Public Secrets

Held to a standard

Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearing has begun today, worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court? One way to answer that question is to ask if she has kept her oath of office as a judge on the Court of Appeal. Here's the oath she took:

“I, [Sonia Sotomayor], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

And here is what she wrote in the Spring 2002 issue (v.13, no.1) of the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. … 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.

Emphases added. Judge Sotomayor's quoted wish was not just a one-time, off-the-cuff thought. Far from it, as Verum Serum has looked at her record and found this to be almost a stump speech for her. Her belief in the superiority of the "wise Latina woman" appears to be dearly held.

Thus one has to ask: holding as she does to a belief in jurisprudence based on ethnicity and gender, that a judge deciding a case can reach different and better decisions by taking into account factors unrelated to the case in hand and unique to the judge, should Judge Sonia Sotomayor be elevated to the Supreme  Court?

Equality for all before the law is a bedrock principle of our republic. Every person coming before the bench has the right to expect their case to be decided based on the facts presented in court and an impartial application of the law, without regard to ethnicity, "race," religion, social class, or gender - theirs or the judge's. Based on Judge Sotomayor's statement above, therefore, my answer would be a loud "no."

(via The Heritage Foundation)

 

Technorati tags: Sonia Sotomayor, justice, equality under the law, oaths, racism, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal

A corrupted system

Tigerhawk wonders why we keep voting for people who almost laugh at the idea that they should read bills before voting on them, or that the bills need to have been written at all by the time of the vote.

Good question.

Under FOIA

John Fund has a good article in last week's Wall St. Journal that I think has the best take on why Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska: the harassing ethics complaints and Freedom of Information Act requests had left her office paralyzed:

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

"The Alaska ethics elves had painted such a target on Sarah's forehead that she had begun turning down pretty much every invitation she got -- even though they were pouring in every day by the dozens," a confidant of the governor's told me. "It is not throwing in the towel. It is deciding that she was ineffective in fighting for her principles and could do more in another role."

This is more comprehensible to me than the bizarre lame-duck reason she gave in her statement on the third. Although, now I wonder if this paralysis isn't what she meant by "lame duck" - that for the remainder of her term, the harassment would keep her from doing the job that Alaskans had elected her to do. It was also clearly keeping her from working for those causes she values.

After thinking about it, I've come to regard her resignation as the best thing to do in her situation, even if some take it to mean that good people can be driven out of office by vicious opposition. Unlike Fund, however, I suspect she will run in 2012 or 2016; this is a woman who can't stand seeing a problem and not doing something about it. Rather than being driven out of office and politics, she's flanked her critics and taken away their best weapon, and now she's free to take her case to the "lower 48."

Do read the whole thing. Like most everything Fund writes, it's worth it.

RELATED: Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown calls it a brilliant move.

 

Technorati tags: John Fund, Sarah Palin, resignation, Alaska

Quote of the day

Doctor Zero on "cocktail conservative" Peggy Noonan:

Noonan is symptomatic of a defeated, collaborative wing of the GOP that wants nothing more than to be thought well of by the Left, which they believe has decisively won the political and cultural battles of the twentieth century.

Ouch!

 

Technorati tags: Peggy Noonan, cocktail conservatives

It's lonely at the top

A Republican senator groped ... David Brooks?

O’DONNELL: What, what’s happened?
BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.

Chris Matthews must be jealous; all he gets from The One is a tingle. A touch on the knee would probably have him swooning.

R.S. McCain guesses it was Lindsay Graham. Not bad, but my money's on Larry Craig.

UPDATE: Fausta wonders about needy New York Times columnists...

 

Technorati tags: David Brooks, groping, Lindsay Graham, Larry Craig, TMI

Freedom of speech is a "collective right?" Say what??

John Cougar Mellencamp badly needs a lesson in civics and the Bill of Rights:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an asshole whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

I was about to say Mellencamp had been asleep during Civics, but now I wonder if he wasn't stoned; the twisted-reality meter for this is off the dial.

For John and celebrities suffering from similar cases of chronic ignorance, may I recommend a very good book? Have a dictionary handy, some of the words are more than two syllables long and might be a bit tough. You might also want to start with the First Amendment itself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Emphases added.

I could go on and on about how boneheaded and stupid Mellencamp's remarks were and how frightening it is to think people might be influenced by his fascist interpretation of freedom of speech, but I'll let his colleague Alice Cooper sum things up:

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons."

Indeed.

LINKS: Big Hollywood and Perfunction.

Technorati tags: John Cougar Mellencamp, 1st amendment, free speech, morons, collective rights, individual rights, rock stars

On saving the planet

The late, great George Carlin nails the hubris of the environmentalist crowd:

Oh, and since it's Carlin, yes, there are dirty words for the easily shocked.

(hat tip: Great White Rat)

 

Technorati tags: satire, George Carlin, save the planet, zealots, environmentalism, hubris

The Earth didn't get the memo

Doesn't the planet know it's supposed to be catastrophically warming?

Chicago – coolest July 8th in 118 years

Justice Ginsburg, eugenicist??

Oh, I think Madame Justice is going to have a bit of explaining to do, once this gets around:

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that 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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Highlight added. And, like Ed Whelan, I have to ask: Just which populations do you think we don't want too many of, Justice Ginsburg?

Of course, support for eugenics is one of the great skeletons in the closet of American liberalism, arising as part of the Progressive movement. Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood, was a devout believer in eugenics, and her influence is felt in the upper reaches of American liberalism to this day, though they try to gloss over the unsavory, ugly truth. If Justice Ginsburg truly thinks eugenic ideas are acceptable and that there are "populations we don't want too many of," she needs to be called on the carpet to explain herself.

Related Reading: Liberal Fascism.

Requiem for California

Iowahawk takes two bizarre events -the overwrought funeral for King of Pop pedophiliac singer Michael Jackson and the epic meltdown of California's finances after years of binge borrowing and spending- and combines them into one glorious satire: Fans Flock to Mourn California, 1849-2009:

LOS ANGELES - Millions of fans from around the globe gathered along Sunset Boulevard to pay final respects to California today, as a slow moving funeral procession transported the eccentric superstar state's remains to its final resting place in a Winchell's Donuts dumpster in Van Nuys. The self-proclaimed 'King of Pop Culture' died last week at 160, in what coroners ruled an accidental case of financial autoerotic asphyxiation. The death sent shock waves across the world and sparked an outpouring of grief by rabid fans.

"I don't care what the tabloids and the Wall Street Journal say," said a weeping Illinois. "I still love you, Cali!"

The 640-mile long funeral parade route was lined with flowers, candles, teddy bears, and IOUs from millions of mourners and debtors who made the somber journey to watch the passing of the state that had once ruled the box office and industrial charts. Among them were current chart-toppers who cited California as a key influence.

"If it wasn't for California, I wouldn't be where I am today," said Arizona of Westside 3, the popular sunbelt trio who recently benefited from the late state's generous gift of fleeing taxpayers and businesses. As a tribute to their mentor, Arizona vowed the group would start spending money "like crack-addled hip hop stars."

"California's financial and musical legacy will never die," said band mates Nevada and Oregon.

At the official funeral service at the LA Coliseum, a grief stricken Washington, who teamed with California on several hit software and wine projects, had to be physically restrained from climbing into the deceased's gold plated casket.

Read it all. It's one of those rare pieces that leaves you laughing and crying at the same time.

More traitors exposed!

In an earlier episode, we read how the New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman opined that those who voted against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill were traitors to the planet.

Well, now Congressman Rat-Face Waxman has declared opposition to Obama and the fight against the Nazis climate change to be treason against America!

Does that make it more OK than treason against the whole planet?

And what happened to dissent being patriotic?

Is the global warming movement dominated by Red Lectroids?

That's the only explanation I can come up with for some of the megalomaniacal ideas the climate alarmists devise to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They're Lectroids and they're taking orders from Lord John Whorfin.

Lime in oceans 'would reduce CO2 levels'

About half of the CO2 released into the air by humans each year is absorbed by the oceans.

