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

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Excuse Me?

It seems the big reason leftists in this country are having a cow over the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is that it allows a tsunami of money to flow into American politics.

Where have these guys been?

Really. Is it the money, or is it more a matter of whose money?  Would they be as opposed to the Sierra Club or the Democratic National Committee having a say in what happens in this country?  Somehow I doubt it.

It's Big Oil!  Big Pharma!  Halliburton!  Coal!  Goldman Sachs! 

And Citizens United ...

Quote of the Day

The 1st Amendment as it relates to McCain-Feingold and the recent Supreme Court decision as only Justice Antonin Scalia can explain it:
The dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” ... That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”
More importantly:
But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the “inherent worth of the speech” and “its capacity for informing the public,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
"We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."  End of story.

Only If We Print a Heckuva Lot More Money

And pigs could fly ...

That's The Strategy?

I listened yesterday to excerpts from Obama's "jobs" speech in Elyria, Ohio and was struck by how little talk there was about jobs and how much time he devoted to ... fighting.


I can only guess that some strategist told him that he needed to tap into that anger that is so prevalent around the country right now, and use it to his advantage.  So he tried to be angry.  And talked about fighting.

Someone should tell him (and his overpaid strategist) that that anger is directed toward him.

"I'm angry too" doesn't mitigate that.

Headline Of The Day

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Yeah, it could once be called upon to give us the latest breaking news about two-headed Tibetan children, UFO's, bizarre murder sprees, drunken Hollywood celebrities, psychic breakthroughs, child rapes, gruesome accidents, stories from beyond the grave, gay sex orgies, and on and on.  And it may have strayed off the journalistic reservation when it ran headlines like "I Cut Out Her Heart and Stomped On It" and "Mom Boiled Her Baby And Ate Her."  A newspaper?  Uh, ok.

Still, the National Enquirer, by God, was the only publication with the journalistic integrity to pursue the John Edwards love-child story.  While all the mainstream papers (all of which were transparently in the tank for the liberal 2008 Democratic contender for the highest office in the land) went out of their way to avoid investigating the rumors, journalists at the Enquirer, chased the story down and reported it.  For that effort the "supermarket tabloid" deserves recognition.

Or not.

As it turns out, the same people who had their lips locked on John Edwards's butt when he was running for president also control the selection process within the Pulitzer Committee.  Thus:
Pulitzer Committee Says National Enquirer 'Ineligible' for Top Journalism Prize
By Russell Goldman, ABC News

The administrator of the Pulitzer Prize board said today that the National Enquirer is "ineligible" for the nation's top journalism prize, dashing the flamboyant tabloid's hopes of taking the award for breaking a story about John Edwards' mistress and love child.

When Edwards confirmed Thursday that he fathered a daughter with the campaign's hired videographer Rielle Hunter, the Enquirer announced it would submit its reporting for the prize, calling its work "good, old-fashioned reporting."

According to the Pulitzer's rules, however, the Enquirer may be ineligible on a technicality.

"We checked the Enquirer Web site, and it apparently calls itself a magazine. Under our rules, magazines (both print and Web versions) and broadcast entities are ineligible," said the prize administrator Sig Gissler in an e-mail, to ABCNews.com. [link]

For what it's worth, the New York Times, which chose to look the other way with regard to John Edwards and his adulterous affair but has been found to run countless bizarre and implausible stories about global warming, species going extinct, and life on this planet being grotesquely altered as a result, stories worthy of the National Enquirer of old - "All Life On Earth To Become Extinct!  White Males Blame Obama!" - won five Pulitzers last year.

Ah, journalists.  Ya gotta love 'em.