January 2012

NLRB Litigates for Less Freedom

by Trey Kovacs on January 18, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Labor, Legal, Regulation

In another demonstration of the overreaching power of the federal government, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is preparing to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah to overturn state constitutional amendments. The state amendments exclude card check as an option for employees to use when choosing to unionize.

The states in passing these amendments attempted to ensure the freedom of employees to a secret vote, when choosing to unionize or not. The amendments passed easily: ”Voters passed the amendments requiring elections as ballot initiatives in November, giving 60 percent approval in Utah, 61 percent in Arizona, 79 percent in South Dakota and 86 percent in South Carolina.”

The state amendments were a preemptive action against feared legislation that the Obama administration would enforce card check and take away the freedom of the secret ballot from the employee choosing whether to unionize. The card check option is just part of Big Labor’s policy initiative, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The goal of this legislation is to allow unions to have full access to employees and organize employees without having interference from employers.

As union supporters claim:

By the time employees get to vote, the environment has been so poisoned that free and fair choice isn’t an option. People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election-but in fact it’s not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It’s really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has a free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the union. [original emphasis]

This is not the case, employers must have union information posted in break rooms, as well give employees the opportunity to have a secret ballot to decide to unionize or not. Big Labor encourages poisoned environment as long as it is their poison. Unions do not believe employees should have free choice. Unions demand access to employees and that management revoke the right of who they employ and private property rights. They believe it is discrimination if employers choose to let non-profit groups, American Red Cross or Girl Scouts, on to their property and not union officials whose goal is to defame and damage the company. Card check is process which takes away freedoms of American workers and they have voted against it, now we should let that vote count.

Repeal Senseless and Job-Destroying Volcker Rule from Dodd-Frank

by John Berlau on January 18, 2011 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

On Tuesday, the Financial Stability Oversight Council may issue its recommendations for implementing the Volcker Rule, the provision of the Dodd-Frank financial legislation that bans so-called proprietary trading by banks.

Initial reports indicate that the council may try to assuage some concerns about the rule’s economic effects by attempting to draw a line between long-term investing from short-term trading. Congress, however, should still repeal this senseless rule that is already showing signs of doing lasting damage to the economy and which will most likely add, not lessen, systemic risk.

The Volcker rule is based on the faulty premise that a financial institution making a loan — any loan — is somehow inherently more dangerous than investing or trading. It was that premise that led to the enactment of Glass-Steagall in the Depression that separated “commercial” from investment banking.

After evidence of the damage that Glass-Steagall was doing to U.S. competitiveness plus empirical studies that showed it did not protect the financial system from systemic risk, the Clinton administration and a large bipartisan majority in Congress largely repealed it in 1999.

Yet bad ideas have a way of coming back to life, and Glass-Steagall’s repeal was falsely blamed for the financial crisis — a crisis primarily causes by lax lending standards on traditional mortgage loans — loans bought by the quasi-government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and encouraged by laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act.

As Peter Wallison, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a commissioner on the congressionally-created Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, has written, the commercial banks that imploded all went bust “by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, not because of the securities activities of an affiliated securities firm.” (Wallison and some of his fellow commissioners are expected to detail the amount of bad loans influenced by government rules in their final FCIC report, which may be written as a dissent.)

The Volcker rule restricts banks, and in some cases insurance holding companies, from ”proprietary trading” — which it defines as trading for the institution itself rather than for its customers. But this is based on a similarly false premise.

There is nothing inherently more risky about trading — short-term or long-term — than making loans. Supporters of the Volcker rule say banks shouldn’t be “gambling” with taxpayer money, and indeed deposit insurance should be reformed and gradually phased out so that all institutions as well as savers and investors are more risk-conscious.

But policymakers must recognize that every time a financial institution engages in an economic transaction — whether a loan or a trade — it is making a “gamble” that it will never get its money back. Limiting a bank’s ability to take equity in a firm by saying it can lend but not invest to that particular firm will result in less, not more, protection from risk.

And already, the Volcker rule may be hindering economic recovery. John Maggs reports in Politico that banks are losing top traders to hedge funds, because of uncertainty about the rule. Banks ability ”make markets” for investors by buying a particular security may be sharply restricted, which in turn could slow down the formation of new businesses that create new jobs.

And even though this supposedly was taken care of by giving regulators more flexibility, there is still concern that the rule will affect many insurance companies investments in blue-chip stocks. These are investments that are encouraged and even required by state insurance commissioners as a way for companies to diversify their investments for solvency.

Hopefully, the recommendations of the council will blunt some of the rules worst economic effects. But due to unnecessary restriction and uncertainty that will still linger, Congress should repeal the misguided Volcker rule and move on to the Dodd-Frank “financial reforms” glaring omission — the behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the center of the crisis.

Morning Media Summary

by Lee Doren on January 18, 2011

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Legal, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Trade

Tech:

Facebook: Goldman Sachs excludes US investors from deal:
“Investors from outside America will be able to take part in the private placing of Facebook shares.”

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Labor Department awards millions of dollars in college grants for scarce ‘green jobs’:
“The Department of Labor has issued several million dollars in grants to community colleges and specialized universities around the country to train students for “green jobs” in renewable energy fields. While the grants are supposed to fund the future “rank and file” workers of the renewable energy industry, there’s a glaring problem the DOL seemingly overlooked — those jobs are either non-existent or scarce.”

Michaels: China-style dictatorship of climatologists:
“November’s election made it quite clear that the people of the United States do not want to radically change our society in the name of global warming. Pretty much every close House race went to the Republicans, while the Democrats won all the Senate squeakers. The difference? The House on June 26, 2009, passed a bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions and getting into just about every aspect of our lives. The Senate did nothing of the sort.”

Insurance / Gambling:

SC Senate to discuss poker law:
“South Carolina Senators will discuss whether to loosen centuries-old gambling laws in the state when it opens session Tuesday.”

Health / Safety:

Democrats seek redo of health care pitch:
“Supporters of health care reform are hoping to use the GOP repeal effort this week to defend and explain the law, using a unified voice and a personal touch.”

Economics:

A Roadmap Not Taken?:
“Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP’s high priest of pecuniary politics, has ascended to the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. Across the land, fiscal conservatives applaud the rise of the 40-year-old wonk. But the cheers in Congress are more sporadic: Unflinching endorsements of Ryan’s fiscal blueprint are rare. Apparently, the new majority is in no mood — yet — for a full-spectrum fight on entitlements.”

House GOP schedule slips on spending cuts:
“House Republicans are falling behind in their aggressive schedule and are unlikely to consider a major spending-cut bill this month. ”

Congress urged to raise debt limit:
“Threatening not to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — the amount of debt the country is legally allowed to issue — is “like playing with fire,” Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.””

‘Explosive’ Food Prices the Biggest Risk: Analyst:
“Overheating emerging markets, in China in particular, pose the biggest threat to the market and political situation in 2011 according to Philippe Gijsels, head of research at BNP Paribas Fortis Global Markets.”

Legal:

Oklahoma family challenges Keystone oil pipeline:
“An Oklahoma family has launched a legal challenge against TransCanada Corp’s (TRP.TO: Quote) right to cross its land with the proposed $7 billion (C$6.9 billion) Keystone XL pipeline, arguing the line is not in the national interest.”

Traveling man’s gun arrest appealed to high court:
“Missed flights only inconvenience most people. A late flight landed Utah gun owner Greg Revell in jail for 10 days after he got stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.”

Labor:

Union to discuss job concerns at Derry City Council:
“Around 30 jobs are at risk because of plans to cut the number of council departments from seven to three.”

Transportation/ Land Use:

As Gov. Scott pauses, two studies question viability of high-speed rail project:
“Gov. Rick Scott’s decision to hit the pause button on high-speed rail in Florida has created a void that is quickly getting filled with reports questioning the viability of the project.”

Smartphone Searches, Encryption, and the Constitution

by Ryan Radia on January 17, 2011 · 1 comment

in Legal, Personal Liberty, Privacy

The smartphone is arguably one of the most empowering and revolutionary technologies of the modern era. By putting the processing power of a personal computer and the speed of a broadband connection into a device that fits in a pocket, smartphones have revolutionized how we communicate, travel, learn, game, shop, and more.

