Wednesday, January 30, 2008

There are 3 kinds of women

I read a lot of comics when I was younger. A lot. My Dad owned a drugstore, and when I worked on Saturdays as a stock boy and soda jerk any downtime was spent reading the comics he sold. I liked Superman, The Flash, Batman, Fantastic Four... Green Lantern was my favorite, which I am sure reveals some psychological quirk or other.

On the distaff side, I liked Wonder Woman. I always thought she had great, err... gadgets. Among other items, a transparent jet fighter (which she could invoke at will), the Bracelets of the Aegis, a magic tiara and the Lasso of Truth.

The Lasso of Truth is also the name of a blog I like, and I present an example of why that's the case. This post features a Playboy magazine cover in which a model is dressed, well painted, as Wonder Woman. That's good. The better part is the discussion of super-heroines and feminism.

Read the whole thing, here's a teaser:

...There are 3 kinds of women -- those who trade on their sexuality when it is all they have to offer; those who bemoan and decry their sexuality because they fear they have nothing better to offer; and those who accept it as part of who they are because they know it is not all they have to offer.
P.S., don't neglect clicking on the pinup.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Darling of the New York times

Probably too late to do Rudy much good, but if it damages John McCain TOC is happy to present it.


Yesterday, James Taranto had this observation about Bull Clinton trying to tie Barack Obama to race-based looter Jesse Jackson. Emphasis mine:
Best of the Web Today - January 28, 2008

Invidious Bill

Hillary Clinton had her head handed to her by Barack Obama in Saturday's South Carolina primary, and her husband was quick to minimize the loss, Jake Tapper of ABC News reports:

*** QUOTE ***
Said Bill Clinton [Saturday] in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
*** END QUOTE ***

Yet while Tapper and many other observers are put off by Mr. Clinton's evident appeal to racial prejudice, Jackson himself professes not to be, according to the New York Times:

*** QUOTE ***
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said late Sunday that he was not offended by comments on Saturday by former President Bill Clinton, who brought up Mr. Jackson's name in response to a question about Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Clinton had noted that Mr. Jackson had won South Carolina in the Democratic contests in 1984 and 1988. Pundits and many in the blogosphere interpreted Mr. Clinton's mention of Mr. Jackson as an attempt to diminish Mr. Obama . . . because Mr. Jackson had not gone on to win the Democratic nomination.

But Mr. Jackson said he did not see it that way.

"I don't read anything negative into Clinton's observation," Mr. Jackson said in a phone conversation late Sunday night. . . . Still, Mr. Jackson said that he had spoken to Mr. Obama on Saturday night and to Mr. Clinton a few days earlier and that he had appealed to both to "take it to a higher ground."
*** END QUOTE ***

In Mr. Clinton's defense, it may be said that Obama has some things in common with Jackson as a presidential candidate. Like Jackson (at least in South Carolina), he won an overwhelming number of black votes--78%, according to CNN exit polls--presumably in part because of ethnic pride. As for the white vote, one can argue that Obama's glass is half empty (less than 1 in 4 whites went for him) or half full (Obama's 24% was much better than the estimated 5% to 10% Jackson got in the 1988 caucuses, according to the New York Times ). Also, in this columnist's opinion, Obama, like Jackson, is too liberal and too inexperienced to make an ideal president.

Given all this, and given that Jackson himself is taking the high road, shouldn't we refrain from making a big deal of Mr. Clinton's remark?

Absolutely not. Jackson is impossibly compromised in this matter, because at the root of Mr. Clinton's comment is the recognition that Jackson stands for something loathsome--something that Obama has repudiated.

Jesse Jackson is not a racial healer but an ambulance chaser. He has made his career exploiting black insecurity and white guilt, seizing on racial disputes and misunderstandings to profit financially and enhance his own status. If racial disharmony disappeared tomorrow, Jackson would be out of a job.

In this sense--the sense that is most important to Jackson's political identity--Obama is Jackson's opposite. He has emerged as a national political figure, and a plausible prospective president, by calling for unity, not by seeking to take advantage of division.

When Mr. Clinton likens Obama to Jackson, the clear message to white voters is that a black candidate cannot be better than Jackson, cannot be relied upon to put the interests of the country above those of his race or himself. This is a truly bigoted notion--and it is one that Jackson cannot protest, for to protest it would be to acknowledge the truth about himself.

Monday, January 28, 2008


If you believe Ralph Nader, Bill Clinton was a pretty good President. Sort of a garrulous Calvin Coolidge. Without the taciturn truthiness and more or less accidentally, due to lacking any moral principles whatever - but sort of.

It's the lack of moral principles thing that makes Hillary more dangerous than Bill. Not that she shares that lack. She actually has principles, those a Satanic cult might imbue. Put another way, Bill was too busy chasing skirts to be serious about policy. Hillary is deadly serious.

For Bill it's all about what he can do for him. For Hillary it's all about what she can do to you.

Perjury, Schmurgery

Kwame Kilpatrick lied under oath about consensual sex with a subordinate in order to subvert justice in a civil suit. He perjured himself in regard to adultery.

So what's the problem? Isn't that exactly what Bill Clinton did? Where are Kwame's liberal defenders? MoveOn, nothing to see here.

TOC has written about Detroit's corrupt mayor only once previously, and I still don't understand how he got reelected. Kwame, the Ambassador Bridge is right there. Take it.

Detroit has the mayor it asked for.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Clowns and Cuckoo's nests

Not only ought there to be clowns, there ARE clowns. Just not the ones this guy thinks there are.

Send in the Clowns! There Ought to be Clowns!
From MIRS News, 1-24-08:

Bieda Says Recallers Are 'Clowns'
Rep. Steve BIEDA (D-Warren), one of six lawmakers who is facing an active recall threat said today that he doesn't think much of the folks involved in that effort...

...Bieda is facing a possible recall because he supported tax increases last year to balance the budget and he said, "I have no qualms about decisions I've made" even though "I may disagree with myself" on some of those issues...
But, read the whole thing. He has other equally weird comments.

Free speech in Canada, an insider's view

Rex Murphy, Quotidian Instructor of Canadian Punctured Pretentiousness, writes in the Globe and Mail:
Coming to a human rights commission near you

Our esteemed human rights commissions are so busy these days, it worries me.

The number of these gimlet-eyed scrutineers is, after all, finite.

There is, therefore, only a limited store of intellectual energy and moral fervour for them to call upon. In a brutish world, righteousness is not inexhaustible; virtue, like oil, has its peak moments and, with their current agenda, Canada's HRCs may run out of fuel.

Alberta's Human Rights Commission, one of the keenest, a noble avatar of those old censor boards that used to guard public libraries from “steamy” literature and “brazen” language, is trying to contain – I think that is the only proper verb here – Ezra Levant. ...

The dangers of censor exhaustion are not to be taken lightly.

H/T Dust My Broom

Friday, January 25, 2008

Acadian Driftwood?

A public service and part of TOC's Lessons from Canada series.

From a lecture delivered by Mark Steyn on the Hillsdale College campus. September 29, 2007:

Is Canada's Economy a Model for America?

I was a bit stunned to be asked to speak on the Canadian economy. “What happened?” I wondered. “Did the guy who was going to talk about the Belgian economy cancel?” It is a Saturday night, and the Oak Ridge Boys are playing the Hillsdale County Fair. Being from Canada myself, I am, as the President likes to say, one of those immigrants doing the jobs Americans won’t do. And if giving a talk on the Canadian economy on a Saturday night when the Oak Ridge Boys are in town isn’t one of the jobs Americans won’t do, I don’t know what is.

Unlike America, Canada is a resource economy: The U.S. imports resources, whereas Canada exports them. It has the second largest oil reserves in the world. People don’t think of Canada like that. The Premier of Alberta has never been photographed in Crawford, Texas, holding hands with the President and strolling through the rose bower as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was. But Canada is nonetheless an oil economy—a resource economy. Traditionally, in America, when the price of oil goes up, Wall Street goes down. But in Canada, when the price of oil goes up, the Toronto stock exchange goes up, too. So we are relatively compatible neighbors whose interests diverge on one of the key global indicators. As we know from 9/11, the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia use their oil wealth to spread their destructive ideology to every corner of the world.

And so do the Canadians. Consider that in the last 40 years, fundamental American ideas have made no headway whatsoever in Canada, whereas fundamental Canadian ideas have made huge advances in America and the rest of the Western world. To take two big examples, multiculturalism and socialized health care— both pioneered in Canada—have made huge strides down here in the U.S., whereas American concepts—such as non-confiscatory taxation—remain as foreign as ever.
Read the whole thing.

Acadian Driftwood is a song by The Band: Steyn makes note that Quebec and Louisiana are the 2 most corrupt governments in their respective countries and that both are heavily influenced by French tradition.

Some of the details about Quebec you'll have to read to believe.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Baiters of the Lost ARHCC

Standing common sense on its head
and proudly Orwellian since 1986
(we were busy designing our forms for 2 years)

Iowahawk apparently was successful in filing a Freedom of Disinformation Act request with the Alberta "Human Rights" and Citizenship Commission. He has Shirlene McGovern's report on Ezra Levant. The internal workings of the AHRCC are revealed in all their byzantine bureaucratic blandness.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Maim Scream Media™

Or: If it leads, it bleeds.

Iowahawk performs a public service by bringing the depressing spectre of post journalistic stress syndrome into the open. In one brilliant stroke he reveals the inner turmoil behind the frenetic barking of presenters as diverse as Dan Rather and Keith Olberman; the tragedy of almost average minds gone to waste. It is time for us to recognize that the immortal words of Howard Beale, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" were a pathetic cry for help*.

Click the links to read the whole thing(s).

Bylines of Brutality
As Casualties Mount, Some Question The Emotional Stability of Media Vets

An Iowahawk Special Investigative Report
With Statistical Guidance from the New York Times

A Denver newspaper columnist is arrested for stalking a story subject. In Cincinnati, a television reporter is arrested on charges of child molestation. A North Carolina newspaper reporter is arrested for harassing a local woman. A drunken Chicago Sun-Times columnist and editorial board member is arrested for wife beating. A Baltimore newspaper editor is arrested for threatening neighbors with a shotgun. In Florida, one TV reporter is arrested for DUI, while another is charged with carrying a gun into a high school. A Philadelphia news anchorwoman goes on a violent drunken rampage, assaulting a police officer. In England, a newspaper columnist is arrested for killing her elderly aunt.

Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America's newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters? Answers are elusive, but the ever-increasing toll of violent crimes committed by journalists has led some experts to warn that without programs for intensive mental health care, the nation faces a potential bloodbath at the hands of psychopathic media vets.

A Public Service Message

I have to say I was heartened by the response to my investigative piece on the national crisis in journalist violence. As you know, whenever a public crisis is identified, the first steps in a solution are (a) a non-profit foundation, and (b) posters! Luckily I had some spare time today and it was too damn cold to go outside.
I'm now waiting for Iowahawk to report on homeless media vets.

*Rent Network. It's a good movie.

Monday, January 21, 2008

The Hillary Papers

You aren't hearing anything about these memos from the MSM. Fortunately, Captain's Quarters shines some light on the statist machinations surrounding Hillary Care.

Giving a nod to TOC's "learn from Canada" series, she didn't have Tommy Douglas, a Canadian who had much in common with Mike Huckabee.

Andragogy Canada

Free Health Care
The wisdom of Brian Day
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, January 21, 2008

Few people have done more to raise the issue of medical wait times than Dr. Brian Day. Dr. Day and the Canadian Medical Association he heads are at it again.

This time they have released a study showing that long waits for medical care cost the Canadian economy $14.8 billion in 2007.

As well, the report shows that the federal and provincial governments failed to collect $4.4 billion in taxes because Canadians were waiting for health care.

..."Forcing patients to endure pain and suffering in order to sustain a social program is wrong," the CMA chief said.

Freedom of speech

What a strange place Canada is


Special to Globe and Mail Update
January 21, 2008 at 12:32 AM EST

A few days ago, I was interrogated for 90 minutes by Shirlene McGovern, an officer of the government of Alberta. I have been accused of hurting people's feelings because, two years ago, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard magazine.

Ms. McGovern's business card said she was a "Human Rights Officer." What a perfectly Orwellian title.

Early in her interrogation, she said "I always ask people … what was your intent and purpose of your article?"

It wasn't even a question about what we had published in the magazine. It was a question about my private thoughts. I asked her why my private feelings were of interest to the government. She said, very calmly, that they would be a factor taken into account by the government in determining whether or not I was guilty.

Officer McGovern said it as calmly as if I had asked her what time it was.

When she's doing government interrogations, she always asks people about their thoughts.

...What a strange place Canada is in 2008, where the police care more about human rights than the human rights commissions do, where fundamentalist Muslims use hate-speech laws drafted by secular Jews, and where a government bureaucrat can interrogate a publisher for 90 minutes, and be shocked when he won't shake her hand in greeting.
Read the whole thing in both cases.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Lessons from Canada

TOC has long pointed out that the United States can profit from observing the consequences of Canadian social experiments. Prominent among these precautionary tales have been socialized medicine and gun bans.

Another example is official multi-culturalism. Canadian immigration policy has been to reject the "melting pot," assimilationist approach in favor of a multi-cultural "mosaic." Official multi-culturalism is the theory that your country's traditional values and character are less important than the mores immigrants bring with them when escaping leaving their own countries. To believe otherwise is racist and chauvinist. Therefore, immigrants should be encouraged to remain culturally separate and exquisitely sensitive to any criticism of the values they bring with them.

