Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Health Care, History, Law, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, The United States | Tags: "Women's Studies", 1966 Equal Pay Law, National Organization for Women
I vaguely remember reading a book long ago by a newly enlightened feminist on her conversion to feminist activism. She had grown up in a family where her father was most definitely the head of the household, the man in the family, who got the Sunday paper first, was served first at the dinner table, and looking back she was troubled by the injustice of it all. Well, poor baby.
N.O.W., the National Organization for Women, was born back in the Sixties, 1966 to be exact, when everyone was protesting about something or other, mostly about their fear of being drafted. Their focus has consistently been on gender equality, and that’s where we lose interest. Women appreciate the wider range of occupations open to them, but recognize that there are many jobs for which they are just not well-suited. Most women appreciate the difference between the sexes and wouldn’t want it any other way.
N.O.W., AAUW and the National Committee on Pay Equity marshal their forces every April to promote the annual feminist holiday known as Equal Pay Day. Hillary tried to make a big deal of it in a speech yesterday, adding the race card. It is a verifiable falsehood, says economist Mark Perry at AEI:
based on the false assumption that women are paid 23% less for doing exactly the same work in the exact same occupations and careers, working side-by-side with men on the same job for the same organization, working the same number of hours per week, traveling the same amount of time for work obligations, with the same exact work experience and education, with exactly the same level of productivity.
Equal Pay has been the law since 1966, but the feminists soldier on, trying to open all military combat roles to women. The Marines justifiably object. Former Attorney General Eric Holder invented rights for the transgendered — to protect cross-dressing and transsexualism under federal civil rights laws.
But the feminist drive to eliminate gender is really getting into the weeds with combat roles, and gender dysphoria. They are doing great damage to the gullible. The American College of Pediatricians felt it necessary to come out with a statement that “Gender Ideology Harms Children.” Parents are under pressure to “help their children to transition,” as a grateful woman who had parents with patience wrote in January in the Wall Street Journal: “The Transgender Battle Line: Childhood.” A former transgender wrote yesterday in The Federalist about his alarm at the attempt to redefine gender norms.
So of course the White House had to jump into the controversy with a big promotion on “Breaking Down Gender Stereotypes in Media and Toys so that Our Children Can Explore, Learn, and Dream Without Limit“— urging toymakers, children’s magazines, and organizations like Girl Scouts and Netflix to “raise awareness about gender stereotypes,” once again increasing the focus on something better left alone.
“We’re hosting the conference because we know that the TV, movies, and videos that kids watch, and the toys with which they play, can have a real impact on the skills they develop and their aspirations,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said in a post on the White House blog. “This impact goes beyond child development. This affects the quality of our workforce, and has the potential to affect our economy for decades to come.”
There are all kinds of dysphorias, from anorexia, which has killed some of its victims, to bodily dysphorias which has led its sufferers to cut off limbs, or in the case of one man to change his face to that of a cat with surgery, tattoos and piercings. It is a psychological problem and treatment is at best uncertain. Many, after some time, recover. For those who have had surgery to complete their transformation it is much more difficult if they lose the urge to be the opposite sex. North Carolina has passed a law requiring people to use the bathroom according to the sex they were born with.
Faux outrage, as everybody wants to demonstrate how opposed to ‘discrimination’ they are. Women have had to put up with male predators invading their bathrooms, and see only danger in liberal insistence on changing tradition and good sense.
This is all an outgrowth of the feminist war on gender. There are two genders, male and female. Live with it.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Freedom, History, Law, Media Bias, Politics, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: A Grab For Power, Donald Trump, Philip Hamburger
Are you tired of the circus that the presidential campaign has become? The latest insult from Mr. Trump is food for a thousand articles about the polls and who is up and who is not. Mr. Trump is doing an amazing job of keeping the attention of the media on his every word. Comments on posts are partisan and angry, but the anger is remarkably unfocused. Everyone is furious with “the establishment” but no one seems to know just who “the establishment” is. Presumably it’s the people they elected last time around.
The “establishment” is apparently the people who know their way around Washington, and understand how it works. And they deserve your fury because? There has been a major shift over the past seven-and-a-half years as the two major parties jockey for power. President Obama had a Democrat Congress to work with, and was able to pass all sorts of noxious laws without a single Republican vote. Lots of promises, mostly hooey, and lots of regulations that Republicans would not have put into place. But Democrats were in charge. See the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the sidebar.
