The Crowbar

Matt Yglesias lamely attempts to tie conservatives to white supremacists: 

I wish progressives wouldn’t be so defensive about this. The idea of an “activist judge” is something that was cooked up by white supremacists in the 1950s and 60s who didn’t like judges bossing people around and telling them they had to let black people vote and go to school. To me, frankly, it’s a bit shocking that modern-day conservatives are still so eager to associate themselves with the legacy of the racist backlash of a couple of generations ago.

Do I even have to explain why this feeble-minded sewage is so wrong? Ugh, I suppose I do, for Matt’s sake. White supremacists did not cook up the idea of an “activist judge,” or judicial activism. The concept was around earlier, but the term itself came from a January 1947 article in Fortune Magazine written by Arthur Schlesinger.  From California Law Review’s THE ORIGIN AND CURRENT MEANINGS OF “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM”:

Schlesinger’s article profiled all nine Supreme Court justices on the Court at that time and explained the alliances and divisions among them. The article characterized Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutlege as the “Judicial Activists” and Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton as the “Champions of Self Restraint.” Justice Reed and Chief Justice Vinson comprised a middle group.

What’s even more fun is the article was about the New Deal - you know – one of Yglesias’ favorite pieces of legislation:

By 1947, none of the justices openly questioned the constitutionality of the New Deal. Instead, the Court split over the interpretation of legislation and “the proper function of the judiciary in a democracy.” 

How ironic is it that the term “judicial activism” came about because, from the beginning,  progressives have tried to change inconvenient laws to suit their paradigm. There is good reason progressives feel “defensive” about something so obviously unethical. So judicial activism wasn’t invented by white supremacists – Matt will be very disappointed. He is either making this stuff up or repeating something he read/heard. But, again, the facts don’t matter much to progressive bloggers like Yglesias – it took me about 30 seconds to find the California Law Review paper.  Hmm… frankly, it’s a bit shocking, don’t you think?

The deceptive Andrew Sullivan calls coercive interrogation defenders ignorant because they allegedly don’t know that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions bans “waterboarding, forced nudity, total sensory deprivation, slamming against walls, multiple beatings, hypothermia, stress positions, hooding, phobias (dogs, insects), confined coffin-like spaces, and brutal long-term sleep deprivation.” How does he prove his point? By citing commentary about Article 3, of course! In Sullivan’s world, approved commentary = fact:

Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts. It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3′s protections exist even though no one is classified as aprisoner of war. The article text for Article 3 of the Second Geneva Convention differs from the other three Conventions in that it adds “shipwrecked” to the “wounded and sick.” Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Oh no! Whatever will the “torture lovers” do when they read this? Sullivan triumphantly beats his chest and authoritatively declares:

Notice that this isn’t just a ban on “torture” however legally parsed. But a ban on all inhuman treatment, including outrages on personal dignity.

Yes, Sullivan, that IS indeed what the commentary is implying. So, why, oh why, did he NOT cite the full text instead of  commentary? What a GREAT question! That would be because the spirit of the full text doesn’t fulfill Sullivan’s neurotic need for reality to conform to his viewpoint. Here is the FULL TEXT of Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

My, my OH my – isn’t THIS interesting? So, according to Article 3 Section 1a, “torture” is grouped with “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment.” That effectively excludes ALL of the coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA; that would mean that they aren’t classified as torture. That’s what Sullivan means by “legally parsed;” yeah, that crazy technical leagalese, LOL. Now it’s clear why Sullivan deceptively quoted commentary and tried to pass it off as the actual Article 3 – it makes him look like a dunce and obliterates his huffy puffy arguments on “torture.”

About Paul Krugman’s latest column supporting the economy-killing cap-&-trade scheme that liberals just can’t WAIT to get their grubbly little hands on – Krugman is so disingenuous – he has no desire to see the economy grow. He sees the economy as his playtoy – something to experiment on and to force us to “save the planet,” which is liberalspeak for “control your life” and “make me Emperor of the World:”

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

Krugman is cringing because his buddies, the green economy enthusiasts, are really bad liars. Instead Krugman wishes his green buddies would say this:

Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy. But how much poorer? Not much, say careful researchers, like those at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

See? That’s a much better lie! You cite Big Important Authoritative institutions like the EPA and MIT. To demonstrate the weakness of Krugman’s argument I’ll use his own words:

So why don’t they think the economy can cope with limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Under cap-and-trade, emission rights would just be another scarce resource, no different in economic terms from the supply of arable land.

Pure misdirection. This is and always has been about power. Krugman and the liberal elite want to be the ones who decide the details of “emission rights.” Krugman is advocating a the creation of new market (aka, “just another scarce resource”) over which the liberal elite will have control. As Will Wilkinson at Cato points out:

It is the failure of [politically induced] capitalism that accounts for the suffering of millions and explains our bitter decline. Yet President Obama asks for more. The controversial cap and trade scheme for limiting CO2 emissions is perhaps the most striking example. A cap and trade system would introduce a new market fabricated by government to regulate the entire economy of mundane markets. Cap and trade is based on the political invention of scarcity. But the problem of determining the ideal supply of emission permits is much like the Federal Reserve’s problem of determining the ideal quantity of government money. In both cases, bureaucrats must appeal to dubious mathematical models and pronounce on questions that remain the subject of raging scientific controversy. When the Fed produced the wrong answers, it helped inflate the housing bubble, which led to the ruin of our economy. Do we trust the government climate bureaucrats to do better?

Quite the villainous scheme, no? More from Wilkinson:

Each element of a political market invites political wrangling. Obama’s budget assumes the government will rake in over $600 billion from auctioning the initial round of emissions permits. But carbon-heavy businesses, already suffering from the recession, are lobbying hard to be given permits for free. Industries that fear they will be hurt by the increased cost of emissions will push for an oversupply of permits, to keep permit prices low. Companies that reckon a high emissions cost will give them an advantage over their competitors will favor a low cap that keeps permit prices high. But the higher the price, the more those harmed by them will clamor for exemptions and rebates, and many will get them. The reality of cap and trade will be a typical political market: an expensive ramshackle compromise of competing forces.

The cap and trade scheme is an attempt to gain power. Liberals cannot let people decide for themselves, they believe people cannot be trusted with their own lives. In their minds people need to be manipulated into behaving the way liberals think they should behave. The cap and trade scheme is about giving Liberals power over the lives of all Americans – especially the ones who disagree with them.  Krugman:

This short-run economic boost isn’t the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly. So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.

It is no mistake this sounds like a sales pitch for long distance phone service. Krugman wants you to be afraid of climate change but what you should really be afraid of is him and the liberal elite.