In Canada this national self-deprecation is quite advanced. Complaints of hurt feelings are prosecuted by government "Human Rights" Commissions wherein those charged are guilty until proven innocent. They have no right to confront their accusers and must bear the entire financial burden of their defense - while the government funds the prosecution. Entrapment is practiced officially. Double or triple, or more, jeopardy is standard.

The convening of such tribunals is considered even more important when the complainant is on record as advocating the replacement of Canadian norms with his own cultural paradigm. Replacing Canadian jurisprudence with Sharia, is one example. This idea has been seriously debated in Ontario, and we have not seen the end of it.

It is also particularly important to upholding "human rights" to hear from individuals who have elevated racism and misogyny to art forms. A history of advocating the destruction of Israel, or defending "honor" killings may not be required for acceptance by an HRC, but they're strongly correlated with many recent plaintiffs' beliefs.

TOC has written extensively about the charges against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant brought by extreme Islamists and taken up by various Canadian HRCs. This is multi-culturalism as suppression of free speech in contradiction to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

Some Canadian bureaucrats are not entirely on board with this fundamental freedom.

This exchange was reported at Pundita on Friday, January 18: Any questions about the state of democracy education in Canada?

The following exchange is from the Warman vs Lemire Section 13 hate speech hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (page 4793 of the transcript). Barbara Kulaszka is the attorney for the respondent in the case. Dean Steacy is the chief CHRC investigator.
MS. KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS. KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.
Mr. Steacy is otherwise famous for posting at the "white nationalist" website Stormfront under the name "Jadwarr." Steacy's intent in this activity is entrapment. Mark Steyn reports:
1. Do any investigators post on

I am not aware of any investigator other than me [Steacy], who has posted on Stormfront.

2. Getting back to Jadewarr, do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stormfront, under pseudonyms such as "Jadewarr"?

I used the Jadewarr email address to create an account on Stormfront. I am not aware whether or not other investigators have created other accounts on Stormfront.

3. Do you know who Jadewarr is?

Jadewarr is not a person, it is an email address and a user account on I created the Jadewarr email address on and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront. I have used the Jadewarr email address and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront on occasion, in the course of investigating complaints. I am not aware of anyone else having used the Jadewarr email address or account.

4. To your knowledge, is Jadewarr a Commission employee?

See above.

5. As part of your duties, have you ever signed up with a message board and made postings?

Yes, I have done so using the Jadewarr account in investigating section 13 complaints.
Thought police. He's just taking a cue from ex-CHRC employee Richard Warman, who practices such entrapment for financial gain. Warman is quite good as a sock puppet:
Is Richard Warman a racist bigot, or was he "just following orders" issued by his masters at the Canadian Human Rights Commission when he posted the headlined message above on a Freedomsite forum on September 5, 2003? Whatever the answer, the same CHRC that has ruled Bible verses to be hate speech doesn't seem to consider these words to be a problem.

But they are a big problem, for both Richard Warman and the CHRC, and the rest of what he wrote only makes matters worse.
“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!
It may be mere coincidence that Richard Warman is in fact an Anglo-German, but it is not likely a coincidence at all that the owner of the website where Richard Warman posted this racist screed against Sen. Anne Cools came under attack by the CHRC shortly after Richard Warman began his complaint-less investigation there.
One hopes Mr. Warman is criminally charged. Mark Steyn has a further note about Mr. Warman here.
Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn't have to demonstrate that he's been deprived of his human rights, only that it's "likely" (i.e. "highly un-") that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime. Who is Richard Warman? What's his story? Well, he's a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission: an investigator. Same as Shirlene McGovern.

Isn't there something a little odd in a supposedly necessary Canadian federal "human rights" system used all but exclusively by one lone Canadian who served as a long-time employee of that system? Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition? You can hardly blame the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and no doubt the Supreme All-Powerful Islamic Executive Council of Swift Current, Sask., for now figuring they'd like a piece of the human rights action.
Many other excellent posts on what this fascist tendency in Canada may mean to us are to be found at Pundita. Links below. What does it mean that Canada's multi-cultural policy is called a "success" and used to encourage other countries to do follow suit?

Tuesday, January 8
Maclean's Magazine Affair reveals deep fissures in Canada's democracy

Monday, January 14
Canada's version of The Minority Report: pre-crime and presumption of guilt in Section 13 cases. More on the Maclean's Magazine Affair.

Wednesday, January 16
Don't rile the natives, or what do Canada and Chechnya have in common?

Thursday, January 17
Pundita answers the critics

Sunday, January 20
Section 13 as a criminal matter. Advice for Ezra Levant, Maclean's magazine, and other victims of Section 13 proceedings

Update: 7:48 PM

Pat Condell
O dhimmi Canada

Amy Ridenour's mini-hiatus ends

...with 3 posts worth reading:

Corporate CEO or Environmental Advocate?

Ten Myths About Nuclear Power

Wolf-Protecting Oil Drilling Opponent Rep. George Miller Stands Squarely on Both Sides of the Caribou-Protection Issue

Making the impossible happen

RightMichigan has the story of the Democrats' intentions for more tax hikes here:

Dillon has another tax-hike in store for you after the November election!!!

All Andy Dillon can be thinking is, "Oops!"

We can hope this information will make it to the State Journal under Mr. Skubick's byline.

The Governor can be expected to reiterate her pledge of December 6th, "The most important thing I learned is I'm not ever going to raise taxes again. It's too hard. It's too impossible."

Friday, January 18, 2008

Jay R. Grodner has his day in court

Justice is served upon an anti-military shyster in Chicago. Via Blackfive commenter wp91:
The update: At 1400 hours the defendant showed up, and was told that he was half an hour late. The Judge stated on the record that the defendant had done the same thing during the previous court date, and he said that the defendant called and said that wanted to wait for the media to leave. The Judge said "That is not the way I run my courtroom." He increased the bail and took him into custody and told him to try and work out a deal with the State. About 25-35 marines and assorted military were there.

The case was recalled at 14:22, and the State said that the defendant had asked for permission to put his belt and such back on. The Judge said, "Treat him like all the other prisoners." The defendant was brought out and the plea deal that they had worked out was entered into the record.

The Judge asked him if he had committed the specific acts he was accused of. The defendant hemmed and hawed, and the Judge raised his voice to make him say yes or no. The defendant agreed, and the Judge read the facts into the record. Several times, the Judge said if there were no deal, he would be given a court date just like any other defendant, and he could try and make bail soon.

The deal: 1 year Social Service Supervision, restitution of 600 dollars to be paid to Social Services and which would go to the Injured Marine Semper Fi fund, to be paid by February 25th, 2008, and $50/month in supervision fees.

The Judge then, in as angry a voice as I have ever heard him use, scolded the defendant, saying that the Marine license plates the complaining witness had were not vanity plates or about ego, but the proceeds go toward the Marine and Navy scholarship fund for the children of fallen soldiers, sailors and marines. These Marines protect his very existence "so people like you can enjoy their freedom." He further said that the reason there were so many in the courtroom and so much public interest is that the Marines have a tradition since 1775 that "No Marine gets left behind." Several Hoorahs in the courtroom.

And then the deal was done, and he was taken away by the sheriffs to be released later.

If there are any questions, I can try and answer them...
Questions to wp91 can be posed at the link above. A transcript copy may be in the works.

I'm still wondering about the $2,400 Sgt McNulty needs to repaint his car. I'm also wondering if there will be any other sanctions against Grodner from the Illinois Bar.

Update: 2:25PM 19-Jan-08
A story with some comments from Grodner - John Kass at the Chicago Tribune. Read the whole thing. Jay Grodner demonstrates that he is indeed the self-absorbed, privilege seeking ingrate his petty vandalism and claims of religious persecution when caught in the act suggested.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Ezra Levant 9 AHRC 0

One can hope that public exposure of Ezra Levant's interrogation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission will produce the revulsion these Star Chambers deserve.

If you haven't been following this, the first 7 video segments are linked here: Proceedings of the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission

Ezra's comments are worthy of an Ayn Rand novel. You should watch all the videos he's posted. Here are links to the latest 2 videos of this travesty:

Violating their own policies, ignoring their own procedures

My closing argument

This is the best view you're going to get of the genteel Stalinism of a society obsessed by multi-culturalism and political correctness until you're called before our Federal Elections Commission to explain some post on your blog. It is creepy to watch Officer McGovern, not because she is personally scary, but because she so facile a functionary of totalitarianism.

Make no mistake, there is no difference in principle between this bland Canadian functionary asking a magazine publisher's "intent" in publishing some cartoons and our Federal Elections Commission asking a blogger to prove his speech was not a political contribution. No difference. In both cases it is supression of legimate political speech. In Canada they're at least honest enough to let anyone initiate the censorship, here we only do it for congressional incumbents.

Monday, January 14, 2008

What is a black female to do? Doctrinairily, that is.

Over the weekend we were treated to barrage and counter-barrage on the subject of the Hillary Clinton campaign's flirtation with the race card. After her husband dismissed Barack Obama’s campaign as a “fairy tale,” Hillary seemed to imply that Lyndon Johnson’s contribution to civil rights progress was more important than Dr. Martin Luther King’s. (Never mind that it was Republicans in Congress who supplied the votes to override Dixiecrat filibusters.) She went on to say “When they say to themselves, OK, I have a choice between a truly inspirational speaker (Obama) who has not done the kind of spade work with the sort of experience that another candidate has…” Now, I don’t subscribe to the PC BS that would take offense to that; but as a liberal Democrat, and wife of the first black President, she should have known it would get some people upset.

This allowed the blogosphere to go nuts over a comment by NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that wasn’t even directed at Obama.
It's not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can't just buy your way through that race ... It doesn't work that way, it's frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with 10 people in a living room.

You can't shuck and jive at a press conference, you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room.

"And I think it's good for the candidates. I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you're communicating. And I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good ...
I’m having trouble being serious about this, but if it comes down to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in one corner and Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy in the other, I know where I’d place my bet.

All this is too bad, and I say that with less irony than you might think. Some will argue that having been the party of identity politics for decades the Dems deserve a nasty internal battle, but the showdown between the politics of sex and the politics of race only provides soapboxes for gender feminists and race baiters. If your impulse is to vote for someone based either on their genitalia or on their melanin content, it would be better if you just don’t bother.

But why bring sex into it, you might ask? Well, last week Gloria Steinem felt compelled to play the “gender card” on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Steinem thinks that's trump. She wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners.

Steinem went on to explain why Hillary's presidential “inevitability” was illusory. Predictably, Steinem identified the cause as men. Young women failed to vote reflexively for Hillary in Iowa because they had been intimidated. Apparently they didn’t get Gloria’s 1975 memo about The Patriarchy. These women had also not been paying sufficient attention to Della Sentilles’ assertions that feminism is only for white women of privilege.

Steinem didn’t stop with complaining about men, however, she had to discuss how unfair it was that Barack Obama hadn’t suffered from a racist backlash:

But what worries me is that he [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she [Clinton] is seen as divisive by her sex.
Now, I thought Obama's Iowa victory was proof of an ability to unify across the demographic continuum. I mean, if every black person in Iowa, but no others, had voted for him he could not have won. Some not-of-color people must have screwed up, or maybe it was a massive mulatto vote.

Steinem’s not finished, however:

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. [An MLK reference preceding Hillary’s gaffe. Talking point?]

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t. [This is the females were intimidated bit. They don’t have the courage of their convictions.]
Seen by whom, Gloria? The vast right wing conspiracy of young females who could project their own hopes onto the blank liberal slate of Barack Obama more easily than they could onto a too well known politician of personal destruction? Did you ever consider that, in addition to having run a crappy campaign based on being the front runner, Hillary actually is divisive across all demographics because of her history, actions and beliefs?

That is, if Hillary is seen to be a congenital liar trying to trade on her spouse’s experience, maybe it’s because she's a congenital liar trying to trade on her spouse’s experience. We suspect this from observation, not misogyny. From a woman's perspective, one might think Hillary's acceptance of, and collusion in, her husband’s harassment of women is a negative. Not to mention his utter disrespect for her. In a world where we all understood common English words she’d be an embarrassment to feminists.

If the cause of women's disdain for Hillary is women’s fear of disapproval; then despite 35 years of Ms magazine and the ashes of thousands of brassieres, feminism has accomplished exactly nothing. Therein, I think, lies Steinem’s angst.

As noted, since Steinem’s article appeared in the NYT, we’ve seen several charges of racism thrown at the Clintons. With the race card now in play we may well look back at Steinem’s screed as the beginning of some pretty ugly sniping among the Democrats. Steinem anticipates this, even while making an argument that sex is more important, oppression-wise, than race:

Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love.
Too late, Gloria. And, as I say, you may well have fired the first shot.

Ms Steinem closed her essay with an exhortation to vote for "the woman:"
We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
In fact, we don’t have to be able to say that at all. The logic is all too obvious. Beyond that, since Ms Steinem provided no evidence as to her first assertion, and since only the second is demonstrably true, we are left with nothing but her unsubstantiated opinion that Hillary would be even as good as Barack as president.

Since policy differences between a Clinton and an Obama administration would be minimal, Hillary is left with only one message – she has “experience.” Since this experience is primarily that of being someone’s wife, it seems a strange argument for a feminist to swallow.

