Of Course NPR is Liberal

It's (partly) government funded!  How many people working for NPR do you think believe that the federal government should not tax people to pay for national, public broadcasting?

*UPDATE*  I forgot to mention that NPR pairs David Brooks with liberal, E.J. Dionne, as their political commentators.  So their go-to Republican is pro-choice, insists on gay marriage, is a mild fiscal conservative, and the author of the A Moderate Manifesto. 

Conservative and Liberal Media Outlets: On Trusting the Media

The Pew Research Center has some interesting charts on the news media.  Here are a couple followed by a bit of commentary on what it might mean to trust a media outlet and how to tell if a reporter is liberal or conservative.

National Pubic Radio and the Tit of the State

As I'm listening to an NPR news report about a documentary (surprise) fighting "racism and homophobia" this MavPhil post is timely.  (Oh, no.  Frank Deford is now coming on to preach talk about some lefty issue sports.)

I reproduce below the words of the Maverick Philosopher:

Banning Tobacco & Cursing on Campus, and the Gateway Drug

Two anecdotal stories from readers of the blog:

Banning Tobacco and Cursing

NPR Morning Edition Story Today

I had to go to Sherwin Williams this morning to get another gallon of paint while their 40% sale is still on (among other things, we're building another bathroom at the house we bought).  So I get back in the van and there's a story on NPR that's already begun about this lady who is a Christian, she came from a conservative, evangelical background, her dad was a pastor of a large church, etc.

"WHY is this human interest story on NPR?"  I'm thinking.  What IS the catch? Why is there a story about a white evangelical on the news this morning?

Ah.  She's bisexual.  Got it.   I kinda figured it had to be either the B or the T but the T's have been receiving a lot of press, so it's only fair to throw in some B stories too to be fair and balanced.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Constitution

Yesterday I was listening to NPR (I think it was Diane Rehm's Friday roundup) and the talking heads were discussing the Virginia federal ruling that overturned Virginia’s ban on same sex marriage.   My interest picked up when someone quoted the judge as saying that “Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us….” The NPR discussion then turned to speculations about how the Supreme Court surely won’t overturn so many Federal rulings (it would be too much overturning of overturnings I guess). 

Not a single soul, however, mentioned what I was thinking: The Constitution declares all men are created equal??  Surely she didn’t say that.  Maybe they misheard her.  Wait.  Maybe they heard correctly.  Have any of these jokers ever read the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence for that matter)?  I wouldn't bet on it.

But sure enough, this Obama appointed Judge DID say just that in her opinion:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf

Pretty embarrassing coming from a federal judge (but I don't expect to hear about it in the mainstream press).  Also embarrassing for NPR that no one picked up on it.  More evidence for what I've long thought: some liberal court opinions are not bad interpretations of the Constitution; rather, they are not at all interpretations but opinions.

On the Racist Donald Sterling and the "Courage" of Adam Silver

Let's get this out of the way.  Donald Sterling is a racist.  Racism is morally bad.  I'll have more to say about Sterling's racism in a bit. Now on to what got this blog post started...

I was listening to NPR today and heard the following:

In the same breath, NBA commissioner Adam Silver was mentioned with JFK, and Silver's action of banning Don Sterling for life was compared favorably with the actions of LBJ.  Silver's courage is breathtaking. And so on.

Are we living on the same planet? JFK and LBJ comparisons?  Courageous?  Acting courageously is doing what you know is right or good in the face of great fear or peril.  Last I checked at ESPN, 80% of the voters said that they approved of the decision of Silver to ban Sterling for life.  EIGHTY PERCENT (the other 20% either thought it was too harsh or not harsh enough).  Last I checked, 95% of media pundits were calling for Sterling's head.  Call it what you want, but there is absolutely no evidence that Silver had to summon up an ounce of courage to ban Sterling for life.  We have little evidence that his action was anything more than a shrewd business decision, people.  He gave everybody what they wanted.  Not giving everyone what they want is more risky than facing a lawsuit from an old racist, pariah. But to compare Silver's action with some of the truly courageous actions of  the civil rights era is to make a mockery of courage as well as some of the courageous actions in the civil rights era.

I've also heard Don Sterling mentioned in the same breath with slave owners (and bizarrely on NPR with truck drivers (!?) until the person "of tolerance" realized she was stereotyping truck drivers and sports owners.  Ah, liberals and stereotyping, but I digress...).  There is some validity to the comparison with slave owners (which I'll get to in a moment), but let's catch our collective breaths for a second and think (THINK) about the extent to which the comparison holds.  Under what conditions are we imagining slaves in the U.S. to have suffered? If employing people to play a GAME voluntarily for millions of dollars is akin to being a slave owner, well then SIGN ME UP TO BE A SLAVE!!  

And am I the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who finds this statement ironic (from ESPN):

Sterling's $2.5 million fine will be donated to organizations dedicated to anti-discrimination and tolerance efforts that will be jointly selected by the NBA and the players' association, Silver said.

So, ummm, banning someone FOR LIFE isn't, say, a bit intolerant?  Would a church that banned a sinner from coming to church FOR LIFE because of a sin be, say, a bit intolerant?  

Look, I have little sympathy for Don Sterling.  The only sympathy I have is because Sterling is a human being like Magic Johnson and the rest of us and needs redemption.  And I have no problem with the NBA taking whatever business actions it likes towards the guy and condemning racist remarks.  But please don't promote this vague "virtue" of tolerance while at the same time expressing intolerance.  Don't be a sanctimonious hypocrite!  Tolerance is NOT intrinsically good.  Some things shouldn't be tolerated.  Whether expressing racist beliefs in one's house should be tolerated and in what circumstances is an open question.  

Finally, let's get to the heart of the issue with Don Sterling.  I listened to the entire 9 minutes of audio tape that TMZ released as well as the additional 5 minutes or so from Deadspin, and Sterling is definitely not someone I would want for an uncle!  There are the offensive racist remarks which everyone has talked about. And let's not forget that he is dating someone about 1/3 his age and we all know why (of course nobody is talking about that.  Our society condemns racist remarks in the bedroom but you can have whatever sex you want as long as it's consensual).  But from what I've seen no one mentions what he says to his girlfriend here (after some racist remarks in reply to his girlfriend asking him to change): "I don't want to change.  If my girl can't do what I want, I don't want the girl.  I'll find a girl that will do what I want. Believe me."

This is a miserable man who is (a) not averse to USING people as mere means and (b) racist "in his heart" (as his girlfriend correctly says at one point).  That is how he is most like a slave owner. Apparently, if we can take the news stories as true that the NAACP was about to honor this man, then plenty of his overt actions have not been racist actions.  But his willingness to treat people as mere means combined with his deep dislike of associating with black people is evidence of a corrupt soul. 

(Note to people who love throwing around terms like "hatred" and "racist" at the drop of a hat without defining them even if such labels might destroy another's life:  Racism comes in degrees. How racist is Sterling?  Well, he's racist enough, but how racist?  He said in the tape to his girlfriend that he is not racist.  He says at one point that he doesn't hate minorities.  Apparently he  has hired plenty of black coaches and staff members in comparison with other owners.  He seems really worried about what racist friends/family will think of him.  He thinks black Jews are less valuable than white Jews.  His girlfriend didn't indicate that she thought he hated blacks or minorities.  At one point his girlfriend said that she wasn't saying he is racist.  At other points she indicates she does think he is racist or has a racist heart and that he comes from a racist background.  So it's hard to know the extent of his racism.  It's hard to know the extent to which his racist heart leads him to racist actions.  There's little to no evidence on the tapes that he hates blacks or wants them destroyed.  There is plenty of evidence that he doesn't like to be associated with blacks or other minorities and thinks of them as in some way inferior).

Whether (and the extent to which) we should be tolerant of or punish people for their morally corrupt beliefs, desires, willingnesses, and statements apart from their other actions is something worth thinking about.  My inclination is that we should be much less inclined to punish the former than the latter since the former are less under our voluntary control.  To misquote a saying or two, "Stupid does as stupid is, and it's hard to fix stupid."

NPR on the Houston Unarmed Case

Go to NPR and search for "Michael Brown."  You'll find 1120 results.  Type "Darren Wilson" and you get 294 results.  Now type "Juventino Castro" (or just Juventino).

Zero results.

I wonder why?

Who's the Media Watchdog's Watchdog?

On NPR this afternoon (paraphrase):

According to the Founders, the media is to be the watchdog of politics.  But who watches over the media?  Who is the media's watchdog?  [NPR's] On the Media, that's who.

But, as journalists are want to say, this begs the question: who watches over the media's watchdog?

Me.

Who's Checking the Fact Checkers?

Are There More "Extreme" Conservatives Moving Further to the Right?

I get the impression from news outlets (the one I listen to most being NPR) that the answer to this question is most definitely, "yes."  It seems to me, however, that the answer is only "yes," on a subtle disambiguation of the word "change," one which most listeners or readers of the media will not recognize.  Thus, I suggest that such media outlets are either yet again displaying their blind ignorance (likely) or engaged in more leftist sophistry (possible, but less likely I'd wager).

