Breathing room on cap-and-trade and health care reform till fall

America got some much needed breathing room today as two major domestic items were taken off the fast track for some much needed reconsideration. First the Washington Post reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee won’t consider cap-and-trade until September at the earliest. Then Blue Dog Democrats in the House demanded a delay on crafting a health care reform bill so concerns over potential tax increases and government-sold insurance could be worked out. Speaker Nancy Pelosi still wants the bill out by mid-August, but Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) of the Blue Dogs says no vote should be taken before the fall, saying, “We need to slow down and do it right.”

Truer words could not have been spoken, Rep. Ross. Since the inauguration, Congress and the President have been on a nonstop dash to enact every piece of legislation they could before the present situation arose – declining poll numbers for Obama that have Democrats skittish of hitching their wagon with no cover of Republican support. For all the pre-election talk of bipartisanship, the GOP has been marginalized like no time before, and was basically ignored during the crafting of the stimulus and the cap-and-trade debacles. Those who might say that it’s the right of the majority party to do so probably weren’t thinking that way back in 2004 with the GOP in control of both Houses.

It’s good news for those concerned that these two items would be railroaded through Congress with no time to consider key provisions or even, heaven forbid, to read the bill. Final passage of both is still a very real possibility, though, so at this point it’s not a “Stick a fork in ‘em” moment. However as the electorate learns more of these two proposals with the delay, support may sour more than it already has, particularly if the health care reform bill will still include a government-run public option and utilizes dangerous tax increases to pay for the mammoth cost, and if the cap and trade bill … well … exists, period.

Democrats may come to the realization that they have the firepower with the electorate to attempt only battle, and at that point, cap and trade will be abandoned and it will be the universal health care battle that is undertaken. For now, though, America has a reprieve from knee-jerk legislation and now has a chance to more effectively debate the merits of health care reform and cap and trade.

Rahm Emanuel in trouble with libs for health care compromise

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, taking a position I think would actually be beneficial to the health care debate, has been slapped down by liberal activists and even the President himself. Emanuel suggested that the White House would consider a “trigger” clause on a public option health plan, which means that the plan might not be adopted at all if private insurers met certain guidelines. Within hours, the Progressive Caucus and MoveOn came out strongly against Rahm’s comments, and President Obama even took time out of his Moscow trip to publicly restate his support for the public option.

I agree with Rahm Emanuel on very little, but the “trigger” seems to me a valuable compromise option. It preserves the free market system for the time being, and delays and perhaps even forestalls government involvement. What’s unfortunate is that it’s clear from this episode that political pragmatism and centrist governance aren’t what’s driving the agenda, it’s liberal activism.

So committed are the activist groups to a publicly-funded and government-run health care plan that they will accept no substitute, no dilution of the prize, and certainly no compromise. With the President’s statement, it’s clear he’s on the side of the activists here as well, so a public option seems to be a non-negotiable part of any attempt at health care reform. Unfortunately, it’s also the most unsustainable portion and will prove to be the most damaging. And the rabid support of the public option demonstrates that it’s not the intention of the Obama administration to reform health insurance – it’s their intention to dominate and drive out private insurers with a government plan.

Taking the “trigger” path would have been at least a token step at attempting to appease the concerns of many that government is bound and determined to get into the health insurance business. With the rebuff of Rahm, it should be patently clear who’s driving the bus when it comes to setting the agenda for Congress and the White House. Here’s a hint: it’s not you or me.

Steny Hoyer thinks reading bills is funny

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer gave an unintended glimpse into why health care reform, along with all the other massive spending bills, is being pushed through with little time for reflection or even for reading the entire piece of legislation (From CNSNews):

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.

In fact, Rep. Hoyer laughed at the idea of a pledge for Congressmen to read any health-care bill in its entirety and require that the bill has been made public in its entirety for three days. Staff and aides, you see, read the bills in their entirety and discuss it with their bosses, so why make the people actually voting on the bill responsible for knowing the contents of legislation? Why show the American people what they’ll be forced to do?

Maybe the reason is something approaching legislative responsibility, Rep. Hoyer? Maybe because we elect legislators to actually know what the hell they’re voting on before they ram it down the American people’s throats? Maybe because we have a reasonable expectation that our Representatives, whether or not we agree with their political philosophy, aren’t ignorant of what will become the law of the land?

The fact that the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives thinks reading the entire bill is counter-productive frankly scares me. No, I don’t want to put my trust that an staff member will adequately explain a thousand-plus pages to an obviously uncaring politician. I didn’t vote for an aide. I voted for the Congressman to take informed responsibility for their decisions, and they should at least have the common courtesy to read the whole bill before voting along party lines anyway.

This should only confirm suspicions that no one read the massive stimulus package, no one read the massive omnibus spending bill, and no one read the massive cap-and-trade bill, especially after 300 pages were tacked on at 3 am before the vote. I don’t know how anyone can continue to have faith in the government when it seems abundantly clear that those in both parties don’t know or care what they’re doing to the country. You might want to think about that when you consider handing the reins of health care over to the people who at best should be called “irresponsible.”

Obama’s approval down significantly in Ohio

National Review Online highlights a Quinnipiac poll showing President Barack Obama is getting a mediocre 49%-44% approval/disapproval rating among Ohioans, down from 62%-31% in early May. As this is my home state, I’m particularly interested in how the state polls, not to mention that Ohio is always an important bellwether state for national politics. Ohio’s economy continues to suffer as the American economy hemorrhages manufacturing and industrial jobs (jobs which might not be considered “green” enough to survive anyway under the cap-and-trade system on the table). This is in keeping with the recent Rasmussen poll that has the so-called “passion index” widening another point against the President.

A quick note: polls can be an important snapshot of the mood of the country, and a helpful tool in gauging the atmosphere among the voting public, but nobody should live or die by them. Conservatives and Republicans might be heartened that Obama’s numbers are going down, indicating the stratospheric messianic aura about him is fading to mediocrity, and there is surely ample cause to believe that.

It’s hard to imagine, though, that Obama will continue to fall throughout his Presidency. At some point, the economy will begin to turn around, not through massive government stimulus spending, but through the natural economic rebuilding that always takes place after a contracting period. At that point Obama’s numbers will pick up as his supporters try to incorrectly point to the growth of government as the cause.

This is, of course, taking the optimistic view that the economy, through the perseverence and determination of the American people, actually does improve, and that the crushing debts and deficits don’t immediately bankrupt the nation. This may actually be less likely than you might think, given that on top of a massive budget deficit and numerous spending bills, the Obama administration seems hell-bent on handicapping industry with its manufacturer-punishing cap-and-trade system, raising energy costs with the same bill, and adding on to the public debt in a major way with an expensively unsustainable public health option.

What it boils down to is my hope that, for the good of the country, the economy does improve, regardless of whether it means Obama gets a bounce. But the path we’re headed down gives me grave doubt about the nature and strength of a potential recovery, which means that to my reading, Obama might want to get accustomed to lowering poll numbers.

Irony: Colin Powell now concerned about Obama’s agenda

Colin Powell, who endorsed President Barack Obama during the campaign to much fanfare, is beginning to have doubts about the agenda of the new administration. Powell not too long ago scolded the Republican Party for not being more embracing of moderates, and lectured them that people now “wanted to pay taxes for services, and are looking for more government in their life, not less.” This was only back on May 5th, folks.

My, how the general has changed his tune now. In an interview with CNN’s Peter King, he completely reverses himself on the role of government and the role of taxes:

… Give me a government that works. Keep it as small as possible. Keep the tax burden on the American people as small as possible, but at the same time, have government that is solving the problems of the people.

Wow, so which is it, Mr. Powell? According to many, this is the kind of principled moderate leadership that needs to take the reins of the Republican Party, eh? Such a turnaround in such a short time is laughably absurd, but it’s thinking like this that is supposedly lacking in the GOP and is responsible for it’s recent defeats at the polls. The political philosophy of Mr. Powell, who I still admire as a military commander and as a person, can apparently be summed up as, “When the going gets tough, just change your mind.”

His utter flip-flop aside, Powell fretted to King about Obama’s massive spending and the debt burden it creates. He expressed his concerns over the massive and unsustainable bureaucracy with the ongoing bloating of government, and cautions Obama against taking on so many things at once that it weakens the country.

General, welcome back to the GOP. Just remember, though, that we never left you, you left us. Maybe you’ve momentarily come to your senses – but why do I have the sneaking suspicion that the minute we see any positive economic sign you’ll return to support for Obama’s agenda and disdain for the policies of your party?

In any case, no matter how long this episode of clarity lasts, it ought to be eye-opening that such a high-profile supporter of the President would voice his concerns so plainly. It’s yet another sign that folks are beginning to see the Obama economic plan as nothing more than harmful government spending followed by the necessary tax increase to pay for it all. Cap and trade and universal health care will just pile on – and who knows what will come down the pike after all that.

New global warming strategy: limit each person’s emissions

It sounds insane, but the National Academy of Sciences suggests that instead of targeting emission cuts for wealthy countries, it would be fairer to mandate emission cuts for wealthy individuals only. Before you get your class warfare gear on and say “Yeah, screw those rich people,” you might consider that the study considers there will be a billion high emitters out of a projected population of 8.1 billion, so 1 in 8 of us will be considered rich enough to merit government attention. That would be about 38 million people in this country if you took the entire world in aggregate today, but since we’re one of the wealthier nations, the number would be much higher.

This is wrong on several levels. First, man-made global warming is science that is still in dispute, and is driven more by political hysteria than consistent scientific findings. Al Gore and company have become rich peddling the notion that we need governments regulating our industries and the activities of daily life to make sure we have sustainable carbon footprints. I’m all for responsible stewardship of our precious planet, but I draw the line at this extreme environmentalism that seems to use politically-minded concern for the Earth as an excuse for more governmental control.

Secondly, whether you’re targeting rich countries or rich individuals, the result is the same: you’re punishing the “rich,” whatever that level of income is decided to be at the time. It’s redistribution of wealth, and it is another way of deincentivizing success and innovation. The cute little secret is that it’s the world’s elite who meet to discuss how environmental regulations will affect the rest of us.

Climate talks are underway this week in Italy. I’m sure with the current crowd in control of the legislative and executive branches, America will be signing on to whatever agreement they come up with. Keep in mind that the folks writing these laws won’t have your best interests in mind, and I’d argue they don’t have the planet’s best interests in mind either. It’s all yet another excuse to scold the common citizen and give more power to a nanny state.

Zelaya turned back as Honduras leaves the OAS

The plane of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was turned away over the Tegucigalpa airport after circling the runways that were blocked by the Honduran military. Zelaya was accompanied only by the President of the UN General Assembly after other Latin American leaders backed out of the trip citing security concerns. His supporters clashed with troops at the airport, as Zelaya went back to El Salvador and vowed to try again the in the next few days.

The political theater takes place just a few days after Honduras left the Organization of American States (OAS) after intense criticism and threat of sanctions from the league of mostly Latin American nations. The OAS was expected to toss out Honduras anyway (which it did), and the move leaves Honduras without millions in loans and economic aid.

Meanwhile, Honduran interim President Roberto Micheletti has said Nicaragua has moved troops towards its border with Honduras, a statement that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega denies and the US can’t substantiate. It’s not totally out of the realm of possibility, as Nicaragua and Honduras were enemies during the 1980’s, and Ortega is a leftist ally of Zelaya and, surprise, surprise, Hugo Chavez, who has explicitly threatened military action if Zelaya is not reinstated. If nothing else, this episode should highlight the commitment of Chavez to prop up leftist states in the region, all satellites of his own regime in Venezuela. It’s a concerning trend to say the least.

Regarding Zelaya, it’s a bit telling when even the highest ranking Catholic official in Honduras is telling him to stay away to avoid bloodshed. No matter what American news tries to convince you, Zelaya isn’t some populist hero deposed by a cruel military junta. He was deposed at the behest of the Honduran Supreme Court and the legislature, who viewed his attempts at extending presidential term limits as the first step down the road to dictatorship. They need only look at Venezuela for the model and the example for how it can be done. That Honduras would impoverish itself and risk alienation from its neighbors to keep Zelaya out of the country ought to illustrate how seriously they view the threat to their sovereignty and their constitutional system.

I’ve read that one protester has already been killed, but I hope the situation can resolve itself without further bloodshed. It’s my belief, however, that any outcome that sees the reinstatement of Zelaya deals a blow to Honduran independence and sovereignty, and hands a victory to leftists like Chavez and Ortega. It’s an outcome that America should not be hoping to see.

Independence Day

I hope everyone has a safe and fun Fourth of July. As we enjoy the barbecues and fireworks and celebrate the birth of our nation, keep our brave troops in mind, and let’s be grateful for the Great Experiment in democracy that has allowed us liberty and prosperity unknown to much of the world. God Bless America.

Palin shocks nation and resigns as Alaska governor

A stunning announcement from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin today: she’s not running for reelection, and what’s more, she’s stepping down in 3 weeks as governor. In a press conference from her hometown of Wasilla, Palin referenced numerous frivolous ethics charges and the futility of being a lame duck, but never really came right out and said why she was stepping down on such an urgent timetable.

I don’t see how this sets her up for a 2012 Presidential bid, as the move makes absolutely no sense. It looks right now like she couldn’t stand the intense media onslaught against her and her family, which makes her sympathetic but unfortunately doesn’t grade well in the leadership category. Ed Morrissey muses that her national political career might be over at this point – I don’t know if it’s over and done with forever, but this is devastating in the short term.

I always liked Sarah Palin, and I liked her addition to the 2008 GOP ticket. I never was one to cast major aspersions in her direction, but I likewise didn’t yet see her as the knight in shining armor that would rescue America with a shining conservative agenda. But I was willing to wait and see.

That all changed today, and I confess to a level of disappointment, both in how Sarah Palin’s story has ended, even if only momentarily, and at the darkening of another conservative icon. Some, such as Charles Krauthammer, argue that voters’ memories are short, and she may return to the political stage at some point down the line. Palin, with her charisma and down-to-earth qualities, had a chance to become a massively important figure in American politics as she matured in the policy realm and became more accustomed to dealing with the media. That dream ended today, if not for good, then at least for the short-term future.

Details have been promised to expound on the reason for Palin’s departure. Leftists may crow at the scalp they just collected, but after all the mean-spirited viciousness aimed her way, I’d caution against unbecoming and overweening excitment. It’s a bizarre stop, however momentary, in what promised to be an exciting political career. Let’s just hope the resignation is just truly for family reasons and not for anything darker, such as a health crisis or a looming scandal.

In any case, thanks, Gov. Palin, for giving a lot of folks something to be excited about, if only for a brief time. Like her or hate her, she seems at least a decent person, and despite this bizarre and unexpected disappointment, I wish you and your family well. Maybe the vultures will quit circling for a short time now.

Unemployment rises and faith in Obama drops

The American economy passed another grim milestone during June with unemployment hitting a 26-year high of 9.5%and a drop in wages from pay cuts and furloughs. The economy hemorrhaged 467,000 jobs during the month, and the so-called underemployment rate, which adds in those who have given up looking or settled for part-time work, is 16.5%, the highest since 1994. It’s a bleak picture right now on the economic front, and the many who are still employed ought to feel lucky.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s rating on the economy has fallen to its lowest level yet, according to a Rasmussen poll that gives him 42% excellent or good marks. It’s even worse among independents, who oppose him 75% to 23%, a shockingly horrible number that may signal a sudden rapid drop-off in Obama’s celebrity-like popularity is on its way. Part of the reason is just the fact that Obama is the guy in charge right now, and part of it is the decreasing ability to blame current problems on the previous administration. A lot of it, though, is self-inflicted and has to do with the much-hyped stimulus package, billed as a shot in the arm of the economy that would provide a jolt to the system and reinvigorate job growth with “shovel-ready” projects.

The only problem is that the stimulus wasn’t a focused shot in the arm, it was a blunt-edged mallet, a massive spending program that has yet to pay out most of its allocated funds. The rationale for passing it remains a complete joke, as the goal wasn’t to provide a near-term boost to the economy, but to get through a raft of spending items right away that had been pined for over the previous eight years. And if by some small chance the stimulus funds produce an uptick, it will be on a shamefully-designed election year timetable in 2010 when most of the money starts to flow. By 2010, the money won’t make a difference, just as it wouldn’t have in 2009, and in any case the goal of “instant economic stimulus” by massive government cash infusion has been shot all to hell.