Although it helps slow the rate of global warming, it increases ocean acidity and poses a potential problem to marine life.

Under proposals from the Cquestrate project, they aim to reduce ocean acidity while increasingly absorbing CO2 by converting limestone into lime, thereby adding the lime to seawater.

The lime would react with CO2 dissolved in the water, converting it into bicarbonate ions, thus decreasing the acidity of the water, allowing the oceans to absorb more CO2 from the air and reduce global warming.

Lime in a gin rickey is one thing, but the idea that they can precisely regulate the chemistry of the oceans is... Well, look at the picture above to get an idea. We shouldn't be surprised, I guess, since EU President Barroso wants to limit atmospheric warming to no more than two degrees centigrade. I guess he knows where the thermostat is. And our President's science advisor has speculated about shooting pollutants into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's light to cool the whole planet. A planet that's been cooling for years, anyway.

Really. Red Lectroids explain everything. Believe it!

(hat tip: Heliogenic Climate Change)

RELATED: The Medieval Warm Period, an earlier period of climate warming that alarmists hate to acknowledge, has been shown to have paved the way for the growth of the Inca Empire. Yep. It was a climate catastrophe, alright.

Technorati tags: lime, oceans, CO2, global warming, junk science, hubris, sequestration, climate change, Red Lectroids, Buckaroo Banzai, Cquestrate

The coolest June in my lifetime

Since 1958, in fact.

But the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is settled, so don't you dare question it, you denier ... you NAZI!

Al Gore has spoken:

High immigration means safe cities?

Radley Balko at Reason Online uses the case of El Paso, Texas, as one of America's safest, happiest cities to argue that cities with large numbers of immigrants are, contrary to popular belief, safer than those without:

By conventional wisdom, El Paso, Texas should be one of the scariest cities in America. In 2007, the city's poverty rate was a shade over 27 percent, more than twice the national average. Median household income was $35,600, well below the national average of $48,000. El Paso is three-quarters Hispanic, and more than a quarter of its residents are foreign-born. Given that it's nearly impossible for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, it's safe to say that a significant percentage of El Paso's foreign-born population is living here illegally.

El Paso also has some of the laxer gun control policies of any non-Texan big city in the country, mostly due to gun-friendly state law. And famously, El Paso sits just over the Rio Grande from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, home to a staggering 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. A city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right?

Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings. In fact, since the beginning of 2008, there were nearly as many El Pasoans murdered while visiting Juarez (20) than there were murdered in their home town (23).

El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade, only Honolulu has had a lower violent crime rate (El Paso slipped to third last year, behind New York). Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas—another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent.

So how has this city of poor immigrants become such an anomaly? Actually, it may not be an anomaly at all. Many criminologists say El Paso isn't safe despite its high proportion of immigrants, it's safe because of them.

Balko, and others he cites, argue that the qualities immigrants bring with them (and the qualities that make them willing to emigrate) make them more likely than less to be good (non-)citizens. To answer the argument that Texas' loose gun-control laws account for this, he cites places with far stricter laws, such as San Diego, Los Angeles, and New York City. It's a sympathetic case he makes, since I think the arrival of people who actually want to be here in the end strengthens and renews the nation.  Balko's argument leaves unanswered a few questions, however:

First, the gun control argument doesn't account for unregistered weapons that may be in the hands of otherwise law-abiding immigrants. Legal or not, the possession of a firearm is a deterrent to crime. Also, the lower crime rate may be due to better policing methods than the law-abiding qualities of the immigrants, themselves. Notably, both New York and Los Angeles use methods of crime fighting pioneered by William Bratton, who has been police chief in both cities. It would illuminating to know if El Paso uses similar methods.

Balko correctly assails the myths perpetuated by illegal immigration opponents, and the reliance on anecdotal evidence by critics such as conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. This is an important point to bear in mind: anecdotes serve to remind us of the real human tragedies that can ensue when someone is let into the country who shouldn't be here. (Of course, there are certainly stories of illegals who become successes, too.) The risk is that focusing on heart-wrenching individual cases may lead us to miss the overall truth. Balko provides a welcome corrective.

