Newly added to the blogroll: Zero Hedge, for all your DOOM-y international economic news needs.
Also consider this your “I didn’t have time to put up an extensive blog post” post…
Newly added to the blogroll: Zero Hedge, for all your DOOM-y international economic news needs.
Also consider this your “I didn’t have time to put up an extensive blog post” post…
Rick Perry has come out for marijuana decriminalization and for states rights on legalization (though he still opposes legalization himself).
This makes Perry objectively more pro-legalization that former frequent choom-abuser Barack Obama.
This will be a great surprise to people who know Perry only from the liberal caricature of him in their head, or who haven’t been following the intellectual debate among conservatives, which has leaned toward the “legalize it, regulate it and tax it” position for almost a quarter century now.
Perry has been a staunch supporter of the Tenth Amendment and States Rights. To reiterate what I’ve said before, I oppose the War on Drugs for reasons of general principles (it’s not the purpose of government to save people from themselves), the specific application of constitutional federalism (the Commerce Clause should not apply to the regulation of drugs manufactured and sold within the confines of a single state), and for reasons of budgetary philosophy (making drugs illegal has expanded the size and power of the federal government while increasing the budget deficit; legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs would reduce both the deficit and the harm to individuals and society). My position is not uncommon among conservatives, Republicans, or members of the Tea Party.
So liberals: Stop acting shocked when conservatives come out for decriminalization and legalization. The only reason it is a shock is that you refuse to listen.
What’s going on in Ukraine right now? Good question. The situation is probably best described as “fluid.”
A ceasefire has been reached. I don’t think this would happen unless President Viktor Yanukovych is worried he might lose the showdown.
Protesters stormed three governor’s offices, one of whom resigned.
A good summary of the situation, including the role of Yanukovych’s Berkut stormtroopers, the neutrality (so far) of the army, and the fractured nature of the opposition.
From that I’ve also stole this video of the Berkut in action:
More Berkut:
Ukraine police leaving the force?
Ukraine police torture naked protester in the cold?
Dramatic day for Ukraine in one infographic: red regions where local govts seized by #Euromaidan, pink – under siege pic.twitter.com/dUicLNT8pf
— Maxim Eristavi (@MaximEristavi) January 23, 2014
Heh:
There are some truly incredible pictures from the Ukraine protests. This is my favorite: pic.twitter.com/dwCAneoQxY
— John Pugh (@JohnPugh) January 23, 2014
Ted Cruz has condemned the crackdown and called on all branches of the United States government to support the opposition.
So what have Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry said about the latest crises in Ukraine? As far as I can tell: Nothing. Indeed, the Ukraine office of the State Department has issued only mild, per-forma tut-tutting.
This is the most important foreign policy question in the world right now, and they’re asleep at the switch.
Or maybe they just don’t care.
Finally, here’s a Euromaidan livestream:
And another:
Other livestreams can be found here.
Hot on the heels of Yanukovych’s rubberstamp parliament passing numerous dictatorial laws, he decided it was time to clean up these filthy peasants protesting for democracy and closer ties to Europe. (Background here.)
Twitter and Facebook have reportedly been blocked in Kiev:
facebook/twitter are down for a lot of ppl in downtown Kyiv. i've found my way around, but i don't believe it's coincidence
#Euromaidan
— Maxim Eristavi (@MaximEristavi) January 22, 2014
The government is tracking protesters using their cell phones.
Search Twitter for #Euromaiden.
Video:
They even cracked down on that notorious violent, subversive organization, The Red Cross:
Some photos from Twitter:
PHOTO: Rioters burn tires in central #Kiev as unrest enters fourth day http://t.co/fvCVOVRHn4 #euromaidan pic.twitter.com/VznCIWqllQ
— RT (@RT_com) January 22, 2014
Intense photo of clashes in #Kiev by @AP Efrem Lukatsky #euromaidan pic.twitter.com/CEun0TclmY
— Patrick Witty (@patrickwitty) January 22, 2014
Crisis in Kyiv: #Ukraine tonight, #euromaidan pic.twitter.com/mLckK0heDj
— NATOSource (@NATOSource) January 22, 2014
В Киеве сечас так. pic.twitter.com/UnrvBV6put
— Ilya Varlamov (@varlamov) January 23, 2014
Honestly, the protestors should consider that it’s time to stop burning tires, and start burning secret police headquarters….
A smart politician, when caught telling a lie, apologizes, corrects the record and moves on.
Since the era of Bill Clinton, this is not the way Democrats do things. What Democrats do now is act outraged that critics and political opponents would dare point out their lies.
Rather than admit that she lied about key features of her biography, Wendy Davis is attacking the journalists that exposed her lies. But particularly baffling is her instance on embedding an obvious lie about her history smack dab in the middle of a paragraph that exposes the lie in her revised biography.
Wendy left home at 17, married when she was 18 and had her first daughter Amber when she was 19. She and her husband lived in a trailer, and Wendy continued to live there with Amber after they were separated. As a single mother at age 19, she often struggled to make ends meet. Wendy filed for divorce when she was 20 and she and Amber lived for a short time with her mother. The divorce became final when she was 21.
