The StarTribune did the right thing this past weekend.  They condemned Hamline’s aborted offer to have Tom Emmer, the Republican nominee for Minnesota governor in 2010, teach business law classes.  They attacked it on ethical grounds, arguing Hamline promised diverse viewpoints and ideas as part of their mission and denying a conservative a teaching position was wrong.  They also stated it wasn’t fair to Emmer and it was bungled.  The StarTribune gave a nod to the idea “that offering students a broad range of perspectives better
enables them to discern the truth.”  By not offering classroom time to conservatives and Republicans, they are giving their students only half an education, and that is a dereliction of their academic duty.

I’m a 2002 graduate of Hamline University and learned a lot.  During my time there, almost every instructor was far left of center.  But, as a right of center guy, I injected a dynamic into the classroom when I challenged the dogmatic leftist paradigm.  While I may not have been the favorite of all my professors or classmates, I did get a few asides from other students for having the courage of my convictions and bringing the material to life with a different perspective.

This was the entire purpose of diversity in an educational setting; to give many different viewpoints to ideas.  It would give students an array of ways to look at things which gave the ideas a three dimensionality and value in the world.  Simply presenting a one sided argument seriously limits both the ability of the student to process the idea and make it applicable outside the academic exercise.  I was very enriched by liberal, libertarian, socialist, anarchist, Christian thoughts and ideas.  But, immersion in the Neo-Marxist and liberal thought process only gave me half the picture.  It took self-study on my part to get a full view of the world of ideas.

Since I was a non-traditional student and quite comfortable in my own philosophic underpinnings, their ideas intrigued me, but didn’t
change my perspective.  As a student of the truth, I actively sought the other side of the argument and read and listened to other thoughts about things.  I had to get the second half of my education on my own.

Hamline, by reneging on a promise to Emmer, has denied its students the full education I should have had and these students today deserve.  But, I was lucky to have the background in classical liberal thought that gave me a head start.  Not all students are so blessed.

We are seeing students from liberal colleges who don’t have even the most basic understandings of thought on the right side of the
spectrum.  When confronted with ideas about classical liberalism, individual responsibility, the power of capitalism and the inherent corruption in transfer payments from the private sector to the public sector, they are like deer in headlights.  They cannot even understand conservative language, ideals, and ethical contentions.  They weren’t challenged with these ideas and so don’t know how to counter them.

Several things happen when these poorly taught student go out into the world of diverse ideas.  First, when confronted with opposing viewpoints, they are shocked.  They think the ideas are stupid or wrong.  Then, when pressed, they begin to realize the world is intellectually a much, much bigger place than their professors introduced them to.  Finally, they question or they retreat.

If they question, they self-educate and many of them become conservative or at least receptive to these ideas.  They explore the entire world of thought and may even begin to question the foundations of their own education.  Or, it strengthens their own beliefs while
understanding the other side of the debate.  At least then they can argue coherently and purposefully.  These results are the most positive ones.  The other reaction is the growing reality of our political system.

Those who retreat race from anything that challenges their liberal convictions.  They become polarized and ignore any ideas which don’t comport with their indoctrination.  They rail wildly against other perspectives and attempt to shut down thoughts which are at odds with their paradigm.  These unfortunate students then also try to exclude conservatives from the debate.  Since they are ill-prepared to meet the intellectual challenges of opposing viewpoints, they close their ears and minds.

I’m not saying liberal academics don’t introduce any conservative ideas or thoughts in classrooms.  But what they do is present a biased view that excludes the heart and soul of a philosophic debate.  It is the guts of those ideas which are the meat of intellectual exchanges and without an understanding they are ill-equipped in the wider world of thinking.   A committed Neo-Marxist simply cannot understand the basis of capitalism or individualism or traditionalism at its heart.

In fact, we see it all around us.  The Left is frantically trying to press a narrative and philosophy that the rest of the country can see is morally and ethically bankrupt, not to mention isn’t working.  When confronting conservatives they must fall back on smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks, or daily doses of Democratic Party propaganda by their operatives in the media.  Hell, they even have to quickly whitewash the mushrooming scandals like Solyndra, Sun Power, MF Global, a failed stimulus, a failing Obamacare, and a stagnating economy with half-truths and distortions.  Instead of arguing merits, they argue strawmen and conjecture.  There is very little intellectual honesty on the Left and it is because of the half of an education that schools like Hamline provide.

In the meantime, our students are not given the tools to discover intellectual truths and explore the world of ideas because it’s too much work for European socialists like David Schultz to teach.  He just wants to present his little, moldy corner of the world.  Can’t let someone like Emmer show students just how limiting Schultz’s world view really is.  So, they lashed out and Hamline’s president, Linda Hanson caved.

Linda Hanson is a shining example of the intellectual narrowness of academia today.  In a bizarre apologia for their handling of the Emmer situation, Hanson begins citing all the ‘diversity’ Hamline engages in with the public.  However, with few exceptions, her list is just a laundry list of progressive, socialist, Democratic leaning events.  She cites one gun rights advocate as being on the law school’s staff, like he’s a token that proves how ‘diverse’ they are.

This is supposed to burnish their credentials as ‘diverse.’

“Two of our School of Business professors edit the prestigious Journal for Public Affairs Education. One of the top journals of its kind, the publication focuses on public administration, public affairs and government affairs.”

For three consecutive years, Hamline has hosted the Minnesota Economic Association’s annual conference. This year’s topic was on financial inequality and education.

This fall, Hamline School of Law’s Business Law Institute hosted a wide range of scholars, mortgage professionals and lawyers seeking
purposeful conversation around the critical issue of reforming the secondary mortgage market.” ‘Despite Emmer fiasco, Hamline embraces diversity’ by Linda Hanson, December 20, 2011, StarTribune.com

Really.  A public affairs journal that tries to figure out the best ways to have government run our lives, a conference on the artificial construct of class and how to fight an imaginary war on it and finally, reforming a system that would have never been broken had the government not had its fat fingers in the system trying to get people loans that they couldn’t afford.  This is Hanson’s lame-brained idea of intellectual ‘diversity.’  No wonder Hamline only provides half of an education.  The president of the college is half-baked.

Hamline isn’t the only college that simply refuses to embrace academic freedom in its curricula and staff.  However, they are certainly the poster child for why we need academic reform so badly.  If we ever hope to find the best solutions for our worsening problems, it will require people who see the whole world and not just the progressive/socialist/Neo-Marxist slice today’s education system offers.  It will require questioning, discussing, arguing, and passionately speaking truth to power.  Only then will we have a truly informed electorate and not an indoctrinated group of intellectual serfs.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

The eruption of alleged malfeasance by the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder should not be a surprise to anyone.  This man was a deeply flawed candidate for the post and was cheered on by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.  This is not a tale of guilt by association or partisan sniping.  This is a post about the questionable judgment exhibited by Klobuchar during the confirmation process of Holder.  Instead of exercising her constitutional powers to make sure a terrible candidate was closely vetted for a powerful governing post, Klobuchar glossed over Holder’s previous mistakes and issues.  She followed her hyper-partisan instincts and in doing so burdened us with an Attorney General who has corrupted the Department of Justice in order to further progressive/socialist Democratic plans.  She stood on the floor of the Senate and endorsed this disastrous candidate.

From Senator Klobuchar’s website, a February 2, 2009 speech on the Senate floor endorsing the confirmation of Eric Holder for Attorney General.

“He is the right man to lead the department of justice at this critical time. And most importantly, coming from a state that had our own share of problems with a political appointee as U.S. attorney, he is the right man to get the department back on course, to put the law first when it comes to the department of justice.”  Klobuchar is referring to her issues with Bush appointees.  She believed the Republican president had appointed a U.S. Attorney that was too partisan and too controversial.  Klobuchar argued Holder would be a head of the Justice Department that wouldn’t pander to party line and would make decisions based on rule of law as it stands.

That is absurd.  Holder was neck deep in the pardoning of a Democratic Party donor by President Bill Clinton.  Holder’s explanations of his actions are weak sauce, sauce Klobuchar bought because she wanted to and not because they explained his actions.  Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA asked Holder about the political nature of the pardon of Marc Rich and this was Holder’s sworn testimony in the New York Times transcript of the hearing January 16, 2009.

“HOLDER: The mistakes that I made in the Rich matter as I think I said earlier all involved the fact that — a variety of things — among them, I should have been more informed about Marc Rich and his case. I was not.

I should have kept the people who were involved in the prosecution in the Southern District of New York — good lawyers — and people at Main Justice who were involved in the pardon process, I should have kept them involved. I assumed that they were. I found out later that they were not.

With regard to the political stuff and the money going back and forth between, I guess, Rich’s wife or supporters, whatever, that I did not know about. That did not enter into the decision or the actions that I took.”

Of course, it was Holder’s job to ferret out such information, even if one believed he didn’t know about the political donations.  But, as a partisan Democrat, he probably just avoided the issue.  Marc Rich had fled the country, taken up residence overseas, renounced his citizenship, and avoided ending up in prison as a tax cheat.  Klobuchar swallowed Holder’s absurd defense that he didn’t know, wasn’t informed, and should have looked into it.  This is the standard Eric Holder line.  Compare the previous statement with his avoidance of blame in Fast and Furious.

From ABCNews, Jake Tapper reports:

“On October 18, 2010, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer wrote a memo to Holder, noting that among the “SIGNIFICANT UPCOMING EVENTS” would be an October 27 indictment of eight individuals involved with trafficking hundreds of firearms to Mexico. “The sealing will likely last until another investigation, Phoenix-based ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ is ready for takedown,” Breuer wrote.

[. . .]

Issa asked Holder when he first knew about the Fast and Furious program.

Holder replied: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”  ‘Fast and Furious: GOP Says Eric Holder is ‘Either Incompetent’ or ‘Misleading Congress’ – October 4, 2011.

According to Holder, he didn’t know anything, he didn’t read his memos, and he never looked into these reports.  It was as though the Attorney General was just an old duffer scanning the newspaper, sitting in the park feeding pigeons instead of being the chief law enforcement officer in the nation.

Just like with Marc Rich.  But, Klobuchar was copacetic with Holder’s hazy memory, lazy collecting of evidence, and apparent lack of interest in pursuing the facts of any issue.  In fact, Klobuchar excuses Holder’s incompetence or complete lack of ethics with this:

“He explained that one thing was a mistake, that he wouldn’t have made that decision if he had more information. He admitted that, and we were able to question him at length.”  So, Klobuchar states it was just one little teensy mistake to have allowed Rich’s pardon to slip through.  There was more than just one lapse of judgment that should’ve given pause to her.

Senator Grassley questioned Holder about the commuting of sentences for some convicted FALN terrorists.   President Clinton ended up releasing these fine fellows.  Here is the exchange, again from Holder’s confirmation hearing:

“GRASSLEY  “. . . The video shows Cortes and Torres in the process of building a bomb. Were the two terrorists in this video in the group that you asked the pardon attorney to draft a positive recommendation for?

HOLDER: Senator, I can’t answer that question. I don’t have the records in front of me. I don’t know the names of the people who were among that group of 15, I guess.

I don’t know the answer to that.

GRASSLEY: OK. Well, as I said, their names were Edwin Cortes and Alejandria (sic) Torres. At the time you directed the pardon attorney to draft a neutral options memo, had you ever seen this video before?

HOLDER: No. I’ve not seen this video before.

GRASSLEY: Are you weren’t aware that the video existed?

HOLDER: I think I’ve seen it in some news accounts in the recent past, like, over the last week or so, something like that.

GRASSLEY: Were you aware that after this video was taken, a search to the apartment led to the seizure of 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false identification, and thousands of rounds of ammunition?

HOLDER: I can’t say that I’m aware of that specific fact. I did know that the people who were a part of that group, for lack of a better term, had access to, had been captured with explosives. I don’t know the amounts or whether it was in connection with this particular thing.

GRASSLEY: Were you aware that FALN terrorists threatened to kill the judge at their sentencing hearing?

HOLDER: That one I’m not. I’m not aware of that.

Holder doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what he was doing.  He didn’t know any salient facts.  He didn’t know any specifics.  I don’t think I would forget if there were pounds of dynamite and a video of them making bombs but absent-minded Holder is completely at sea about the entire matter.  It’s almost as though he never even worked up the case.  Klobuchar conveniently forgets about this Holder lapse.  Or, she just ties in the Rich pardon in 2001 with the FALN pardons of 1999 as one event.  In either case, she’s lacks serious credibility because this exchange raises serious questions about Holder’s fitness to lead and to faithfully follow the law.  That’s especially when coupled with the Marc Rich fiasco.

Klobuchar, after hearing this testimony about Holder’s inability process even pardon requests says this:

“Eric Holder’s background is, first of all, as a prosecutor in the field. But just as importantly, it’s also as a sound, solid, competent manager who is guided by justice. Someone who will lead quietly but firmly.”  Now if that isn’t evidence of a hyperpartisan apologist, I don’t know what is.  Holder’s deficits when it comes to collecting facts and managing legal matters are glaringly apparent.  But, Klobuchar is even bolder.  She actually argues Holder would not be as partisan as Bush appointees.

“As I mentioned at the beginning, I saw it in my own state when one bad decision made up on high, when the Attorney General was Alberto Gonzales, putting in an inexperienced political appointee into the top spot of a gem of a U.S. attorneys’ office in Minnesota created havoc in our state and that office.”  This blatant attack with purely political motives presages Holder’s own partisan actions leading to the Fast and Furious debacle.

Holder and Obama have repeatedly called for more gun control legislation because of the situation on the Mexican border.  Their Democratic allies in the House have urged more gun restriction legislation and draconian limits on gun sales.  These calls ratcheted up right before the breaking of Fast and Furious.   And now we find this:

From CBSNews, Sharyl Attkinsson reports, December 7, 2011, ‘Documents: ATF used “Fast and Furious” to make the case for gun regulations’

“On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

Attkinsson writes, “ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.”

It appears the entire arrangement was to push the left’s agenda.  But Holder can’t admit to the creation of havoc to give evidence to gun control legislation.  He has to deny, pled ignorance, and generally dissemble as well as he can.

This seems to be a pattern.  He pleads ignorance and that got him past the confirmation hearing with saps like Klobuchar but it no longer is enough.  He should have known, probably did know, and since the killing of a border agent, Brian Terry, hasn’t done anything to fix the situation.  It’s quite obvious this Attorney General is incapable of fulfilling his sworn duties.

Once again from Klobuchar’s speech vouching for Holder.

“We need to put justice and the law at the helm. I support Eric Holder’s nomination to be Attorney General because I believe that Eric Holder can steer this big ship and get it back on course and put justice at the helm.”

As I said at the beginning, this isn’t a case of Klobuchar’s guilt as a fellow Democrat.  This is about her poor judgment.  This is her hyperpartisan belief Democrats can do no wrong.  In spite of crushing evidence apparent at the hearings that Holder wasn’t capable either organizationally or ethically,  Klobuchar supported him.  It’s not merely because she voted for a bad candidate for Attorney General but her partiality was so terrible she stood on the floor of the Senate and praised him.  Now we have hundreds of people dead on both sides of the Mexican-American border, thousands of guns are floating around in criminal circles, and Amy Klobuchar is mute on Holder.

Yet another reason this woman should not be returned to Washington, D.C.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

Nothing exemplifies the history and accomplishments of the Obama administration like the Chevy Volt.  The Chevy Volt was an experimental electric car that was supposed to bring our nation into the future.  The Obama administration was an experiment that would change our economy from a capitalist, free market economy, into a centralized command and control economy planned by the brightest and the best.  The Chevy Volt was the transformation of General Motors from a company that wasted resources into one that would create clean, green jobs and provide a template for the rest of America.  The Obama administration would make the United States the country that made collective socialism work and thereby provide a template for the world on smart economics.

Both are abject failures.

The Chevy Volt had been on the drawing boards at GM when they went belly up.  The Obama administration took over GM and decided to make the Volt their car of the future.  Planners had said it wasn’t ready, but that didn’t stop Obama.  Whether the design was ready or not, it was time to show the world and the rest of America what the progressive/socialist economic planners could do.

The Obama administration decided it would recreate the Clinton economic miracle by retooling the energy sector with ‘green’ energy.  Clinton’s economic miracle was an accident of economy and technology.  Computers became smaller and fast enough to do a lot of good.  Ordinary Americans got computers and businesses refitted with these increasingly faster models with better, more useful programs.  The Internet exploded and we had tons of jobs and new industries created.

The Obama administration wanted to arrange conditions so the new, green technology would affect the same economic miracle.  But, the efficiency and effectiveness of the green solar, wind, and alternative fuels weren’t nearly advanced enough.  Didn’t matter.  Obama and his team began pouring money and mandates into experiment after experiment.  Didn’t work.  These companies are going broke and so goes the rest of the country.  Solyndra, Sun Power, and a bevy of other green energy businesses are failing because the technology isn’t ready.  Just like the Volt.

The Chevy Volt isn’t safe.  After crashes, it can burst into a ball of flames.  The federal government knew this.  GM knew this.  But, regardless of safety issues, they sold them anyway.  They wanted to prove to the world and to Americans just how much smarter they were than the rest of us.  They’d hope these cars didn’t burst into flames.  They hoped nobody would notice they produced a product that was unsafe at any speed.  They even hid the fact it didn’t work, but we figured them out.

The Obama administration and the Democratic Party wanted to reform health care.  They hobbled together a series of ideas to have our health care payment system controlled by the president.  Critics argued this entire mousetrap of bizarre notions and half-baked theories would force business to drop employee insurance plans.  They were also warned that all these mandates  would make insurance costs higher and therefore raise prices for premiums.  The Obama administration put their fingers in their ears and went;  la, la, la, la, la.  We are now watching as people get booted from their insurance at work and costs escalating even more dramatically than they did before.

The Chevy Volt isn’t selling.  They have sold just a few thousand cars even with expensive government subsidies and tax breaks.  Nobody wants the car.  Most people intuitively understand it was a rushed product made for political purposes and probably not a good vehicle.  They also know just because a car runs on electricity, doesn’t mean it’s cheaper.  In fact, it increases electric bills far more than it saves money on gas.  It isn’t a product that works as it should.  It’s just a silly experiment done by sillier government fools.

Obamanomics isn’t selling either.  The bizarre mix of tax cuts here, tax increases there, a subsidy for him, a regulation for her has all made people question the concepts.  How is this supposed to save the economy?  How will paying off teacher unions increase sales?  How is subsidizing a train to nowhere making products cheaper?  Where are the jobs when it seems all we do is cut unemployment checks?    It doesn’t work on a common sense level.  It doesn’t pass the smell test.  It doesn’t even pass the ‘hold my nose, and say a prayer’ test.

Neither the Chevy Volt nor the Obama administration are good bets.  I think that is becoming increasingly obvious.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

We have been promised by Democrats like Minnesota’s U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar that if we just passed a bunch of well-intentioned laws, we would never be robbed by those greedy Wall Street overlords.  It was the mean, vile bankers and investment gurus that were putting our democracy and economy at risk.  If only we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, all our worries would be fixed.  The wise and benevolent federal government would safeguard our money and make all our troubles go away.  In fact, from her website, Klobuchar said this:

“The reckless gambling on Wall Street cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and nest eggs,” Klobuchar said. “Trillions of dollars in wealth were gambled away because of a financial system that lacked the necessary safeguards to protect Main Street. This bill establishes safeguards to protect our economy and will help bring accountability back to our financial system.”

Accountability?  Protect Main Street?  Is that what is happening with Jon Corzine and MF Global and over a billion dollars AWOL?

From a story at the Startribune, October 2, 2011, ‘MF Global woes ripple into heartland,’ Jim Spencer reports, “When MF Global declared bankruptcy, farmers like Magnuson and Dean Tofteland, who raises pigs and grows corn and soybeans in Luverne, Minn., thought they were safe. They had been told their money was held in “segregated” accounts to be invested only in their best interest.”  What actually happened was a Democratic Party former senator and New Jersey governor, Jon Corzine ran a company that moved their money from these discrete accounts into shady European investments to shore up his interests.  While we still don’t know how much money is missing, estimates are now in the 1.2 billion dollar range.

So what is Klobuchar’s reaction to this?  “[Regulators] are still investigating if what [MF Global] did was illegal,” Klobuchar said in an interview after the hearing. “And it may well have been illegal. We don’t know that yet. But what we know is that the law is inadequate when it comes to disclosing transactions like they made … it is possible that they were able under existing law to hide those risky transactions.”

Inadequate?  How can that be?  We passed the massively intrusive Dodd-Frank financial reform bill over a year ago.  According to Klobuchar’s own words, this law was supposed to provide accountability should something nefarious occur with Main Street money.  One would be hard-pressed to find a more Main Street group of people than farmers.  So why isn’t Jon Corzine, who managed to lead the state of New Jersey and MF Global into financial ruin, in jail?  What happened?

“The Senate hearing Thursday showed how difficult it would be to answer such questions. MF Global was allowed to invest in bonds of foreign countries and lend money from one part of the company to another. Federal regulations did not require the risky loans to be recorded on MF Global’s balance sheet. Klobuchar called the rules, put in place in 2000 and 2005, ‘part of this Wall Street expansion where basically Wall Street gets to go down the street in their Ferraris and the government’s falling behind in a Model-T Ford.”

Let’s take Klobuchar’s statement apart.  First, Klobuchar calls this theft a skirting of the ‘rules.’  Are we playing Candyland?  Did Corzine jump a square and go up a level in Chutes and Ladders?  We are talking about theft and misappropriation of funds.  The money didn’t just get tired and wander over into a European investment.  The fact it didn’t get reported on a balance sheet in the right column isn’t the issue.  The money was taken from an account that was supposed to be guarded and used as Monopoly money in foreign investments.  Who cares if it was or wasn’t reported?  The most vital part is the money was used by Corzine and his lackeys to shore up their other accounts.

Second, even if rules were put in place in 2000 and 2005 (which I don’t believe) Dodd-Frank was supposed to stop any of this.  Klobuchar proudly proclaimed she “fought for comprehensive reform in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This bill contains a number of provisions designed to protect consumers and restore transparency. Those measures include efforts to monitor and address systemic risk, increase accountability at financial firms, and reform the complex derivatives markets.”  Once again, this is from her website in the Issues/Legislation tab as of December 3, 2011.  The idiotic rules put in place previously should have been washed away with her bright shiny new law.  Yet, here we are with Main Street robbed and Jon Corzine free as a bird.

