'Ask God What Your Grade Is' ... Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage

From the Los Angeles Examiner, "Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage":

A California court has ruled in favor of a Los Angeles Community College student who said he was called a "fascist bastard" by his teacher for defending traditional marriage.

The court also ordered LACC to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.

Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom, the Los Angeles Times reports.

U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.

Lopez said his professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to “ask God what your grade is,” the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code, according to the LA Times.

King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

See also, Los Angeles Examiner, "Student Wins Court Ruling After Being Slandered for His Spiritual Morals: Ask God Your Grade."

This is great news.

My question is how come this story's not plastered across newpapers nationwide? Not a toughie. Obviously, Judge King's decision violates the left's "gay marriage is inevitable" meme, and the liberal media-commissars wouldn't want to deviate from the program. Seriously. A Google search right now turns up paltry results (look here, here, and here).

It's fascinating, really, since a look over at Volokh Conspiracy pulls the mask off of the "rights" program of the radical left. Judge King has enjoined the LACC district's policy on sexual harrassment, and check out the language highlighted by the court:

It is important to be aware that sexual remarks or physical conduct of a sexual nature may be offensive or can make some people uncomfortable even if you wouldn’t feel the same way yourself. It is therefore sometimes difficult to know what type of behavior is sexual harassment. However the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive. It’s important to clearly let an offender know that certain actions are unwelcome. The four most common types of sexual harassment are:

1. Sexual Harassment based on your gender: This is generalized sexist statements, actions and behavior that convey insulting, intrusive or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men. Examples include insulting remarks; intrusive comments about physical appearance; offensive written material such as graffiti, calendars, cartoons, emails; obscene gestures or sounds; sexual slurs, obscene jokes, humor about sex ...

I like the part that says "the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive."

Man, that's broad. Who's to say what's "unwanted," much less "pervasive." On that standard, my class lectures include a lot of "unwanted" comments that would be deemed as "harrassment" by the left's gay marriage ayatollahs.

And get this, from an update at Volokh, "A Footnote You Wouldn't Want to See in a Court Opinion":

This case is likewise not mooted by Defendants’ recent revelation that the Policy was supposedly repealed in 2007.[2] First, the Policy continues to appear on the District’s and LACC’s websites.... Thus, Plaintiff, and other students and employees, can reasonably believe they are subject to the Policy and experience a chilling effect.

[2] We are chagrined that defense counsel and Defendants’ representative who were present at the oral argument on June 10, 2009 were apparently ignorant of the status of a policy they purported to defend. This lack of preparedness is viewed with great disfavor.

It's important to remember that the First Amendment is central to the debate over same-sex marriage. After Californians passed Proposition 8 last November, the gay radical lobby launched its infamous outing and shaming campaign to intimidate and silence those who exercised their First Amendment rights to contribute to the intitiative measure (see, "Outing Liberal Blogger – Bad; Outing Prop 8 Donors – Good"). In the immediate aftermath of the election, Diana West described the chill in California as "soul-grinding" and akin to "something out of Soviet show trial history."

There's no word on the District Court's ruling at some of the big gay radical blogs, for example, Joe. My. God., Pam's House Blend, or Towleroad. The ever-so-prodigious Andrew Sullivan is on vacation from The Daily Dish, but hot-shot stand-in Conor Friedersdorf missed this story as well.

Pretty interesting, you think? Recall that these folks are quick to shout down "unwanted" speech they deem offensive (see, "Pam Spaulding Falsely Accuses Christians of Inciting Violence — But What About Her Own Behavior?").

No comment on the Volokh post at Memeorandum either.

It's a big news week, but not that big. The Sotomayor hearings are winding down, the administration's trying to keep the health reform story alive in the press, and folks have pretty much forgotten about authoritarianism in Iran. One might think even the Los Angeles Times would run a piece on the story, but I'm not holding my breath.

(Now, if the court would have upheld the LACC District's policy, THAT would have been big news!)

For additional background, see Eugene Volokh, "Professor in Speech Class Refuses to Grade Student's Presentation."

**********

UPDATE: Patriot Room links! See, "Court Rules 'Ask God What Your Grade is' Prof Violated Student's 1st Amendment Rights."

