Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Cruising the Web

So now we have the chief law enforcement officer of the nation taking the position that he didn't lie to Congress; he just participated in what could generously be called misleading a federal judge. It doesn't sound like much of a defense.

Our lovely Secretary of State John Kerry finds a way to blame the Jews for extremism and terrorism around the world. It's the same old misconception that liberals around the world love to make to explain away violence by Muslims.

Only a totally-in-the-tank writer would praise Obama for agonizing about his own anti-terror policies.

The College Republicans explain why the GOP did so miserably with young people in the 2012 elections. It's the same old story that the Republicans stink at explaining their positions.

Why should a possible shield law only protect journalists, but not private citizens who blog or tweet or just aren't part of the MSM? And why should the government be able to decide who does and doesn't get protection? Isn't that what the Founding Fathers would have supported? As Jonah Goldberg writes,
When James Madison wrote the First Amendment, he undoubtedly had in mind not just journalists but also the countless private, often anonymous, pamphleteers who often went after those in power with hammers and tongs. And that points to the heart of the matter. Journalism isn't a priestly caste or professional guild with special rights. It is an activity we all have a right to partake in. Whether it's a blogger with a virtual tip jar exposing malfeasance or 60 Minutes making fraudulent charges about George W. Bush, there will always be good journalism and bad journalism.

It will undoubtedly be necessary from time to time for the government to distinguish between the two. But those instances should be exceedingly rare, and they should never hinge on who the government thinks is qualified to be a journalist in the first place.
Of course, the New York Times would also like to be able to determine who is a real journalist entitled to First Amendment protections. Wouldn't that be convenient for a news organization to be able to determine who its competitors are when it comes to Constitutional protections.

Well, isn't this special? We're offering the terrorists being held at Gitmo classes in interviewing and resume writing. Yes, because we're all thinking these nice chaps can score a nice job when they get out.

The EPA, fresh from giving awards to a fictional persona of former EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, is now realizing that they've been operating a warehouse with potentially hazardous conditions with security and safety issues.

Walter Shapiro laments how Obama's former aides are following in a bipartisan pattern of cashing in on their time serving a president. But, but, but Obama was supposed to be so different!

If David Plouffe is so interested in bringing out charges leveled at Darrell Issa 40 or 30 years ago, how about remembering MSNBC's Al Sharpton's disreputable background. You can review Stuart Stevens' article at The Daily Beast recounting that history or watch the New York Times' mini documentary on the Tawana Brawley story.

Jonathan S. Tobin explains how the IRS story keeps getting worse. And Jeffrey Lord connects the dots between former head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman and the left. Just ask yourself why the IRS Commissioner would publicly campaign for Charles Rangel while Rangel was being investigated for failing to pay taxes.

What a surprise: the California government is misleading the public to try to pretend that California health insurance won't substantially increase under Obamacare.

MSNBC acknowledges what we've always thought - it's not a "news network."

So will Senator Lautenberg's death threaten Harry Reid's plan to try to jam through the nuclear option on filibuster rules on judicial nominations?

Rich Lowry celebrates the successful competitive federalism of Rick Perry's ability to lure businesses to leave high-tax blue states to move to Texas. And boy does that grate on the politicians from those blue states. They'd prefer to rail against Rick Perry than change their policies that are driving out businesses from their states.
Perry’s foes assume there must be something unfair or wrong about this. Texas, they scoff, is benefiting from an energy boom. Well, states like California and New York also have oil and gas resources, but refuse to exploit them fully for political reasons. Regardless, Texas job growth ranges much more widely than the energy sector.

Texas also is portrayed as a pit of backwardness. It’s not so, as Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation — himself a transplant from California — points out. A calculation of poverty rates from the Census Bureau that takes account of cost of living found that California had the highest poverty rate in the country from 2009 through 2011, at 23.5 percent; the adjusted rate for Texas was about 17 percent. He writes that the two states are “remarkably similar in size, diversity and natural resources,” but “they differ in their governance.”

Texas benefits from low tax rates, a low cost of living, light regulation, checks on abusive lawsuits and its status as a right-to-work state. California has none of the above. Although its unemployment rate has been declining, it is still 9 percent, the fourth-highest in the nation.

“Poaching” jobs sounds pejorative, but it amounts to making it easier for people to do business. The waste hauler Waste Connections Inc. moved from Sacramento, Calif., to a location near Houston. Its CEO told the Web site The Fiscal Times that it took the company 16 months to design and build a new building in Texas, when the permitting alone would have taken three years in California.

If blue-state Democrats want Rick Perry to stop bothering them, they should quit whining and start learning from his example.
The Associated Press reports that Obama's political appointees are refusing to turn over information on their secret email accounts that the news agency has requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Such secret email accounts are a way to evade an "agency's legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails in response to congressional or internal investigations, civil lawsuits or public records requests because employees assigned to compile such responses would necessarily need to know about the accounts to search them. Secret accounts also drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions."