{"id":5498,"date":"2012-04-05T23:04:40","date_gmt":"2012-04-06T03:04:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=5498"},"modified":"2012-04-05T23:05:02","modified_gmt":"2012-04-06T03:05:02","slug":"the-daily-gouge-friday-april-6th-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=5498","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Friday, April 6th, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, April 6th, Good Friday 2012:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

We’re with the centurion; truly<\/em><\/span> this man was the Son of God!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up on the last edition of the week, the WSJ<\/em>‘s Peggy Noonan echoes the sentiments expressed by Joe Curl in the Cover Story on our home page (www.thedailygouge.com):<\/strong><\/p>\n

Oh, for Some Kennedyesque Grace<\/span><\/h1>\n

Obama makes his campaign strategy clear. It’s divide and conquer.<\/span><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

These are things we know after President Obama’s speech Tuesday, in Washington, to a luncheon sponsored by the Associated Press: The coming election fully occupies his mind. It is his subject matter now, and will be that of his administration.<\/span> Everything they do between now and November will reflect this preoccupation. (Including tomorrow’s “Women’s Summit” at the White House.)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

He knows exactly what issues he’s running on and wants everyone else to know. He is not reserving fire, not launching small forays early in the battle.<\/span> The strategy will be heavy and ceaseless bombardment<\/em><\/span>. The speech announced his campaign’s central theme: The Republican Party is a radical and reactionary force arrayed in defense of one group, the rich and satisfied, while the president and his party struggle to protect the yearning middle class and preserve the American future<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This will be his campaign, minus only the wedge issues\u2014the “war on women,” etc.\u2014that will be newly deployed in the fall.<\/p>\n

We know what criticisms and avenues of attack have pierced him. At the top of the speech he lauded, at some length and in a new way, local Catholic churches and social service agencies.<\/span> That suggests internal polling shows he’s been damaged by the birth-control mandate<\/em><\/span>. The bulk of the speech was devoted to painting Washington Republicans as extreme, outside the mainstream.<\/span> This suggests his campaign believes the president has been damaged by charges that his leadership has been not center-left, but left<\/em><\/span>. (Team Romney….are you listening?!?)<\/span> This is oratorical jujitsu: launch your attack from where you are weak and hit your foe where he is strong.<\/span> Mr. Obama said he does not back “class warfare,” does not want to “redistribute wealth,” and does not support “class envy.” It’s been a while since an American president felt he had to make such assertions.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The speech was an unusual and unleavened assault on the Republican Party. As such it was gutsy, no doubt sincere and arguably a little mad. The other party in a two-party center-right nation is anathema? There was no good-natured pledging to work together or find common ground, no argument that progress is possible.<\/strong><\/span> The GOP “will brook no compromise,” it is “peddling” destructive economic nostrums, it has “a radical vision” and wants to “let businesses pollute more,” “gut education,” and lay off firemen and cops.<\/strong><\/span> He said he is not speaking only of groups or factions within the GOP<\/em><\/span>: “This is now the party’s governing platform.” Its leaders lack “humility.” Their claims to concern about the deficit are “laughable.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The speech was not aimed at healing, ameliorating differences, or joining together. The president was not even trying to appear to be pursing unity<\/em>.<\/span> He must think that is not possible for him now, as a stance.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There was a dissonance at the speech’s core. It was aimed at the center\u2014he seemed to be arguing that to the extent he has not succeeded as president, it is because he was moderate, high-minded and took the long view\u2014but lacked a centrist tone and spirit.<\/p>\n

It was obviously not written for applause, which always comes as a relief now in our political leaders. Without applause they can develop a thought, which is why they like applause. In any case, he couldn’t ask a roomful of journalists to embarrass themselves by publicly cheering him. But I suspect the numbers-filled nature of the speech had another purpose: It was meant as a reference document, a fact sheet editors can keep on file to refer to in future coverage. “Jacksonville, Oct.\u00a010\u2014GOP nominee Mitt Romney today charged that the U.S. government has grown under President Obama by 25%. The president has previously responded that in fact the size of government went down during his tenure.”<\/p>\n

