Friday, May 29, 2009

A Russian view of American life?

Mat Rodina: usa
"...The Baby Boomers aborted 40 million babies and thus are now larger than the combined next two generations. In their Christless greed to spend on themselves, they have not only damned their souls through the murder of children but their old age as well, to poverty."

Just today I came across this blog apparently by a Russian man. Judging from the pointed excerpt above, this blog might be worth a closer look.

I wonder if the blog anywhere comments on the number of abortions that have taken place in Russia over the past few decades.

University of Illinois -where clout greases the skids

Clout goes to college -Chicago Tribune
U. of I. chief says clout list had little impact -Chicago Tribune

It's an outrage that college admissions should depend on political connections -especially at a public school. This should be stopped.

But it's also outrageous for schools to consider ethnicity or gender in their admissions criteria. College admission should not be based on who you know. Nor should it depend on your religion, sex, race, or ethnicity.

Trying to right historic wrongs through "affirmative action", by giving special consideration to individuals because of their sex or color, only exchanges one form of discrimination for another. You can't promote justice or fight racism by using race as an admission criterion. Besides, who wants to graduate college under a cloud of suspicion that you "made it" only because less was expected due to your racial background?

Fairness demands equal requirements and equal opportunity. This is the way to combat discrimination and protect the dignity of every person.

Do Sotomayor's prejudices make her unfit for the Supreme Court?

Sotomayor's Controversial 2001 Remarks -- and Their Context -Political Punch

In 2001, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Further excerpts from her speech indicate that her "wise Latina woman" comment was not a careless and embarrassing gaffe. It rather was a conclusion reached through thoughtful consideration. All the more reason for concern that Sotomayor does not embrace a judicial philosophy blind to race and gender.

On what basis can we hope she will impartially uphold the rule of law, providing equal justice regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, and gender?

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Does prohibition of gay marriage deny the fundamental rights of gays?

Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead
California's voters, not its courts, are the final judges of same-sex couples' right to marry. And even if they're barred from marrying, gays and lesbians are not the victims of unconstitutional discrimination...

The main legal argument by Prop. 8's opponents - two groups of same-sex couples, local governments led by the city of San Francisco, and a collection of civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist organizations - was that the state Constitution contains a 'core guarantee' of equality that limits voters' amendment powers. A minority group's fundamental rights, they argued, should not be subject to repeal by majority vote.

The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.

And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor’s View of Judging

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record - NYTimes.com

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -2001
Taken out of context, this quote really is offensive. I wonder whether, heard in the context of the speech from which it came, it sounds any less offensive.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." -2001, speech at Berkeley
Does this mean that Judge Sotomayor believes judges must do their best to exercise objectivity in interpreting the law, overcoming their personal background? Or does she mean that judges should permit their "gender and national origins" to bear on their judgment?

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then immediately adds: "And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m - you know." -2005
Do we know? Does she really believe, four years after this speech, that the Constitution establishes courts to be "where policy is made"? Judge Sotomayor seems embarrassed to be caught on tape making this statement, and quickly claims she's not "promoting" or "advocating" this view. But she doesn't reject or denounce the view. She's just, -you know...

Thursday, May 21, 2009

House Democrat worker bees swarm to defend their addled queen

CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques - PolitiFact



"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." -Nancy Pelosi, 23 April 2009

"They [CIA] mislead us all the time... they misrepresented every step of the way." -Nancy Pelosi at press conference, 14 May 2009

"Under fire from Republicans for what she knew about harsh questioning of terror detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding, but she asserted that the agency had misled Congress about its techniques." -The Caucus, 14 May 2009

"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the CIA lied to her about the use of waterboarding on alleged terrorists held in secret prisons. Ms Pelosi said that the CIA told her in September 2002 that although waterboarding - a form of controlled suffocation by water - was approved by the Bush administration, it had not been used." -Irish Times, 15 May 2009

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," -Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi spokesman, 21 May 2009

"House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects." -Breitbart, 21 May 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she won't talk any more about her charge that the CIA lied in 2002 about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment." -Breitbart, 22 May 2009


Nancy Pelosi made some very harsh accusations against the CIA and its employees, and used them to politically attack the Bush administration. She has not only failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claims, but changed her story repeatedly as inconvenient facts emerged. After initially calling for a "truth commission" to investigate her claims, both she and the entire Democratic Party now just want the fracas to go away ...now that the political fallout is becoming increasingly unfavorable to them.

At this point the honorable thing would be to launch a bipartisan investigation or to recant her claims and offer an sincere apology for "mistakenly mischaracterizing" the performance of the intelligence community. But now it is clear that for the Democrats these honorable options must be avoided at all costs. Rather, they are united in their determination to provide cover for Pelosi's reckless, defamatory claims, and to stonewall any attempt to uncover the truth. They will move on, firmly committed to pretend it all never happened.

Rather than let Pelosi bear the consequences of her own compulsive attacks on the long defunct Bush administration (NEWS FLASH... DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS!), House Democrat worker bees couldn't resist swarming to defend their addled queen.

I look forward to seeing how this dishonorable display of party loyalty to Her Majesty is rewarded.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Media supports administration's interference in auto industry

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News

The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:

"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."

-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.

"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."

"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?