One point of disagreement I have is that the article seems to gloss over the fact that many of the immigrants the author defends are nevertheless here illegally. They have committed a crime to get here. Perhaps it reflects the difference between the Libertarian (the point of view of Reason) and the libertarian-conservative views, but obedience to the law still matters, and a nation has the right to control its own borders -- indeed, it has the duty to do so, if it wishes to still be considered sovereign. In other words, I want the immigrants, but I want them here legally.

Solving that dilemma, of course, is easier said than done - just witness the recurring screaming matches over amnesty immigration reform. And gross generalizations don't help (Hey! Isn't that what you just did, ese? -Tito Don't be smart.). Radley Balko's article, on the other hand, is a useful addition to the debate.

 

Technorati tags: Radley Balko, Reason, immigration, El Paso, crime, public safety, border security

The Monty Python Justice system

When people are convicted of a crime and put in jail, they lose some of the rights of citizenship: the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms among them. In Britain, however, the Ministry of Justice has decided that one right supervenes all others: the right to privacy for escaped prisoners:

Civil servants have refused to name inmates who have fled prison even though individual police forces will often identify them if they pose a risk to the public.

They say releasing their names would breach obligations under the Data Protection Act.

It echoes a row in 2007 when Derbyshire Police refused to release pictures of two escaped murderers.

The latest development emerged in response to Freedom Of Information requests to name inmates on the run from the prison near Woodbridge, Suffolk.

The open prison which has sea views and once held Tory peer Jeffrey Archer is known as Holiday Bay because of its easy-going regime.

The Ministry of Justice confirmed 39 prisoners had absconded from Hollesley Bay between January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2009.

It also provided a general list of crimes they were sentenced for and confirmed that 16 involved violence.

The offenders included nine robbers, two serving sentences for attempted robbery, one for wounding and four others for grievous bodily harm.

I'm sure the British people are reassured by Her Majesty's Government's concern for the privacy rights of even the least among her subjects, including ax-murderers on the lam. And I'm sure further innovations in the civil rights of prisoners are on the way:

"Next up on BBC-2, 'Do bars on cell doors discriminate against the innocence-challenged community?'"

Technorati tags: privacy, prisoners, rights

Why we fight

Posted on Independence Day, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch looks at Islam versus the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, and considers what we defend and what we defend against. Here's one example:

4. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

What we must defend:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

Non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life." — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

Or, as these Muslim demonstrators put it in 2006:

Just to be clear, am I saying Muslims cannot live peacefully in a democratic society? No, of course not. Many do. But, to do so, they per force have to ignore large sections of the Qur'an and the Sharia law that demand Islamic supremacy and unequal treatment for non-Muslims, something absolutely incompatible with the "truths we hold to be self-evident." It is the Muslim who takes those injunctions seriously and is willing to kill and be killed for them whom we fight, and to defend those truths is why we fight. As Winston Churchill said in 1941:

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

 

Technorati tags: Independence Day, jihad, democracy

Bravo, Buzz Aldrin!

He's a Traitor to the Planet, too!

Apollo moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin announces his climate skepticism

Yes folks, NASA’s second man on the moon, Colonel and now Dr. Buzz Aldrin is an AGW skeptic. So is fellow astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt, NASA’s only geologist to walk the moon.

Welcome, brother!

Technorati tags: Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmitt, global warming, climate change, junk science, treason

Obama's disarming worldview

President Obama is off for Moscow this week to try to reset (again) US-Russian relations. One of his main goals is a treaty to further cut the two countries nuclear arsenals, and that has Jennifer Rubin, among others, worried:

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement. Apparently, youthful Obama did not focus on the results from Ronald Reagan’s refusal to buy into the fantasies of liberals –namely the fall of the Soviet Empire. That lesson has entirely eluded now-president Obama. Is it any wonder his critics find his posture fraught with peril and entirely out-of-touch with the threats we face?