An odd thing about this White House is that they don’t know who their friends are. Or perhaps they know but feel their friends never give them enough fealty and loyalty.<\/span> Either way, that was a room full of friends. And yet the president rapped their knuckles for insufficient support<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> In the Q-and-A he offered criticism that “bears on your reporting”: “I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” An “equivalence is presented” that is unfortunate. It “reinforces .\u00a0.\u00a0. cynicism.” But the current debate is not “one of those situations where there’s an equivalence.” Journalists are failing to “put the current debate in some historical context.”<\/p>\n

That “context,” as he sees it, is that Democrats are doing the right thing, Republicans the wrong thing, Democrats are serious, Republicans are “not serious.”<\/strong><\/span> It was a remarkable moment. I’m surprised the press isn’t complaining and giving little speeches about reporting the facts without fear or favor.<\/p>\n

I guess what’s most interesting is that it’s all us-versus-them.<\/span> Normally at this point, early in an election year, an incumbent president operates within a rounded, nonthreatening blur.<\/strong><\/span> He’s sort of in a benign cloud, and then pokes his way out of it with strong, edged statements as the year progresses. Mr. Obama isn’t doing this. He wants it all stark and sharply defined early on.<\/span> Is this good politics? It is unusual politics.<\/span> Past presidents in crises have been sunny embracers.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The other day an experienced and accomplished Democratic lawyer spoke, with dismay, of the president’s earlier remarks on the ObamaCare litigation. Mr. Obama had said: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He referred to the court as “an unelected group of people” that might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”<\/p>\n

It was vaguely menacing, and it garnered broad criticism. In the press it was characterized as a “brushback”\u2014when a pitcher throws the ball close to a batter’s head to rattle him, to remind him he can be hurt.<\/p>\n

The lawyer had studied under Archibald Cox. Cox, who served as John F. Kennedy’s Solicitor General, liked to tell his students of the time in 1962 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Engel v. Vitale,<\/em> a landmark ruling against school prayer. The president feared a firestorm. The American people would not like it.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> He asked Cox for advice on what to say. Cox immediately prepared a long memo on the facts of the case, the history and the legal merits. Kennedy read it and threw it away. Dry data wouldn’t help.<\/p>\n

Kennedy thought. What was the role of a president at such a time?<\/span> And this is what he said: We’re all going to have to pray more in our homes<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The decision, he said, was a reminder to every American family “that we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity,” and in this way “we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children.” He accepted the court’s decision, didn’t rile the populace, and preserved respect for the court while using its controversial ruling to put forward a good idea.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It was beautiful. One misses that special grace.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for us, The Dear Misleader is far less akin to Kennedy than he is the another “Missiah”….an equally egotistical megalomaniac who led his country into ruin with the words, “We may be destroyed, but if we are we shall drag a world with us….a world in flames.”\u00a0 Though we must admit, The Obamao would likely be content to take just America with him.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, as Ann Coulter observes….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Verilli Not Administration’s Worst Lawyer After All<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The reason tea partiers carried signs saying “Read the Constitution!” was that we were hoping people would read the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Alas, we still have Rick Santorum saying Obamacare is the same as what he calls “Romneycare”; the otherwise brilliant Mickey Kaus sniffing that if states can mandate insurance purchases, then we’re “not talking about some basic individual liberty to not purchase stuff” (no, just the nation’s founding document, which protects “basic individual liberties” by putting constraints on Congress)<\/span>; and the former law professor, Barack Obama, alleging that a “good example” of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, “a group of people”) overturning “a duly constituted and passed law<\/em><\/span>.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I don’t know how a court could overturn a law that hasn’t been “passed.” Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a law, it would be a bill. If it hasn’t even been “constituted,” it wouldn’t be anything at all. Of course the courts can overturn laws — constituted and passed alike! If anything, the Supreme Court isn’t striking down enough laws.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose Congress passed a law (after constituting it) prohibiting the publication of books about Hillary Clinton. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and the courts should strike it down. Failing to strike down such a law would be judicial activism. That’s the judiciary’s job, which has been pretty well established since the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, heretofore the second most sacred opinion in the liberal canon. (Roe v. Wade is the first most sacred<\/em><\/span>.)<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>Marbury captured the imagination of liberals only relatively recently when they realized that, simply as a procedural matter, the courts have the last word.<\/p>\n

