Juan Williams and Political Correctness Run Amok
What happens when a society becomes more concerned with political correctness than with accepting people truthfully acknowledging their different views? People are branded as racist bigots, denigrated, and may even lose their jobs.
Juan Williams is a prominent public example, due to his honest statement of his feeling worried when he is on an airplane with individuals who prominently identify themselves “first and foremost as Muslims” (1). Mr. Williams began his statement by saying he was not a bigot, and explained that his feelings were a result of September 11, and the comments by the Times Square attacker at his sentencing. It is important to read the whole transcript or watch the video (2) for the entirety of his appearance on “The Factor,” as Mr. Williams continued on to say that Americans need to be aware of stereotyping, on guard against violating others’ Constitutional rights, and to not make rash jumps to judgment.
What was so offensive in the statements Mr. Williams made? Perhaps this quote, “Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality” (2). He was honest about his feelings – feelings which are shared by many others around the world. The feelings of apprehension are not solely the result of September 11. There have been many attempts at inflicting mass casualties on American soil in the past nine years:
Fort Dix Six – 2007
JFK airport / fuel lines / grenade launcher plots – 2007
Goose Creek, SC (SPAWAR and brig) – 2007
Bronx Synagogue bombing plot – 2009
Najibullah Zazi – 2009
North Carolina Boyd cell – 2009
Arkansas recruiting station – 2009
Fort Hood murders – 2009
Underwear bomber – 2009
Threat by Revolution Muslim against South Park creators – 2010
Times Square bombing – 2010
Also, the international news coverage of the bombing in Bali, bombing in Spain, the Beslan school massacre, the murders of Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortunyn (3), the London 7-7 bombings, the attempted car bombings of a London nightclub and Scottish airport, threats and attack on cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and his granddaughter, and the travel warnings issued by the US State Department are in the minds of many Americans. These events all have one thing in common: a particular religious ideology. Are people wrong to openly admit feeling apprehensive by prominent displays of Islam? Does political correctness make the problem disappear? Should we all just ignore our feelings, and place complete trust in our government bureaucracies to keep us safe? Would that work?
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRwok2Ffoys
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article502621.ece
- http://www.slate.com/id/2271931/?from=rss
- http://www.newslab.org/resources/enterprise.htm
Is the Electoral College in Jeopardy?
Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says, in part:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
The Founders had two reasons to create the Electoral College. The first was out of concern that without a buffer between the population and the selection of the President, a tyrant could come to power through manipulation of public opinion. In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
In short, Hamilton and other founders did not trust the public to make the right choice and felt that, as a group that met infrequently, the Electoral College was at lesser risk of being manipulated by forces either internal or external to the United States.
The second reason for the Electoral College was to provide smaller states with greater power in deciding Presidential elections than they might have with the popular vote. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, both of which use the Congressional District Method of allocating their Electoral College votes, all states allocate their votes through the winner-take-all method. Without the Electoral College process, Presidential elections could and likely would be decided by the most populous states, and more specifically by those states with significant urban and suburban communities surrounding large cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. The Electoral College process marries the one-man-one-vote principle with the federal principle that the states created the federal government. If prevents the balkanization of the country that could occur with the most populous areas deciding all Presidential elections. It prevents the tyranny of the majority.
Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature approved a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote. If the bill is signed by Governor Deval Patrick as anticipated, Massachusetts will join New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Washington and Hawaii, all of which have passed similar legislation, and bring the total number of Electoral College votes decided by this method to 73. If states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) enact such laws, the candidate winning the most popular votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed. This movement against the Electoral College is being led by a group called National Popular Vote, which has slowly built support for the idea since George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 over Al Gore, despite Gore having won the popular vote.
Massachusetts’ House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office issued this statement in support of the measure:
“The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people. Speaker DeLeo is pleased that the House has enacted this measure to give each voter equal say in the election of our president.”
What this statement fails to acknowledge is the possibility that should the national popular vote go to the candidate not favored by Massachusetts voters, all of the state’s electoral votes would still go to that candidate, effectively nullifying the entire popular vote of the state. Under such a scenario, one can easily image that measures would quickly be introduced to reverse the NPV bill. This bill raises not only a constitutional question regarding equal protection, but also a logistical question regarding certification of the national popular vote, for which there is currently no process. Radio talk show host Mark Levin points out that the concept of protecting the varied and diverse interests of all states, which is behind the Electoral College process, was also behind creation of a Senate comprised of two representatives from each state. If we are to invalidate the Electoral College, should we also abolish the Senate and the protections that come with it?
