Make Mine Mitt

Tom Van Dyke 70 Comments

I didn’t watch the latest GOP debate. I was out playing the blues, getting on with real life.

[It went well, thx for asking. I’m just a fool for yr stockings, I believe.]

Real people have lives and consider government a necessary annoyance. Those who think government is anything but, well, they vote otherwise.

I’m a conservative and I don’t mind—I love me some Newt Gingrich, who was the first Republican who figured out Congress actually matters, and stole it away from eternal Democrat dominance in 1994.

But Brother Newt has only a second-class mind and a fourth-rate temperament. He’s a dick. I dig me some Herman Cain too on the demagogic level, but the presidency is not an entry-level job.

We just found that out bigtime, electing a 2-year Senator whose ideological flaws are only outweighed by his incompetence. Plus, we’re realizing, he has a really crappy temperament, too.

I knew nothing about Rick Perry, although I was hopeful. A true conservative. Well-qualified as a 2-term governor of a bigass state.

But Rick Perry’s a dick, I think. Probably a bigger dick than the last really massive dick we elected, St. Jimmy Carter. Even his own party came to hate him because he was a dick [and he still is].

Which leaves us with Mitt. The joke is that in every poll, BHO loses to a “generic Republican,” and there ain’t nobody more generic than Mitt.

But in this contentious day and age, and with the American presidency being the hottest spotlight on earth where every word or phrasing is parsed, not screwing up is Job One.

BHO’s record as president is fairly indefensible—it is the economy, stupid—so every public appearance Mitt Romney makes where he doesn’t screw up is yet another electoral victory. Can he run the table over the next 13 months?

It’s a big ask, but this guy has a better shot than any other GOPer. On the emotive level, he’s in control of himself, doesn’t let himself get carried away. And the world is such a complex place that we expect our president to be a Jeopardy! champion, and know not only his Keynes from his Mises, but who the president of Tanzania is.

[I’m a reasonably well-read person and politics freak. I have no frigging goddam idea. Jesus, there are almost 200 UN member states. I can barely make it through the 50 US capitals.]

[OK, let’s test meself—North Dakota—Pierre.]

[Looking it up, Godmmit, that’s SOUTH Dakota. Bismarck’s the other one, OK, I got that one right, sort of.]

For the record, while Mitt Romney was @ Harvard postgrad, he scored his MBA and a law degree simultaneously. Top third [cum laude] in his law school class, top 5% in his MBA program.

As a headhunter, it’s my professional opinion that his record is Not Bad. Atall. You may think him a fool, but he’s no idiot.

Me, the worst thing about American life right now is how we’re at at other’s throats. 51% against the other 49, or 53 against the #Occupiers. This sucks.

President Obama is out campaigning already looking for his 51%. He’s a dick.

Mitt’s taking fire from his right flank, but behaving like a president, president of all of us.

Mitt Romney’s qualified and he isn’t a dick. He has my vote—I don’t ask for much in these difficult times.

First World Problems

Tim Kowal 20 Comments

From the Government vs. Childhood chronicles, “[a] zoning board in Fairfax County, Va., is standing firm in its decision to order a war veteran to destroy a tree house he built for his two young sons.”

He said he contacted Fairfax County and was given assurances that he didn’t need any special permits to build the $1,400 tree house.

But it turns out – that wasn’t exactly accurate.

It turns out Grapin didn’t need a permit – he needed a zoning variance. That’s because his house is on a corner lot. And in the eyes of Fairfax County – Grapin has two front yards.

. . . .

In the meantime, Grapin has had to pay nearly $1,800 in permits and fees to build the $1,400 tree house.

“I paid $885 for a special permit to build the tree house,” he said. “There were additional fees of $975 to have the plats for the property redrawn to reflect the tree house and then I had to pay mail fees to notify the neighbors of hearings so they could voice any concerns they might have about the tree house.”

This example works as well as any as a backdrop for this question:  Is this an appropriate use of the lawmaking function, to deprive homeowners the right to build a safe, modest structure in their own yard for the use and wholesome enjoyment of their children? 

If that question seems loaded, then try this one instead:  Are people justified in seeking laws to preserve the character and quality of their neighborhoods and the values of their homes? 

I don’t pretend the answer is obvious, but let me offer this in favor of putting our zoning codes on a diet:  If you’re agitating against your neighbor’s tree house, the beater car on blocks down the street, a surplus of local churches, or your neighbor’s third-story add-on that will destroy the area’s “small-town charm,” you might consider whether you’ve got a case of First World Problems. 

Don’t sweat the small stuff.  That’s good self-help advice, and it’s good policy advice.

Judge voids Los Alamitos’s illegal trash contract

Tim Kowal 12 Comments

I had the privilege of briefing and appearing on the writ petition granted on October 7 invalidating an exclusive 10-year trash hauling contract awarded by the City of Los Alamitos last year.  The City enacted a competitive bidding ordinance in 2008 requiring all such contracts be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.”  Thereafter, one trash hauler—the one who eventually won the exclusive contract—contributed approximately $36,000 in campaign support to one incumbent and two challenger candidates to the City Council. The 2008 election resulted in three of five City Council members how had received significant contributions from one trash hauler.  

By the City’s own estimates, the “winning” bidder’s fees would total approximately $21.9 million over the ten years of the contract.  The lowest responsible bidder offered to do the same job for a projected cost of approximately $15.4 million over ten years—a savings of about $6.5 million, or 30%.  Far from awarding the contract to this “lowest responsible bidder” as required by the City’s own municipal code, it awarded it to the second highest bidder. 

It was a great privilege working on and prevailing in this case headed by Ben Pugh, with whom I also worked in scoring a major victory against the City of Irvine’s subsidiary, the Orange County Great Park Corporation.  That earlier case resulted in a published Court of Appeal decision in Choi et al. v. Orange County Great Park Corporation, 175 Cal. App. 4th 524 (2009). 

These experiences continue to confirm that government’s tendency toward mischief varies inversely with it size.

Uncivil Tongues: The Bad Manners of the Babykillers

Tom Van Dyke 25 Comments

Calling abortion rights advocates “babykillers” is pretty much a no-no in our civil society, and for good reason. Such talk only serves to inflame: nobody likes being demonized so they get pissed and return fire; on the other side, demonization and over-the-top rhetoric just opens the gates for more of the same from the maddened crowd.

On yet another 50-50 issue in a 50-50 country, we just don’t need the noise.

I’m not one to troll the news or the internet for the dumbest, loudest MFers on the other side of the aisle [I’m a gentleperson of the right and I don’t mind] to rail against, but Nancy Pelosi is no mere blogger or even backbencher—the erstwhile Speaker of the House is still the House Minority Leader.

“Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today. They will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers don’t have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

Huh? Not just me, but somebody on her side of the aisle is obliged to say, WTF? If there’s a rhetorical or substantive difference between “babykiller” and “[Republicans] will be voting to say that women can die on the floor” I’d like to know what it is.

Perhaps someone will try to defend her out of culture war loyalty, but on substance, Politico tells us that the bill still provides the customary exceptions for “cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother.” If accurate, that puts Rep. Pelosi’s charge in the neighborhood of a dirty lie, since it wouldn’t permit anyone to “die on the floor.”

And even if Politico isn’t quite accurate here, surely there’s a more statesmanlike way for a top Congressional leader to convince the American people that the bill is imprudent.

[The bill is an attempt to restore the status quo ante Obamacare, where the 1976 Hyde Amendment bans government money being spent on abortions—a position still held by more Americans than not. It was also the goal of the late, great Stupak Amendment, the last gasp of the last Democrat pro-lifers in congress.]

Now, I’m used to overstatement, demonization and over-the-top rhetoric like this from the Pelosis of America: I know even her supporters are inured to it, so numb they barely notice. We barely raise an eyebrow, perhaps whimper a faint protest. But this isn’t right, unless it’s OK for me to start calling her and hers demagoging partisan hack babykillers.

Which I’d rather not. I’m a civil fellow, a good citizen, play by the rules. I’d rather the gentlepersons of the left get their own house in order. Because if they can be held responsible for the incivility and divisive rhetoric of anyone, surely it’s ex-Speaker Pelosi, only months removed from the third-highest office in the land per the 25th Amendment.

There are cynically partisan reasons to hope she just keeps digging deeper and her supporters help: I like to think that the American voter is as repulsed by this sort of talk as they would be by “babykiller,” the sort of rhetoric that’s the last resort of the unreasonable. Abortion is perhaps our most difficult issue of conscience of all, and I do believe that the vast majority of Americans have searched the souls on it good and hard, regardless of their eventual position on the spectrum.

Each side seeks to coax the conscience of the other; “babykillers,” or letting women “die on the floor” are of the same stripe, divisive enemies of the clarity of good conscience that we all seek.

Romney to Liberals and Evangelicals: Suck My Balls

Tom Van Dyke 40 Comments

Don’t ask me, ask Gallup:

The May 25-30 [2011] survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked people how they would vote for presidential candidates with different traits.
Overall, 25 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a Mormon. Liberal Democrats were most opposed to a Mormon candidate (41 percent).

There you have it, lady and gents, despite some gentlepersons of the left trying to make great hay of GOP opposition to Mitt Romney’s “Mormon” candidacy like this:

mitt
https://ordinary-times.com/eliasisquith/2011/10/08/reminder-mitt-romney-is-a-mormon/

Nice title.

Yeah, there is some opposition in the primary, but even evangelicals only came in at 34%, and those like Cincinnati Reds pitcher cum preacher Frank Pastore will still go for Romney over the Democrat if he’s the GOP nominee.

The breakdown from Gallup, prejudiced against Mormon candidates:

Republicans: 18%
Independents: 19%
Democrats: 27%

It is to laugh. Hail to the Chief. As our good friend Mr. Schilling aptly quoted the estimable South Park:

“Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the Church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.”

I’d pay good money to hear President Romney tell his detractors to suck his balls as he’s inaugurated in 2013. But I’ll smile instead, and hear him say what he leaves unsaid.

JonahG: Why “Liberaltarianism” is Doomed

Tom Van Dyke 90 Comments

I wouldn’t even know what “Liberaltarianism” is except for this blog. It exists only in the ether of the blogosphere: I bet you could round up 2 liberaltarians, and a third would refuse the invitation to join them for tea. Goldberg writes:

But the gist of it goes like this. There are libertarians who really hate conservatism and/or the Republican party. They like liberals for one reason or another. Therefore, they want to dissolve the conservative-libertarian marriage and get the libertarians and liberals hitched instead.

Smells like that from here–united by what they hate: hey, you’re cool, I’m cool, let’s hook up. But that only goes so far. Liberals [I prefer “leftists” in this context] believe in legislation and better systems as the most effective solution to the ills of the human condition. Libertarians consider legislation and “systems” to be the absolute last resort to any human problem.

What the left and the libertarians have in common is pretending the status quo—conservatism, if you will—simply doesn’t exist except that it sucks. The left wants to reinvent the status quo; the libertarian wants to dispense with it as much as is possible.

All they really have in common is their distance from reality. Not to say that things can’t be improved, for any system or status quo is by definition imperfect since man is imperfect, but all the leftist and the libertarian have in common is discontent. One blasts off for the sun, the other for the stars, in completely different gravitational directions.

I admire them for their joint commitment to leaving Earth orbit. Progress is necessary to the human condition. But they’ll never agree as to their destination, so they can never get off the ground together. Checking out isn’t the same thing as going somewhere.

#OccupyWallStreet: Taking Up Space

Tom Van Dyke 7 Comments

Tea Party-haters are taking painful pains to elevate #OccupyWallStreet, et al. to more cosmic importance than those populist twits.

My favorite so far is a fellow named Matt Stoller at michaelmoore.com, who writes:

the leftover left

“What these people are doing is building, for lack of a better word, a church of dissent.”

Wow. Impressive. A church, even.

Me, though, I think of the even more wise Jerry Garcia:

“It’s pretty clear now that what looked like it might have been some kind of counterculture is, in reality, just the plain old chaos of undifferentiated weirdness.”

It’s no fun keeping it to yourself–undifferentiated weirdness needs some place to go, some place to be. So if not here, where? If not now, when?

The entire “Occupy” mini-phenomenon [I must consider it “mini” here in Los Angeles until they can outdraw the Clippers] is beatified by Stoller as

“…a group of people, gathered together, to create a public space seeking meaning in their culture. They are asserting, together, to each other and to themselves, ‘we matter'”.

Oh, my. True in its way, because we all matter, in our way. But besides the Leftover Left in all their craggy glory as heroically depicted above, #Occupy is a function of the young, who have been let down by the system.

Greed: I want my turn!

I feel you, brother. $70,000 in hock to the Educational-Industrial Complex and still no job to pay off your medical bills, the ones you ran up spending your cash on clubs and sushi and gadgets instead of insurance. Now you’re streetcamping, trying to figure out how to make a meal out of Cup O’Noodles and a can of Red Bull.

Stickin’ it to The Man. The Man sucks, whoever He is.

Another quote from the sainted JerryG:

“We’ve been trying to sell out for years–nobody’s buying!”

The rubber just met the road. At least Jerry could play a good guitar. $70K worth of Education later, you don’t even know how to change the oil in a car, for which someone would actually pay you.

See, the #OccupyYoungbloods never got their chance to sell out, to cash in, never got their turn to get good and greedy. No wonder they’re pissed. It’s just not fair.

The worst thing in the world is to try to sell your soul and get no takers.

Affirmative Action and Equality, Cont’d

Tim Kowal 1 Comment

I would be remiss to leave the recent discussions on affirmative action and equality without citing Frederick Douglass’s moral argument against affirmative action made in 1865 to a group of abolitionists:

“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us…. I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.”

As it turned out, this nation’s racial minorities achieved their most dramatic years of social and economic progress in the years prior to affirmative action.

Continue Reading →

California Legislature Proposes Racial Discrimination in University Admissions Policy

Tim Kowal 905 Comments

Via Pacific Legal Foundation, the California Legislature recently passed a bill, SB 185, that would require the state’s public universities to discriminate on the basis of race and gender in their admissions policies.  Here’s the relevant text of SB 185:

This bill would authorize the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law.

And here’s the relevant provisions of article 1, section 31 of the California Constitution, as amended by Prop 209, which runs expressly counter to SB 185:

Continue Reading →

The Best Argument Against Capital Punishment

Tom Van Dyke 51 Comments

To my mind, anyway.

First, I’m no expert on the Troy Davis case, even though I read the newspapers and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once. Per usual, the barrels of cyberink spent re-litigating the case show our problem to be epistemological; very few have more than the advocate’s version [for or against “reasonable doubt” in this case], although this lessens their passion and conviction not a whit. Pass.

As Jonathan Rowe noted in the comments on the mainpage, the strongest argument for capital punishment is that killers often kill again: after release from prison, perhaps even more often while in prison. Speaking for the greatest good for the greatest number, far more innocents would be saved by the timely execution of murderers than would innocents be executed in error. It’s not even close or arguable from the data.

Still, utilitarianism doesn’t sit well with our sense of justice. It can be equally easy to demonstrate that the whole circus just isn’t worth it as practiced today—the endless appeals, the minimization of any deterrent value by the sparing application of the death sentence. California spends $308 million on each execution and it’s difficult to imagine that nets a worthwhile return. And of course the race dimension makes any empirical discussion impossible. The race card is always top trump.

My reservation, my lean against capital punishment, is a “soft” argument, aesthetic, if you will, and although it could probably be fortified by data, I wouldn’t claim that would be sufficient. Still:

A letter sent to Georgia governor Nathan Deal, that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles reconsider their denial of clemency for Troy Davis–

We write to you as former wardens and corrections officials who have had direct involvement in executions. Like few others in this country, we understand that you have a job to do in carrying out the lawful orders of the judiciary. We also understand, from our own personal experiences, the awful lifelong repercussions that come from participating in the execution of prisoners. While most of the prisoners whose executions we participated in accepted responsibility for the crimes for which they were punished, some of us have also executed prisoners who maintained their innocence until the end. It is those cases that are most haunting to an executioner.

We write to you today with the overwhelming concern that an innocent person could be executed in Georgia tonight. We know the legal process has exhausted itself in the case of Troy Anthony Davis, and yet, doubt about his guilt remains. This very fact will have an irreversible and damaging impact on your staff. Many people of significant standing share these concerns, including, notably, William Sessions, Director of the FBI under President Ronald Reagan.

Living with the nightmares is something that we know from experience. No one has the right to ask a public servant to take on a lifelong sentence of nagging doubt, and for some of us, shame and guilt. Should our justice system be causing so much harm to so many people when there is an alternative?

We urge you to ask the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider their decision. Should that fail, we urge you to unburden yourselves and your staff from the pain of participating in such a questionable execution to the extent possible by allowing any personnel so inclined to opt-out of activities related to the execution of Troy Anthony Davis. Further, we urge you to provide appropriate counseling to personnel who do choose to perform their job functions related to the execution. If we may be of assistance to you moving forward, please do not hesitate to call upon any of us.

Respectfully and collegially,
Allen Ault – Retired Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classifications Prison
Terry Collins – Retired Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Ron McAndrew – Retired Warden, Florida State Prison
Dennis O’Neill – Retired Warden, Florida State Prison
Reginald Wilkinson – Retired Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Jeanne Woodford – Retired Warden, San Quentin State Prison

In a very real way, we are all the executioners: the state performs the deed on our behalf. So too, we all share the same nightmare.