More media bias against Rush Limbaugh

I think what happened to Rush Limbaugh's bid to be a minority owner of the Rams is appalling and those who caused it and/or aided and abetted it are evil. Rush can defend himself, and has admirably, but I still want to give him a little help. So when reading Yahoo! sports, I came across this article styled as a lament that false quotations attributed to Rush distracted from the "real" debate on things Rush actually said.

The article, however, is yet another smear, making up "facts" out of whole cloth. I got pissed and wrote the following email to the article's author, Jason Cole:


So let me get this straight.

You assume that Rush Limbaugh - a man with a team of professional media watchers who help him assemble material for a three-hour show 5 days a week for 20 years, who pay particular attention to media bias - did absolutely no research in coming to the conclusion that the sports writing media were biased in favor of a black quarterback, and gave him credit for achievements he didn't deserve (*cough* OBAMA *cough*), because Mr. Limbaugh did not contact any of your 17 arbitrarily selected sports writers, even though their own written material/articles are available for public viewing? And you further support your assumption because Mr. Limbaugh hasn't responded to an email sent a day earlier?

You write: "So apparently, Limbaugh made an assumption based on no research about sports writers and how we think."

This is not even REMOTELY "apparent" from the "facts" you cite. Your article is another smear, and from this obvious smear I conclude that you are part of the left-wing bias problem in all media, including sports media. For "proof" of this clear bias, I cite Jay Nordlinger's October 5, 2009 column "Safe-Zone Violation!" which can be found here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4NzJkMjVkOTg1M2UyMjZlYzM0YmJiYzY4YWQzYjY=

As further proof of YOUR left-wing bias, I cite your inclusion in your article, wholly out of context, of Mr. Limbaugh's quote "The NFL often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." You describe Mr. Limbaugh as characterizing THE ENTIRE NFL this way, like the NFL is just some outlet for gang bangers to get their rocks off, kinda like Midnight Basketball. This is totally false. Mr. Limbaugh was describing a penalty called against a Chargers player for taunting a Patriots player that cost the Chargers the game. On Wednesday, October 16, 2009, Mr. Limbaugh posted the entire transcript of that segment of his show including the comment, on his website:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/the_classless_nfl_culture_.guest.html

A REAL reporter would have linked to the entire segment and asked his readers to decide what they thought of that comment in the context in which it was made. That would have been a real, you know, DEBATE that your article supposedly calls for. I suspect you do not want to have such a debate, and your crocodile tears lamenting that there was no "debate" is simply an excuse for NOT HAVING A DEBATE. If you really want to have a debate, please write an article explaining why you think anything Mr. Limbaugh has ACTUALLY said is racist. Do not quote a line out of context, mischaracterize it, and shuffle off leaving the clear implication that YOU THINK the debate would leave you and your readers concluding that Mr. Limbaugh is a racist.

You're a coward.

What is "greed"?

Daily Kos is apparently accusing Democrat Senators who voted against a "public option" for health insurance as "greedy." Which got me to thinking:

To the left, "greed" is the desire to keep one's own property and/or the desire to create more wealth. Apparently, "greed" is also the absence of the desire to take property from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong. This is not greed. Greed is the desire to obtain another's property without paying for it what the owner/creator will freely accept.

Properly understood, greed only exists on the left. Conservatives should level the "greed" charge at liberals every time they propose a government program to take money from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong.

Liberals will respond: "We can't be greedy because we aren't taking the money for ourselves. We're giving it to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged, etc." Yea yea. Who gets paid to do the transferring? Isn't that just like a "commission" like those "greedy" traders on Wall Street charge?

My thoughs, distilled, on religion

Here's a comment I left on a recent blog post at Secular Right. I suppose it sums up my thoughts on religion and the religious in a brief, readable (hopefully) manner. Any comments would be appreciated.


Kelly at #2 above asks:

“‘I must respect religion.’

Come again? Tolerate it, yes, you do have to do that. But respect it? Why?”

I didn’t see anyone try to answer the question, though I’m sure somewhere on this website there has been a lively discussion of this particular topic. Let me try my own hand at it.

For centuries, many, many very smart people have been religious and have engaged in many, many deep thoughts, discussions, writings, etc. about the topic. To discount that entire body of human thought based on the evidence and arguments any single individual can accumulate in a lifetime, even a very smart, diligent individual (which I’m sure everyone writing for this blog and commenting on this blog post presumes himself to be), I think is too hubristic. Smart and diligent individuals might disagree with these past centuries of thinkers, but I think it prudent to give them respect. (This is not to say that all religious people, or all religions, deserve equal respect.)

On the other hand, one thing that annoys me about the overly religious, like the idol-wielding crowd that is the subject of this post, but more so the smart conservatives generally on the side of good and righteousness, is their certainty. Just as centuries of thinkers and writers have argued in favor of religion, so have many centuries of thinkers and writers, especially since the scientific revolution, argued against the existence of religion. Moreover, any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that the history of generally accepted human knowledge has moved from religious explanations of observable phenomena to scientific explanations based on observations, hypotheses of regular natural processes, predictions, and repeated confirmations of those predictions. There aren’t too many people who honestly think that a necklace of enchanted animal bones will stop bullets. Even scientific breakthroughs of massive utility for centuries, like Newtonian mechanics, have been shown inaccurate.

Yet with all these centuries of demonstrated failure of religion to explain observable phenomena, and the demonstrated success of the scientific method for discovering useful knowledge, many smart people are still darn sure there is a God, He is of the nature and disposition their particular religion dictates He is, and revel in the fact that they need no “proof” of this because it is a matter of “faith.”

I guess that makes me an “agnostic” but any prudent person (in my opinion) is agnostic, to some degree, about everything (and for each thing, a different level of agnosticism depending on the available evidence).

California Court of Appeal rebukes Great Park Corporation and its Chairman, Larry Agran

This is an actual "Ben's Law" moment - i.e., where Ben made law.

I and my firm, Enterprise Counsel Group, represent Steven Choi and Christina Shea, two members of the Irvine City Council and, therefore, directors of the Orange County Great Park Corporation. Unfortunately, directors Choi and Shea are in the minority. The opposing bloc of Democrats - Larry Agran, Beth Krom and Sukhee Kang - control both the Irvine City Council and the Great Park Corporation Board.

The Great Park Corporation has had a notoriously difficult time finding a qualified CEO - four different CEOs in its first four years, each with prior connections to Irvine City politics. For years, Christina Shea and another former director, Richard Sims, have tried to get the Corporation to hire a professional, qualified and independent CEO. In mid-2007, the Corporation's controlling bloc finally bowed to public pressure and began what it styled as a true nationwide search for a professional CEO. The Corporation hired a professional recruiter, paid her nearly $20,000, and received approximately 150 resumes from all across the country and some foreign countries.

However, the selection process was always controlled by Larry Agran and his political allies. Accordingly, of those 150 candidates, the "search committee" returned only one for the entire Board to interview. That candidate, Kurt Haunfelner, eventually turned down the job. However, shortly after he turned down the job, the L.A. Times ran a story disclosing that Mr. Haunfelner's brother was a former aide to Larry Agran. Agran had not disclosed his relationship with Mr. Haunfelner's family to Choi or Shea.

The search committee's second choice was an existing Irvine City staffer, Rod Cooper. He quickly withdrew his name from contention.

Choi and Shea wondered publicly why the Great Park Corporation spent $20,000 for a nationwide search when the search returned two finalists both with existing ties to Larry Agran. They demanded to see all 150 resumes and all documents concerning the search. The Great Park Corporation refused. Beth Krom made a motion on January 10, 2008:

that the board ratify and affirm our intent that the ad hoc search committee should maintain the confidence of the identity and personal information, including resumes, of candidates for the Great Park CEO position until such time as a recommendation of a candidate is made to the board and then, only as to that specific candidate being recommended.

The resolution passed 7-1, with Shea the only "no" vote (Choi had to leave for a personal appointment before the vote).

Choi and Shea sued to enforce their rights as directors to inspect all the CEO search documents. The day before the hearing, the Great Park Corporation capitulated, agreeing to give Choi and Shea access to every document they requested and a continuing obligation to allow Choi and Shea to inspect any and all future documents generated or received.

Having prevailed in enforcing their basic rights as public servants, Choi and Shea sought to recover their attorneys' fees from the Great Park Corporation. Incredibly, the trial court denied their (i.e., my) motion. The trial court found that Choi and Shea hadn't achieved their goals in the litigation - an absurdity - and had done the public no good, merely viewing the documents in a closed room.

For most people, this needs no rebuttal. The public benefits when elected officials have access to basic information to do their jobs, whether it is behind closed doors or not. Does the public not benefit when Congress oversees the CIA in closed-door, Top Secret meetings?

Anyway, the California Court of Appeal just corrected this injustice.

This is an important victory for democracy here in Orange County, throughout the state, and definitely for the Great Park Corporation. If Choi and Shea had to bear the expense of a lawsuit to enforce their basic rights to see all the relevant documents and information they felt necessary to make an informed vote on who to hire as the Corporation's CEO, they could not long afford to do their jobs. Only the independently wealthy, willing to pay for expensive litigation to enforce basic rights inherent in their elected positions, would or could ever run for political office. Moreover, Agran et al. would surely continue to deny Choi and Shea - and any other political opponent - access to basic information, knowing they could not afford continuous lawsuits to enforce their basic rights. Without this victory, neither Choi or Shea, nor any other Agran opponent, would ever see a Great Park Corporation document ever again.

Hopefully, this stinging rebuke will cause Irvine voters to finally throw Agran out of office.

Obama has plunged the Dow just as far as Bush

Let me record some numbers here that should enlighten.

At its peak on October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 14,164.53.

On Election Day, November 3, 2008, the Dow closed at 9,625.

This equals a 32% drop.

Today, the Dow closed at 6,547.05.

This equals a 32% drop from the day of Obama's election.

There is no question that Bush and the Congresses during his 8 years did not prevent the easily preventable housing and banking crisis. However, the market has shown absolutely no confidence that Obama can or will fix the problem. This was the Bush/Barney Frank/Christopher Dodd recession. It is now Obama's recession/depression.

Proposition 8 was an amendment, not a revision

Today, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case filed by disgruntled busybodies arguing that the people of California's passage of Proposition 8 - an amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage - was itself unconstitutional. The legal question, everyone seems to agree, is whether Proposition 8 was an "amendment" or a "revision" to the California Constitution. What's the difference, you ask? Therein lies the debate.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court has never addressed the issue. However, most everyone I've read seems to be arguing that the difference is substantive. Some argue that the difference depends on just how much the proposed amendment/revision would change the Constitution (i.e., measuring the quantitative change), while others argue that the distinction is whether the particular change is "fundamental" or some other such important word (i.e., measuring the qualitative change).

All these arguments are wrong. The amendment/revision distinction is not a substantive question, but a procedural question. Here's the relevant text from the California Constitution regarding amendments and revisions:


ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.


Now, combine the above sections with Article 2, Section 8(d), of the Constitution, regarding the initiative process, which reads: "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect."

The distinction between an amendment and a revision is clear: An amendment concerns a single subject, a revision concerns more than one subject. While the people, through the initiative process, may change the Constitution, but are limited to one subject at a time, only the Legislature may propose changes to the Constitution, to be voted on by electors in a single vote, that embrace more than one subject.

Proposition 8 was quite obviously limited to a single subject. It was therefore an "amendment" and not a "revision" which is precisely why no one raised this argument before Proposition 8 went on the ballot, when proposed propositions are routinely challenged on the grounds that they concern more than one subject.

That's it. End of analysis. Of course, don't bet on the California Supreme Court following the plain and totally obvious meaning of the above Constitutional text.

I want Obama to fail

I'm weighing in pretty late in the game on the whole "Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail" "scandal." I agree wholeheartedly with Rush - I want Obama's socialist agenda to fail because it will be bad for America. In addition to hopefully getting on Obama's enemies list, I write this post to break down exactly what I mean when I say I want Obama to fail, which isn't exactly what Rush explained he means, and is nothing close to what the MSM and Democrat Party want us to think Rush means.

