Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

How Words Can Be Used To Effect

A Roanoke Times editorial today:

"Virginians who would deny a woman her right to reproductive options now have their own license plate. Gov. Tim Kaine this week signed legislation to create a 'Choose Life' vanity plate. Enough already."

Hang on a second. We need a definition inserted here.

Locution
Noun: locution lō-ˈkyü-shən
1. A word or phrase that particular people use in particular situations

Here the kids over at the Times bend over backwards to insult the pro-life movement with that bit of windy locution - "Virginians who would deny a woman her right to reproductive options ..."

Is that what the license plate is all about? "Choose Life" means "Deny Rights"?

Aren't the proponents simply Virginians who would save the lives of babies who will otherwise be slaughtered in the commonwealth's abortion mills?

Tsk. Tsk. Two can play your game, fellas.

- - -

This goes along with an editorial yesterday written by the editor of the editorial page, Dan Radmacher. See "Mountaintop removal gets more scrutiny."

First sentence: "An announcement last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding increased scrutiny of mountaintop removal mining permits provoked both more celebration and more angst than it deserved."

Two things:

First, the EPA had no such announcement. It doesn't use the pejorative "mountaintop removal mining." It simply makes Dan feel better by altering the phrase. See "locution" above.

Second, the EPA's position on surface mining hasn't changed. From the EPA:

"The Environmental Protection Agency is not halting, holding or placing a moratorium on any of the mining permit applications. Plain and simple."

It might do Mr. Radmacher well to (a) stop being so propagandistic and (b) quit getting his information from radical leftist websites.

What Goes Around ...

Remember, not long ago, how the Washington Post excoriated the Bush Justice Department for "politicizing" the government's legal arm? I'm just waiting for the editorials to roll off the press ...
A Split At Justice On D.C. Vote Bill
By Carrie Johnson, Washington Post Staff Writer

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.

Democratic and Republican Justice Department veterans said it is unusual, though not unprecedented, for the solicitor general, who backs the administration's position before the Supreme Court, to be asked to weigh in before a case makes its way into a courtroom. [link]
Hmm. Nothing about this on the Post's editorial page this morning. I'm sure the boys there'll go on the attack ... tomorrow.

Could Be Fun

In a bloggy context, I'm almost hoping this buffoon ultimately wins. What fun it'll be ridiculing the moron day after day after day ...

Franken Wins Ruling in Minnesota Senate Race

He'll be the poster boy representing everything wrong with today's Democrat Party. Comedy. Cluelessness. Vacuousness. Idiocy. A detachment from reality. Not to mention the complete lack of experience.

Should be a real hoot.

A Cry For Help

Unfortunately he's turning to the one guy who is sure to ignore his pleas:
Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will
By Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. [link]
In response, Obama would prefer to dither:

"The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question."

Translated: You're going it alone, big guy.

As you might have expected when Obama won in November.

It's probably best anyway. We'll be an unstable partner in the effort - at best.

Another Day ...

... another Democrat tax problem.

Madness

Would any person in his right mind take money from the federal government under such circumstances?
Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York, Washington Examiner

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies. [link]
Let's not forget, this Geithner character can't even get his own employment house in order, what with a dozen key staff positions still unfilled after all this time. So he's going to take on the responsibility of monitoring and approving the salaries of thousands of Americans?

Is this Barney Frank insane?

No need to answer ...

Uh ... Can We Go Back To That Racism Thingie

Mixed in with a bunch of unremarkable statistics about the November presidential election is this eye-opening bit of news from CNN (see "Exit polls: Obama wins big among young, minority voters"):

"Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama. But Obama also was the winner by a similar margin among those who said race was not important, 'which suggests that race was not a decisive factor in this election,' Schneider said."

Hold on there, bud. I think Mr. Schneider is a little too eager to dismiss that first sentence.

"Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama."

So America's racists (by their own admission) went for Obama by 11 percentage points?

Who'da guessed?

Hat tip to Jon Henke.