Showing posts with label george will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label george will. Show all posts
Sunday, August 12, 2007
George Will: A Lying Stinking Weasel
Are there literally no standards for columnists anymore? George Will's column today is deliberately misleading on several levels. There is quite the difference between a dispute over opinion, but Will attempts to deceive his readers about the dispute over the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit.
Obama is not scary, just disappointing.His candidacy kindled hope that he might bring down the curtain on the long-running and intensely boring melodrama "Forever Selma," starring Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It was hoped Obama would be impatient with the ritualized choreography of synthetic indignation that degrades racial discourse. He is, however, unoriginal and unjust regarding the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, whose jurisdiction is Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
That's a nice little bit of racist drivel by Will. Obama is a race hustler if he objects to this candidate, who is beyond reproach.
Southwick, currently a law professor, joined the Army Reserve in 1992 at age 42 and transferred in 2003 to a National Guard combat unit heading to Iraq, where he served 17 months. He is 57 and until last December was a member of a Mississippi appellate court...But because he is a white Mississippian, many liberals consider him fair game for unfairness. Many say his defect is "insensitivity," an accusation invariably made when specific grievances are few and flimsy.
While I honor Southwick's service, he was not "a combat troop" as George Will implies here. He was going over as a member of JAG, as a military lawyer. Will continues using sins of omission to distort reality in the rest of this column. The idea that the man is only being attacked because he is white furthers Will's goal of making this dispute all about racist liberals and blacks attacking the poor white man.
Obama, touching all the Democratic nominating electorate's erogenous zones, concocts a tortured statistic about Southwick's "disappointing record on cases involving consumers, employees, racial minorities, women and gays and lesbians. After reviewing his 7,000 opinions, Judge Southwick could not find one case in which he sided with a civil rights plaintiff in a non-unanimous verdict." Surely the pertinent question is whether Southwick sided with the law.
To some of Southwick's opponents, his merits are irrelevant. They simply say it is unacceptable that only one of the 17 seats on the 5th Circuit is filled with an African American, although 37 percent of Mississippians are black. This "diversity" argument suggests that courts should be considered representative institutions, like legislatures, and that the theory of categorical representation is valid: People of a particular race, ethnicity or gender can be understood and properly represented only by people of the same category.
That is one way of looking at the evidence. It is dishonest. Here is Judith Shaeffer's take after watching the confirmation hearings.
Southwick was given every opportunity yesterday to disassociate himself from these rulings, and he spurned them all. In fact, when Senator Kennedy asked whether, in retrospect, he wished he'd written a separate opinion in the N word case, Southwick replied, "don't change horses in midstream." And when asked by Senator Durbin to identify one instance in his career when he'd stepped up to take an unpopular position on behalf of the voiceless and the powerless, Southwick could not give one single example.
It's all about Al Sharpton though in George Will's mind, or at least his column. There aren't any good reasons for the man to be opposed.
In 1998, Southwick was in the majority in a 5 to 4 ruling that upheld a state administrative agency's action in overturning a punishment imposed on a state employee. A white female social worker had been fired after referring in a meeting to a colleague, who was not there, as "a good ol' [expletive]." The court on which Southwick served ruled that the agency given broad latitude to review such discipline had not abused its discretion in deciding that the firing was disproportionate punishment, given that the woman had a hitherto unblemished record and the man, although offended, said the woman's words had caused no workplace problem. By law, the court could not overturn the agency's actions without finding legal error or "arbitrary and capricious" judgment.
Will is being too sensitive. The expletive deleted was nigger. A social worker called a colleague "a good ol' nigger". The hearing officer who reinstated this social worker after she had been fired, likened this slur as akin to meaning "a teacher's pet". Southwick agreed.
001, Southwick was in the majority in an 8 to 2 ruling finding no legal fault with an official's decision to transfer a child from the custody of a bisexual mother to the father. Southwick's opponents note that the opinion and a concurrence he joined contained "troubling" words such as "homosexuals" and "homosexual lifestyle." Troubling, presumably, because not using the word "gay" was insensitive. But Bill Clinton, announcing his 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, used the term "homosexual lifestyles," and the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark 2003 decision that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, spoke of a "homosexual lifestyle."
Here the dishonesty goes into full swing. Other people have used that phrase. It reminds me of the racist argument that since black people use the n word, it is ok for people who wear sheets and burn crosses to do the same thing. Southwick btw didn't just agree that it was ok to take a child away from a mother because she was a lesbian, he also joined a ruling that was signed off just by him and one other judge stating the homosexuality by itself could be the only factor justifiably used to take a kid from their parent.
