Something escaped me when I read Bruce’s post on the Australia restaurant “refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was “’gay’”.  It hadn’t registered when I first read the post that a government panel is requiring that the bozos at the restaurant pay a fine for their strange behavior:

The Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruled that the Thai Spice restaurant in Adelaide must pay Ian Jolly [blind man] almost $1,400 for barring him from eating because of confusion about the sexuality of his guide dog, Nudge. . . .

The tribunal ruled that on top of the fine, workers at the restaurant — which reportedly displays a “guide dogs welcome” sign — must send Jolly a written apology and attend an Equal Opportunity education course.

Now, of course, Bruce had all this stuff in his post, but I focused more on his clever concluding comment than on the statist aspect of this action.

And as I read it again and check it against other coverage of the event, this state-sanctioned punishment strikes me as silly as the exclusion.  I would never patronize a restaurant which refused to serve a blind man because he had a gay guide dog.  I believe that people should “punish” the restaurant by similarly refusing to eat there.  But, that punishment is not the province of the state.

But, now we’ve got a state tribunal requiring the restaurant and its employees to (1) pay a fine; (2) issue an apology and (3) attend an education course.  Seems like someone is carrying things just a little too far.  But, then, state officials don’t want to be seen as anything less than perfectly PC.

While Nick reports more surprises for businesses in the Democats’ health care overhaul, David Freddoso at the Washington Examiner reports that the Administration may have deliberately delayed the release of a report showing the legislation would increase costs.  The analysis done by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary may have been on Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ desk “a week before the vote“.

According to the Prowler:

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”

Emphasis added.  Can you imagine the media outcry if evidence had emerged that the Bush Administration suppressed a report on the cost of one of its programs?  Come to think of it I do recall some story emerging about officials cooking the books on the costs of his prescription drug plan.

Let’s see if this story makes any mainstream media outlet and see if they investigate to see what Obama officials knew and when they knew it.  I expect the media will show the same diligence with this story as they did with reports of violence and name-calling at rallies against government policies.

UPDATE:  Over at Ace, the fetching Gabriel Malor has more:

So in addition to midnight votes and bribes to reluctant Congressmen, the Obama folks sat on government reports, reports that the taxpayers paid for, which would have shined a light on the President’s healthcare reform lies. And that’s what they were. He can’t plead ignorance. His own actuaries were telling him it would raise premiums while he was going on TV and saying the opposite.

UP-UPDATE: The answer to the question posed in the title may be in the negative.

As Dan blogged yesterday, National Security Advisor General James Jones over the weekend started his remarks to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy with a joke I heard when I was in grade school.*

Quite the furor from all sides. Nobody seems to be giving the guy a pass here. As usual, I find I’m the only one who seems to feel the way I do. Which is:

Two things:
First: Um, it was a joke. Without getting into a long discussion of the use of hyperbole and stereotype in humor, I’ll leave it at: Some stuff’s funny, some stuff’s not. I don’t think Jones did a great job with his delivery (took way too long), and perhaps any joke with racial or cultural overtones would be inappropriate if you’re representing your boss. But it was a joke. Have we grown so calous as a Nation to the actual things going on around us that it’s peoples’ choice of humor that drives us so mad with indignation? Isn’t that (granted, on a much, much smaller scale) what we’re fighting against?

Second: I have much more problem with this Administration’s anti-Israel positions than the jokes his NSA tells. Here’s a guy who brow-beats Israel for building apartments in Jerusalem. (Um, is there any part of the “peace process” that takes that off the table?) Here’s a guy who is cuddling up with Syria. Here’s a guy who seems, shall we say, cavalier about Iranian nukes. Here’s a guy who treats their head of state like some sort of pariah. Looking for some sort of “undertone” or “hidden anti-Semitic agenda” in a silly joke is along the lines of the old sledge-hammer analogy. Obama’s anti-Israel agenda is pretty clear to see.

What I care about is what he’s doing. There’s enough there to not spend my energy getting too wound up about a joke.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*(Full disclosure, when I was a kid, I knew an old Jewish guy. He loved his Jewish jokes, thus early on I was exposed to the self-depricating humor one appreciates when he’s a wise old guy. Methinks this has a lot to do, also, with my historic lack of sensitivity to most charges of “racism” based only on things someone says, rather than his actions. Perhaps having been raised out West and among tolerant people, I developed my aw, get over it reaction to perceived slights.)

UPDATE (from Dan): Nick, it’s one thing for a Jew to tell a self-deprecating joke. It’s quite another for a man with a questionable record on Israel telling the joke. Not just that, given the Administration’s anti-Israel positions, it showed a terrible absence of judgment. There’s no problem with telling a joke. That’s not the issue here. The issue is the context which you get at with your second point.

