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).

Leftists Unhinged at Our Country Deserves Better PAC Advertisement

From Our Country Deserves Better PAC, it turns out that the radical lefties went berzerk over this ad buy:

Here's Daily Kos, "New Rightwing Ad Campaign To Suggest Obama is Like Hitler":

Also, check out:

* AlterNet, "Right-Wing Group Goes off the Deep End, Plans to Air Obama/ Hitler Ads."

*RightWingWatch, "Obama Worse Than Hitler And Ahmadinejad."

* Salon, "Conservative Group: Obama Equals Ahmadinejad."

* Raw Story, "Group Plans to Launch Ads Comparing Obama to Hitler."

* Village Voice, "Rightwing PAC: Obama = Hitler."

Not sure if No More Mister Nice Blog hopped on the bandwagon.

Meanwhile, President Obama continues his global apology tour, grinning, bowing and fistbumping murdering dictators from Caracas to Tripoli to the West Bank.

See also, Neocon Express, "American Jewish 'Leaders' to Meet with the Israel-Hater in the White House That They Voted For," and Gateway Pundit, "Once Again ... Obama Batters US Allies & Uplifts Foes In Latest World Tour."

Anti-Tax Tea Party Movement Scores Victory in Schwarzenegger's 'Stand for California' Push

There's really no other explanation: On top of Governor Schwarzenegger's devastating May 19th special election defeat (when voters rejected a slate of ballot measures seeking $16 billion in new taxes), there's more evidence that the anti-tax tea party movement has had a major effect on California politics.

That is the undeniable message one draws from the Governor's new political ad buy starting today, "Stand for California":

Listen to that message: Balance the budget; no tax hikes; rationalize government by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. This line, in pure form, has been completely alien to the Schwarzenegger administration since the recall of 2003. Yet it's the standard program among tea party patriots across the country today. We're "Taxed Enough Already," remember?

After campaigning as a fiscal conservative, the Governor has repeatedly violated his "no new taxes" promises. Voters approved $15 billion in bond revenues in a 2004 special election. Proposed by the Governor as a budget solution (complete with a "spending cap"), "critics called Prop. 58 a ruse, saying, correctly, that it was weak and opened the way for more borrowing, spending and taxing by politicians." And when state services indeed continued to grow, Schwarzenegger failed to reform finances with his set of ballot initiatives in 2005 (see, "Voters Reject Schwarzenegger's Bid to Remake State Government").

The defeat Proposition 1A on May 19th handed the Governor his third strike - and clearly, he was out!

So now he's "standing firm for a balanced budget"! Golly Gee Willikers!!! You think?

And now it's not about whether you're a Republican or a Democrat? Hello tea party patriots! That's what folks have been saying all year. While the mainstream press and the radical netroots have hammered the "racists teabaggers," grassroots consituencies have told big goverment to take a hike.

This isn't simply a devastating indictment of the Democratic-left's hubristic calls for progressive "change." The Governor's new ad buy signals a massive victory for the grassroots protesters who have risen up around the country since Rick Santelli's rant from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade back in February.

No small congratulations go out to all the activists and bloggers who have kept the founding spirit alive. We saw this most recently in the massive wave of anti-tax rallies that swept the nation on Independence Day. But there's more: The Blog Prof reports on a tea party that broke out today in Macomb County, Michigan, where President Obama was delivering a speech on the economy. And activists have another event planned for Friday, "July 17 Simultaneous Health Care Freedom Tea Parties from Coast to Coast."

Also, tremendous kudos go to Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and the folks at Pajamas Media for helping to keep the fires burning across the conservative blogosphere. There's too many more to thank in a simple blog post, but folks can be reasurred that everday Americans are taking back this country!

Leftists, of course, will reject the notion that the tea party patriots had anything to do with the launch of the Governor's "Stand for California" public relations drive. Let 'em. The bills have already come due in California, and the voters have spoken. And Washington, D.C., must know that contemporary tax revolts start in California.

See also, "Schwarzenegger Makes 'Stand for California' Pitch."

Related: "The Unlikeliest Girlie Man: Arnold Schwarzenegger Gives Californians What They Want."

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche! The second of the day ... thanks!

Also Dan Riehl links, "Is Ahnold Changing His Script?"

The CIA and Targeted Killing

From Kenneth Anderson at Volokh Conspiracy. Anderson is responding to The New York Times, "CIA Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders" (where he is quoted):

...as to the international law issues involved in targeting Al Qaeda leaders, I will simply refer you over to a new paper, soon to appear as a book chapter in a volume edited by Benjamin Wittes on reforming counterterrorism policy, on targeted killing. That paper has a particular point, however. It says that of course the US targeted killings of Al Qaeda terrorists is a legal act of self defense under international law. (You can get a free pdf download, here, at SSRN, "Targeted Killing in US Counterterrorism and Law.")

The longer term question to which the paper mostly addresses itself is whether, in the face of withering international legal criticism, from UN special rapporteurs, human rights groups, academics, etc. - what we might call the international "soft law" crowd - the US, and specifically the Obama administration, will insist on the traditional doctrines of self defense, including against terrorists who find safe haven in states that are unwilling or unable to deal with them. The problem specifically for the Obama administration is that on the one hand it has - correctly in my view, for strategic, legal, and humanitarian reasons - embraced targeted killings via Predator strikes.

On the other hand, a lot of the administration's international legal apparatus is highly sympathetic to the "soft law" position, and in other circumstances would like to embrace positions that, however noble in the abstract, would effectively rule out targeted killing as the US pursues them. And particularly rule them out in future situations in which Al Qaeda is not involved, in which there is no AUMF, no Security Council resolutions, etc., to point to. It is important for the administration to keep in mind that the US will eventually face different terrorist enemies - there is, so to speak, life - and death - after Al Qaeda.

The paper is concerned with defending the US legal space for targeted killing undertaken as self defense, but not within the context of an armed conflict as defined under international humanitarian law. If that seems like a mouthful, I'll just refer you to the paper.

More at Memeorandum. Especially, Uncle Jimbo, "On the Legality of Targeting al Qaeda Leaders."And just in, from Newsweek, "The CIA's Kill Teams Were Modeled on Israel's Hit Squads."

Related: Common Sense Political Thought, "Assassinating Enemies and Loose Lips."

Video Credit: "Probe of Cheney's Covert CIA Plan Urged."

Obama: Community Colleges Can Boost Economy

From CNN, "Obama: Community Colleges Can Help Boost Ailing Economy":

Community colleges are only two-year institutions, but the Obama administration says they could play a key role in helping boost the ailing economy for years to come.

To underscore that contention Tuesday, the president unveiled the American Graduation Initiative, a 10-year, $12 billion plan to invest in community colleges.

During his announcement at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, Obama noted that the economic recession and a changing U.S. economy have reduced the number of automotive industry jobs, a mainstay in Michigan.

The "hard truth is that some of the jobs that have been lost in the auto industry and elsewhere won't be coming back. They are casualties of a changing economy," Obama said, adding that "even before this recession hit, we were faced with an economy that was simply not creating or sustaining enough new, well-paying jobs."

Also, see Dana Pico's related essay at Common Sense Political Thought, "Donald Douglas and the Community College System (with links to my recent essays on blogging and teaching at the two-year college level).

Update on Sarah Palin's ‘Cap and Tax Dead End’

I predicted it last night, at my comment, "'The Writer, a Republican, is Governor of Alaska'."

Sarah Palin's Washington Post op-ed, "The ‘Cap and Tax’ Dead End," was indeed "Memeorandum's lead story" throughout the afternoon.

Lots of folks from both sides are blogging. See, for example, Ed Morrissey, "Palin on Cap-and-Trade: Job-killer."

Also: And So it Goes in Shreveport, The Daley Gator, Gateway Pundit, Moe Lane, PoliGazette, Stop The ACLU, and Wake up America.

And on cue, leftist Ezra Kein goes after Governor Palin, "Sarah Palin: One of Us":

It's probably a bit kind to say that Sarah Palin "wrote" this. There are no words in all capital letters. There are no sports metaphors. There is nothing at all like "*((Gotta put First Things First))*." The stylistic and grammatical tics on display in last week's speech are totally absent. Sarah Palin signed her name to this. Or at least let someone else do so ...

You could no more argue with this op-ed than you could drive a car made out of candy.

Actually, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry would beg to differ, "What Gov. Palin Forgot." There's a load of additional left-wing commentary at Memeorandum.

It's a Good Thing Hilzoy - a.k.a. Hilary Bok - Is Retiring From Blogging ...

... Because she's lost her grip on reality:

I'm taking this opportunity to retire from blogging ...

The main reason I started blogging, besides the fact that I thought it would be fun, was that starting sometime in 2002, I thought that my country had gone insane. It wasn't just the insane policies, although that was part of it. It was the sheer level of invective: the way that people who held what seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable views, e.g. that invading Iraq might not be such a smart move, were routinely being described as al Qaeda sympathizers who hated America and all it stood for and wanted us all to die ...

That said, it seems to me that the madness is over. There are lots of people I disagree with, and lots of things I really care about, and even some people who seem to me to have misplaced their sanity, but the country as a whole does not seem to me to be crazy any more.

Wow!

Perhaps Professor Bok needs to spend some time with her colleagues in the Department of Psychology!

I mean, she recently excoriated Ed Whelan as a "petulant bully" for outing Publius. That episode drove a whole weekend's worth of political blogging, and the moment pretty much refutes the idea that "the madness is over." (And of course the idea that "the "madness" has stopped makes more sense now that "The Lightworker" has been elected to the Oval Office.)

For such an accomplished blogger (she also writes at the Washington Monthy), her post demonstrates an extreme disconnect from the hyper-partisan political polarization we've seen since President Hussein was elected.

And her faux outrage in the Publius blow-up is something else!

It turns out that Bok is one to insist on being identified by her online handle. Yet, she published her picture at Obsidian Wings in 2005, here. Her Wikipedia entry includes all of her blogging information. So it's kind of strange for folks to allege that she was "outed" in a blogging controvery earlier this year, see Linda Hirshman, "Sheltering Women: Linda Hirshman Responds to Hilzoy."

But really, it's not difficult to understand why she insists on pseudonymity.

She took her Ph.D. from Harvard University. In case you didn't think of it, Professor Bok's father is Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, and the author of a highly-influential book on affirmative action, The Shape of the River:Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Professor Bok's mother is Sissela Bok, a highly-regarded moral philospher and currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

That's some high powered left-wing creds! And you wouldn't want to sully them by getting down and dirty in the netroots fevers swamps. And remember what they say about that old pinnacle of the Ivy League:

“Harvard” is suspicious of patriotism, disdainful of small-town values and entertainments, enthusiastic about big government programs and transnational initiatives like the World Court and the EU. It is “homeopathic” at one remove: that is, it harbors a sentimental affection for the Third World, “traditional” medicine, native tribes (”native” anything, really, except “nativism” and “natality”) but only so long as it is filtered through the scrim of Western affluence and “progressive” values. (By the way, I keep putting the word “progressive” in scare quotes because progress suggests a movement forward towards a desirable goal whereas “progressive” in the Harvard sense embraces the rhetoric of progress while advocating policies that stymie it.)

Anyway, see John Hinderaker's comments on why reputation matters in blogging, "Leveling the Playing Field."

And here's an interesting piece of related trivia: Conor Friedersdorf, the eminent "conservative" and now Atlantic blogger/Andrew Sullivan colleague, was a student of Professor Bok's at Pomona College in the 1990s. And being the idiot that Friedersdorf is, he refuses to address her by her real name after he found it published at Wikipedia.

Wait! Here's another piece of related trivia: The "conservative" Andrew 'Harvard Ph.D.' Sullivan confesses that out of thousands of bloggers, "Hilzoy might be my favorite of the bunch" (via Memeorandum).

Well, there's your six-degrees of leftist separation for the day!

Photo Credit: The John Hopkins Newsletter, "Prof. Bok Goes Behind the Music: Bok Studied Both Economics and English Before Finally Settling On Her Love: Philosophy."

**********

UPDATE: I love it! Personal attacks in place of argumentation or refutation! From the very first comment:

Your jealousy is showing, Mr. Long Beach City College.

As regular readers know, I've addressed the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur, and its corollary, "he's only a junior college professor," in recent entries. See, "You're a Professor, Really?", and "Political Science at LBCC: Training the Next Generation of Leaders."

Actually, that would be "Dr. Long Beach City College."

And I would be jealous, if Hilzoy was a Harvard Ph.D. AND a neocon!

Human Remains from Crocodile Attack!!

**********

EXTREME BLOGGING!! - WEAK STOMACH? LOOK AWAY!!

TREE HUGGERS AND PETA FREAKS!! -

BEHOLD SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!

From Stormbringer and Theo Spark, "CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED . . .":

PICTURE IS HERE, AT THE LINK!!

The stomach contents from a 15-foot crocodile! I'm guessing Australia ... given the limited information at the post ...

Check the sequence of photos at the post, as well as the warnings ("Don't Fish Too Close to the Water ! ! !")

Also, readers might want to check Wikipedia on the danger to humans from crocodiles.

'At Least Democrats Are Up to the Multi-Kulti Frame...'

Amazingly, this is not a joke, although it's not atypical ... from the radical feminist blog, Feministing:

The Sotomayor hearings are pretty painful to watch, and should put to the side any belief that we are in a post-racial space. Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

It seems the question of whether Sotomayor's experience adds value, verse whether it impacts her ability to be objective in her rulings is at the core of the questioning, which is almost a pre-multiculturalism line of questioning that only a Republican would concern themselves with them. At least Democrats are up to the multi-kulti frame, where the more diverse we are, the better things are. It is not perfect, but it is better than the belief that white men are objective and everyone else is holding to much baggage to do their work.

Whoa.

Like I said, not atypical. See, Michelle Malkin, "Day Two: Sotomayor and Ritual Reassurances."

And breaking at CNN, "Sotomayor Calls 'Wise Latina' Remark a Bad Choice of Words."

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche!

'Robert Bork's America'

Here's Senator Edward Kennedy's speech on the Senate floor, June 23, 1987, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court, "Robert Bork's America":

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

If you've never read it, see Jonah Goldberg's now-classic article, "Ted Kennedy’s America: The Borking of American Politics" (from October 2007):

If you think American politics have gotten nastier, crueler, and more symbolic over the last 20 years, blame Ted Kennedy

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the borking of Judge Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee. And it was Ted Kennedy’s bilious bugle blast that brought the man down ...

By today’s standards, the slimy insinuations that Bork was a racist seem almost quaint. The investigations of his private life — Senate staffers pored over his video rental records in hope of finding something prurient — pale to the deepwater dredging of private lives today.

But that’s how precedents work. Small violations of principle tear the social fabric and the breach is pulled ever wider as more people march through the opening ...

Bork's spoke out recently in an interview at Newsweek, "The View From 1987":

President Obama has spoken of empathy as his key standard for choosing judicial nominees. What do you think of that approach?

I don't know exactly what empathy means. I suppose at a minimum it means you want a judge who will depart from the meaning of the constitution when a sympathetic case arises. It does seem to raise a warning that we're talking about a judge who does not follow the law.

And I take it that you don't approve?

You are quite correct.

What are your thoughts about Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

I think it was a bad mistake. Her comments about the wise Latina suggest identity-group jurisprudence. She also has a reputation for bullying counsel. And her record is not particularly distinguished. Far from it. And it is unusual to nominate somebody who states flatly that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action. But I can't believe she will be any worse than some recent white male appointees ...

Related, on the Sonia Sotomayor hearings:

* Chris Cillizza, "Winners and Losers, Sotomayor Day 1."

* Collin Levy, "Sotomayor and International Law."

* Byron York, "Will Republicans Eexpose the Two Sotomayors?"

* Investor's Business Daily, "Sonia's Senators."

* Washington Post, "President Obama's High Court Pick Deserves the Deference that Sen. Obama Failed to Show."

* Washington Post, "Sotomayor Faces Questions on Day Two of Hearings."

More at Memeorandum.

Video: Fox News, "Former Supreme Court Nominee on Judge Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings."

'The Writer, a Republican, is Governor of Alaska'

That's got to be the most ridiculously understated author's information line ever!

It identifies (the world famous) Sarah Palin, for her essay at Tuesday's Washington Post, "The 'Cap and Tax' Dead End."

I'm actually kind of impressed at how fast Palin's coming out of the gate. Remember my earlier essay, "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?" My recommendations included developing her policy expertise:

On policy knowledge, Palin needs to write her tell-all book from the 2008 campaign. She'll need to begin a wonkish speaking tour on her specialties of energy, the environment, and free-market economics.

Some wonkish op-eds can't hurt either. And let there be no doubt: This essay is the foundational plank of Governor Palin's 2012 nomination bid. She hits all the right notes, on energy independence and then some. Just the mention of "the resources that God created right underfoot" here in America will enrage secular collectivists from coast to coast.

There's a few pieces up at Memeorandum right now (and Macsmind is the only conservative at the moment). But by tomorrow afternoon I'll bet the Palin piece willl be Memeorandum's lead story.

Buckle up for yet another round of PDS.

The Left's Socialist Empathy Scam

Here's the headline from - I kid you not! - the People's Weekly World, "Senators Praise Sotomayor’s Empathy for Poor, Voiceless." And from the introduction:

With Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sitting in the witness chair, Democratic senators praised her wide-ranging judicial experience and her empathy for working people and the oppressed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings on Judge Sotomayor opened July 13 with her enjoying so much goodwill that South Carolina’s Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told her she will be confirmed “unless you have a complete meltdown.”

Blah, blah, blah ... Meltdown, schmeltdown. Sotomayor's in like Flynn with the Democratic majority as a La Raza quota queen. But don't you love that part about "empathy for working people and the oppressed."

Note that while the People's Weekly World is the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, the ideological viewpoint is virtually identical to what we see routinely at Daily Kos and other hardline radical blogs.

For example, here's Markos Moulitsas' piece today, "The GOP's Continued War on Empathy":

... people want empathy in their government. And if Republicans aren't going to provide it, they will cede the electoral battlefield to the one party who will ....

Well, actually not. While leftists will argue otherwise, Americans reject this socialist empathy scam. Here's this from Investor's Business Daily last month, "Thumbs-Down On Obama's 'Empathy' Standard":

Most Americans reject the broader criteria that judicial activists think can be brought to bear on Supreme Court decisions, including the "empathy" standard that President Obama has said is important in particularly difficult cases, a new IBD/TIPP Poll shows.

Three in five (59%) believe a high court justice should consider only the Constitution, applicable laws and precedents rather than all of these plus his or her own life experiences and views. Only one in three (32%) say justices must consider their life experiences and personal views.

By party, 42% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 66% of independents favor exclusive reliance on law.

By ideology, 71% of conservatives, 57% of moderates and 39% of liberals favor this approach.

On the empathy factor, a majority (51%) disagree with a statement paraphrasing remarks Obama made in 2005: "When it comes to the Supreme Court justices, law and precedent should determine rulings in 95% of the cases, but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart."

Only 23% agree with the statement. Most independent voters (58%), conservatives (61%) and moderates (50%) disagree with it. Democrats (31%) and liberals (35%) are the leading supporters of the concept that justices should go with their heart.

And communists ... netroots leftist communists, like the folks at Daily Kos.

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

I'm Hip to the IR Theory ... the Rap, Not So Much...

Well, the jig is up.

Try as I might to hold my own in the pop-culture blogging wars, Marc Lynch comes along and stomps me to the curb. Check out his post on rap music and international relations theory, "Jay-Z vs. the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate" (via Memeorandum):

Late last week, the Los Angeles rapper the Game launched a blistering attack against the legendary New York blogger rapper :>) Jay-Z. At a series of European shows, the Game led crowds in cheers of "F*** Jay-Z" and "Old Ass N*****", and at one point went into an obsenity laced (but rather wickedly funny) rampage against Jay-Z's fiance' (wife?) Beyonce. Over the weekend, he released "I'm So Wavy [Too Hardcore to be a Jay-Z]" an inconsistent but catchy attack on Jay-Z (note: all links are to songs which are almost certainly NSFW and which you might find offensive; you've been warned). When I started feeding this stuff to my friend Spencer Ackerman last week, his first take was that "the countdown to the end of the Game's career starts today." Mine, me being a professor of international relations, was to start thinking about how this could be turned into a story about the nature of hegemony and the debate over the exercise of American power. (That, and how I could waste time that I should be spending on real work.)

See, Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) is the closest thing to a hegemon which the rap world has known for a long time. He's #1 on the Forbes list of the top earning rappers. He has an unimpeachable reputation, both artistic and commercial, and has produced some of the all-time best (and best-selling) hip hop albums including standouts Reasonable Doubt, The Blueprint and the Black Album. He spent several successful years as the CEO of Def Jam Records before buying out his contract a few months ago to release his new album on his own label. And he's got Beyonce. Nobody, but nobody, in the hip hop world has his combination of hard power and soft power. If there be hegemony, then this is it. Heck, when he tried to retire after the Black Album, he found himself dragged back into the game (shades of America's inward turn during the Clinton years?).

But the limits on his ability to use this power recalls the debates about U.S. primacy. Should he use this power to its fullest extent, as neo-conservatives would advise, imposing his will to reshape the world, forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership? Or should he fear a backlash against the unilateral use of power, as realists such as my colleague Steve Walt or liberals such as John Ikenberry would warn, and instead exercise self-restraint?

There's lots more at the link.

The guy's good. A great application of theory to current rap music wars. It's too bad - no, a shame - that Lynch isn't a neocon ... seriously.

America's First Anti-American President

Dan Riehl makes a point - an excellent point - that's not unfamiliar to readers of this blog, "Obama: The First Anti-American President:

The need to continue to dance around it is growing silly. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids, without the homespun Southern meme. From traditional American economics, to our traditional role in world affairs, Obama is not a fan of a traditionally American worldview. He's the anti-Reagan, in that sense. And only fear of being politically incorrect prevents more people from saying it.

Liz Cheney calls him out on his latest episode of undermining America in the world's eyes, because Obama sees America as just another country, with no special place in world history. He is a revisionist in the broadest sense. Don't look for it to stop anytime soon. From undermining the nation economically - to militarily and morally, his new vision for America is increasingly clear with each passing day. He seeks to re-invent us as less than what we are because, to his Leftist mind, it's somehow more.

Dan's Liz Cheney link is here: "Obama Rewrites the Cold War: The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies."

It's worth a look.

California Activists Push to End Benefits for Resident Aliens and Anchor Babies

From the Los Angeles Times, "Activists Push Ballot Initiative to End State Benefits for Illegal Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children":

In a stretch of desert just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, men and women in khakis and the colors of the American flag recently gathered at a border watch post they call Camp Vigilance and discussed their next offensive in the nation's immigration wars.

The target: Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

The plan: a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates.

"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."

Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally.

The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens ...

Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, said courts would almost certainly strike down the measure.

"This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge," he said. "It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens."

Backers say, however, that they have carefully crafted the measure to avoid the legal pitfalls that doomed Proposition 187, which would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving any public social services, education and nonemergency medical care. Voters approved it, 59% to 41%, but a federal judge ruled that the measure unconstitutionally usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration.

This time, backers worked with attorneys who have helped craft successful efforts to curtail benefits in other states.

The new measure does not claim any state authority to regulate immigration, said Mike Hethmon, an attorney with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute who advised the initiative's authors. Instead, he said, it is based on federal authority delegated to the states to restrict access to benefits and verify applicants' eligibility.

Under the 1996 federal welfare reform law, illegal residents are barred from welfare, public housing, food assistance, unemployment aid and other federal benefits. California laws, however, allow illegal residents to receive some state and local benefits, including nonemergency medical care.

The initiative would require all applicants for public benefits to verify their legal status. And unlike Proposition 187, it would not attempt to curtail access to education.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.

Arizona passed a similar measure, Proposition 200, in 2004. See, "Immigration Measure Taps Frustrations in Arizona." Also, "Anti-Immigration Initiative Takes Effect in Arizona."

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a legal challenge to the measure in 2007. See, "Court Sides With Prop. 200 Backers."

Related: Victor Davis Hanson, "Accounting for California's Suicide," and Fox News, "Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American."

'Jane Roe' to Senate Judiciary Committee: "You're Wrong Sotomayor ...'

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, " 'Jane Roe' Gets Kicked Out of Sotomayor Hearing":

Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade, was escorted out of a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor Monday when she began to scream at Sotomayor that she was "wrong " for her perceived abortion rights views.

"You're wrong Sotomayor," she said. "You're wrong."

McCorvey was the poster child for the abortion rights movement before having a change of heart in the 90s and becoming active in anti-abortion demonstrations ...

“I’m here to overturn Roe and defeat Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” McCorvey said earlier in the day. “She’s unworthy of the position. She’s Catholic. She’s even unworthy of taking communion because of her pro-abortion stance.”

Also, from The Ninth Justice, "GOP Witness: Abortion Protests 'Not Surprising' ":

Four anti-abortion protesters have already been escorted out of Hart 216 on Day One of the Sotomayor hearing. That doesn't surprise Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life and one of 14 witnesses called by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Anti-abortion protesters have been demonstrating outside the Hart Building throughout the day as well.

The outbursts "underscore that the grassroots really are energized about this and are paying attention," Yoest said in an interview during the lunchtime break at today's hearing.

Also, check out Wendy Long, "Partial-Birth Abortion Questions for Sotomayor."

And, via Memeorandum, see Andrew Malcolm, "Sotomayor Hearings: All Senators' Opening Statement Texts: Leahy, Sessions, et al."

Plus, Fox News, "Sotomayor Pledges 'Fidelity to the Law' During First Day of Confirmation Hearing."

Video Credit: "First Day of Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings."

Added: Washington Post, " 'Jane Roe' Arrested at Supreme Court Hearing."