People for the American Way has decided to defend Sotomayor by sliming Connecticut firefighter Frank Ricci. Apparently Ricci once sued a fire department that he says discriminated against him because he’s dyslexic. He sued another that fired him after he blew the whistle on safety issues (for which that department was later fined). So a leftist interest group is attacking a blue-collar worker who alleged employment discrimination based on his learning disability and his whistleblowing. All to support a nominee who has been lukewarm at best on issues like the rights of the accused. Good to know that blind support for the Democratic party trumps all other liberal values in the world of leftist advocacy groups.
Haven’t seen Michael and Michael Have Issues yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
The economy is getting worse, and unemployment is up, but Obama argues that the “stimulus is working as intended” by citing all the jobs that would have been lost had it not been passed. This is just another iteration of his “number of jobs created or saved” BS.
Oklahoma legislature moves to reorganize and reform its long-troubled state medical examiner’s office. They’d be smart to take a look at some of Roger Koppl’s recommendations.
I think conservatives and pro-life advocates are making too much of this NY Times interview with Justice Ginsberg, where she says “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Seems to me that a charitable and most likely reading of the quote is that she’s summarizing the views of others, not giving her own opinion. Still, given the controversy, it would be nice if she clarified.
Onerous, ridiculous occupational licensing requirements hit the world of yoga. Note how these idiot state government regulators used the yoga community’s efforts to regulate itself as a club with which to smack said community about the head.
Jacob Grier responds to Ezra Klein’s defense of menu labeling. (See my arguments against menu labeling requirements here.) I have to say, Jacob’s headline really applies to Klein’s short tenure as a Washington Post blogger, too. We’ve been slagging him over at Reason for his annoying habit of confidently asserting opinions on matters about which he knows little or nothing.
Charlie Rangel, who doesn’t believe he’s obligated to pay all of his own taxes, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 11th, 2009 at 9:57 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Forensics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Every picture I’ve ever seen of Charlie Rangel shows him looking so earnest and sincere… Even though what he says makes no sense, I think he really does have our best interests at heart. I trust him to do what’s best for all of us!
People for the American Way…sounds so…blindly patriotic to conservative ideals…I mean liberal ideals? Wait a minute…it’s getting harder and harder to tel these people apart! It’s like that’s the idea or something.
“Charlie Rangel….. wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.
I beg to differ. I think the $280,000 individual and $350,000 couple income threshold are nothing close to wealthy. Or at least it won’t be after a few years.
If the lying deceitful wikipedia can be believed, income tax started in 1913 with tax brackets of 1 – 7%. Then to finance the huge debt of WWII, the brackets ranged from 23 – 92%. The only reason I mention WWII is because that’s the example I keep hearing when people are trying to convince me our paranoia about the federal debt is all a bunch fear-mongering hooey.
While I am admittedly a mere amateur in the study of government finance history, I’m speculating that there will be a point at which inflation will bring those 280K/340K thresholds down well into middle class territory just as happened with the alternative minimum tax and I think Mr. Rangel et al are knowingly counting on the relative downward shift of that threshold.
Nothing pisses Congress (both parties) off more than seeing how ordinary people wantonly misuse their money when government could obviously do so many productive things with it. This goes double with the nation is in a state of emergency and people still have disposable income which is simply unpatriotic for anyone who isn’t a big campaign contributor.
Oopsie. The upper bracket for income tax at the end of WWI should be 94%, not 92%. I hate it when I accidentally paint the picture as being much rosier than it really is.
If you just randomly grabbed a 25-year old DC-er out of a trendy, douchey bar, you’d have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a better columnist than Ezra Klein.
I have similar problems with Yglesias, but Klein makes Yglesias look like Cicero.
I have not seen the criticism of Mr. Ricci based on the whistleblower issue (but I will follow your link and look into it), so I cannot speak of that. But his lawsuit about dyslexia and Supreme Court case do show a bit of hypocrisy he will have to explain.
I’m lost as to how his case, which Ms. Sotomayer upheld a ruling against and which was then overturned, matters in her confirmation hearings. She upheld standing precedence in that ruling. The Supreme Court then changed the rules (and the right yelps about liberal “activist judges”…***). She did the job she was supposed to do at the time. period.
Would she rule differently if hearing the case from the Supreme Court instead of the Appeals Court? That is the only question concerning Ricci that matters.
