Ricci Overturned!....

The Supreme Court just handed advocates of equal opportunity and equality before the law and anti-preferences a HUGE victory, by in effect gutting the use of “disparate impact” as a justification of race/gender-based preferences.

The Ricci decision effectively guts the perverse standard that any disproportionate impact a test may have is proof of overt discrimination against various “protected groups”.

What’s needed now is an end to the equally ridiculous concept of “protected groups”.

SCOTUS Blog reported it this way;

"The Court has released the opinion in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefani, et al. (07-1428 and 08-328), holding for the plaintiff firefighters that the City of New Haven cannot be sued for disparate liability. The decision below is reversed and remanded in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer joined."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Madoff Gets 150!....

ONE HUNDRED and FIFTY YEARS, that is! The Associated Press reported it this way;

“Convicted swindler Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison Monday for fraud so extensive that the judge said he needed to send a symbolic message to those who might imitate his fraud and to victims who need relief.

Applause broke out in the crowded Manhattan courtroom after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin issued the maximum sentence to the 71-year-old defendant, who said he sought no forgiveness and knew he must live "with this pain, this torment, for the rest of my life."

“Chin rejected a request by Madoff's lawyer for leniency and said he disagreed that victims of the fraud were seeking mob vengeance."

PATH Medical and The Fight for Medical Freedom

The 1st Amendment enshrines religious freedom, along with freedom of expression, perhaps it should’ve included the right to Medical freedom – the right to choose our own mode of medical care, as we see fit.

One of the flaws of even an Constitutionally limited representative democracy, such as ours is that government tends to grow inexorably as politicians see ALL solutions as being governmental ones (“When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail”) and because established enterprises tend to seek protection from competition through government as those entities grow ever larger and more bureaucratic and thus less competitive themselves.

So government grows.

And as government grows, it also seeks to increasingly micromanage the lives of its citizens.

Lobbyists from all quarters DO often deliberately seek preferential treatment for their favored entities and in the process they often CAN and DO deliberately seek to limit the liberties of others.

“For their own good”, of course.

Right now, medical insurers and major health providers are lobbying to limit access to alternative treatment modalities, to make most vitamins and supplements “by prescription only” and limit the medical freedom or choice of their fellow Americans.

The problem with that is that these characters along WITH government are the primary reason why Americans spend some $1.7 TRILLION on healthcare each and every year and why less than 1% of that is spent on preventative measures that could improve the viable and productive life spans of most Americans.

They are also the primary culprits of why over 80% of our healthcare spending is spent on “catastrophic care” during the last two years of most people’s lives.

That’s a failed modality and yet, it’s one that’s evolved as government has become more and more involved in providing American healthcare. Today, over 40% of all U.S. healthcare spending is done through government.

One of the practitioners of an alternative modality in the cross-hairs of the healthcare lobby is PATH Medical, founded by Dr. Eric Braverman (pictured above), located at 304 Park Avenue South in NYC.

Dr. Braverman is a brilliant physician who’s assembled a an incredibly gifted and dedicated team at PATH Medical.

Dr. Braverman (a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brandies University and the NYU School of Medicine) honed much of his current views at the Princeton Brain-Bio program decades ago.


The Brain-Body Connection

Dr. Braverman’s basic approach is that the brain controls all the other functions of the body, including hormone levels, metabolism, etc.

There are four basic neurotransmitters in the brain (Acetylcholine, Dopamine, GABA and Serotonin) and various imbalances in these neurotransmitters determine much of our personalities and a good deal of our health, hormone levels and metabolisms.

PATH Medical’s approach is a whole body map, including a full-body sonogram, a brain mapping, intensive blood testing, including testing for various hormone levels, etc.

From this, PATH develops a treatment strategy designed for each individual patient.


Hormone Replacement Therapy

At the heart of this strategy is usually an intensive vitamin and supplement program, often coupled with hormone replacement therapy IF hormonal levels are sufficiently low.

Suzanne Summers has lauded the work of physicians like Dr. Braverman (she interviewed Dr. Braverman for he r book Ageless) touting both his diet recommendations and his medical approach to aging.


The Rainbow Diet

One of the key components of the PATH plan is the “Rainbow Diet”, which isn’t a diet, so much as it is a lifestyle change that MUST permanently replace your current eating habits.

As the name suggests, COLOR is the key to the “Rainbow Diet”.

Meals consisting of different colored spices, vegetables and fruits are highly recommended and various teas, from Green Tea to Black and Lemon Teas are suggested as your “beverage of choice”.

The other key is avoiding “white foods” – especially white sugar, white flour and salt.


