Duthie On...

The By Any Means Necessary strategy...don't let the people vote:

"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.

There's something intensely wrong about groups that do not trust voters to decide issues, and it's no surprise that these groups are almost uniformly on the political left. Unlike most of her peers, Stern openly acknowledges that her preferred policy will fail at the ballot box, so the solution is to prevent that from happening. And in the process, they'll smear Ward Connerly, and assert that he's lying to petition signers:

"They ask people, 'Would you like to sign a petition to eliminate discrimination in Nebraska?'" Kramer said. "Well, gee, I don't know anybody who would be against that. It's such an offensive way to go about it."

Well, since the ballot initiatives that Connerly's group is pushing would "ban public agencies — including the University of Nebraska and state and local governments — from considering race, ethnicity or gender when hiring, selecting contractors or enrolling students" it seems to me that the question above is an entirely accurate way of putting it, which is why the bans are successful when put before voters. And also why folks like BAMN are terrified of them.

It is long past time that we stop using discrimination to right wrongs of the past. Affirmative action is discrimination that punishes the innocent, and does not help its purported beneficiaries. It is unjust, and it should end. Where racial or gender discrimination remains, let those guilty of it be punished under the law. But stop using discrimination to justify more discrimination, and lying and suppressing democratic action as a means of continuing an unjust policy.

Omaha.com Elections Section

Never mind that this guy wasn't elected, but is only governor because his predecessor had to resign in shame, nevermind that neither Paterson nor Spitzer ran on a promise to legalize gay marriage, and most of all, never mind asking the citizens of New York what they want:

David Paterson has unilaterally declared New York a gay-marriage-friendly state:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

Even if you're a supporter of gay marriage...is this really the way you want it implemented? By fiat? In a way that's almost guaranteed to generate far more opposition than if it was done through democratic means? I don't support gay marriage, but if the voters of New York or California, or wherever chose to implement that, that's their right in a federalist system. But in California (and other states before it) it's judges making the decisions, and now in NY it's the governor. What about the people? Don't they get a say in whether or not we completely redefine one of the bedrock institutions of society? Guess not.

The Corner on National Review Online

Wow. This post, on successful government reform in New Zealand, is remarkable and inspiring. If nothing else, it gives one hope that perhaps there will be at least some last bastion of liberty in the world if the libs have their way here in the U.S. Certainly, I'll have to put NZ on my list of places to visit soon.

A powerful indictment of CO2 restrictions as a means to combat "climate change":

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Read the whole thing, in particular the list of signatories, which includes several IPCC reviewers. Wonder why their opinions didn't make it into the Summary for Policymakers? Oh yeah, that's right, because the summary is written by policy wonks, not scientists, and the wonks are bound and determined to hype the so-called "climate crisis" at all costs. Yeah...OK.

Don't fight, adapt

Chictivism (shēk'tə-vĭz'əm)

n.

1. the fashionable support of a particular political or charitable cause
2. the attempt to improve ones social status with peers through political activism

see chictivist, Tibet, ribbons

There's so much wrong with this story that it's hard to know where to begin:

A powerful federal arts commission is urging that the sculpture of Martin Luther King Jr. proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin be reworked because it is too "confrontational" and reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts thinks "the colossal scale and Social Realist style of the proposed statue recalls a genre of political sculpture that has recently been pulled down in other countries," commission secretary Thomas Luebke said in a letter in April.

By law, no project like the memorial can go forward without approval from the commission, the federal agency that advises the government on public design and aesthetics in the capital.

A model of the statue has been built in China. The project's chief architect, Ed Jackson Jr., huddled with advisers this week in Ann Arbor, Mich., to discuss ways to address the commission's objections before sculpting of the granite statue begins.

One question I have is why we need a "U.S. Commisson of Fine Arts" in the first place. But more shocking and important is the question of what on earth the foundation building the King memorial is thinking by having the statue built in China by a sculptor with a lifelong stipend from the Chinese Communist government. Should it be surprising to anyone that such a sculpture done by a man living on the payroll of a totalitarian government would be "reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states?" Well, duh!

The issue, however, should be less about the aesthetics of the design, and more about the message that is sent when you have a monument to a man who was dedicated to freedom being created in a place that is one of the least free places on earth, by a man in the employ of a totalitarian government. Sculptor Lei Yixin may be a fine artist, and perhaps he secretly yearns for a free China as I'm sure many Chinese do. But according to the story he's "known for his monumental works of figures such as Mao Zedong..." To me, that should've been a red flag, so to speak.

Perhaps this commission is trying to remedy that situation through the only tools they have. But it seems to me that the Chinese communist government has already been handed a propaganda victory here. They can claim with great pride that their house sculptor was chosen to memorialize King, and that there's no way that would happen if the lies others keep telling about their human rights record were true.

Really sad...and where are the donors who put up the money for this memorial? Why aren't they outraged?

Unhappy With 'Confrontational' Image, U.S. Panel Wants King Statue Reworked

Guess I won't be shopping at Whole Foods anytime soon:

Whole Foods Market won't offer plastic shopping bags at their stores after Earth Day this year. It is a savvy move for the upscale natural foods retailer, who estimates that by the end of the year the policy will have averted use of 100 million new plastic grocery bags at their 270 stores. It won't save the company any money-since the paper and multi-use bags that will replace plastic bags at their stores cost more to manufacture, stock and handle-but it is a savvy public relations move that will likely help to soothe the guilty environmental consciences of devoted Whole Foods shoppers who, like most Americans, believe paper bags are environmentally superior to plastic bags.

Unfortunately, the reality is that paper isn't better than plastic.

What's sad about this is that Whole Foods, which is run by a Libertarian, is now limiting the choices of their customers in a way that's likely to be harmful to the environment, because it plays to their incorrect preconceptions about which choice is better for the environment. While it's not surprising to see a company go for the easy profit rather than educate their customers, it's disappointing nonetheless.

Reason Foundation Commentary: Paper Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags

Almost 4 full months to earn enough to pay your taxes...too much:

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Here's why:

A California woman was shot to death as she pleaded with emergency dispatchers to come and help her. Her death will not make the network news programs this evening, but this is the latest reminder that we must take responsibility for our own safety and not rely on the police.

This post shows the difference that owning and knowing how to use a gun in self-defense can make. While I'm sure the woman in that 911 call was traumatized by the experience, thanks to being armed, she is still alive.

I don't think anyone should take lightly the notion of killing another human being, even in self-defense. But given the alternatives, defending oneself with a firearm seems a much better option than just hoping the police will arrive in time.

Cato-at-liberty » Victim Shot While Calling 911