State-enforced coercive egalitarianism has reached the level of paradox in Scottsdale, the Arizona Republic reports.

A Scottsdale bar owner said Monday that he will fight discrimination charges leveled by cross-dressing patrons and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. …

The dispute began late last year, when Anderson asked Michele deLaFreniere and other patrons to leave the nightclub because they had “freaked out” women customers by using the women’s restrooms.

When the transgender patrons tried to use the men’s room, they complained to Anderson that male patrons harassed them.

“It was determined that the safest course for the protection of all was to exclude these particular individuals because their conduct was creating tension at the nightclub,” Anderson said.

DeLaFreniere, who is chairman of the Scottsdale Human Relations Commission and a city employee, said it was a matter of discrimination and filed the complaint.

Anderson said he has no bias against transgender individuals, but could not afford to put in a third restroom specifically for that group.

It could be worse, I suppose, just imagine how many restrooms a bar owner would need to provide in Alexandria, where the opening of Lawrence Durrell’s Justine asserts that

there are more than five sexes and only demotic Greek seems to distinguish among them.

———————————-

Hat tip to David Larkin.

On an August morning in 1978, French filmmaker Claude Lelouch mounted a gyro-stabilized camera to the bumper of a Ferrari 275 GTB and had a friend, a professional Formula 1 racer, drive at breakneck speed through the heart of Paris.

No streets were closed, for Lelouch was unable to obtain a permit.

8:39 video

————————-
Hat tip to Karen L. Myers

After they made us lose in Vietnam, wrecked the US economy, and destroyed the nation’s cities, being identified as a “Liberal” came to be regarded as no longer a compliment. In the late 1960s, leftists like Hillary preferred calling themselves “Radicals.” But, as Jonah Goldberg observes, the favored term in pinko circles these days is “Progressive.”

At the recent CNN/YouTube debate, Hillary Clinton was asked to define what a liberal is and declare whether she was one.

“You know,” the New York senator said, “it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.”

I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ ” Clinton continued, “which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.”

Now, when the presumptive standard bearer of the Democratic Party and the political (and matrimonial) heir to the only Democratic president to be elected to two terms since Franklin Roosevelt says she’s not a liberal, it’s actually quite a big deal.

But first, do note how crafty Clinton is being. She makes it sound as though she’s lamenting the unfair transformation of the word “liberal” from lover of individual freedom to champion of big government.

How, exactly, does Clinton think liberal came to mean “big government?” Could it have had something to do with her attempt to nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy under her health care plan, or maybe with her book, It Takes a Village, which suggests that the government intrude itself into every nook and cranny of our lives?

Clinton’s answer taps into the common complaint on the left that the word “liberal” has fallen into disrepute not because of the policies of liberals, but thanks to the villainously cynical distortions of conservatives. “The greatest triumph that conservatives ever achieved,” liberal columnist Clarence Page recently complained, “is to make liberals embarrassed to call themselves ‘liberal.’ ”

Right. The failures of the Great Society, bussing, racial quotas, high taxes, the Vietnam War (both its beginning and end), Jimmy Carter’s “malaise,” the nuclear freeze movement, lax law enforcement, speech codes, abortion on demand, bilingual education and, of course, Michael Dukakis: We’re expected to believe none of these things can be weighed against liberalism. Liberalism, after all, is never wrong. It must be those mustache-twirling henchmen Lee Atwater and Karl Rove who are to blame.

One might also ask, if Clinton laments how liberalism has become identified with big government, why it is she wants to revive the progressive label. After all, if liberal is a misnomer for statists, progressive represents a long-overdue return to truth in labeling. In Europe, after all, liberals are the free-market, small-government types. But in America, the same people came to be called conservatives in no small part because they were trying to conserve liberal ideas of limited government amid the riot of social engineering during the Progressive Era that Clinton is so nostalgic for.

Indeed, she’s right that self-described liberals championed the sovereignty of the individual, which is why the authentic liberals were hated by progressives who believed that, in the words of progressive activist Jane Addams, “We must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be content to realize his activity only in the connection with the activity of the many.”

As late as 1951, Sen. Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican” to his fans, insisted he wasn’t so much a conservative as merely an “an old fashioned liberal.”

Even so, progressives were more desperate to seize the l-word for themselves because they needed it more. They so ruined the word “progressive” — particularly during the excesses of World War I — that they had to abandon it like a rider leaving an exhausted horse behind. By the late 1940s, “progressive” became little more than a euphemism for a Stalinist or at least a useful idiot for Moscow.

Read the whole thing.

People like Hillary don’t mean Progressive in the sense of free silver coinage and restraints on railroads. They mean Progressive in the Henry Wallace, only faintly concealed Marxist, sense of the late New Deal era.

I just refer to them as “commies” myself.

J.R. Dunn is not so pessimistic about next year.

So we’ve got a candidate who is among the most radical ever to stand for the presidency. One who was furthermore at the very center of the most corrupt administration in modern history. Who has a lengthy trail of dubious (to put it mildly) deals and arrangements behind her. Whose record as a senator is conspicuous for lack of any serious accomplishment. Who is, above all, one of the most unappealing personalities to run for president in this or any other era.

According to reputable polling, 52% of the voters have gone on record to declare that they will never, under any circumstances, cast their vote for Hillary Clinton. The last time I looked, 48% was a losing number in the presidential sweepstakes.

You’d think that, under those conditions, the GOP would be aching to come to grips with Hillary. But you’d be wrong. According to the conservative commentariat, the election is over, a year and more ahead of time, and Hillary has it in the bag.

It’s a similar case with Congress. The Democrats, in control of both the House and the Senate, have astonished the world by getting even less done than the recent GOP Congress. None of their electoral promises have been kept. (Apart from raising the minimum wage, which took eight months, and an “ethics” bill distinguished only by the fact that it’s emptier than most such exercises – I’m surprised they didn’t add an earmark or two before they passed it.) Their greatest effort was put into trying to pass – not once, but twice – the immigrant amnesty act, possibly the most actively detested bill of the new century. The boast of the new Congress, run by some of the most ghastly personalities on the national stage (Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, and Reid) is that they’ve done their best to undermine the Iraq war effort – not, historically, a stance to gain much in the way of a public following. (Trust me on that; I’ve checked.)

The numbers concur here as well. Confidence in the Congress bottomed out at14%, one the worst levels (the worst, did I hear someone say?) on record. Fool all the people all the time? This crew can scarcely fool themselves.

But we get the same response from conservative pundits – the Congress is lost. Forget about 2008; head for high ground, the deluge is coming. …

Read the whole thing.

Wesley Pruden admires the consternation of the democrats at the turning of the tide in Iraq.

It’s not easy to pimp surrender, but some of our congressional and media worthies are giving it their best shot.

It won’t be easy. Nobody but the loons think quitters, fakers, surrender monkeys and pessimists of various stripes are good custodians of the national interests, and the men and women who read the newspapers and magazines and watch the television newscasts are smarter than the men and women who write and preen for them. Americans are fed up with the Iraq war not because they think resisting jihad is wrong, but because they think the leaders at the top may not necessarily be serious about winning without apology. Anthony McAuliffe, who answered the German demand for surrender at Bastogne with “nuts” (if not something a little saltier), is the kind of general Americans admire most.

The risks for Democratic doom-criers are becoming evident. The accumulating evidence of progress, little by little, is changing public opinion. Media opinion will follow, slowly as always, and the sluggard notabilities of press and screen will be tugged — “kicking and screaming,” as the liberals once said of conservatives — into reality. The Democrats in Congress, like the embittered losers on the left, will be left behind on the other side of the famous bridge to the 21st century.

Cautious optimism is reflected in curious places. “The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working,” the Associated Press — no particular friend of George W. Bush — reports. The usual caveats follow: “It’s a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole.” And this: the U.S. military “cannot guarantee victory.” And this: “… it is far from certain that [the Iraqis] are capable of putting this shattered country together again.” American commanders are “clinging to a hope.” And “there is no magic formula for success.” Duh.

Nevertheless and grudging or not, things are reported to be better than they used to be, and seem to be getting a little better every day. It’s enough to make a partisan Democrat weep. Some are. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, a freshman in the House, was so unnerved by good news from the front that she stalked out of a committee hearing when a retired general described developments in Iraq as encouraging. Good news like that, she said, only “further divides the country.” Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic majority House whip, was even more revealing: If things improve in Iraq, that would be “a real problem for us.”

Fear began to creep into the Democratic consciousness a fortnight or so ago, replacing the happy confidence that America was taking the licking that would doom Republicans next year.

Read the whole thing.

Newsweek’s Sharon Begley explains that everyone who does not accept Anthropogenic Global Warming is part of a sinister conspiracy.

One of her staffers told Barbara Boxer that Exxon Mobil was funding an unnamed conservative think tank which has been going around paying people $10,000 to argue against Global Warming. There is a name for the mercenaries and hirelings doing all this arguing. They are “Global Warming Deniers.”

I deny Anthropogenic Global Warming all the time myself, and nobody has given me any $10,000. I’ll have to be sure to call Exxon Mobil later today sometime, and ask where exactly I can find that think tank in order to pick up my check.

Recently, I was arguing about Global Warming with an undergraduate at my old university, who was impressed by the consensus supporting it. I tried explaining to him that the behavior of members of the Global Warming consensus makes the truth status of that theory perfectly clear.

One obvious clue is the arm-twisting going on, all the intimidation games, the “get on board, everybody else says so, or else!” approach.

When a scholar knows he has the truth, and he observes a colleague clinging to error, you will observe a complacent smile on the former’s lips, combined with a single eyebrow raised in ironic pity at the latter’s predicament. The scholar who knows he’s right also knows the facts will sooner or later vindicate him and will inevitably humiliate his pitiable rival. He is a happy and contented man.

On the other hand, when you find men of learning becoming emotional and losing their tempers, when you find them characterizing people who don’t agree with them as evil, when supporters of a theory start behaving like thugs, it’s perfectly clear that the argument’s gravamen has moved outside the realm of science and learning into the debatable border regions of religion and politics, and you can also easily perceive who it is that is operating in bad faith.

How do you deal with someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, someone who was the principal planner of the 9/11 attacks which killed more than 3,000 innocent civilians, someone who personally took a knife and sawed off the head of kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl? How do you interrogate a brutal mass murderer who has flagrantly violated the laws, customs, and usages of war?

Clearly the moral insights and perspectives of a female liberal journalist and graduate of the Ethical Culture Fieldston School must provide the best possible guidance in these philosophically vexing situations. Or, at least, that’s what the New Yorker evidently thinks.

And Jane Mayer duly delivers a breathless critique of all things Bush Administration, punctuated with ringing and high-sounding slogans. Several ironically supplied by Daniel Pearl’s widow:

It’s not enough for officials to call me and say they believe it (that KSM murdered Daniel Pearl)… You need evidence.”

“An intelligence agency is not supposed to be above the law.”

And, if the opinions of a nice middle-aged Jewish lady practitioner of Nichiren Buddhism on war-time evidentiary standards are not enough to indict the Bush Administration, Mayer brings in another key moral authority, Representative Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who, having been impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury, simply went off and ran for Congress from a safe democrat seat minority district.

Representative Alcee Hastings, a Democratic member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “We talk to the authorities about these detainees, but, of course, they’re not going to come out and tell us that they beat the living daylights out of someone.” He recalled learning in 2003 that Mohammed had been captured. “It was good news,” he said. “So I tried to find out: Where is this guy? And how is he being treated?” For more than three years, Hastings said, “I could never pinpoint anything.” Finally, he received some classified briefings on the Mohammed interrogation. Hastings said that he “can’t go into details” about what he found out, but, speaking of Mohammed’s treatment, he said that even if it wasn’t torture, as the Administration claims, “it ain’t right, either.”

Personally, I think beating the living daylights out of KSM would be only a good start.

I don’t suppose one is required to feel sorry for Silicon Valley’s millionaire working class economically exactly, but there is definitely something pitiable about seeing the Porsche and Mercedes stuffed into the minimum of parking associated with a 2000 sq. ft. 1950s tract house on a postage stamp lot.

California is in some respects a lot like Hell. Those condemned to reside in the Valley literally have its temperatures. And the great majority of the more favored, those cooled by balmy Pacific breezes, live like Sisyphus, in possession of real wealth, yet surrounded by conspicuously displayed examples of far greater wealth. Able to own a nice automobile, but still unable to afford a decent home.

“You’re nobody here at $10 million,” Mr. Kremen said earnestly over a glass of pinot noir at an upscale wine bar here. …

“People around here, if they have 2 or 3 million dollars, they don’t feel secure,” said David W. Hettig, an estate planner based in Menlo Park who has advised Silicon Valley’s wealthy for two decades. …

Celeste Baranski, a 49-year-old engineer with a net worth of around $5 million who lives with her husband in Menlo Park, no longer frets about tucking enough money away for college for their two children… Yet like other working-class millionaires of Silicon Valley, she harbors anxieties about her financial future.

“I don’t know how people live here on just a normal salary,” said Ms. Baranski. …

David Koblas, a computer programmer with a net worth of $5 million to $10 million, imagines what his life would be like if he left Silicon Valley. He could move to a small town like Elko, Nev., he says, and be a ski bum. Or he could move his family to the middle of the country and live like a prince in a spacious McMansion in the nicest neighborhood in town.

But Mr. Koblas, 39, lives with his wife, Michelle, and their two children in Los Altos, south of Palo Alto, where the schools are highly regarded and the housing prices are inflated accordingly. So instead of a luxury home, the family lives in a relatively modest 2,000-square-foot house — not much bigger than the average American home — and he puts in long hours at Wink, a search engine start-up founded in 2005.

“I’d be rich in Kansas City,” he said. “People would seek me out for boards. But here I’m a dime a dozen.”

Read the whole thing

5:10 video

An Army Ranger Sergeant First Class, who has served 21 months in Iraq, while home on a two week leave, pleads for the US public’s support to let him finish his job on a call to the Neal Boortz show. The video was produced by Noodlehead Studios and SaveTheSoldiers.Com.

7:32 video

Via Marc Ambinder:

Overheard on Thursday’s Talk Of The Nation on NPR: investigative reporter Dan Moldea said he and Nation’s David Corn are shopping around a completed story about a “Democratic leader who is mobbed up.”

Moldea did not elaborate but hinted that the story would break soon.

Moldea is among those independent investigators helping Hustler’s Larry Flynt build a roster of scandal. One early member, of course, is LA Sen. David Vitter

Harry Reid?

AP:

The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson’s office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any privileged documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat’s office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid.

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker’s documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the search itself was constitutional but that FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

“The review of the Congressman’s paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive” and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. “The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged.”

The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman’s Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid.

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision that makes it clear that the search violated the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution,” Jefferson’s attorney, Robert Trout, said after a brief review of the ruling. He said he has not yet discussed the decision with Jefferson.

The Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the decision. Officials have said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI “filter team” not involved in the case to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption.

The court was not convinced. It said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, “may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity,” the court held.

The case has cut across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican.

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

This blog differed from most conservative blogs last year at the time of the raid, believing that Article I. Section 6 providing for Congressional immunity from arrest while Congress is in session would very likely be interpreted by the court as precluding a raid on a Congressman’s office.

Of course, the matter is certain to go on to the Supreme Court. I think they will very probably hear the case, and I think it is most likely that they will uphold the First Circuit’s ruling.

Steven Stark explains:

John Edwards’s campaign seems to have hit a roadblock that could seriously hurt his chances of securing the Democratic nomination. And it has nothing to do with any of his perceived screw-ups that have gotten their share of media attention, including his $400 haircut, his new compound in North Carolina, and his hedge-fund experiences.

There’s no doubt that Edwards made a mistake with the haircut, and that wealthy populist candidates are not easily forgiven for reminding people that they have money. But most candidates on the trail spend a lot on personal appearances — it’s part of the game. As for the value of Edwards’s house, it’s probably comparable to that of the Clintons or a lot of other Democratic candidates, including former Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry. And the hedge fund? Please show me a major candidate whose family hasn’t raked in some cash from a few major investments or consulting. Most are pretty well-off.

No, Edwards’s problem is different, and it’s not even about his politics. It’s about a piece of paper that hangs — or doesn’t hang — on the wall of his office.

Edwards, you see, didn’t go to Harvard or Yale.

In the Democratic landscape of 2007, that doesn’t seem as if it should be a problem. But you’d have to go back to 1984 to find a Democratic nominee (Walter Mondale) who didn’t attend one of those elite universities for either college or graduate school. Before that, a number of Democratic also-rans, including Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry Brown, were also graduates of either Harvard or Yale. And the pattern will continue in 2008 if either Hillary Clinton (Yale Law) or Barack Obama (Harvard Law) wins the nomination.

It’s a trend that hearkens back to the old country, where it’s assumed all leaders belonged to the same debating club at Oxford. Even other Ivy League schools — such as Columbia, Princeton, and Penn — don’t seem to be good enough for the Democrats, much less the Atlantic Coast Conference schools of Clemson, North Carolina State, and the University of North Carolina, at which Edwards received his education.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Andrew Olson.