Nobody seriously believes Hillary’s experience as First Lady prepared her to be President. In fact, dwelling on this only reminds us of her time in the White House. Nothing good for her campaign can come of that.

So Steinem says, "Vote for the woman, not the black guy. She deserves it because she’s good enough."

To close, I’ll give you the view of two other observers whose credentials are as least as good as Ms Steinem’s on the matter. We have this from alpha-feminist and Al Gore sartorial consultant, Naomi Wolf:

Message, not gender, turns voters off Clinton

[Hillary’s presidential hopes] …could be fading if primary voters opt for the promise of hope and change projected by Obama over Clinton's experience and readiness to lead.

Those issues rather than gender will determine whether the U.S. senator from New York and wife of former President Bill Clinton stands or falls, according to Naomi Wolf, author of the 1991 bestseller "The Beauty Myth" and other books.

"None of the polling or the focus groups indicate that people are ... (snubbing) her because she is a woman but because of a deficit in how she is projecting leadership," Wolf said.

…Even if U.S. feminists can chew on many issues such as workplace constraints and lack of widely available cheap child care, few female voters view Clinton as a "standard bearer" for their cause because women span the spectrum of opinion and leaders already seek out their votes by responding to some of their concerns, Wolf said.
Finally, here’s Michael Barone, with the analysis Steinem should have considered.
Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton

Today's young women voters are different. They were not raised by mothers who told them they had a duty to stay home with their children. They were raised by mothers who told them they had all sorts of choices they could choose. …These young women don't react defensively to antichoice politicians and don't feel a need to be liberated from restraints that were never urged on them. In fact, it appears that the percentage of mothers of children under 5 not working outside the home has been on the increase for a decade or so. Politically, the idea of a first woman president does not transfix them-or at least not enough for them to prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. At least in the Iowa caucuses.
This would actually be counted as a success for feminism, if feminism were about what’s good for women instead of what Gloria Steinem sees as her legacy.

Michigan Primary

This is not an endorsement, it's the title of the linked article.

Mitt Romney Goes for the Gold in Michigan
...There may be a surprise on the Democratic side as well. Although Hillary Clinton's major opponents (Obama, Edwards) are not on the ballot, she may be in trouble anyway. Outgoing state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, is actively and openly working against Clinton. Brewer is an Edwards supporter, Anuzis says, and will not run for reelection as state party chairman. Brewer is encouraging voters to vote 'uncommitted' if they support any candidate other than Clinton. If 'uncommitted' wins more than 15% of the vote in any congressional district, an 'uncommitted' i.e. non-Clinton delegate will be sent to the National Convention. If Michigan polls are accurate, the anti-Hillary vote is strong in the state.
Mark Brewer and big labor in South East Michigan wanted Edwards as the Democrat nominee, and this is why the Democrats in the Michigan House didn't force candidates to leave their names on the ballot as did Florida.

John Edwards would have benefited most from the possibility of caucuses instead of a primary. Second best is to claim it wasn't his fault he lost and hope for Michigan's Democratic Party Chairman to promote the "uncommitted vote."

Democrats in Michigan upset with their ballot choices have only their own party and its leaders to blame.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Proceedings of the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission

Updates from Ezra Levant's appearance before the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission. He's charged with publishing those Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed in The Western Standard, a Canadian magazine.

This is a glimpse of the logical conclusion of Senator McCain's anti-First Amendment impulses. All Canada has done is to ignore its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was civil libertarians who set these commissions up with the best of intent.
Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, underlined the danger last year after the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a human rights complaint against the Western Standard for republishing a set of Danish cartoons that many Muslims found offensive. In an article in the Calgary Herald, Borovoy wrote: "During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create (human rights) commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech."
Liberal fascism may thus be seen as a mere failure of imagination. In this case, a failure to imagine that Government Bureaucracies are self-aggrandizing.

Opening statement

Kangaroo court
opening statement transcript

What was your intent?

Violence in Alberta

I don't answer to the state

"You're entitled to your opinions"

Update: 1:01PM YouTube appears to have removed a couple of these videos and they've then apparently been reposted, so you may have to check back periodically.

Added: The limits of free speech, and the power to order me to apologize

Friday, January 11, 2008

Human Rights in Canada

A story to watch. It says a lot about Canada's McCain-Feingold-on-steroids speech suppression laws.

In this instance, it's the Alberta Human Rights Wallaby Court* Star Chamber Commission.
*TOC refers to these tribunals as Wallaby Courts because calling them Kangaroo Courts grants too much respect.

My visit to a kangaroo court

Today at 2 p.m. I will appear before an Alberta "human rights officer" for an interrogation. I am being interrogated for the political crime of publishing the Danish cartoons in the Western Standard nearly two years ago.

As a lawyer, I've been in different courts and tribunals, but I've never experienced a kangaroo court first-hand. I will have a more comprehensive report later today. In the meantime, I leave you with three documents:

1. The hand-scrawled complaint filed against the magazine by a radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for sharia law to be imposed in Canada;

2. My response to that complaint; and

3. A look at those cartoons again.

As they say in Virginia, sic semper tyrannis!
RTWT and check out the links mentioned. It gives you a chance to review those murderous cartoons, too.

Good Luck, Mr. Levant. We'll look for updates.

Sums it up

Michael Ramirez, IBD

TOC is an Equal opportunity RINO basher.

Jay R. Grodner news

John Kass, in the Chicago Tribune:
Marine has vocal fans, but lawyer mum

...It's not the case of the century, but it has captured the hearts of many readers.

Some want to fix McNulty's car for free, so he can sell it. Others offered to purchase the vehicle. Several BMW dealers -- not wanting their names in the paper -- have offered to make McNulty happy in any way possible, from fixing the car to buying it. And other lawyers are offering their legal services, if McNulty wants to pursue a civil suit.

Grodner is now under investigation by the state's Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, sources said. Commission officials declined to comment Thursday.
Grodner's in court again on the 18th. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Huckabee & McCain. Just say no.

AmeriCAN-DO Attitude has a transcript from Rush Limbaugh which provides some insight into the MSM love affair with Huckabee and McCain. Worth reading.

If you haven't already read it, I wrote about these two as GOP Candidates to avoid on Sunday. Click, or scroll down.

Jay Grodner news from the USMC

Man alleged to have vandalized Marine’s car to protest war

Jay Grodner is the Chicago lawyer who keyed Sgt. Michael McNulty's car. McNulty is in Iraq. Grodner's back in a Choicago court on 18-Jan.

The best part is this.

Though he might not be in the courtroom, McNulty might derive some comfort from the fact that the presiding judge is a former Marine. Circuit Court Judge William O’Malley was a lance corporal in the early 1960s and is known around the Chicago Courthouse for wearing a Marine Corps pin on his lapel and celebrating the Corps’ birthday each November.

