Sunday, April 23, 2017

Litmus Test Politics


For John, BLUFI wonder of they realize a lot of folks don't believe as strongly as they do?  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Sub-headline:
DNC chair Tom Perez said all Democratic candidates must support a woman’s right to choose.
I picked this up from a Tweet by Ms Emily Zanotti, who wrote about three hours ago:
They realize Catholics vote Democrat, right?  Now they can't.
But, here is the story out of The Huffington Post, written by Ms Laura Bassett, on the 21st (Lede plus three):
Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez became the first head of the party to demand ideological purity on abortion rights, promising Friday to support only Democratic candidates who back a woman’s right to choose.

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”

Perez’s statement follows the DNC’s controversial embrace of Heath Mello, a Democratic mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, whose years-long history of voting against abortion rights in the state Legislature drew fire from progressives this week. Daily Kos, a liberal website that raises money for lesser-known Democratic candidates, pulled its endorsement of Mello this week after discovering his history on the issue, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue slammed the DNC for adding him to its cross-country unity tour.

‏Will we next be having "self-criticism" sessions within the Democratic Party?

By the way, Senator Bernie Sanders thinks that as long as Democratic Party politicians vote for abortion it is OK if they oppose it personally.

Regards  —  Cliff

Beginning Round Two


For John, BLUFA sprint to the finish with a lot of "Trump" comparisons and concerns about the coming Apocalypse.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is the late Sunday situation per The New York Times and Reporter Alissa J Rubin.

Here is the lede plus one:

In France’s most consequential election in recent history, voters on Sunday endorsed Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen — one a political novice, the other a far-right firebrand — both outsiders but with starkly different visions for the country, early returns and projections indicated.

The result was a full-throated rebuke of France’s traditional mainstream parties, setting the country on an uncertain path at a critical moment when France’s election could also decide the future of the European Union. The two candidates appeared to be headed to a runoff on May 7.

There you have it, Mr Emmanuel Macron and Ms Marine Le Pen.

After reading the article, please participate in this poll, below.

What is the NYT View of the French Candidates for the May runoff?
 
pollcode.com free polls

Regards  —  Cliff

Polling:  Trump vs Clinton


TRIGGER WARNING:  I blame the new book, Shattered.

For John, BLUFSo far, so good for President Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




It is The Washington Examiner (Mr Paul Bedard reporting, 23 April), the cross town junior rival of The Wash Post.

The thing is, based on polling, Mr Trump would again beat Mrs Clinton if the election were held now, but he would not only beat her in the Electoral College, but also in the Popular Vote.

And, those who voted for Mr Trump are pretty happy with what he has done so far, starting with his Supreme Court nomination.  I think a thing to keep in mind is that those who voted for Mr Trump knew that they were settling for someone who was not a politician and would have to fight to achieve his goals, against an establishment that would oppose him at every turn.

And, via the InstaPundit, there is this New York Post article by Ms Salena Zito, "How Trump voters feel about his first 100 days".  They are happy.  Here sample is people who live along US Route 30, from Times Square to San Francisco.

Here is how she wraps up the article:

Like FDR, Trump has taken the country in a completely different direction from his predecessor.  It is still unclear whether his break towards a new philosophy of governing will be successful — but, if you listen to his supporters, they have his back.

For now.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Road Trip!  How does she get all the fun assignments?

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Celebrating Earth Day


TRIGGER WARNING:  Back in 1970 they didn't know as much as you know now.

For John, BLUFI would like to see a discussion of the upside to climate change.  Things like more available fertile farm land.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here we have the "13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970".

This is an ever green item at Ricochet, posted by Mr Jon Gabriel, Editor.

The good news is that we are no longer worried about global cooling.

The bad news is we have run out of oil, or will in the next few minutes.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  On the other hand, Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds believes we can drill our way out of this problem.  I believe the Saudi Arabians worry about the same thing.

Changing Perspectives


For John, BLUFIt is past time to drop the "Russian hacking meme".  Nothing to see here; just move along.




So, it is a darkened alleyway and person in a trench coat, with a head a lot like a donkey, is talking to a person in a trench coats and a hat pulled low.

The balloon from the donkey character is saying:

We need you to say that the Chinese hacked the election and only made it look like the Russians did it...
The cartoonist is Mike Shelton.

Hat tip to The [Lowell] Sun.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, April 21, 2017

A Dean Scream

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  Per the First Amendment, I can legally say you are stupid.  I grant you it would be impolite and show a lack of good upbringing.
For John, BLUFEven the stupid have free speech rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



It is Law Professor Eugene Volokh, writing at "The Volokh Conspiracy" (The Wash Post, today).

The lede:

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean writes:
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://twitter.com/greenhousenyt/status/854881174044520449 …
8:13 PM - 20 April 2017
Second Para:
This leads me to repeat what I’ve said before:  There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.  Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.  One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans.  As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), “this Court’s tradition of ‘protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’ ” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” “viewpoint[s].”  (The quote comes from the four liberal justices, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, but the four more conservative justices would have entirely agreed with this, though also extended it to university-recognized student groups’ freedom to exclude members, and not just their freedom to express their thoughts.)
Here is the final paragraph:
But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it.  Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t rely just on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two.  And claiming that hate speech is already “not protected by the first amendment,” as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.
Remember, if today you stifle my free speech, six months from now someone will use your rationale to stifle your free speech.  Our kind of government requires a high tolerance for stupid ideas, in the belief (hope?) that the good ideas will push out the bad.  If you don't accept that, you are asking for a dictatorship of one sort or another.  And you need a Constitutional Amendment.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is It Really Free Speech?


For John, BLUFBe glad you live in Lowell and not Wellesley.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




I am still trying to figure out the ebb and flow of tweeting, but this one helps me understand.  First I get this item from David Burge, the Iowa Hawk, some six hours ago:
David Burge Retweeted Byron York
Good lord, the whole passage is a hate crime against grammar.
He is referring to a passage from The Wellesley News, which Byron York is talking about, where he says:
Student editors insist free speech is not violated at Wellesley, threaten those who disagree.
Here are a couple of paragraph from the item in The Wellesley News:
We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society.  Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way.  It is vital that we encourage people to correct and learn from their mistakes rather than berate them for a lack of education they could not control.  While it is expected that these lessons will be difficult and often personal, holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.

This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.  If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.  It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn.  Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so.  Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.

OK, I get it.  If you go to college at Wellesley you conform or they beat you up.  That seems straight forward.  And another reason to go to a commuter college or university.

I know you want to get away from your parents, but why trade one group that is telling you how to live your life for another group that is telling you how to live your life.  Submission is submission. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff