Sunday–Mother’s Day Alex and I are at our house in Rancho Mirage. The temperature as we left for the Mother’s Day Brunch at Morningside Club was 112. That’s hot. The brunch was delicious but there were not many people there. Lots of men and women have gone home because The Season for parties and socials has ended. Plus, it’s hot as blazes. Still, Alex and I had a fine meal mostly of chicken, then came home, packed up, and got on the Freeway. It was fantastically hot. Just sheets of wavy heat coming off the asphalt. It was terrifying to think what would happen if the a/c broke. Luckily, it didn’t, and soon we were in Calimesa, where the temperature was a mild 85 with a lovely breeze. I had a snack at the Burger King. I met a lovely couple from Phoenix who had been visiting in Marina del Rey. The girlfriend is a medical biller for a huge chain of hospitals. She argues with insurers to get the hospitals paid. She said she was hiring like mad and still could not keep up. The demand for capable men and women in this field is bottomless and growing. She had learned about it, if I recall correctly, at a nonprofit partly on-line, partly campus-based school called National University in San Diego. This is some amazing coincidence, because I am addressing their commencement tomorrow in San Diego. We ran into maddening traffic in Rosemead, then got to near home. We pulled into a Taco Bell to get a Diet Coke. Two LAPD officers were questioning two young men. No one was in cuffs. When the young men saw me, they asked me to sign some bottle of Clear Eyes, then the police wanted autographs, too, and soon everyone was laughing and the cops let the young men go. We got home, and I washed up, and then jumped into a Town Car to be driven down to San Diego. I slept the whole way except for a stop at a Sonic where the waiters were all on roller skates. The owner of the franchise came screaming up to the store in his truck to tell me how much he loves The American Spectator , so that was nice. I slept the whole rest of the way, checked into my room with its life-or-death tea maker, then went to sleep next to a window overlooking the San Diego Marina. I had a long dream about my pal Wendy yelling at me because I eat too much fast food. Then, more sleep, then dressed and out to the commencement preliminaries. The main one was visiting with Patricia Potter, a brilliant, lovely, friendly woman. Like my mother, she had spent some time at Goucher College in Maryland. My mother had transferred to Barnard but always had a fond spot for Goucher and for Maryland, where my sister and I “grew up.” (I still know every word of “Maryland, My Maryland.”) Ms. Potter and I had a great talk, then off to get robed, meet super friendly officers, trustees, and faculty. I also met the long-time soul of the school, Dr. Jerry C. Lee. He’s retiring after a spectacular career at National and elsewhere. We went into an immense room at the San Diego Convention Center. I was told there were 7,800 people there — students and families, primarily. The room was kept at a perfect temperature. I spoke mostly about National. It is a great place in that it educates people for the world as it is. The students are taught engineering, nursing, teaching, medical billing, many other subjects that will get the grads jobs when they get out. They will get jobs and they will make a living and they will have the self-esteem that only making a living and being self-supporting through their own contributions can confer. Yes, it’s true that many schools teach discontent, whining, moaning, bitching, navel gazing, and disloyalty. Yes, it’s true that some of them are famous schools. But at National University, they teach what America needs its students to know: the skills we need to keep America running. Again, these are not whiners and moaners at National University. These are the people who will keep us competitive and will keep themselves alive without a handout. Many of these students were single parents and worked at a job (maybe two jobs) while they studied. This is motivation indeed and motivation is everything . I looked out at the men and women in the room — white, black, Asian, Hispanic, men, women, old and young, all learning how to keep the engine of America and the engine of their personalities running. I kept thinking, “I have seen the future of education and it works.” Governor Brown should put the trustees of National University in charge of the University of California. Fewer courses in subversion. More classes in subjects that really matter and get graduates jobs. Many of the people in room had a military background and cheered as I lauded our military. I just loved these people. Then the speech was over and we pooh-bahs went back to the robing room. I was sad to say good-bye to President Potter and Chancellor-Emeritus Lee. I was sad to say good-bye to all of them. The salt of the earth. This has been an encouraging day and I don’t have a lot of them. On the way home, I met my pal Joe for dinner in Del Mar. He is as hard-working a man as I know of. And he has the success to prove it. The absolutely best anti-poverty program there is: work. They know it at National University. If we are smart about it, the future will be what schools like National make it.
Read more:
Jobs for Graduates
Hot on the heels of Egyptian presidential candidate Mohammed Mursi’s declaration that “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal…Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia,” Egyptian lawmakers are again making news, and none of it is promising. According to the Egypt Independent, MP Nasser al-Shaker of the Salafi-led Nour Party is citing notable Islamic scholars in justifying female genital mutilation (FGM) as a part of the “prophetic” Sunnah (a holy work of Islam). (Photo: UNICEF) For those unfamiliar with Egyptian politics– the Salafi party is even more fundamentalist than the Muslim Brotherhood, and they control nearly 24% of Egypt’s parliament. These are the people who try to live their lives in the example of the earliest Muslims, and their marks on the world include Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri . Regarding FGM, MP Shaker reportedly remarked that former first lady Suzanne Mubarak was the driving force behind banning it, and, as everyone is well aware, the Mubaraks are long since persona non grata in Egypt. Randa Fakhr Eddin of the Cairo Coalition Against Female Genital Mutilation replied to Shaker’s statements, saying there is no consensus on the law by senior scholars or Islamists, and that it was rejected in the 1990s as being a cultural habit rather than a religious practice. The rejection didn’t seem to have much influence, however, since it is not only ultra-conservative Salafis who are involved in the practice. In fact, the whole issue began after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party started a charity initiative in the city of Minya, where they were accused of performing the wicked deed (they deny the allegations). Egyptian Salafis (Photo: AP) Female genital mutilation is widely practiced in Egypt and Sudan, along with many other African countries. While most Arab and Islamic countries technically view it as a crime, there is rarely any intervention in the matter–the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population conducted a study in 2003, where they reported that 94.6% of married women had undergone FGM, and 69.1% of those women agreed to have the procedure performed on their daughters. (Related: Shocking: UK Medics Filmed Offering Gruesome FGM Procedure, as Report Shows 100,000 May Be Victims) The dangerous practice was outlawed in Egypt in 2007, after a 12-year old girl died as the result of the $9 procedure. While it is sometimes performed by doctors, in the rural areas– where it is more often performed– a local midwife of barber can be called upon to operate. Is this what democracy looks like? (H/T: WeaselZippers ) Link: Egyptian Lawmaker Pushing to Legalize FGM in the Name of Islam
See the original post here:
Egyptian Lawmaker Pushing to Legalize FGM in the Name of Islam
Today Ezra Klein at the Washington Post put out a piece promoting Common Cause’s lawsuit to have the Senate filibuster declared unconstitutional. Klein repeats myth after myth about the filibuster. This piece should commence an interesting national debate finally putting the argument to bed that the filibuster is somehow unconstitutional. Abolition of the filibuster will lead to a Senate with less time for debate and limited transparency for the American people. It is interesting to note that these short sighted leftists may be laying the table for an easy repeal of ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and extending the Bush tax cuts. Clearly, Republicans control of the Senate is within reach (see RCP analysis of Senate polls). There is also a 50-50 chance that Republicans win the presidency. Liberals are trying to get rid of the one tool they would have to stop Republicans from dismantling the Obama legacy of higher taxes and more regulation. I have to imagine that some Republicans will want to take liberals up on the offer of ridding the Senate of the filibuster in January of 2013. First of all, many of the voices on the left are hypocrites. Many of the same groups calling for filibuster reform, were defending the filibuster in 2005. When it served the purpose of obstructing President Bush’s agenda in 2005, they were 100% for the filibuster (see here ). It is ironic that Common Cause is fighting for filibuster reform. In 2005 they were singing a different tune. Jonathan H. Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy writes in a post titled, Common Cause’s Filibuster Flip: In 2005, Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed invoking the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster of judicial nominees. From a 2005 press release : Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “That’s abuse of power.” (Hat tip: Don Surber ) Now it seems that Common Cause supports the “abuse of power.” I did a Google search to find the text of a Common Cause press release titled “Filibuster shouldn’t be tossed aside to convenience Senate majority” and it has been taken off the web site. Also, it is a convenient myth for Klein and opponents of the filibuster to argue that “the filibuster was a mistake.” History does not prove this assertion to be true. John Quincy Adams wrote in his memoir that the early Senate rejected a rules change that would have limited debate, because in 1806 Vice President Aaron Burr argued that a rules change was not necessary to end debate on a question. According to the late Senator Robert C. Byrd’s in The Senate, 1789–1989 , “Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the ‘previous question’ but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition.” Byrd also noted that “when Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the ‘previous