Liberals in full hypocrisy mode over #MattBevin appointment to U of L board

Lest anyone thinks liberals are actually serious about tolerance and diversity, here comes a few reporters at the Courier-Journal to clear things up.

In fact, if you want to see a clinic in intolerance and bigotry, just go to the Louisville Courier-Journal''s opinion page and behold liberals, in full hypocrisy mode, as they attack a conservative appointed by the Bevin administration to the University of Louisville's board because, well, he's a conservative.

In several web posts and an opinion piece, the CJ assails Doug Cobb, a businessman from Prospect, who has doubts about two unquestionable liberal dogmas. We go to two scandalized reporters at the CJ (James Bruggers and Phillip Bailey):

One of Gov. Matt Bevin's new University of Louisville trustees regularly takes to Twitter to deny mainstream climate science and say that being gay isn't compatible with Christianity, while also taking aim at U of L sports.

And this disqualifies you from serving on the board of a state university ... how? 

And that he would "take aim" at U of L sports? Seriously? I mean the last thing we need on the board of scandal-plagued university is someone who takes a dim view of scandal.

Then there is the ridiculous Tim Sullivan, a CJ sports reporter. Cobb's positions, he says, "make Cobb a curious choice for an institution that values intellect and inclusiveness while maintaining a prominent sports profile."

Yes. Of course. We all know the terrible athletic consequences when governors appoint conservatives to university boards. 

First let us just behold the irony of someone who is trying to exclude someone from something because he disagrees with him in the name of inclusiveness. And, secondly, let us ponder the additional irony of a sports reporter opining about political issues in the very act of calling someone else unqualified.

His attack on Cobb was titled, "A Headline Waiting to Happen." Waiting to happen? When there are liberal reporters with an ax to grind who can write them? Is there some problem I am not seeing?

In fact, why is this controversial at all? These are commonly held beliefs among conservatives. You can disagree with them all you want. But why is this news? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a feverish story in the CJ about the astonishing fact that the Pope is Catholic, or breaking news reporting that bears do their business in the woods.

I mean, seriously people. Get a grip. And once you've gotten a grip, go ponder just how absurd you look accusing a conservative of being a conservative and how hypocritical you are when, after delivering sermon after sermon on diversity, you go ballistic when someone you disagree with gets appointed to a university board.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid on man-made Global Warming? A phenomenon that causes just about everything, but is caused by one thing and one thing only? Polar bears are close to extinction? Even cold weather proves your theory? In fact, everything proves your theory? Fine. Cherish it. Go pretend that an utterly unfalsifiable theory is science and that everyone must believe it no matter what (in fact, do this after lecturing someone on the evils of how the Church tried to force its opinions on Galileo, just for further ironic effect).

You think that Christianity and same-sex marriage are perfectly compatible? Despite crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament? Despites Paul's condemnation of it in I Cor. 6:9? Despite of Jesus saying, in the context of his discussion of marriage, "he made them male and female"?

Go right ahead. I mean, if sports reporters can do politics, why not theology?

Sheeez.

Where's the Sauce for the Gander? Criticizing Gov. Bevin for what Beshear (and Obama) did with impunity

Judge Phillip Shepherd

For years now liberal governors and Obama himself have issued executive orders like they were going out of style. But now a Republican governor is issuing executive orders to get a few things done and all of a sudden it's problem.

Funny that works.

In a new case brought against Gov. Matt Bevin's recent executive orders by labor unions, Judge Phillip Shepherd said today, "It kind of boggles the mind what the potential would be for mischief if there is not some limiting principle." Hmmm. Wonder how this judge is going to rule.

I'd love to believe that Judge Shepherd's mind was boggled by similar actions by Gov. Beshear, but for some reason that seems unlikely.

The chief problem once again is that liberal judges within the justice system have so tarnished the reputation of the courts through political decisions that have little to do with the law and a lot to do with political agendas that, a), no one is going to be surprised when Judge Shepherd rules against Bevin for what Beshear did with impunity and, b), when he does it, very few people are going to believe it has much to do with the interpretation of law (whether it really does or not) and a whole lot of people are going to write it off as just another decision by a judge who sees it has his (or her) responsibility to enforce the "progressive"—usually Democratic) agenda and using the law as a cover.

This has been particularly true in Frankfort, a company town.

Surprise, Surprise: Herald-Leader story on SB 180 repeats Fairness Alliance propaganda.

