Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

September 2014

Posted by New Neo on September 02, 2014 19 Comments
Lee Harris's book Civilization and its Enemies: The Next Stage of History first came out in 2004. 2004 seems like a long time ago. And in a sense it is: ten years. But Harris's book has only grown more topical every day. That's unfortunate, because it's not a book that offers a lot of comfort. But his writing is insightful, so thoughtful and yet compressed that it's one of those books where the reader would do well to pause every paragraph or so in order to contemplate and digest what has just been said. Here's an excerpt. In the passage that follows, Harris has previously defined his use of the word "ruthlessness" as meaning "dreadfulness, frightfulness, horror, horribleness, terror, terribleness, atrociousness, atrocity":
...[T]he more the spirit of commerce triumphs, the closer mankind comes to dispensing with war, the nearer we approach the end of history, the greater are the rewards to those who decide to return to the path of war, and the easier it will be for them to conquer. There is nothing that can be done to change this fact; it is built into the structure of the world... People who have been trained in the practice of civility, and who find it second nature, will be reluctant to challenge the conduct of another on the ground that he is lacking civility The ruthless party therefore knows that he will be able to push very far before a break point is openly acknowledged Because once the break point is acknowledged, all bets are off and you no longer can be sure of the next step.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 02, 2014 26 Comments
We have written many times about the secretive John Doe proceedings in which Wisconsin prosecutors seized a wide-range of records from numerous conservative activists on the theory that it was a crime for such activists to coordinate issue advocacy with the campaign of Governor Scott Walker. In a federal lawsuit brought by two of the targets, Eric O'Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth (the "Club"), a federal district court judge enjoined the John Doe investigation finding, among other things, that the investigation violated the targets' constitutional free speech rights.  The court also found that the prosecutors advanced an invalid theory of criminal liability, since such coordination did not violate campaign finance laws. A state court judge earlier had made a similar finding. The John Doe investigators, who are defendants in the federal lawsuit, have appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. O'Keefe and the Club filed their responsive appeals brief today. A copy is embedded at the bottom of this post. The brief is deep into the law, but it's the factual recitation which is riveting, detailing a prosecutorial conspiracy to sway the political process against conservatives and to undermine Walker. Here is the full Summary of Argument:
In February 2012, at the outset of a tough reelection campaign and battle for control of Congress, President Barack Obama's official campaign committee threw its support behind Priorities USA Action, a "super PAC" supporting Democratic candidates. "[T]op campaign staff and even some Cabinet members [would] appear at super PAC events," and they helped Priorities USA Action raise millions that it spent in support of Democratic candidates.[fn] Defendants launched and aggressively pursued a secret criminal investigation targeting every major right-of-center advocacy group in Wisconsin on the view that this kind of "coordination" between a candidate and supporters of his policies is illegal. They also claim the power to restrict speech on public policy issues based on an advocacy group's communications with a candidate, whether or not that speech has anything to do with that candidate's own campaign or election.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 02, 2014 3 Comments
Fox News reports that the United States has executed a series of drone strikes against al-Shabaab strongholds in Somalia. The Pentagon is still reportedly assessing the success of the strike, which was aimed at al-Shabaab leadership:
A senior Somali official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that a U.S. drone targeted al-Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdi Godane as he left a meeting of the group's top leaders. The official told AP that intelligence indicated Godane "might have been killed along with other militants." The official said that the strike took place in a forest near Sablale district, 105 miles south of Mogadishu, where the group trains its fighters. The governor of Somalia's Lower Shabelle region, Abdiqadir Mohamed Nor, told The Associated Press that as government and African Union forces were heading to a town in Sablale district, they heard something that sounded like an "earthquake" as drones struck al-Shabaab bases. ... The U.S. action comes after Somalia's government forces regained control of a high security prison in the capital that was attacked Sunday by seven heavily armed suspected Islamic militants who attempted to free other extremists held there. The Pentagon statement did not indicate whether the U.S. action was related to the prison attack.
Al-Shabaab claims responsibility for an attack on a Mogadishu prison that occurred just prior to the American drone strikes. The prison, which serves as an interrogation center for the Somali government, is believed to be home to captured extremists. The Pentagon would not confirm that the U.S. took action in response to this attack.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 02, 2014 32 Comments
Fast food workers are planning to take their protests to a new level Thursday as they take to the streets for the largest mass strike to date. According to the New York Times, these protests will be different from previous protests in two ways. First, organizers are expanding their demonstrations' locations, and participants. This time, protesters from both the fast food and health service industries will go on strike in 100 cities, and hold sit ins in over a dozen. Second, organizers plan to engage in and encourage civil disobedience as a way of getting the message out:
At a convention that was held outside Chicago in July, 1,300 fast-food workers unanimously approved a resolution calling for civil disobedience as a way to step up pressure on the fast-food chains. “They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign. “They’re invoking civil rights history to make the case that these jobs ought to be paid $15 and the companies ought to recognize a union.”
The SEIU is encouraging members of its health service union members to join protests in 6 of the 100 cities, hoping that diversifying participation will draw greater attention to the strikes. These strikes are the result of a two year effort to force fast food chains to raise their minimum wage to $15 per hour, and to allow their employees to unionize. Earlier this summer the NLRB ruled to break through McDonald's corporate-franchisee relationship in an attempt to conduct mass unionizations of entire chains all at once, as opposed to working through a company franchise by franchise. If that ruling is upheld by the courts, McDonald's could be held liable for labor law violations at its thousands of locations. CNN Money reports data suggesting that fast-food CEOs currently make 1,000 times more than the average worker in the industry, and that around 33% of fast food workers have spent at least some time in college. Additionally, 70% of fast food workers are over the age of 20, making it easy for organizers to quickly debunk arguments that "fast food jobs are for teenagers." Whether or not that data holds true in the long run, union representatives are ready to emphasize the disparity between individual employee salaries and overall corporate profits as a way to whip up support.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 02, 2014 7 Comments
It's amazing what you can miss if you don't attend fundraisers for the Democratic Party. Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard tells a fascinating story about Obama at such an event in Rhode Island this weekend:
Obama: Bush-Cheney 'Security Apparatus' Makes Us 'Pretty Safe' President Barack Obama said last night at a Democratic fundraiser in Rhode Island that the terrorism from ISIS "doesn’t immediately threaten the homeland." The reason? The security measures taken by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to Obama. First the president said the situation in the Middle East is "scary," according to a transcript of the event released by the White House. "I don’t have to tell you, anybody who has been watching TV this summer, it seems like it is just wave after wave ofupheaval, most of it surrounding the Middle East. You’re seeing a change in the order in the Middle East. But the old order is having a tough time holding together and the new order has yet to be born, and in the interim, it’s scary."

