Many people have already heard about or read about California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, and her assertion that Conservative talk show hosts are “terrorists.”  If not, you can check The Corner at NRO.

It was during an interview with the LA Times.  The portion of the interview that, rightly, has many people up in arms is this:

Q: How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

A: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

As a matter of fact, though the question was about talk radio, it’s clear she’s actually talking about the Republican Party in general, and its members.  What she’s talking about is simple protesting.  When you protest government, what are you telling them?  In essence, you’re here because we allow you to be; muck it up and you’re gone.

Bass appears to be under the impression that the Legislature is not answerable to the folks who put them in power.  Bass, it would appear, has never heard the phrase “Consent of the Governed.”  Perhaps she knows a Constitutional Scholar would could explain it to her.  For an elected official to equate the simple practice of the First Amendment with “terrorism” should start raising alarm bells in people.  That she would then suggest that believers in “Government by Consent” — a key founding principle of our nation, by the way — should be silenced, ought to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

But then, in keeping with the Liberal tradition of “Freedom for me, but not for thee,” Bass reveals that, actually, she’s okay with reminding Government who pays the bills — as long as you agree with her personal ideals.  From the Times interview, with absolutley NO clipping in the middle:

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Do you get especially exasperated when your own people — Democrats — don’t agree with you?

You know, I was a community activist, so I’m used to standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting.

(italics added)

So, just to be clear: Community Activism, which Bass defines as “standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting” is fine and dandy, so long as you’re name is Karen Bass.  Using radio, television, letters and email to carry out your right as an American Citizen to make your voice heard by reminding your representatives who pays their mortgage – especially as a card-carrying Republican – that’s terrorism.  Got it.

According to an article by the Associated Press today, the Supreme Court overturning of Sotomayor’s discrimination ruling will cause “confusion.”  That, according to “civil rights” advocates and union attorneys like Wade Henderson.  Henderson, the President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has suggested that a ruling in favor of the white folks (and two hispanics) in the New Haven case will create “confusing standards on how to meet that obligation.”

“Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination,” Henderson said. “Employers are looking for bright lines … they’re looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions.”

The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. “It puts employers in a real quandary,” he said.

Shirley Wilcher, who is the executive Director of the American Association for Affirmative Action (could there be a more useless organization?) also chimed in, saying that the Obama Administration should be creating guidelines on how to deal with the ruling.

“In the meantime, we’re scratching our heads,” she said. “We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate … and it’s not clear how to do that.”

There’s more, and I suggest reading the full article.  But we’ll stop there.  Several things bugged me about this piece.  But first thing’s first.

I need to address a pet peeve of mine.  I know I’ve heard Limbaugh use the phrases “Reverse Discrimination” and “Reverse racism.”  Many times, Conservatives use that termanology to differentiate between racism against non-whites and racism against whites.  “Progressives” have the same use: to them, there’s “real” racism, and then “reverse racism” — that against those who are racists by default.  This termanology needs to be expunged from our vernacular.  “Discrimination” and “racism” are not defined by ideology or by which group is being victimized.  Discrimination is simply the preference of one group over another.  Racism is simply ideological discrimination based on race.  Period.  White, black, red, tan, pink-and-orange — racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination.  Okay?  Moving along.

Now then, to Henderson and Wilcher.  What they seem to be saying — indeed, what Wilcher just comes right out and says — is that people don’t know how not to discriminate without instruction from … other people.  This idea is, let’s call it problematic, on many levels.  First, the obvious.  Does election to public office automatically enable one to answer a philosophical social question that an unelected person is (according to Wilcher and Henderson) funamentally unequipped to answer?  How does that work?  That takes care of the clear idiocy of Wilcher’s suggestion.

The bigger problem, though, is intent.  Let’s start with a basic statement of reality: If you need somebody to tell you how NOT to discriminate, you’re doing it wrong.  When I was a substitute teacher, my students were shocked when they found out I’d never experimented with illegal drugs, had never been drunk, and had been celibate before my wedding (hey, they asked, and they were in high school — I figured they could use a good, adult example).  “How,” they asked, “did you go through College without doing any of that stuff?”  “Simple,” I joked.  “I’m lazy.”  Then seriously, I would say, “Look, it’s actually very easy to not do something.  You just… don’t do it.  Inactivity is the default state.  Temptation is the hangup of people who seek approval from others.”

