Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Oppression’ Category

You brute!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 17, 2009

Obama, it turns out, isn’t even different about being different, especially as regards the… different:

“When a president tells you he’s going to be different, you believe him,” said John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist.

You do?

What if he says, “This time it’s for real” or “I’ll call you”?

In fact, it turns out John Aravosis is all kinds of apoplectic about the things going down in his world (via Insty).  Here he’s particularly outraged that Barney Frank, being all gay and all, doesn’t agree with The Agenda:

Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I’m told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we’re better than the Republicans – by repeating their arguments in court.

You’re missing my point if you read past the first line (I just could resist pasting the whole thing) (you can learn about the actual legal issue here):  Aravosis is livid that this offensive political view is being espoused by “Our senior most gay member of Congress.”

Let me get this straight:  Gayness is supposed to lead to a specific political outlook?

If so, then is there anything wrong, after all, with opposing a candidate for office because he’s… that way?

Or maybe I’ve finally found a topic that can actually cause me to write words defending Barney Frank.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, O Mores!, Oppression | 1 Comment »

Out, damned blog!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 7, 2009

Unknown

On one of my favorite topics, anonymous blogging — James Joyner (via Glenn) is unhappy with one particular bit of outage:

While I generally find the practice of revealing people’s secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when it’s appropriate.  Public officials who are abusing their power is the most obvious case.   Here, however, there is no public benefit achieved. Whelan is simply annoyed that Publius had been “biting at my ankles in recent months” and critiquing his blog posts.

Jeopardizing a man’s career and family relationships over something so petty is simply shameful. Anonymous Liberal (which, I’m given to understand, is not his given name) hits the nail on the head:

It’s really difficult to put into words just how despicable and childish this behavior is. This is a man who was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. He’s currently the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And he’s acting like a six-year-old.

[…]

The reality is that if you don’t think your work product can withstand the scrutiny of a few anonymous bloggers, than you have no business publishing it. And if your ego can’t withstand being criticized by people who write under pseudonyms, then you’re far too insecure to be blogging for a living.

Well, I’d say something different: If your career, life or whatever can’t stand the pressure of being held responsible for your words, then you’re far too insecure — literally — to publish them on line, especially when they’re at someone else’s expense.

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

There’s no “public interest” test for outing an anonymous blogger.   There is only the test of how far you can go before you show your hand, and the test of accountability in the public sphere.  And I say if you’re prepared to shoot out someone else’s lights, whether or not he is “blogging for a living,” then be prepared to have your’n popped, too.

Accountability.  In a free society, if you can’t stand behind it, I see no reason why you should be allowed to get a pass on saying it.  Put differently, you’ve got every right to say it, and every right to pay for it.

Posted in Blogophilia, O Mores!, Oppression, Social networking | 9 Comments »

Jordan ejects Jewish jurists

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 1, 2009

Michael Factor writes that notwithstanding the “normalization” guaranteed by the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan signed by the late King Hussein and Yitzchak Rabin, Jordanian lawyers hold themselves to a “higher” standard and refuse to do business with Israelis, whether lawyers or companies:

Some of our clients, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturers, file in Jordan, and have had applications abandoned.

In this instance, it is Jordan that loses out. Israeli science and engineering is more advanced than that or her neighbors, but labor is cheaper in the surrounding Arab states. A normalization of relationships between Israel and Jordan would result in closer economic cooperation that is more important to Jordan than to Israel.

Of course, this should be dealt with on a political level. It does not help that when the Special 301 Report published, Ben Eliezer (Fuad) the Minister of Trade and Industry . . .  announced his ignorance of IP issues. One also wonders where WIPO is.

So… where is WIPO?  Well, before pointing a finger I’d like to know what it knows and when it knew it.

Oh, you’re wondering what “the Special 301 Report” is?  Me too. Every knows about the Special 301 Report, which you can get here, assuming you haven’t already memorized it as I have. Why, you know what they say:  The “Special 301” Report is an annual review of the global state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement. This Report reflects the Administration’s resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide.

Call me Fouad

Call me Fouad

Oh, and Fouad?  That’s this guy.  Yeah, well.

Hat tip to @IP_Updates.

Posted in Oppression, Orient | Leave a Comment »

Dissent is insanity

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 29, 2009

Montana has passed a law, certain to be declared unconstitutional or otherwise rendered a nullity, declaring that, as the AP puts it, “guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.”

Color that dead on arrival.  That doesn’t mean I’m pro-guns or anti-guns — I’m mostly pro-, for a guy who’s never touched one — but it’s just some very simple lawyering by yours truly.  I think a political science major could figure this out, too.  So I don’t mind that gun control advocates are describing this measure as entirely symbolic, even provocative.

But that’s never good enough.  Because remember:  Being liberal means never having to say your adversary is rational or moral.  So here’s the money quote from the same AP story:

“Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that’s pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

I'm Insane, so YOU can't carry on campus
That’s the communications director, folks.  He’s in charge of choosing words.

And you?  You agree with him.

Or… you’re a nut.  A gun nut.

New regime, not-so-new tone of debate:  My way or the nut way.

Posted in Oppression, Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »

Oh, yeah… him

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 26, 2009

Last fall I reluctantly supported John McCain for President.  I wasn’t even sure why at the time, and could mostly focus on why I thought Barack Obama was not up to the task.  But shame on me — there was a reason, and it’s the same issue that made me realize I am a conservative in the first instance.  And the inexcusable Obama “policy” on “torture” — which is merely a political hiccup, a gesture to the left, a classic instance of liberal symbolism as government, that just happens threatens to undermine the ultimate safety and freedom of every one of us — reminds me of it now.

Here comes a long excerpt, but worth it.  Here’s the crux of the matter from last October’s issue of  The Atlantic, and we pick up the article at the end, where Jeffrey Goldberg is discussing McCain with Henry Kissinger:

I pointed out that McCain has changed many of his positions during his candidacy in order, it seems, to better conform to Republican orthodoxy. Kissinger replied: “Under the pressure of a presidential campaign, it’s possible that he will make adjustments. He may deviate from his positions, but he will not like himself for it.”

In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.

Kissinger learned this at their first meeting. “When I was in Vietnam for negotiations on implementing the Paris Agreement, the North Vietnamese prime minister had a dinner—I was leaving the next day—and he said if I wanted to take McCain on my flight, it could be arranged,” he said. “I told him that I won’t take McCain or anyone else on my plane. The prisoner release would have to happen on a schedule previously agreed. Somehow McCain heard about this and months later, at the White House reception for returned prisoners, he said to me, ‘I want to thank you for saving my honor.’ What McCain did not tell me at that time was that he had refused to be released two years earlier unless all were released with him. It was better for him to remain in jail in order to preserve his honor and American honor than to come home on my plane.”

For McCain, the doctrine of preemption clearly falls outside the realm of mere politics, as does the need to “win,” rather than “end,” wars; the safety of America demands that they be fought, and honor demands that they be won.

McCain’s father, Kissinger said, saw the world the same way McCain sees it. “He was a military man, not a diplomat. Both men grasp the notion of consequences.

Consequences.  They are the reason the buck stops in the Oval Office.

The consequences of this lashing out at the previous regime, this post-Vietnamesque attempt to exorcise the hated, manly self, are not going to be “respect for the law” and widespread international warming toward America.  It will, to the contrary, give aid and comfort to those most contemptuous of law, and of our country, and most readily prepared to make every possible effort to destroy both.

That’s it, isn’t it?  Democrats really don’t seem to think about consequences, or at least to weigh them compared to gesture, self-regard and a need to please.

How many chances will we get to escape the consequences of a policy of vanity this time?

Cross-posted on Right-Wing News.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, Oppression, Past is prologue, Sisyphus, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Bipartisan? Whew!

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 21, 2009

Obama on show trials of CIA employees:

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

Regrets, we have a few.

Regrets, we have a few.

The horror.

I’d like to say this is fundamentally a dodge.  It is a dodge — he wants to look ahead, not back, he’s not suggesting, he’s leaving doors open… it is a dodge, and frankly a contemptible one.

But fundamentally it is not a dodge.  Fundamentally it is something much more horrible.  It is the process by which the United States takes on a practice associated with tyrannies and, far from being an endorsement of the rule of law, elevates the assumption to power to the ability to punish the previous regime for “incorrect” — and hence “criminal” — policies.

It is no different from the argument about the supposedly inevitable impeachment of ex-President Bush, also based on supposed crimes arising from torture.  As I wrote on a private list, made up mainly of attorneys, discussing that topic (adapted here), there is a tendency among certain people, and in particular those attracted to a certain pole in political debate, to regard their political choices or philosophical conclusions as the sole “moral” choice.  In fact, (a) criminalization of political disagreement, (2) the use of penal power to punish players in the previous regime, and (3) the adaptation of legislative bodies as proxies to loose the necessary political “justice” when the traditional judicial organs refuse to comply, have historically been popular options for playing out this partisan outrage and sating the desire for “moral” vindication on the politically deviant.

Just not in this country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Lex scripta, Liberal punks, O Mores!, Oppression | 15 Comments »

Socialismesque?

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 13, 2009

Remember this big-deal post?  It got Instalanched and everything, and I was written off by many an otherwise friendly right-winger for it:

Just as we remember it: Socialism, fundamentally, is premised on the non-private ownership of at least some of the means of production. Obviously at best the only argument you can make for Obama-as-socialist, based on the sound bite quoted above, is that he is a “social democrat,” i.e., one who “propose[s] selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs.”