If the federal government is “falling behind in a Model-T Ford,” it’s because Klobuchar put that in place.  But, she didn’t give us a Model-T Ford.  She gave us a Chevy Volt that is now bursting into flames because someone set a cup of coffee on the hood.  Klobuchar was one of the senators making Dodd-Frank’s financial strangulation possible.  She owns this law and its failure.  It is because of stupid laws like this that provide lanes and paths and reports and byzantine rules and committees of oversight that give plausible deniability to people like the corrupt Corzine.  Corzine will throw his accountants and clerks under that bus because they put the wrong number in the wrong column and he will stroll off scot free.

Klobuchar is already laying the groundwork for getting Corzine a pass.  It wasn’t Corzine’s criminally fraudulent theft of segregated funds that caused these people to lose their money.  It was the system, a system she helped put into place.  “I don’t have a scandal meter,” she said. “I just think it’s another example of why we just can’t let these financial firms run roughshod over people on Main Street or people who are doing nothing but growing crops or raising pigs. They should not have to know every in and out of the regulatory system to protect their money.”

No, Ms. Klobuchar.  It was your system that gave people like Corzine a path out of the swamp of idiotic regulations and red tape.  We don’t need someone like you passing random laws and promulgating committees and rules, we need actual accountability like sending Corzine to jail so other investment types think twice before robbing farmers to support their risky schemes.  But, Klobuchar won’t do that.  She will make sure all the heat is on someone else because Corzine is her buddy and her fellow Democrat.  And her campaign donor.

From Newjersey.com, May 7, 2011, ‘Corzine still a big political spender,’ Herb Jackson writes:

“Corzine, who shares his time between the New York apartment and his home in Hoboken, is no stranger to big money in politics. He had used his position as chairman of Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs to become one of the nation’s biggest “soft money” contributors to Washington Democrats when his name first began circulating in 1999 as a possible Senate candidate.”

Corzine is a big bundler of campaign cash for Obama.  He also has given generously to Senate campaigns outside Washington and in his home state of New Jersey.  According to the side bar to this story, “Most of the recipients of $111,500 in contributions from former Gov. Jon Corzine and his relatives since he lost the 2009 election were national committees or U.S. Senate candidates in other states.”  This includes $1,000 to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN.  He has also provided ample funds to the DNC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which also support Klobuchar’s reelection bid.

Given the amount of money Corzine has funneled to the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party, it will not be surprising to see Klobuchar and her Democratic colleagues in the Senate give Corzine the benefit of the doubt.  The emphasis going forward will be on the loopholes in the law and not Corzine’s accountability.  But, given Klobuchar’s participation in that law, it should be her on trial as well.

No doubt, this accidental journalism by the Startribune in the farmer story will be squelched in the future.  Klobuchar will be quoted as seriously questioning and carefully examining the problems with the law.  But, this is her baby.  She bought this ridiculous farce that Dodd-Frank “establishes safeguards to protect our economy and will help bring accountability back to our financial system.”  There are no safeguards for Main Street.  There will be no accountability as long as the Democratic Party donors are involved.  Jon Corzine will not see the inside of a jail if Klobuchar has her way.  He will be dismissed as an incompetent but innocent while others take his rightful place.  He’ll just write another check, and it will all go away, courtesy of Klobuchar and her comrades.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

The current bugaboo invented by the progressive/socialist Left, is on the subject of economic class in this country.  They are ginning up a kind of class envy that is supposed to divide us by income and/or wealth.  Several problems arise with this tactic.  There is no economic class in this country because there is just too much socio-economic mobility.  This subject divides people into distinctions that are artificial and arbitrary. Finally, the distinctions made are simply loaded with popular culture narratives that bear no resemblance to actual events in the world.  This entire issue is rife with strange memes, cultural inventions, and outright misrepresentations of the facts and should be tossed into the dustbin of history.

From a dialogue I’ve been having with a candidate for my local state representative seat in the legislature:

“In the interest of continuing this dialogue I have two questions for you. One is historic and the other is completely subjective. What do you believe is the cause of increasing income inequality in America since the 1980s? Do you think there is anything wrong with some people having significantly more than enough material resources and some people having significantly less than enough material resources?”

To address these questions, I must carefully navigate the loaded assumptions within it.  His first question presumes, a) there is income inequality in America. b) this income inequality is stratifying c) it is getting worse d) it is getting worse since Reagan, since that is the implied time frame.

His second question is also loaded with moral imperatives.  It suggests that material resource allocation is something that should become part of the political dialogue.  Second, it qualifies the idea that having more resources is better than having less.  It is equally as loaded, though less obviously so.

To take the first question, we must dig into the idea of class as historically understood.  Class and caste are concepts entirely driven by government enforcement of a socio-economic stratum.  When a group conquered a group of people, let’s take England as an example, the conquerors would reward their kin and brethren with offices.  These offices were powerful and rich by force of law making a small group dominant economically.  When we read the story of Robin Hood, it must be remembered when he robbed from the rich, he was robbing the government.  When he gave to the poor, he was giving to the productive class.  The economy was controlled by the ruling class through taxes and monopolies.

In North America, those offices weren’t powerful.  Labor could just leave and carve out a new existence.  As a result, we forged an entirely different dynamic. Businesses could open with a minimum amount of material resources and the new businesses could challenge and overtake old ones.  There was a churning effect to socio-economic class.  It was almost impossible to find stable classes in America except in the South.

In the South, slavery caused a specific kind of class stratum.  This institution was a governmentally enforced class.  Without the active engagement of the Democratic Party, slavery would not have existed.  After the fall of the Confederacy, the slave stratum became the black servitude of Jim Crow, once again enforced by law by the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party and progressive movements believed they could pick and choose the winners and losers in the game of life.  They became entwined in FDR’s administration and collectivism was born.

Pres. Andrew Jackson started the idea that “to the winner belong the spoils,” giving the Democratic Party ideal of rewarding their identity groups with material resources collected from the general population and funneled to their supporters.  Progressives believed they could morally arbitrate achievement through experiments in the population and build a ‘better’ society.  Roosevelt drew these two ideas together and forged a consensus.

However, the truth on the ground wasn’t quite so simple.  While government distributed resources and progressives experimented with the population, the socio-economic strata they envisioned eluded their grasp.  Poor people became rich.  The rich bet on the wrong horse and lost both material resources and power.  The so-called economic classes never really emerged like in Europe and the former European colonies.  That’s because the United States people wouldn’t enforce the social and economic servitude as inherited by other nations.

Even today, there is scant evidence that economic classes exist in a stratified way.  When young, people have fewer resources and less experience.  As they begin to accumulate material resources and skills, they gain more income.  There are also people who start businesses and that require accumulation of capital and utilization of labor.  Since running a business requires resources to provide the tools to produce, the people who own them have more resources than labor.  Labor, needing only the knowledge in their heads and the ability of their bodies to use that knowledge, has fewer resources.  They may save and invest that money in other businesses, but they are not taking nearly the risk.  Therefore, the rewards aren’t as big as with those who own the business.  Labor can diversify their risk and this makes it more stable and therefore less productive.

When I was in college a few years ago, one of my political science professors remarked on wealth disparity by noting 20% of the population owned 80% of the wealth.  I shocked him by saying that makes a lot of sense.  Since large amounts of capital accumulation are necessary to provide the tools to create products, it seems quite reasonable that one in five people control most of the capital.  That number actually shows that America is still a country controlled by small businesses, and not large corporations.  If the income disparity were more like 1% owning 99% of the material resources, the OccupyThisandThat movement would make sense.  But it doesn’t.   Our wealth is distributed toward making products and selling them as a market economy should.

So, to answer the questions posed to me, I will answer as history informs me.  If there is any growth in disparity of income since the 1980’s, it will have occurred due to an expansion of the government sector gathering more from the middle and lower income groups and giving it to their allies.  The more government spends, the more it must collect.  This process benefits those politically connected and takes from the productive sector.  Even redistribution of resources to poorer groups only augments the rich more quickly.  Since the poor are more likely to simply buy things and not to invest or save, they contribute more to larger businesses with a larger economy of scale.  Meanwhile, larger businesses can also use that economy of scale to spread the cost of additional government cost to the masses while smaller businesses become less efficient due to the increased tax and regulatory costs.

Government experiments actually exacerbate income and wealth distinctions.  They don’t stop them.  The real problem is the size, scope, and moral danger of a large centralized government intent on picking the winners and losers.

As an answer to the second question, I believe it is answered by the necessary capitalization of a business.  Since creating products involve the accumulation of more material resources than the labor used to produce it, there will be a disparity.  This disparity will exist independent of governmental controls or experiments.  Even if government itself takes ownership of the means of production, the control of those means will still be in the hands of a small group.  That small group will enrich themselves and their own while distributing less to others.  At least a free market allows this disparity to be fluid and flow to the more efficient evening the scales while creating more wealth in the process.  Creation of more material wealth will help even the poorest among us.  It allows them to live a life of some comfort, dignity and safety.

The Churning of the Free Market

The dirty little secret is, small business is more threatened by big government than big business is.  Big business, on the other hand, is more threatened by small business.  Small businesses can take risks, respond more quickly to market needs, and operate on thinner margins for a time.  Big businesses need government redistribution to fend off small business threats to their market share.  If government is neutered, the natural churn of socio-economic strata will equalize incomes and wealth.  Big businesses will fail and small businesses will grow.  Investors in one will become poorer, while investors in the other will get rich.

Here’s another dirty little secret, the largest richest businesses now were once small businesses.  Also, most of the largest and richest businesses in the past no longer exist.  They were upstaged and replaced by smaller more efficient entities.  We need only look to the recent past to see the truth in this.

In the early 1980’s, Sears was the biggest retail company in the world.  It dominated the retail market and was able to utilize its size to demand the lowest costs and the highest returns.  But, it is no longer even in the top ten.  Sears, as of last year, is the twentieth largest retailer in the world.  Walmart, a company that was only started in 1962 and publicly traded first in 1970, is now the world’s largest retailer.  It was a mere blip on the radar screen when Sears dominated the market.

In 2000, the biggest, most powerful Internet company was America Online, AOL.  It was so big, and so ubiquitous, it merged with the venerable Time Warner but AOL shareholders retained a 55% control over the newly created entity.  AOL is now a bit player that isn’t even considered in the top ten.  It was unable to use its market share and capitalization to keep up with the market changes.  AOL is another poster child of the churning power of the free market.

The free market works to even out the excesses if allowed to do its job.  But, when we step into the process and create monopolies, virtual monopolies, excessive taxation, burdensome regulation, and bail out certain entities or sectors, we pervert the process.

Why Centralized Control Never Works

Let’s juxtapose this example of the free market working with the biggest boondoggle in American history, the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the forced sales of bad loans throughout the globe.

In her excellent book documenting this fiasco and the ensuing economic firestorm, Gretchen Morgenson documents the government forcing mortgage companies and banks through these GSE to market mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them.  The government policy starting with Carter and integrated more fully through Clinton, threatened mortgage businesses with legal action if they didn’t sell more loans to lower income people.  Morgenson’s book, “Reckless Endangerment” painstakingly details the process which inflated the real estate market through artificial home sales using loans that the market would have never sold without this interference.  Ranking members of Congress like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, repeated threatened legal action against mortgage lenders if they didn’t engage in this economically dangerous behavior.

But, there’s more.  We are now watching in real time as progressive experiments in so-called Green Energy initiatives enrich political allies of the Democratic Party.  GE, using government tax credits, made a fortune on products that were made necessary by government interference in the market.  Solyndra, among others, took government loan guarantees and wasted the money.  The entire “Green Bubble” is about to burst as inefficient ways to produce energy become economically insolvent.  These are political not economic experiments.  The money flowing to these sectors is because a certain segment of the population believes enriching the experiment will be a greater good.  However, it isn’t working because instead of making economic bets, the bets are entirely political, benefiting cronies instead of efficiencies.

In order to keep our society as classless as it is, we need the free market to continue its unerring march toward greater efficiencies and effectiveness.  It is exactly the opposite approach which will lead to a stratified society with set socio-economic classes that can pass political power down to its own.  Or, as Thomas Sowell succinctly remarks in his article, ‘Liberal and Class: Part II,’

“So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions.”

It is the universal centralization of economic power by the government which will make class stratification a reality.  It is not the free market capitalism which creates these groups.  We cannot let them have this enormous taking of our economic freedom.  It will be serfdom for us all.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

When Jimmy Fallon’s little band played the beginning of the song, “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” from Fishbone as an overture to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann’s  entry on the stage, it was an intentional act to shame her.  The Roots, Fallon’s show band, has routinely played songs as a kind of commentary on the guest’s perceived moral or personal fitness.  It was all in good fun to insult pop stars or reality show wannabe’s.  However, when it’s used as a sub lingua commentary on a presidential candidate and sitting member of Congress, there is more to it.  There is a rising attitude in this country which suggests if a conservative is a black person, a woman, a gay person, or some other ‘minority’ group, it is open season on them.  The Hollyweird Left believes it can demean, belittle, and smear a conservative with impunity.  However, it is time to hold the Left’s feet to the fire and hold them to the same standards they demand of us.

Were Jimmy Fallon and his band of misfit tools misogynistic to Michele Bachmann?

Historian and feminist Cheris Kramarae coined the phrase that “feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.”  This idea that women are not extensions of men or accessories, but complete individuals with their own thoughts, experiences and feelings arose out of the existential feminist theories of the 1960’s.

“A myth invented by men to confine women to their oppressed` state. For women it is not a question of asserting themselves as women, but of becoming full-scale human beings.”  Simone de Beauvoir from ‘Second Sex.’  These ideas drove the establishment of a kind of moral measuring stick for behavior toward women.  If a man disrespected or dismissed a woman’s right to assert her own prerogatives, it was deemed sexist, chauvinistic, and by logical extension, misogynistic.  If a man didn’t accept women’s inherent right to having human reactions that differed with a male perspective, he necessarily ‘hated’ women.  This is the club that has been used against conservatives for the past forty years.  Since conservatives were predominantly male and therefore fundamentally their viewpoint was masculine, it followed that misogyny against women was a given.  But what about liberal men?

So, let’s set the scene.  Michele Bachmann is asked to appear on Fallon’s show.  As she walks onto the stage, unbeknownst to her, the band plays the beginning of a song, “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.”  She greets Fallon who asks questions and jokes with her.  He never really challenges her views about things.  He never confronts her on the truth of her statements.  Fallon just uses Bachmann as a prop meanwhile grinning like an idiot over the joke they just played on her.

First, Fallon’s band played the song referring to Bachmann as a ‘bitch.’  As we know from feminist theory, calling a woman a ‘bitch’ is simply a way for men to diminish her moral authority about an idea.  While men would be commended for being assertive, novel, and strong-willed.  Women are routinely demeaned for the same qualities summed up in a hateful suggestion she’s just a female dog in heat.