And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

ABCnews: where propaganda is called news

"Troubled Times for Republican Party -GOP Divide

We're going to take a closer look at an intense debate within the Republican Party: whether it can attract new voters by becoming more conservative or more moderate..."

-Charles Gibson, World News Report, 5/13/2009

ABC proposes a political spectrum whose endpoints are "conservative" and "moderate".

The adjective "moderate" can be defined as "kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous..." -Dictionary.net

For ABC, the reasonable, not-extreme "moderates" are opposed by "conservatives", who, obviously, are not "observing reasonable limits", and by contrast are "excessive, extreme,..." perhaps even "violent".

What happened to the familiar "conservative / moderate / liberal" model, or "right / centrist / left"?

Many liberals -including those largely dominating the media- don't want to view themselves as living near the extreme of any political spectrum. They prefer to view themselves as inhabiting the reasonable, high ground above and in opposition to one extreme: conservatism, that radical fringe. Appropriating to themselves the term "moderate" redefines political discourse, obviously in their favor.

Liberals are the new "moderates". They can't be criticized for being "too liberal", because "liberal" no longer defines a political extreme. And of course, nobody can be "too moderate".

For them, today's "moderates" embrace all that was once considered "leftist", "liberal", or "progressive". Those who don't, can't be "moderate", and belong to an immoderate and even extreme fringe.

Clearly this is the premise of the entire ABCnews report: that the Republican Party is too conservative, and needs to become more moderate in order to attract voters.

Could the Republican Party be floundering because it has failed to be clearly and enthusiastically conservative? That it has become too liberal and too much like the Democratic Party? That it has compromised its conservative principles and become nearly indistinguishable from its opponents, and consequently has alienated large numbers of conservative voters? ABCnews may have considered this possibility, but didn't find it worth addressing in their report.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Mies van der Rohe's square hut: the ugly shall pass away

One Mies building on IIT campus can go; squat brick building isn't his best work, and preservationists need to fight other battles - Chicago Tribune

As an IIT graduate I recall many hours of classes in buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe. Without meaning to detract from the architectural significance of Mies' designs -which often struck me as somewhat cold, stark, severe, and institutional- it's funny to me that the faceless "Test Cell" hut, which barely registers in my memory, would arouse such passion among some preservationists.

I mean, look at the thing! It's an ugly brick box, perhaps suitable for storing landscaping equipment (if there's another, larger door). I've seen storage lockers that are more attractive and certainly more useful.

Whether it was designed by Mies van der Rohe or Leonardo da Vinci, it's still an ugly brick box. Mies' homely storage shed once may have served a useful purpose, but now stands in the way of a project which many hope will improve the campus and neighborhood. I realize that as a product of Herr van der Rohe, some people may view the Test Cell as a holy relic, but I don't agree.

After it's razed perhaps the liberated bricks could be auctioned off to Mies van der Rohe architecture aficionados, or recycled into another plain, institutional box for use by people who like their buildings minimalist and severe.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.
I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case - Los Angeles Times

"The Supreme Court today took away one tool for prosecuting and deporting workers who are in this country illegally, ruling that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number.

"The 9-0 decision overturns part of an Illinois man's conviction for using false documents.

"The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of 'aggravated identity theft' because he did not know he was using someone's Social Security number."


If any of the Supreme Court justices had had their identities stolen or "borrowed", their accounts raided, and their credit histories damaged as a result, I wonder if they would have ruled differently.

So, if I break into someone's house, find a pile of cash, and take it, it's not necessarily stealing, as long as I didn't know with certainty that the cash actually belonged to somebody?

Anyone who buys false identification -with or without a Social Security number- reasonably can be expected to realize that since the identifying information does not belong to himself, it quite possibly belongs to another real individual. It's reasonable to expect that buying such false documents should fall within the scope of laws prohibiting "identity theft".

The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, so it seems there was little controversy over the meaning of the law. Rather than blaming the court for a poor decision, it's probably more appropriate to blame the law for being badly written.

Perhaps identity theft laws should be expanded to prohibit any deliberate use Social Security numbers, account numbers, names, etc., that do not belong to the individual presenting them.

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Meet Jackie the Dog




Jackie's a Beagle - Fox Terrier mix: very affectionate, playful, and a bit impish. Not very big, but can she run! She moved in with us last Saturday.

Friday, May 01, 2009

2,000 join immigrant rights march

Only 2,000 join immigrant rights march - Chicago Tribune

Do You leave Your home unsecured so that any trespasser can simply barge into Your home and take up residence? Suppose a stranger not only breaks into Your home, but then begins to insist You pay for his education, medical care, and more? Suppose he demands the same status, rights, and benefits of the home life enjoyed by You and Your family members?

No, if strangers attempt to break into Your home and claim the property and rights of Your family members, You call upon the police to enforce existing law, and to help restore Your legitimate rights and security... unless You want Your home and property to disappear.

I welcome LEGAL immigrants to this country. They are human beings with dignity and deserve humane treatment. I wish them success. But those who break into our country illegally do not have a right to demand citizenship or the rights of citizens.

It's not fair to offer illegal aliens special treatment not afforded to those in foreign countries who have worked and waited their turn to obtain legal entry into this country.

The borders need to be secured, and our immigration policies should be humane, even generous, as well as just, practical, ...and enforced.