Nullification of the Electoral College process through amendment of the Constitution is highly unlikely given the requirement for ratification by 3/4 of the states. Similarly, it would seem improbable that NPV laws could be passed in states representing 270 electoral votes, though improbable is not impossible. Each state has the right to decide how their electoral votes will be allocated, but do the citizens of Massachusetts and other states allocating their votes in this manner fully understand the implications of these changes passed by their state legislators? Do they recognize this as an attempt to effectively amend the United States Constitution without following the formal amendment process? Do the citizens of Maryland, Washington and Hawaii understand that they are abdicating their role in the Presidential election process to the ten to twelve most populous states in the union, a list they will likely never be on?
“If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68
The Brilliance of the Electoral College, Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, July 16, 2008
Where Do We Go From Here?
Sunday night, 219 House Democrats voted to approved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that has been the subject of contentious political debate since the beginning of the Obama presidency, despite bipartisan efforts to kill the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA) proclaimed the legislation an historic victory
“on a par with passing Social Security and Medicare“
while President Obama stated that
“this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”
Yet support for this legislation by the people was sorely lacking, and states are lining up to file lawsuits challenging the legislation before the President’s signature is dry. Officials in at least eleven states already have plans to challenge the constitutionality of mandating that all Americans have some form of health insurance, including Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington. These state sovereignty claims will be met with Commerce Clause assertions by supporters of the legislation, though one has to wonder what interstate commerce is being conducted by those citizens who choose not to purchase health insurance. In addition, at least three dozen state legislatures are weighing possible challenges to the legislation, changes to state law and amendments to their constitutions.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said
“The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty.”
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the measure
“tramples on individual liberty and dumps on the states the burden of an unfunded mandate that taxpayers cannot afford.”
So now we turn to the courts. Will the legislation survive state challenges, which are certain to increase over the coming weeks and months. While legal challenges are heard, will the courts stay implementation of the Act? How will states already on the verge of bankruptcy pay for the increase in their share of Medicare? And what will be the impact on the House and Senate come November? Will the American people soon forget those in Washington who chose to ignore them for the sake of another “We Won” moment?
Fiscal Irresponsibility
Since the 2008 campaign we have been lectured by President Obama ad nauseam about fiscal responsibility, about not leaving a mountain of debt for our children, about ongoing deficit spending.
November 25, 2008:
“In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative,” Obama said. “We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges…. We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.”
An Analysis of Glenn Beck’s Revolutionary Holocaust
The special presentation of Glenn Beck’s Revolutionary Holocaust was aired in its first part on Friday, January 22, 2010. The promos leading up to this show promised that it would be a shocking reveal of history that the American people were likely unaware: “We will show you things you’ve never seen but need to,” was Mr. Beck’s teaser line. Debate began around the blogosphere about whether or not history has been revised over the years, whether school children are being taught facts or ideologies, paranoia versus blind acceptance, the “dumbing down of American society,” and so forth. (more…)
Anysoldier
The tragic loss of lives at Fort Hood on Thursday, November 5, should bring to the forefront of everyone’s mind that our troops put their lives on the line for the safety and security of our nation. Personal views regarding the wars and politics aside, we Americans need to show our support of our brave men and women in uniform.
The holidays are upon us, and so many of our troops are far from their loved ones. If you know someone who is deployed, send them a card or care package to let him or her know your support. (more…)
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – Well Deserved or “Embarrasing Joke”?
President Barak Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, an award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism. In awarding the prize to the President, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The administration itself was both humbled and stunned by the announcement early Friday morning. The award was particularly stunning given the nomination deadline of February 1, less than two weeks after the Obama presidency began. President Obama joins a variety of past recipients, including former Vice President Al Gore, President Jimmy Carter, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr. (more…)
Should Holder Investigate Alleged CIA Interrogation Abuses?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appears to be poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Holder envisions a narrow inquiry that would focus on “whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized” in Bush administration memos that interpreted anti-torture laws.
President Obama has publicly discouraged such an investigation, but months ago left the door open for Holder to make the call. An inquiry would likely drive a new wedge between the CIA and the Justice Department, as well as create additional political tension in Washington already aggravated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims in May that the CIA “mislead us (Congress) all the time”.
The U.S. anti-torture statute requires proving that an interrogator “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” a challenging legal hurdle. In April, Holder decreed “We’re going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us….no one is above the law” when asked whether government officials would face prosecution over coercive interrogation techniques.
Tell that to the voters in Philadelphia, who were threatened on November 4 by nightstick-wielding members of the New Black Panther Party. Holder gave them a pass, even after the government prevailed by default when the Panthers ignored court process. In that case, other considerations apparently outweighed Mr. Holder’s desire to following the evidence. The Panthers who turned out to be above the law included Jerry Jackson, a credentialed Democratic-party poll-watcher who brays on MySpace about “Killing Crakkkas.” Thanks to Holder’s decision Jackson is back in business, having obtained new poll-watcher credentials just days after his case was dismissed.
Is this investigation politically motivated and yet another distraction from ongoing domestic issue debates? Does it threaten to set a dangerous precedent that will undermine the effectiveness of the CIA out of concern for retroactive rule changes applied by future administrations? Or is there a legitimate cause of action, in the interest of protecting America’s moral standing as champions of human dignity and individual rights?
Susanne: Smelt Update
UPDATE: Huron, CA – August 11, 2009
California: The New Dust Bowl?
———————————————————————————————————–
MISSING PERSON REPORT: Nancy Pelosi-D, San Francisco, CA
White, Woman, 50/60-ish??
Short Brown Hair, Botox Forehead
Devin Nunes-R Congressman and Paul Rodriques-Comedian broadcast live from Huron, California, providing an update on the continuing struggle of farmers to save their land and prevent the next Dust Bowl.
At this time, ½ million acres of farmland, equivalent to the size of Rhode Island, continues to die due to the Silver Minnow. After a visit from Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who gave empty promises, the pumps remain closed. After every mayor in these affected counties sent a letter to President Obama pleading for his intervention, the pumps remain closed. After visiting the capital of California, Sacramento, the pumps remain closed. After traveling to Washington, D.C. to beg for relief, the pumps remain closed.
In Iraq, China, Brazil and India new water infrastructure projects are being implemented. In California there are no new water infrastructure projects, and the existing water infrastructure has been shut off to save the Silver Minnow, at the expense of the California farmers and US agricultural independence.
Where is Pelosi? She is missing in action. Where is President Obama? Wrapped up in establishing his legacy by reforming Healthcare, oh wait, now it’s Health Insurance reform.
Can we, those in CG13, take the time to save people that can be saved right now, not somewhere down the road with free healthcare? Some California communities impacted by this inaction are suffering unemployment rates in excess of 40%. Now is the time to act. Save our fellow Americans in California before it’s too late. Please.
Enlightened Atheist: Who is the Real Dictator?
With more and more evidence of questionable CIA activities coming out of the woodwork, it leaves me pondering one question. Who is the real dictator? I hear my friends on the right saying Obama is grabbing more unconstitutional power than ANY president ever! That may be technically right, with the automotive and bank takeovers, but these are unprecedented times which will not continue. (By the way, with government controlling only 1% of American commerce it’s not as bad as you might think.) But are we asking the wrong question? Maybe its not about which President, but which person?
The suggestion has been made over the last week or so that the CIA may have been ordered to mislead congress on key issues. Not only is this unethical , but its illegal! Cheney may have ordered and funded a counterterrorism program without the knowledge of Congress. Now I get some things are covert, but there still is the gang of eight that are supposed to be briefed on everything!
This idea was so flawed that the day that new CIA Chief Leon Panetta heard of it he immediately scrapped it and briefed Congress the very next day! This coincides with Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA never briefed Senators about waterboarding. Our GOP friends were quick to jump on Pelosi as a liar, but was she? The Security Act of 1947 requires the President to make sure intelligence committees are kept “fully and currently informed” of US intelligence activities. This along with the torture program, illegal wire tapping and the unnecessary Iraq war all lead me to one question. Where were all the questions from the right when we WERE without a doubt under the worst and only dictatorship the US has ever seen? Not the Obama administration, But DICK CHENEY! Was Bush merely a puppet?