So: What industry did Barack Obama propose to nationalize in his remarks, or in any remarks?

None. He proposed none, and in all probability he never will.

Harry Truman — now there was a socialist. He tried to nationalize the entire steel industry. But what would conservatives give today for a world full of Democrats like Truman?

People, you don’t have to be a socialist to be “dangerous” as a matter of economics, budget, tax policy, or, for that matter, liberty. But if you want healthy economies, balanced budgets, fair taxes — and liberty — you have to know your political economy, and you have to know who is and who isn’t a Red, if only to maintain your own credibility as loyal opposition.

Well, now Instapundit quotes the following from Jonathan Macey, which challenges my premise (not by name) considerably:

To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now. . . .

The initial forceful injection of capital into hundreds of financial institutions, however, is another story. It is the first step in an ongoing process to socialize American finance. When this process is complete, every company in the U.S. that needs capital will first have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Solid business plans and prospects for growth and profitability will be far less important than diversity plans and political connections.

We’re at the start of an unprecedented foray by the federal government into the governance of private-sector companies. . . .

Is he really describing socialism, though? Or just plain lousy, or maybe even catastrophic, over-regulation of the financial sector?

I don’t see socialism here.  Disaster?  Tragedy?  Whatever.  Red October?  Not quite.  Enlighten me if I’m wrong.

Posted in Gelt, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

Oh, so that’s the problem!

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 1, 2009

Obama is doing AN INCREDIBLE JOB. So the GOP’s at the NY Times can just keep their biased, negative reporting out of the mainstream, cuz we don’t buy it.

That’s a comment on The Caucus Blog of the New York Times (by virtue of this tangentially related link from Instapundit).  You’ve got to read this comment section — are they all Party Youth members?

Yeah, those anti-Obama “GOP’s” at the New York Times!  They stand between Our President and The People.  Wreckers!

Posted in Medialites, Oppression, Sisyphus | 1 Comment »

Fenced in by tunnel vision

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 30, 2009

Red neck, whitewash

Red neck, whitewash

Yes, mixed metaphors can be a downer, but how else to express the silence of America’s Prophetic Voice, Jimmy Carter, regarding the other “apartheid fences”?  As Soccer Dad points, out, whether in Belfast, Arabia, “and now, in Brazil,” they all keep out the unwanted, and are quietly ignored after initial bursts of interest by the perpetually brokenhearted protectors of justice.  And there is no keening, Jew-obsessed hypocrite like Carter, is there? Is he heading down to Brazil?

God, yes, please.  Maybe he can be Rio’s Rachel Corrie?

“Bad, bad man,” as Ed Koch said about the wrong person; and this Carter has a lot of bad, bad accomplices — mainly with press passes and, of course, diplomatic license plates.

UPDATE: Then there’s those who imagine a fence where there isn’t one at all.

Posted in Medialites, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Sounds like more of that ZOG stuff to me

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 15, 2009

Boo-hoo:

Tim Neal of Miller County was shocked recently when he heard a radio program about a strategic report compiled by state and federal law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism.

Titled “The Modern Militia Movement,” the report is dated Feb. 20 and designed to help police identify militia members or domestic terrorists. Red flags outlined in the document include political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, talk of conspiracy theories such as the plan for a mega-highway from Canada to Mexico and possession of subversive literature. . . .

“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner,” Neal said. “And this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.”

Oh, I get it.  Generalizing about people with Ron Paul stickers — people who are obviously completely comfortable with the borderline-Nazi views of that creep — that’s enough to garner the sympathy of Instapundit, who is nothing if not a bumper-sticker-rights absolutist!  But generalizing about frothing, fascist, jack-booted, itchy-trigger-finger police thugs?  No problem.

“I was going down the list and thinking, ‘Check, that’s me,’ ” he said. “I’m a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I’ve got the ‘America: Freedom to Fascism’ video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I’m a domestic terrorist? Because I’ve got a video about the Federal Reserve?”

No, you’re not a domestic terrorist.  Necessarily. You’re just a loon who does a lot of things that domestic terrorists also do.  More:

Roger Webb, president of the University of Missouri campus Libertarians, also took offense. “It’s absolutely obscene,” he said of the report. “It seems like they want to stifle political thought.”

Oh, that’s those intellectual, rational libertarians.  No wonder this is their “moment.”  Identification of correlations between dangerous wingnuts and certain … obsessions … by law enforcement:  “Absolutely obscene.”  And clearly stifling, well, not just political thought.  Stifling thought.  This is our new libertarian vanguard, the “rationalists,” the “objectivists.”  Give me a break.

These guys are every bit as bad as the left-wing crybabies who run to the courts every time one of the Men in Black starts taking license-plate numbers at a “die in for Palestine” demonstration.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Americana, Oppression | 4 Comments »