Next, Fallon never respected Bachmann enough to confront her on her ideas and allow her to defend herself.  His use of the song without her knowing was as a juvenile.  But, instead of letting her respond, he robbed Bachmann of her individual humanity and turned her into his own shared private joke with the audience.  She wasn’t treated as a full member of the human race, but as his own little prop.

Finally, instead of soberly realizing he was at fault.  Fallon continued with his dehumanizing jocularity.  He wrote on Twitter that ‘Questlove is grounded.’  This has the continued effect of pouring salt and lemon juice on the wound by pretending a mere woman, especially a conservative one, isn’t as important or completely human as his very male employee.

Let’s consider the reaction if the shoe were on the other foot.  Let’s say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was invited on Bill O’Reilly’s show.  O’Reilly had his minions play “Fat Bottomed Girls” as Clinton was being introduced, without her knowing.  He then peppered her with some easy questions, smirking like a pimply sophomore boy in high school.

Can you imagine the enraged reaction the feminist community would have?  Can you hear the shrieks and feel the fury of the Left.  The lame-brained media would have an on-air conniption.  Tingles Matthews would bust a blood vessel.  There would be calls for O’Reilly to be lynched by Democratic congressmen.  Gloria Allred would run for the nearest soapbox.  The cacophony would be deafening and it would be noted O’Reilly did this because Clinton was a woman.  He did it because he wanted to demean her and belittle her.

I ask you, is what Jimmy Fallon did any different?  Why isn’t the outcry just as thunderous?  Where are the accusations of his misogyny?  I’ll tell you, because misogyny can only occur on the right.  On the Left, it’s called community organizing.  But, the principles remain the same.  Time to apply them equally.

We don’t have to hold them to our standards.  We can hold them to their own.

And watch their feet burn.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

“There are few things more precious in a democracy than the public’s trust in our government and our leaders,” Klobuchar said. “The people of Minnesota have put their trust in me. In everything I do as Senator, I will be guided by that trust. I’m coming to do the people’s work.” Sen Amy Klobuchar at her swearing in ceremony upon becoming a Senator representing Minnesota on January 4, 2007, as reported on her website.

On that day, our national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04.  Klobuchar was joining a new Democratic majority in the Senate.  President George W. Bush was still in the White House.  The Democratic Party had taken control of both houses of Congress.  There were promises going around the nation about new priorities, overspending by Republicans, and misallocation of funds.  Klobuchar promised to be a watchdog of tax payer dollars that would more responsibly budget money and make our nation more fiscally secure.

From a floor speech on September 26, 2007, “I think you and I both know, Mr. President, having spent the last two years going around our states, that people are yearning for more public accountability from our government.”  Here is the express promise from Klobuchar that she is on the side of fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Advocating for such a position, she is clearly holding herself and others to a standard of being careful with our money.

“When people are given unlimited contracts, no-bid contracts, I think you can expect excess. I come from a prosecutor background. We know when people are given leeway — and maybe even when they have the best intentions — the people on charge, on the ground, it leads to fraud and the government is on the short end of the stick.”  Klobuchar is saying how Congress must take care in government contracts and promises in its role as controller of the purse strings.  She is making the argument that government spending can get out of control if not closely watched and the treasury guarded.

On February 4, 2008, Klobuchar blasted President Bush with this statement, again from the floor of the Senate. “The President’s budget continues a familiar pattern of misplaced priorities and continues a seven-year pattern of fiscal irresponsibility, borrowing money and then leaving an ever-larger debt to our children. In just seven years this administration took a budget surplus of $158 billion and turned it into what will soon be a budget deficit, something like $300 billion, $400 billion. It is quite an accomplishment.”  Klobuchar is bemoaning a change of about $400 to $500 billion in seven years while at war with Al Quaeda and in Iraq.  She is quite right that such an explosion of deficits is irresponsible and cannot be sustained.  These are moneys that are passed forward to future generations to pay.

Fast forward, hundreds of votes and trillions of dollars spent and where are we.  Klobuchar arguing for raising the debt limit, from the floor of the Senate, July 29, 2011 “While I believe that we have reached a defining moment as a country which should not be wasted, we need to reduce our debt, we also can’t afford to play Russian roulette with our economy by toying with the debt limit. We’ve had months to work this out, yet less than six days from a possible default that would plunge this country into a serious crisis, here we stand in opposite corners of the boxing ring.”  Klobuchar has been in office four and a half years.  She is mouthing the words of budget responsibility and savings.  She has pretended to be fiscally careful and called on Congress eliminate waste.  But, what are the results of her actions in the Senate?

The national debt on November 17, 2011 is $15,039,350,324,589.25.  Since entering the Senate and promising fiscal responsibility, Klobuchar has voted for budget increases that have busted our debt almost $6 and a half TRILLION dollars.  Klobuchar has voted repeatedly for more and bigger budgets.  Program after social program have been enacted.  She voted for Obamacare, a program that promises to explode the federal and state budgets further.  She has voted to add bureaucracy after bureaucracy to our government.

It is popular today to call people 1%ers or 99%ers or 53%ers or whatever.  Therefore, after calculating the debt that Klobuchar has created, we can determine a new moniker for her.  Klobuchar is a 43%er.   She had been an active part of the Washington establishment that has increased our public debt over 43% in the past four and a half years.

Can we afford to trust such a person?

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

Well, we are seeing the fruit from the poisonous tree of progressive/socialism and it isn’t pretty.  Coming out of Portland’s KMTR.com, ‘I-5 traffic stop yields incendiary devices and gas masks,’ a story about three Occupy Portland protestors shows these people are growing more incendiary.  In a routine traffic stop for speeding, three young men were found with fireworks, glass jars, and masks and goggles.  This isn’t terribly surprising as we have more and more reports of Occupiers attacking police with weapons.  What is getting a bit frightful are the reactions people are having to this escalation of preparation for violence.  One such commenter on the website basically pooh-poohed these men’s actions.  The reactions of his friends on Facebook were even more dangerously naive.

A police officer stopped a gray Suburu Outback going 81 miles an hour on Interstate 5.  Here’s what the officer found:

“The driver of the car was identified as William Maxwell Patterson, 21.  The passengers in the car were identified as Emery Nicholas Luff, 21 and Zachary Salzwedel-Kemp, 20.  All three were from Klamath Falls.

During his initial contact with Patterson, Deputy Postlewait detected the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the car.  A search of the car yielded a baggie of marijuana and paraphernalia for smoking marijuana.

In addition to the marijuana, Postlewait found a quantity of firecrackers and two commercially manufactured mortars like those fired into the air during professional pyrotechnic displays.  The mortars were contained in glass “Ball” canning jars.  One was found on the floorboard at Luff’s feet; the other was in a jacket belonging to Luff.  Also found in the car were two gas masks, some protective eye goggles, and safety helmet.

All three suspects said that they had spent the night at the Occupy Portland demonstration.  They admitted that they brought the seized items to the demonstration in preparation for a confrontation with police when they expected to be forcibly removed from the park.  They admitted being at the protest during the police confrontation and had left about an hour before Postelwait stopped them.”

As mentioned, we must ready ourselves for more violence surrounding these protests.  However, what concerned me most were the reactions in the comments section of this story.  A character named Dentfixer wrote this:

“Those are NOT gas masks. Those are paint fume respirators. The white/gray one is a 3m brand used by automotive painters. Calling them “gas masks” when in fact they are NOT is just to gain more hype on this story. Gas masks cover your eyes as well to keep the effects of tear gas out of your eyes.”  Now, I’m no automotive restorer, but I don’t believe fireworks are usually used in painting cars.  Nor are Ball mason jars with fireworks in them used to remove rust.  In addition, this genius misunderstands the idea of a ‘gas mask.’  He is under the impression that paint fume respirators aren’t gas masks.  Of course, any liquid suspended in air is a gas.  A large portion of the air around us is in fact water vapor.  Paint in a mist is essentially a gas.   These masks are intended to protect the wearer from tear gas or pepper spray, both liquids suspended in air.