Rubin makes the point that Obama's view of the nuclear threat was formed during the opposition to American rearmament and the "nuclear freeze" movement of the early 80s - and never evolved past that. It's a view based on the idea that weakness is strength and that, if only America and Russia got rid of their nuclear weapons, rogue states such as Iran and North Korea would abandon their nuclear programs. After all, if we're not a threat to them, they'll have no reason to develop nukes.

It's the Hundred-Acre Wood foreign policy in action.

 

Technorati tags: nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, freeze movement, delusions, naive, rogue states

Meet the New-New Deal

It didn't work the first time, but President Obama wants to repeat its mistakes. A short lesson from Reason TV:

 

Technorati tags: New Deal, FDR, economics, bad ideas, Keynesianism, Barack Obama, recession, Great Depression

Colin Powell: slow on the uptake?

From CNN, Colin Powell admits he's a bit worried about President Obama's agenda and what it will cost:

In a wide-ranging interview set to air Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, one of President Barack Obama's most prominent Republican supporters says he is 'concerned' about the new president's ambitious agenda and the high price tags accompanying many of Obama's initiatives.

"I'm a little concerned," former Secretary of State Colin Powell says. "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them."

Powell also seems to sound a note of warning to the young president.

"I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I've talked to some of his people about this — is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all. And we can't pay for it all."

And he's only getting this now? Where was he in the 12-18 months before the election when anyone with half a brain could have told him that Obama's agenda would a) massively expand government and b) cost more than the nation can afford without doing great damage to itself? Was he so starry-eyed at the "historic significance" of an Obama presidency, or was he so bitter at his former colleagues in the Bush Administration, that he was blind to the obvious truth?

My respect for Colin Powell -what respect I had left- just took a big hit. The man is either a fool or thinks we are.

Oh, and be sure to look at Powell's following comments about wanting a government that "just works and solves problems," regardless of whether it's big or small. That kind of superficial, non-ideological pragmatism that's "above politics" is really a yearning for a "third way," which is the herald of corporatism and fascism.

But I'll bet that would surprise him, too.

 

Technorati tags: Colin Powell, Barack Obama, federal spending, big government, liberal fascism

Last post on Sarah Palin

For now, at any rate.

I said before that Sarah's statement announcing her resignation seemed nonsensical in several parts. Apparently it was written at the last minute and thus was not the statement it needed to be: her best, clear and concise, not rambling and illogical.

Yesterday, however, she posted a note to her Facebook page that not only is more of what I expected, it also dropped a broad hint that she is not withdrawing from the national stage, just "attacking in another direction," as Marine General Oliver P. Smith once said. I post it here without further comment:

On this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.

If I may, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the last 24 hours and share my thoughts with you.

First, I want to thank you for your support and hard work on the values we share. Those values led me to the decision my family and I made. Yesterday, my family and I announced a decision that is in Alaska’s best interest and it always feels good to do what is right. We have accomplished more during this one term than most governors do in two – and I am proud of the great team that helped to build these wonderful successes. Energy independence and national security, fiscal restraint, smaller government, and local control have been my priorities and will remain my priorities.

For months now, I have consulted with friends and family, and with the Lieutenant Governor, about what is best for our wonderful state. I even made a few administrative changes over that course in time in preparation for yesterday. We have accomplished so much and there’s much more to do, but my family and I determined after prayerful consideration that sacrificing my title helps Alaska most. And once I decided not to run for re-election, my decision was that much easier – I’ve never been one to waste time or resources. Those who know me know this is the right decision and obvious decision at that, including Senator John McCain. I thank him for his kind, insightful comments.

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change; I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America. I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint. I hope you will join me. Now is the time to rebuild and help our nation achieve greatness!

God bless you! And I look forward to making a difference – with you!

Sarah

Technorati tags: Sarah Palin, Alaska, resignation, statement

More Sarah Palin

Never a bad thing, in my opinion.

Here's a list of interesting items I've seen this morning:

In the New York Post, Bill Quick says "Run, Sarah, Run" and offers a list of five things she should do after leaving office to lay the groundwork for 2012 or 2016.