There is an emerging tension between this Administration and its Jewish supporters as per its Israel policies. (See e.g., this Jewish Obama supporter‘s lament.) And this joke exacerbated the tensions while playing into the worst stereotypes of Jews.

If my Congressman, Henry Waxman, were in any other line of work, he would long since have lost his job, but alas for us, he’ll remain in Congress.  The wily Henry is the modern day equivalent of a “Yellow Dog” Democrat.  (“The term ‘yellow dog’ derives from the saying, ‘I’d vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket.’“)

Like Chris Dodd, Waxman was first elected to Congress before the president entered high school.  He represents a district that regularly votes for Democratic presidential candidates by a two-to-one margin.  The 18-term Democrat always wins more than 60% of the vote, with his lowest tally being 61% in 1992.  As long as he keeps that (D) after his name, ol’ Henry will keep his job.  To paraphrase Edwin Edwards, he wouldn’t lose an election even if he were “caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”

No wonder that he, in the wake of Obamcare’s passage, companies “declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings”, rushed to judgment, summoning “some of the nation’s top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses.”  He knew he would suffer no electoral consequences for what Glenn Reynolds (who alerted me to the New York Times article linked above) called a “fail,” should this rush to judgment prove too hasty.

Times reporter Robert Pear notes that “after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.”

In the business world, Waxman would at minimum be disciplined, more likely demoted, maybe even fired for his hasty action.  But, I doubt Speaker Pelosi will relieve him of his position as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Nor will he suffer at the ballot box.  In a district such as ours, the (D) after his name relieves him of all responsibility for mistakes as egregious as this; it’s like a “Get out of Jail Free” card.

So, even if, as per Ed Morrissey’s sarcastic suggestion that Waxman demand “his own Democratic colleagues in the House appear before his Oversight committee to explain why they have corroborated thoseeeeeeeeeeeevil corporations who announced writedowns after ObamaCare passed“, he won’t suffer any political consequences. (more…)

in a post where the Campaign Spot’s Jim Geraghty reported how the the Washington Post, can find No Good News in Bob McDonnell’s Virginia, he shows where the real bad news is in Barbara Boxer’s California:

How much does the Washington Post hate Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell? Well, Northrup Grumman, one of the 100 largest companies in the country, announced yesterday that it is moving its headquarters from Los Angeles to northern Virginia.

(Emphasis added.)  That’ll help boost the unemployment figures in Los Angeles County where currently one in eight citizens are out of work.

In another post, Jim made a video of a number of empty store fronts in Northern Virginia, reminding me that I need to do the same in southern California.

Now, I wonder what, if anything, Mrs. Boxer did to prevent Northrup Grumman from leaving.  And what plans she has to make California a more attractive place for business.

Just because Bruce, Nick and I write for the same blog doesn’t mean we always agree.  Nor does it mean that we always approve of the others’ posts.  To be sure, there are times when we coordinate — or share a draft with one another before publishing it, but more often than not (like in about 97.43% of the time), each just posts his piece without consulting the others.

I did  not think it appropriate for him to use this blog promote Draw Mohammed Day.  In the comment thread I agreed with Banzel:

Not a good idea to gratuitously offend tens of millions of people (think depictions of Christ in urine or dung, or blackface displays). All it accomplishes is showing how shallow and unimaginative the purveyor is.

Put some thought into it. There’s got to be a better way to respond to hate than by fanning the flames of a pretext it uses to thrive on.

Since this story broke, I chanced upon Ann Althouse’s take and agree wholeheartedly with this Badger State blogress diva:

I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren’t doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).

I don’t like the in-your-face message that we don’t care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the “Piss Christ” controversy, I wouldn’t have supported an “Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day” to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.

I agree.  Read the whole thing.

Apparently, tucked away inside the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 was yet another little tidbit that will make doing business in America a nightmare of headaches. No, this isn’t even the Stalinization of student loans…

When an independent contractor (say, a business consultant or interior decorator, etc.) does work for another business, he’s paid on contract and the client usually issues an IRS Form 1099. A 1099 (to simplify) basically takes the place of a W-2. Since the independent businessman doesn’t have a “boss” who issues him checks, this is how the IRS keeps track of his income through this work. Now, a 1099 isn’t like writing a receipt. It’s a very intrusive document that collects information like Tax ID numbers, addresses and contact information, state and federal tax witholdings. The simple IRS instructions only take eight pages, though. Fortunately, however, these forms aren’t needed for every contractor or service provider or person from whom you buy something. Oh, until now:

Thanks to SoHCA2010, there are new and much more onerous regulations for anybody who runs a business and purchases goods and services–which is every business. An accounting firm called RIA reports:

The 2010 Health Care Act adds “amounts in consideration for property” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(1)) and “gross proceeds” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(2)) to the pre-2010 Health Care Act categories of payments for which an information return to IRS will be required.