All-in-one snake oil

Mike Huckabee combines the spending discipline of George Bush, the defense policy of Dennis Kucinich, the global warmer hysteria of Al Gore, the nanny state health interventionism of Michael Bloomberg, the anti-business class warfare of John Edwards, the sanctimony of Dhimmi Carter and the populism of Huey Long.

What less could you ask for?

More on Mike Huckabee from Dick Armey. Worth a read. Huckabee's Counterproductive Sweet Talk

Monday, January 07, 2008

No surprise

January 6, 2008

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

More than 155,000 Michiganders -- about one in every 65 -- are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.
This has been the experience of 40 other states, so no one should be surprised - except, perhaps, those who predicted we'd have blood running in the streets.

The intransigence of those who would prefer repeal of the Second Amendment earns them the title "unreality based." Here is how they reacted to the fact that they were wrong, emphasis mine.

..."I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that
things were not as bad as we expected," said Woodhaven Police Chief
Michael Martin, cochair of the legislative committee for the Michigan
Association of Chiefs of Police. "There are problems with gun violence.
But ... I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated
didn't happen

...Kenneth Levin, a West Bloomfield physician, was one of those critics [of the shall issue law]. In a letter to the Free Press in July 2001, he referred to the "inevitable first victim of road or workplace rage as a result of this law."

Last month, Levin said he suspected "it probably hasn't turned out as
bad as I thought. I don't think I was wrong, but my worst fears weren't

...Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of
the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said. [The story notes that "The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined."]

...Hamilton said that even if gun violence has ebbed, it remains pervasive, tragic and unnecessary. At the least, a more liberal concealed weapons law means there are more guns in homes and cars and on the street, she said, and more potential for disaster.
So the evidence is crystal clear that all these people were, and are, wrong about violence associated with concealed carry. They are able to say it wasn't as bad as they thought, but they weren't wrong.

They believe overall gun violence is up, despite the facts. They do not need any evidence, they have faith in their cause.

Martin, Levin and Hamilton were hysterically mistaken. Without question, beyond doubt, they were W. R. O. N. G. But, since evidence is irrelevant in the face of their liturgy, perhaps they'd be wise to practice a Concealed Opinion Regimen.

They should not be allowed within 300 feet of public policy. It is people like this who raise the question of whether we also need licenses in order to be allowed to exercise the First Amendment. After appropriate training, I can imagine a shall issue "Right to Express," revokable for offenses of logic such as committed above.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

GOP candidates to avoid

Now that Iowa has spoken, and with New Hampshire and Michigan primaries close upon us, I think it worthwhile to present the GOP candidates for whom I will never vote. I recommend working actively against them.

Mike Huckabee.

If Huckabee is nominated I will vote for:
The opponent with the best chance of ensuring he never sees the inside of the White House or any position within the Cabinet. Almost certainly then, a Democrat.

Here's why:

Huckabee's impulse to make his idea of Christian charity into government policy fails to render unto Caesar. Huckabee's pride in his humility prevents him from recognizing this.

Mike Huckabee is a socialist. He may be a Christian evangelical socialist, so he'll resist federal funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but he'll happily raise your taxes to fund causes he does find moral. For example, benefits to illegal aliens. As governor of Arkansas, he campaigned for illegal-alien students to be eligible for college scholarships and financial aid, complained about federal raids on work sites that employed illegal workers and supported drivers licenses for illegals.

His moral pretentiousness may well exceed that of Dhimmi Carter, and he has already announced an intent to revive Carter's “turn the other cheek” foreign policy. His naïve apology to Pakistan over the Bhutto assassination was certainly worthy of Carter.

Huckabee has made religion a centerpiece of his campaign in a fashion made no less odious by its wink-wink nudge-nudge, aren't I the clever rascal smarminess. For example, his comment to the New York Times that “Mormons believe Satan is Jesus' brother, don't they?,” is either naïvely bigoted or a cynical ploy to politically exploit religion. You pick which characteristic you want in a President. Huckabee's denial that a commercial he prepared for Christmas intentionally featured a cross in the background is simply not credible. I have no problem with the cross. I have a problem with lying about it in order to preserve his appeal to people who do have a problem with a cross at Christmas.

Huckabee's affable moral condescension insulates him from the need to confront his own hypocrisy in non-doctrinal matters as well. He is able, with apparent sincerity, to hold a press conference announcing that he's got a negative ad, but his conscience won't permit him to run it. Which would be worse, that he is sincere or that he isn't? Before you answer, consider what happened as a predictable result of the presser.

This ad begins with “I’m Mike Huckabee and I approved this message because Iowans have a right to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s dishonest attacks on me, and even an American hero, John McCain.”

How do I know what's in the ad? Huckabee screened it during the press conference while announcing he wouldn't run it, making sure it was all over the Internet and on television news. For a cash-strapped campaign this was a clever, if not necessarily ethical, move. Huckabee claims he revealed the content that had so troubled his conscience out of a moral concern for truth. The press can't be expected to just take the word of an honest Christian boy for the ad's existence, so in the interest of truthiness, he must show it to the assembled multitude. Not in private. No, he makes sure they can run it on national TV news programs, and that it can be virally spread on the Internet. That's more than enough hypocrisy for me, but that's not the end of it.

The ad Huckabee said he wouldn't run as a matter of conscience ran at least 10 times on four different stations in Davenport and Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

So the answer to the question, “When didn't Mike Huckabee not run a dishonest attack ad?” is, “He always never didn't run a dishonest attack ad.”

How stupid does Mike Huckabee think the rest of us are? That he could receive even .02% of the Iowa vote would be frightening. As it is, I recommend mobilizing for any other GOP candidate except:

John McCain
If McCain is nominated I will vote for: The opponent with the best chance of delivering a message to the GOP that they will never get my vote until they nominate someone within spitting distance of classical liberalism.

Here's why:

Like Huckabee, McCain is a TRUE BELIEVER. In McCain's case that belief is that his sense of what's right, proper, moral and ethical is superior to yours, and he'll pass a law to prove it. From steroids in baseball to the Keating 5, where his moral sense inexplicably seems to have lapsed, he'll try to improve your behavior; and to save you some stress he'll stop you from speaking about any of these issues 60 days prior to elections.

Those of you out there who consider McCain's objection to NSA "wiretaps" of overseas terrorists to be principled; or believe his defense of Gitmo detainees proves his concern for civil liberties; or think his whimsical regard for the economy of the United States, through a backdoor implementation of Kyoto, to be appropriate; or judge that his joint sponsorship with Ted Kennedy of an illegal immigrant amnesty demonstrates libertarian sensitivities... You should reconsider. He won't apply these "sensibilities" to your right to speak.

McCain's respect for civil liberties includes everybody whose name is John McCain. He regards the First Amendment as a barrier to his Presidency, so don't get in his way.

John McCain is objectionable for many reasons, some of these he shares with Guiliani, Romney and Thompson, but he manages a larger collection of anti-principles than any GOP candidate except Huckabee. A list:

**Founding member of Keating 5
McCain's take? "Even the Vietnamese didn't question my ethics." Well, Senator, ethics are a lot more clearly differentiated and narrowly defined when you're a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. Besides, not having the North Vietnamese question your ethics means what exactly? That you won't be sent to serve as Pol Pot's personal slave? In this case, extrapolation is obfuscation. In your passion for unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment you have conflated your courage in a prison camp with an ethical lapse as a Senator.

**Campaign Finance Reform
**Promotion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming
**Opposition to Dubya's tax cuts
**Irrational objections to Gitmo & Waterboarding
**Amnesty for illegal aliens
**Inconsistent, some might say “maverick,” 2nd Amendment support
**Gang of 14

If you don't recognize them all, look 'em up. McCain deserves the random scrutiny as much as anyone, and more than most.

Huckabee further reading:

Among presidential candidates Clinton, Guiliani, Obama, and Huckabee made Judicial Watch's list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

Mike Huckabee Wishes to Enslave Americans

More Speculation on Mike Huckabee’s Support

Back to Basics Time for American Conservatism

Why Conservatism Matters Most

McCain further reading. All but the first, from Reason magazine, are TOC posts.

Be Afraid of President McCain

Nonsense and Sensibility II

Show us the way John

The Z-1 Bomb Project

USA Today to the rescue of Soros and Bloomberg?

Intended consequences

McCain-Feingold, where would we be without it?

Don't need your damn help

Update: 4:16PM
A combination of "Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon." Very good.


An excerpt:
January 6, 2008 -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to “take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call “fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

...Huckabee, a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his humble background: “In my family, ‘summer' was never a verb." Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican “establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966.

Huckabee says “only one explanation" fits his Iowa success “and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

Update: 5:17 PM, Powerline

Layer upon layer of deception

Saturday, January 05, 2008


The bizarre spectacle of various "Human Rights" Commissions in Canada taking up a Canadian Islamic Congress complaint against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn continues. The CIC is on a crusade to prevent any discussion of Islam they don't like. The post immediately below, Human Rights in Canada, demonstrates that they won't even accept quoting high level Imams as legitimate speech.

TOC has also commented here, here, and here. If this is the first you've heard about this you might want to skim those in order. Alternately, a nice summary can be found under this mild mannered headline: Complaints against Maclean's raise censorship concerns. I say mild mannered because "Human Rights" Commissions in Canada are as good an example of Liberal Fascism as Jonah Goldberg could ever imagine.

It's worth reading the whole thing, but I reproduce the intro here because it struck me as interesting. I fear it displays a mind-set which already accepts significant thought restrictions. We're just debating the appropriate degree and the appropriate censors.
HUMAN RIGHTS complaints against Maclean's magazine, for running an excerpt of conservative columnist Mark Steyn's bestselling book America Alone, have raised alarms about the rise in government sponsored censorship in Canada -- especially against Christians.
The phrase "the rise in government sponsored censorship" seems peculiar for two reasons.

First, if rights of free speech were not already gutted in Canada there would not be the possibility of a "rise in" censorship simply because someone tells an HRC their feelings have been hurt. Just because the government hasn't exercised its role as Grand Inquisitor so much as it could have doesn't mean Canadians are suddenly experiencing a reduction in freedom of speech. They have exactly as much now as they did right after the "Human Rights" Commissions were established. The existence and powers of the Human Rights Commissions ipso facto demonstrates that provision 2.b) of Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
is a hollow promise when matched against the thought crime provisions in sections 318 and 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code, and section 13 of the Human Rights Act.

Second, what entity other than government can apply censorship? By any other entity it's a boycott, not censorship. Perhaps this gentle description, implying other institutions may censor and objecting to a rise in the use of a totalitarian power which ought not to be tolerated in the first place, is a result of a polite society. Perhaps it results from not wanting to attract Touquemada's attention.

I would make less of this, but other parts of this article seem to share the assumptions I see in the intro. For example,

Catholic and social conservative activist John Pacheco shares Benson's concerns. "Mark Steyn is probably most popular conservative commentator in the world. If he can be attacked, it does not bode well for freedom of speech for Canadians."
I'm sorry, but the "not boding well" part is way past. It's done boding. Unless and until freedom "of thought, belief, opinion and expression" is seen to actually be a fundamental right it will simply be a matter of how much freedom of speech Parliament thinks is good for you. Abolishing the HRC's would not end the problem.

H/T five feet of fury

Friday, January 04, 2008

Human Rights in Canada

Mark Steyn is being harassed by student lawyers, the Canadian Islamic Congress and various "human rights" star chambers wallaby courts inquisitors. Read all of both of the following.

Wise and the ways of the world

Wednesday, 02 January 2008

Garry J Wise is a Toronto lawyer who's taken an interest in the CIC's complaints and has been quoted on the story in The Washington Times. His shtick is very consistent: eminently reasonable, Mister Moderate, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, folks. "My impression," he writes, "remains that the complaints against him are dubious, politically-motivated and extremely unlikely to succeed." But that's the point: The thing'll work its way through the system, and at some stage toward the end of this year or maybe next year, the Canadian, British Columbia and Ontario "Human Rights" Commissions will all decide that Maclean's and I should be "acquitted", and that will demonstrate that the system "works".

That may make sense from a lawyer's viewpoint. But it's not how the world operates. As evidence of how the process is ultimately "fair", Mr Wise cites a 2002 case from Saskatchewan, in which the HRC ordered both The Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to pay $1,500 to each of three complainants who had objected to the Star Phoenix's publication of an advertisement by Mr Owens. The advertisement quoted some of the sterner Biblical passages on homosexuality. Actually, it didn't "quote" them. It merely listed the relevant chapter and verse: Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9. Nonetheless, that was enough for the HRC, which relieved the parties of nine thousand bucks for "exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule"... Read the rest.

In rebuttal: Squashing debate like mosquitoes

Mark Steyn, For the Calgary Herald
Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard write that "some clarifications are in order" re: The Calgary Herald's coverage of their complaint to at least three of Canada's many "human rights" commissions about an excerpt from my book, America Alone, published by Maclean's.

So, in that spirit, let me clarify one point of their column,"Debate denied over Maclean's Muslim article," which ran Saturday. They cite the following quote as an "extract from Steyn's article": "The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes."