Extending Viable, Productive life CAN BE a HUGE BENEFIT to Employers and the ECONOMY

While it may be understandable why the medical establishment reviles such “alternative modalities” it’s far harder to see why business and especially government do likewise.

A program like PATH Medicals can add vitality and viable, productive years to most people’s lives, and there’s few things that would benefit the economy more than keeping some of our more experienced workers (those who’ve gleaned and earned a lifetime’s worth of experiences in their field over decades of service) on the job and both viable and productive for far longer periods.

From government’s standpoint, keeping more Americans fit, vital and productive well into their advanced years would greatly reduce the strain on social security and for Municipalities on their exploding pension systems! A longer, more productive working life would delay and diffuse the imminent social security "Baby Boom" bubble and go a long way toward revitalizing the economy!

In fact, there’s really no downside to this preventative approach that looks at aging as a disease process.

Here’s hoping more Americans get involved in the fight for Medical Freedom...before it's too late!

Ward Connerly's ACRI and the Fight for America’s Core Principles...

I’ve been VERY busy the past six to eight weeks, with huge amounts of mandated overtime at work, numerous medical appointments (voluntary on my part) and other demands, that have combined to limit my online time.

All of that has meant less time at home, which is bad for my wife and I because we really do always have a great time together and it’s meant less online time, with much of that consumed in discussion with the gracious and generous Seane-Anna (PoorGrrlZone) and John Lofton (of American Thinker) in various comments sections.

Recently, I was honored to have been invited by Mr. Ward Connerly to an ACRI (American Civil Rights Initiative) forum at the Reagan Library, coming up this week (Wednesday 6/17 and Thursday 6/18). The invitation came in response to an entry I posted below, New Haven and Race as Handicap.

I have been able to get the time off and I’m heading out to Simi Valley, CA.

Over the past few decades, there have been so many battles on so many fronts (tax policy, government spending, welfare reform, tort reform, race/gender-based preferences, etc.) that it’s been hard for many Conservatives to keep up.

Behind virtually ALL of those issues is a direct assault on some basic American principles.

Ward Connerly and the good people at the ACRI have been fighting for two of America’s most fundamental principles; (1) Equality BEFORE the LAW and (2) Equality of OPPORTUNITY – the RIGHT to compete and be compared on the SAME set of standards.

Both those principles are under a relentless assault from the radical Left and they now have supporters in government, like Attorney General Eric Holder, among others.

As there are really no principles more fundamental and valuable, there is also no fight more vital!

I’d like to thank Mr. Connerly and the good people at ACRI (especially Mr. Connerly’s executive assistant, Jennifer Bollenbach) for their incredible kindness and generosity in extending their invitation to me.

The Conservative Dilemma

Recently, I had an exchange with a very passionate Conservative (Seane-Anna, who blogs over at Poorgrrlzone), who tends to feel that if it was good for the goose (G W Bush), then it’s good for the gander (Barack Obama), in rationalizing some of the scathing attacks on ALL things Democratic and related to the Obama administration that have come from some quarters of the Right.

That is definitely NOT my own view and I cannot and do not support doing to the Obama administration, what was wrongly and often outrageously done to the G W Bush administration.

I have a number of reasons for that view, but the primary one is that we don’t have a supportive mainstream media (MSM) backing that up and providing cover for such tactics.

Conservatives had and still have a huge problem with what many in the MSM and the far-Left did to the previous administration and AGAINST America...and rightly so. The far-Left, the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC Axis are without question, “enemies within the gates”.

But Conservatives are faced with a unique and challenging dilemma and that is, “How do we reach and convince a majority of that vast middle, the 60% of Americans who are largely apolitical and skeptical of all politics and political ideologies”?

Our tactics must be different than those of the far-Left because our assets and our strengths and weaknesses are different than theirs.

I’ll thank Seane-Anna (of PoorGrlZone - http://poorgrrlzone.blogspot.com/) in advance for stimulating a discussion on the dilemma that Conservatives and Conservatism currently face.

I’ve used some of Seane-Anna’s points and my responses to offer both sides of the issue. I’ve put Seane-Anna’s points in italics;
<
<
"I think the major difference between me and you is that you have faith in the goodwill of liberals and I don't."
<
<
Not really. I separate the far-Left from more moderate Liberals and you and some others apparently don't, and yet there’s absolutely no question that they are two separate and distinct entities.

Moreover, I look at the bigger picture. There are currently appx. 15% of Americans who self-identify as Liberals and appx. 25% of Americans who self-identify as Conservatives, some polls put that at 16% self identified Liberals and 33% self identified Conservatives, but why quibble? Suffice to say, the numbers are in that vast middle.