Compounding matters is the idiotic cap and trade bill passed by a razor-thin margin in the House and being considered in the Senate. It’s laughingly referred to as a “jobs bill.” Like the stimulus package, it’s being promoted as something it’s not. It’s an environmental bill aimed at punishing industry, and if any mythical “green jobs” are created, it’ll be a small side effect of a bill designed to combat the contested idea of global warming. But no amount of “green jobs” will replace the manufacturing sector jobs that will be lost as industrial and power companies are forced to pay taxes on their emissions. It’s why the bill, which makes little sense in the first place, is downright dangerous at this particular juncture, as an already precarious manufacturing sector will likely be damaged even further, and all sectors will be impacted by the rise in energy costs that even cap-and-trade supporters acknowledge will occur.

If I were advising the President, I’d tell him to cut government spending by a large margin, and reduce taxes to give people more of their own money back. It won’t happen, though, as the President and Democrats in Congress seem hell-bent on pushing every item of their agenda through before the American public finally tire of them. By that time it will be too late, and a vicious battle to turn back the entitlement and tax clock will have to begin.

Honduras defies world pressure, refuses to take back Zelaya

Acting Honduras President Roberto Micheletti.

Facing mounting sanctions and disapproving international pressure, Honduras is standing by its decision to oust leftist President Manuel Zelaya, saying there’s “no chance” they’ll let the exiled leader back into the country. Interim Honduras foreign minister Enrique Ortiz said, “We are not negotiating national sovereignty and the presidency,” and acting President Roberto Micheletti said Zelaya would be arrested if he returned, adding (hopefully not prophetically) that it would take a foreign invasion for Zelaya to regain power. Zelaya had planned on returning immediately accompanied by two other Latin American leaders, but he has pushed that back until the weekend, and has backed off his plan to hold a referendum that the Honduras Supreme Court, the legislature, and the military all deemed illegal.

The Obama administration, along with the OAS and the rest of the world, are still taking the wrong stance on Honduras, with UN Ambassador Susan Rice giving the frustratingly simplistic answer, “A coup is a coup.”With all due respect, Ambassador, Zelaya was illegally pushing forward with a referendum that would illegally extend his ability to hold onto power, and he illegally fired the head of the Honduras military when he wouldn’t go along. The bloodless method that Honduras used to remove Zelaya may be unorthodox, but it’s becoming clear that they had good reason to get rid of him. I’m seeing conflicting reports of Zelaya’s popularity, with Reuters reporting that it had fallen as low as 30%, but MSNBC giving the vague metric of “he remains popular among the poor majority.” Regardless, Zelaya had already violated his office by reaching for personal power, and the fact that he remains closely allied with Hugo Chavez leads many to think, not unrealistically, that Chavez was using him to influence Honduras towards a Venezuelan-led coalition. The fact that Chavez has reacted so strongly, even threatening military action, lends some credence to the idea that Zelaya represents what’s best for Chavez, and not for Honduras.

Honduras is sending a delegation to Washington in an attempt to dial back some of the criticism aimed their way. I hope they’re successful making their case, and I hope some kind of reinstatement of Honduras can take place in the international community. However, it’s my opinion that any outcome that sees the return of Zelaya to power would be gravely harmful to the state of democracy in Latin America, as the world will bless a would-be dictator then free to remake the country as he alone saw fit.

Gallup: More voters see Dems as “too liberal”

According to another snapshot poll put out by Gallup, voters are increasingly seen as “too liberal,” jumping seven percentage points from 39% to 46%. In contrast, 43% of voters believe the Republicans are “too conservative,” although the percentage of voters thinking the party is “about right” favors the Democrats, 42% to 34%. Here are graphs put out by Gallup that show trends for the two parties:

The key here is the short-term trend for both parties. Just one year ago, 50% of voters thought the Dems had it just right, to 39% thinking they were too liberal. The 8-point shift over the span of 12 months is a direct result of the Democrats, in control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, spending with reckless abandon and ramming through a liberal agenda as quickly as possible with as little consultation and compromise with the right and the center as possible. If cap and trade passes, and if “public option” health care continues to be pushed for, you can bet the gap between “just right” and “too liberal” will widen.