He also posted this little gem.  “”Commercial grade mortars” are about 10X that size. Yes those are in fact illegal, but they are NOT commercial grade mortars. It’s like calling a BB gun an assault riffle. [sic]“  First he says they aren’t commercial grade, and then concedes they are in fact illegal without a commercial grade license.  You can’t have it both ways.  Furthermore, he completely ignores the mason jars which had mortars in them making them weapons that can maim and even kill.  That turns this into a weapon of serious proportions.  The Times Square bomber had loaded up his vehicle with commercial fertilizer, but it wasn’t his intent to feed his garden with it.  He was using it to kill people.

I’m not arguing that some moron in a comment section reflects the sentiment of an entire community.  But, when we go to the pictures on Facebook, the comments there contribute to an overall sense that these wanna-be terrorists are nothing more than a couple of kids throwing firecrackers into a lake.  Here is the link:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=275621662481359&l=4ea93fa088

“They act like they caught the unabomber instead of the three stoned Stooges.” Mr. Michael Weber opines.  One sensible commenter pointed out this could cause a riot and could get ugly. (Do you think?)  While another brain surgeon says this. “yea that was the top story of the news last night… and thats what i said why are they acting like this is a big deal. they are some kids that are stoned thinking they are being funny… teach them a lesson and move on…”

Well, when Tea Party protestor wore tricorn hats and had signs that said insulting things, people like these were outraged.  But, three imbeciles with fireworks, a jar intended to shatter and become shrapnel, and masks and goggles to defy the police is no big deal.  Just some kids from the neighborhood getting a little baked and trying to maim or kill people.  That’s all.  Nothing much here.

For those who wonder if this isn’t an overreaction to the event, here is the rest of the police report’s findings.

“The subjects were questioned further about the explosives. Each of them said that they knew the “Ball” canning jar would explode and cause glass shrapnel to fly out and possibly cause injury to anyone close to it.

Salzwedel-Kemp and Patterson described an incident that occurred when they were younger.  They put a homemade “Piccolo Pete” explosive inside a beer bottle and detonated it. The resulting explosion caused a shard of glass to fly into Salswedel; lacerating his leg so badly that he required stitches to close the wound.”  These are not just rebellious teens out to do something stupid.  These are premeditated terrorists who just didn’t get a chance to use their weapons.  Since they had actually experienced the danger to limb the homemade implement could cause, they cannot possibly be considered innocents.  They assembled and brought these things to the protest camp for the express purpose of hurting others, whether they were police or bystanders or other protestors.  Apparently these three amigos didn’t care.

Unfortunately, it appears some of their compatriots on Facebook concur.  Without serious intervention, I fear this will get uglier and uglier.  I’m just not sure our leaders and our fellow Americans may be up to it.  This isn’t a mere ‘acting out’ anymore.  This is becoming deadly serious.

Crossposted on Looktruenorth.coom

Washing across the country is a maelstrom of progressive/socialist voter identification outrage.  Mean old Republicans are trying to disenfranchise little old ladies in Tennessee.  Dorothy Cooper, who is described as a 96 year-old woman who has voted for decades, was recently denied a voter identification card.  Lori Sturdevant of the StarTribune highlighted this tragic tale of voter disenfranchisement in an article entitled, ‘A good target for the League of Women Voters,’  November 12, 2011. This has become a cause celebre amongst far Left activists throughout the nation.  Tennessee, among other states, passed laws requiring voter identification and now the entire voting system will be corrupted, destroyed, and our Democratic Republic will lie in ruins.   We mustn’t let these vile conservatives and moderates get their way and require proof of who you are. Or so the story goes.

Sturdevant begins her narrative with a history of the purpose of the League of Women Voters and the tragedy of women only getting the vote a little over ninety years ago.  She writes of the quiet work of the League and the desperate need to make sure voting rights are never abridged, by anything.  She then launches her attack on a common sense solution to voting irregularities, the requirement of a photo ID to vote.

Sturdevant quotes a couple of officials from the state chapter and national Leagues as saying:

“This sets up a barrier for a lot of folks who have never had a need for a drivers’ license or ID card in any other aspect of their lives, and now would be told they need one to exercise the most fundamental constitutional right that they have,” MacNamara said.”

I don’t know who these people could be.  It would strain the imagination to think of how you can bank, cash a check, buy a bottle of wine, get welfare, social security, a job, or use some form of credit without having a photo ID.  Such fantasies still entertain the Leftist brain though.   They’ve been searching for a case study of voter disenfranchisement to prove their imaginary point.  It seems they have found such a person who was cruelly, unjustly prevented from exercising her right to vote.

Sturdevant writes, “Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old woman from Chattanooga, Tenn., has become an anti-ID national poster grandma for twice being denied her state’s newly required ID card — even though she had voted in every election but one for more than 70 years.”  Well, this is outrageous.  So, this woman has voted in virtually every election for the past seven decades and now she is being denied her right to vote because of the vicious, maniacal, capricious standard of proving identity as envisioned by a vast rightwing conspiracy in Tennessee.

Of course, the facts on the ground are not quite how Ms. Sturdevant presents them.

As the story begins, Dorothy Cooper went to get a voter ID.  “In a manila envelope she brought a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate. But none of that was enough. A Safety Department bureaucrat turned her away because her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander, was typewritten on the birth certificate, and she didn’t have a marriage license to prove her name now is Cooper.”  ‘Dorothy Cooper incident in Chattanooga highlights parties’ split regarding photo ID law,’ by Jeff Woods, The City Paper, October 23, 2011.  This certainly doesn’t look good.  If we can’t prove our identity, then getting a voter ID does become problematic.  However, the story doesn’t end with this.  There’s much more.

On October 20, 2011, Ms. Cooper did receive her voter ID.  The process was mangled and a Tennessee official said this;

“Bill Gibbons, the commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security, admitted the clerk who rejected Mrs. Cooper made a mistake and should have given her the ID. Assistant commissioners directly under Gibbons reached out to Mrs. Cooper to make matters right. “I’ve said before and I’ll say again today that I don’t think that particular incident was handled the way it should have been,” Gibbons said. “I think we should have exercised some commonsense discretion and issued the photo ID to Mrs. Cooper, because I think it was fairly obvious that she was who she said she was.”

Imagine, a government agency bungling a straight forward situation.  These knuckleheads are representative of the exact same system Democrats are dreaming and hoping Obamacare will create.  Instead of not getting her voter ID, Ms. Cooper will not get her pills or surgery or therapy under a bureaucratic system of indifferent public servants playing cover-your-butt.  But, I digress.

So Cooper did get her voter ID.  After the bureaucratic snafu, the ‘disenfranchised’ voter was suddenly made an enfranchised voter.  Did this prevent her from voting?  Nope.  She plans on voting in March.  Did this affect her in such a way as to traumatize her frail condition?  Let’s see.

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Ansley Haman writes, “Before Thursday, the Safety Department offered to help Cooper get a free ID, but she declined, telling them she’d decided to vote absentee. She said she later changed her mind, and Kilpatrick again offered a ride to the center.  ‘I wanted my ID with a picture on it,” Cooper said. “So many places I go ask me for it.” ‘96-year-old Dorothy Cooper finally gets ID to vote,’ October 21, 2011.