The major change has been the arrogation of power to the executive branch. Lawmaking is the task of the Congress, but this president has claimed much of that power for himself, and distributed much administrative power to the various executive agencies. From the Coyote Blog, Mr Meyer said: “This is eye opening:“
In one recent year alone, Congress passed 138 laws—while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules. Federal judges conduct about 95,000 trials a year, but federal agencies conduct nearly 1 million. Put all that together and you have a situation in which one branch of government, the executive, is arrogating to itself the powers of the other two.
he adds: This probably understates the case. Most of the laws were probably brief fixes or extensions or for national _____ day declarations. The administrative rules can be thousands of pages long and create nightmarish compliance issues. Already, most of our businesses compliance efforts (which seem to be rising exponentially in time and cost) are due to administrative rules changes rather than new laws per se.
This is called “Administrative Law. Suddenly, executive agencies are writing the regulations, administering them, enforcing them and conducting trials and issuing fines or penalties to those who do not go along cheerfully. Some agencies even have their own SWAT teams.
America has witnessed a massive shift in government authority, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley—one that “has occurred without a national debate and certainly not a national vote.” That shift has led to the de facto creation of a “fourth branch of government containing legislative, executive and judicial components but relatively little direct public influence.”
Turley made those remarks in recent testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee. His talk waded deeply into the weeds of legal history and precedent, but the upshot was this: By failing to rein in regulatory agencies when they overstep their bounds, the Supreme Court and Congress have allowed those agencies not merely to administer law, but to create it—and run roughshod over the public in the process. …
All of this has happened thanks largely to a 1984 Supreme Court case called Chevron. The Reagan administration chose to relax some air-quality regulations, and the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the decision in court. The Supreme Court sided with the Environmental Protection Agency. It did so for commendable reasons: to avoid turning the courts themselves into policy-making bodies. Rather than decide whether the EPA was right or wrong, the high court deferred to the agency. This is judicial modesty.
Daniel Greenfield said “This is how we move toward a totalitarian state. Incrementally. Step by step. Regulation by regulation implemented by a collectivist bureaucracy for all the “right leftist reasons”. You can’t object. That would be bigoted. Or mean that you have “something to hide”.
That last link notes that the EEOC has released a proposed rule requiring employers to submit employee W-2 earnings and hours worked. All employers with at least 100 employees would be required to comply. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) would jointly have access to the pay data for enforcement purposes. Whoa!
The Republican House voted in February “on legislation to make it more difficult for banking regulators to demand that banks shut down certain business accounts.” The legislation is designed “to target the Obama administration’s ‘Operation Choke Point’ a Justice Department effort to require businesses to stop banks from working with certain businesses. These businesses include lawful firearms dealers, payday lenders, escort services and other companies.”…”While the Justice Department cut off financial services to certain industries, it encouraged banks to provide services to others like illegal marijuana sales.”
We are all too familiar with the overreach of the EPA under administrator Gina McCarthy the agency is embarked on a grab for power. Philip Hamburger had a new book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” in 2014. Powerline chatted with him about the book, which they said is the most important book they had read in a long time.
I think this is perhaps what people are getting at when they are so angry with “the establishment” — that undefined bunch of “insiders.”That’s where the anger should be directed. Administrative Law is unlawful, unconstitutional and illegitimate. This is the power once claimed by English kings, and exactly what our Constitution was carefully designed to prevent.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Education, Intelligence, National Security, News of the Weird, Politics, Pop Culture, The United States | Tags: Crowds on Demand, Pretend Campaign Supporters, Protesters on Demand
This is one of those posts that leaves you scratching your head and wondering if it is real — or just a giant hoax. It sounds authentic, but I’ll leave it to you to decide. It’s about crowd sourcing — as a business. It comes in The California Sunday Magazine, which I guess we will assume is real. I mean these days how can you tell?
The story is about a company called Crowds on Demand. The author signs on as a recruit, doesn’t know what he’ll be doing, really, but it pays $15 an hour. The 24-year-old CEO started the company as a 21 year-old UCLA undergrad after he had volunteered with Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial campaign and found that it could be challenging to attract large crowds to speeches. He believed that there was an opportunity for a service to turn out—well— fake crowds. Plenty of bodies to give the impression of enthusiasm. Once he got started he found there was a demand not only for crowds to support a candidate, but for crowds to protest a candidate.