In an earlier post, I had referenced an article that reported rumors that Sarah Palin was soon to be investigated for a Ted Stevens-like scandal. The LA Times reports on a statement from the FBI that there is no truth to that rumor. Mel at Conservatives for Palin tracks these rumors back to anti-Palin bloggers in Alaska, which were then picked up unquestioningly by national bloggers and the mainstream media.

Patterico reports that the Governor's legal counsel has made noises about defamation actions against both MSM outlets and the bloggers that continue to spread this story, now that the FBI has debunked it. (The full statement is here, in PDF) On the one hand, our modern society has taken the notion of "being above it all" to mean that public figures should never defend themselves against even the most outrageous and damaging lies. We go so far as to blame the victim for hitting back. On the other hand, shouldn't even the newsworthy have the right to defend their reputations in court? It seems to me we've gone too far in the former direction. (More at Gateway Pundit)

Matthew Continetti at The Weekly Standard reminds us that "she is a lot of things ... but NOT stupid..." His colleague Bill Kristol offers opinions from two more contrarians. ("Contrary" in this case meaning the belief that she wasn't stupid to resign.)

William Jacobson compares Governor Palin's move to then-Senator Barack Obama running for president after less than two years in the Senate and asks "Is Palin a quitter or a climber?" Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey says she's a quitter; like Jacobson, I don't know. And I suspect we won't until several months and even years have gone by.

Finally, Kurt Schlichter at Big Hollywood draws his light-saber and says "the Force is with Sarah Palin:"

Not to go an analogy too far, but Sarah Palin seems to be taking a page from the Hollywood playbook of George Lucas.  She has just completed her own introductory trilogy, and it was an astonishing success. 

First, she was a fantastically successful conservative governor lurking beneath the mainstream media’s radar.  Next, she was a vice-presidential candidate who, even though she lost, still did more to electrify the base than the headliner.  Third, she has now drawn the curtain on her post-election career as a sitting governor, a period that saw her deftly turn the tables on mainstream haters like David Letterman.   Like “Star Wars,” she’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but her fans are rabid and chomping at the bit for the next installments.  And as to these future installments, the question is whether the next step is going to be “The Phantom Menace” or something that doesn’t suck.

Good question.

 

Technorati tags: Sarah Palin, resignation, defamation, rumors

Because nothing says "tastes great" like ISO 9001!

After a tough day having your soul raped building the future in a hell-hole and gulag worker's paradise like North Korea, it's comforting to know you can end it with a frosty People's Brewski that meets ISO standards. Down with these capitalist-running dog beers that merely taste great!

In other words, behold a North Korean beer commercial:

Via Fausta, who adds:

Because nothing in a beer ad says “refreshing” like chemists in labs, assembly lines, antiquated buildings, and North Korean Communist party officials

Indeed. Drink up, lads!  

 

Technorati tags: North Korea, beer, commercials, ISO 9001

So, why'd she do it?

I still don't have a satisfying answer for why Governor Palin resigned, and Tito's magic 8-ball is on the fritz, but I've read some interesting speculations this morning -some more believable than others- that I thought I'd pass along:

• Max Blumenthal: Getting out ahead of a scandal? Reliant on rumors and unsourced rumors from "Alaska political circles" (Where she's always had enemies), this is my candidate for "least credible."
• William Jacobson: It has always been about Trig. There's no doubt that the Left's obsession with her toddler has revealed something vile in our politics, and I wouldn't blame a mother for saying "I'm taking your target away."
• Mark Steyn: An ordinary citizen cuts bait. The "I've had enough" reason. After what we've witnessed, I could believe that.

Both of the latter beg the question of "Why not finish her term and then retire," while the first provides a possible answer, but one I hope is baseless.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson says it's not about why she did it, but what she does with her new free time:

In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She's not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight year of travel and reflection that she's a  charismatic Margaret Thatcher type heavyweight.