Posted by David Gerstman on September 01, 2014 7 Comments
Central to the charge that Israel's conduct warrants an investigation by an "independent" commission to investigate whether it committed war crimes is the premise that Israel, in defending itself against rockets launched by Hamas into its territory, caused a disproportionate number of civilian deaths. Since a commission appointed by the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council is looking to convict, a fair investigation into the violence is in order. Unfortunately, in an article from last week entitled "The U.N. says 7 in 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. Israel disagrees," The Washington Post failed to provide the necessary context to allow a proper understanding of Operation Protective Edge.
The war in Gaza will now continue in a battle between databases to determine who was killed and why. The most contested number, the one that attracts the most stubborn insistence and ferocious rebuttal, is not the total fatalities on the Palestinian side, the more than 2,100 dead in the Gaza hostilities. The controversy centers instead on the ratio of civilians to combatants, or as the Israelis call them “terrorist operatives.”
In the second sentence the reporter, William Booth, mentions the "stubborn insistence and ferocious rebuttal," but doesn't acknowledge his own role in supporting the "stubborn insistence." Booth's articles on Operation Protective Edge have often contained similar language describing "mounting Palestinian civilian casualties." Furthermore, in other instances articles on which Booth was bylined listed casualty totals with no judgment as to their veracity. For example on July 19 a dispatch on which he had a byline reported:
The Palestinian death toll from the conflict rose Saturday to more than 330, including about 60 children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. An additional 2,200 have been injured. The United Nations estimates that about 80 percent of the casualties are civilians, many of them children.

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 01, 2014 21 Comments
A report from NBC news indicates that police officers in Ferguson, Missouri are being equipped with on-body cameras in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. The picture above captures an example of footage from this type of camera at the moment an equipped officer (not from Ferguson) was assaulted by a suspect, thus supporting the officer's responsive use of force against the suspect. (Video below the fold.) I first came across one of these devices when cough, cough a "friend" of mine was pulled over for speeding in New Hampshire maybe three years ago. (Yes, my "friend" was on his motorcycle at the time.) The officer approached and immediately pointed out that he was wearing the camera, and asked if it was OK for our interaction to be recorded. Naturally, I said yes. I was frankly surprised he asked---or at least went through the motions of asking---for my permission. This was NOT a major city in New Hampshire, which are tough to come by in the "Live Free or Die" state under the best of circumstances, so even small New England towns have been making use of these cameras for some years now. Today they are apparently used by over 1,000 departments, and at a cost of about $300, it seems a worthwhile investment for most ANY department. Officers are equipped with body armor to protect them against physical attacks; they ought to be similarly equipped with on-body cameras to protect against false claims of legal liability. Below follows the NBC video report.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 01, 2014 17 Comments
A few days ago, President Obama made what is probably one of his silliest remarks yet when he insinuated we're only now realizing the world is a "messy" place because of the advent of social media. Really? No one noticed the underbelly of humanity before Twitter? We beg to differ.