Yet smartphones have an oft-overlooked downside: when they end up in the wrong hands, they offer overreaching agents of the state, thieves, hackers, and other wrongdoers an unparalleled avenue for uncovering and abusing the volumes of sensitive personal information we increasingly store on our mobile phones.

Over on Ars Technica, I have a long feature story that examines the constitutional and technical issues surrounding police searches of mobile phones:

Last week, California’s Supreme Court reached a controversial 5-2 decision in People v. Diaz (PDF), holding that police officers may lawfully search mobile phones found on arrested individuals’ persons without first obtaining a search warrant. The court reasoned that mobile phones, like cigarette packs and wallets, fall under the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

California’s opinion in Diaz is the latest of several recent court rulings upholding warrantless searches of mobile phones incident to arrest. While this precedent is troubling for civil liberties, it’s not a death knell for mobile phone privacy. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you can protect your mobile device from unreasonable search and seizure, even in the event of arrest. In this article, we will discuss the rationale for allowing police to conduct warrantless searches of arrestees, your right to remain silent during police interrogation, and the state of mobile phone security.

You can read the full essay on Ars Technica here. And while you’re at it, I highly recommend watching this informative YouTube video that explains why it’s not a good idea to talk to police:

How the President Can Foster the “Civil and Honest” Debate He Called For

by Hans Bader on January 17, 2011 · 1 comment

in Culture, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

In his speech in Tucson, where federal Judge John Roll was murdered, President Obama said that “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.” But the President himself has often failed to live up to this aspiration, as his dishonest attacks on the judiciary, and his long line of broken campaign promises, illustrate. (Obama’s broken promises include false claims that he would implement a “net spending cut,” not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000, and not prevent anyone from “keeping” their existing health coverage.)

Some of Obama’s attacks on the judiciary have just exaggerated the scope of Supreme Court decisions for political gain.  For example, he deceptively claimed that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment ruling in Citizens United, which allowed U.S. companies and unions to spend money on political ads, “reversed a century of law” to allow “foreign corporations” to “spend without limit in our elections.”  (In response, Justice Alito silently mouthed the words “not true” when Obama attacked the Supreme Court for this ruling at the State of the Union Address, at which the Justices were present as invited guests).  In reality, as I noted earlier, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not lift restrictions on foreign companies; it did not call into question the 1907 federal law banning corporate contributions to politicians; and it overturned only one past Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court’s controversial, 5-to-4 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), a ruling that deserved to be overturned because it was itself “at odds with prior precedent.”

But other times, Obama’s attacks have been completely false — such as his attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which were deeply misleading, as legal commentators like Stuart Taylor of the National Journal have pointed out.

Obama didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story, or milking a political wedge issue, when he signed into law his very first legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ledbetter case. (In that case, the Supreme Court enforced the 180-day deadline for bringing pay discrimination claims contained in the federal discrimination law with the shortest deadline, Title VII. Other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, have much longer deadlines, like 3 years).

Obama falsely claimed that Lilly Ledbetter, whose pay discrimination claim was dismissed by the Supreme Court as untimely, worked at Goodyear “for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work.” Actually, Ledbetter knew by 1992, if not earlier, that she was being paid less than the male employees she claimed should have been paid the same as her. Small wonder that the  Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear dismissed her claim as untimely. (As Stuart Taylor notes, she brought her discrimination claim only after the supervisor she accused of discrimination had died, and shortly before she retired.)

The White House statement accompanying Obama’s claim made additional false claims about the Supreme Court’s ruling.  It dishonestly claimed that the Supreme Court ruled that an employer can avoid discrimination claims just by concealing discrimination for 180 days — a claim flatly at odds with language in the Supreme Court’s decision, like footnote 10.

In an assertion parroted by gullible reporters, it claimed that “The Court ruled that employees subject to pay discrimination like Lilly Ledbetter must file a claim within 180 days of the employer’s original decision to pay them less . . . even if the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later (check out Justice Alito’s arguments in the Court’s opinion).”

That claim was knowingly false, since it was contradicted by passages in the very court decision the White House linked to.  First, the Court never said there was a rigid deadline that bars claims by employees who “did not discover” discrimination “until much later.” Ledbetter never argued that the deadline should be waived or suspended based on her employer concealing discrimination against her, because she in fact knew for years about the pay disparity she later sued over. If she truly had been in the dark about the alleged discrimination, she could have sought to take advantage of exceptions to the deadline that suspend it, like waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Zipes v. Trans World Airlines (1982). But she never made that argument, because, as she testified in her deposition, she had been told many years earlier that she was being paid less than the men she later claimed ought to have been paid the same as her.

Ledbetter did not even argue that the outcome of her case would be affected by an even broader extension to the deadline for employees who are unaware of the discrimination against them known as the so-called discovery rule. As the Supreme Court specifically noted in footnote 10 of its decision, “we have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. . . .Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue.”  In short, since Ledbetter had long known of the facts underlying her discrimination claim, relaxing the deadline for employees who “did not discover” the discrimination until much later would have done her no good.

Thus, it was obviously wrong for the White House to claim that the Supreme Court was barring discrimination claims irrespective of whether “the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court expressly noted that the plaintiff could have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which had a longer deadline for suing (usually 3 years) and more generous rules for when the deadline starts running. But her lawyer foolishly failed to preserve that claim, which was a mistake, as he admitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court responded by noting, “Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.”

Lawyers like Paul Mirengoff have repeatedly chided Obama and the White House for telling tall tales about the Ledbetter case.   During the 2008 election campaign, both Obama and state democratic parties made false claims about the Ledbetter case, in order to use it as a political wedge issue — claims that were mindlessly parroted by some in the media.

A good first step for Obama in fostering “civil and honest” debate would be to engage in it himself, by no longer distorting court rulings for political gain.

D.C. Installs Private Car Charging Station

by Kathryn Ciano on January 16, 2011

in Energy, Mobility

Remember when the Prius first hit the market, and the D.C. Beltway authorities opened the HOV lanes to electric cars as an incentive to switch? In less than six months, so many urban elites traded in their trusty SUVs for hybrids that the carpool lanes were as bogged down as the rest of the highway.

Never one to be deterred, our nation’s capital is keeping things posh for hybrids. Last year D.C. installed its first public electric car charging station. Now, thanks to this month’s first private charging station in D.C., hybrid owners never have to rub elbows with gas guzzlers, or even with other hybrid drivers.

Here’s We Love DC’s report on the new station:

The ChargePoint units run $1,000-$2,000, and most garages that have a single ChargePoint can easily expand to add 8-10 stations without significant cost.  While they haven’t yet planned for that many at 425 Mass Ave, they’re hoping to see an uptick of electric car purchases by their residents in the coming years.  We spoke with one resident who’d happened upon today’s grand unveiling and she was incredibly positive, both about the building, and about the future of electric vehicles.  A law student at Georgetown University, she was ecstatic at the idea of one day owning a Tesla and using the charging station as soon as she’s paid off her student loans.

A charge from one of the ChargePoint stations will run you up to $5 (if your battery is mostly drained) to as little as $0.50 for just a little juice [Per our commenter below, this may not be correct pricing. We've asked for clarification from Car Charging group, as the prices above are just for the power, not for its distribution - Editor].  Currently, most electric cars have a range under 300 miles, which is comparable to the gas mileage I get out of my Jetta.  Of course, a tank of gas runs me close to $40, so the idea of being able to fill up for a scant $5 has me thinking there’s something to these beasties.

On hand to demonstrate the electric cars was Tesla Motors’ Shaun Philips, who offered free test rides to all of us, as well as limitless information about their Roadster product. Sure, that sports car might retail at $109,000 (look for a DC dealership at 1050 K Street in the not-too-distant future)…

Sounds great, and love the idea of a private apartment building offering innovative perks. But you have to admit: It’s a little silly that these cars are supposedly designed to herald a brighter future, and targeted only to the kind of yuppies weekend warriors that would pay to charge their cars in private.

Even the claims that hybrids are “environmentally friendly” seem dubious in light of how little research we’ve seen into how we’ll dispose of the tons and tons of discarded hybrid batteries slated to hit the landfills in a few years. I wrote at The Washington Examiner:

Electric cars are marketed as one way to make the future better for everyone. But with little research into what we’ll do with discarded batteries (and battery acids), and even less research into the economics of charging substantially higher prices for non-swank mid-sized sedans ostensibly designed to sell, electric cars are more the purview of the upper class than the people’s wagon designed to improve the everyman’s life.

I’d be hard pressed to trade my gas guzzler for a silent futuristic piece of plastic, but no doubt it’s sweet to avoid the everyman by replenishing your car at a private station! Let’s hear it for capitalism, posturing, and…

Oh yea. About those discarded car batteries. We’ll just start selling them to China packaged up with our debt. I’m sure it will be fine.

Image credit: frankh’s flickr photostream.

Smears and Hypocritical Calls for “Civility” Follow Tucson Shooting

by Hans Bader on January 15, 2011

in Culture, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Even though the Tucson shooter was mentally unbalanced, did not listen to talk radio or Fox News, and liked The Communist Manifesto, several liberal lawmakers, and liberal media like the New York Times, immediately insinuated that his actions resulted from an “atmosphere of hate” or “climate of hate” created by conservatives.

Now, after baselessly accusing conservatives of complicity in murder, they are suddenly calling for “civility.” But this demand has little to do with civility as most Americans would define it. By “incivility” they simply mean disagreement with liberal policies. Liberal newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post recently made this point all too clear by selecting the most divisive and hateful left-wing figures possible to deliver hypocritical lectures about the need for “civility.”

On January 11, the New York Times selected former Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who earlier called for the death of Florida Governor Rick Scott, to give Americans a lecture about the need for “civility” and an end to “violent confrontation” in a negative “political climate” (negative for Kanjorski, because the veteran Congressman lost his race for reelection in 2010).  Last October, Kanjorski said of Scott, “they ought to put him against a wall and shoot him.”

On January 13, the Washington Post featured an editorial about the need for more civility, written by demagogue Al Sharpton. What are Sharpton’s credentials for this coveted slot?  He helped incite a race-riot that killed 7 people.  And he was found guilty of libel for falsely accusing a prosecutor of being a rapist — just one of the wildly false allegations Sharpton made in the course of his involvement in an infamous hate-crime hoax, the Tawana Brawley case. Sharpton has never apologized for these calumnies.

In his editorial for the Post, Sharpton hints that the shootings might have been influenced by an ugly “climate in our public discourse.” He decries the “dangers of inflammatory rhetoric” even as he whines that his own heated past rhetoric (such as referring to a “white interloper”) had allegedly been “distorted” by critics. (Sharpton, who has denounced Jews as “diamond merchants,” helped incite the 1995 Freddie’s Fashion Mart Riot that killed 7 people at a Jewish-run store in Manhattan.)

This crass exercise in self-promotion earned him kudos from the Post’s Jonathan Capehart, who ludicrously admonishes Sarah Palin to follow the example of Sharpton, who Capehart reveres as if he were a wise elder statesman. Civility, it seems, is trumped by racial solidarity and ideology at the Post.

What “civility” really means at the Post is fleshed out in the columns accompanying Sharpton’s, like the editorial written by E.J. Dionne, who perennially attacks Republicans for alleged incivility, and earlier approvingly cited the President’s “call to civility.” Dionne insinuates that opponents of gun control are collectively guilty of subversion, nativism, and birtherism, writing that “The descriptions of President Obama as a ‘tyrant,’ the intimations that he is ‘alien’ and the suggestions that his presidency is illegitimate are essential to the core rationale for resisting any restrictions on firearms.” (There is little basis for this claim.)  To Dionne, incivility is synonymous with a conservative position on guns – and “even responsible conservatives” must accept some responsibility for curbing such “violent” views.

What enforcing civility means to the New York Times is made equally clear: adhering to liberal views, and holding conservatives collectively liable for the Arizona shootings.  Praising the President’s call for civility, the Times once again blames those “whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents.”  The identification it is referring to was its Monday editorial, in which the Times insinuated that Republicans, Tea Party members, and conservative media had caused the shootings, although not “directly.”

The Times claimed that the shooter was “ very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has . . . infected the political mainstream with violent imagery,“ and that “it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger” that has set the “nation on edge” by “demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is . . . the enemy of the people.”  (Never mind that America’s political climate is mild and bland by historical and international standards.  Or that assassinations were more common back when liberal networks had greater market share.)

That the recent calls for civility are about ideological gain, not avoiding violent rhetoric, is illustrated by recent articles in publications like Slate.  There, Jacob Weisberg once again smears conservatives and libertarians by claiming that the Tea Party and conservative populism “made the Giffords shooting more likely,” by questioning government authority in areas such as Obamacare: “At the core of the far right’s culpability is its” support for “ the dangerous idea that the federal government lacks valid authority” in areas like “health care reform.” “It is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.”

Never mind that the government’s legitimacy is based on, and enhanced by, its willingness to respect constitutional limits, which include limits on federal power – something recognized by the highly-respected judge slain in Tucson, John Roll, whose most famous ruling struck down portions of  a federal law, the Brady Act, as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Never mind that critics of the law’s constitutionality include well-respected people like James Blumstein, a professor of constitutional and health care law who was a key adviser to Tennessee’s outgoing moderate Democratic governor.

Weisberg’s smear is echoed more politely in a newspaper op-ed arguing that “the real problem with today’s political discourse” is “not the language of violence,” but “the notion  . . that an incremental change in the way health care is delivered” through Obamacare “is a plot to deprive Americans of their freedom.”  (The op-ed admits the obvious: that the map on Palin’s web site with a gun sight was just a harmless metaphor, not violent rhetoric that would incite anyone to commit a crime.) Never mind that a respected federal judge struck down Obamacare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional, or the fact that Obamacare violates individual freedoms in several ways, such as containing racial preferences that were criticized by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

It’s not surprising that liberal commentators would seek to redefine civility in terms of ideology, rather than violent language or metaphors.  It’s not as if conservatives have a monopoly on violent metaphors.  As the president himself has said:

“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
A GOP victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
“Get in Their Faces!”
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
“Hit Back Twice As Hard”
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
“It’s time to Fight for it.”
“Punish your enemies”
“I’m itching for a fight.”

And violent imagery is hardly unknown among hardcore liberals.  Plenty of examples can be found at the Climate of Hate Blog.  Here are some additional examples:

“Save mother Earth Kill Bush”
“Prepare for war”
“I hope Glenn Beck kills himself”
“Bush is the disease Death is the cure”
“I’m here to kill Bush”
“Abort Sarah Palin”
“Sniper wanted”
“Bush is the only dope worth shooting”
“Death to extremist Christian Terrorist pig Bush”
“Death to world #1 terrorist pig Bush & his sheep”
“Smite Bush for he is an abomination upon the Earth”
“Lee Harvey, where are you?”

CEI Weekly: The Government Continues to Attack Personal Choice

by Nicole Ciandella on January 14, 2011

in Features

CEI Weekly is a compilation of articles and blog posts from CEI’s fellows and associates sent out via e-mail every Friday. Also included in the weekly newsletter is a brief description of CEI’s weekly podcast and a feature on a major CEI breakthrough made during the week. To sign up for CEI Weekly, go to http://cei.org/newsletters.

CEI Weekly
January 14, 2011

>>Featured Story

In wake of recent power grabs by the FDA, John Stossel dedicated an episode of his show to discussing how nanny state regulations violate inviduals’ right to govern themselves. CEI President Fred Smith was invited to explain why people should be concerned about decreasing personal freedoms and why the government so often gets away with destructive regulations. Watch the video segment here.

>>Shaping the Debate

The Limitations of Public-Private Partnerships

Marc Scribner’s Issue Analysis


Our Mistaken Sugar Policy is Killing American Jobs

Fran Smith’s letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal


The Online Poker Players Next Door

Michelle Minton’s op-ed in The Washington Times


The FDA Needs Strong Medicine

Henry I. Miller’s op-ed in Forbes

U-VA Receives New FOIA for Global Warming Documents

Chris Horner’s citation on The Washington Post Blogs

>>Best of the Blogs


Financial Advice From Two Sides of an Age Gap

By Kathryn Ciano

The Political Climate is Too Dull and Conformist Already

By Hans Bader

Autism Doctor a Fraud, But Hardly Alone

By Michael Fumento

SEIU Arbitrates Life or Death

By Trey Kovacs

>> CEI Podcast:

January 12, 2011: Public-Private Partnerships

Land-use and Transportation Policy Analyst Marc Scribner talks about his new CEI Issue Analysis, “The Limitations of Public-Private Partnerships.” Marc argues that PPPs are an improvement over the status quo in surface transportation because they introduce at least an element of competition into a sector where there is usually none. But PPPs are harmful in real estate developments because they tend to favor politicians’ preferences over those of consumers.

Afternoon Links: January 14, 2011

by Nicole Ciandella on January 14, 2011

in Odds & Ends

1. A Houston couple has been blocked from feeding the homeless because they don’t have a permit.

2. Are scientists bringing back the woolly mammoth?

3. Is the internet a safe haven for gay men and women in South Korea?

4. Researchers have “discovered” that the key to a happy marriage is the wife being thinner than her husband.

5. An armed man demanded food from McDonald’s and blamed his pregnant wife.

Photo Credit: Flickr Photostream

Alcohol Regulation Roundup: January 14, 2010

by Michelle Minton on January 14, 2011

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Gulf States: Laws in some Gulf States get in the way of charity aimed at helping victims of Hurricane Katrina. This article in the Houston Business Journal highlights how silly alcohol regulations in gulf states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas hamper efforts by some brewers to sell beer that would divert a portion of proceeds to Katrina victims. A beer created by Louisiana brewery Abita can’t be sold in Alabama because it is sold in a 22 ounce container. In Alabama, beer bottles are limited to under 16 ounces by state law. And because the brew is 7 percent abv, it is banned in Mississippi where beer is capped at 5 percent abv.

Connecticut: Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said that he plans on honoring his campaign promise to approve Sunday sales in the state.

Georgia: The times they are a-changin’, and with a new governor might come a chance to overturn Georgia’s outdated ban on Sunday liquor sales. Republican Rep. Roger Williams has tried to get a local referendum in the past, he contends that outgoing governor Perdue’s staunch opposition squashed his efforts. Governor-elect Nathan Deal, however, is quoted as being in favor of letting local jurisdictions decide for themselves. “They’re the ones closest to the issue . . . the ones that I think are in the position to more appropriately to make that judgment call,” Deal said.

Alabama: Bottle-size limitation and brewery tasting laws are on tap to change in Alabama’s next legislative session. However, grassroots organizations such as Free the Hops will have an uphill battle getting attention for their issue considering that the Chamber meets about two days a week for only three months a year. Along with Mississippi, Alabama has some of the most restrictive alcohol laws in the nation. Free the Hops has pushed legislation in the past, such as 2009′s Gourmet Beer Bill that raised the alcohol cap on beer from 6 percent to 13.9 percent. This year, they plan to introduce legislation that would do away with the states outdated container laws which caps beer cans and bottles at 16 ounces (excluding draft and keg beer) with the Brewery Modernization Act.

Maryland: State Senator Ron Young supports changing both Maryland’s corkage and wine shipping laws.

Mississippi: Grassroots organization “Raise your pints” will be working to revive two bills that died in the last session. The first (last year’s HB 731) would raise the alcohol cap on beer to 10 percent; it is currently capped at 5 percent abw. The group will also be working to lift the state ban on home-brewing, (represented in last year’s HB 732).

Washington: A new legislative action by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles would bring beer and wine sampling to Seattle’s farmer’s markets. The bill, SB 5029, is modeled after a recent law that permits the sampling of beer and wine at grocery stores.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →