Still Center Right Country

You might have heard from the chattering class that the election of Obama marks a shift in the country wide political spectrum. I disagree. Here is some proof.
1. Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
3. Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine
7. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
10. Catastrophe
20. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science

Not a scientific survey I know, but probably more accurate than any phone survey. People are putting their money where there mouth is....
It's interesting to note that all those books are on the rise.

Good new everyone...the Stimulus wasn't meant to "Stimulate."

Turns out the $787 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (AARA) was not designed for full economic recovery, but rather to “stabilize” the downturn. That’s the word from White House officials today, who held off-camera briefings with reporters on how the AARA is working so far.

“This legislation was designed to cushion the downturn,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “That’s why we have always talked about this as one function of economic recovery.”

When pressed about the change in terminology, Gibbs said he was not trying to temper expectations after the fact. “I can probably find 15 or 20 occasions when I said this in the lead up,” Gibbs said, explaining that he had always defined the AARA as part of a “multi-legged stool.”

If we don't pass Cap and Trade we will all DIE!!!

Meanwhile Canada issues a frost warning...in JULY!!!!

Environment Canada has issued a frost risk warning in low-lying areas of the province for Wednesday night. The temperature is expected to dip to 4 C.

Bootleggers and Baptists - FDA and Waxman

Via Econlog:

To save money for consumers, Waxman is willing to allow certain drugs, called biologic drugs, to enter the market without clinical testing that proves their efficacy. He realizes that requiring clinical testing for efficacy will slow things down and needlessly keep important drugs out of the hands of suffering patients.

Sound nice, but you know Waxman has some other motive.

Bruce Yandle of Clemson University has a theory called Bootleggers and Baptists. You can read and hear him talk about it at Econtalk.
Simply put, it goes that government regulations usually are lobbied by two different groups with two different motivations.
The baptists are the moralists. They do what they do with the air of moral high ground. Yandle uses the metaphor of Baptists trying to ban liquor sales on Sunday. The Baptists faith in the Bible and the belief that alcohol is evil, feel that they are doing society a favour.
The bootleggers are the exploiters. They do what they do because there is money to be made. The bootleggers lobby for the Sunday liquor ban because they can then sell liquor on Sundays via Black Market.
Politics make strange befellows.
Anyway back to Waxman. So my question is who are the bootleggers here?

It's obvious, at least to me, that the Baptists are they ones wanting lower cost drugs, which no FDA testing will surely do. Yet, we all know, no politician will do anything altruistic without a money man greasing his wheels.

So who is greasing Waxman's wheels?

I'm lazy right now, but does anyone know where you can get the info to see which Pharm companies have a new "biologic drug" coming out and just gave Waxman a campaign contribution?

Equal Protection

The Supreme Court today decided, 5-4, for the white and Hispanic firefighters in Ricci vs DeStefano today saying that they were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The split was down the usual lines with Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy going for the plaintiffs.

This is interesting for two reasons.
First it overrules Sotomayors decision which no doubt will be used against her in her confirmation hearings. Remember the Democrats wanted the confirmation hearing to be in mid-July and the GOP wanted it to be later. With Ricci fresh off the docket, I'm sure there will be a sudden and nuanced shift, with Democrats wanting to wait a bit. Not that I can blame them, they touted Sotomayor as a brilliant mind, even if she has said some really stupid things. Public opinion also is against Sotomayor, so expect that angle to be played as well.

A new national poll suggests that nearly two-thirds of Americans think white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut where discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam after too few minorities scored high enough on the test.

The other interesting thing about this decision comes from Justice Scalia. In his concurrence opinion, he writes.

I join the Court's opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one.
The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII's disparate-treatment provisions forbid "remedial" race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result- the question resolved by the Court today- it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties - e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal - discriminate on the basis of race. As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII's disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes. That type of racial decision making is, as the Court explains, discriminatory.

So when will racial discrimination end? Obviously it is still going on in the workplace. It's going on in the Universities.

Beginning in 2012, UC will no longer automatically admit the top 12.5% of all students based on statewide performance, and will no longer rely so heavily on grades and test scores. Instead, the eligibility pool will be expanded by a projected 40% by eliminating the requirement for applicants to take the SAT subject matter tests. The net effect of these changes is that academic achievement will be less significant and UC admissions administrators will have the "flexibility" to discriminate against those "dull" Asians who "study, study, study" all the time without violating Proposition 209.

What is wrong with these people? What is obvious to most is that all of this is being done in the name of "Diversity."
When will we live in a world when the color of ones skin is no longer a factor in hiring or admissions. Discrimination in any name, no matter the motive is wrong. It's wrong to deny a white the opportunity for advancement, it's wrong to deny a Hispanic the opportunity for advancement, and it's wrong to deny a black the same opportunities.
There is a big difference in equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. They are not the same. Giving everyone the same opportunities is what this country was founded on. Some will succeed and some will fail. The outcome is wholly dependant on the person, not society.
Using the equality of outcomes logic, the State and individuals will continue to use racial discrimination as a factor in everything. They will still rely on the quota system or in Ricci's case, use the threat of litigation as a factor in their hiring. The problem as SCOTUS decision puts clearly, the treat of litigation is not justification for any sort of racial discrimination (2.c.i)
In my talks with supporters of Affirmative Action, they usually base their argument on the equality of outcomes logic. They usually say that it is still needed. The obvious question to ask is until when? When will it not be needed? Five years ago, I had the same conversation and they said, "When we have a Black President." Well, now we do. So it's time to end it.
Sooner or later a case will make it to the Supreme Court challenging race based quotas and we will have to finally choose for the full implementation of Equal protection. Anything that places a "racial thumb" on the scales of justice is wrong morally, and ethically.

Score One for Single Payer.

A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don't have passports.
A provincewide search for an open neonatal intensive care unit bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two pound, four ounce baby to Buffalo.

I still can't quite grasp, how some people think this is a good thing. Why do people think a Single Payer system, will be efficient? Hello, look at Medicare, Medicaid and Walter Reed, is that the kind of health care they want?

H/T: HotAir

Here are some of the wait times associated with Pediatric Medical services in Ontario.

Provincial Paediatric Wait Times Analysis by Subspecialty

	5 out of 10 Patients Treated Within (Days)	9 out of 10 Patients Treated Within (Days)	Volumes
	May 2009	May 2009	May 2009
All Services	59	195	1155
Cardiovascular Surgery	37	171	52
General Surgery	33	88	171
Gynecology	39	74	10
Neurosurgery	20	77	35
Ophthalmology	55	146	85
Dental/Oral Surgery	102	356	159
Orthopedic Surgery	79	207	109
Otolaryngology	64	252	262
Plastic Surgery	52	169	130
Urology	62	170	142

That Bigot Perez Hilton

I really don't like Perez Hilton. So I really hate writing this, but the hypocrisy is just too great.

Remember way back when, when Hilton asked Carrie Prejean about her views on Gay Marriage?

I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.

Then came Hilton's vBlog tirade, calling her all sorts of vile sexist names. All of which he pretty much got a pass for in the MSM.

Now Hilton is in the news again, hopefully not for long, over an incident with the Black Eyed Peas in Toronto. Apparently, Will.I.Am asked Hilton to not write anything about his band anymore. In response, Hilton called Will.I.Am a Fag.

Is it okay for a gay man to use homophobic rhetoric against straight man?

One level of hypocrisy, is how the MSM treated Prejean's statement, which is the same stance our Deal Leader has and how they treated Hilton's openly hateful language against another man.
The silence from the gay rights groups is deafening.
The other hypocrisy is of course Hilton's own personal hypocrisy. His whole reasoning for his vBlog tirade against Prejean was that he was upset with HOW she answered the question. Which is why I quoted it. I don't see any hateful remarks against gays in that statement. If what Prejean said was hate, then Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a whole slew of politicians in Washington are full of hate. Of course we can't criticize our Dear Leader like that now can we. That's a whole different subject.

Needless to say, Hilton was "forced" to issue an apology. I say "forced," because it seems to me that he did it to try and save his "brand." His brand for me is dead. I never really cared at all about anything he did, I find his "How Gay was that?" segment on VH-1's remember the Millenium to be the dumbest thing on the show, even dumber than Moby's segment.
Hilton in an offer of good faith or just self-promoting, take your pick, said he would give the proceeds of his lawsuit against the Black Eyed Peas to the Mathew Shepard Foundation. Which they replied.

We do not know the details of the lawsuit, whether it has been filed, the nature of his claims or the likely outcome. But because the lawsuit presumably involves the physical attack prompted by Mr. Hilton's admitted use of an anti-gay slur, the Foundation will be unable to accept any funds obtained in such a manner.

At least there are some gay rights groups out there with some core principles. Equal rights doesn't mean some groups are more "equal" than others.

H/T Hotair.com for the gawker link.