'One Small Step' No Longer Seen as Such a Giant Leap for America

My stomach's always a little tight while watching the space shuttle launches. Today's was no different. Of course, it's a thrill as always to watch that rocket ship take off and to see the solid fuel boosters peel away as the shuttle leaves the atmosphere:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Washington Post has the story of today's lift-off, "Endeavour Launched On Sixth Attempt." As the report indicates, "Success came on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the liftoff of man's first moon landing. Endeavour blasted off a little after 6 p.m. from its seaside pad - the same one used to launch Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969."

That historical marker might seem as important as other milestones of the decade, like the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But as the Pew Research organization indicates, the powerful national urge to reach high and touch the face of God may be receding from the American ethos. See, "'One Small Step' No Longer Seen as Such a Giant Leap for America":

Four decades after the first American astronauts walked on the moon, that historic accomplishment has lost some prominence in the eyes of the public.

Ten years ago, when asked to name America's greatest achievement of the 20th century, the specific accomplishment cited most frequently -- at 18% -- was space exploration or the moon mission. Overall, 47% cited any achievement in science, medicine or technology, including space.

But in May of this year, when the public was asked to name the greatest U.S. accomplishment of the past 50 years, somewhat fewer (12%) specifically mentioned space exploration or getting a man to the moon as the greatest achievement. Only about a quarter (27%) mentioned an achievement in science, medicine or technology. (For more from this survey, see " Public Praises Scientists; Scientists Fault Public, Media," July 9, 2009.)

Check the link for more. Statistically, just as many people said the election of the first black black president was as great an accomplishment as the successes of the space program.

Change!

See also, AubreyJ, who is our top shuttle-launch blogger: "4- Watch Launch and Mission Live Of Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-127."

Plus, see Rand Simberg, "A Giant Leap for Commercial Spaceflight."

**********

UPDATE: Via Memeorandum, here's an awesome photo-essay from The Big Picture, "Remembering Apollo 11."

Perhaps this anniversary will turn public opinion around a bit.

Velociman's not too optimistic, "We Choose To Go To The Moon":

July 16th marks the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11. I explain to my daughters that once upon a time we were a great nation that strived for the stars. No more. Now we are ashamed of glory, because some fucking crackhead might feel neglected if we don't dote upon her, and slather her with our largesse at the expense of the Great Things. Obama is sacking the Constellation program. We won't be going back to the moon, and forget Mars.

But once upon a time the Senator packed us up in the station wagon and drove to Titusville to see my aunt, and to witness the launch of Apollo 11. It was a goddamned beautiful thing, too.

Hat Tip: American Digest.

And thank goodness for patriots and eternal optimists. See Buzz Aldrin, "40 Years After Apollo 11 Moon Landing, It's Time for a Mission to Mars."

Public Respect for Ayatollah Khamenei Takes Hit on Heels of Protests

The Berman Post has been doing some phenomenal Iran blogging, continuing with today's entry, "Iranian Revolution (Day Thirty-Three)."

One of the pieces highlighted there is from today's Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Leader Khamenei Diminished in Iranians' Eyes."

For two decades he was considered to be above the petty political squabbles, a cautious elder contemplating questions of faith and Islam while guiding his nation into the future.

But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose title of supreme leader makes him Iran's ultimate authority, has gotten his hands dirty. His decision in recent weeks to so stridently support the nation's controversial president after a disputed election has dramatically changed his image among his people, setting in motion an unpredictable series of events that could fundamentally change the Islamic Republic.

"Public respect for him has been significantly damaged," said one analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Opposing him is no longer the same as opposing God."

The venerated Khamenei has even become the target of public jokes and criticism.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "commits crimes, and the leader supports him," was a popular slogan during the riots of June 20, the day after Khamenei delivered a blistering Friday sermon in which he said that the election a week earlier had been won by Ahmadinejad.

At July 9 demonstrations, protesters mocked the ayatollah's son, Mojtaba, who many believe hopes to succeed his father.

There's more at the link.

The odd thing here, of course, is that the regime's not too worried about public opinion. I'm also wondering how seriously the hardliners around Khamenei have been substantially weakened. The Times piece notes that there's something of a power struggle brewing, but reports earlier have suggested that the faction led by Khamenei's son, Mojtaba, has tightened its grip on the elite Revolutionary Guard. See my earlier entry on this, "Mojtaba Khamenei, Revolutionary Guard, Key to Power in Iran."