The other judges said sexuality could be one thing they can use. I don't agree with that reasoning, but Southwick went even further. You could be a PTA mother of the year with a high income, highly successful child and an axe murdering ex could come out of prison and be given custody solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parents.
Why does Obama think Southwick should have ruled differently in the two Mississippi cases? Because he thinks Southwick applied the law inappropriately? Or because he does not like the result? Obama is seeking the office from which federal judges are nominated. Southwick has explained himself, in writings and in testimony to the Senate. Now Obama has explaining to do.
No, George Will. You and your newspaper have some explaining to do. This judge is a radical on race and sexuality. You distorted the objection to his record. You tried to puff up his record as a combat veteran, and you have smeared Barack Obama as a racial con artist for objecting to the judge's record.
This is acceptable in the Washington Post? If George Will wants to argue that it's not acceptable to fire somebody for calling a person a "nigger" and that it is ok to take all children away from homosexuals on that basis alone, let him do it. George Will isn't stupid enough to openly argue these positions. Instead, we get served a steaming bowl full of crap in the paper of record for the nation's capital.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Dishonesty Thy Name Is George Will
Campaign Finance Reform is the undoing of John McCain in they eyes of (or at least the column by) George Will this morning. Millions of conservative voters have realized that McCain wants to surpress their free speech, and having intellectually weighed the pros and cons of McCain-Feingold, they have rejected him due to his undemocratic ways.
In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life, a small citizens group thatposed no conceivable threat of "corruption" to anyone or anything, wanted to run an ad urging Wisconsin's senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, not to participate in Senate filibusters against the president's judicial nominations. But Feingold was running for reelection, and WRTL's proposed ad was declared an "electioneering communication" (any radio or TV ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office). And the McCain-Feingold blackout period banned such ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election -- when ads matter most because people are paying attention to politics.
The WRTL case could have been an occasion for McCain to say: This is not what McCain-Feingold was designed to do -- it was intended to stop the (as he sees it) "corruption" of elected officials soliciting large "soft money" contributions (not for particular candidates, but for party-building and other activities). Or he could at least have kept quiet. Instead, he went out of his way to stick his thumb in the eye of critics: With his brief to the Supreme Court, he underscored the fact that suppressing inconvenient (to politicians) speech is exactly what he and his McCain-Feingold allies -- Fred Thompson was an important one -- had in mind.
This was exactly what they had in mind. For all the voters would know, this group may have not been funded by pro-lifers. The reporting requirements are much more lax. You could be the HMO industry, the oil companies, supporters of Charlie Manson for that matter, and donate $2,300 a person to your favorite political candidate, or you can call yourself "Americans for Puppies and Ice Cream Sundaes", funnel money not to the candidate of your choice, but to an "issue group" that is "concerned" about Russ Feingold's hatred of puppies and attempt to boost his opponent's campaign through subterfuge.
This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to prevent. Sadly, the five right wingers on the Supreme Court agree with George Will and we are going to be subjected to more speech by those who have the deepest pockets.
George Will has consistently opposed campaign finance reform under the theory that the more money you have, the more speech you are entitled to do during campaign season. Why should you have to limit yourself to the same speech somebody making $70,000 a year makes? They can give $2,300 to a candidate and it means something to their finances. Why can't rich people give meaningfully too?
If I ever win the lottery, I hereby vow to start a group called "Americans For Clean Rivers". We will spend millions on electing candidates who promise to ban bow ties and obnoxious columnists.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Bow Tie That Binds Us Like Shackles
George Will has been concerned about the plight of African-American women for a long time. It's not just been since at least 1PM Friday when he was writing his column for the Sunday Washington Post. Black women are being oppressed by the man, and Will is around to protect their virtue because he really gives a shit about any person of color not named Condi or Clarence no matter what his critics may say.
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime. At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, italicized here, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.
Some African American Christian women working for Oakland's government organized the Good News Employee Association (GNEA), which they announced with a flier describing their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values."
George Will didn't find this story on a right wing website or on hate radio. He was in church in Oakland, singing in the gospel choir as he is oft to do. After church, as he was helping making his famous black eyed pea recipe for the potluck, he heard that his life's work crusading for minority women wasn't finished.
It turns out that Oakland is supportive of queer rights. George Will was too shy to mention it, but the Good News Employee Association wanted to use the city's bulletin board system to state that marriage is one man, one woman, as God and the state of California agreed upon.
