Quickies: the Choom edition

.

A round-up of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.



.



From ABC News:

Maraniss portrays the teenage Obama as not just a pot smoker, but a pot-smoking innovator.

“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”

The first Obama-inspired trend: “Total Absorption” or “TA”.

“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”…

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

The Choom Wagon

Good lord. Far from being the blank canvass upon which we could project all our hopes or something, who knew the President's formative years were a combination of That 70s Show and Dazed and Confused?

Too bad he's still quite comfortable with throwing people in jail for an activity he pursued with the zeal of an Olympic demonstration sport athlete.




And speaking of Bill Clinton...

... quote of the week:

“I hope this doesn’t hurt his re-election or whatever he’s trying to run for."

Adult film actress, Tasha Reign, upon meeting and getting a photo-op with Bubba at a fund-raising event in Monaco.



Here endeth the People magazine portion of this edition of Quickies.








Our buddy Max lamented to us that management at Hoffer's simply refuses to hire any "hot chicks" to work behind the bar. We informed Max that it's just not his management getting in the way of the desired hiring opportunities.

The Obama Administration, which harps on its “War on Women” meme, has a war on women of its own: the EEOC is now investigating the coffee chain Marylou’s because the chain hires pretty young women dressed in pink to hawk its product. The investigators have been asking the female clerks about their co-workers’ gender, age, race and body type for over a year.

The company’s founder, Marylou Sandry wrote state Sen. John F. Keenan (D-Quincy): “We have never had a complaint against us for age discrimination or any kind of discrimination. We feel that the EEOC is on a witch hunt.” Keenan said he wouldn’t get involved, and EEOC officials would not comment.

(itlalics, ours)

Body type..? Completely inappropriate and quite possiblby akin to harassment if we understand the workplace rules correctly.

(Max was thinking purely from a business model standpoint as he is currently dating a beautiful young lady. We swear.)







And speaking of a solution in search of a problem...

House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.

The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.

It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.

He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it's really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”

Normally, this amount of bi-partisanship is cause for skepticism (they're all too chummy up there on the Hill, wonder what they're up to?)

But considering the subject matter and the fact that both China and Russia are in favor of it, this is a wrap-yourself-in-the-flag All-American no-brainer.






Mark Steyn, once again, hits it out of the ballpark:

So how's that old Arab Spring going? You remember – the "Facebook Revolution." As I write, they're counting the votes in Egypt's presidential election, so by the time you read this the pecking order may have changed somewhat. But currently in first place is the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi, who in an inspiring stump speech before the students of Cairo University the other night told them, "Death in the name of Allah is our goal."

Like!

Later on in the article:

But it is also a sign of desperation to talk up amiable diversions for pampered solipsistic Westerners as an irresistible force of modernity. One of the basic defects of the Bush administration's designation of a "war on terror" was that it emphasized symptoms (bombs and bombers) over causes (the underlying ideology). In the war of ideas, the West has chosen not to compete, under the erroneous assumption that the ever more refined delivery systems for its sensual distractions are a Big Idea in and of themselves. They're not. If you know your Tocqueville, they sound awfully like his prediction of a world in which "an innumerable crowd of like and equal men ...revolve on themselves without repose," a phrase which nicely distills the unending busyness of our gaudy novelties.

(italics, ours)

Back at Seminary, this was referred to as a "circle jerk".





Here's B-Daddy on prejudice, bigotry, racism, diversity and the ultimate dangers of suppression, speech codes and "acceptable thought."

Our society is creating a climate of persecution and victimization that diversity bullies use to impose their own agenda. Racial prejudice is certainly ugly, but the answer is not speech codes and racial quotas, which do harm to our freedoms and threaten our progress in insidious ways. Diversity is in fact a good thing, but by imposing only one kind of diversity, that of race, we exclude real diversity from our colleges and universities.

Later...

If America's universities are to remain the center of intellectual achievement for which they were once known, this false pretense of diversity has to end. The imposition of speech codes and all the Marxist-Orwellian claptrap regarding acceptable thought must end. The existence of racists, will be met, not with intolerance, but ridicule and well crafted argument. Ultimately, suppression of speech is incompatible with a free society. Suppression does not persuade, it only intimidates and drives behavior underground. Better to have the debate in the open and allow prejudice to sink or swim on its own merits.

Wasn't it Rosalynd Carter who said of Reagan: "He makes us comfortable with our prejudices."?

We're not sure what that meant but after reading B-Daddy's piece, was she possibly saying that Reagan didn't approach racism and bigotry in the normally-accepted Beltway/establishment manner. Reagan, as a defender of freedom probably felt, no, no, no...let the fools say their piece so there will be no doubt as to their foolishness.

Carter probably thought this was a form of tacit approval rather than allowing bigots, racists and their ilk to hoist themselves upon their own pitards.






KT: asking the questions that need to be asked:

Do you still use Microsoft Word?

Us: not so much.


.


OK, gang. Time to grill. Hope everyone is enjoying their Labor Day Sunday!

.

Funeral Pyre

After weeks and weeks of waiting for the seemingly inevitable "The Big Fat Greek Meltdown", "The Big Fat Greek Bailout" or some similar byline, we finally get Mark Steyn's "Not just their Big Fat Greek Funeral"

From the Times of London: “The President of Greece warned last night that his country stood on the brink of the abyss after three people were killed when an anti-government mob set fire to the Athens bank where they worked.”

Almost right. They were not an “anti-government” mob, but a government mob, a mob comprised largely of civil servants. That they are highly uncivil and disinclined to serve should come as no surprise: they’re paid more and they retire earlier, and that’s how they want to keep it. So they’re objecting to austerity measures that would end, for example, the tradition of 14 monthly paycheques per annum. You read that right: the Greek public sector cannot be bound by anything so humdrum as temporal reality. So, when it was mooted that the “workers” might henceforth receive a mere 12 monthly paycheques per annum, they rioted. Their hapless victims—a man and two women—were a trio of clerks trapped in a bank when the mob set it alight and then obstructed emergency crews attempting to rescue them.

Unlovely as they are, the Greek rioters are the logical end point of the advanced social democratic state: not an oppressed underclass, but a pampered overclass, rioting in defence of its privileges and insisting on more subsidy, more benefits, more featherbedding, more government.

Forget the current unsustainable public pension debt facing Greece, with one of Europe's lowest birth rates, what we are witnessing there is an irreversible slow-motion death spiral.

Over here, we talk of "generational theft" or "kicking the can down the road" when it comes to dealing with our own entitlement programs. In Greece there are no future generations and the road is rapidly approaching an abysmal drop-off.

Has the Obama economic model only hastened our explicit understanding of this?

To wit, would we actually be worse off under a McCain Presidency who would've, presumably, presided over a scaled-back Bailout Nation, but a Bailout Nation none the less? A more electorally palatable Bailout Nation where we would be lulled into a sense of complacency because McCain, as Bush, would pay lip service to fiscal responsibility while doing nothing substantive with regard to it.

Just something to ponder on an unseasonably cool, blustery and overcast spring day here in America's finest city.

Exceptional Speech

The following represents the continuation of the series on American Exceptionalism were doing here at Beers with Demo and is a repeat of a post we ran originally in July 2008.




All free speech isn’t created equally or interpreted equally everywhere as the show trials of Canadian human rights commissions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have proven. But is our free speech better than Canadian and European free speech? Some here think we need to revisit the concept that was deemed important enough to be drafted No. 1 overall when it came time for our nation’s founders to make their selections of really, really important rights.

But why does it seem that on the whole a more restrictive interpretation of free speech, and thus a more liberal interpretation of hate speech, occurs in countries that appear to have the most difficulties with restive immigrant minority groups. Is there a causal relationship? We think there may be.

The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a near 100% conviction rate is proof-positive of giving an air of legitimacy to quite anything that an aggrieved party may bring before it as “hate speech”. If you, as the aggrieved, are almost always guaranteed satisfaction from this particular court system every time you cry foul, then the hate speech bar is lowered to the point where being offended or feeling your group has been incited against with respect to nearly anything written or said is indeed, culturally and legally, justifiable.

The whole system both legally and culturally in Canada and much of Europe thus invites grievances, promotes isolation and discourages assimilation.

Let’s contrast that with the United States where Muslims don’t riot or burn American flags, where there are no fatwas declared against writers and filmmakers are not murdered while walking down the street and the hate speech bar is set much, much higher.

Precisely because the bar is set higher, the legitimization of hate speech is much more infrequent. Rather than officially recognize alleged hate speech in courts of law, the rantings of say, a Jeremiah Wright or the suggestions by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that the acceptance of homosexuality in this country was, in part, responsible for 9-11, it is instead held up for public scorn, ridicule and mocking…. as it should. The question of legitimacy is taken off the table and in fact, it is viewed not as court-defined “hate speech” but rather, “illegitimate speech.” In other words, speech that is outside the legitimate circle of polite and civil discourse.

We will not take you to court, we will, however, make fun of you and then simply ignore you.

A perfect case-in-point for this is the Iranian mad-bomber, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who came to New York last year to make a number of speeches and appearances. We understood the calls for banning and/or boycotting his speeches but we generally came down on the side of letting the man speak knowing that the true Mahmoud would reveal himself and sho’nuff, the raving lunatic, homophobe and anti-semite we knew him to be did not disappoint.

Despite the serious nature of what he said, we mocked and ridiculed the guy, essentially turning Ahmedinejad into a late-night punch line effectively neutering and delegitimizing his message.

A Canadian, himself, recognizes this exceptionalism. Jason Gratl a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

And Mr. Steyn: “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

This exceptionalism is worth preserving. We’ve seen how free speech interpretation works elsewhere and the results are less than America

Because we (still) can

The Danish newspaper, Politiken, in response to a jihadist shakedown apologizes to Muslims for their reprint of the Prophet Mohammed pictured here in all his bomb-throwing glory.

And then there is this from Mark Steyn:

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress , some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some right-wing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the Left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the Left plays the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

Seriously. You know you’re in trouble when it’s a bunch of goose-stepping, fascist righties that are the most consistent defenders of free speech.

Catchin' up with Ezra

A happy (?) ending to yet another example of bureaucratic thuggery was achieved yesterday as the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint of discrimination filed against Ezra Levant by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Mohammed some 2-1/2 years ago.

Whew…. There was a lot of time spent by some very diligent civil servants in determining whether or not Levant had actually committed any crimes and Levant himself shelled-out some coin to defend himself against this and other lawsuits against him that are still in progress…. so you would think Levant would be pretty happy, no?

Not quite.

Pardeep Gundara – a second-rate bureaucrat, a nobody – had to give me his approval for me to be allowed to go back to my business. For 900 days I was in the dock, waiting for this literary giant to pronounce his judgment on me. And I found favour in his eyes – but barely.

Sorry. I don’t give a damn what Gundara or the HRC says. Getting his approval is not a success. I won't legitimize his arrogant "authority" by saying "thank you, master". I'll say: "who the hell are you? Besides a busy-body bureaucrat?"

Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara’s home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in “context”; we published letters that “criticized” them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren’t “simply stuck in the middle” of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do’s and don’t’s. And – phew! – he likes me. He really likes me!

Sorry again, I don’t give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that’s pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn’t? I’m not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I’m interested in bothering the hell out of government.

Did we ever mention how much we love this guy?

Levant later references the Rev. Stephen Boissoin who was “sentenced” never to speak about homosexuality again and wonders why it is he got off the hook but Boissoin did not. Levant suggests that he was just too big of a pain-in-the-ass and his star turns in his YouTube videos of the AHRC “hearings” made the AHRC look petty, subjective yet intellectually feeble all at once… all adding up to one huge PR nightmare for them. We would tend to agree but if they decided to cut bait, what took them so long? Oh yeah… we did say intellectually feeble, did we not?

We’ll try to dig up the dirt on Boissoin because his treatment at the hands of the AHRC was perhaps even more egregious than that of Levant’s.

Exceptional Speech

All free speech isn’t created equally or interpreted equally everywhere as the show trials of Canadian human rights commissions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have proven. But is our free speech better than Canadian and European free speech? Some here think we need to revisit the concept that was deemed important enough to be drafted No. 1 overall when it came time for our nation’s founders to make their selections of really, really important rights.

But why does it seem that on the whole a more restrictive interpretation of free speech, and thus a more liberal interpretation of hate speech, occurs in countries that appear to have the most difficulties with restive immigrant minority groups. Is there a causal relationship? We think there may be.

The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a near 100% conviction rate is proof-positive of giving an air of legitimacy to quite anything that an aggrieved plaintiff may bring before it as “hate speech”. If you as the aggrieved are almost always guaranteed satisfaction from this particular court system every time you cry foul, then the hate speech bar is lowered to the point where being offended or feeling your group has been incited against with respect to nearly anything written or said is indeed, culturally and legally, justifiable.

The whole system both legally and culturally in Canada and much of Europe thus invites grievances, promotes isolation and discourages assimilation.

Let’s contrast that with the United States where Muslims don’t riot or burn American flags, where there are no fatwas declared against writers and filmmakers are not murdered while walking down the street and the hate speech bar is set much, much higher.

Precisely because the bar is set higher, the legitimization of hate speech is much more infrequent. Rather than officially recognize alleged hate speech in courts of law, the rantings of say, a Jeremiah Wright or the suggestions by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that the acceptance of homosexuality in this country was, in part, responsible for 9-11, it is instead held up for public scorn, ridicule and mocking…. as it should. The question of legitimacy is taken off the table and in fact, it is viewed not as court-defined “hate speech” but rather, “illegitimate speech.” In other words, speech that is outside the legitimate circle of polite and civil discourse.

We will not take you to court, we will, however, make fun of you and then simply ignore you.

A perfect case-in-point for this is the Iranian mad-bomber, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who came to New York last year to make a number of speeches and appearances. We understood the calls for banning and/or boycotting his speeches but we generally came down on the side of letting the man speak knowing that the true Mahmoud would reveal himself and sho’nuff, the raving lunatic, homophobe and anti-semite we knew him to be did not disappoint.

Despite the serious nature of what he said, we mocked and ridiculed the guy, essentially turning Ahmedinejad into a late-night punch line effectively neutering and delegitimizing his message.

A Canadian, himself recognizes this exceptionalism. Jason Gratl a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

And Mr. Steyn: “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

This exceptionalism is worth preserving. We’ve seen how free speech interpretation works elsewhere and the results are less than American.

Embrace the hatred of hate speech laws.