The judicial branch isn’t above the other two branches — much less the states or the people. It is (one of my favorite words) “co-equal” to the other branches. Indeed, the judiciary was laughably described by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers as the “least dangerous” branch.<\/p>\n

Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn’t have NBC.) What liberals figured out — and were mendacious enough to exploit — is that there is no obvious recourse for the other branches if the Supreme Court issues an insane ruling.<\/strong><\/span> So, beginning in the 1960s, liberals on the court started issuing insane rulings on a regular basis. Rather than referring to the Constitution, some of their opinions were apparently based on the dream journal of Andrea Dworkin.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The late Feminazi Andrea Dworkin: all women should be like I was; fat, unhealthy and full of man-hate.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Soon every law student could recite in his sleep Chief Justice John Marshall’s line in Marbury: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” So shut up and go home. To take one example of a ludicrous ruling, at random, off the top of my head: In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution mandates a right to abortion<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Constitution says nothing about reproduction, contraception, fetuses, pregnancy, premenstrual syndrome, morning sickness — much less abortion<\/em><\/span>. (As the tea partiers say: Read the Constitution!)<\/strong><\/span> It does, however, expressly grant to the states those powers not reserved to the people (such as the right to bear arms) or explicitly given to Congress (such as the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Obviously, therefore, the Constitution implicitly entrusted abortion laws to the states<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>One hint that a “constitutional” right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it — the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, “and a variety of others” — the entire courtroom burst into laughter.<\/p>\n

The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago …)<\/strong><\/span> When conservatives complain about “judicial activism,” this is what they’re talking about: Decisions not plausibly based on anything in the Constitution<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Curiously, the only court opinions liberals really get excited about are the ones having nothing to do with the Constitution: abortion, nude dancing, gay marriage, pornography, coddling criminals, etc., etc.<\/strong><\/span> Liberals try to hide their treachery by pretending that what conservatives are really upset about is the Supreme Court striking down any law passed by any legislature. This is a preposterous lie that could fool only the irredeemably credulous.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Which brings us to the brilliant ex-law professor, who manifestly doesn’t have the faintest understanding of the Constitution.<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong>On Monday, President Obama shocked even his fellow liberals when he claimed that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (Which Obamacare wasn’t.)<\/p>\n

He added: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.” I guess now we know why Obama won’t release his college and law school transcripts<\/em><\/span>!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It was so embarrassing that Obama attempted a clarification on Tuesday, but only made things worse. He said: “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care,” since the ’30s. Except in 1995. And then again in 2000. (Do we know for a fact that this guy went to Columbia and Harvard Law<\/em><\/span>?)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In the former case, U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act — which was, by the way, a “duly constituted and passed law”! And then the court did it again in U.S. v. Morrison, when it overturned another “duly constituted and passed law,” the Violence Against Women Act.<\/p>\n

Both laws were defended by the Clinton administration as “economic” regulations, passed by Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause with arguments as stretched as the ones used to defend Obamacare. The Gun-Free School Zone Act, for example, was said to address the economic hardship, health care costs, insurance costs and unwillingness to travel created by violent crime.<\/p>\n

Conservatives want the rule of law, not silence from the judges. Not striking down an unconstitutional law is judicial activism every bit as much as invalidating a constitutional one<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And since we’re on the subject of hopelessly inadequate individuals promoted far beyond a position their skills and experience warrant, Townhall.com<\/em>‘s Ryan Girdusky<\/strong> offers his observations on….
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sandra Day O’Connor’s Quest for State Judiciary Reform<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Sandy Day: living proof even The Gipper made mistakes.<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

While the nation is engulfed in the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor has been touring the country \u2013 most recently in Greenville, SC \u2013 to continue campaigning for her favorite pet issue: abolishing elections for state judges. Her quest, simply put, is to eliminate the right of the voters to decide their judges.<\/strong><\/span> She will not sleep, nor apparently let you; as evidenced by her 1am robocall to Nevada voters to gain support on this issue, until the most common method for selecting state judges is replaced by a method that is dominated by liberal trial lawyers.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Currently, 22 states use elections to choose judges, 13 states use the Missouri Plan, 5 use Democratic appointment, and 10 use a hybrid method.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor bemoans judicial elections, complaining that the amount of money spent campaigning for judicial races is “an embarrassment” to the country.<\/span> However an empirical study conducted Professor Christopher Bonneau, a respected expert on judicial elections, demonstrates that despite O\u2019Connor\u2019s rhetoric against campaign spending, it is quite valuable to voters.<\/strong><\/span> Bonneau’s study shows that campaign spending engages and mobilizes voters, and these voters are educated about the candidates and their records. The research rebuts all of O’Connor’s bombastic language.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor prefers a method she refers to as a \u201cmerit system\u201d \u2013 which many refer to as the Missouri Plan \u2013 for choosing judges. She boasts that she helped bring this “merit system” to Arizona as a state legislator. By using this terminology, O\u2019Connor demonstrates her 26 year Washington D.C. pedigree. Naturally, use of the word \u201cmerit\u201d invokes good feelings, and one may assume (erroneously) that this method permits those most qualified and deserving a place on the bench. However, nothing could be further than the truth. Just as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be more aptly titled the Destroy Healthcare, Destroy Small Businesses, and Raise Premiums Act, \u201cmerit system\u201d would be more aptly titled \u201cguaranty that liberal judges are on the bench and trial lawyers get their way system.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Missouri Plan, in contrast to elections, gives voters virtually no voice in choosing judges. In Missouri Plan states, an unelected commission conducts private meetings and evaluates candidates behind closed doors, then submits the names of candidates to the governor.<\/span> The governor is typically required to choose someone off of the commission\u2019s list to appoint to the court \u2013 even if he or she finds all the candidates undesirable.<\/strong><\/span> Beyond the lack of transparency and accountability, a major issue with this system is that most states that use it guaranty that a certain percentage of people on the commission are chosen by the state bar — and the lawyers on the commission notoriously have a strong and disproportionate influence on the process. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, who has researched state judicial selection extensively, concluded in one study that this method \u201cmay not remove politics from judicial selection so much as it moves the politics of judicial selection into closer alignment with the ideological preferences of the bar.\u201d<\/p>\n

Liberals have another famous proponent of the Missouri Plan to help them with their cause: billionaire George Soros. The Open Society Institute, a Soros-funded non-profit, has spent more than $45 million promoting the nation.<\/span> You don\u2019t have to be smarter than a 5th grader to be skeptical when a Soros back group is throwing in money like that<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span> States judiciaries are at the forefront of many of the most contentious and significant cases: 17 states had their redistricting altered or changed by the courts, several states have made decisions concerning gay marriage and gay rights, in addition to hundreds of tort and property right cases heard in state courts. While O\u2019Connor idealizes the Missouri Plan, the devil is in the details. It is important for citizens to keep an eye on the plans to transform our state judiciary into a system where true justice is lost to a tyranny of black robes.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

At the risk of uttering a gross generalization, if George Soros and the trial lawyers are for it, we’re AGIN’ it!
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Speaking of things we’re agin’, in an increasingly rare display of common sense, the WaPo<\/em>, courtesy of George Lawlor, comes out in opposition to another “green” boondoggle looking to feed at the public trough:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Derail this gravy train<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Federal government has a lot on its mind these days. A war in Afghanistan. Fiscal reform. Health care. With so many genuine issues to address, you wouldn\u2019t have thought that Washington would also be trying to figure out a new way to get tourists from Southern California to the Las Vegas strip.<\/span><\/p>\n

But you would be wrong.<\/strong><\/span> The Federal Railroad Administration is considering lending $4.9 billion to a company called Desert Xpress, for the purpose of building a high-speed rail line to Las Vegas from Victorville, Calif., some 81 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

The brainchild of several wealthy Las Vegas casino moguls, Desert Xpress enjoys the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and has already secured approvals from the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service, among other federal and state agencies. It is pursuing about $1.6 billion in private financing.<\/p>\n

All that\u2019s left is the Federal Railroad Administration\u2019s okay on the loan. According to a recent Associated Press report, the $4.9 billion loan would be three times as much as all previous lending by the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, a little-known pot of low-interest, long-term credit previously used mainly to upgrade existing lines.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The proposed line\u2019s advertised public benefits are the same as those claimed for all high-speed rail projects: reduced carbon emissions, less air and auto traffic, and, of course, jobs, jobs, jobs<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> What makes this one unique is that it would be a non-stop route whose Western end, Victorville, would function as a gathering point for people from all across Southern California. They would park their cars and then board the train for Vegas. In theory, that\u2019s no different from driving to an airport and leaving your car.<\/strong><\/span> And once you reached the train, it would take only 80 minutes to hit Vegas, as opposed to a minimum four-hour drive each way.<\/p>\n

In theory. But if this train is such a good idea, business-wise, how come private banks aren\u2019t lining up to finance it<\/em><\/span>?<\/span><\/strong><\/span> Previous high-speed rail projects around the world have been plagued by poor ridership, requiring government subsidies to continue operation. You might save travel time by taking the train instead of a car \u2014 as long as you\u2019re content to depend on the train\u2019s schedule.<\/p>\n

The train\u2019s backers project an average round-trip L.A.-Vegas fare as low as $89 in 2017, with luxury amenities available. (We\u2019re skeptical; the one-way Acela Express fare from Baltimore to New York, a similar distance, is more than $200.) In any case, you can already fly round-trip for as little as $109, with no drive to Victorville<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> A bus service called My Party Ride will take you and two dozen friends for $99 each and include burgers and drinks<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> The train won\u2019t help Las Vegans visit Los Angeles, unless they want to ride to Victorville and rent a car for the rest of the trip.<\/p>\n

As for jobs, any that the Vegas train creates will come at the expense of alternative uses of the money<\/em><\/span> \u2014 upgrading the Northeast Corridor to accommodate higher-speed trains comes to mind \u2014 not to mention My Party Ride and other competing businesses, large and small<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> The new line might be a boon for Victorville, but the shift in traffic could hurt neighboring Barstow.<\/span><\/strong> If the casino moguls want a train, let them build it with their own money; taxpayers shouldn\u2019t have to go along for the ride<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/article>\n<\/div>\n

Hells bells!\u00a0 First, the drive from downtown L.A. to Victorville is by far the toughest and most congested part of the trip to Vegas.\u00a0 So why on earth would someone want to slog through all the traffic only to pull off and take a train once the driving was easy?!?\u00a0 Second, for $6 billion+, casino owners could offer free limo service AND free booze to and from Vegas for all comers and STILL come out ahead.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a similarly sound utilization of taxpayer dollars, we learn a….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Philly lawmaker spends $29G in city funds to maintain social media presence<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Jim Kenney: incapable of working Facebook, but….capable of running of major metropolis?!?<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The Philadelphia Daily News reports Councilman Jim Kenney, at-large Democrat, has the third-highest paid staff on the city council. Kenney has 10 staff members and a payroll of $654,034, including his salary. The paper has identified the company hired by Kenney as Philadelphia-based ChatterBlast, which will also post to the lawmaker\u2019s campaign-funded website.<\/p>\n

\u201cTen-year-olds can tweet on their own,\u201d the newspaper story begins. \u201cBut Councilman Jim Kenney apparently needs help. Professional help.\u201d<\/span><\/strong> Kenney responded to questions about the taxpayer expense by saying: “I, at 53 years old, do not have that facility<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And in International News of Note, here’s an intriguing commentary from Michael Auslin of WSJ Asia<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shoot it down<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

Will this month’s missile launch by North Korea be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Pyongyang’s blatant abrogation of the spirit of its Feb. 29 agreement with the Obama administration and flouting of United Nations resolutions banning missile launches has enraged the White House and energized both Seoul and Tokyo. Disguising the test as a “satellite launch” convinced no one, and talk is now about how to punish new leader Kim Jong Eun.<\/p>\n

This time, the U.S., along with its allies South Korea and Japan, should consider blowing the North’s missile out of the sky. Doing so won’t cause war, and it may be the surest way to preserve peace.<\/span> It would send a message far more clearly than any future negotiations could, and might lead to a more durable political settlement in Northeast Asia.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Diplomatists will be horrified at this suggestion, but there are sound reasons for taking a stand now, starting with the geopolitics. The White House convinced itself that there was a chance for a new start with Kim Jong Eun, even if no one changed at the top of the North Korean regime except its public face. When Washington tried the carrot, it was rewarded with one of the more subtle North Korean bait-and-switches in recent memory<\/em><\/span>. (Bait-and-switch our ass; they were….<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

….BITCH-slapped!)<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There is little prospect for any future negotiations under the current administration, but high likelihood for more destabilizing action by the North.<\/strong><\/span> Taking military action against an illegal missile test would show Kim and his military leaders that there also is a stick that the West can wield. That alone might cause better behavior. Pyongyang’s overriding concern is survival and the West’s use of military force to defend interests and uphold international norms of behavior\u2014instead of just talking about all this\u2014may make the regime think hard about its long-term interests.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What’s more, shooting down the missile is a proportionate, limited and clearly defensible action. It is neither aggressive nor provocative.<\/span> (Okay….maybe a LITTLE provocative; but certainly no more so than the missile launch itself.)<\/span> It can be justified with reference to U.N. resolutions and long-standing self-defense pacts with Asian allies.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This is not like previous missile tests, where Washington and its allies did nothing. With the missile traversing Japanese islands and American bases and aiming for the waters of Southeast Asia, there is a much higher chance of something going wrong and the missile falling on the territory of other nations.<\/p>\n

Shooting it down then also prevents further possible escalation, especially considering the dramatically heightened concern of both South Korea and Japan.<\/strong><\/span> For its part, the South remains prepared to respond with overwhelming military force to any North Korean provocation, a legacy of Pyongyang’s sinking of a South Korean naval ship and the shelling of an island in 2010. If the missile aborts over South Korean territory, a war could break out. Seoul has indicated it may shoot down the missile, as has Tokyo\u2014the missile passes over Okinawa and other Japanese territory.<\/p>\n

Instead of South Korea and Japan going it alone, it would be far preferable for Washington to coordinate with its allies, lend technical assistance and take multilateral action. Such an approach would allay any fears both countries have about the U.S. commitment to their security and would open up opportunities for new security relations between Tokyo and Seoul<\/em>.<\/span> Not least, it also would show China that the allies have no more patience for its games of “will we or won’t we” on pressuring Pyongyang to act peacefully<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Alternately, if Washington and Seoul do nothing right now, the North might be emboldened to further acts in coming days that would unleash a bigger military response by Seoul. In fact, failing to respond in any significant way means the North will become accustomed to launching missiles with unknown payloads over foreign countries, with more chances of accidents occurring.<\/strong><\/span> Eventually, there will be a larger public demand, in Asia and the U.S., to eliminate this threat. Asian democracies will be disappointed with Washington’s unwillingness to take their fears seriously.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Despite the unprecedented threat, there is no indication that the White House is thinking about shooting down the missile.<\/strong><\/span> The Pentagon is doing the same things it did last time the North shot off ballistic missiles in 2009: It’s moving some ships to the area, sending a radar platform into Asian waters and assuring our friends that we stand by them.<\/p>\n