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Day 32 Iran Revolution: Twitter: 'People in Iran have but ONE weapon - Your Attention!'"

McCain Family Feud

Robert Stacy McCain says "she's kinfolk," then proceeds to wallop Meghan McCain with surprising brutality:

A reasonably attractive young gay man has no problem getting with two or three guys a night. And that's if he's really picky. (Read And The Band Played On, by Randy Shilts.) So when some lonely, frustrated woman wants to hang around with gay guys because it's the only male companionship she can get, she is recognized for the truly pathetic loser she is.

Meghan McCain says she likes hanging with gay guys. But is a guy gay if he likes hanging with betties? And as you can tell from the block-quote above, "The Other McCain" handles your queries with an amazingly intimate familiarity with same-sex culture! NTTAWWT!!

Check out her interview with Jamie Kirchik at Out Magazine, "Meghan McCain Will Be Heard." I wanted to embed the video anyway, so this is a chance to link to the piece (at Memeorandum too).

Instapundit Carblogging

Well it's not all hotlinks and traffic over at Instapundit. The dude's a car guy, Mazda cars, to be exact, "RX-8 UPDATE":

Okay, it’s now been, believe it or not, nearly 6 years since I bought the Mazda RX-8. Since it’s a second car, to be driven to the mountains on nice days, etc., it’s still low-mileage, but it still drives like new ...

Check Glenn's archive of Mazda blogging here. And, he just updated with "CONGRESS AND THE AUTO DEALERS ..." (link).

I like Honda cars. I wrote about my new Honda Civic here: "What Happened to Buy American?" Plus, while searching, I just remembered this post, which is substantive, "A Post-Auto-Industrial Society."

I wasn't planning a carblogging series, however. Actually, I need to blog less and wash my Honda!

********

But wait! Here's an Instapundit Bonus!

I wrote about mommy-bloggers previously: See, "Are You Getting 60,000 Unique Visitors Every Month?", and "The Blogger Mom: New Career Trajectory for the Internet Set." In the former post I poked fun at the Classy Mommy blog (discriminatory against involved-daddies?).

But Glenn links to a serious mommy-blogging entry from Katie Granju at Babble, "Are Sponsored Reviews and Endorsements on Mommyblogs Getting Out of Hand?":

What's odd to me is that marketers don't seem to recognize this credibility gap in deciding who qualifies as a true influencer among the mombloggers. Obviously, pageviews and audience engagement (number of comments on the blog, etc), as well as the blogger's effective cross promotion across other social networking sites help to determine whether a momblogger is a "social media influencer." But there's a less tangible credibility factor that should be pulled into the formula as well. It's my belief that bloggers who do an excessive number of product reviews and endorsements likely don't wield the same kind of meaningful influence with their audience as the ones who do very few or more judiciously chosen paid reviews and endorsements. And some mombloggers may have a smaller audience, but within that audience, they have more credibility, meaning that their reviews are theoretically more valuable to sponsors. That's why, in my job as a social media strategist with a PR firm, I don't automatically go for the "big" blogs with lots of flashy reviews and endorsement deals when I'm putting together a list of mommyblogs for one of my corporate clients to approach.

Sounds serious!

And just think ... I was only joking around!

More good stuff at Instapundit.

Jackson Addiction Followed Pepsi Accident in 1984: LAPD to Treat Death as a Homicide; Public 'Never Can Say Goodbye' to Jackson Tragedy!

There are some noteworthy Michael Jackson developments worth sharing.

First, US Weekly has a video teaser online, "How Michael Jackson's Pill Addiction Began." But check out KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Jackson's Addiction Began After Accident." The video is intense. Jackson's head is completely engulfed by flames while filming the Pepsi ad. He jumps and twirls, with the last second or so showing sheer panic:

US Weekly reports that Jackson's drug addiction began after the shooting of his Pepsi commercial in 1984.

Usmagazine.com has released footage of the Jackson's Pepsi commercial accident that was shot at the Shrine Auditorium on January. 27, 1984.

During the commercial shoot Jackson suffered from second and third-degree burns on his scalp and body after the pyrotechnics erupted too early. The King of Pop was unaware that his hair was on fire.

The singer was prescribed several medications and it was at this time that his addiction to painkillers and plastic surgery began, according to a source for US ....

Check Rolling Stone as well, "Michael Jackson Pepsi Ad Footage Unearthed From 1984 Shoot." And the Wall Street Journal, "When Michael Jackson’s Hair Caught Fire: A Legendary Ad Man’s Story."

Also, was Jackson murdered? The LAPD is upgrading its investigation to a homicide case. See Fox News, "Conflicting Reports Surface on Whether LAPD Will Treat Jackson Death as a Homicide."

Also, the Los Angeles Times takes a dishy angle, "Who is Dr. Conrad Murray and What Does He Know About Michael Jackson's Death?" And TMZ, "LAPD Treating Jackson Death as Homicide." Plus, L.A. Examiner, "VIDEO: LaToya Jackson Says Michael Jackson Was Murdered by His Greedy Entourage."

Will the Michael Jackson story ever go away? Not as long as there's profit somewhere, for someone.

See, Tim Rutten, "Too much Michael Jackson? Newspaper Editors and TV Producers Undercut the Value of Serious News Media When They Let Website Hits and Social Media Vollume Dictate Their Coverage." And, Project for Excellence in Journalism, "Media Swing from Protests in Iran to the Passing of the King of Pop." A Marxist take is at Chris Hedges, "The Man in the Mirror."

Well, what can you do? Jackson's still still popular: "Michael Jackson Album Sales Highlight Physical, Digital Merits."

More here, Bill Wyman, "The Tragedy of Michael Jackson: The Self-Proclaimed King of Pop Was Nobody's Victim."

Rule 5 Rescue: Breanne Ashley Nude!

Well, all work and no play makes a blogger old and gray (or however that line goes).

So, it's time for another Rule 5 Rescue! Actually, I haven't posted hotties in bikinis for some time, but hey, a guy's got to help out his red-blooded conservative readers! Check out Breanne Ashley! I happened to be watching Fox Sports Net last night, and the goodfellas over there featured a Hooters International Swimsuit marathon. After watching that, I was saying to myself, "Dude, you spend too much time with cable news!" So here she is, and don't tell my wife!

Now, I'm not kidding about the nude, or at least semi-nude. She's over at this dude's place, topless. I added "nude" in the title to test Robert Stacy McCain's theory about Google-bombing the hot babes. "Hits is hits," he says. Okay, we'll see, although I prefer quality traffic from friendly bloggers and allies. (And if you're new to The Other McCain, check out, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year.")

Speaking of friendly bloggers, check out Green Mountains Homesteading. The guy sends me a lot of traffic, and I think the members of the "Rule 5 community" should add him to their blogrolls and their weekend FMRA entries.

Also, Ace of Spades HQ links to my essay on the tea party impacts on Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, "Schwarzenegger Gets the Message." Here's the killer quote:

Schwarzenegger was and is the ultimate RINO, and no one can have any delusions that he really believes in cutting spending. Nor that, were the pressure lifted from him, he wouldn't happily go back to the path of least resistance, raising taxes and increasing spending.

Dan Riehl's also been very generous with the linkage, and Glenn Reynolds sends awesome traffic. It's almost unbelievable how many people read his blog. No wonder the guy can't get a summer vacation! (No kidding. See, "No Day at the Beach: Bloggers Struggle With What to Do About Vacation.")

Plus, my buddy Kenneth Davenport's been linking as well, and he too needs some Rule 5 assistance - so check out his hot blog! And thanks to The Astute Bloggers and Fishersville Mike too!

And as I noted last weekend, send your posts to TrogloPundit and he'll link! The dude also just got his first Memeorandum thread, so he's got some creds! (See, "Levi Johnston is Single. Meghan McCain is Single.") Troglo's also a Hooters blogger - and who's to complain about that!

For a good read, see Steven Givler's, "David Brooks' Senator Revealed." Also, check over at my good (feminine) blogging friends, Carol at No Sheeples Here!, Jill at Pundit & Pundette, and Cassandra at Villainous Company. Wait, don't forget Skye at Midnight Blue as well!

All the other great blogging friends of American Power are here (and don't be shy about sending me an e-mail to to be added to the roundups):

Grizzly Mama, Dustbury, Darleen Click, Doubleplusundead, Blazing Cat Fur, Robert Belvedere, Sono Annoiato, The Astute Blogger, Thunder Run, The Classic Liberal, Conservative Grapevine, Cassy Fiano, Jim Treacher, NetRightNation, Q and O, Urban Grounds, Chris Wysocki, The Daley Gator, Just One Minute, Dave's World, The Oklahoma Patriot, Right Wing Sparkle, Conservatism With Heart, Dr. Helen, Laura Elizabeth Morales, Charles G. Hill , Blueshelled, The Nose on Your Face, All-American Blogger, Paco Enterprises, Nice Deb, Becky Brindle, Fishersville Mike, Monique Stuart, No Sheeples Here!, Dana at CSPT, Glenn Reynolds, Obi’s Sister, Right Truth, Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels, Chicago Ray, Ace of Spades HQ, Natalie's Blog, Ann Althouse, Pirate's Cove, Diminished Expectations, The Conservatives Who Say F*ck, Joust The Facts, Panhandle Poet, Steven Givler, Moonbattery, Sweating Through the Fog, Three Beers Later, PA Pundits, Sister Toldjah, Duck of Minerva, Wolf Howling, Right Wing Nation, Right Wing Nuthouse, Melissa Clouthier, Steve Bartin's Newsalert, The Western Experience, Jammie Wearing Fool, ShrinkWrapped, The Average American, Paco Enterprises, Ken Davenport, Doug Ross Journal, The Blog Prof, Fausta's Blog, Clueless Emma, Obob's World, Seymour Nuts, Red State, Dr. Sanity, The Desert Glows Green, Not One Red Cent, Vinegar and Honey, Dan Collins, Scott Kingsmore, The Astute Bloggers, The BoBo Files, Grant Jones, Tapline, New Testament News, Wizbang, William Jacobson, Phyllis Chesler, Right View from the Left Coast, Generation Patriot, Macsmind, Flopping Aces, Edge's Conservative Movies, Stop the ACLU, Snooper's Report, Grandpa John's, Cranky Conservative, Jimmie Bise, Little Miss Attila, Moe Lane, Private Pigg, Pundit & Pundette, The Rhetorican, R.S. McCain, Saber Point, Stephen Kruiser, Suzanna Logan, GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD, TrogloPundit, Villainous Company, PoliGazette, Prying 1, Paula in Israel, Pamela Geller, Vanessa's Blog, Pat's Daily Rants, Bob's Bar & Grill, Power Line, Melanie Morgan, Dave in Boca, Neo-Neocon, Right in a Left World, Flag Gazer, Stephen Green, The Tygrrrr Express, The News Factor, Israel Matsav, The Conservative Manifesto, Gates of Vienna, Sparks From the Anvil, Gateway Pundit, Political Pistachio, Liberty Pundit, Not One Red Cent, Right Truth, Dave's Notepad, The Red Hunter, Maggie's Farm, The Next Right, This Ain't Hell, Stop the ACLU, Politics and Critical Thinking, Riehl World View, Midnight Blue, Caroline Glick, The Griper, FouseSquawk, The Other McCain, Cheat Seeking Missiles, Roger Simon, Classical Values, Samantha Speaks, Grizzly Mama, The Capitol Tribune, The Patriot Room, The Real World, RADARSITE, Serr8d's Cutting Edge, Bloviating Zeppelin, Born Again Redneck The Educated Shoprat, St. Blogustine, Yid With Lid, Pondering Penguin, Betsy's Page, The Anchoress, Ace of Spades HQ, Right Wing Sparkle, Ed Driscoll, Cold Fury, Michelle Malkin, Neptunus Lex, Neo-Neocon, The Liberty Papers, The Monkey Cage, Law and Order Teacher, Mike's America, AubreyJ, Dan Collins, Track-a-'Crat, The Jungle Hut, Wake Up America, Dan Riehl, Nikki's Blog, Big Girl Pants, Maggie's Notebook, Hummers & Cigarettes, Mark Goluskin, Jawa Report, The Skepticrats, Sarge Charlie, Swedish Meatballs Confidential, Five Feet of Fury, Amy Proctor, Blonde Sagacity, Liberty Papers, TigerHawk, Point of a Gun, Right Wing News, And So it Goes in Shreveport, Thoughts With Attitude, and Kim Priestap.

Obama Will Ration Health Care

From Peter Singer at the New York Times, "Why We Must Ration Health Care":

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.” And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform.

Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. “So,” he says, “would you have sex with me for $50?” Indignantly, she exclaims, “What kind of a woman do you think I am?” He replies: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.” The man’s response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that it’s immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives — but is that stance tenable?

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care. In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.

The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035.

President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken. It is, he has said, by far the most significant driver of America’s long-term debt and deficits. It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 15 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours.

Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?

Plus, "Republicans Warn of 'Web of Bureaucracy' in Democrats' Health Care Plan." Quoting House Minority Leader John Boehner:

If anybody thinks that all of this bureaucracy is needed to fix our health care system, I plainly disagree ... What this is going to do is ration care, limit the choices that patients and doctors have and really decrease the quality of our health care system.

See also, Sally Pipes, "Obama Will Ration Your Health Care."

More at Jake Tapper, "POTUS on Health Care Reform: You'll Save Money."

Yeah, or else!

Video: MSNBC, "President 'Hopeful' About Health Care Progress; But Warns Against Complacency, Pushing for Bills Before August Break (Senate Committee Passes Health Care Bill)":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More at Memeorandum; see especially, Wall Street Journal, "Small Business Faces Big Bite: House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance." Also, Pat in Shreveport, "Speaking of Obamacare..."

Hat Tip: Tammy Bruce on Twitter, "Obama's depraved moral relativists begin to make the fascist argument for health care rationing http://is.gd/1zYjp."

Photo Hat Tip: The People's Cube.

**********

Added: The Rhetorican, "Obamacare: Your Body, Government’s Call."

SCOTUS Hearings: Sotomayor Backs Off on Empathy; Experts Allege Weak Grasp of Law, GOP Thinks She's Lying!

From Ann Althouse, "Did You Notice How Sonia Sotomayor Has Backed Away From Any Identification with Obama's Notion That "Empathy" is a Component of Judging?"

Also, check Ed Morrissey, "Sotomayor’s So-So Reviews Thus Far."

Plus, Glenn Reynolds is rounding up commentary from the legal community AND it's devastating. For example, Randy Barnett, "Mike Seidman on Sotomayor":

On the Federalist Society Online Debate on the Sotomayor hearings (click here and scroll down), my Georgetown Law colleague Mike Seidman - a cofounder and intellectual leader of the Critical Legal Studies movement in the 1980s - is brutally candid in his opinion of Judge Sotomayor's testimony today:

Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate—that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise—to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results—is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional carers?

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Also at Volokh Conspiracy, "Sotomayor (and Hatch & Feingold) on Fundamental Rights and the 14th Amendment," and "Sotomayor Again Misstates Fundamental Rights Doctrine."

And don't miss Byron York, "Republicans Don't Believe Sotomayor's Stories":

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are convinced that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has not been candid with them in under-oath testimony about her speeches and legal activism ...

Republican aides worked through the night, Tuesday into Wednesday, studying the 108-page transcript from Tuesday's hearing. They believe Sotomayor told a variety of stories, none of them entirely truthful, to explain her series of infamous "wise Latina" speeches. And they question her efforts to distance herself from the work of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, on whose board she served for twelve years in the 1980s and early 1990s.

See also my previous entry on Sotomayor's ties to PRLDEF and radical organizations, "Committee for Justice Advertisement: Sotomayor, Like Ayers, Supported Terrorists."

On today's hearings, see the New York Times, "Republican Senators Press Sotomayor on Abortion Views."

The big question: Will Sotomayor be confirmed? Well, "absent what Senator Lindsey Graham describes as “a complete meltdown” (a partial thaw wouldn’t do it), the only real questions that face Sonia Sotomayor concern the furniture and color of curtains she wants in her new office" (link).

More at Memeorandum.

Cartoon Credit: Americans for Limited Government.

Committee for Justice Advertisement: Sotomayor, Like Ayers, Supported Terrorists

From the Committee for Justice:

Remember Barack Obama's buddy Bill Ayers ... Turns out President Obama's done it again: Picked someone for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who led a group supporting violent Puerto Rican terrorists. Is this radical judge the type of person America needs sitting on our highest court?

On cue, the ad has infuriated the radical leftists: See, The Daily Dish, Washington Monthly, Salon, TPMDC, Wonk Room, Balloon Juice, Jack & Jill Politics, and Pam's House Blend.