Let me start with what the Democrat Party/MSM (same thing) want you to think Rush means: They assume that you think Obama is trying to bring the USA out of recession, and that the Porkulous bill and all the other socialist plans he has announced are merely the means Obama has chosen. Thus, the Democrats/MSM want you to conclude, Rush wants Obama to fail to achieve his goal of ending the recession. There is a slight allusion there to FDR experimentation – meaning that we cannot be sure these programs will succeed, but we have to take bold action, etc. etc. – although the Democrats/MSM never come out and say there is no guarantee any of this will work. Indeed, Obama – as H.L. Menken long ago described – menaces the people with the imaginary hobgoblin that we will never get out of the recession unless Obama’s Porkulous bill gets passed. The man actually said “never.”

Rush, they project, says he wants Obama’s “experiment” to fail because Rush simply wants bad things to happen to America while Obama is President so Republicans will have a better chance of being elected in the future. What a mean, nasty thing for Rush to say (never mind for one second that this is precisely what most Democrats openly said about nearly everything President Bush did – Iraq war anyone?) Rush counters that he wants Obama's agenda to fail, because Rush believes it won't work and will ultimately be bad for America. As I said above, I completely agree. But what Rush is really saying is that we've done this "experiment" many times before, and it never worked, so why try again?

(I suppose it's not completely impossible that Obama's policies will help end the recession, rather than prolong it, but that is extremely unlikely, as the Dow Jones average has brutally honestly demonstrated. Regardless, if human nature suddenly changed so drastically that socialism suddenly produced greater economic growth than freedom, I'd still rather live in freedom. But as I touch on below, there are many, many other people who would prefer the opposite - to live in socialism even though it produces lesser economic growth than freedom. And there are two kinds of people who prefer socialism - those who want the power, and those who are perfectly happy as sheep.)

Because Obama’s methods have been tried so often before, and because they have failed so miserably every time, it is unlikely that a man as book smart as Obama honestly thinks his policies will cause private sector economic growth. Most likely, he has a different agenda. Obama sometimes says his goal is to end the recession. But many other times, Obama says quite specifically that bringing the USA out of recession is not his goal. This is what I mean when I say I want Obama to fail. I want Obama to fail in his oft stated goal of “spreading the wealth” at the expense of economic prosperity.

Obama let his true intentions show on at least two occasions I know off the top of my head. One was with Joe the Plumber. Obama doesn’t care how well Joe the Plumber’s business does, doesn’t care if Joe the Plumber hires more employees or does anything to actually grow the economy. (For those of you who went to public schools, a recession is when the economy shrinks instead of grows. It is a measurement of how productive millions of individual people were compared with the previous quarter. Productivity is measured by one thing and one thing only - how much someone paid for what you did.) Obama wants to change tax policy, not to help the people who will actually grow the economy, but to “spread the wealth.”

The second occasion was in an interview about the capital gains tax. The interviewer asked Obama why he wanted to raise the capital gains tax. Obama responded with platitudes about “fairness.” Then, the at least minimally intelligent interviewer told Obama that increasing the capital gains tax rate always results in a decrease in capital gains tax revenue. Obama didn’t care, sticking to his guns that it was good and right to raise the capital gains tax rate even if it resulted in less tax revenue because it was “fair.”

I believe Obama does not care one whit whether the USA comes out of this recession, except insofar as it might hurt his chances of re-election and/or the chances of keeping Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. I believe Obama’s first and overriding priority is to bring about a communist/socialist “utopia” in the USA, if possible with him in charge for life á la Ooogo Chavez in Venezuela. He has given me absolutely no indication that he cares one whit about economic freedom and personal responsibility for bad economic choices. He and his Democrat ilk would be much happier once we’ve reached the end of the Road to Serfdom, with poor working stiffs like me carrying them on our backs the rest of the way. If, at the end of the Road, the USA is no more economically productive than Brazil, they won't care at all, as long as they are still the masters. After all, the ruling elite in Brazil still live pretty well.

Sorry, Obama, I want you to fail and fail miserably.