I just wrote about the increasing unreality as it becomes more and more difficult to discern what is real and what is not. In the age of Photoshop, with skilled artists, it’s impossible to tell. The young CEO is getting very rich, very fast, and drives a silver Tesla.
When people inquire about a potential event, Adam guides them through the possibilities and the approximate costs: $600 for fake paparazzi at a birthday dinner; $3,000 for a flash mob dancing, chanting, and handing out fliers as a PR stunt; $10,000 for a weeklong political demonstration; $25,000 to $50,000 for a prolonged campaign of protests. According to Adam, protests have become the company’s growth sector, and just as with advertising, repeat impressions are key. “When the targets of our actions see that we’re going to be back, day after day, they get really scared,” he says. “We’re in it for the long haul, and the problem’s not going to go away on its own.”
Fascinating article, excellent illustrations, and really quite scary. We are not doing well as a nation at managing the flow from the Information Age. As the information becomes more and more unreal, or more questionable, all the checks and balances are disappearing, and we need to pay more and closer attention — but are we up for it?
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Military, News of the Weird, Progressivism, Syria, The United States | Tags: Knights of Righteousness, President Bashar Assad, Syrian Democratic Forces
The Syrian Civil War fighting has intensified over the past two months, fighting on the plains between Aleppo and the Turkish border, and US. intelligence officers and military planners have little control over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter civil war that is now over 5-years-old.
Now, absurdly, CIA-armed militias are shooting at Pentagon-armed militias as they maneuver through contested territory.
In mid-February, a CIA-armed militia called Fursan al Haq, or Knights of Righteousness, was run out of the town of Marea, about 20 miles north of Aleppo, by Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces moving in from Kurdish-controlled areas to the east.
“Any faction that attacks us, regardless from where it gets its support, we will fight it,” said Maj. Fares Bayoush, a leader of Fursan al Haq.
The attacks come amid continued heavy fighting in Syria and illustrate the difficulty facing U.S. efforts to coordinate among dozens of armed groups that are trying to overthrow the government of President Bashar Assad, fight the Islamic State militant group and battle one another all at the same time.
Filed under: Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Law, Media Bias, Police, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Black Lives Matter, Heather MacDonald, Violent Crime Statistics
If you inquire at Google about unarmed black men being shot by police, you will find that most newspapers in America seem to believe that it is an urgent crisis, young unarmed black men are being shot regularly by white policemen, and racism is sharply on the rise in the country. This piece from the Washington Post, dated August 8, 2015, is dramatic and typical, and remarkably biased.
Let’s examine a few facts. From a study from the American Enterprise Institute: (Do read the whole thing)
If you look beyond recent headlines about race in America, here is a surprising truth: Most black men in America are doing just fine. Most black men are not poor, most black men will not be incarcerated, most black men are gainfully employed, and most black men will marry.
Black men are CEOs of major corporations, Justices on the Supreme Court, Doctors, famous Movie Stars, Lawyers, Professors, Presidents, Inventors, and stars of every major sports team, they are Generals, authors, artists, and I’m pretty sure that most black women are doing just fine as well.
The Washington Post article linked above lists 17 ‘unarmed’ black men shot by police officers in 2015. Yet there were 990 people shot by police in 2015, in most cases armed and threatening. You have to read the numbers carefully, before coming to conclusions.
Here’s Heather MacDonald on the #Black Lives Matter movement, and what they miss about those police shootings, and the Washington Post data on fatal police shootings of civilians. Another article from MacDonald points out that there was a rise in violent crime beginning in the second half of 2014, up 76% in Milwaukee, 60% in St Louis, and 56% in Baltimore, and in most of America’s largest cities. Because of publicity about Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, police officers were backing off from proactive policing in reaction to the hostility they were encountering in urban areas.
Officers had told me about being surrounded by angry, jeering crowds who cursed and threw water bottles and rocks at them when they tried to make an arrest. Suspects and bystanders stuck cell phones in officers’ faces and refused to comply with lawful orders. Officers were continuing to answer 911 calls with alacrity, but in that large area of discretionary policing—getting out of a squad car at 1 a.m., for example, to question someone who appears to have a gun or may be casing a target—many officers were deciding to simply drive on by rather than risk a volatile, potentially career-ending confrontation that they were under no obligation to instigate.
MacDonald called that “the Ferguson Effect,” and noted that applications to police academies were way down. Young men were not convinced that risking their lives daily to protect the American people was worth it if they were also going to face daily assaults and abuse from the people they were trying to protect.