(more…)

Molly Norris, the cartoonist whose poster promoting “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day” on May 20th caused such a stir, has called it quits.

Her home page today shows the following statement:

I make cartoons about current, cultural events. I made a cartoon of a fictional ’poster’ entitled “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” with a nonexistent group’s name — Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor — drawn on the cartoon. It was in specific response to the recent censoring of a South Park episode, a desire to bring home the importance of the first amendment. I did not intend for my cartoon to go viral. I did not intend to be the focus of any ’group’. This particular cartoon has struck a gigantic nerve, something I was totally unprepared for.

Personally I can feel afraid of Muslims because I really have no idea if in their hearts they hate non-Muslims. There are so many interpretations of the religion that I hear told — sometimes it is a very extreme translation (that’s the scary part, the radicals that believe that Westerners should die), then at other times it sounds more peaceful.

I hope for the sake of this country that moderate Muslims will speak out with everyone else against any violent members of that or any other religion. That way I would know that there is a difference. Maybe this cartoon I made, this fictional poster of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” had such a wildfire effect because it is finally time for Muslims and non-Muslims to understand one another more.

I am going back to the drawing table now!

Thanks,
Molly

I feel for Molly. She clearly wasn’t ready for all the fame and noteriety that her seemingly (to her) innocuous move made for herself. But there’s something disturbing about her tone here. Unlike many people, including my fellow bloggers and many commenters, sensitivity to cultural differences doesn’t seem to be Molly’s reason for pulling back.

There is clearly a tone of fear in what she’s done. Perhaps she’s simply an introvert and publicity gives her the creeps. Many artists are like that. But my instincts tell me that she’s actually caved because she fears genuinely for her safety.

It’s ironic, and a shame, for this to be the case. Those of us who have taken up this cause did so to mitigate such threats. As Mark Steyn so aptly put it:

If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all.

Fortunately for the First Amendment and other American values, the cause presses on, even without Molly: Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor.

Sometimes you choose to be an icon for unapologietic defense of Free Speech. Sometimes you have it thurst upon you.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

“The nation’s largest lawyers group has has officially come out against “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 1993 law that forbids openly gay people from serving in the military“:

In three separate letters Monday to both chambers of Congress and the Department of Defense, the American Bar Association [ABA] called for an end to DADT and offered legal assistance in drafting a new policy. . . .

[ABA President Carolyn] Lamm notes that Americans don’t have a fundamental right to serve in the military, but writes that “there is no sufficient reason in our view to continue to deprive these men and women of the opportunity to serve their country and to deprive the nation of their talent and skill.”

Very well said, Ms. Lamm.  Nice to see her acknowledge that this is not an issue of fundamental rights.  And while I agree these gay men and women who want to serve and are otherwise qualified to do so should have the opportunity to serve, I also think we need point out the national security aspect of repeal, that by limiting the pool from which military recruiters can draw, we limit the number of able bodied Americans who can serve.

Simply put, the ban deprives the military of thousands of men and women eager to serve, to risk their lives to defend the nation that we all love.

Mr. President, with the ABA coming out for repeal, it’s clear a consensus is building for you to keep your campaign promise.  Please tell us your press secretary misspoke when he said the Administration had no intention to push DAT repeal this year.  The time for action is now.

Recall all the bellyaching in the press about the mean-spirited, racist violence Tea Party protests?  Or how leading Democratic politicians warning how opponents of the big government initiatives of the Obama Administration assembling peaceably, petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances might, by their actions, be promoting violence.

Well, there’s been some violent protests recently and they’re not causing those once hyperventilating pundits and politicians to wag their fingers in pontificating mode:

Violence broke out at a political demonstration over the weekend, as protesters chased police officers, pelting them with rocks and bottles. Was this a gang of Tea Partiers running amok, as eagerly awaited by so many liberals? Well, no. The demonstration was at the state capitol in Arizona, against that state’s new immigration statute:

Jim Hoft doesn’t “expect these violent acts to get much press./After all, they’re not conservative and they’re not at a tea party rally.”

These folks have even festooning “the state Capitol with swastikas — swastikas! — made of refried beans and are planning legal action to block the law  from taking effect.”

Roger Kimball expects “The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and kindred media outlets”

. . . to repudiate these new outbreaks of hate and racist incitements to violence, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, etc., etc. Look for it tomorrow on the Daily KOS and other web sites dedicated to rooting out irrational prejudice and exposing the sore losers who don’t understand that elections have consequences and who won’t give a new law a chance but who divisively call for the repeal of the will of the people.

(H/t for the Kimball quotes:  Instapundit.)

UPDATE:  Mary Katharine Ham remembers . . .

…when Nazi symbolism, vandalism, nasty signs, misspelled signs, violence, and arrests at protests (even without proof) would have delegitimized an entire movement and caused months of media coverage about the threat to the Republic posed by such barbarians? These are different times, now.