My numbers leave a VAST middle of about 60% of Americans who are (1) apolitical, (2) entirely self-motivated, that is "I support whatever's best for ME" and (3) while generally more traditional in their views than not, they are suspicious of ALL politics, nor wed to any specific ideology.

THOSE are the people who Conservatives have to reach. They are turned off by personal attacks and they get most if not all their information from the MSM that tends to support the far-Left. The bulk of those people were solidly with the Conservatives under Reagan and Gingrich, as well. More of them supported Bush over Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, but since then, they’ve moved away from the GOP and back toward the Democrats. They did that in the 2006 mid-term Elections and they did again in (rightly, in my view) choosing a REAL Liberal (Obama) over a half-hearted, pseudo-Liberal or “Liberal-light” (McCain) in 2008.

That creates a real challenging problem for Conservatives.Many Conservatives don't seem to recognize that fact, but the elections of 2006 and 2008 certainly seem to bear it out.

The fact is that over the past five years, the Left has done a better job of attracting more of that vast apolitical middle, or perhaps more precisely, the GOP has done a better job at driving them away. If Conservatives don't reverse that trend, they're in for a very long period in political exile.
<
<
<
"All too often, we have thought that just winning elections was all that was necessary to win the culture, the hearts and minds of the American people. It wasn't, and now we're paying the price."
<
<
That's NOT what we're paying the price for.

We're paying the price of accepting G W Bush's, Tom DeLay's and Dennis Hastert's, among other Republicans, abandoning of Newt Gingrich's and Ronald Reagan's mantle of SMALLER GOVERNMENT, lower taxes and LESS intervention.

G W Bush signed onto one of the most expensive and far-reaching pieces of business regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley a/k/a Sarb-Ox) in history and though he cut taxes, he did so to INCREASE tax revenues (which those cuts DID) and then used those revenues NOT to pay down the DEBT, but to spend more. He spent MORE (even adjusted for inflation) on reckless social spending than even LBJ did.

As to Sarb-Ox, many have called that “an overreach” that responded with a whole slew of new and expensive rules (Sarb-Ox was responsible for the “jobless recovery”) that many feel a responsible and active SEC could’ve accomplished simply by enforcing existing laws and standards. It’s the same as the post-9/11 complaint that all manner of airport hyper-security measures could’ve been avoided had only the cockpit doors on planes been reinforced as they should’ve been in the wake of numerous less lethal incidents that occurred over the previous decade.

Conservatives who still claim that "even a Rockefeller-wing Republican (a McCain or a Bush or a Dole, etc) would be infinitely better than any Democrat....are not only wrong, they erode support for real Conservative principles. There’s really nothing worse than a pseudo-Conservative, a Liberal Republican – a Trojan horse Liberal inside the Conservative tent.

Our problem wasn't "a focus on merely winning elections", it was supporting Keynesian Republicans and allowing the Rockefeller/"Moderate" wing of the GOP to set and pollute the Republican agenda and heap that blame upon Conservative and Supply Side principles.
<
<
<
"JMK, this is why I adamantly disagree with your passive, let's-just-wait-for-Keynesianism-to-fail attitude."
<
<
I never said that Conservatives can "do nothing until Keynesianism fails". We CAN and probably SHOULD organize, register protests when appropriate and even complain loudly and often, while offering reasonable, workable alternatives.

What I said is that there's NOTHING POLITICALLY that we CAN DO, with the Democrats in control of the White House, the House of Representatives and with nearly a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate – right now, THEY control the government.

The Democrats, currently run by their Left-wing, have every right (via the past two elections) and what's more EVERY INTENTION of forcing their agenda through.

The people have ALREADY SPOKEN! For better, or for worse, a sound majority of Americans SUPPORT the Democrats having that chance...to take THEIR SHOT at "fixing things". The fact that the Electorate may have wrongly blamed Conservatism for the policies of a very Keynesian G W Bush, is really immaterial, given the fact that the results are already in place.

I've said that it's tragically ironic that Conservatism was tarred by the actions of Keynesian (LIBERAL) Republicans like the Bush's, the DeLay's and the Hastert's....who while uttering a few "socially Conservative cliches" governed as ineptly, wastefully and corruptly as any Liberal Democrat.

STILL, that is what Conservatism faces right now. It's been slimed by its own biased support of GW Bush, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert, who ALL abandoned Gingrich's and Reagan's policies!

So, now we're faced with complete Liberal control of our government. There really is NOTHING that Conservatives CAN DO POLITICALLY to derail the inevitable Leftward tilt now under way. It will almost certainly take another Carter-like implosion for that to change.

Personally, I say, so be it.....because there's NOTHING else TO SAY, since the Electorate has already spoken very clearly.

So, YES, Keynesianism MUST be allowed to be enacted (and with an overwhelmingly Democratic government, it WILL BE) and to FAIL, before ANY of that vast middle is going to switch back to the Supply Side point of view. Without a majority of that vast 60% middle, neither side can win an election.

Commentators, Bloggers and Talk radio are NOT going to stop the Liberal control of government....which is LOCKED IN until at least 2010. THAT will be our first opportunity to change course, until then, Conservatism has little to no political leverage.

And all that angry and over-the-top Conservatives CAN DO, in the interim, is to marginalize Conservatism and those who support it even more.

Conservatives HAVE TO BE smarter than their opponents. We don't have the luxury of a supportive MSM and entertainment industry.

Those who don't see that and don't accept that as our existing reality, are really no friends to Conservatism.
<
<
<
"I know you don't want to accept this, but we conservatives are NOT having a respectful disagreement with people of goodwill. We are in a WAR with people who HATE us and want to DESTROY us."
<
<
That's ONLY true of the far-Left, the appx. 3% to 5% of Americans who root against America and revile Capitalism as "innately unfair".

That is NOT even close to true for even the majority of committed LIBERALS, who merely see a greater role for government, a greater need for more social programs, universal medical coverage at taxpayer expense, etc.

While I vehemently disagree with even Moderate Liberals, I don't hate them, nor do I believe they "hate America" and they are NOT aligned in any real way with the far-Left - the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC-NY Times axis.

It's both foolish and short-sighted to lump all people who disagree with Conservatives and don't care for the recent Republican rule with the far-left.

The far-left (that 3% to 5% of radicals/extremists) who revile America's "unfair market-based economy" and see America as "an Imperial power and a force for ill around the world" ARE "enemies within", NONE of the rest of the vast majority of Americans who are skeptical of Conservatism, Conservatives and Republicans fall into that group.

I’d advise my fellow Conservatives that we don't push more people in that direction by responding in anger and frustration.

Consider the murder of Dr. George Tiller of Kansas in a Church, in front of his wife, singing in the Church choir, shot dead by, ironically enough, an alleged pro-LIFE zealot.

The stooge who murdered “George Tiller the baby killer” only succeeded in making a martyr out of the late Dr. Tiller.

That’s the price of extremism – marginalization and ultimate destruction.

I hate to say this, but being non-religious myself, I’ve become more and more convinced that these so-called “Religious Conservatives” often do Conservatism a LOT more harm than good.

I can’t and won’t try to rationalize that kind of insanity, where a pseudo-religious devotee think that KILLING a physician, who provides abortion services is somehow advancing the pro-LIFE cause.

It’s not. It only tars the entire movement with that insanity and by extension, drags Conservatism down into the muck of that insanity.
<
<
<
"One thing I'd really love to see is for conservatives to get back into the entertainment industry full force, producing GREAT music, movies, novels, video games, etc., that "sell" our beliefs in the "sneaky" way progressives have so successfully used to transmit their views into the hearts and minds of Americans."
<
<
As would I Seane-Anna, but where are the Conservatives who support Conservative artists like Mr. Avilar, and other Conservative artists whom I've highlighted here on this blog?

Maybe it's true that "Conservatives don't dance", that is, they don't buy as many movie tickets, patronize the arts, etc., as much as Liberals do...perhaps that's the reason the Left dominates the arts and entertainment, just as why the Right dominates Talk Radio.

Another thing to remember is CONSERVATISM, like any belief in HUMAN LIBERTY and INDIVIDUALISM is the hard choice. Not asking anyone for anything and standing on your own two feet, accepting personal responsibility for ALL that happens to you is HARD.

Expecting others to help out, "because we're all in this together" and supporting free housing, free food, free clothing and free healthcare is EASY. Liberalism is emotionalism and as such, it’s predicated on appealing to “what feeeeels good”, and quite frankly, that often sounds very good to an awful lot of people.

It's only natural that far more people want FREE STUFF than support everyone working for and paying for their own stuff.

There are too many naive Conservatives who don't realize that fact.We're not selling/advancing something EASY or something that resonates naturally with most people, we, like America's Founders, are “selling”/advancing something that's very difficult to sell, a very hard choice that many, many people see as ultimately unfair, especially to those less able to compete.

WE'RE the ones in an "UPHILL BATTLE".

The Left is selling a worldview in which it "rains root-beer" and where "anything that feels good (even pedophilia) is fine." Free stuff and a LIBERTINE ("anything goes") morality is the EASY choice, the more tempting sounding path.We're the ones selling the "no free lunch" viewpoint.