That time that jerk Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton.

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 11.58.26 AM  

Archduke Ferdinand gets capped and a little thing called "World War I" happens

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 11.53.26 AM

Posted by Amy Miller on September 01, 2014 10 Comments
It seems like even the most staunch democrats are waking up to the realities of Obama's America---especially the political realities. Republicans need to capture 5 of the 6 most competitive Senate seats in the 2014 midterms to regain control of the chamber and end Majority Leader Harry Reid's reign of terror against Republican legislation. This means unseating at least three incumbent Democrats in states that Mitt Romney swept in 2012, and national democrats are nervous at the prospect. Why? Because Barack Obama is a toxic commodity. Via Politico:
Six years ago, Obama’s massive campaign organization helped to sweep several Senate Democrats, now the most endangered, into office with his appeal to unite political factions. Now, he’s an attack line. Across the country, from Alaska and Colorado, to Louisiana and North Carolina, Republicans are citing how often the Democratic incumbent sided with the White House on votes in Congress. It’s a tactic Democrats used to great effect in 2006 when they wrestled back control of the Senate by linking every incumbent to President George W. Bush, who was even more unpopular than Obama. “He’s going to be an anchor on each one of these Democrats all the way through,” said Guy Harrison, a media consultant for the Republican Senate nominees in Arkansas, Colorado and North Carolina. “They’re trying to grasp every life preserver they can, but the anchor of Obama is still going to pull them down.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 01, 2014 57 Comments
During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan was asked how many Americans have joined ISIS. His answer was nothing short of stunning. Ian Tuttle of National Review has the details:
House Intel Chair: ‘Hundreds’ of Americans Have Fought with ISIS; Some Have Returned to U.S How many Americans are fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria? “It’s in the hundreds,” says Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There are “hundreds” of Americans “that have at least one time traveled, participated, and trained with them. Some of them have drifted back [to the U.S.], some of them have gone to Europe,” Rogers says.
Here's the video:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 01, 2014 13 Comments
The American Medical Association wants to jumpstart a health care discussion that died a political death almost five years ago: to "death panel," or not to "death panel?" Of course, we're not talking about actual panels making life-or-death decisions on behalf of patients, but mandated coverage for "end of life discussions" between patients and doctors. Back in 2009, Sarah Palin coined the divisive term, and woke America up to the possibility that yes, handing over our health care decisions to the government a little bit at a time could backfire in spectacular and inhumane ways. The New York Times reports that the AMA is putting pressure on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to begin covering these end of life discussions. If the Center adopts the AMA's recommendations, Medicare patients could start receiving coverage for these conversations as early as next year. From the Times:
“We think it’s really important to incentivize this kind of care,” said Dr. Barbara Levy, chairwoman of the A.M.A. committee that submits reimbursement recommendations to Medicare. “The idea is to make sure patients and their families understand the consequences, the pros and cons and options so they can make the best decision for them.” Now, some doctors conduct such conversations for free or shoehorn them into other medical visits. Dr. Joseph Hinterberger, a family physician here in Dundee, wants to avoid situations in which he has had to decide for incapacitated patients who had no family or stated preferences.
Although the Affordable Care Act contains no coverage requirements for end of life conversations, many private insurance companies have made the choice on their own to cover these appointments.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 01, 2014 8 Comments
On Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a new Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. U.S. District Judge John deGravelles' ruling potentially saved all 5 of Louisiana's abortion clinics from being forced to close their doors today. Via Reuters:
"Plaintiffs will be allowed to operate lawfully while continuing their efforts to obtain privileges," Federal Judge John deGravelles wrote in the decision. A hearing will be scheduled within a month for the judge to make a more permanent ruling on the law. Abortion rights activists applauded the decision, the latest in a string of rulings against similar measures, saying it would give doctors more time to seek hospital privileges.
Last week, abortion providers from three Louisiana clinics sued the state over the new admitting privileges requirement, stating that it would cause all of Louisiana's clinics to close, forcing women to leave the state to seek an abortion. Similar laws have come under fire in Texas and Mississippi, and all are almost certain to head to the Fifth Circuit once the inevitable appeals are filed. DeGravelles' ruling is different than others we've seen in that it specifically addresses the problem of the time gap that exists between the time abortion providers apply for privileges at nearby hospitals, and the the that those hospitals either approve or reject the application. CBS News explains:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 01, 2014 16 Comments

but sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity...

MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH