West Chester Tea Party

The utter fecklessness of Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick is becoming more apparent by the day. Last week she decided that a proposed Virginia law, one that the Republican governor has suddenly gone squishy on, is the equivalent of rape because it could conceivably require something be “inserted into the vagina, and then moved around.”

Since then we’ve discovered that not only did Lithwick simply lie about what the law required and we’ve found that Virginia Planned Parenthood requires two ultrasounds with each abortion. Presumably to insure they only kill half their patients.

To hear Lithwick tell it, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is a horror tool invented by rich, white, elderly Republicans to enslave and defile women who only want to be left in peace to dismember their unborn child. The truth is quite different, and in the context of this artificial kerfuffle, and quite ironic.

From LifeNews:

Abortion advocates in Virginia have come under heavy criticism for equating the ultrasound legislation there would allow women to see before an abortion to rape.  Yet, while abortion backers say having an ultrasound is like getting raped, a 2003 study shows 99% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities do them beforehand.

Apparently, in 2003 the medical journal Contraception reported on a survey conducted of abortion providers in the United States (article hosted by LifeNews). The finding, 99% of abortion providers either always or frequently used vaginal ultrasound for surgical abortions. 92% of the sites providing mifepristone induced abortions did vaginal ultrasound.

Based on the evidence thus far, the worst that can be said of the proposed Virginia law is that is recognizes the standard practice used in 99% of abortion facilities. The best that can be said about Lithwick is that she’s a mendacious know-nothing.

Like Beijing, Hong Kong faces a “leadership transition” this year. In the 15 years since control of the island passed from Great Britain to China, successive rulers have been chosen by a committee of officials–and while large for a committee (1,200 people), this body is only a fraction of Hong Kong’s 7.1 million inhabitants, who have no voice in their government.

But that may be changing. The anointed candidate, Donald Tang, is embroiled in a political scandal that can only be called epic, a sort of caricature of the party boss involving blatant infidelities and a secret, luxury underground bunker with wine cellar and health spa–as well as high-end junkets courtesy of Hong Kong’s business community, eager to curry favor with the ostensible heir-apparent. But Mr. Tang’s corruption and flagrant disregard for the rules that control the lives of the vast majority has finally proven too much even for this authoritarian political structure, and the people of Hong Kong are demanding he step down and an alternate candidate be put forward.

All this might be a tempest in a tea pot, if the People’s Republic of China were not also facing a “transition” of its own. America got its first look at Xi Jinping, the Chinese Vice President and heir apparent to Hu Jintao, last week. The unassuming Xi does not appear to have the endemic vices of Tang, but the fact is that he is slated to be the leader of 1.3 billion people–and they, too, have had no say in the matter. Most Americans, including the Obama administration, seem to accept this state of affairs as inevitable, even though it contributes to the strained economic and diplomatic relationship between the US and the PRC.

Suddenly, Hong Kong is turning into a “real headache” for Beijing: instead of the orderly passing of power in Hong Kong in March that would neatly presage the larger events scheduled for later this year, there is the threat of instability.  Nothing could be more dangerous to the PRC than a successful demand for a free system of government where leaders are elected, not transitioned, into office. And unlike the provincial protests in China that rarely make it into the western media, Hong Kong is a much more high-profile case. The inclination of the PRC will be to impose Tang on Hong Kong and respond swiftly and harshly to dissent, but the publicity this might attract would hardly be in keeping with Xi’s carefully groomed image as a western-friendly leader with ties to Iowa and a weakness for the NBA. On the other hand, giving into the demands for increased accountability from the government to the people could result in considerable unpleasantness in the north, if the Chinese people decide to take notice. The situation in Hong Kong could turn out to be something far more serious than a headache for the Communist party bosses–which might in turn present an opportunity to an American president eager to promote democratic change in China.

This is pretty good stuff of Megan McArdle, re Peter Gleick’s own-goal sabotage of climate change advocates by disseminating/allegedly creating a fake Heartland memo on its global warming strategies (not to mention his confessed identity theft):

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.

…but it must be said: Gleick really doesn’t deserve much benefit of the doubt at this point with regard to his probable authorship of the original, blatantly fake, Heartland memo. There is a credible case to be made at this point that Gleick stole the original documents, then created the memo himself; and, given that he’s a self-confessed liar, it’s going to take more than I’m not lying about this for Gleick to get out of it.

By the way, I know that a lot of reasonable people are wondering why it is that a scientist – which is to say, somebody whose worldview is theoretically utterly dependent on Truth as an absolute ideal – would lie. For this, let us go to our old Cold War acronym friend: MICE. Which stands for, of course, Money, Ideology, Conscience, and Ego*; it purported to describe why people commit treason, but I think that it works for other motivations as well. In order:

• Money. If there is no climate change crisis, there is no climate change crisis money from the government. And remember that quote from Ghostbusters? “I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.” True, it’s not very much money by private industry’s standards – but then, neither is the cash in prison economies, and people get killed over that all the time.
• Ideology. Alas, there has been a certain, ah, politicization of this issue in Western society. And scientists are not really any more armored against letting their partisan politics color their job performance than are lawyers, doctors, and political bloggers.
• Conscience. “Well, I know that this is true. I know it! I just… can’t prove it. Yet! But I will! And, until then, I can just… nudge things along. Nobody will ever know, because this is how the numbers are supposed to look; we’ve just had a bit of bad luck with these specific test runs.” – This attitude, by the way, is the one that scientists and engineers dread. When they’re not the ones doing it, that is. Also: this is different from Ideology in that the researcher is motivated by his or her irrational devotion to a scientific theory and not a political entity.
• Ego. “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I created this field of study! It belongs to me and my peers! – and you do not qualify as a peer, sirrah!” This is also a notable drag on the scientific process, and a primary reason why Arthur C Clarke created his First Law (“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”).

Or, to put it more simply: scientists are human beings, with human motivations. Some of those motivations can lead them down paths of stupidity, or even malice.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*I understand that they’ve added Sex to that since then, but let’s just pass that to one side for right now.

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

– Proverbs 26:11 (HT: Bible.cc)

One of the first things new British Prime Minister David Cameron did in order to fix Great Britain’s recent economic problems was to tax the rich. He raised Great Britain’s top tax rate to 50% and his economists predicted that this would raise an extra billion pounds of revenue per year from the HATEFUL1%™. The Telegraph UK describes how this worked out below.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period. (My Bolding)….It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

When asked just how he would address this 1.5£Bn miss on their revenue targets, David Cameron brings to mind my biblical quote above of Proverbs 26:11. One of his mouthpieces explains their resolute intent to ride into this leftwing populist dung heap all the way up to the tops of their spurs. Perhaps our “Conservative” Prime Minister should Atlas Shrugged to his pile of books by the nightstand.

senior Government source said last night: “This is not now something we are moving on any time soon.” Another source said: “We are repeatedly emphasising the need for those with the broadest shoulders to do more….So we can hardly turn around and start cutting taxes for them first. George [Osborne] said last year, that it was not the time to scrap the 50p rate and that is even more the case now as the economic situation has deteriorated.”

Meanwhile, across the Bloody, Old Pond, we have a Presidential Budget submission that not only matches Prime Minister Cameron’s egregious stupidity, but also raises it several negative IQ points worth of collateral damage to American retirees. The Wall Street Journal tells us just how President Obama intends to stick to it The Man.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6% that will kick in next year. Add in the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions, and the rate hits 41%. Then add the 3.8% investment tax surcharge in ObamaCare, and the new dividend tax rate in 2013 would be 44.8%—nearly three times today’s 15% rate. Keep in mind that dividends are paid to shareholders only after the corporation pays taxes on its profits. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%.

The Obama tax hike is specifically targeted towards individuals making $200 or more per year; $250K for married couples. Yet, the recent histories of dividend income totals suggest that it is highly sensitive to tax rates. The more dividends get taxed, the fewer corporations pay them out. The corporations return cash to shareholders through stock repurchases instead.

As Taxes Dividend Taxes Go Up, Corporations Stop Paying Dividends

But “!So what?!” Harry Waxman would loudly ask. This just hits the HATEFUL1%™. It’s like that Buffet Tax that won’t quite buffet anybody named Warren. Actually, Nostrildamus, most dividend income goes to retires. According to the IRS, ¾ of that income goes to people older than age 55. And not only that, anything that reduces the overall value of equity as an asset class; also reduces the economic value of every share of stock held by the general public. This tax does for stock holdings what the recent MBS meltdown did for our housing values.

So never you mind that 51% of all Americans hold common stock personally, or through their retirement plan. Forget that the smart money would be selling this as fast as HFT algorithm could compile and execute. We’re all about taxing HATEFUL1%™. And if other people get hurt in the process, keep in mind the old, dark humor espoused by the Field Artilleryman concerning collateral damage from indirect fire: “(Bleep) ‘em if they can’t take a joke!”

[UPDATE: I'm informed by someone very much in touch with the Virginia political scene that the root of the problem is the Bob McDonnell's staff are, at the best, pro-life squishes and they are presently negotiating with themselves over the best way of selling out.]

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Romney supporter and leading contender for the VP spot on a Romney-headed ticket, demonstrated his complete philosophical alignment with Romney yesterday by flipflopping on a bill he has championed and in the process hanging VA GOP delegates out to dry.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Virginia’s legislature has been going after the abortion industry root and branch. Last year they passed a law requiring aborttoirs to be regulated as if they did what they do: perform a surgical procedure which can be life threatening. This year a bill is being finalized that requires a woman seeking an abortion to see ultrasound pictures of the baby. Somehow this bill, which does not require any medical procedure the woman was not going to receive in the first place, has the pro-abortion lobby in a tizzy. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has predictably styled this as rape.

Up until yesterday, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell had unconditionally supported the bill. 

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.

As the political damage has already been done to the GOP senators who have taken a courageous stand on this issue, one may rightfully ask why a governor who is barred from running for re-election wouldn’t stand behind the very people he encouraged to take up the bill in the first place?

“Something is happening,’’ Jessica Honke, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said hopefully.

Yes, indeedy. Something is happening.

There is only one explanation that fits all the facts. McDonnell wants to be Mitt Romney’s choice for vice president should Romney almost certainly win the GOP nomination. The ultrasound bill is causing too much controversy and probably has Romney’s handlers wearing brown trousers at the thought of having to actually take a pro-life position in a general election campaign. McDonnell takes to opportunity to look moderate and abandons ship.

In fact, McDonnell’s actions are really a great metaphor for Mitt Romney’s political career.

So, again, we are on the verge of having a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory by someone who appears to be more concerned with what people who will never like him are saying rather than doing the right thing.

In a way, it is sort of fitting that this story breaks on Ash Wednesday. Maybe McDonnell should swear off political games for the next 40 days.