This time, it needs to do more. The White House is right that we face a new era with North Korea. But, to break the logjam with North Korea, convince America’s friends of its steadfastness and make clear Washington’s repeated assertions that it acts to uphold international public order, President Obama should avoid the false choice between doing nothing and risking war<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

All of which can be condensed down into The Dear Misleader falling back upon his default position and….<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

….voting “present”.<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the Lighter Side….<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then there’s this irrefutable piece of logic from Hank Murphy:<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And in the “Free Speech for ME, not THEE!” segment….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Man sues<\/span> after being<\/span> restricted from<\/span> passing out<\/span> Bibles at<\/span> gay<\/span> pride parade<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

A man who has passed out Bibles at a Minnesota gay pride parade for years is suing after city officials restricted him from giving out the book at this year’s event. Brian Johnson, of Hayward, Wis., started handing out Bibles at the Twin Cities Pride Festival in 1995, and three years later, gave out the books in Minneapolis’ Loring Park from a booth approved by parade organizers.<\/strong><\/span> But in recent years, the people behind the event, which draws as many as 300,000 people, have tried to oust him, first nixing his bid for a booth and then having him arrested in 2009<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Johnson, a taxidermist by trade and an evangelical by calling, sat out last year’s event for fear of arrest, according to his attorney. But the legal wrangling has continued behind the scenes, and this year parade organizers, at the suggestion of a federal judge, designated “free-speech zones<\/em><\/span>“<\/span> on the Pride Festival grounds, where people like Johnson <\/span><\/span>could distribute literature the organizers wouldn’t otherwise approve<\/span>.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Johnson and his attorney reject the policy, which is backed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Johnson believes he not only has God on his side, but the Constitution, too. A spokesperson for the city board said officials don’t comment on pending litigation.<\/div>\n

And we’re with Mr. Johnson….on BOTH counts.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Turning now to what can only be described as a combination of the Wide, Wild World of Sporst and the Crime Blotter, we learn of a….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Los Angeles sheriff’s captain accused of taking former pro-golfer inmate on golf trip<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Capt. Jeff Donahue was accused of taking Frank Carrillo, a former pro golfer, out of Catalina Island’s correction facility for a free clinic to reform his swing and lower his double-digit handicap, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. Carrillo, who claims he was still in his yellow prison jumpsuit while correcting Donahue’s play at the hilltop course, said he was in demand for golf advice after transferring to the tourist isle’s jail.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The jewel thief said he suggested to Donahue he could improve his game with a lesson. “I knew it was a crazy thing to say,” he said. “But the first thing he said was, ‘Maybe I need a few pointers.'”<\/p>\n

Donahue, now on medical leave, headed up the sheriff’s Avalon force, which polices Catalina and San Clemente islands and the ocean waters separating them from the mainland. The sheriff’s station in Avalon has its own lockup and trusties \u2014 well-behaving inmates who get a little extra leeway in exchange for taking care of chores at the site. (No kidding!)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Carrillo ended up as a trusty at the island jail after making headlines for stealing a World Series championship ring from a former Dodger at a charity golf event.<\/strong><\/span> He eventually pleaded guilty to charges related to a string of golf course thefts involving cash, Rolex watches and other jewelry valued in the tens of thousands of dollars. He was sentenced to two years and has since been released.<\/p>\n

Given California’s incredibly lucrative public employee retirement system, we’d be willing to bet Donohue shaved a number of strokes off his index WITHOUT “handicapping” his pension!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, since we’re on the subject of golf, we thought it appropriate to close with yet another presidential opinion no one really cares about:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Obama thinks Augusta golf club should admit women as members<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

YO….BO!\u00a0 Think honey badger, dude:<\/strong><\/p>\n