***This is not an argument for or against any particular standing in the Ricci case – but this conservative court definitely was activist in this case.
Though menu labeling is touted by the nannies as an informational tool so the consumer can make better decisions and is certainly onerous and draconian in its own right, the REAL reason for this push by the scolds is this:
They know that only a miniscule few of the patrons of the establisments that are affected by this legislation will ever give these nutritional listings more than a passing glance. They will simply order whatever the hell they want, eat it, and be on their way as they always have. (It’s also quite probable that some will use these listings to pick out the most fat-laden, high calorie dishes for the simple fact that they’re likely to be the tastiest and most satisfying)
These arguments will be used in the near future, first:
For forcing the nutritional listings to be posted much more conspicuously along with pictures of obesity and its consequences
leading to:
The final shakedown of Big Food (see: Master Settlement Agreement) which amounts to an unlegislated tax on the consumer. They will no doubt justify it because the funds will (supposedly) be earmarked to help pay for nationalized health insurance.
What we’re seeing now is just a stepping stone. They are following the anti-smoking blueprint line by line.
Erik,
Exactly. The labels “aren’t working” so we need more drastic steps.
“Not working” to a modern-day lib means that all people won’t freely make the exact same choice as them. See, Stuff White People Like.
The Ginsburg thing is about the irony of a leftist collectivist Jew advocating eugenics than anything else.
Collectivist American socialists or Nazi Fascists, the goal is the same, it just depends on the power group and the minority group.
#7 Erik and #8 ChrisD
Excellent points. After tobacco and Big Food, I would suspect them to go after sugar to (supposedly) fund NHI. Sugar is an ingredient in practically all packaged foods. Hell, after peanuts, Jiff peanut butter lists sugar as its 2nd ingredient (actually it says roasted peanuts AND sugar, so who knows which is first). After all, why should excessive taxation be confined to restaurant foods? Let no revenue source go untapped.
@Krueger
I always enjoy the irony of someone bashing Wikipedia as deceitful and than quoting from the site to support a point. In the same sentence even. Way to go!
Yeah, that was my warm sunshiny sarcasm showing through again. :)
I’ve come to love wikipedia, but when someone quotes it on here, there are always those who immediately refuse to accept it as a credible source. I understand that it’s open to almost anyone who wants to supply content, but that content is also open to vetting by everyone, links to sources are provided, and disputed information is often flagged. I have found it to be not only accurate, but remarkably comprehensive in topics that I do have knowledge of so I find myself relying on it more and more for stuff I don’t know. On the other hand, I too used to be skeptical about it, so I shouldn’t be too quick to throw stones.
All information sources are subject to bias and distortion.
Apparently Ricci once sued a fire department that he says discriminated against him because he’s dyslexic.
Then he is a little slimy. But since most people take it for granted that this kind of behavior is just fine, I can’t blame him much.
I see the yoga regulation as a First Amendment issue. Not on freedom of religion, but on freedom of speech. The licensing requirements are saying, in essence, that you may not freely associate with, speak to, and impart knowledge to others without government permission.
And fees, of course.
Call me crazy, but I actually think the stimulus is working. Admittedly it may have been oversold. But anyone that thought we could avoid a massive recession was misguided to begin with. Talking with people in a number of different industries, it appears that it did free banks up to start lending again, which was the initial problem that caused the crash. Now we are dealing with the effects of all the lay-offs that happened during the period where credit was so tight.
Sure there is no way to prove that things would have been worse, but there is also no way to prove that they wouldn’t be. You can really support either side with the evidence we have. I am just basing my belief on the antidotal evidence I have seen firsthand.
The stimulus package is working to save the economy the same way the war on terror is making us safer.
Re: Ginsburg
It might make more sense to you if you read (and linked to) her actual and complete statements rather than the abridged and deliberately misleading version of them that CNS serves to their following.
MMHI premieres this Wednesday. I can’t wait; its going to be awesome. Apparently Comedy Central is running Stella this weekend, too.
The PAW campaign against Ricci really is disgusting and it’s a sign of political dialogue that relies on stupidity of the listener. I think everyone needs to stop viewing lawsuits as inherently bad things. Doubtless there are tons of stupid lawsuits, but so many of those are thrown out very quickly, or so many are misreported in the media to sound as dumb as possible. (For example, the most thorough study on malpracice lawsuits which involved tons of input from doctors and insurance companies showed that true malpractice victims are largely underserved by the court process, while frivoous suits almost never result in significant payouts – and that payout amounts have no effect on doctors’ premiums.)