Right now, there are fewer takers of our view than there were in the past.

So, the most basic and most important facing Conservatives today is, “How do we reach out to that vast middle”?

In anger and outrage?

No, not at all, I would not only hope, but encourage those folks to STAY LEFT if that is the path the majority of Conservatives take.

In fact, I truly believe that this is such an important issue that those Conservatives who really care about reaching that vast middle, isolate and marginalize those more bellicose and unreasonable Conservatives for the good of Conservatism itself.

We are the ones with the harder case to make and we must make that case as rationally and reasonably as we can, otherwise we risk allowing that radical few Conservatives, that I see as no more than 3% to 5% of that group, marginalizing Conservatism itself.

We have to be smarter both in how we formulate our arguments and how we approach those who disagree.

I hope you come around to seeing things a little differently....I don’t write and discuss things to CONVINCE or CONVERT, I don’t have that kind of arrogance, but merely to offer a different way of seeing things.

You mistakenly seem to believe that "the majority of Americans are on our side and strongly support freedom, property rights and individualism." In FACT, the vast majority of Americans, like the vast majority of humans, hold to no such political or ideological predilections. They'll support whatever they perceive as being in their own best interests.

WE are the ones who have the much more arduous and difficult case to make.

We forget that at our own peril.

Who’s to Blame for Extremist Killers???

In the wake of senseless murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of only three U.S. physicians who practiced late term abortions in the country, many among the far-Left Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC-NYT Times Axis sought to blame the acts of madman (Scott Roeder) on Talk Radio, Fox News and other targets of the Left, in an attempt to silence those they disagree with.

The fact is, that late term (after the 21st week of pregnancy) is illegal in 23 states and more than 2/3s of Americans oppose Late Term, also known as “partial birth abortion”.

Of course, there is a profound irony in the alleged pro-LIFE Scott Roeder, taking the life of another person.

Still, does the Left have a point? Is the Right to blame for the acts of the likes of Scott Roeder, people who take Conservative talk as an exhortation and a moral justification for violence against people they disagree with?

Well, it would seem, at least no more or less so than the Left and that would include the bulk of our Mainstream news media (MSM) is responsible for the likes of 23 y/o Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), an American-born convert to Islam, who shot up an Arkansas Army Recruiting office, killing one U.S. soldier and wounding another.

Fortunately, the law makes the issue all too clear. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that you can, in effect, incite someone to break the law or commit violence so long as there is time between the incitement and the commission of the violence for somebody else to intervene and tell you that you’re wrong to try and act illegally on that incitement. If there is even that short period of time then your speech is protected even if you’re encouraging someone to break the law. The purpose of that is to give freedom of speech/free expression the benefit of the doubt and that’s vital because ONLY offensive, scatological, even what some would call inciteful speech NEEDS such protection.

There's an odd disparity here. You NEVER hear the Right seeking to blame the far-Left for the actions of the plethora of kooks and madmen among their ranks, and yet, the Left, at virtually EVERY opportunity, seeks to blame those they disagree with for extremist violence against favored Leftist groups.

Why is that?

Most likely, because the Left reviles true FREE SPEECH and seek and have ALWAYS SOUGHT to stifle and silence any dissent from their orthodox views.

Then why is the Left so consistently morally vapid?
.
It’s simply who and what they are.

Proof That U.S. Law DOES NOT Codify Disparate Impact

Title VII of the Equal Opportunity Employment Code reads:

"...it shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...”

That paragraph makes clear that an employer CAN legally apply different standards (different compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment etc. UNLESS they can be proven to the result of a deliberate intention to discriminate against any given group.

That makes clear that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination and disparate impact (disproportionate results) do not, in and of themselves prove any kind of DELIBERATE, or intentional discrimination.

More importantly, that law goes on to state, “...nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

That paragraph makes clear that it is NOT unlawful for an employer “to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results IS NOT DESIGNED, INTENDED or USED to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

That also makes clear that the burden of proof is on the party alleging discrimination AND that disparate impact is, in and of itself, NOT proof of intentional or deliberate discrimination.

NONE of that implies, as some claim, that a “refusal to implement tests in which whites scored higher than minorities...was following law that were established by civil rights act.”

.
So, contrary to what many EEO and “Diversity specialists” claim, there is NO existing law states that "tests in which ANY ethnic/racial group (ie. whites) outscores another (ie. blacks) should be invalidated."

That would clearly violate the most basic principle of this government, equality before the law, so that claim (that tests that render disparate outcomes must be invalidated) is without any merit.