Good stuff. Coming Sunday to a Super Bowl near you...

Kim Strassel makes good fun of the President's claim that he goes skeet shooting "all the time" at Camp David. 

As the White House walks back from the president's obvious exaggeration... Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn asked:  

"If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this? Why have we not seen photos? Why hasn't he referenced this at any point in time?" 

She went on to challenge him to a skeet-shooting competition, quipping that she was pretty sure she'd "beat him."

Gun owners were not fooled. But some in the media were by this photo-shopped picture of the Prez with a shotgun in his hands. 

Ay Caramba. His caddie could be heard yelling "Nice shot, Mr. President." 

The stock market is up but economic growth is in the toilet.
Get ready for Democrats to blame Republicans. Obviously, the stimulus wasn't large enough.

Dayton gun control activist turns out to be a convicted rapist.

Jerome McCorry organized a protest against a gun show, claiming that the gun show made it too easy to buy guns. Why did that worry him? Perhaps because the easy availability of guns might have made his career as a rapist more dangerous. 

Meanwhile, down in Texas... the mother of a 6-year-old shoots one home-invading gunman in the stomach and sends two others fleeing from her house. Sounds like she could have used a little more firepower.

Dan Henninger sums up President Obama's new approach to governing and political debate: From hope and change to search and destroy...

Back in 1965, when American politics watched the emergence of the New Left movement—rebranded today as "progressives"—a famous movement philosopher said the political left should be "liberated" from tolerating the opinions of the opposition:"Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."

That efficient strategy was the work of Herbert Marcuse, the political theorist whose ideas are generally credited with creating the basis for campus speech codes. Marcuse said, "Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed." Marcuse created political correctness.

Republicans are not only wrong they and their ideas are intolerable and they deserve to be annihilated in political combat. It's taken the GOP four years to learn that this president has no interest in negotiating and compromise. A presidential spokesperson has already announced that the GOP is unworthy of the president's consideration. That is to say that nearly half of the people of this country who voted for Republican representatives - by extension - are unworthy of his consideration and respect.

If GOP have any respect for their own voters they will not go down without a fight.

A University of Rhode Island college professor seems to think people like me ought to be murdered.

Professor Erik Loomis re-Tweeted this gem from someone who calls himself The Rude Pundit:

Loomis has authored his own nasty comments about gun owners and the NRA. He wants Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick" and other gun rights advocates to be treated "like the terrorists" they are.

Drone strike on NRA headquarters, anyone.

More about Loomis and his adolescent penchant for the F word to trash people with whom he disagrees. Read all about it here. Here's a photo of Loomis in happier days.

Here's hoping he gets the counseling and anger-management help he so obviously needs.

Jonah Goldberg raises a good point about the U.S. military's new policy on allowing women in combat. Where was the national conversation on this issue? Because we didn't get one.

Instead, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the change on his way out the door. And Panetta has been lionized even though it wasn’t really his decision to make. If the president didn’t want this to happen, it wouldn’t happen. Perhaps Obama let Panetta run with the idea, just in case it turned out to be a political fiasco.

Sounds about right. But avoiding the conversation was politically brilliant. Polls show that some 66 percent of Americans support the change.

I say this is because the vast majority of Americans haven't heard the arguments against it. If they did, I believe, many of them would change their minds.

If they had held congressional or senate hearings on the matter, voices like those of Mackubin Thomas Owens and Captain Katie Petronio might affected the outcome of the debate.

Owens points out in his piece "Coed Combat Units: A bad idea on all counts" this salient fact, among many others:

The average female soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is about five inches shorter than her male counterpart and has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak between the ages of 20 and 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which means that the physical strain on her body from carrying the heavy loads that are the lot of the infantryman may cause permanent damage. 

Writing about her own experience in Afghanistan, Petronio makes clear the differences between her and male colleagues.

It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment .  .  . I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

The argument against putting women in combat roles is compelling and convincing, which is why the Obama Administration and its toadies at the top of the military chain of command declined to have the issue debated in public.

Owens concludes:

To argue against women in combat is not to deny the significant contributions women have made to the nation’s defense. For the last century, women have served honorably, competently, and bravely during this country’s wars. It is my experience that the vast majority of women in today’s armed forces are extremely professional and want nothing to do with the two extremes of feminism that Jean Bethke Elshtain described several years ago in Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life and that the military spends time and effort trying to appease: the “feminist victimization wing” and the “repressive androgynists.”

I doubt that there is a huge push on the part of female soldiers and Marines to join the infantry. Captain Petronio makes the same point. The impetus comes instead from professional feminists still living in the 1970s and a small number of female officers who believe that serving in the infantry will increase the likelihood that they will become generals. But the Pentagon itself points out that military women are already promoted at rates equal to or faster than men. 

So what's the real point? It certainly isn't to improve the combat readiness of our military. Its only being done to appease the feminist wing of the Democratic party and win plaudits from a media generally ignorant of and hostile to most matters military.

The Gang gets Concealed Carry licenses. My print column is up.

UPDATE: In the comments, poster "Christined" asserts that in response to an e-mail from her supporting abortion rights, I sent her back an e-mail calling her a "baby-killer." I have no recollection of ever calling anyone a "baby killer" because of their position on abortion. I don't think of it as my "style." An actual abortionist, maybe. But not simple pro-choicers. If she still has the e-mail, in question, I would very much like to see it. If she can produce it and it says what she claims I will be happy to apologize to her personally.

If she can't, she should apologize to me for making a claim against me that I don't believe is true and that she can't substantiate.

UPDATE II: "Christined" whose real name is Chris Dalton has responded to challenge. She sent me an email that contained our original correspondence. It involved a column I wrote debunking the so-called "war on women" that Democrats were accusing Republicans of waging.

Chris took the position that the "war" was real and an accurate description of what the GOP was up to and offered a 13-point complaint, citing mostly examples of them trying to impose restrictions on abortion rights.

Here was my reply to her long note dated 8/22/12:

Sounds like the (sic) your War Against the Unborn remains in full swing. But reducing "Women" to their so-called "Reproductive Rights" is a little dehumanizing, don't you think? I've always been amused at how pro-choicers like yourself think that it is men who are so protective of the unborn. Men, as a group, love abortion. Much more than women. Why, is not hard to figure.

As you can see, I did not call her what she said I did. But apparently she didn't want to admit it, given her remarks:

Forwarding all that I had sent in 8/2012. I had originally resolved NOT to be concerned by your editorials after this one in August. Being accused of waging a War against the Unborn and claiming that men, as a group, love abortion-- so concerned me in your response, that I had promised myself I was done trying to present any facts to you. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior....
I get it, Gil.
Take care,
Chris Dalton

My reply:

Christine,
Just as I thought I did not call you a "baby killer." But your email sure doesn't sound like a correction or an apology. You misrepresented what I wrote to you and you misrepresented it to our readers. If you are the honest and classy person that I believe you are, you will admit it and apologize. If not, well, I'll understand.

And, of course, I won't hold my breath.

UPDATE III: Just received this:

Gil: You are right, the words "baby killer" were not used by you. You accused me of "Waging a War on the Unborn"- waging a war means killing, right?
I am sorry that I wrote that you called me a "baby killer." The implication of what you wrote still tells me that you believe me to be that. Which is why my parents told me, "It isn't so much what you say, but how you say it."
Please know that I will cease and desist mentioning you, unless I quote your exact words. I am aware of your ability to intimidate. It is effective, cutting, and generally off-putting.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Chris Dalton

Of course, "waging a war" doesn't always mean killing. When Democrats asserted the GOP was waging a "war against women" they didn't mean they were literally killing them, now did they? But I appreciate the apology. And I promise I will try to be less intimidating in the future. But I too find it "off-putting" to be corrected. I find it even more off-putting to be misquoted - and all for the sake of justifying an insult. Not cool.

Charles Lane channels Mancur Olson on the effectiveness of "collective action," that President Obama spoke so highly of during his second inaugural.

Writes Lane:

... large numbers of people do not naturally band together to secure common interests. In fact, the larger the group, theless likely it is to act in a truly collective manner.

As Olson explained, the interests that unite large groups are necessarily of the lowest-common-denominator variety. Therefore the concrete benefits of collective action to any individual are usually small compared with the costs — in time, effort and money — of participation. “Free-riding” is a constant threat — as the difficulties of collecting union dues illustrates.

Read it all.

Headline:

Public University Plans Event to Help Female Students to Achieve Orgasm...

... so you don't have to.

Best argument yet against women in combat comes from a cool babe quoting her "man-friend," who been to war and knows what he's talking about.

Here's a taste of what he tell's his gal pal:

And this is about standards and what it takes to fight and win the nation’s wars,  in the heat of battle, when we are locked in the fight to the death in the last hundred yards of territory, my physical strength and my size will allow me to carry heavy loads of ammunition hour after hour, up mountains and through cities without injury.  I have thicker bones, and bigger muscles and the ability to carry heavier loads greater distances than any female Olympic athlete, triathlon competitor, or farm girl.  And that ability  to have that with my physical size and strength will truly mean life or death; not only for me, but for my friends.  Me having stronger ligaments and tendons means less possibility of  non-combat injuries before encountering enemy forces.  Hand to hand fighting requires physical strength and muscle mass that absolutely will mean life or death not only for me, but for my friends fighting alongside. The small unit battles that are becoming the norm on the battlefield will be won by strong men with muscles who are closing with their enemies and destroying them, most of the time with rifles and machine-guns, but sometimes they will have to do this with knives, fists, feet, hands, clubs, rocks or whatever they can lay their hands on. Ask the Soldiers and Marines who fought insurgents in the city of Fallujah how close, dirty and violent Infantry combat can be.   Those libturds should sit down with British Soldiers who fixed bayonets and fought house to house in Basra and ask them about the degree of physical difficulty and bloody violence their job involves. And then after listening to them, they could explain their theories on how gender-norming the standards and allowing women with less physical strength, but who are really better at communicating than men should be assigned to units that conduct combat missions to kill or capture our enemies because it’s a great idea whose time has come.

And it ends with:

And call me old fashioned, but I thought I signed up and fought so that women wouldn’t have to fight.  I would rather you not have to crush yourself physically to be able to do what I do as normal and I am not afraid to say that I like things a bit more traditional.  I wouldn’t wish on you the things I have had to see and do in 14 lifetimes during my military career. 

It's this that wins her and her heart. As well it should.

Read it all.

UPDATE: Woman in combat... with a baby chair. It wasn't a fair fight.

My print column is up,

Or maybe the difference between re-election and political oblivion.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg says Hillary lied, people died. She's still lying and that's not the worst of it.

You want a license to carry in Delco, it's "very easy" to get one. Plus the search of Gregory Cornell's car was good, very good.

My print column is up.

And, if he has his way, the rest of us too.

Efforts to prevent violence with better mental health screening are unlikely to work very well if at all.

Perhaps most important, although people with serious mental illness have committed a large percentage of high-profile crimes, the mentally ill represent a very small percentage of the perpetrators of violent crime overall. Researchers estimate that if mental illness could be eliminated as a factor in violent crime, the overall rate would be reduced by only 4 percent. That means 96 percent of violent crimes—defined by the FBI as murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults—are committed by people without any mental-health problems at all. Solutions that focus on reducing crimes by the mentally ill will make only a small dent in the nation’s rate of gun-related murders, ranging from mass killings to shootings that claim a single victim.
 

From the National Journal: 

Why (and How) Obama Might Be Raising Expectations Too High Again

Spencerblog sez: The secret to happiness is low expectations. That's why, especially when it comes to politics, liberals are prone to being so miserable.

I thought his daughter's name was Malia.

It's stories like this make you proud to be a mammal.

Meet Michelle Fields... she's no Julia.

How stupid are some rich divorcees and widows? This stupid... They think this guy is a catch.

From AEI:

Confused professors shocked schools are cutting their hours to avoid Obamacare penalties

Here's one of them whining...

Robert Balla, an adjunct professor of English at Stark State College, in North Canton, Ohio received a letter in which he was told that “in order to avoid penalties under the Affordable Care Act…employees with part-time or adjunct status will not be assigned more than an average of 29 hours per week.” He told the Journal that the move cut his $40,000 salary by about $2,000 and that he cannot afford health insurance.

“I think it goes against the spirit of the [health-care] law,” Mr. Balla said. “In education, we’re working for the public good, we are public employees at a public institution; we should be the first ones to uphold the law, to set the example.” 

What do you "we" paleface?

A spokeswoman for Stark State explained the realities of the market. The new rules were necessary “to maintain the fiscal stability of the college. There are a lot of penalties involved if adjuncts go over their 29 hours-per-week average. The college can be fined and the fines are substantial.”

Why can't these colleges just raise tuitions and give these poor professors the hours and money they need to promote the public good?

Plus, Congressman Paul Ryan reacts to the President's speech...

First, Gerard Depardieu announces he's leaving France because of a proposed 75 percent "supertax." He is now a Russia citizen, where the top tax rate is 13 percent.

The former French president Nicholas Sarkozy says he thinking of moving to London to escape French taxes.

Now pro golfer Phil Mickelson said he's thinking of moving out of California because of the new state tax that brings his total tax bill to between 62 and 63 percent.

At least Mickelson has apologized for bringing up the subject after last week's event in Palm Springs.

Finances and taxes are a personal matter, and I should not have made my opinions on them public. I apologize to those I have upset or insulted, and assure you I intend not to let it happen again.”

It is unseemly for multi-millionaires to complain about their tax bills. So let me do it for them.

Tax rates that take more than half of what any man or women earns are confiscatory and inherently unjust. Not only that, they are stupid. They chase productive people to other states and other lands. The problem here isn't selfish individuals, it's Jabba the Hut government; disgustingly fat, greedy and powerful.

Pretty soon California is going to have to put a barbed-wire fence; not to keep illegal aliens out, but to keep it's millionaires in. And all to pay for the public employee unions, who bought the state's (and other states') politicians years ago.

If you can't beat 'em, laugh at 'em.



h/t Daughter of Spencerblog

Gregory Cornell, the heroin, sex toy and gun-permit holding school bus driver accused of the attempting kidnapping of 10-year-old girl has some splainin' to do. My print column is up.

Best comment so far:

$941 in cash. Handgun permit. Clear glassine baggies containing blue wax paper and a powder substance. 154 bags of suspected heroin, a single bag of crack cocaine, $170 more in cash and an “inflatable Position Master sex toy." Shoot! A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

Why immigrant Mark Steyn should be read by more people:

Mindful of Kathryn’s observation that even NR (National Review) types are resisting “the urge to rain on the president’s parade today,” I thought I’d nevertheless venture a wee bit of criticism — not of the speech, which was true to form, but of the overall vibe of the event, which seemed to me big but empty. The ceremonial lunch (I caught Nancy Pelosi speaking as the Obamas, Biden, Boehner, and Mrs. Clinton looked on) seemed especially reductive of this great nation, but Chuck Schumer as Friar’s Club emcee, and that poet from hell, and Beyoncé and Kelly Clarkson all contributed to the general pseudo-monarchical tinniness.

I see that if not quite raining I’m certainly drizzling. So let me cite my favorite presidential “inauguration.” I’ve written before about how much I enjoy visiting the Calvin Coolidge homestead in Plymouth Notch, Vt., and how it embodies the republican ideal of the citizen-executive. It’s very moving to stand in the small, humble sitting room where, just before 3 in the morning, Colonel John Coolidge, a notary public, administered the oath of office to his son by kerosene lamp. The character of the place and its moment in history are as far away from the palaces of mighty emperors as you could get, and uniquely American in their spirit. Granted, Coolidge assumed the presidency in very different circumstances, but I don’t think he’d have missed Kelly Clarkson or the poem guy — and I wish there were a little room for that spirit amid all the celeb-stuffed bombast.

Here here.

Matt Welch quotes the President Obama's much-praised speech:

We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

And finds...

This is a load of high-minded-sounding junk, conflating all sorts of issues and appeals. Seriously, do you know anybody remotely in a position to influence policy who thinks that the government should never help anyone under any circumstances? Medicaid is the country's health-care system for the poor and is, by all accounts, an atrocious program that even sometimes harms the very population at whom it's directed.On a wide variety of outcomes, it is worse than the alternative. And in every state in the union, it is either the single-biggest or second-biggest annual expenditure and a primary cause for state fiscal problems. You can't wrap this rotting fish in soaring rhetoric and get rid of the stink. I happen to believe in a state-assisted safety net - which is precisely why Medicaid is so outrageous. It's a huge waste of money that chronically under-delivers. To pretend otherwise is wilful blindness.

Gregory Cornell, 37, was arrested after a 10-year-old girl claimed he attempted to lure her into his car and then chased her down the street Sunday afternoon in Chester.

Cornell, who police identified as a school bus driver for the Penn-Delco School District, was taken into custody. He allegedly had $941 in cash and a permit to carry a concealed weapon on him when he was arrested.

No gun though. But...

Because of the permit to carry, police obtained a search warrant for the gold 1997 Infinity Cornell was driving. Maraini and Officers Sean Dougherty, Craig Scully and Joseph Schott searched the car and found 154 bags of suspected heroin, one bag of suspected crack cocaine, $170 in cash and a sex toy, according to the affidavit.

There is something about that combination of stuff that doesn't spell "Upright Citizen." At the very least it looks like he will have his permit to carry revoked.

Piers Morgan was on Comedy Central with Stephen Colbert tonight saying something about how there are no guns in England. The police don't even carry guns there, he said.

Meanwhile, gun crime is up 89 percent from 1999 to 2009 in Great Britain. How does gun crime almost double in decade in a country with no guns?

Will Lady Gaga's gun bra be allowed at the Inauguration party?

Maybe if she goes with a size A clip.

Will Obama be considered a great president? Probably not. He's still got time four years to turn it around but he's already sewn the seeds of his own mediocrity.

Larry Elder says politicians should be focusing not on gun culture but on fatherless culture.

The face of gun violence is not Sandy Hook. It is Chicago.

There is a reason that Democrats don't focus on this root cause. It's far easier to blame guns and pass laws against them than it is to pass judgement on and change the behavior of an underclass that defies fixing.

Sen. Chuck Schumer declares the 4.3 million-member NRA "an extremist fringe group."

And what does that make NARAL and the Congressional Black Caucus? That's right. Mainstream.

I do.



UPDATE: Saw it. Good ghost story.

Joel Kotkin on America's new power elite.. and how they will profit from an Obama second term.

Robert Tracinski points out:

As the Affordable Care Act--otherwise known as ObamaCare--begins to be implemented, we are seeing its first big consequence: it is making care less affordable.

The New York Times reports that "Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration's health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers." 

"Even though"? In fact, Obamacare is simply doing what a lot of people predicted it would. Critics of ObamaCare warned that it would produce precisely the kind of premium increases we are now seeing, for precisely the reasons that new reports are now citing. 

I was one of those critics, and I take no joy in pointing out that we told you so.

My print column is up.

Good advice from Tim Carney:

Whenever a politician proposes a policy surrounded by children, skepticism is in order. But skepticism, logic and sound argumentation are the enemies of President Obama in his gun control push, which kicked off Wednesday on a White House stage filled with kids.

Read the rest here.

How dumb are some of our public school administrators? This dumb.

Mark Steyn isn't Mark Twain but he'll do.

Meanwhile, hot from the fiscal-cliff fiasco, the media are already eagerly anticipating the next in the series of monthly capitulations by Republicans, this time on the debt ceiling. While I was abroad, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, a Harvard professor of constitutional law, a prominent congressman, and various other American eminencies apparently had a sober and serious discussion on whether the United States Treasury could circumvent the debt constraints by minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin. Although Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider called the trillion-dollar coin “the most important fiscal policy debate you’ll ever see in your life,” most Democrat pundits appeared to favor the idea for the more straightforward joy it affords in sticking it to the House Republicans. No more tedious whining about spending from GOP congressmen. Next time Paul Ryan shows up in committee demanding to know about deficit-reduction plans, all the treasury secretary has to do is pull out a handful of trillion-dollar coins from down the back of the sofa and tell him to keep the change.

Read it all.

The NRAmore popular than the president. Maybe its because the NRA protects civil rights and the president doesn't.

It's an old poll. The prez is down to 49 percent.

There should be a movie made about the Sandusky scandal and the tragedy of Joe Paterno.

Somehow, I doubt Brian DePalma - who directing style is about as subtle as the Mummers Parade - is the man to make it. Remember what he did to one of the great American novels of the 20th Century? It wasn't pretty.

Al Pacino hasn't made a decent movie since Donnie Brasco.

But if anyone can discredit the narrative that Joe Paterno was responsible for Jerry Sandusky, it's DePalma, simply by taking the idea seriously and ridiculously over the top.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz tells Laura Ingraham:

"He (Obama) is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns. And I think it's really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children and using it to push his own extreme, anti-gun agenda. I think what the president is proposing and the gun control proposals that are coming from Democrats in the Senate are, number one, unconstitutional, and number two, they don't work. They're bad policy."

"I think he's going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that's going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014, in some red states. And there have got to be some Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 who are very, very nervous right now that President Obama is picking this fight."

Cruz is on to something. But what does the President care if a few Democrats are sacrificed to his agenda. He didn't care in 2010. And he's not running again.

Meanwhile, Sen. Majority "Leader" Harry "Do Nothing" Reid is down in his spider hole, trying to prevent the sort of political debate that a working democracy demands.

My print column is up.

Read all about Harry Reid's Do-Nothing Senate.

Mr. Reid's Senate has not produced a budget in three years. The majority leader rarely moves on a bill, and when he does, he uses tricks to block senators from amending legislation, or he shuts down debate in such a way as to kill legislation. Regular order and conference reports are nearly nonexistent.

Mr. Reid's primary motive is to shield his vulnerable members from tough votes and to hide the huge divisions in his party. 

He does not want a debate on gun control, as it would force Democratic senators to choose between President Obama and their own pro-Second Amendment constituents. The majority leader would not offer a bill during the fiscal-cliff negotiations because many Democrats disagreed with their president's proposed tax hikes. He has not produced a budget because to do so would expose the party's real spending ambitions, which would create political problems back home for his members.

Mr. Reid knows there is a brilliant added bonus to making sure the Senate is inactive: It keeps all the attention on Republicans. The press is by now so used to Senate nothingness that reporters automatically turn every spotlight on the House. This allows the White House and Democrats to avoid ownership of problems that they have created by casting Republicans as the cause of every legislative crisis and as the barrier to solutions. It also keeps the focus on divisions within the GOP.

Reid it all.

Gov. Corbett hired a British firm to manage the state lottery. The firm is guaranteeing it will bring in almost $2 billion more over its 20-year contract.

The union that represents lottery workers - AFSME - is suing to stop the deal because it will cost about 100 union job, though some 70 of those workers will be offered jobs with the private firm.

Democrats are loathe to support any plan to privatize anything. And some are claiming privatizing the lottery is illegal.

Pete Tartline, Executive Deputy Secretary of the state Office of the Budget disagrees:

Said Tartline:

Anytime the Commonwealth will privatize, contract out, or outsource an operation, it's defined in Article 43 of the master collective bargaining agreement that there’s a required "meet and discuss" period, there’s a requirement that contract terms and other information is shared with the union, and then they have a certain number of days to provide a counteroffer to the Commonwealth.

In most cases, an outsourcing is intended to create efficiencies or save money, so the unions have an opportunity to come up with other ways to achieve those goals that might not result in the furloughing of public employees. In this case the dynamics are a little bit different as the focus is "improved delivery of service," but they still have the opportunity to make a counteroffer.

The union's counteroffer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which it would appreciate if you would put up personally.

Heh!

My print column is up. More here from Reason magazine.

As a serial abuser Jimmy Saville makes Jerry Sandusky look like a eunuch. If only the NCAA had presumed jurisdiction over the BBC. It wouldn't be allowed to broadcast for next 5 years.

The double standard being applied to Tom Corbett's flip flop on the NCAA sanctions is breathtaking. His critics should recall their lack of outrage over the many political u-turns committed by the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

My print column is up.

UPDATE: In a column about gun control, Mark Tapscott quotes Thomas McCauley's observation about there being "no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."

McCauley's observation could be applied to American media types as well, as they continue to spaz out over the Sandusky scandal, surrendering reason and perspective to emotional demands for greater and greater punishment for people who had little or nothing to do with real crime.

Just came across this graph at Instapundit. I'm sure it means something but I'm not sure what.

Anyone who takes offense at this is a straight up racist. There, I said it.



Yep. That just happened.

Starts Friday

Three views on the Chuck Hagel nomination for Sec. of Defense. Here's my buddy Paul Mulshine's from the Newark Star Ledger.

Did you hear what that liberal, left-wing commie Barack Obama is up to? Why, that pinko’s gone and picked a former Republican senator who’s a war hero as secretary of defense! Can you imagine anything more un-American than that?Sorry if I sounded like a Fox News commentator for a second there. But that’s the tone the Fox News crowd has adopted in light of the nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary. An online poll showed that Fox fans were spewing this nonsense back at the talking heads by a 10-1 margin.

Then here's Bret Stephens from the WSJ.

In 1998, when it was politically opportune for Mr. Hagel to do so, he bashed Clinton nominee James Hormel for being "openly, aggressively gay," a fact he said was disqualifying for becoming ambassador to Luxembourg. Late last year, when it was again politically opportune, Mr. Hagel apologized for his gay-bashing. Mr. Hormel accepted the apology, while noting that "the timing appears to be self-serving." Yes it did.

In 1999, when the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was broadly popular, Mr. Hagel scoffed at the idea of repealing it: "The U.S. Armed Forces aren't some social experiment." Since then, Mr. Hagel has offered his opinions on many subjects in scores of published articles. In not one of them did he recant or amend his views on gay issues. His public about-face only occurred when his name made Mr. Obama's shortlist for secretary of defense.

In 2002, also when it was overwhelmingly popular, Mr. Hagel voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The lack of political courage is especially noteworthy here, because Mr. Hagel was, in fact, prescient in warning his Senate colleagues that "imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice."

Yet as the inimitable David Corn notes, "Bottom line: Hagel feared the resolution would lead to a war that would go badly but didn't have the guts to say no to the leader of his party."

And here's Jonah Goldberg's:

It's official. President Obama has named former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as his nominee for secretary of Defense. Hence, we may be in store for the worst Defense secretary nomination fight since George H.W. Bush's failed appointment of Sen. John Tower (R-Texas) more than 20 years ago.

The interesting question is, why? Why waste the political capital? Why pass over more qualified candidates who would sail through confirmation, including Michele Flournoy — who'd be the first female Defense secretary?

The most ridiculous answer is among the mainstream media's favorites: bipartisanship. According to Politico, the choice "appeals to Obama's bipartisan spirit." The Washington Post, in a front-page news story, says that a "successful nomination of Hagel would add a well-known Republican to the president's second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign.

A friend of mine tells me this may be the world's greatest guitarist. Have a listen and tell me he's wrong.

For some reason this guy reminds me of NCAA President Mark Emmert. Substitute actual NCAA rules with "batches" and you pretty much have the Emmert Doctrine of Rule Enforcement.

Obama to Boehner: "We don't have a spending problem." Stephen Moore reports.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus analyzes.

The Jerry Sandusky scandal was no gift, but it keeps on giving. My print column is up.

UPDATE: Also here's an updated link to my appearance on Radio Times debating this issue with USA Today's Christine Brennan.

Just done with my appearance on Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane debating the merits of Corbett v. NCAA with USA Today's Christine Brennan.

UPDATE: I've been told the link to the broadcast was bad. Now fixed. To listen just hit play button.

Dennis Prager takes apart a Richard Cohen column that depicts conservatives in, shall we say, a less than favorable light.

If Cohen is one of the best liberals have to offer, it's over Johnny.

I've been invited to appear on Radio Times tomorrow morning (Tuesday) with Marty Moss-Coane to discuss Gov. Corbett's lawsuit against the NCAA. The show's from 10 to 11 a.m on 90.9 FM.

Also scheduled to appear is USA Today's Sports Columnist Christine Brennan. Should be fun and the conversation lively.

UPDATE: We'll also be discussing this on our podcast Live from the Newsroom, Wednesday night.  Chris Freind and I will duke it out as Phil "The Moderator" Heron referees. That show starts at 7 p.m.

Robert Redford is wondering why after his "victory" President Obama isn't doing more to prevent hurricanes like Sandy and stopping that "dirty energy" project, the Keystone XL Pipeline.

It's because he never had any intention to block the pipeline forever. That was just election year politics to buck up his green base. This president believes campaign promises are made to be broken.

You got played, Sundance. You got played.

H/t from Freedom Is Just Another Word

As promised, my print column on Promised Land.

As I say in the column really good movies can be made about the clash of cultures brought on by industrialization. Here's one of the best. Relax and enjoy the whole thing.

Jessica Rothstein, who grew up in Thornton, and her boyfriend Cullen Stewart are The Pyles. They live in Florence, Alabamy, and they're good.

I'm writing about Matt Damon's new anti-fracking film "Promised Land" for tomorrow's column.

Here's a scene:

Only Professor Irwin Corey would argue this looks good.

UPDATE: For those too young to remember...



Watch, and tell me this man couldn't get a job as one of President Obama's economic advisors.

My print column is up.

UPDATE: Click here to read the lawsuit. As I said, it's right on the money.

Headline:

Give teachers, administrators right to bear arms in schools, Pa. lawmakers say

 Now we're talking... Story here.

President Obama released a presidential signing statement last night... Wait a minute... I seem to recall...

Oh, it was just a campaign promise. Obviously, he wasn't serious. His lips were moving.

I have just learned that the Corbett Administration's lawsuit against the NCAA for its outrageous sanctions against Penn State is being handled by former Pa. State Senate candidate and Delco resident Melissa Maxman.

A few years ago she moved from Swarthmore to Washington D.C. to become a member in Cozen O'Conner P.C.'s Commercial Litigation Group and the co-chair of the Antitrust Practice Group. 

I've got a call into her to ask her about the legal merits of this lawsuit. I hope to hear from her soon.

UPDATE: I talked to Melissa Maxman briefly, she referred all calls to the governors office. But here is a copy of the lawsuit. It's worth the read. It is unstinting in it's contempt of the NCAA and its president Mark Emmert and it alleges the NCAA violated its own rules and procedures and unlawfully punished Penn State in order to burnish its own crappy reputation.

I'll be writing more about this for tomorrow's paper.

Yes! For the $60 million fine the organization imposed on Penn State in the aftermath of the Sandusky scandal.

The case raises all sorts of interesting legal questions, the first one being does the state - as a third party  to the matter - have legal standing to sue?

The PSU board of managers agreed to the fine - allegedly in order to avoid the NCAA's "death penalty" to the school's football program.

The governor, it appears, is suing on behalf of Pa. taxpayers who are funding a good portion of the fine, a fine that millions of Pennsylvanians disagree with paying and would like to see fought.

The bad judgement and gutlessness of PSU's accidental president Rodney Erickson has been apparent throughout this scandal. Under his "leadership" the board capitulated to the disgustingly hypocritical and sanctimonious NCAA. The idea, of course, was to agree to anything that would get the matter behind them.

My opinion is that the case is a political winner. The NCAA is almost universally hated and its actions in this case highlighted the group's lazy arrogance and greed.

The case might get thrown out but many Pa. taxpayers will be grateful to Corbett for bringing it and standing up to this money-grubbing gang of grave robbers.

Something about this photo tells me this young man will never be given a fair shot at a decent job.

That's a face that says, "Don't even think of hiring me." Too bad. Sounds like he wasn't the worst this bunch.

Jenkins:

Mr. Obama chooses not to be president of all of us, seeking an affordable, livable solution to our long-term fiscal challenges. He chooses to be president of the country's spending interests, decrying the prospect of "heartless" Republican cuts.

Read it all.

My piece on Penn State's litigious climatologist Michael Mann ran today in the Pottstown Mercury. (Thanks guys.) The original can be read here.

It was read there by a reader who sent me the note below:

Mr. Spencer,

You don't know me and I didn’t know you until today when, for kicks, I visited Michael Mann’s FB page. You were featured prominently in the first post.

It said in his post that you attacked him.
I was interested to see for myself and so I read the article. It was about the Steyn comment and had quite a bit about the Hustler/Falwell case. You tentatively concluded that since the Supreme Court had ruled that it is within someone’s free speech rights to criticize a public figure, National Review may prevail.

So I questioned Mann’s assertion and pointed on his page that in my opinion, Mr. Spencer had not attacked him. I didn’t say anything more than that. I merely question his statement.

I went back to do a little editing and I saw that the comment had been removed and I was blocked from posting forevermore.

Then I read his follow-up comment... saying you have a record of  hate and intolerance and to prove this he cited another of your articles.

It was primarily a piece in which you question whether a school should be inculcating ideas about the ‘tolerance of gayness’. No hatred...just a few questions.
Which brings me to my question, does Michael Mann know how to read? I really didn’t like him before but I had no idea if the immensity of his ignorance and his capacity for hysterical proclamations. It makes me frightened that I share the world with powerful people like him who don’t have any sense.

Happy New Year,
Alice Suszynski

Like I've been saying...

The “fiscal cliff” is a massive failure of presidential leadership. The tedious and technical negotiations are but a subplot in a larger drama. Government can no longer fulfill all the promises it has made to various constituencies. Some promises will be reduced or disavowed. Which ones? Why? Only the president can pose these questions in a way that starts a national conversation over the choices to be made, but doing so requires the president to tell people things they don’t want to hear. That’s his job: to help Americans face unavoidable, if unpleasant, realities. Barack Obama has refused to play this role. 

But Robert Samuelson says it better. Read it all.