On civility

Consider this:

A democrat president nominates a person for the Supreme Court. Hearings are not used to demolish the character of the nominee or to lie about the choice. Republicans, generally polite, agree that elections have consequences and a president gets to choose his nominee and usually the nominee gets the votes of the vast majority of the Republican senators.

A Republican nominates a Supreme Court Justice and then it begins – the tearing down of the reputation, the lies about what America would look like if this nominee were on the Court, the witnesses and speeches and whatever they can use to destroy this person.

And though some Dems may vote for the President’s choice, the majority of the dems will vote no.

Consider the same kind of behavior for almost any other thing you want.

Consider how often the Tea Party members, Republicans in the congress, the Republican President and his supporters are called all sorts of hideous things. Nazis, treasonous (punishable by death), racists – you name it.

Show me the Republican public official who uses such name calling of Dems. More often there is a discussion of why we disagree with them. If we call them socialists, it’s because that is what they call themselves.

If we call them anti-semites, well, it is difficult not to the way they speak. But generally we talk about disagreements rather than call them names.

In colleges the fight against freedom of speech of those you may disagree with does not come from the right. It is leftists who promote violence and refuse to allow freedom for certain speakers to speak.

The IRS under Obama singled out conservative groups and delayed their ability to get tax exempt status. I can’t recall the IRS under any Republican president doing that against liberals.

Facebook punishes and restricts only conservatives, never leftists. Same with other social media.

And finally the press helps out the left by using the same tactics as the dems.

I ask you is civil discourse possible under these conditions?

Welcome to the party, pal!

Better late than never, I guess…

Twitter used to be interesting. I signed up a decade ago and quickly became addicted. You could meet smart people with similar interests, funny people with disturbing interests, and get breaking news a day before the cable nets got around to it.

A lot has changed in 10 years. Today, Twitter is mostly dumb people yelling at each other and self-appointed hall monitors trying to shut down accounts they don’t follow. On Saturday, feminist Meghan Murphy was permanently banned for stating that men aren’t women. Sunday, conservative commentator Jesse Kelly was permanently banned for … who knows? Twitter gave no explanation. In response, ur-blogger Instapundit deactivated his account and others are likely to follow.

With every dead account, Twitter gets a little less interesting. And since the social media site hasn’t been very interesting for years, that’s something CEO Jack Dorsey can little afford. There’s an obvious anti-conservative bias at play — most of the big names are booted for disagreeing with leftist narratives. Meanwhile, charmers like Louis Farrakhan say whatever they want.

Perhaps in a few years, everyone on the site can agree with each other about everything. Problem for Twitter is, there’ll only be a dozen members.

I’ve considered deleting my Twitter account a few times in the past year. Instead, I just spend less time there. I’ll tweet a joke or two, toss in a couple of links, then disappear for a few days. Sometimes, a few weeks. Then I enjoy real life, whether reading, writing, or hanging out with friends and family. (I also enjoy napping.)

Hopefully, Twitter will restore Murphy and Kelly’s accounts soon and Instapundit will return. But for their sakes, it might be better if they don’t. Real life is a lot more interesting than a dying social media service. […]

January 17, 1998

Twenty years ago today, the Internet, the media, and American politics, changed forever…

Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN

BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president’s sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.

The young intern wrote long love letters to President Clinton, which she delivered through a delivery service. She was a frequent visitor at the White House after midnight, where she checked in the WAVE logs as visiting a secretary named Betty Curry, 57.

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that tapes of intimate phone conversations exist.

The relationship between the president and the young woman become strained when the president believed that the young woman was bragging about the affair to others.

NEWSWEEK and Isikoff were planning to name the woman. Word of the story’s impeding release caused blind chaos in media circles; TIME magazine spent Saturday scrambling for its own version of the story, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The NEW YORK POST on Sunday was set to front the young intern’s affair, but was forced to fall back on the dated ABC NEWS Kathleen Willey break.

The story was set to break just hours after President Clinton testified in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

Ironically, several years ago, it was Isikoff that found himself in a shouting match with editors who were refusing to publish even a portion of his meticulously researched investigative report that was to break Paula Jones. Isikoff worked for the WASHINGTON POST at the time, and left shortly after the incident to build them for the paper’s sister magazine, NEWSWEEK.

Michael Isikoff was not available for comment late Saturday. NEWSWEEK was on voice mail.

The White House was busy checking the DRUDGE REPORT for details.

Superb essay by Sultan Knish: ‘The New Civil War’

We are in an existential war for the heart and soul of America, have no doubt.

[…] The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next. […]

Read the whole thing…

Hell Yeah, “He Lied”!

Remember during Barack Obama’s 2009 joint address to the US Congress while Obama was beaming and glowing like a healthcare savior that his self-named legislation to take over the nation’s healthcare system would be glorious, and that everyone against it, and him, was just spreading nasty lies about ObamaCare, especially about it covering illegal aliens … and republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted about the disbelieving mumbles “You LIE!”?

Over and over again Rep. Wilson has been vindicated … And again…

(UPI) – California could become the first state to ask the federal government to let undocumented immigrants buy insurance under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed legislation Friday that attempts to allow people in the country illegally to purchase the insurance through Covered California without costing the state or federal government anything.

Undocumented immigrants are barred from the insurance exchanges but Obamacare allows states to apply for a federal waiver if the federal government doesn’t have to pay for the costs. Up to 390,000 people who earned an income too high for Medi-Cal could purchase the insurance through the exchange.

“The current policy disallowing immigrants from purchasing care with their own money is both discriminatory and outdated,” Sen. Ricardo Lara, who wrote legislation, said in a statement. “I thank Gov. Brown for advancing justice today.”

Republicans in the legislature said it would overburden the healthcare system, possibly increase premiums and attract more undocumented immigrants to the state.

Brown last year signed a bill allowing 170,000 people under the age of 19 who are in the county illegally to sign up for Medi-Cal.

The state also has allowed immigrants there illegally to apply for professional licenses and for drivers licenses.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director for the National Immigration Law Center, hopes California’s new law will spur other states to pass similar legislation.

[…]

Uh-huh…

And this: Report: New evidence of rising ‘Obamacare’ premiums

Liberal Tolerance 2.0: Kill The Republicans

Not to worry.
It’s all good.
He’s a democrat.
He’ll get away with it.

The Detroit Free Press editorial page editor Stephen Henderson, Pulitzer Prize winner, is apparently beyond pissed off at the state’s republican legislatures over a recent vote concerning public school funding vs. charter school funding…

(The Federalist) – The reason? The lawmakers voted for legislation that would give parents more choices to avoid Michigan’s failing public schools. Detroit’s public schools are failing academically and nearly insolvent, the New York Times wrote in January. The Detroit News wrote in March that “the statewide opinion of K-12 education is downright ugly.” That poll showed residents didn’t think throwing money at public-union-controlled schools was the answer, with 63 percent saying it takes more than money to improve education.

While teacher unions and the politicians whom they support fight many changes to the educational system that give parents more leverage, charter schools have been making a difference in educational outcomes…

[…]

Yesterday Michigan’s Republican legislators voted to bail out Detroit’s abysmally run schools with $617 million in taxpayer funding. The same bill also fought efforts to constrain charter school choices in Detroit. Prior to the vote, Stephen Henderson wrote on his editorial page:

“We really ought to round up the lawmakers who took money to protect and perpetuate the failing charter-school experiment in Detroit, sew them into burlap sacks with rabid animals, and toss them into the Straits of Mackinac.”

After noting that charter school advocates support charter schools, he doubled down on the violent rhetoric:

“It is every bit deserving of an old-school retributive response.
A sack. An animal. A lake.

No lover of actual democracy could weep at that outcome.”

But the big question to push in Henderson’s smug face when you bump into him today at the sidewalk hotdog cart, especially if you are one of these parents, is, “Okay, so, you want the same fascistic politically-driven punishment for us too, Comrade Henderson?”

The publication Henderson works/writes for is ironically called the Detroit Free Press and oddly enough the title of his bloodthirsty editorial missive: “Michigan House’s Detroit schools bills are pure garbage, not about kids” is in and of itself deeply ironic, given Henderson no doubt strongly supports the teachers union(s) dictated public school system and this is what the unions really feel is their primary concern:

IRS Releases ‘Target’ List of TEA Party and Conservative Groups

IRS-Abuse-of-Power-442x300

Tip of the iceberg of the politicization and weaponization of the federal government under the Obama administration…

(Washington Times) – More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.

The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.

But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.

The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.

That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,

Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.

[…]

He said if that did happen, it would have “tainted” the list the IRS has now released.

[…]

Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.

Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.

And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.

Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in the targeting aren’t on the class-action list. At least some of them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve their own lawsuits.