This group of black women was being brutally whipped and gagged by the city of Oakland, which by the way has a sodomite friendly agenda. Those sensitive homos with near to San Francisco values didn't want to be told about how they were inferior citizens. The powers that be in Oakland attacked George Will's chosen people. George Will has fought for the freedom of black women all his life. But, to see them being denied civil rights again in 2007 hurt him in ways that shredded his soul.
Sure it may not be the triangle trade of sugar, slaves, and rum but it is a slippery slope. The next thing you know, Orthodox Jews won't be able to insult women who haven't gone through ritual purity baths before sitting on office furniture. Voodoo priests won't be able to curse people through the DMV's instant messaging system. Catholic city planners not being able to tell people they are going to hell for using condoms surely need an email system for their voice to be heard don't they?
George Will's inner black woman has finally been unleashed. Swing low, sweet chariot. Preach it to us brother George.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Intellectually Dishonest Piffle
George Will has a column out today bashing unions. This piece also reveals that the stick up his butt has reached the area of his brain affecting intellectual integrity. How he still has a job after the incident from the 1980 Presidential debates still mystifies me. Today, Will writes:
Unions were demonstrating in support of legislation with the Orwellian title Employee Free Choice Act. It would deny employees the choice of a secret ballot when voting on unionization of their workplace. Instead, union organizers would use the "card check" system, which allows them to pick the voters they want: Once a majority of workers -- exposed one at a time to face-to-face pressure from union organizers -- sign a union card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.
The Supreme Court has said that the card-check system is "admittedly inferior to the election process." Hillary Clinton, who has given herself a makeover as a moderate, and who was elected by secret ballots, and who hopes that next year voters will use their secret ballots to give to her the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, nevertheless toes labor's line when she advocates abolishing workers' right to a secret ballot. Abolition, she says, will "create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers."
Here is the real deal. Right now, as evidenced by the dwindling membership in unions, management has the upper hand when it comes to unions being formed. Let's think of a made up company. We can call it "Gal-Mart" and it's employees are trying to form a union. Under the present circumstances, Gal-Mart can simply fire the workers who are the most dedicated union advocates. They can isolate individual workers and brow beat them against joining the union. They can threaten to close to fire everybody and shut the store. If that doesn't work, they can import "new workers" to the store, right before an election is being held who have a "patriotic" love for voting. They all vote the way of the company, but it's surely a coincidence.
These are genuine concerns about fairness. George Will aignores the advantages management has over working people because he doesn't give a shit about workers to be blunt and uncivil.
Ezra Klein suggests a compromise that addresses any genuine concerns companies might have about the scope of this legislation. Compare and contrast his approach to the hackery of George Will.
Mitch McConnell is very, very concerned about the Employee Free Choice Act's abrogation of the secret ballot. In this he joins such electoral process wonks as Mickey Kaus and the Chamber of Commerce, all of whom seem to forget their fealty to small-d democracy when elections (with their attendant suppression) come around, and rediscover it whenever the unions want card check.
But fine: Let's separate one from the other. I'll happily accept a sort of card check where a majority of cards trigger an instant secret election (no time for captive meetings, etc), where penalties for employers firing unionizing workers are severe (maybe $100,000 for smaller companies and a $1 million for larger corporations?), where captive meetings are outlawed and threats are actionable. There are many ways to clamp down on employer intimidation. The test for someone like McConnell -- or Kaus, or the others -- is whether they support any of them, or have just alit on some brand new affection for the secret vote in order to kill a pro-union measure they loathe.
George Will thinks workers should get paid in belly button lint (he opposes the minimum wage too) but doesn't have the courage to flat out say it. He lies about why a reform is being suggested, does not address the concerns of the other side.
Since Senator Paul Simon died, my theory that you should never trust a public figure who wears bow ties has been a rule of thumb that you can trust, unlike Mr. Will.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Using a large vocabulary is swell when speaking to a niche audience that comprehends these terms, and when the words can not simply be substituted for more common language.
George Will on the other hand uses words as a shield to stop criticism of the nature of his ideas, and as an intimidation tool. How dare I the common person criticize somebody with such a vocabulary? His thought processes appear to be flawed, but he sure does talk pretty.
Dennis Miller is another great example of this phenomena. For a while audiences often laughed along with his tortured cultured references, terrified to let others think they didn't "get it". When he turned into a Bush worshiping sycophant, the magic was gone.
George Will hasn't had any magic for years. Read his column for yourself. It's crap.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