The study isn’t all roses for Republicans, though. Democrats still hold the advantage on “just right,” but this may be due to the Republicans thus far not strongly pushing an alternative, which they will probably do as 2010 approaches. The “too conservative” percentage in part reflects the push to define the GOP as throwing out “moderates” like Colin Powell (who voted for Barack Obama despite the most moderate Republican nominee in recent history) and Arlen Specter (who switched to the Democratic party out of pure political survivalism).

The truth remains that no one is throwing moderates out of the party; indeed, there is an increase in the percentage who view the GOP as “too liberal,” showing that the party really isn’t moving farther right, but certain individuals are moving left. In addition, as the bills for the deficit spending come due, and as the massive increase in government bureaucracy fails to produce meaningful and lasting improvement, voters will be more receptive to economic conservatism, especially when taxes are inevitably raised to pay for all the spending, and the “too conservative” gap will come down.

Voters aren’t happy about the stimulus, they’re not happy about the budget deficits, and they’re wary of cap-and-trade and public option health care. The danger illustrated belongs to the Democrats, who ought to moderate their agenda to alleviate concerns. But spurred on by the President, they’ll stick to the same questionable reckless spending policies that are becoming increasingly unpalatable to the American public. The question will be whether the Republicans can mount a viable and attractive alternative to that mess.

Franken wins, Coleman concedes, and Dems get supermajority

The long ordeal of Minnesota’s Senate race came to a close today when the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Republican Norm Coleman’s legal challenges, ending the state legal battle. Rather than bringing the fight to federal court, Coleman conceded, and with the end of litigation, Democrat Al Franken, former comedian, talk show host and SNL writer, became a US Senator. The victory takes on more national significance because, after Arlen Specter’s defection from the GOP, it hands the Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.

The Democrats, other than the numerical advantage he gives them, shouldn’t be too prideful of his victory. Franken has tried to stay low-key and cordial, no doubt at the urgent advice of his handlers and the DNC. Unfortunately, I have little doubt that eventually, the momentary calmness will be replaced by a flare-up of Franken’s temper punctuated with ill-advised attempts at humor on the Senate floor. For a man whose previous qualifying experience was hosting a failed liberal talk show and writing lame jokes on Saturday Night Live, he has little else to fall back on. I hope Franken proves me wrong and turns out to be a judicious legislator, but nothing in his background, his statements, his jokes, or his shtick leads me to any conclusion other than that he’ll wind up as a national embarassment. Mark my words, Franken’s going to have either an cringe-inducing blow-up or deliver repeated injections of lame comedy during Senate arguments. Either way, 42% of Minnesotans voted for him, which in this case was enough to propel him to the national stage.

 But more important than Franken’s personality is the unmitigated power of the Democrats to ram through whatever legislative item they see fit. At no time when the Republicans were in control of the House or the Senate did they have such an advantage, and as the Democrats have yet to even consult with their opponents on major and historic pieces of legislation, I have no doubt the rampant partisanship will only increase given that any liberal agenda piece is now virtually guaranteed passage and signage into law.

Some might get warm feelings over an unobstructed Democrat agenda, but remember this: the Democrats have no excuses, no scapegoats to fall back on when their policies inevitably fail. With no consultation and limited courtship of Republicans, their measures have passed with basically non-existant GOP support. It’s all on them, and, from my point of view, their measures thus far have not come from a desire to govern from the center and spur economic growth, but merely to fulfill liberal agenda wish list items and reward long-time allies. Again, some may be excited about that, but when the results of out-of-control spending (stimulus) and harmful economic policies (cap-and-trade) come home to roost, voters will rapidly come to the conclusion that they’ve given the Democrats too much power.

Sadly, by that time the damage will already have been done, as legislation, bureaucracy, and entitlement is far easier to create than to destroy. Congratulations on your supermajority, Dems. I’d urge you to use it responsibly, but I fear I’d just be wasting my time.

Obama taking wrong stance on Honduras

Honduras President Zelaya with his pal Chavez.

President Obama, at first “deeply concerned” about the ouster of Honduras President Manuel Zelaya, has now said the “coup was not legal” and sets a terrible precedent of transition by military force. Despite Obama’s comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration hadn’t formally designated the ouster as a coup, which would trigger a cut-off of American aid to the Central American nation.