Most of the news stories on Senate Bill 180 were pretty good, but the Herald-Leader story by John Cheves could have been written by the Fairness Allliance, whose commitment to truth and accuracy on its pet issues is, shall we say, tenuous:

A Senate committee approved two “religious liberty” bills Thursday, one to legally protect businesses that don’t want to serve gay, lesbian or transgender customers because of the owners’ religious objections, and the other to protect religious expression in public schools.

The first measure, Senate Bill 180, would prohibit the government from compelling services or actions from anyone if doing so conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The bill expands the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act to clarify that businesses could not be punished in such cases for violating local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Um, hold on there, Pardner.

 

Under this description, a reader could infer that someone coming into a restaurant could be denied service by a waiter because he was gay. This is, of course, part of the Fairness Alliance's propaganda. The problem is that it isn't true.

The bill only those cases in which, because of the nature of the service, the service provider is essentially being asked to participate or endorse the activity for which the service is being requested. It does not apply to the vast majority of business situations. We're talking only about those cases like the Oregon baker and the New Mexico photographer who are essentially being asked to participate in an event to which they have religious objections. Not the waiter at Shoney's or the cashier at Wal-Mart.

A Jewish restaurant owner should be required to serve everyone, but he shouldn't be required to serve pork.

The fact that the Herald-Leader is willing to serve as the mouthpiece for the Fairness Alliance isn't all that surprising, of course. It sold its soul long ago. The problem is that newspapers that sell their souls start selling fewer papers, which is one reason why few people are crying many tears about the demise of liberal big city newspapers like the Herald-Leader.

 

Cheves, incidentally, is the same reporter who wrote about a couple of people at the rally for the Marriage Amendment in 2004 holding signs saying "God Hates Fags" and conveniently forgot to mention that the crowd shouted them down.

The #KimDavis Vote: Why putting your opponents in jail is a bad election strategy

Of all the people Republican candidates thanked in their acceptance speeches last Tuesday night, one name was noticeably missing. It was the name of the person most responsible for their victory: Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk who went to jail rather than violate her religious beliefs by issue same-sex marriage licenses now required under our unconstitutional judicial oligarchy.

In fact, Kim Davis won the gubernatorial election. And don't let anyone tell you different. Matt Bevin and the others simply rode her coattails into office.

This isn't to say anything negative about the candidates themselves. By all accounts Bevin won the debates with Conway, and his ads in the last two weeks of the campaign were clearly effective. And his decision to oppose the persecution of Davis was not only the right thing to do (and in consistent alignment with Bevin's practice of being transparent about his Christian faith), but was good politics.

Under any other circumstances, Jack Conway's devastating negative ad campaign would have been telling. But Kentucky voters were clearly more concerned to put someone in office who reflected their more conservative beliefs than anything else.

To borrow an expression from sociologist Peter Burger (who was speaking about the country as a whole), Kentucky is a commonwealth of Indians ruled by Swedes. In other words, while many of their leaders are secular liberals, the majority of Kentuckians are conservative.

Every once in a while political circumstances produced an impetus for these voters to turn out. This is what happened in the debate over same-sex marriage in 2004. And this is what  happened last week.

Putting your political opponents in jail is just not good politics.

There were certainly other issues in the race, most importantly Bevin's repudiation of Obamacare and KY Connect, its Kentucky manifestation. But this latter issue is just as likely to have hurt Bevin as to have helped him (this may have been the one thing Democrats were right about).

Not every election is a values election, but this one was, as Bevin's late campaign appeal testified: "Vote your values, not your party." That slogan not only appealed to Kentucky's many conservative Democrats to switch party loyalties at the polls: It was a signal to Republicans that, finally, there was a candidate who shared their beliefs about the visceral issues that, contrary to many political analysts, voters really do care about and was willing to do something about it.

The Democrats know this, which is why they wear their social beliefs on their sleeve. In the last presidential election, they wore their liberal beliefs about same-sex marriage on their sleeves. Republicans didn't lose because they didn't believe in these things: They lost because they never made their case for believing differently.

In places like Kentucky socially liberal Democrats win not because more people necessarily agree with them, but because they are the only ones willing to make their case.

Republicans lose when they cede the moral high ground to Democrats by dissimulating on their core values issues. The Romney campaign was the quintessential national example of the misguided belief that voters will turn out for you if you limit your appeal to abstract economic reasoning. People sometimes vote their pocketbooks, but more often they vote their hearts. And when only one party seems to have one, that's the one they vote for.