Think Progress has a big piece up, "Right-Wing Group Launches TV Ad Claiming Sotomayor Led a Terrorist Organization."

Whoa, touchy subject for the folks on the left!

So, what are the facts?

Okay, from Judicial Watch, "Sotomayor Served as the "Top Policy Maker" on the Board of Directors of the Leftist PRLDEF for 12 Years":

During her 12-year tenure, according to one former staff lawyer, "Sonia [Sotomayor] displayed an increasing amount of leadership on the board." The New York Times, meanwhile, characterized Sotomayor as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDEF Board of Directors, who "was an involved and ardent supporter of [the PRLDEF's] various legal efforts during her time with the group."

See also, AIP News,"Sotomayor's Connection to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund."

And, from FrontPage Magazine, "The Next Token Justice?"

Of Puerto Rican heritage, Sotomayor served from 1980 to 1992 as a Board of Directors member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. This organization promotes amnesty and expanded rights for illegal aliens living in the United States; advocates hiring minority job applicants who have lower testing scores; favors preferential treatment for minorities in job promotions and career advancement; seeks to promote Spanish as an acceptable alternative to English in the business world; and supports race-based redistricting plans that would guarantee electoral victories for Latinos.

And here's this, from Human Events, "Sotomayor’s La Raza Uses Taxpayer Money for Radical Agenda":

Sotomayor has also served on the board of directors of the Latino Justice/Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which, like La Raza, also opposes enforcing immigration laws, securing the border and supports amnesty for those already in this country illegally.

The New York Times recently failed to debunk similar charges. The story can only conclude that Sotomayor's group ties to Puerto Rican civil rights organizations are "murky." See, "Republicans Question Sotomayor’s Role in Puerto Rican Group’s Legal Battles."

Plus, don't miss Jennifer Rubin's breaking report, "The Evasions and Misstatements of Sonia Sotomayor."

Related:

* "Obama SCOTUS Choice a Blow to Racial Equality."

* "Racist Anti-Consitution Sotomayor to Be Confirmed to SCOTUS."

* "Sotomayor's Left-Wing and Racist Connections."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Orange County Man Stabbed, Beaten by Gangland Graffiti Taggers

An Orange County man is recovering from injuries after being beaten and stabbed early yesterday after he confronted graffiti taggers at McFadden and Orange avenues, in Santa Ana.

KABC-TV Los Angeles has this report, "Man Stabbed, Beaten by Group of Taggers":

Residents say tagging is a common sight in the neighborhood.

"It happens a lot around here in Santa Ana. It's a pretty bad area. It's not really a surprise," said Sergio Ramirez, a resident.

The Los Angeles Times also reports, "Santa Ana Man Attacked After Confronting Taggers."

This is a sad story. I've reported on gangland violence previously. It's just so senseless, and the graffiti-gang problem leaves communities feeling overrun by lawlessness.

Which reminds me of James Joyner. The other day he wrote about Irvine, California, which is just south of Santa Ana: "Irvine’s Little Police State." Joyner links to the radical Kevin Drum, who in turn links to a Los Angeles Times article, "Irvine Marches to a Peaceful Drummer."

With a population of over 200,000, Irvine has been designated the nation's safest city for communities of over 100,000 people. As the article reports, "Last year it experienced its lowest violent crime rate ever, with just 129 reported violent crimes and one homicide."

But for some reason, those kind of numbers get Irvine dissed as a "police state" by Joyner. And Drum, who attended Long Beach State (a city deeply familiar with gangland violence), gets in his own snarky little smear:

You can't be too careful in these parts. In fact, my neighbor's air conditioner has been on the fritz for the past few weeks and its racket has become really annoying. I'm thinking about having him deported with extreme prejudice.

Why the dismissive snark? Because some zealous activists in the neighborhood homeowners' association are sticklers for the rules?

This is why my wife and I live down here, and this is why we send out kids to the area schools:

The city was designed with safety and clean aesthetics in mind, with curving streets that meander through 17 self-contained villages, each with its own grocery stores, shopping centers, grade schools and architectural style.

The result is that, although the town's as big as Modesto or Reno, its villages exude small-town America.

Nothing wrong with that. It's too bad that Santa Ana, with all of its crime and graffiti violence, has lost the spirit. And it's too bad that radical leftists make fun of such enduring American values (actually, they hate enduring American values, so it's not surprising).