Hillel Neuer of UN Watch interrupts the latest UN hate-fest with some pesky facts:

Last Sunday Barack Obama selected Elena Kagan, the current Solicitor General of the United States, as his nominee for next Supreme Court Justice. If she is approved by the Senate, the relatively young (50-year old) Kagan will have a say for many years to come in critical constitutional decisions that will affect the country’s future. This appointment matters, to put it mildly:

As he presses an ambitious agenda expanding the reach of government, Mr. Obama has come to worry that a conservative Supreme Court could become an obstacle down the road, aides said. It is conceivable that the Roberts court could eventually hear challenges to aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care program or to other policies like restrictions on carbon emissions and counterterrorism practices.

So who, exactly, is this woman, who may well be ruling for years to come on constitutional issues, including those pertaining to the limits of government? What is her legacy as a judge? How has she interpreted the law in particular cases? Well, unfortunately, there’s no record whatsoever to look at, because Elena Kagan has never been a judge at any point in her life. Yes, you read that right: although she was once a law clerk, Kagan has never been a judge. Barack Obama, the man of redacted provenance who attained the presidency in a relative flash, has chosen as Supreme Court Justice a woman who has left no paper trail through which her views on case law can be determined.
Fortunately, her college thesis, recently obtained by RedState, may fill in some of the blanks. In her opening acknowledgements Kagan writes “I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.”
Family involvement in radical causes may not always be a harbinger of sound judgement in a Supreme Court Justice, particularly when the influence is acknowledged warmly. Indeed, her brother’s sensibility appears contiguous with her own; Kagan practically laments socialism’s inability to get a foothold in America: “Why,” she asks, “in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”
One might argue that Kagan was not actually lamenting a dearth of socialist influence in America, but was merely examining, from an analytical distance, the historic difficulty socialists have had in gaining power in the US, but one might first want to mull over the conclusion of her thesis:

The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

It’s hard, frankly, bordering on impossible, to believe that someone who is opposed at a heartfelt level to a certain political philosophy – whether it be Communism or Capitalism – would ever describe the non-viability of his opponents’ philosophy in the manifest, corporeal realm as being sad in any sense, or that he would ever entreaty his opponents to keep their chin up, or tell them that they “cannot afford to become their own worst enemies,” or suggest helpfully that “in unity lies (your) only hope.”
No, at the time she wrote them, hers were hopeful words. “Hope,” “change America,” the “sad story” of socialism’s decline in America – these stated views make Kagan a perfect choice for Obama, but a harmful choice for America.

Ethnic group, fighting for the right to use the school curriculum to target another ethnic group, is targeted, cries foul:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district’s ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.

The Governor’s bill, which is intended to apply the brakes to a public school curriculum that has up until now taught Latinos that they are oppressed by whitey, will “(prohibit) classes that advocate ethnic solidarity (and) promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group,” although it “will not prohibit classes that teach…the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn’t promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.” As Gov. Brewer’s spokesman, the rather aptly-named Paul Senseman, explains:

“The governor believes … public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.”

Well, that sounds good, but what if one’s cultural heritage, at this late stage, consists of a big ball of resentment toward, and hatred against, a targeted group – whitey, in this case?

Six UN human rights experts (said) all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage…

And so we grow.
The UN has yet to clarify whether the right of “all people” to teach their cultural and linguistic heritage extends to, say, the Confederate Redneck Peoples of the deep South.

“Cut Scotland loose – then we’ll have a fair voting system.”

‘Wow,’ said a wide-eyed young Liberal Democrat voter babe, staring over my shoulder on Friday at a coloured election map of Britain. ‘England is, like, totally blue.’ How true. Huge swathes of England are Conservative. And, she noticed in the next instant, Scotland is, like, totally red and yellowish gold. Only one single constituency north of the border is blue.

As Alex Salmond of the Scottish National party said in the wee hours of Friday, it is ‘overwhelmingly clear’ that Scotland does not want a Tory government: ‘I don’t believe they’ve got a mandate to run Scotland from fourth place.’ Again, how obviously true. Yet, equally obviously, the Tories have got a genuine mandate to run England.

Sadly, the Tories don’t have a mandate to run England, because voters in a secessionist region outside of England threw a spanner in the works of a neighbouring country they don’t even want to be a part of.
Sounds kinda familiar.

Welcome to the Wednesday (EBD) SDA Late Nite Radio.
The recent resurgence of interest in period instruments in the classical music world is at least partially driven by an awareness that the composers of the day had the sound of those instruments, and not the modern ones, in mind when they wrote their music. The instruments of the Baroque and Renaissance eras were differently shaped and constructed than modern ones, and the strings were made of gut rather than the metal and metal composites. Gut strings have an intrinsically different sound, but they also have a different effect on the instrument, by virtue of the fact that they require less tension to bring them to pitch, and therefore exert less pressure onto the soundboard via the bridge. The result is a quieter, subjectively warmer sound.
Tonight, to give you a taste of the sound of period instruments, we feature Barcelona’s Jordi Savall, a highly-respected interpreter of ancient music, and the leading exponent of the Renaissance era precursor of modern violins and cellos, the Viola Da Gamba:

The most common sizes of viols are the treble, which is about the size of a violin, the bass, which is about the size of a cello, and the tenor which is between the two. There are also larger and smaller viols. Some have a shape which resembles a violin, others have plainer corners or a much fancier outline. They are always held on the knees or between the legs and are usually played with a bow (which is held underhand). Most viols have C-shaped soundholes and a flat back. Strings are usually made of gut, like the frets which are tied around the neck and are partly responsible for viols’ sound quality. The rich, clear sound of viols means they blend well with each other and with other instruments or voices. Most viols have six strings, but some have more and others fewer.

Here is Jordi Savall (playing the treble viol) and Hesperion XXI performing Baroque era composer Samuel Scheidt’s Le Nuove Musiche.
You are invited to provide your Reader Tips in the comments.

The courageous generation:

Several weeks ago the Conservatives complained to CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin about the CBC’s use of pollster Frank Graves as a putative non-partisan: “Why,” the letter asked, “is a pollster who conducts polling for Canada’s national broadcaster…also giving partisan advice to the Liberal Party of Canada?”
The usual suspects shrugged off the charge. The network’s editor-in-chief insisted that the CBC “is ‘politically neutral‘ and ‘scrupulously fair.'” EKOS denied that any of the data from any of the CBC-commissioned polls had been shared with the Liberals (notwithstanding, apparently, that fact that the results of one such CBC-commissioned poll induced Frank Graves to announce on air that the Liberals would do well to point out to Canadians that the choice between the the Liberals and the Conservatives was one of “cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.”)
In the aftermath of all the hoo-ha Graves dropped out of sight, only to reappear last Thursday on Power & Politics to discuss the results of a recent “viewer-inspired” poll “conducted for exclusive release by the CBC program Power & Politics.” Seems a citizen viewer had come up with a thought-provoking suggestion for an EKOS poll: “It would be interesting to find out what issues are most important to women. What qualities they look for in a leader and conversely what issues/characteristics negatively affect their vote.” Host Evan Solomon gushed “Frank, this is a fascinating poll, because it came based on a viewer question…a fascinating question, and very timely.”
Why yes, yes, and what makes the poll even timelier and more fascinating is that the viewer who suggested the subject matter of the poll, a woman named Mary Pynenburg, just happens to be a former two-time candidate for the federal Liberals.
The reactions from the usual suspects show a Liberal-headed entitlement to passive-aggressive redirection. Jane Taber, for example, elevates apoplexy-inducing non-accountability into a perfected art form: she acknowledges that yes, Mary Pynenburg is a former Liberal candidate, and yes, Mary Pynenburg submitted the question that Frank Graves conducted a poll on, but she still manages to type out that “the Tories allege” that the poll “was inspired by a Liberal Party candidate.”
CBC/EKOS pollster Frank Graves:

“I had no idea whatsoever who submitted the viewer-inspired question.”

CBC spokesman Jeff Keay:

“The question sent to us was reasonable, timely and relevant.”

To sum up: a two-time Liberal candidate who the CBC describes as just a “viewer” – a concerned regular-Jane citizen, in effect – submits, to the CBC and EKOS, a poll question that just happens to be on a matter that the Liberals and the CBC have been attacking the Conservatives on (as evidenced by the fake “Abortion” issue as it pertains to foreign aid), and then the poll’s results are announced coast-to-coast on the taxpayer-funded CBC, including the “finding” that “Conservative supporters had a higher than average propensity to say that women leaders would have a negative effect.”
“Timely and relevant” indeed.

Since 2005 the pay (wages plus benefits) for state and local government workers in the U.S. has increased five percent, while compensation for private sector workers has remained flat. That extra five percent isn’t exactly peanuts:

State and local governments pay more than $1 trillion in compensation annually (actually, that’s an astounding number–I had no idea it was that high). If compensation is 5% higher than it should be, that’s $50 billion in excess pay costs for the state.

Not only does this $50b of mandated excess generosity on the backs of the taxpayers add up, it adds up rather nicely:

Lo and behold, that $50 billion would roughly cover the total size of the state budget gaps. For example, in February a survey found that the combined budget gap of all 50 states was $55 billion for the 2011 budget year and $62 billion for the 2012 budget year.

Why, it’s as if there’s a solution in there somewhere…

During last Saturday’s White House Correspondents dinner Barack Obama delivered one of those standard-issue, boilerplate jokes that presidents typically deliver on such occasions: “The Jonas Brothers are here; they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But boys, don’t get any ideas. I have two words for you: ‘predator drones.’ You will never see it coming.”
It’s just an innocuous joke with a bit of faux-edginess built in; kinda corny, kinda funny. To some on the left side of the aisle, though, it’s an outrage:

It evinces a callous disregard for human life that is really inappropriate for a world leader, especially a president who is waging war against an enemy that deliberately targets civilians. It also helps undermine that outreach by making it look insincere.

Salon.com further ups the ante, making it a two-fer outrage:

…predator drone strikes in Pakistan have killed literally hundreds of completely innocent civilians, and now the president is evincing a casual disregard for those lives he is responsible for ending by making a lighthearted joke about killing famous young celebrities for the crime of attempting to sleep with his young daughters.”

I love that line, “a lighthearted joke about killing famous young celebrities.”
Lefty crashpad Daily Kos:

As controversial as their purported effectiveness, and the human cost of its killings, is its supposed legality. DefenseNews recently reported that assassinations by drones may bring legal trouble for the Obama administration…

Maybe so. But it was still just a joke.

About fifteen years ago I was walking through a Vancouver park with a friend of mine, a strict vegetarian who was obsessively concerned with her health and with what went into her body. When she saw someone about ten or fifteen yards away from us sitting on a bench smoking a cigarette, she became agitated, and started talking about her right to breathe clean air. Thing is, the smoker was actually downwind from us; my acquaintance was not being tormented by any actual violation of her lung-space, but rather by her own thoughts, by the idea that her well-tended health was being violated, and she seemed mulishly, self-righteously unable to see the distinction.
I mention this because the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health recently called for a ban on smoking in parks and playgrounds in Edmonton, and now City Council is debating whether or not to implement the proposed ban. The chief executive of the Lung Association of Alberta, who has come out in support of the proposed changes, noted that “In the indoor world, we started with small areas that were smoke-free…and moved on from there.”
Boy, have they ever moved on. It might be hard to get overly worked up about a ban on smoking in playgrounds – although even that is probably a bit of an overreaction – but…city parks? The last time I checked, the outdoors is a pretty big place.
Even Edmonton’s Mayor Stephen Mandel, who has a tendency to see the city as a community league or a social club that every resident has voluntarily joined, said “There are all kinds of rules and regulations, but where does government start and where does government finish?”
Well, if the nanny-statists have their way, it finishes one precisely-measured finger length inside the opening at the end of your alimentary canal:

Anti-smoking advocates upped their demands on Wednesday, calling on the province to outlaw smoking in provincial parks.

Seriously.
Keep your curtains drawn and your bathroom door locked at all times, folks…

During a discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” self-overrating blowhard Bill Maher criticized President Obama for being in favour of offshore drilling, and said that America should have attacked the “problem” of reliance on oil in the 70’s:

Maher : “I mean, Brazil got off oil in the last thirty years, we certainly could have…”

George Will: “…can you just explain to me in what sense Brazil got off oil?

Maher: “I believe they did. I believe they, in the 70’s, they had a program to use sugar cane ethanol. And I believe that is what fuels their country…”

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters ruins the fun with facts: Brazil is in fact “the eighth largest consumer of oil in the world, burning 2.372 million barrels a day. That places them ahead of Canada, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain,” and it produces more oil than even Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, Libya.
Maher, for his part, is still sporting that dim, unrepentant sneer as he moves on to his next “fact”…

It’s almost impossible to argue in good conscience with House Speaker Peter Milliken’s recent ruling – even the most conservative-leaning columnists and editorialists have been virtually unanimous in their support of it – but that doesn’t make it any more palatable. It’s tough to swallow the idea that the same opposition MPs who have been volubly smearing both the troops and the Afghan mission will be given access to classified documents pertaining to the war effort, in the name of parliamentary principle; after watching the opposition lob insinuative, damaging accusations about the mission, month after month, for political gain, principle isn’t exactly the first word – or the second, or the third – that comes to mind.
Even supporters of Milliken’s ruling seem to acknowledge the opposition’s true motivation. The National Post’s editorial noted that “….the opposition parties – far from being concerned just for the well-being of prisoners we capture or for the integrity of Parliament – truly are praying for revelations they can spin to bring down the government.”
Parliament reigns supreme nonetheless. Lorne Gunter, who also supports the ruling, writes:

Many Tory bloggers have railed against the Speaker’s ruling, insisting that the opposition contains several MPs sympathetic to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists and terror groups. That’s true, but beside the point.

If there are opposition MPs who are sympathetic to the Taliban, allowing them access to classified information pertaining to a war against the Taliban would hardly be beside the point, but in fairness, Gunter goes on to point out that “while the Evidence Act may permit opposition MPs to see classified documents, it does not protect them should they tell our enemies what is in those documents.” Andrew Coyne too, who has a great knowledge of, respect for, and faith in our longstanding rules of parliament, also seems convinced that potential security problems can be obviated by holding in camera hearings and swearing opposition MPs to secrecy.
Let’s hope so, because it’s probably best in the long run – after all, the Liberals will be back in power at some point – to reaffirm that a parliament’s right to know overrides a government’s right to secrecy. It’s just…unfortunate that Milliken’s ruling, based though it may have been on a longstanding and important principle of our democracy, was forced upon him by people whose push was not motivated by anything resembling principles, parliamentary or otherwise:

This is not the first time that governments have withheld ‘secret documents’ from Parliament. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has simply done what many predecessors did in the past. The difference is that a minority government doesn’t control the House…once we have another majority government, we are going to be back where we were before with governments, again, withdrawing ‘secret documents’ from Parliament and abruptly and democratically shutting down sensitive inquiries like the Liberal government did with the Somalia scandal in the 1990s. This debate has nothing to do with ‘history’ but everything to do with cheap politics.