question’ in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped.” According to Byrd, “An effort to reinstitute the ‘previous question,’ on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25–30.” Byrd cited the following: “Between 1884 and 1890, fifteen different resolutions were offered to amend the rules regarding limitations of debate, all of which failed of adoption.” This is evidence that the filibuster was not an accident of history, yet it was an accepted practice that was validated by Senate votes. James Madison wrote in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 that one of the purposes of the Senate was to protect the people against the temporary feelings Members of Congress may posses. In order to judge of the form to be given to [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. Finally, the Constitution specifically delegates rule making authority to the House and Senate in Article I, Section 5, “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” The filibuster is constitutional and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to litigate this political question. To argue that supermajority votes are unconstitutional, is to ignore the many supermajority rules as part of the statutory budget process, explicit rules of the Senate and tradition. Today, the Senate will hold a series of votes on legislation to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, and amendments to the legislation, with a 60 supermajority required to pass as agreed to by both parties. This practice is commonplace in today’s Senate. The Senate and House frequently have votes on matters that are subject to supermajority votes. In the House, a suspension of the rule vote is a supermajority vote. In the Senate there are 60 vote points of order, suspension of the rules and a supermajority to shut off debate are a weekly occurrence. The big question is whether this full court press by the left is merely setting up a liberal talking point that Republicans are obstructionists or if this is a serious effort to set the table for changing the filibuster rule.
RedState Morning Briefing May 15, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. May 6, 2012: The Day Obama Lost 2. CBS/NYT: Romney 46, Obama 43 Among Registered Voters 3. On Fairness & Moral Cases 4. In Response to Obama Attack Ad, Romney to Tackle Economy & Entitlements 5. Spouse of WI Gubernatorial Recall Candidate Breaks Rules ———————————————————————- 1. May 6, 2012: The Day Obama Lost If there is a day to finger for Barack Obama losing the Presidency in 2012, it will be Sunday, May 6, 2012. On that day, Joe Biden* went on national television and proclaimed himself in favor of gay marriage. It started a media spiral for the President. Two days after Biden spoke, North Carolina voters voted by overwhelming margins to leave marriage alone. The next day, Barack Obama went on national television to devolve back to the position he held prior to running for President. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. CBS/NYT: Romney 46, Obama 43 Among Registered Voters In a long election season, it’s never wise to get too high or too low over any one poll. Presidential elections are won at the state level, but statewide polling is fairly sporadic at this stage of the race, so we’re stuck reading national polls a lot. But the latest poll is bad news for President Obama. We all know the major issues by now to look for with individual polls: some polls are adults, and are totally useless, because only registered voters can vote. Polls of likely voters, in turn, are vastly more accurate and less Democratic-biased than polls of registered voters, many of whom also don’t show up to vote. Most polls are also reported after weighting to achieve some guesstimate of the partisan breakdown of the general electorate among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Even polls that don’t feature egregious hackery are an inexact science, because they rest on the pollster’s current assumptions about the D/R/I split and the ‘screen’ they use to decide who is a likely voter. If the shape of the electorate is not as projected, the poll will be wrong. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. On Fairness & Moral Cases Another day, another socialist takes to the New York Times to denounce capitalism. With his criticism — he is a professional critic, which is a job no socialist society would really see value in except as an agenda of propaganda, but he thrives in the capitalist society he condemns — he premises it on some sort of morality. He mocks Christians for embracing capitalism with no understanding of Christianity or even a real understanding of capitalism. But his critique is filled with the usual, and totally unoriginal leftist pablum about the evils of profit motive, etc. while ignoring arms length transactions, how the free market, unlike any other economic system, has elevated so many out of poverty, etc. Along the way, we keep hearing something from these leftists, whether it be Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, or the Hollywood crowd is that the rich need to “give back” and “pay their fair share.” They’re just as happy to quote a secular philosopher as they are the Bible. Elizabeth Warren famously said that the factory owner wants us to ignore the people who built the roads or ran the phone lines, etc. She, however, wants to ignore the factory owner’s idea, success, and hiring record — providing jobs to people to build his product. But all of that misses the larger point. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. In Response to Obama Attack Ad, Romney to Tackle Economy & Entitlements Obama has decided that he’d like to tussle with Romney in the economic playground this week, releasing an ad that has echoes of Gingrich’s SuperPAC spots but with even less factual basis. It’s cleverly named “Steel.” Please click here for the rest of the post. 5. Spouse of WI Gubernatorial Recall Candidate Breaks Rules Kris Barrett, the politically active spouse of Tom Barrett, current mayor of Milwaukee and the Democratic nominee running against Gov. Scott Walker, has been caught using her taxpayer funded e-mail account to lobby and campaign for Democratic candidates and causes. Mrs. Barrett is a public school teacher and last year she was employed by Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin’s largest school district. The district has two policies that prohibit employees from using any government resources, including e-mail addresses, for political purposes. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Read more:
Morning Briefing for May 15, 2012
Remember when Barack Obama bravely came out in favor of same-sex marriage before North Carolina voted on the issue? After all, Obama carried the state in 2008. The Democratic National Convention will be held there this summer. His strongest voting bloc, black Americans, was projected to vote for the pro-traditional marriage Amendment One by a 2-1 margin . There’s good reason not to remember: there was no such profile in courage moment. North Carolina passed Amendment One with 61 percent of the vote, with the president tut-tutting about his disappointment , while aides tried furiously to walk back Vice President Joe Biden’s expressions of comfort with redefining marriage. Only the next day did Obama carefully and cautiously proclaim that he had found the missing link in his marriage evolution. Indeed, the president’s position was as subjective as possible: “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” As George Will has quipped , “If you struck from Barack Obama’s vocabulary the first-person singular pronoun, he would fall silent.” Although he has opposed defense-of-marriage ballot initiatives throughout his presidency, even while nominally against same-sex marriage, Obama left the door open to them last week. He said that the definition of marriage should be left up to the states. Where Mario Cuomo once took a stand on abortion frequently described as “personally opposed, but,” Obama has pioneered the gay marriage stance “personally support, but.” “Given the impotence of his endorsement, it really comes down to one man sharing his personal opinion about a moral matter with the rest of nation,” writes author and commentator Timothy Stanley. “And then making a lot of money out of it.” Follow the money. The Washington Post has reported that one in six of Obama’s top campaign bundlers — the people who raise money hand over fist from the “1 percent” for the president’s reelection — is gay. The Hollywood Reporter noted that Obama’s diffidence on marriage left many rich celebrities and West Coast donors reluctant to open their wallets. Hollywood has long led on the issue of gay marriage, putting the president at odds with them on the matter. During THR and Google’s Pre-White House Correspondents’ Dinner Party, nearly every celebrity surveyed listed the legalization of gay marriage on a national level among the issues about which they care most , if not number one. In a recent op-ed for THR , Dustin Lance Black came down hard on both Democrats and Republicans for their refusal to move forward on the issue. Needless to say, that doesn’t track with the priorities of most ordinary voters on either side of the issue. But ordinary voters do not attend $40,000 per person Obama fundraising dinners at George Clooney’s house. Obama flew to join Clooney the day after he unburdened himself on gay marriage. The event was expected to bring in $15 million. Within hours of Obama’s announcement, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) unveiled a new fundraiser asking donors to “stand with the president on marriage equality.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi signed a DCCC fundraising email announcing, “Breaking: President Obama supports marriage equality.” According to one report , Obama raised $1 million within 90 minutes of announcing his support for gay marriage. An Obama bundler told BuzzFeed, “There are more LGBT co-chairs across the country are raising more money than we’ve ever raised. And you’ll see a lot more of that now.” What we are also likely to see is an election that resembles 2004. George W. Bush was a wobbly, not-terribly popular incumbent; John Kerry was the not-especially beloved challenger from Massachusetts. The two campaigns worked very hard to win the presidency by maximizing their base voters. By coming out for gay marriage, Obama has boosted the enthusiasm of core supporters — young people, liberals, gays and lesbians — in addition to his fundraising totals. (He may have some minor concerns with black churches getting out the vote at the margins.) But he has created an equal and opposite reaction, helping Mitt Romney look more appealing to evangelical voters who haven’t been enthusiastic about the likely Republican nominee. And the HHS contraception mandate controversy may make it harder for evangelicals to believe that the government will allow them to stick to the traditional definition of marriage in their churches. In 2004, Obama chided the pundits who “like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue.” But that mishmash of red and blue, divided along social, cultural, and religious lines, may be more representative national colors come November than the rainbow.
See the rest here:
Green Is a Color in the Rainbow