In National Review, David French recalls the time when it was dangerous to walk outside at night, and black leaders called for a crackdown on crime. And he notes the dramatic change in New York City when Rudy Giuliani instituted a program of “broken windows policing” and the cops began to see their jobs as preventing crime rather than just solving crimes. The crime wave broke.
And he turns to an essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic, which sees mass incarceration as consistent with America’s history of slavery and Jim Crow. Coates rejects messages that call for personal responsibility, pays no attention to black voices who cry for safety and justice in their own communities and focuses entirely on white supremacy, plunder and oppression.
To add to the problems of policing, we need to consider the “Butterfield Fallacy.” It is rooted in ideological prejudice. Fox Butterfield was a reporter for the New York Times “whose crime stories served as the archetype for his eponymous fallacy.”
“It has become a comforting story for five straight years, crime has been falling, led by a drop in murder,” Butterfield wrote in 1997. “So why is the number of inmates in prisons and jails around the nation still going up?’ He repeated the trope in 2003: “The nation’s prison population grew 2.6 percent last year, the largest increase since 1999, according to a study by the Justice Department. The jump came despite a small decline in serious crime in 2002.” And in 2004: “The number of inmates in state and federal prisons rose 2.1 percent last year, even as violent crime and property crime fell, according to a study by the Justice Department released yesterday.”
The ‘fallacy’ consists of misidentifying as a paradox, that which is a simple cause-and-effect relationship. When you put more bad guys in prison, crime goes down. This illusion is back in full effect today.
Those on the Left disapprove of sending people to prison because they think it is racially discriminatory. Yet more crimes are committed by black men.
In the upcoming election, Democrats are worried that black Americans who came out so strongly to vote for the first black president, may well not turn out so enthusiastically for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. It may be merely a coincidence that #Black Lives Matter and the activists who turned out to stir up violence and protest in Ferguson and Baltimore were turned out along with Occupy activists to rouse up racial protests on American campuses where many young people will be voting for the first time. And wherever there is an opportunity to rouse up racial animus, #Black Lives Matter is right there. If it is a coincidence, it’s an interesting one.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Health Care, Law, Media Bias, Police, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation | Tags: Carl Hart, Heather MacDonald, President Barack Obama
“In New York City the number of annual murders peaked at 2,245 —a rate of six per day—in 1990, the first year the Democrat David Dinkins was mayor. After Republican Rudolph Giuliani took office in 1994, there were 1,177 murders in 1995 and 770 in 1997. By 2013, however, New Yorkers had only faint memories of walking the streets in constant fear.” That ‘s from William Voegeli’s essay in Commentary magazine from July 1, 2015. “Democrats.” he said, “are gearing up to reverse decades of successful policing.
Voegeli reviews the history of our views on crime and punishment, as the political football it usually is. Hillary Clinton made crime the subject of her first major policy address of her 2016 presidential campaign. She called for creating new approaches that would “end the era of mass incarceration” as well as “working with communities to prevent crime, rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions.”
Heather MacDonald is having none of that. She says America doesn’t have an incarceration problem—it has a crime problem.
President Obama made a press saturated visit to a federal penitentiary in Oklahoma in 2015. “The cell blocks that Obama toured had been evacuated in anticipation of his arrival, but after talking to six carefully prescreened inmates, he drew some conclusions about the path to prison. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made,” the president told the waiting reporters.
The New York Times suggested that there is a fine line between a president and a prisoner. Anyone who had smoked marijuana and tried cocaine could end up in federal prison. Heather MacDonald disagreed.
This conceit was preposterous. It takes a lot more than marijuana or cocaine use to end up in federal prison. But the truth didn’t matter. Obama’s prison tour came in the midst of the biggest delegitimation of law enforcement in recent memory. Activists, politicians, and the media have spent the last year broadcasting a daily message that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks and insanely draconian. The immediate trigger for that movement, known as Black Lives Matter, has been a series of highly publicized deaths of black males at the hands of the police. But the movement also builds on a long-standing discourse from the academic Left about “mass incarceration,” policing, and race.
September 2015, “Black Lives Matter goes to the White House”
The Obama White House rolled out the red carpet this week for leaders of the racist revolutionary Black Lives Matter movement, providing yet more confirmation that the Obama administration supports its members’ increasingly violent activism.