The same argument can be made for discrimination.  You don’t have to be told how to not discriminate.  You just don’t do it.  In a work situation, you make the choice to select the best candidate.  Period.  Yes, it’s actually that easy.  And, of course, while I’m not in favor of antidiscrimination laws in the private sector (I believe people should have the right to be a**holes if they so choose), there can be absolutely NO place for discrimination of any kind in the public services. 

What Henderson and Wilcher are really saying, then, is not, “How do employers know how not to discriminate” but rather, they are asking what the question of Affirmative Action has been all along: “How do they know who it’s okay to discriminate against.”

To a liberal, racism and discrimination are facts of life.  It is always going to go on.  Nobody gains through work, experience and acheivement — gain is always at the expense of somebody else.  This worldview is evident in nearly every single socio-economic policy liberals have ever introduced.

For Henderson and Wilcher, discrimination is always a zero-sum game.  In order for black individuals to NOT be discriminated against, white people must be.  And THAT is why they are so confused, and why they think employers will be.  Because they don’t understand that some people actually make the honest effort to be color blind.  An effort, for the record, which would actually be much easier if “progressives” weren’t so damned hung up on making it an issue.

(sent as an email to the office of John McHugh, and cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for selling out your constituents, and your countrymen, by supporting the Cap & Trade bill. A bill which you, like your colleagues, could never have had the time to read before the vote. A bill which even 44 Democrats crossed the aisle to prevent because even they understood that the mandates contained in the bill would be disastrous for business, for our economy, and for both workers and consumers.

Congressman, this is the second letter I’ve written you inre your failure to read a bad bill, and your willingness to vote for it anyway.

Mr. Congressman, if I get a response, I suspect that response will be, much like the one I got for the above-mentioned letter, a form letter extolling what you view as the virtues of this legislation — or at least, the fact that they included your own amendment. Kindly allow me to rebut in advance:

So?

Mr. Congressman, if you’ll allow me to be so blunt, neither I, your constituents, nor indeed most thinking Americans, could give two sh*ts whether your amendment prevents acid rain, saves the whales or turns corn starch into dandelion-excreting fuel alternatives. And why don’t we care? Because the REST of the bill, Mr. Congressman, presents us with far more pressing problems. Problems like how we plan on feeding our families, or driving to work.

There’s this thing that should be taken into account, sir, before agreeing to pass legislation. A thing upon which the lives and livelihoods of your countrymen depend far more than bad science and mandates. It’s called Economics. Perhaps, at some point during your career as a Legislator, you’ve heard of it?

As relates to the Cap & Trade bill you so cavalierly signed, it works like this:Producers’ costs go up, as demanded by following the C&T mandates. That cost is passed on to Consumers. (Consumers, just so we’re clear here, are your basic taxpayers. Folks, like those in your state of New York who have less money every year thanks to tax and fee increases). Consumers have to make choices about what they buy, because they can no longer afford to buy everything they otherwise would. Thanks to the price increases. So… producers must find ways to cut costs. How? By cutting production. Which means cutting personnel. Which means — have you figured it out yet? — unemployment goes up. And with Cap&Trade, we’re not talking about a percentage point here. We’re talking about an astronomic increase in good, taxpaying men and women who suddenly don’t have a means of supporting their families.

All thanks to you and seven other turncoat Republicans.

I hope the fact that those of your constituents you sold out don’t have the option of voting you out of office helps you sleep at night.

Yours, sincerely

(edit: I fixed a bit of profanity I forgot to edit before cross-posting.  My apologies to Mgmt)

In his speech to the AMA yesterday, President Obama decried criticism of a public health plan as partisan paranoia.  “What are not legitimate concerns,” he said, “are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. ”

Not legitimate?  Well, let’s see.  A “Trojan Horse,” of course, refers to the legend of the Trojan war in which a giant horse was delivered as a gift to the city of Troy, but which in fact held the city’s destruction.  In the President’s view, then, critics of the health plan would suggest that the plan, which is presented as a supplement, even a compliment, to the current (free-market) system, in fact is a means of the current system’s undoing.  Fair enough.  So, are those critics wrong, as Obama is suggesting they are?