So, Cooper first decided to just vote absentee, which is allowed under Tennessee law for anyone over the age of 65.  Rather than go through the bureaucratic nightmare, which is the Democratic Party’s proud ‘middle class,’ she would have just voted some another way.  But, after giving it some thought, Cooper decided to go and get her photo ID.  Why?  “So many places I go ask me for it.”

But, I thought no one asked for ID except at the voting booth.  We have been told that women like Cooper can’t or won’t get ID’s, don’t need them, and this terrible inconvenience will prevent them from going to the polls.  We are led to believe that standing in line at a government office and being forced to return with the correct paperwork is a tragic disenfranchisement of voters.  Yet, we now know that Ms. Cooper decided she might as well get the photo ID because it would give her proof of identity in “so many places.”

Yet, this tale is being pressed upon us as proof of conservative voter suppression.  It seems to me it was just a tale of a voter getting a photo ID.  In the end she decided the photo ID was a good thing.  All’s well that ends well.

Of course, that’s not how the Left characterizes it.  This is why it’s important to look into the full story and not trust the twisted narratives of people like Ms. Sturdevant.  They make up fairy tales and then pretend they’re based in fact.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

This past week provided both challenges and successes electorally.  No ballot failure was quite as stinging as the passage of a referendum repealing the Republican union restriction law in Ohio.  Gov. John Kasich, and the Republicans controlling the legislature, passed a law this past spring that would have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.  It limited public union collective bargaining to wages and working conditions and banned it for benefits.  It ended binding arbitration and prohibited public union employees from going on strike.  It was strikingly like the Wisconsin law that passed except in one regard.  It included police and firefighters.  The Wisconsin law excluded these unions from these changes.  And thus, the public employee unions were handed a gift that they used to their advantage.  The Republicans handed them a fantastic argument.

If you give your opponent the better argument, you are destined to lose.

Intellectually, it would seem consistent for conservatives to argue all public unions should be treated alike.  If we put bargaining restrictions on teachers and workers at the DMV, it would seem only fair we also place those same limits to police and firefighters’ bargaining.  Right?  After all, whether you work for the fire department or the Department of Health, you are still getting your paycheck from the taxpayers.  While Wisconsin carved out exceptions for their protective service unions, it would appear Ohio was essentially ‘fairer’ by limiting bargaining over benefits to all public employee unions.

Ohio Republicans defined all public service union employees into this semantic category.  Everyone who receives a paycheck paid by the public and is a member of a public employee union is the same.  Meanwhile, in the eyes of Wisconsin Republicans, we have two different categories treated differently.  This would make it seem the argument in Ohio would be easier to make. But it wasn’t.  It was a disaster.  So why?

Charles Krauthammer argues this;

“On Tuesday, Ohio was the bellwether. Voters decisively voted down the Republicans’ newly enacted, Wisconsin-like rollback of public-sector workers’ benefits and bargaining rights. True, it took a $30 million union campaign that outspent the other side 3-to-1. True, repeal only returns labor relations to the status quo ante. And true, Ohio Republicans, unlike Wisconsin’s, made a huge tactical error by including police and firefighters in the rollback, opening themselves to a devastating they-saved-my-grandchild ad campaign. Nevertheless, the unions won. And they won big.”  StarTribune, November 11, 2011, ‘Mood of the electorate is . . .  thoughtful.’

Krauthammer believes it was a tactical error to include police and firefighters because it limited the coalition needed and gave the unions an emotional appeal meme to push.  Did including police and fire fighters really collapse the fiscally conservative coalition?

From Howard Wilkinson of Cincinnati.com, ‘Rallies, rhetoric mark the end of SB 5 fight,’ he observes;

“Public Policy Polling released a poll Monday showing that 59 percent of Ohioans plan to vote “no” on Issue 2, which would repeal the bill, while only 36 percent said they prefer keeping it in place.

A key to the 23 point margin is the fact that, according to the poll, Kasich and the Republicans in the legislature who passed the measure have failed to build rock-solid support for it among fellow Republicans – three of every 10 GOP voters said they will cast a “no” vote.”

Republicans, by including police and firefighters, essentially handed over their argument to the Democrats.  In Wisconsin, when Democrats argued conservatives wanted to ‘gut’ public unions, Republicans could argue they were doing no such thing.  They loved police and fire fighters.  It was the selfish teachers and bureaucrats that they wanted to restrict.  Conservatives had an out.  Meanwhile, in Ohio conservatives muzzled their supporters because it now sounded like a public vendetta against any public union employee, regardless.  It was powerful intellectually.

Sure, “We Are Ohio” used emotional, evocative appeals like a 78 year-old grandmother arguing to repeal the law.  From the Zanesville Times Recorder, ‘Grandmother caught in middle of union fight,’ October 14, 2011.  “Marlene Quinn’s great-granddaughter was saved from a house fire in November, and she told the story in a statewide television spot paid for by We Are Ohio, the union-backed coalition that’s fighting the law signed in March.  Quinn . . . appears before the camera. “If not for the firefighters, we wouldn’t have our Zoey today,” she tells viewers. “That’s why it’s so important to vote no on Issue 2.”

While the emotional appeal can be powerful, this wasn’t the tipping point.  Nor was the $30 million spent on these ads.  These emotional appeals can be countered when you have an argument.  People can counter emotional arguments with reason.  What they can’t argue against are better arguments.

Kasich and the Ohio Republicans further collapsed their case because of the implied premise in limiting collective bargaining to all public employees.  The implied premise to a restriction or limitation is there is too much of it.  In Wisconsin, they argued that public education employees and bureaucrats were getting more than their fair share.  But, protective service employees were not doing so.  This added another layer of argument to their case.  One group was taking advantage while another group was not.  It provided a necessary context.

In Ohio, the implied premise of police and fire fighters having an unfair allocation of resources, while risking their lives, wouldn’t fly.  Basically protective service employees argued, ‘what did I do wrong?’  This is a powerful argument that conservatives weren’t able to counter effectively.  Conservatives tried saying that all public employees must sacrifice, but that implied general guilt of all public sectors.  There was no group to compare to.  Using the taxpaying public as an example is a flabby argument because the circumstances are too diverse.  Conservatives had therefore thrown away another rhetorical argument.  Progressives could now pummel conservatives as vindictive and unfair.

Furthermore, the Ohio strategy began as a fight between public unions and the public but quickly spread to union workers in general.  By making police and street cleaners analogous, they opened up the category of ‘union’ to all.  Now, conservatives weren’t fighting greedy, piggish teachers’ unions or indifferent county recorder assistants.  The semantic category of ‘union’ became a catchall for any union worker.  Now they had a whole other kettle of fish to fry.  It wasn’t just state troopers or state purchasing agents in the crosshairs.  The Republicans had essentially singled out ‘unions’ in the fight and not specific groups of miscreants.  They lost the fight before it even began.  Republicans had generally made this a fight between unions and themselves.  The voters, loathe to get caught in the middle, sided with the unions.

For good reason.  It’s an idiotic argument to make.  You cannot couple unlike segments because of a linguistic anomaly like the word, ‘union’ and not expect enormous blowback.  You cannot create an artificial class to war against and then demand your side to support it without good arguments to make.  By making ‘unions’ the enemy, Kasich and the GOP doomed their rather modest attempt to get a handle on the fiscal situation.  It didn’t have to happen this way.

The argument is the thing, but we cannot support a cause, no matter how noble, if our words are taken from us.  The substance matters far more than you think.  We must think about truly taking aim at bad actors and not specific categories of people.  You can argue punishing a wrongdoer, but not an attribute.  They are very different things, and the voting public knows it.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com