So:
It’s like Lindsay Lohan stating “I was addicted to cocaine for several years. But fortunately, I was never addicted to cocaine.”
Again, facts are stubborn things. The smart thing to do would be for Davis to come clean completely and not try to peddle obvious lies as truth.
But her campaign gives precious little evidence that Davis is that smart…
Didn’t plan on doing two Wendy Davis pieces in a row, but her latest stream of non-denial denial tweets offered up so many slow, lazy pitches straight over the plate I felt the urge to partake of batting practice:
1. How about true attacks? 2. You mean sleazy like lying under oath? http://t.co/YMLmnoFIhd @WendyDavisTexas #tcot
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
So why exactly is your ex-husband an "ally of Abbott"? @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
1. Who is this our? 2. Even when their stories are partially fictional? @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
And just how does importing the Blue State model that failed #Detroit and is failing California give "a better future"? @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
A true story, that is, except for the parts that are fictional. @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
There are other TX women who filed for divorce the day after their husbands paid off their student loans from Harvard? @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
No, yours is the story of how a wealthy white woman got her husband to pay her way through Harvard Law then ditched him. @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
People haven't been attacking your family, they've been attacking your lies. http://t.co/mZOYRXlMOZ @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
Millions of Texas women who filed for divorce the day after their husbands paid off their student loans from Harvard Law? @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
And tell me: Just when did the Dallas Morning News become part of the Abbott campaign? http://t.co/qVrldIotZh @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
Hey @WendyforTexas, you know what I'm not seeing anywhere? A point-by-point refutation of how the DSM story is false. Did I miss that?
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
When the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. Since they're obviously not, you've been pounding the table. @WendyDavisTexas
— BattleSwarm (@BattleSwarmBlog) January 22, 2014
Now a few more bonus tweets from other people:
Why do you blame Greg Abbot when the author of the piece said they emphatically did not speak w Abbot campaign @WendyDavisTexas ?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 21, 2014
@DLoesch the thing is, @GregAbbott_TX would never do this. Why blame him? It makes her look like a victim.
— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) January 21, 2014
A Ft. Worth business owner told me today "Most here knew about Davis's lie. Now the rest of the country knows it." Why the need to lie?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 22, 2014
@WendyDavisTexas @BattleSwarmBlog You're wrong. Most women work hard and reach their goals w/o the assistance of a wealthy man.
— Angie Morrison (@angiequips) January 22, 2014
(Hat tip: Legal Insurrection.)
Everyone and their dog has already chimed in on Wendy Davis’ serial prevarications by now, but hey, it is my state.
In the Dallas Morning News, political reporter Wayne Slater brought up examples of Davis’ campaign biography that don’t match up with the facts:
It is her biography — a divorced teenage mother living in a trailer who earned her way to Harvard and political achievement — that her team is using to attract voters and boost fundraising.
The basic elements of the narrative are true, but the full story of Davis’ life is more complicated, as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves. In the shorthand version that has developed, some facts have been blurred.
Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter.
A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston. When they divorced in 2005, he was granted parental custody, and the girls stayed with him. Wendy Davis was directed to pay child support.
In an extensive interview last week, Davis acknowledged some chronological errors and incomplete details in what she and her aides have said about her life.
“My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”
Just try that “my language should be tighter” line if you ever get audited by the IRS.
Wendy Davis’ campaign biography leans heavily on her time as a single teenage mom. She was indeed all of those things, just not at the same time.
Other tidbits: When she ran for the Ft. Worth city council in 1996, she did it as a Republican and voted in GOP primaries.
Also, there’s that little bit about Davis leaving her husband the day after he paid off her Harvard loan. As one Twitter wag put it:
Husband paid off her student loan and Wendy Davis left the next day? Sounds like money well spent.
— Will Antonin (@Will_Antonin) January 19, 2014
There are a few other tiny wrinkles to Davis’ life story. The fact her ex sought a restraining order to keep her from using illegal drugs while visiting her children is one. Another is the fact that she lied about some of the details of her life story under oath.
A few more Twitter observations on the latest Wendy Davis revelations:
Wendy Davis needs a man like a fish needs a rich bicycle that will pay its way through fish law school and take full custody of its spawn.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) January 21, 2014
Shorter #WendyDavis: I don’t always lie about my personal life, but when I get caught, I blame @GregAbbott_TX.
— Ashley Sewell (@TXTrendyChick) January 21, 2014
FIFY @WendyDavisTexas: Mine is the story of millions of TX women who ditched their older husband & kids after scoring a Harvard law degree.
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) January 21, 2014
It also doesn’t say much about her intelligence that she thought she could get away with these lies in the Internet era…
Once there was a physicist named Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt who used her scientific background to create a radially improved putter. The only problem with the story is that pretty much every word but “putter” in the previous sentence is a complete lie.
Including “her.”
And inevitably, the very fact that Caleb Hannan would dare report that “Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt” used to be Stephen Krol ignited a firestorm of controversy among the victimhood identity politics crowd, as exemplified by the #JusticeForDrV tag.
I first saw the link for Caleb Hannan’s story on the magical putter and the serial liar behind it from Dwight, but The Other McCain has been doing the heavy lifting on the reactions. (I thought I had added McCain to the blogroll back when the story of convicted felon Brett Kimberlin first blew up, but I guess I didn’t; that oversight has now been corrected.) )(It was already there, my eyes just missed it. D’oh!) His summary nicely gets to the heart of the matter:
The #JusticeForDrV crusaders grabbed hold of the idea that “Dr. Vanderbilt” was driven to suicide by Caleb Hannan’s “transmisogynistic journalism” — a claim for which they offer no real evidence — while ignoring all evidence that (a) “Dr. Vanderbilt” was not a victim, but rather a person who victimized others, and (b) it was the failure of the pseudo-scientific putter scam, not fear of being “outed” as transgender, which motivated “Dr. Vanderbilt” to commit suicide. Of course, “Dr. Vanderbilt” had attempted suicide in 2008, before Hannan ever heard of her, but why let facts get in your way when you’re ghoulishly exploiting a corpse as “LGBT Victim of the Week”?
The #JusticeForDrV tag, of course is ironic, since, as McCain put it:
“Dr. Vanderbilt” was neither a doctor nor a Vanderbilt http://t.co/eHRUGT1VXN Discuss amongst yourselves. #JusticeForDrV #tcot
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) January 20, 2014
McCain dealt admirably with the substance of the issue, but I wanted to deal with the mindset behind those using the #JusticeForDrV tag, since I’ve run into it more than once.
This is another case of the intolerant acolytes of victimhood identity politics mobbing someone for daring to tell the truth. The animating idea behind it seems to be that no one has a right to say anything that might make a tranny (or any other member of a Designated Victim Group) feel bad, even if it’s the truth. They have abrogated for themselves the right to dictate to others what the acceptable limits to free speech are as regards members of said victim groups. It’s an attempt to silence critics (both actively and preemptively) who do not toe the political correct, neo-Marxist, Critical Race Theory line that the “privileged” (straight white heterosexual conservative males in particular) should not be allowed to speak on any issue that touches on the “marginalized” (i.e., the members of any left-wing victimhood identity politics group). Their terminology is Orwellian in the very specific way that it seeks to shape language and limit discourse in ways that make it impossible to object to the agenda being pushed.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,” he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. “Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
Or, put another way by the same author “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
Or, to put it still another way, “Freedom is the freedom to say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.” Those pushing the #JusticeForDrV tag are largely the same as those who assert Bradley Manning magically became a woman by changing his name. The idea that “gender is a social construct” is a great lie that they must furiously defend, no matter how obviously absurd. Hannan’s article is unclear on whether Krol was merely a cross-dresser or had gender reassignment surgery; in neither instance would the chromosomes in the trillions of cells in his body have been switched from xy to xx.
And as for Hannan having “outed” someone who used to work at “an LGBT bar,” as McCain also notes: “When a 6-foot-3 middle-aged man gets a sex change, the result is unlikely to be particularly . . . persuasive.”
Caleb Hannan’s great crime was to commit an act of investigative journalism against a member of a designated victim group. (The whole “without fear or favor” slogan must go over social justice warrior heads, since favor is one of the defining principles of identity politics.) I’ve not seen a single credible accusation that the facts Hannan uncovered were untrue. Had Krol not been a serial liar, Hannan would never have been investigating him. His crime is he cared more about journalistic truth than politically correct guidelines on “acceptable discourse.” I would hope all journalists value truth over political correctness (though surveying the dominance of left-wing thought in the mainstream media, this is probably a vain hope).
I’ll end with the same conclusion McCain ended with:
“Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said. And the simple fact is that Essay Anne Vanderbilt’s entire life was a huge lie.”
Welcome to your complimentary Friday LinkSwarm. I steal collect these from all over, including Ace of Spades HQ, Instapundit, Twitter, Facebook, and a dozen other places
In 2009, retiring Arkansas representative Marion Berry presciently warned that Obamacare was setting up the Democrats for a huge defeat in the 2010 midterms, just like “Hillarycare” had led to a loss of 54 House seats in 1994. Obama scoffed at such concerns. According to Berry, the president told him, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Republicans went on to win 63 House seats and six Senate seats. It was the largest swing in the House since 1938. So I guess the difference was him.
I am heartened to see that not a single commenter supports his absurdist whitewash.
I’ve been going through Wendy Davis’ finance report. I hope to report some interesting tidbits, but the Statesman beat me to the punch on one of the most interesting, reporting Davis received a hefty (raises pinky) one million dollars from a doctor Carolyn Oliver.
I’m sure liberals who complaining about the corrupting influence of money in politics will be asking her to give that back any minute now.
(Checks watch)
Any minute now…
In the meantime, here’s the Washington Post and Will Franklin on why Wendy Davis’ fundraising numbers are considerably less impressive than they seem to be.