That line certainly appears in my text, but they're not my words. Rather, they were said by a prominent Scandinavian Muslim, Mullah Krekar, to a respectable Norwegian newspaper. The imam was boasting at how Islam would outbreed Europe: "We're the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children."... More here.
I don't know if the HRC is generally embarrassing to Canadians yet, but it will be. Better, perhaps, is the light about to be shone on the CIC.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Jumping to Jay Grodner's defense

Update: There has been some confusion regarding the intent of this post, as you can see in the comments. Since it is still gathering a fair number of page-views, and 2 additional comments that couldn't pass moderation, I am listing links to related posts on this site.

Monday, December 31, 2007
Jay Grodner, giving lawyers a bad name (Updated and Bumped)

Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Jay R. Grodner updates

Thursday, January 03, 2008
Jay R. Grodner

Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Jay Grodner news from the USMC

Friday, January 11, 2008
Jay R. Grodner news

Friday, January 18, 2008
Jay R. Grodner has his day in court

PLEASE NOTE: The text below in bold is what other people said in Grodner's defense. This post refutes those defenses. If you can't figure this out, reading the other posts above may help.


I've just skimmed through the 259 (and counting) comments on that Chicago Tribune story noted this morning. It is a fascinating demonstration of what the left means when they say they support the troops. The following bold text summarizes exceptions and or rationalizations which illuminate the limit of that support.

1- Sgt McNulty was a rich commodities trader and owner of a new BMW. He deserves little sympathy.
  • In fact, Sgt McNulty had been a commodities trader prior to 9/11. I do not know if he was, or is, rich. Neither do those excusing vandalism because he might be.
  • Wealthy or not, he quit his job to join the Marine Corps after it was quite apparent there would be fighting to do. One might even think more of him because he gave up a lucrative job in one's defense. If one could read and were rational.
  • It was a 2002 BMW that he kept in pristine shape. I suppose that counts as new to the reality-based.
2- Sgt McNulty deserved to have his car keyed because backing down a one way street is infuriating and illegal. That is, Jay Grodner did not key the car because of antipathy toward the military. He was merely reacting to Sgt McNulty's heinous crime by delivering "street justice."
  • I find the idea of an officer of the court delivering street justice a less than robust defense. Perhaps it's different for victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
  • I suspect that someone who keys a car with Marine vanity plates from rear bumper to rear bumper - by way of the grill - and then screams "[Blank] you! Just because you're in the military you don't run the roost!", has not been making regular contributions to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. I think his motivation was probably not pedestrian-rage.
  • Backing up on a one way street is not illegal in Illinois:
Limitations on backing. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic. (b) The driver of a vehicle shall not back the same upon any shoulder or roadway of any controlled-access highway.
3- If Sgt McNulty had not been a Marine, this story would have never appeared. It's silly right wing-nut hyperventilating.

In response, one must ask Grodner's defenders if they would be as sanguine had Sgt McNulty keyed Jay Grodner's car and then shouted, "Just because you're an f***ing Yid, you don't get to rule the roost!"? If that mental picture is too weak, how about if a Marine had keyed the car of a illegal alien whose car sported a rainbow decal, called the person a gay wetback, and then claimed he could get away with it because he was a Marine?

Grodner's defenders (especially those who can't tell "is" from "was" and "new" from "used") need to come up with some other reasons Jay Grodner was justified in keying a car, making charges of racism, apparently trying to commit insurance fraud and generally using his privileged position to avoid responsibility for his vandalism.

Or they could just acknowledge that Grodner is, at least on this occasion, an out of control anti-military jerk - instead of rallying to his defense by blaming the victim.

Jay R. Grodner

Appearing today in the Chicago Tribune.

According to the Cook County state's attorney's office, it wasn't an accident, but a deliberate key job, not done by some kid or street thug, but by a Chicago lawyer who apparently can't stand the military.

Private attorney Jay R. Grodner, 55, of Chicago has been charged with a class A misdemeanor -- criminal damage to property -- punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine, said Andy Conklin, spokesman for the state's attorney's office.

Late Wednesday, I reached Sgt. McNulty, who declined to comment for the paper but confirmed the facts in the police report.

And I wanted to get Grodner's side of it because he's been accused but not convicted of anything. So we called all the Grodner numbers we could find -- home and business -- including those on the police report and others in the suburbs and Chicago. Many were disconnected, and his cell phone voice mail was full.

I'd like to ask him two questions:


And, are you proud?
More at the link.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Jay R. Grodner updates

Happy New Year!

Note: 19-Jan-08 Update on trial here.

I'm certain yours is going better than that of Chicago attorney Jay "I’m not going to make it easy on this kid." Grodner.

As mentioned yesterday, Mr. Grodner is accused of keying a Marine's car and causing $2,400 in damage. He then added insult to his vandalism by applying his sophisticated lawyerly expertise. This may have backfired. That story is recounted by Blackfive, where there is an update. It seems Mr. Grodner may be on his way to regretting his arrogance as a defendant. Maybe he should have taken probation when it was offered.
Attn: Black Five

I am writing to produce an update of the results of Sgt McNulty's case against Jay R Grodner. I was present in support of Mike and thought you may be interested in an update for this story.

Sgt McNulty was called forward by the State's Attorney in order to discuss the case. I am not sure what transpired behind the closed doors, however, I overheard the State's Attorney expressing her intent to prosecute this guy to the fullest extent. ...
RTR at the link.

Free Republic has another brief account of the court proceedings:
Marine Sgt. McNulty Has his Day in Court (Case Against Lawyer For Vandalizing Marine's Car)

Meanwhile, Mr. Grodner is probably not reveling in his new status as a Google celebrity, nor enjoying his new Wikipedia entry. He has been honored by Michelle Malkin as a Jerk of the Year nominee.

Many other details of Grodner's life have been unearthed based on public records. Probably, he would have been happier if his dating preferences (not linked for reasons of good taste) hadn't been discovered by the simple expedient of Googling his email address. I am sure he would have preferred the involuntary dissolution of 2 businesses, and his censure for forgery remained off the radar. (Note: that last link is down, it was working yesterday as quoted here. Hmmm.)

Pride goeth before a fall.

Update: 1-Jan-08, 7:20PM

Thanks to a commenter yesterday, we have this bit of info, possibly regarding a client of Mr. Grodner's:

The Cook County Register of Deeds has BARRINGTON AUTO SALES INC. as the Grantor and JAY R GRODNER & ASSOC as a Grantee in 2006. Document type is "REGISTERED AGENT." I'm not sure what relationship this represents. Did someone buy a car, or is someone legal advisor to a used car dealer? In itself this is not a burning question, but we were wondering yesterday if Mr. Grodner's clients were aware of his puerile behavior, and whether the clients' patrons had been notified. At the time we had some concern these consumers might not hear of Mr. Grodner's conduct. His burgeoning notoriety makes that a lesser concern today.

More Cook County public information related to Mr. Grodner is here.