We'll see. I'd love to see her come back refreshed and ready to run in 2016. I still think she offers what the country needs and that, more than any other likely candidate, she stands for the common person - the ordinary barbarian, as some put it. Some have compared her to Ronald Reagan, and Palin herself often quotes the late President, but I think the fairer comparison is to Harry Truman - not the Hollywood star, but the Missouri haberdasher: tough, scrappy, full of common sense. The Wise wrote off Truman in 1948, and we know how that turned out.

So, to answer the question in the subject line:

It's about the future, now.

LINKS: Sister Toldjah reflects on the morning after. Rich Noyes on 10 months of media scorn (via ST). Adam Brickley looks at internal Alaska politics and thinks she's extended her influence. Slublog doesn't believe she'll be back and says our loss is her gain. On the other hand, Mark Levin thinks she's running:

Technorati tags: Sarah Palin, speculation, resignation, Trig Palin

Out of left field

To say I'm surprised and disappointed at the resignation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is an understatement by an order of magnitude. The news hit me like a ton of bricks. Anyone who knows me or looks in the archives of this blog knows that I became a great fan of Sarah Palin and looked forward to seeing her inaugurated as President of the United States in 2013.

It's almost impossible to believe anything other than that this announcement is a self-inflicted, below-the-waterline torpedo hit to any presidential aspirations she had in 2012 - or beyond. I'd like to think otherwise, but it's hard not to see this as political suicide. The question is, why'd she do it?

I don't know.

To be honest, many of the reasons she gave in her address seem, well, nonsensical. Didn't want to be a lame-duck? Huh? You're not a lame-duck if you run for reelection and, besides, her current term wouldn't end until 2011, even if she were defeated or chose not to run. Resigning now to avoid being a lame-duck is just a lame reason. If that were logical, shouldn't every president have resigned to make way for his successor?

The legal bills she and her family racked up defending her against ludicrous ethics complaints? A single fundraising drive and conservatives around the country would have been happy to contribute to retire her debt. In fact, the blog Conservatives for Palin did just that, raising over $100,000 for her with minimal advertising. A national campaign with direct mailing would have cleared the debt easily. As for the money Alaska was spending to deal with the charges? That's part of the state's job: to handle these kinds of complaints. If there's a fault in Alaska's ethics laws that allows someone like Celtic Diva to become an abusive complainant, then the law should be amended to discourage nuisance filings. By giving this for a reason, Sarah has said that any elected official who becomes a lightning rod should resign to spare the state the expense.

Nonsense.

And then there's there question of what this tells her supporters in Alaska and the other 49* states. As Ed Morrissey puts it, leaders don't quit. And the people of Alaska elected her to serve a four-year term. It's one thing to run for reelection with the idea of running for president in the next cycle; lots of governors have done that and been open about it. And it's fine to say "I'm not running for reelection because I plan to run at a national level, and I want to be fair to my state." Many (including me) would respect her for that. But to quit in midterm? Isn't there an obligation to finish the job owed to those who agreed to vote for you?

No one who has any sense (or any sense of decency), can doubt that Sarah was subjected to a level of savage attacks from the media and operatives in both parties that, as far as I can recall, is unprecedented in the modern era - especially for someone who only ran for vice-president. The attacks on her children have been particularly vile. It's a sign of the deep sickness in our political system. I wouldn't blame a political figure for refusing to move to the national level and declining to run for reelection after that, but to quit early?

It may be, as some such as William Kristol have said, that she is taking a shrewd gamble to clear the decks for a national run. Perhaps, and it may be that she'll rise from this even faster than Nixon rose from his defeats in 1960 and 1962. Maybe. I've said for months that she's just the kind of person -the character, the common sense, the ethics- I want to see in office. But this bizarre move has thrown all sorts of question marks into the mix.

And I want a better explanation than I read today.

*(56, if you're President Obama)

LINKS: Tim Lindell on Sarah crossing the Rubicon; Quin Hillyer - "dereliction of duty;" Sister Toldjah; Jim Geraghty; The Anchoress has lots of links and wonders if there isn't something else behind this. As do I.

 

Technorati tags: Sarah Palin, bombshells, resignation