Black Lives Matter is animated not only by anti-white racism but by a hatred of normal American values, including law and order. Its members denounce the U.S. for imagined institutional racism and discrimination against African-Americans. Members idolize convicted, unrepentant cop-killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu Jamal, both of whom are black, and have declared “war” on law enforcement. Its members openly call for police officers to be assassinated.
Yesterday, President Obama commuted the sentences of 61 drug offenders. These were not sentences for selling marijuana, but for dealing in hard and dangerous substances—crack, coke and PCP. The recidivism rate for offenders who commit such crimes exceeds 75 percent within five years, and that’s just the ones who are caught. Drug crimes usually go unreported because customers and dealers don’t report them. This ignores the heroin epidemic that is growing across the nation.
The President claims that the most important thing we can do is reduced the demand for drugs. He has asked for an additional $1 billion for treatment, and drug crimes must be treated as a public health problem, not a criminal problem.
One expert, Columbia University neuropsychopharmacologist Carl Hart explicitly made the case that “drug addiction is a health problem that requires treatment” is exactly the wrong way to look at the use of drugs in the United States.
“Politicians today, whether Republican or Democrat, are comfortable with saying that we don’t want to send people to jail for drugs; we will offer them treatment.” Hart said in Austin. But “the vast majority of people don’t need treatment. We need better public education, and more realistic education. And we’re not getting that.”
Why does he say most people don’t need treatment? Because—contrary to widespread perceptions—the vast majority of drug users aren’t addicts. “When I say drug abuse and drug addiction, I’m thinking of people whose psycho-social functioning is disrupted,” he said later in the talk. But for more than three-quarters of drug users (and we’re not just talking about marijuana here, either), that description doesn’t apply.
This overturns the conventional wisdom on drug addiction, but Hart thinks that’s a good thing. We’ve all been fed a diet of panic-inducing misinformation about what drugs actually do to our brains, he says.
I think #Black Lives Matter, the incarceration “problem, ” the commutation of sentences for drug dealers is all just a case of community organizing to get black Americans to the polls to vote to win an election. Too many “coincidences” and red flags go up.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Education, Freedom, News of the Weird, Politics, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Child Food Programs, Michelle Obama's Lunch Program, US Departent of Agriculture
I don’t know what inspired Michelle Obama to take charge of the school lunch program in America, or what her qualifications are for that position. The kids have responded by uploading pictures of the totally disgusting food on offer in their school cafeterias with the hashtag #thanksmichelleobama. “Mystery mush” is featured frequently. The lunches are a far cry from the lunches the Obama daughters get at tony Sidwell Friends School. Elizabeth Harrington reports in the Free Beacon:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service issued a proposed rule Monday to codify parts of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama.
The regulation would punish schools and state departments with fines for “egregious or persistent disregard” for the lunch rules that imposed sodium and calorie limits and banned white grains.
A West Virginia preschool teacher was threatened with fines for violating the rules by rewarding her students with candy for good behavior in June 2015. The teacher ultimately did not have to pay, but the school had to develop a “corrective action plan” with training on the policies.
The government now seeks to make fines enforceable by regulation. Section 303 of the law requires that the federal government “establish criteria for the imposition of fines” for all the Department of Agriculture’s child food programs.
More than 1,4 million students have left the lunch line since Mrs. Obama’s rules went into effect. There have been constant complaints of small portions and unappetizing fare. Pictures of the food have been circulating on the internet for several years, and from the pictures, I wouldn’t eat the stuff either. The standards have been blamed for cafeteria workers losing their jobs, and reportedly, some kids have resorted to creating black markets for salt to add some flavor to the food.
The government plans to fine schools that fail to comply with the rules, for egregious and persistent disregard for the lunch rules that imposed sodium and calorie limits, and banned white grains.Section 303 of the law requires that the federal government “establish criteria for the imposition of fines” for all the Department of Agriculture’s child food programs. The agency said the fines would amount to 1 percent of the total amount the school was reimbursed for lunches for the first fine. A second fine would be 5 percent of the total cost of the program and a third fine would be for 10 percent. Alabama received $210,937,195 in 2015. One percent would total $2.1 million and ten percent would be $21 million.
The rule will be open for public comment for 60 days once it is officially published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. The more public comment, the merrier. I presume you comment at the Department of Agriculture, according to the link given:
http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-06801, and on FDsys.gov