Lies, Damned Lies And Roland Burris

So much for the mad interviewing skillz of Chris Matthews:

Sen. Roland Burris played Hardball today, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked the junior senator from Illinois if he had tried to “squeeze” former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for appointment to the Senate when he spoke with the governor’s brother about helping the governor’s campaign.

“I had no intention of raising money for the governor,” Burris (D-Ill.) told Matthews. “I wanted to help the governor… But I could not raise any money, because if I did, it would look like I was trying to buy the seat… I could not do it, so I did not do it.”

One could point out the obvious follow-up question here that Matthews – had he bothered to actually prepare for the interview – should have asked: Then why, exactly did you offer to launder a personal donation to Blagojevich through your law partner? 

I have no illusions here – Burris will not be removed by the Democrats controlling the Senate because they need his excremental vote. Despite his fetid, corrupt stench, they’ll keep him until the next election.

Matthews is merely doing his part to keep the corruptocrat in office. And yes, he is doing his part. Because this is a basic function of the media that he did not bother to even try to fulfill.

Burris’ exact, indefensible words  are published in the public court records. They cannot be spun or denied. Matthews failed even to ask a question about those irrefutable words.

Growing Tired Of The Drama?

Parents of teenage children often get tired of the “drama” their children routinely drop on them. (I speak from experience here). Could it be that China is growing tired of its tiresomely “dramatic” stepchild, North Korea? Bloomberg reports that maybe they are:

China has the ability to cripple North Korea by cutting off shipments of food, fuel, and luxury goods that Kim Jong Il doles out to loyalists. Kim’s nuclear detonation may put that leverage in play and test its impact on the leadership.

China is increasingly frustrated by North Korea’s defiance of United Nations resolutions designed to curb its atomic and missile programs and is worried that a nuclear-armed government in Pyongyang could spark a new arms race in Asia, analysts and a person familiar with the Obama administration’s policy said.

Until now, China has rebuffed U.S. and Japanese calls for tougher economic penalties against North Korean leader Kim, agreeing only on narrow UN sanctions aimed at regime-run companies and arms imports.

“China may be reaching a point of understanding that Kim is going too far,” said Dennis Wilder, a former Asia director for the White House National Security Council.

Should the Chinese leadership shift against North Korea, it isn’t clear what levers would be used or whether economic clout would translate into political influence over a regime in a possible succession battle, according to the person familiar with administration policy and experts on China and North Korea.

At least part of this is coming out – per the above quote – from the Obama administration.  Frankly, I have no idea how much is spin and or wishful thinking. But absent cooperation from China on reigning in Pyongyang, there is not a lot the US can do here. Soft power only works in a best-case scenario where the wielder of the power actually has some, you know, clout over the wieldee, so to speak.

Or maybe China fears the awesome power of a Crabitat boycott!

Hey, it could happen. In a parallel universe. Twice removed.

California Scheming

Or where the (ugly) rubber really meets the (really ugly) road.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a starter list of cuts to California’s bloated budget. Is it meant to be theatrical? To incite public frenzy and fear? To soften the public up for massive tax hikes? Probably. Yet the cuts don’t even touch the biggest sinks of California’s money – where a full 40% of the state budget goes to schools.

Faced with a ballooning deficit and a clear signal that voters won’t pay more to fix it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a budget plan Tuesday that would eliminate welfare, drop 1 million poor children from health insurance, cut off new grants for college students and shut down 80 percent of state parks.

In a state that long has prided itself on its social safety net, it could well go down in history as the most drastic reduction in social programs ever. And billions in further cuts will be unveiled later this week.

The governor’s proposal to whack an additional $5.5 billion from state programs stunned even longtime Capitol-watchers with its blunt force. Ending cash assistance for 1.3 million impoverished state residents, for example, would make California the only state with no welfare program.

“Every single first-world nation has a safety net program for children,” said Will Lightbourne, Santa Clara County’s social services director. “This would return us to the era of Dickens – you’d have to go back to the 19th century to find a comparable proposal.”

The governor’s office reiterated that the cuts were painful but unavoidable, with the proposed budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year already outdated before lawmakers even begin debate. Schwarzenegger’s finance team now says the deficit will grow to $24.3 billion by July 1, up from the previous $21.3 billion projected shortfall.

Frankly, despite the lurid claims of economic disaster here,  Schwarzenegger’s proposed cuts are a drop in the bucket. The numbers are staggering (well, they would have been before the current administration took office in Washington), but they barely make a dent in California’s deficit.

One can’t help but point out that California is often touted as a bellwether for the rest of the nation. One would also be remiss in not pointing out that decades of frenzied spending without any visible means of support tend to lead to this kind of outcome.

Which should bother the rest of the country as the Obama administration is breaking America’s bank, so to speak. Without even having delivered anything yet.

Words Matter

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” - Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 speech at the Berkeley school of law

Let’s rephrase that, shall we?

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”

Any doubt, whatsoever, that the latter, rephrased statement would have put the left and the media (redundant) into a screeching frenzy? Any doubt at all?

I will not hang the label or debate the label that is being flung mightily about right now in the media and the blogosphere. What I will point out is that had a white male candidate for the Supreme Court actually made the revised statement, I would have had a problem with him. And would have said so.

Here’s Vincent Carroll from the link:

While Sotomayor’s comparison of the relative wisdom of Latina women and white men has garnered most of the attention in her Berkeley speech, it was hardly her only eyebrow-raising remark that day. After wondering “whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society,” she then added, “Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.”

Is she really suggesting that men and women, as well as people of different races, “have basic differences in logic and reasoning” in approaching legal issues? Once again, can you imagine a prominent white male saying such a thing without a legion of critics demanding that he do public penance?

Why, when Larry Summers was Harvard president, his claim that the distribution of innate aptitude might partly explain the ratio of men and women in science careers provoked such a furor that he was forced to backtrack, grovel and eventually resign (although as director of the White House’s National Economic Council, he certainly landed on his feet).

Sotomayor’s statement was far less nuanced than Summers’, and yet was obviously deliberate, since she restated it within minutes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . .,” she declared, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

I think intellectually honest people, regardless of political persuasion, have to admit that these statements by Sonia Sotomayor are a real problem. Had they been made by a white male, that person would already be out of contention.

Via Memeorandum

If You Find It Offensive…

…Go somewhere else. Seriously, this is disturbing . A hospital supervisor was ordered to take down an American flag displayed in her own office for Memorial Day.

Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?

For one Arlington woman, the answer was “no” after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.

Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.

When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,’” McLucas said.

McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.

Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”

McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said that supervisor took down the flag herself.

Longtime readers know that I come from a family who has fought – and sometimes died – for that flag for as long as there has been a flag. Yes, I understand that Kindred relented – after enough media attention.

Frankly, people choose to live in this nation. The nation is symbolized by the flag. If they find that offensive, the right thing to do is for them to go live elsewhere where they won’t be offended.