Lawsuits are a great tool against corruption and intusions by the government, corporate abuse, contract breaches, etc. and it’s one of the only area where unconnected, normal people can get jsutice. Libertarians should hold as sacred the right to sue and defend in the courts, and judge claims on their own merits rather than as inherently bad.
To be fair, it should be pointed out that the attacks on Ricci follow the decision of Senate Republicans to bring him in to testify at the confirmation hearings. If one side’s going to try to use him for political gain, it’s not surprising that the other side is trying to discredit him.
I’m lost as to how his case, which Ms. Sotomayer upheld a ruling against and which was then overturned, matters in her confirmation hearings.
The problem is that most people don’t understand what a lawsuit is about, let alone what the ruling says. I don’t mean that in a “lawyers-are-smart-and-everybody-else-is-stupid” sort of way. What I mean is that, in just about any profession, if a lay person sat in on an important meeting involving the top minds in said field, most people wouldn’t know what’s going on. Appellate opinions are often highly nuanced, relying on issues that are completely (or nearly completely) divorced from the facts of the matter. However, the media generally reports the results of a case based on its impact: here’s what party A did; here’s who the court voted for; here’s what happens to party A now. Thus, if people don’t like the end result of the opinion, many will leap to the conclusion that the judge is an idiot even if they would agree with the logic by which the decision was reached.
Despite the fact that most members of Congress are lawyers, they’ll approach Sotomayor’s decisions as would the uninformed layperson because it makes for better theater come the confirmation hearings.
Oh, and Bryan @15:
I am just basing my belief on the antidotal evidence I have seen firsthand.
I only WISH we had some antidote to the stimulus bill…
Wolf Blitzer of CNN just had the drug czar on his show and it sounds to me like the blame for Michael Jackson’s death is going to be dumped at the doorstep of the doctors who kept him supplied in drugs. Lots of talk about how important it is to track how many narcotic drugs doctors are prescribing and how “literally” thousands of people are being killed by drugs each year. Also some discussion about parents putting locks on their medicine cabinets.
If anything is clear, you most certainly shouldn’t be trusting your kids when they say they aren’t taking drugs and you sure as hell can’t trust doctors to be responsible in writing prescriptions. We already know you can’t trust your neighbors who are probably either terrorists or meth cookers. Let’s face it, an accurate picture of civilization would be you standing in the middle of a huge field surrounded by the entire population of the planet who are all out to kill you. And the only thing standing between them and you is the government.
Personally, I think if Michael Jackson died because of drug abuse, the only person at fault is probably Michael Jackson. But then, I can say preposterous irresponsible shit like that because I’m not running for public office and I don’t have vulnerable young children living in my house (and, for the moment, it’s still protected speech).
I know this is off-topic, but I had to blow off some steam before my head exploded leaving a slimy coating of skull fragments, brain matter, and blood all over my computer room walls.
“People buy $1,000 pants to sweat in because while they’re getting enlightened they need to look good,” according to Sybil Killian of OMYoga in Manhattan.
Guess we in CA didn’t get that memo. I spent $10 for my workout pants, and about the same for a mat. Got ‘em both @ Target.
It’s these kinds of comments that give aid and comfort to the bureaucrats. Feh.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Charlie Rangel, flying in the face of logic and reason, is one of Congress’s biggest supporters of the War on Some People with Some Drugs.
[...] Read the rest of the article here [...]
War on wealth…isn’t that part of the Democrat DNA? Lucky for them that they are quickly eliminating all non-government wealth.
I am always surprised that most Americans America is FDR on steroids. Then, they get glassy-eyed and talk about freedom.
Oops…equal time: Republicans also are crap for the economy, raise taxes, and redistribute wealth. Even on a libertarian-ish website one must deflect one-party-itis.
One-party-itis? You mean there’s more than one party?
“Let’s face it, an accurate picture of civilization would be you standing in the middle of a huge field surrounded by the entire population of the planet who are all out to kill you.”
Hence my gun collection. :-)
Frank Ricci is the new Joe the Plumber.
Frank Ricci is the new Joe the Plumber.
Does that mean we’ll find out that his name isn’t Frank, he’s not a firefighter, and is concerned about tax issues even though he doesn’t pay his taxes?
#14 That’s what teaching licenses are all about.