When Republican candidates abandon their socially conservative beliefs, they do it at their own peril.

And that is the lesson of last week's Republican victory: Conservatives will support people who support them.

Jake's World: KY Democrats too right-wing

I love Jake (seriously). Here is his analysis of Tuesday's election:

This is how Kentucky voted, like it or not. It’s not some liberal utopia. The Commonwealth is where a majority of Democrats admit to voting on the basis of race. The state where Democrats made the 2004 anti-gay marriage amendment a reality. Kentucky is where Jack Conway ran as teabagger-light twice and got his ass handed to him by actual teabaggers both times.

My theory is that he also wrote the script for Greg Stumbo's election night speech. They are equally delusional.

Family Foundation calls on Democratic candidates to disavow support of #PlannedParenthood

Today's press release from The Family Foundation:

LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation called on the campaigns of Jack Conway and Andy Beshear today to disavow support they are receiving from Planned Parenthood. The group said it had received reports that Planned Parenthood Action Kentucky was conducting get-out-the-vote calls to Kentucky voters discouraging them from voting for Matt Bevin and Whitney Westerfield, the Republican candidates for governor and attorney general, respectively.

"Planned Parenthood is making calls urging voters not to vote for Republican candidates for governor and attorney general, which is an implicit endorsement of their Democrat opponents," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group. "We are calling on the Democratic candidates to disavow this effort, and we would hope that these candidates would want to distance themselves from groups engaged in the selling of baby parts for profit.”

###

A call for more gridlock in Frankfort

When people who you agree with do the right thing politically, your general response ought to be, oh, I don't know, to cheer them on. The last thing you should do is to lump them in with the people who are the problem.

In the case of the recent fight over the transportation budget in Frankfort, David Williams and the Senate Republicans have balked at Gov. Steve Beshear's attempt to pass the budget, which provides $4.5 billion in money for roads in the state, without passing the Road Plan, which contains the directions for what the governor is to do with the money.

Without the Road Plan, the governor has a blank check on what he can do with the money.

And because Williams wouldn't consent to something no one is really able to defend, Beshear called the Legislature back into session the very next week so that he could have his transportation money.

So now people are up in arms about the fact that we are paying something over $60,000 per day to call legislators back to Frankfort because they couldn't agree during the regular session.

And who gets the blame? Why even ask? David Williams.

I can understand why liberals would want to blame David Williams for everything bad that happens, including legislation they don't like, inclement weather, and large scale natural disasters. What I can't understand is why conservatives would want to join in.

Instead of standing up and cheering for elected officials who will put their foot down when the governor or the Democratic House want to do things that they shoudn'ta oughta do, we criticize them for doing it.

David Williams and the Republicans are now taking fire from some conservatives themselves for trying to hold the governor responsible for how money spent, and being criticized for obstructionism and intransigence. Instead of talking about what a great job our guys are doing and how we should elect them to do it again, we talk instead about how we need to throw all the bums out and impose term limits.

Whereas founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson had an enthusiasm for checks and balances, modern conservatives, despite portraying ourselves as Jeffersonians in many ways, have a singular impatience for them. Some of us seem surprised that the legislative tools you have to use to obstruct bad policy are all obstructionist tools. But if bad policy should be obstructed, and you do what needs to be done to obstruct it, you shouldn't have to face charges from your own supporters that you are being an obstructionist.

Folks, this is the way it's supposed to work.

It's like having your army invade the enemy only to have the folks back home criticize you for having to actually use weapons.

The liberals don't do this to themselves. When Democrats kill things they don't like, their liberal friends in the media slap them on the back and call it a job well done. They stand together. They know who they think the good guys and the bad guys are, and they identify them and level blame on the bad guys. They target their fire.

But when conservative legislators do the right thing, they're never sure whether they're going to have the support of their own people. When we see things happening that we don't like in Frankfort, we fire into the crowd, hitting both our enemies and our friends.

When liberals succeed in stopping something by bringing everything to a halt, they throw a party. When conservatives do it, they all put themselves into therapy.

The last argument conservatives should ever make is that elected lawmakers are "not getting anything done." Why would conservatives ever buy in to the liberal idea that the more legislation we have, the better? In every other case, conservatives want government to do less. So when it comes to legislation, why would any conservative want them to do more? The vast majority of legislation is bad. Most bills in legislatures expand government or do other things that conservatives generally oppose.

That's why conservatives shouldn't lament gridlock, they should celebrate it.

The only legitimate criticism is that, since we now have yearly, rather than bi-annual sessions of the Kentucky General Assembly, we are paying more money to have legislators in Frankfort and that they still aren't getting things done.

Well, some of us conservatives opposed going to annual sessions for just this reason: it would either make government more efficient or it would only allow government greater opportunity to aggrandize itself. So what are conservatives now to do? Help increase the scope and power of government?

That's essentially what some conservatives are saying. They should think about it a little more.

A Heckuva Mandate: Beshear received 155,307 fewer votes Tuesday than he did in 2007

Not only does no one know what Steve Beshear's claimed mandate is a mandate for, but unmentioned by any of the analysis I have seen is the fact that Beshear received fewer votes in 2011 than he received in 2007.

Beshear garnered 464,245 votes on Tuesday. In 2007, however, he collected 619,552 votes, according to the Kentucky State Board of Elections website. That's 155,307 votes fewer in 2011 than in 2007.

Not exactly a huge electoral pat on the back.

Now a Beshear supporter could argue that the lower number of votes in 2011 was because of lower voter turnout. Would they be right? OF COURSE. But ten bucks says that the person giving this excuse is also blandly accepting Beshear's claim of a mandate, a claim made equally preposterous by taking into consideration a low voter turnout in 2011.

Jennifer Moore, you there?

Does Steve Beshear have a Mandate?

The total number of registered voters in Kentucky is 2,944,603 according to the Voter Registration Statistics Report. Steve Beshear received 464,657 votes yesterday according the unofficial tally. If you divide 464,657 by 2,944,603, you get 15.78%.

Can you have a mandate if you received the votes of only 15.78% of the registered voters in your state?

Just askin'.

Is Steve Beshear Untouchable? The KY media's double standard on religion

Let's see if I've got this straight: Steve Beshear goes to a solemn Hindu religious rite and makes it into a cheap campaign photo op and it's Beshear's critics who are disrespecting the religion?

This, at least, seems to be the attitude of the Kentucky’s liberal media.

Let's be honest here. If David Williams had gone to a Christian church and participated in some religious ceremony and his Senate office had sent out photos of it, editorial writers from the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader would be falling all over themselves lamenting that Williams was pandering to his base—if not violating the separation between church and state—and their reporters would be calling up left-wing professors at the state's universities and writing stories about it.

In Friday's CJ, Peter Smith took both me and Republican gubernatorial candidate David Williams to task for remarks about Beshear’s very solemn and respectful exploitation of a Hindu rite. He and other reporters covering the story went out and got the comments of Hindu organizations, at least one of which demanded an apology from Williams—an apology they rightly never got.

Smith charges Williams—who had portrayed Beshear as sitting in the Lotus Position, with a red mark on his forehead, bowing and praying to Hindu deities—with mischaracterizing the Hindu ceremony:

In fact, that incorrectly describes Beshear’s sitting posture or that of anyone else in the photo. None of them could be mistaken for assuming the tight, cross-legged meditative lotus position.

The Lotus Position, it turns out, is a cross-legged sitting posture in which each foot rests on the opposite thigh. In addition, he says:

Hindus have said that sitting in the ceremonial pit of such a ceremony and receiving the ceremonial “tilak” on the forehead does not necessarily mean one is engaging in Hindu worship.

In other words, the governor wasn’t sitting in the Lotus Position receiving the ceremonial “tilak” on the forehead with his eyes closed and his head bowed and with incense burning in a religious ceremony that involves making offerings to various gods and worshipping them.

No. It wasn't anything like that. All he was doing was sitting cross-legged receiving the ceremonial “tilak” on the forehead with his eyes closed and his head bowed and with incense burning in a religious ceremony that involves making offerings to various gods and not worshipping them.

Glad we’ve got that cleared up. I mean, who could possibly have mistaken one for the other?

Beshear claims to be a Christian. But one thing is for sure: Shadrach the governor is not. Or Meshach. Or Abednego. This is clearly not a man who will ever find himself in a lion's den--not with all the available alternatives.

And then, of course, there was my post, in which I made light of the whole thing and employed a number of blatant and obvious stereotypes in order to do it. The problem there? I used blatant and obvious stereotypes to do it.

He’s got me there.

And then there was the fact that I was making light of it at all. My post “makes one-liners out of issues that deserve serious discussion in their own context.”

Well, I suppose if my intention had been to discuss the issue seriously in its own context I would have discussed the issue seriously in its own context. But as it so happens that was not my intention.

In fact, getting serious about religion is not something the media does particularly well. Smith is certainly well-intentioned, but here is his comment on the Hindu caste system:

The oppression of Hindu untouchables is also real, serious—and also draws resistance from within the Hindu community itself. The Hindu American Foundation says “caste-based discrimination is not, and has never been, intrinsic to the essential teachings of Hinduism.”

And it's David Williams who is mischaracterizing Hinduism? Not only has the caste system been considered (in and outside of the religion) as an essential part of Hinduism throughout its history, but it is integral to its belief in reincarnation, and rebellion against it is considered to result in a lower rebirth in the next life. In fact, the only thing that has moderated the caste system in recent times is the introduction of Western beliefs into Indian thinking.

This is the thing about multiculturalism: the Western liberals who spout it never allow the real beliefs of non-Western thought systems to complicate their presentation of it. Many non-Western beliefs, it turns out, are racist and sexist, among other unfortunate things. So they have to clean it up first and make it presentable. The next thing you know we'll be reading news stories about how Hinduism isn't polytheistic.

CJ reporters need to be careful about how they characterize Hinduism. If they're not careful, they could end up being reborn as politicians.

Pop Quiz: Which act displays the more serious attitude toward a religion: participating in one of its holy rites for purposes of a cheap political photo op (or, for that matter, downplaying its potentially objectionable beliefs), or taking it for what it is and arguing against it because you think it's wrong?

If you take Hinduism seriously, as Williams clearly did, you’re intolerant. If you make light of it, then you’re insensitive because you’re not taking it seriously. It’s important to realize the dilemma you can get into here.

Otherwise you might think it was just bad Karma.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Peter is a great guy and really wasn’t as hard on me as I suppose he could have been. But I’m trying to remember the last time he or any other CJ reporter went out and sought a request for apology from a Protestant denomination or Catholic church for, say, one of State Rep. Tom Burch’s hostile outbursts during one of his committee meetings at the State Capitol—or for that many any of the frequent and equally hostile remarks about Christianity made by State Sen. Kathy Stein.

In fact, I’m trying very hard to think of any similar display of media indignation at any instance of ill-intentioned criticism of Christianity and I’m just not coming up with anything.

Maybe I’ll remember it in my next life.

In fact, has Smith ever heard of the Page One Kentucky blog (That’s a rhetorical question. Of course he has. All the CJ reporters read it), where Jake Payne takes almost daily potshots at conservative Christianity? Has he ever written a column condemning Payne for religious intolerance?

Ever?

When it's a liberal Democrat showing favor to a non-Western religion, the media sings its hosannas to the principle of religious tolerance, but when it's a conservative Republican showing favor to Christianity, they call fire down from heaven.

Even a liberal Democrat can't escape impaling himself on one or the other horn of the media's contradictory Tolerance standard. Just compare on the one hand the treatment Beshear himself received when he actually participated in a Hindu ceremony for the camera (solemn and starry-eyed respect for all the religions of the earth and lectures about all the world singing together in perfect harmony), and on the other when Beshear granted tax incentives for the building of the Ark Park, which is formally not even a religious organization (grim rhetorical expressions and hostile, school-marmish finger-wagging about how we should be very careful about crossing the line between church and state—the only thing the media thinks is really holy).

Will there be any observations forthcoming from the state media about the inconsistency between the Beshear administration renaming the state Christmas tree the state “Holiday” tree because it is too religion specific on the one hand, and on the other actually participating in a religion-specific Hindu ceremony?

If the media worshipped a god, it would be the Roman god Janus, who has two faces pointing in opposite directions.

Gov. Steve Beshear, in the lotus position

If you've been in the state Capitol building in Frankfort recently and thought you heard sitar music wafting out of the governor's office, now you know why. This is a picture of Gov. Steve Beshear, participating in a Hindu "ground blessing" ceremony. Yes, that is him there, second from the right, sitting in the lotus position, probably praying that he will someday be reincarnated as a real governor.

He apparently feels so comfortable with his lead in the polls going into next Tuesday that he considers himself untouchable. And it's a good thing for him. I mean, if he got beat, what would he do? Go sell flowers on the street corner?

But just imagine being First Lady Jane, who'll now have to cremate herself on Steve's funeral pyre when he dies. Bummer.

