critical matter in such a fraudulent way.” – Mark Steyn

Themal Rants Aimlessly and Contradicts himself

delawareonline | The News Journal, Wilmington, Del. | This Supreme Court leaves bad precedent

Harry F. Themal, wrote an editorial this morning that is essentially nothing more than a diatribe against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Rather than being well-thought out and rational, it is self-contradictory and many arguments fly in the face of common sense.

Let’s deal with the contradiction first: he criticizes the Supreme Court’s ruling against racially-based plans to promote “diversity” in schools. But he closes his editorial saying:

Yet no matter who is sworn in in 2009, this country will suffer for decades under the mean-spirited, anti-individual philosophy of this Supreme Court.

He claims that this Court is anti-individual rights, but supports a program that would discriminate against individuals because of their skin color in pursuit of the amorphous idea of “diversity.” (Hube at The Colossus of Rhodey has done a yeoman’s job over the years pointing out the flaws in the diversity concept. Check his Education Archive for samples.)

He then criticizes Alito in the following case:

Alito was also part of the 5-4 majority in an even more egregious case of the court’s stepping on individual rights. An Ohio prisoner convicted of murder filed an appeal by the deadline set by a federal judge, who had misstated the date. The appeal came a few days after the deadline in federal statutes. The judge was wrong, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, in effect, that’s just too bad and the inmate is out of luck as the court reversed previous allowances for “unique circumstances.”

Essentially in this case, Alito and the majority were arguing that an apparently innocent mistake by a judge cannot excuse violating a federal law. Had this been a mere judicial guideline or internal deadline, perhaps it could easily have been waived, but this is the law, and court systems are supposed to follow the law. They really don’t have the luxury of ignoring the law, even in a case like this. The blame really lies with the judge who screwed up, not with the Supreme Court.

He also issues a brief list of decisions that offend his sensibilities; “school desegregation, late-term abortion and campaign financing”.

Let’s take each of them in turn:

School Desegregation: As noted above, this decision stated that school districts can not discriminate on the basis of race in school assignments when no previous history of racial discrimination existed. (It can still be allowed when there was a judicial finding of past discrimination that must be rectified.) Liberals have portrayed this as a turning away from Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas which held that school districts can not discriminate on the basis of race in school assignments. Rather that overturning Brown, this court is attempting to abide by it.

Late-term abortion: In this case, the Court simply held that having a doctor stick a knife in to head of a mostly born child, sucking the brains out with a vacuum cleaner, and then crushing the skull in order to kill said child is not a constitutional right.

Campaign Financing: Again contradicting his supposed concern for individual rights, Themal is upset that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress improperly restricted the rights of political groups (who by definition are associations of individuals) to broadcast issue related advertisements in a period of time leading up to an election.

So, Themal is upset that the court upheld free speech, the right of a child not have his head crushed and brains sucked out, and ruled against racial discrimination. I find it hard to understand why anyone would disagree with the Court’s decision in these cases.