Well, let’s simply examine the surface.  Something, perhaps, the Trojans would have done well to consider.  What is its function, its purpose?  Does it do the job it is purported to do, or is it hollow enough to be hiding destruction in its guts?  Now, when we’re looking, it’s important to remember that it’s still under construction.  What we’ve been privvy to are the public discussions of that construction.  That information which is being allowed to slip out.

What we know is that Obama wants a plan that involves a public health option.  A government-run, taxpayer-subsidized, publicly available insurance.  This plan would be inserted into the current market, ostensibly to provide care for those who need it and can’t get it elsewhere, and to compete with the private firms, to “encourage” them to create better, more affordable plans. 

There is a reason Conservatives strongly discourage government entry into the free-market system.  It creates monopolies.  This is something that even a community organizer should be able to understand.  And, even if not Obama himself, at least somebody on his financial staff understands how monopolies work.  And, I’m sure, the conversation has come up.  Democrats love discussing monopolies, after all; it helps define the enemy for the drudges of the class war.  Surely, they understand how monopolies are made.

In short, here’s the problem: it creates an unlevel playing field in the marketplace.  On the Capitalist side, you have privately funded groups which are in business to make a profit for themselves and for their stockholders.  Insurance is hard work; nobody does it for free.  The capitalist system is built on making profit.  That’s how companies stay afloat.  And, surely, Obama (who assures us, after all, that a public health plan is NOT designed to destroy the free market) wants these companies to stay afloat… right?  On the other side, though, you have the “Public” health plan.  A plan that is government sponsored, which means, in many cases, taxpaying Americans are already paying for it, even if they aren’t using it.  Further, this plan is a government beaurocracy — designed specifically to not make a profit, and being operated by government employees who, by and large, get paid less than free-market executives (after all, why become an executive if it doesn’t pay well?).  Plus, as with all government entities, should it fail to meet the bottom line (in this case, to simply cover operating expense), it has the benefit of being taxpayer-funded, so the government will simply foot the bill.  This will, of course, sink the US further into debt, but that’s neither here nor there.

Obama has said the idea is to get the private Health industry to compete with this new government monster.  What he has not said is that such competition is impossible.  You don’t compete against somebody who’s holding all the cards.  You’re not even in the game.  This new “competitor” in the healthcare industry will have the power to make all the rules in the game, will have no stockholders to be held accountable by, no need for profit, or even sustainability.  And the President thinks the private industry will compete how?

The truth is, he doesn’t.  The truth is, he knows damned well what a publicly-funded system will do to the private industry.  He knows that what he’s presenting as a boon and a gift to free-market healthcare, in fact houses a bellyfull of destruction — and that, when the dust settles, there will be one entity standing.  A single-payer government system.

Reuters’ James Pethokoukis isn’t fooled.  As he pointed out yesterday:

New York District 20 rep John McHugh, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is apparently being chosen by Barack Obama as his new Secretary of the Army.  Fox News says Obama will officially name McHugh to replace current Secretary Pete Geren.

McHugh is another Republican pick for Obama’s defense staff.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates worried Obama supporters because they believed a Republican pick would bolster opinions of Democrats as weak on defense.
UPDATE: remarks from Obama…

“… My administration has increased funding for our military, including the army, and increasing the size of the military two years ahead of schedule.”

That’s gotta sting some Code Pinkers.

“Today I’m proud to announce the distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe, and who will help keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their familes.  The next Secretary of the Army, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John McHugh.”

<snip>

“… but it is his service over the past 16 years in Congress, as a champion of our men and women in Uniform that uniquely qualifies him to help lead America’s Army.”

<snip>

“John is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.”

And… where the politics come into play…

“Finally, John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home.”

Translation: John is a token Republican who I probably won’t listen to, but at least the media can point to when people claim I’m not being bipartisan.

This, of course, followed by the standard “It’s an honor to be nominated” stuff by McHugh.