Now we know why the governor wanted to change the state's Christmas tree to a "Holiday" tree.

The Book of Jake, Chapter XIII, in which Jake waxeth hot concerning the evil thing which Steve Beshear hath done

Now it came to pass in that day that Steve Beshear, King of the Democrites, spoke unto the people saying, "We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible, and there shall be an entire month in which the King James Bible shall be celebrated, and there shall be feasting and gladness, and the whole kingdom shall celebrate this thing."

But when these words came unto the ears of Jake, a prince of the Liberalites (a tribe of people allied with the kingdoms of Sodom and Gammorah), he rent his garments and became wroth and sware exceedingly, and made an oath against Steve Beshear, and blogeth against him, saying that the King had done evil in the sight of Jake and that the celebration of the King James Bible was an abomination, and asked, "What crack hast thou smoked, O King, that thou wouldst make such a proclamation, saying 'We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible?'"

And so Jake called unto him the wise men from among the Liberalites to seek counsel concerning the evil thing which had been done by Steve Beshear, who had spake unto his people saying, "We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible," saying "Now therefore come, I pray thee, and give me counsel concerning this evil thing which Steve Beshear hath done, so that I may find the words to speak against the king this day so that we may prevent Steve Beshear from bowing down before this abomination."

But finding no wise men from among the Liberalites, the anger of Jake swelled within his breast and so he threw a tantrum, and spake maledictions unto Steve Beshear, saying that the King pandereth unto his people in that day when he hath said "We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible."

And so Jake foamed at the mouth and cursed Steve Beshear saying that his words had been spoken because he was loved by the Democrites only because he was not David Williams, King of the Republicrites, with whom the Liberalites had made war, and that, in saying "We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible," Steve Beshear had done greater evil than when he had bowed himself down and made obesience to Ken Ham and had made an alliance with the Hamites and had granted unto the Hamites thousands of shekels from the taxes of the people so that he might build for himself an altar unto the ark, with rides, in a park which the Hamites had resolved to build to worship this thing.

But the words of Jake reached only the ears of the Internites and the Politicites and the Journalites, whom in past times had listened to Jake, but had not hearkened unto his words. And so the King James Bible which Steve Beshear had proclaimed, saying, "We shall celebrate this day the writing of the King James Bible," was celebrated throughout the kingdom with gladness and joy.

Where is Jack Conway when you need him to interfere in the free market outside of Louisville?

Gas prices in Louisville have been consistently lower, by about 20 cents, than surrounding areas. Where are the investigations! Wake up, Attorney General Jack Conway! I mean, when gas prices were higher in Jefferson County lat year, Jack's office launched an investigation, and filed an injunction against Marathon Oil.  Of course, it was dismissed by a judge because Jack didn't meet the burden of proof he needed to interfere with the free market (just like when his predecessor, Greg Stumbo did the very same thing for the very same reason--political popularity). But now it is 20 cents higher in counties surrounding Jefferson.

Why no investigations when gas prices are 20 cents higher than Jefferson County in other counties? Isn't this unfair to consumers in other counties? Why does Jack only try to interfere with the free market when the price for a commodity is high in Louisville?

Get on the stick, Jack!

The City of Hazard stands belly to belly with gay rights group

All it takes is a charge of anti-gay discrimination to strike the fear of God (or possibly some other lesser deity) in the hearts of local officials.

According to recent news reports two city workers in Hazard, Kentucky were reprimanded for asking two men who were kissing in a public pool to leave. One of the workers, Charlotte Pearlman, the manager of the Pavilion facility from which the men were ejected, was reprimanded specifically for "conduct unbecoming a city worker" and for using "inappropriate language" over the phone with a staff member of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 who was trying to conduct an interview with her.

I don't know what exact language Mrs. Pearlman used (we're guessing it was something along the lines of , "@!#?@!."), nor the exact nature of the hand signals she used while saying it, but under normal circumstances, telling off CNN should get you some kind of medal. I have fantasized about doing the very same thing many times. In fact, we just got rid of our old TV set which sported numerous dents incurred by airborne remote controls over the course of a number of years while watching CBS News with Dan Rather.

According to the report in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

City employee Kim Haynes, who was given a week’s suspension without pay for his role in the incident, told investigators that the two men were engaged in an excessive display of affection, and that he would have told any other couple to leave had he seen similar behavior.

The two men had "development disabilities" and were clients of the Mending Hearts, Inc., a local social services agency whose services apparently do not include teaching its clients about socially acceptable public behavior and common courtesy to those around them. Anyone who wants to contact the organization might want to consult their local public bathroom wall: "For a good time, call Mending Hearts, Inc."

What exactly is wrong with telling two people making out in a public pool--no matter who they are--to leave in order to spare other swimmers from having to watch?

At least one witness saw the two men “standing ‘man to man’ or ‘belly to belly’ in the pool … splashing each other with water and pushing each other under the water,” Collins reported. The witness “also said he observed them hug each other on at least one occasion” and give each other a kiss.

Not a spectacle likely to attract swimmers to the local swimming hole.

But Mending Hearts Director Shirlyn Perkins called the Kentucky Equality Federation, which swung (pun--which we just noticed as we were typing this, but are now very pleased with--intended) into action, charging the city pool with discrimination against the two bellied smoochers.

The Kentucky "Equality" Federation is the same group that last year charged that two Eastern Kentucky girls had committed a hate crime when they conducted a mock kidnapping of a gay friend--despite the fact that the girl giggled during the entire episode and gleefully filmed the whole thing on her cellphone. Local law enforcement officials finally just dismissed the case because it was obviously a good-natured prank. But to the Kentucky "Equality" Federation it was a federal crime.

The Hazard City Manager issued an apology to CNN and the staff of Anderson Cooper 360 for Mrs. Pearlman's charge that their staff was a bunch of "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s" who "@!#?@!ed" their "@!#?@!" "@!#?@!s," although these charges were never actually denied by the network.

In addition, the City Manager ordered that a new pronouncement would be posted at the pool:

As soon as practicable, a new sign will be installed within the Pavilion complex to reinforce the commitment of the City of Hazard that the Pavilion will be open for the benefit of the public and that the services, benefits, and facilities of the complex are available for use without regard to race, ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or physical/mental disability as required by federal and state law.

Um, can we point out that "sexual orientation" is not currently included in any of the relevant federal or state laws? And that putting them there will require the workings of something called the "democratic process"? You know, that thing we have to use in order to pass laws?

And that just because the Kentucky "Equality" Federation (which lays awake at night worrying that somebody, somewhere might disagree with it on the issue of homosexuality) threatens to sue you does not mean that you have to lay over and play dead--and pass gay rights ordinances that no elected body has ever approved?

And what exactly does this new sign have to do with what happened at the pool with the two men who were smooching "belly to belly"? Does this mean that, if you're gay, you can make out at the pool, but that if you're heterosexual you can't? After all, prohibiting the former is "discrimination," while the other isn't.

That's what the Kentucky "Equality" Federation calls "equality."

Willliams/Farmer first ad in gubernatorial campaign

No "Holiday Tree" this year

No more nasty little PR disasters like last year's attempt by the Beshear administration to rename the state's Christmas Tree a "Holiday Tree." Nope. This year, the administration is even displaying blatantly Christian nativity scenes.

Guess they learned a lesson.

Conway must know he's in trouble

In the U. S. Senate race in Kentucky between Rand Paul and Jack Conway it is being reported that the Conway has agreed to debate Paul on Fox News. Polls show Paul ahead by a significant margin, and the fact that Conway is agreeing to meet Paul in his own natural backyard looks like a sign that Conway's own polling must be showing the same thing.

You don't fight on the enemy's ground unless you have no choice.

So-called Paul critic plans on voting for him

Lest anyone think that I brought it up, let me make it clear that my quote in the Associated Press story on a contribution received by Rand Paul from a founder of a porn website resulted from my answering a question addressed to me from a reporter who happened to call this afternoon.

Let's explain how this process works:

1. Bored reporter sits at his desk looking for what to write about that day;
2. Bored reporter thinks about what he can say about the Rand Paul campaign that hasn't already been said;
3. Bored reporter turns up something which could possibly attract attention: a donation to a conservative candidate from the founder of a porn website.
4. No longer bored reporter calls me (known conservative) for a response;
5. Me says "Well, he can't control who he gets contributions from, and we're confident he'll return it," along with a few other brief comments;
6. Positively enthusiastic reporter writes the story including those comments;
7. Some news sources delete the comments that indicate I think this is not Paul's fault, leaving only the ones that say he should give the money back;
8. Liberal wacko bloggers (I'm thinking specifically of Jake here) spin it as a big fight between me and Paul.

Of course, it's nothing of the kind. Yeah, he needs to return the money (I can't imagine he won't), but I'm also personally planning (barring any good reason not to) on voting for the guy.

Conway's Stealth Strategy: Flying below radar has certain political disadvantages

Let the bloodhounds loose! It may be the only way to find Jack Conway, who, in his campaign against Rand Paul for Kentucky's second U. S. Senate seat, has yet to be sighted.

Conway has been running, but, as the Lexington Herald-Leader has pointed out, most of the running seems to be away from actual voters. While Paul is out pressing the flesh among electorate, Conway has been is apparently working "behind the scenes" building a "network."

He's a crafty one, that Jack.

One Conway hunter, Mandy Connell, host of WHAS's morning talk show, almost treed Conway last week, but the elusive candidate slipped away, failing to show up for her show, apparently to concentrate on "networking." Connell now says, however, that she has laid a trap for him this Wednesday, when he is rescheduled to show up.

I hope Connell has people there with camouflage khakis and tranquilizer darts to take the man into captivity, where he can be questioned at length.

The difference in coverage is striking:

In the last three months — April 22 through July 21 — major Kentucky newspapers, including the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Courier-Journal in Louisville, mentioned Paul 305 times in the first paragraphs of stories compared with 150 times for Conway.

... Among newspapers outside of Kentucky listed in the top 50 in circulation in Editor & Publisher Year Book, Paul’s name was in the first paragraphs of stories 196 times. Conway’s name appeared in opening paragraphs 12 times.

You could argue that some of Paul's publicity has been bad publicity, but given that Paul has postured himself as the anti-establishment candidate, you could easily argue that being hammered by the establishment simply contributes to the image he is trying to cultivate with voters.

Given the discrepancy in media coverage, you would think that, instead of taking cover whenever the media shows up, he would be out flagging down news trucks, showing off his newest press release.

But no. There's networking to do.

The only problem with flying below radar as a political strategy is that no one knows you're there.

What will Jack Conway say at this year's Fancy Farm?

Fancy Farm, Kentucky's traditional old-time political stump event is banning profanity. Da ..., er, I mean, that's a shame. What is Jack Conway going to say this year? "I'm one tough cookie?"

But the big question is, will this new rule placate John David Dyche, who last year (or was it the year before, or the year before that?) wrote the whole Fancy Farm thing off as an disturbing display of course behavior that clearly scared his horses.

"The Fancy Farm follies," he sniffed at the time, "are mercifully over." He acknowledged, with all the grace and dignity of which he is capable (and that is substantial) that the speaking and heckling for which Fancy Farm is famous can be "fair," but added (and one can imagine him clearing his throat at this to point to allow himself time to select just the right expression), "in these parlous times they seem almost recklessly inappropriate."

It is indeed sobering to consider how apparently oblivious were the hooligans crowded around the Fancy Farm stage that year to Dyche's severe state of discomfort at the proceedings. It could be the crowd simply refused to part when Dyche's carriage arrived.

"Americans," Dyche asserted, are troubled "economically and existentially." And I will confess Dyche is probably correct in thinking that most of the crowd at Fancy Farm did not have the existential condition of their fellow Americans on their minds. In fact, there were people dressed up in quite a variety of costumes, but apparently no one was dressed up as Jean Paul Sartre.

As I recall, Dyche--the liberals favorite Kentucky conservative--then went on to laud Greg Stumbo, indicating that the only parlous thing about the times is that there are ostensible conservatives lauding liberals on a fairly regular basis.

O course, the problem with Fancy Farm is not that there's too much profanity--or too little decorum. The problem with Fancy Farm is that there are no longer any politicians worthy of the event. The art of making ex tempore political speeches (and I throw in the Latin here in order to more effectively communicate this point to Dyche) has simply gone the way of the dodo.

Where are the Wendell Fords? Where are the Larry Forgy's? Where are the people who could grab a microphone and deliver an impromptu speech filled with barbed wit and clever satire.
These voices were silenced some years ago now, I'm afraid. Today, we have only the stuffed shirts who show up, speechwriter-written address in hand, to deliver a few canned jokes about their opponent, who, in return

Pity Jack Conway, who suffered the derision of almost everyone last year for a line he paid someone else to write for him.

The irony is that the hooting and howling that was once directed in fun at clever speeches and witty verbal take-downs of one's own favored candidate can now be directed legitimately at almost every speech given there, so illiterate--or, as Dyche would put it, "parlous"--has become the state of our politics.