Friday, August 23, 2013

Cruising the Web

Check out six things candidates say when they're losing.

The left has discovered the importance of federalism. This fact explains the beauty of our system.

Charles C. W. Cooke has a very important column on how Congress has been handing its responsibilities over to the executive branch when they write laws giving the executive branch discretion to decide how laws should be enforced.
Obamacare, which makes the Senate’s immigration bill look like an exercise in legislative restraint, contains over 2,500 references to the secretary’s discretion, 700 cases in which the secretary “shall,” 200 instances in which the secretary “may,” and 139 cases in which the secretary “determines.” Its twin, Dodd-Frank, which effectively allows an unelected Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to police the personal-finance sector, is little different, aggregating the power of the three branches into one, stripping Congress of its traditional capacity to set an agency’s budget, and severely limiting the courts’ opportunity to review the CFPB’s legal interpretations. This is law, Jim — but not as we know it.

To ask for a concise explanation of what these new sorts of laws do would be futile, because the only meaningful answer is that they give the president the scope to run certain parts of the economy the way he wants. And what he wants is what Woodrow Wilson wanted in The Study of Administration: a means by which to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration” that is filled with the “hundreds who are wise” and that thwarts the “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” Government of the expert, by the powerful, and for the unworthy, in other words.

This, it should not need saying, stands in diametric opposition to the underlying principle — the “all-important English trait,” Orwell called it — that made the Anglosphere exceptional in the first place: that the law is regarded as “something above the state and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible.” “The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root,” Orwell claimed of his native England. It has not quite taken root in America, either. But even here, the law, which should be firmly and beautifully dead, is in danger of taking on a life of its own. If it is allowed to do so, Americans will invite in caprice, the half-brother of whim, which, as Christopher Hitchens astutely observed, is the “essence of tyranny.”
This is not how our system was supposed to work. Such a dereliction of responsibility is a violation of the carefully structured checks and balances. Read the rest of what Cooke wrote. If you're not disturbed by this abdication of responsibility to unelected bureaucrats, then you don't really understand how and why our system was structured by the Founding Fathers.

Don't expect Obama's proposals to do anything to stop college costs from rising. His proposals reveal that he doesn't really understand why costs keep rising; he's all about winning young people by relieving them of the worry of paying for their education.
The ballooning federal aid increases schools’ spending. The researchers don’t analyze changes in university spending, but an examination of other evidence suggests that money isn’t going primarily into improving instruction. Colleges have gone on a building spree (financed in part by amassing large debt -- more than $220 billion at schools whose bonds are rated by Moody’s alone), and pay and perquisites for top university administrators has risen sharply.
Obama’s “tough love” on higher education should begin by reversing the financial aid explosion that has contributed to this spending binge and, more importantly, to the system that has produced a generation of young debtors with mediocre job prospects. The president is looking at the tip of the iceberg, not its bigger base.
As Paul Mirengoff writes, his proposals are either unnecessary or pernicious. Or as Yuval Levin writes is the type of data that Obama wants to have made public is actually against federal law to collect.

Kirsten Powers continues her reputation as a liberal who is willing to discuss unappealing truths. Today she writes about the Muslim Brotherhood's war on Coptic Christians.

Bill and Hillary's vacation in the Hamptons tells us something rather unappealing about politics today.

It's not only team mascots and nicknames that refer to Native Americans that are unacceptable. Apparently, having a white male as a mascot is also unacceptable even if that is what the students want.

The HHS has to explain how Obamacare works to HHS employees. It's like the IRS offering tax assistance to its employees.

The left really seems obsessed with hating Ted Cruz. But here is a little fun: "The 17 Most Canadian Things About Ted Cruz."

How refreshing it is when a court gives a brushback pitch to the Obama administration's habit of ignoring the law.

Contrary to what Al Gore is now claiming his "An Inconvenient Truth" did not predict Hurricane Sandy. And we're not going to add a new category to the hurricane scale.


Charles Curran said...

You forget that a federal judge ordered Barry O to open drilling in the gulf 2-3 years ago. Still no new permits. He will do what he wants no matter what.

mark said...

I think most liberals are hoping Cruz will run. Are repubs really going to repeat the clown-show with the likes of him, Paul and Trump? That will certainly make it easy for dems, whether it is Hillary or someone else.

The fascination (not obsession) with Cruz is that his supporters would support a foreign-born man after embarrassing themselves with their birtherism. I guess it was never that Obama was born in another country, but the "exotic" part of the world in which he was supposedly born.

The tea party and birthers have shown the true motive for the Obama hate. Absolutely no surprise.

Last, First, MI said...


Are you suggesting that opposition to Obama and his administraion is racial? Calling people that promote Tea Party principles racist is low, even for you.

Playing the race card, as you have, is tantamount to admitting that you have no intellectual argument to support the Obama Administration's programs, policies, and record. But then that's hardly news around here.

mark said...

Do I think that all opposition to Obama is racial? Certainly not. Nor do I think all tea party members are racist.
Am I suggesting that there are many people who oppose Obama because he is black? Ummm, yes.
Just as there are many who voted for Obama because he is black.
Does anyone honestly doubt both of those are true?

The race card is played too often by both sides, but sometimes it is appropriate. Of course, please try to explain why birthers are ok with Cruz after hyperventilating about Obama's place of birth (Hawaii, by the way. He was born in Hawaii.) Perhaps you can do better than the only explanation offered thus far that "Canada is not really foreign soil". I know that people to the north look and act like us, but do conservatives understand that it is a separate country? I'll go out on a limb and guess they don't feel the same way about our neighbors to the south. If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you why (but I think we all already know, right?).

Last, First, MI said...


You'll have to ask the Hillary campaign people why they raised the issue in the first place. After that, you can guess why Obama held his birth certificate close-hold.

If you want to wrap yourself around the axle over an idiot like Trump, as he pursues any and all opportunities to keep a camera in his face, be my guest, but don't think any of it is a substitute for your failure to show us why you would vote for a candidate like Obama, not once, but twice.

The record I'm concerned about is his appalling failure in office. I've heard nothing from you, at any point, that suggests otherwise.

mark said...

You are lying, once again. I have outlined Obama policies I support, as well as policies I don't support, when explaining why I would reluctantly vote a 2nd time for Obama.
However, congrats for finally criticizing a birther. A real breakthrough! Next step: Acknowledging you were wrong in calling Bob Menendez a "pedophile and rapist".
(We'll leave the question of whether Canada is part of the U.S. for another day.)

Last, First, MI said...
Identities? Identify ANY Democrat that has demanded that Bob Menendez, child prostitute customer and Democratic Party Senator from New Jersey, step aside and cooperate fully with the current FBI investigation.10:37 AM

equitus said...

My question, again: Identify ANY Democrat that has demanded that Bob Menendez, child prostitute customer and Democratic Party Senator from New Jersey, step aside and cooperate fully with the current FBI investigation.

Last, First, MI said...


We're out to get you! We're everywhere!

I'm not sure what else to say to you as you continue to revel in your own paranoia.

Nevertheless, I still enjoy watching you thrash around on this topic as I know how much you enjoy firing off unsupported accusations (Liar! Fraud!) when your in full rant. It really is a spectacle.

mark said...


The guy who called someone a "rapist" and "pedophile" based on the "testimomy" of two anonymous prostitutes is talking about "unsupported accusations"?

Good one.