Politics, Chicago style

The trial of Rod Blagojevich has begun. It should be fun, in a Jerry Springer-ish kind of way.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-trial-0609-20100608,0,2551123,full.story

Remember as you read this: Barrack Obama came from this cesspool. He was influenced by it and he was shaped by it. He is part of it. The most transparent administration in history? Please. Spare me.

Which reminds me, how many of you remember the name Tony Rezko? Here is a brief refresher. There is more out there, to be sure.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

How about how Obama became a senator in the first place?  Well, it helps to have judges on your side.  From Wikipedia (and many other sources):

"On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans' divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan's young child."

"The decision to release the files generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child."

"Ryan's campaign ended less than a week after the custody records were opened, and Ryan officially filed the documentation to withdraw on July 29, 2004. Obama was left without an opponent."


Here's an interesting take on Jack Ryan: "Ah yes. Jack Ryan. The only politician I know of to go down for a sex scandal where: the woman involved was his wife, and they didn't have sex." - Jeremy Smith

Sonia Sotomayor: The myth of the wise Latina

The wise Latina. You heard it a million times prior to her confirmation hearings.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/

Is it true? I guess not. Consider Berghuis v. Thompkins:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

Additional analysis here:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Berghuis_v._Thompkins

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that "after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights," according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280392747737022.html

Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion ["joined," as James Taranto said, "by three other justices (if you guess who they are, you will be correct)"]:
"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent--which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."

Did you follow that? I wonder if Sotomayor realizes that a person can invoke their right to remain silent by ... wait for it ... simply remaining silent. Reminds me of the classic quote: You can lead a liberal to wisdom, but you can't make them think.

Relax, it could be worse

Have I mentioned before that there is nothing funnier than XKCD?
http://xkcd.com/748/


Or more influential? I've posted about this before. Would it really be that far-fetched to see James Carville riding a burning alligator?

What your email address says about your computer skills

http://gizmodo.com/5552089/what-your-email-address-says-about-your-computer-skills?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29

Lessons From GM

The Lessons of the GM Bankruptcy, by Paul Ingrassia
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264641145227612.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t

Not much more to say, the article is very good. Summary: "Everybody knows that we're running unsustainable federal deficits. ... Continued denial and delay will prove ruinous. To put it another way: America bailed out General Motors, but who will bail out America?"

We have seen what happens when we kick problems down the road (GM, Greece). This could happen to the United States.

Politicizing Poverty

Why Our Poverty Measure Misleads, by Robert Samuelson
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/05/31/why_our_poverty_measure_misleads_98490.html

This is shocking, I realize, but it turns out that Barack Obama is politicizing poverty. The goal is income redistribution. What better way to do this than to define a percentage of the population as ALWAYS in poverty, no matter how wealthy they are?

Let me quote from Robert Samuelson's article, as he and Robert Rector (in the second quote) say it better than I can:

"The present concept [of poverty] is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they're a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing."

"The new indicator is a 'propaganda device' to promote income redistribution by showing that poverty is stubborn or increasing, says the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector."

"Government statistics should strive for political neutrality. This one fails."

Jealousy is an ugly thing, and it is even uglier when those in power use it to drive their socialist agenda.

Note also one implication of the article. It seems like immigration is an issue that continually crops up whenever we talk about policies that impact our welfare state, whether directly or indirectly:

"But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons. First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty 'experts' don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty."

Lax immigration law enforcement contributes to keeping the poverty rate high, which in turn fuels the calls for more income redistribution. It's enough to make you wonder if the left wants more illegal immigration.

As always when this topic comes up, I need to point out that I am not anti-immigration. I happen to believe that if we did not have such benefits then all immigrants would come for the right reasons (to work and make a better life, which I have no issue with) and we would not need the immigration laws that we presently have (more on this in a future post). Government welfare is driving out private charity, and that is not a good trend.

iPhone 4 Preview (Adult Content)

Steve Jobs' presentation gets crashed by a robot. I couldn't resist posting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraQfhlMwi4&feature=player_embedded#!