I agree with the President up to a point – transition by military force is a bad precedent to set, as the rule of law must stand in democratic nations. However, I see missing from any analysis a few simple facts: the actions of the military were authorized by the Supreme Court of Honduras, and power was promptly returned to civilian hands once Zelaya was out of the country. In addition, Zelaya was attempting to go forward with an explicitly illegal referendum that would have allowed him to run for longer than the Honduras Constitution allows (which is to say, not at all). The actions yesterday might be better termed, as Ed Morrisey calls it, “military impeachment.” The rule of law, it might be argued, was actually carried out in Honduras, albeit by a method we wouldn’t like to see become standard.

Simply reinstalling Zelaya would be a grave mistake, as Zelaya’s actions were opposed by the judiciary, the legislature, the military, and a majority of Zelaya’s own party. What seems sensible would be to return Zelaya to Honduras to stand trial or whatever impeachment proceedings would be necessary to “legitimize” the removal of the President who seems to have broken Honduran law. And elections are still scheduled to happen in November, making this a temporary situation that could go away if it doesn’t boil over.

There’s a curious nature to the full-throated denunciation of Zelaya’s ouster by Obama when coupled with his timid response to the Iranian democracy protests. While I appreciate on one level that “meddling” in Iran could be seen as destructive American interference, supportive words cost nothing, and the CIA is being blamed in Iran and Honduras regardless anyway. It’s why the “meddling” in this case doesn’t jive with the previous position, and it doesn’t jive with Latin American countries looking askance at the Monroe Doctrine and American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. And the media has been awfully quick to name this straight-up a “coup” with all the accompanying violent connotations (absent in this case), without substantial mention of the mitigating circumstances that say that Zelaya might not have been such a great guy for Honduras after all. The potential reason might be to give a situation for Obama to look tough on foreign matters after bungling his response to Iran, but that’s just speculation on my part.

I’d urge the President to dial back on the illegality rhetoric (which, again, doesn’t seem to be such a big deal for Iran) and focus merely on the bad precedent for military action. He need not put himself squarely in the corner of a leftist President clearly interested in aggregating more power for himself – unfortunately, that’s exactly what he seems to be doing as the goal seems to be to get Zelaya back in charge. It’s a stance that puts him in agreement with Hugo Chavez, who has threatened military action, and it’s a side Obama frankly shouldn’t be on, especially in this case when the waters are murkier than most people think.

SCOTUS rules in favor of Ricci and New Haven firefighters

In the last day of its current session, and the last day of Justice David Souter, the Supreme Court today handed down a 5-4 ruling that stated that Frank Ricci and several other firefighters from New Haven, CT, were discriminated against when the city threw out the results of their promotion exam when very few minorities passed. The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, had been dismissed twice, the last time by a three-judge Court of Appeals that included current Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

I think this decision was by far the correct one. Even the dissenting opinion, voiced by Justice Ginsburg, had sympathy for the seeming unfairness inflicted on the firefighters. The decision reaffirms merit-based promotion, not those based on racial quotas out of fear of being labelled racist. In a larger sense, it calls into question the efficacy of affirmative action in that it highlights the injustice when society sees hiring, firing, advancement, and any other kind of compensation through racially tinted glasses, no matter which race is the beneficiary or the downtrodden.

I don’t like to view people as members of identity groups or blocs; rather, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. admonished, we ought to judge each individual not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. If an exam is fair, which this one appears to be, then it’s not discrimination if a certain level of minorities don’t pass it. Indeed, throwing out the test, just like affirmative action as a whole, is a cheap shortcut, a way of overlooking the underlying socioeconomic and educational reasons why minorities have societal difficulties. The goal of affirmative action should be to eventually end, but you don’t hear that from its most impassioned advocates. In effect, it’s like saying, “We don’t want to deal with teaching you how to succeed – here’s a perk for you.” And in that way affirmative action doesn’t help minorities at all, because it enforces the belief that minorities are intrinsically unable to make it without it. I refuse to accept that, as I believe each of us has it within us to fail or succeed on our own merits and failings.

What does this do to Sotomayor’s nomination? It might make her confirmation hearing a bit hairier, but I believe she’ll still be confirmed regardless. I’m still deeply uncomfortable with her apparent way of thinking that sees the world, including law, through gender and ethnic eyes. The law is the law, and “empathy” and identity games ought not play a role in supposedly blind justice.