Federal Review Dot Com

No wonder Republicans sometimes feel like we are fighting an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of America.

It's hard not to feel that way when some of our own are actually honoring the very people on the left who seek to defeat us.

Witness this dispatch from today's Ithaca Journal:

ITHACA -- State Senator John R. Kuhl Jr., R-53rd District, recognized three women, including two from Tompkins County, in the New York State Senate's sixth annual "Women of Distinction" program at an awards ceremony in Albany.

This year's honorees [included] Asma Barlas ...of Ithaca.

Barlas is the associate professor and chair of the department of politics and the former director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity at Ithaca College.

****

Barlas is virulantly Anti-Republican, Anti-American and appears to be an Anti-Semite.
Shortly after September 11, Barlas penned a column for the Ithaca College Alumni magazine in which she proclaimed that people like Osama bin Laden, as well as all sorts of "moderates" hate America because America's foreign policy since World War II has been one that "seeks control over the entire world by any means necessary." Furthermore, Barlas said, "people everywhere are sick and tired" of our "political economy based on their systematic abuse, exploitation, expropriation, and degradation."
Responding to a study that found Ithaca college "plagued by liberal bias," Barlas accused Republicans of trying to "stamp out diversity in the name of diversity" and made derogatory comments towards "conservative white male[s]."
In addition, she accused the Bush administration of conducting "unilateral, unprovoked, and unlawful act of aggression" against Iraq, and surely delighted anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists everywhere by parroting the lie that war against Iraq was "promoted 'by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals ... people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history'."
To be blunt, Kuhl might have better honored one of the Dixie Chicks, or even Susan Sarandon.
His recognition of this venonmous toad of a woman as a "woman of distinction" demonstrates his complete incompetence as a Republican Senator and his total inability to represent the views of his conservative Upstate New York Constituency.
He should step down immediately.

HEADS ARE ROLLING AT THE NEW YORK TIMES
After throwing the paper's long history down the toilet, management (Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd) finally takes real responsibility and quits. Now it's time the owner (Arthur Sulzberger Jr.) went too, because he's been running the paper like the Cincinnati Bengals. Come on, Andrew, time to gloat.

NEW CARTOON
Jeff Christian RETURNS with his editorial cartoons. And with a really rare perspective in the cartooning world! Click here.

HOLLYWOOD SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS
The American Film Institute polled Hollywood types to come up with a list of the top 50 heroes and the top 50 villains in movie history. While I was looking in vain for Thomas More from A Man for All Seasons, I was suprised to find that "Man" made the list. I'd find it odd that they listed "Man" and not "Humankind" or some other PC nonsense, except that "Man's" appearance was on the Villain list for Bambi. Whatever. I really don't take it that seriously, just for the entertainment that it is.

Although PC heroines like Norma Rae Webster (not, Norma McCorvey, who won't be portrayed as a hero by Hollywood in the future), Karen Silkwood, Erin Brokovich and Thelma & Louise, I can't complain because of the appearances of the Terminator, Rocky, Dirty Harry Callahan, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Indiana Jones as good guys.

FREE MARTHA
Lying? They've indicted Martha Stewart for lying? Where's Lanny Davis? Paul Begala? James Carville? Robert Wexler? Robert Byrd? I thought that prosecutors just don't indict people for lying and obstruction of justice, in their prosecutorial discretion. Just an interesting comparison mentioned by my lovely wife.

FORD TOOK FROM HIS OWN POCKET, NOT YOURS
While the Ithaca ivory towerites and John Kerry want to take from your pocket to pay the living wage, Ford made his own decision without government coercion.

HENRY FORD UNDERSTOOD CAPITALISM
Remember Henry Ford? No leftie, certainly a capitalist. He made sure his workers were paid enough that they could afford to buy the cars they produced. This meant better pay than the "invisible hand of of the market" suggested at the time. Even though he revolutionized manufacturing and made cars affordable, he paid more than was "needed" and understood that there was more to ensuring long term profitability (the rightful interest of business) than just being a skin-flint. He may have understood, too, that you get what you pay for.

LIVING WAGE AND TAX CUTS
Hank, you've got it right. It is possible for the redistributionist left to think globally and act locally. They don't have to be bullied by Washington into keeping their own money.

Let's assume almost all Democrats are against the tax cut that just passed Congress. A tax cut valued at about $350 Million. Well, the Democrats can easily cut this number in half (assuming all Gore voters are anti-tax cut), simply by refusing the benefits of the tax cut. All of those who opposed it, from Ted Turner and Warren Buffett to John Kerry and Theresa Heinz are welcome to cut a check to the treasury at the end of the year to restore their tax cut to the treasury.

But they won't do this. They are more concerned about preventing you from getting your taxes cut.

NPR STILL DOESN'T GET CAPITALISM
In another hit piece today, NPR reports from its basic assumption that Wal-Mart is destroying the country and its wonderful, friendly, hometown culture. Funny how when NPR can long nostagically for the 1950s America. Today's report was about a small town in Wisconsin called, I think, Viroqua, that was able to preserve its downtown and keeps its small businesses from getting "rolled over" by Wal-Mart. Nice loaded terminology about the results of efficiency and competition. How did this Wisconsin town survive? By repairing "dilapidated" buildings and studying the market to determine what are the customer's needs and figuring out how to fill them. They discovered that they were a farming town and a little agricultural expertise in their "variety" store was a good thing.

But what NPR doesn't undrestand is that the local businessmen were operating out of dilapidated buildings and failing to serve the needs of their customers (not to mention the high prices), and this complacency did not end until Wal-Mart came to town and forced these people to compete and stop.

Tomorrow, NPR promises to look into "whether Wal-Mart's price cutting has gone too far"? Shocking question, isn't it. I guess NPR doesn't count a lot of the working poor among its listeners.

LIVING WAGE: THE CONSERVATIVE'S FRIEND?

It recently occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, the folks on the left that bleat and bray about the need for a “living wage” have done those of us on “the right” a favor.

Now, if you’re like me, you think the whole living wage argument is just another example of folks on the left not realizing that money doesn’t appear out of nowhere. The living wage folks ignore that raising salaries for people raises costs of doing business. That raises prices. And when the employees getting the raises are government (or school) employees, it raises taxes. All of which raises the cost of living. Which means the folks who got the raise aren’t any more ahead than they were in the first place.

Still, the living wage theory may, just may, have its uses for a conservative.

This thought occurred to me after I was forced (uh, I mean, requested) by my wife (who, as always, will be referred to as “Peggy” for the sake of anonymity) to come into Ithaca, the City of Evil and attend a dinner event being thrown at the home of one of her fellow Cornell employees. Other than myself, I think everyone there was a Cornell employee. In fact, most of them were professors.

Once Peggy realized where the dinner conversations were going she pulled me aside and begged me to keep my opinions to myself. First of all, Peggy is my no means as conservative as me to begin with (she was born a Catholic in Boston; her parents probably had a picture of Kennedy next to the statue of Jesus in the bedroom). Second, she needs to work with these people and, as I think we all know, “tolerance” in Ithaca never includes tolerance towards conservatives.

As you might expect, in a room full of college professors, the dinner conversation was dominated by two basic areas.

The first was their lifestyles. I have to admit, these folks live pretty good. They travel all over the world. They live in what had to be $200,000-plus houses. They drive high end cars (mostly Volvos). They attend various cultural events. Their kids want for nothing.

The second was various recitations of the standard issue liberal themes. One of which was, of course, redistribution of wealth, and how the rich don’t pay their “fair share.”

Now, as always, something about this didn’t seem to make sense to me. But it didn’t hit me right away. To be frank, since I couldn’t say anything back, I was trying not to listen too hard. After all, I was trying to digest my food and having to listen to leftists drone on isn’t the most conducive situation for doing so.

Later, however, it hit me just how hypocritical and foolish you could make these people look when they start whining about wealth redistribution.

Now, at this point, you might be asking “but what does this have to do with why we should thank the folks who call for a living wage?”

I’ll tell you what.

According to the Ithaca Times (and as a good liberal paper, they should know), “‘Living Wage’” is the name for a weekly paycheck that just covers expenses - rent, transportation, food, health care, recreation and entertainment, a small amount of savings, taxes, and some miscellaneous costs.”

In other words, a living wage is the basic amount of money a person needs to survive.

Living wage estimates vary depending on the local cost of living, but in Ithaca, the Alternative Federal Credit Union (an “enlighted” financial institution) has estimated it should be $8.68 an hour for a 40-hour workweek.

In other words, to get by in Ithaca, a person only needs to make $18,060.00 per year.

Call me crazy, but I have a distinct feeling that the average Cornell professor, living in a $200,000 home, driving a $40,000 foreign car, vacationing all over the world, and giving his or her kid anything they want, probably makes a whole lot more than that $18,060.00.

So, the next time you hear some leftist college professor (or similarly well off liberal) go on about how we need to redistribute wealth, ask them what they think of the “living wage” concept.

Odds are that they will be 100% in favor of it.

And ask them if it’s true that the living wage is the basic amount that a person needs to survive.

Again, the odds are that they’ll agree. They might even half close their eyes and nod sagely, thinking that they are starting to “enlighten” you.

Then say, “and in Ithaca, that’s probably–let’s be generous here– $20,000.00"?

Again, more sage nodding. Possibly, they’ll add “Maybe even more.”

Once they admit this (And how could they not? After all, they don’t want to start arguing against the living wage, do they?), point out to them:

“Well, you obviously make A LOT more than that. So you obviously make MUCH more than is needed to survive. If you really wanted to redistribute wealth, shouldn’t you take every dime of your salary over that living wage and donate it to the poor? Instead of spending it on expensive cars, trips and houses?”

“If you’re not doing that, aren’t you being greedy? Aren’t you being a hypocrite? If you’re not part of the solution, aren’t you part of the problem?!?”

Once you throw that “classic” sixties slogan back at them, they should freeze like suburban deer looking into a set of headlights.

Granted, they are NEVER going to admit to being wrong. Or even of being a hypocrite. But, hopefully, your line of reasoning has stunned them enough to stop talking for a while.

And sometimes, getting a liberal to “shut up” is the best you can hope for.

FCC ACTION
Well, if you watch TV or read the newspapers, then you have every reason to believe that the Republicans controlling the Federal Communications Commission voted yesterday to turn the country over to NewsCorp. But here's some folks who disagree that this is the end of the world:

Larval Lawyer says "All of the debate and moral outrage that has followed has centered around some broad idea that "monopolies are bad." This morning, the local talk station's wacky morning hosts spent 5 minutes rambling about how bad this would be, as the world would be owned by "some Australian meglomaniac." Sigh."

Business Lawyer Weblog wonders where is the evidence that media consolidation is a bad thing:

Really, can anyone point to a merger or instance of media consolidation in the past and the direct negative effects resulting from the consolidation? When Viacom purchased CBS or when Disney acquired ABC, what was the negative effect? Byron Dorgan would say the negative effect was "media concentration" and then stare at you like he's made his point. Did CBS News suffer? Did ABC News? Did 60 Minutes, Everybody Loves Raymond or 20/20?

In 1975 everyone got his news from 3 television sources and the local papers. Now, the New York Times and USA Today and any number of papers can be delivered to almost 100% of the country (but Disney cannot reach more than 45% with TV stations it owns, and that's under the new "relaxed" rules), and there are 4 all news channels, not counting the coverage of issues of public interest from PBS to A&E to Discovery and the History Channel to MTV News. Oh, and when Viacom bought CBS, did it merge CBS News into MTV News, thereby reducing the number of "voices?"

Ramesh Ponnuru hears plenty of voices -- all against:

If the interests of the owners determine the content of the media, why is it that everything I've seen or read about the FCC vote has been against deregulation? Tom Shales had a long attack on the idea in the Washington Post's Style section on Monday morning; he said that deregulation was a right-wing plot to enrich the networks. But his own newspaper has editorialized against the position of the company that owns it. And if Shales is right that the result of deregulation will be that Fox News takes over the universe — a vision that appears to give him cold sweats — how can it make sense for Shales to praise the farsightedness of the National Rifle Association, which opposed deregulation on the supposition that it will make the media more left-wing? They can't both be right, can they?

Duane Freese has a lot of points:

These complaints would make a lot more sense if the D.C. federal appeals court hadn't thrown out five of the six rules the FCC is considering modifying as lacking proper legal rationale.
...
[T]he FCC will allow one company to own two television stations in markets with at least six competitors. There used to be only three television networks and three stations in the largest cities such as New York and Los Angeles. Who's going to notice any real change there?
...
Antitrust laws have not been revoked. So, any mergers will undergo scrutiny by antitrust regulators both at the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department. That limits the likelihood of one or two media conglomerates dishing out all of the nation's news and views. An even bigger limitation on that likelihood occurring is new technology and modern means of delivery of information to the people.