Distinguo between a so-called Cambridge change and (for lack of a better term) a real change.  To a rough approximation a Cambridge change for some x occurs when x changes though nothing intrinsic to x changes.  Example: I am to the right of the building.  I run to the left of the building.  The building changes from being to the left of me to being to the right of me, though, of course, the building does nothing nor has anything done to its structure.  If the building has changed by my movement, it's undergone a mere Cambridge change.

If there are more and more conservatives moving further and further to the right, I suggest that is true, but only if we take "moving" to be expressing a Cambridge change.  As progressives (who by nature are progressing) move further to the left, conservatives (who by nature resist change) are "moving" further to the right.  But while progressives are trying to foist upon states that gay "marriage" be recognized and sanctified, that suicide and euthanasia are Constitutional rights, that there is a right to free day care and a duty to pay for it, that it's the job of the government and not parents to feed children during summer vacations, that we should all agree that our ladies should be sent to military front lines on pain of being sexist...conservatives are plodding along with their old beliefs and political positions, ones with which Democrats not more than a decade or two ago would have agreed.

Affirmative Action for the Ugly

Over the weekend I listened to a Freakonomic podcast interview of Texas economist David Hamermesh on the economic downsides of being ugly:
http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/30/reasons-to-not-be-ugly-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

(At Aeon magazine Princeton philosopher Jonny Thakkar has also just written on the issue:
Are Ugly People Oppressed?)

Common sense says that the uglier you are, the less advantages you'll be afforded, and the data seems to bear that out.  According to Hamermesh, good looking NFL quarterbacks, for instance, make roughly $300,000 more simply by being better looking.  Facial symmetry, which can be measured by a computer, goes a long way in most people's minds (though the data doesn't explain everything, including why I'm not making six figures).

Hamermesh, though, when questioned about whether there should be affirmative action for the ugly said, no way.  He's for it when it comes to women, race, and the usual politically motivated suspects but not when it comes to the unprepossessing, unappealing, or downright unsightly.  But why not? He didn't have an answer, except to say that resources are limited and that he didn't think the finite resources should be expended on the ugly.

Perhaps we should conclude, then, that Hamermesh is simply a cold-hearted ugliist.   With no reason not to include the ugly in the Affirmative Action portfolio, Hamermesh might be thought himself to have an irrational bias against the ugly in favor of these other political groups--a blatant form of ugliism at its worst, though perhaps his bias is the result of hegemonic structures of ugliization in society rather than willful hatred on his part.

For (if folks like Hamermesh are right) the data is clear that there is a strong bias against the ugly in favor of the beautiful from birth onward.  The data is far stronger than, for example, discrimination against females.  Given how well girls do in school compared to boys and how many more women are getting college degrees than men, it's arguable that the reverse is now true.  YES, there is the "pay gap," (which news outlets like NPR remind us about weekly) but I've seen no compelling evidence that anything but a small fraction of that gap is the result of unjust discrimination by employers.  Two of the biggest factors I've seen mentioned are (a) taking time off for children and (b) not being aggressive enough in contract negotiations.  At any rate it seems clear that the ugly are at least as discriminated against as women (and it seems to me much more likely that they are more discriminated against).  So why not have Affirmative Action for the ugly?  There is a huge demographic--from a historically downtrodden class--out there to be politically exploited (though if the "Fox News babes" are any indication, I think I know which political contingency will do the exploiting)!

Basically all you'd need as far as practicality goes would be a photograph and the right software.  (Perhaps the smelly will feel left out, but why should we care? It's tautologous that the smelly smell).  Nobody would need to know if you beat out the competition because of your hairy moles or your eyebrows that remind everyone of Al Lewis:

And isn't it a matter of justice that we start seeing job applications with advertisements like the following:

 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Statement

The College of _________is an independent college of the liberal arts and sciences with a commitment to excellence in undergraduate education. The College values diversity, strives to attract qualified women, minority candidates, and the grossly deformed and encourages individuals belonging to these groups to apply. _________ seeks to ensure diversity by its policy of employing persons without regard to age, sex, color, race, overbite, snub-nose, nose hair, scars, goiters, creed, religion, national origin, disability, veteran’s status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or political affiliation. (Transsexual-Ninety year old-Native American- Muslim-Democrat-Retired Coast Guard Commanders who are Endangered Dolphins with bad smiles (due to over fishing) are especially encouraged to apply).

Does it Feel Good? Continued...

Continuing on the "Does It Feel Good?" vs. "Does It Do Good?" theme from the other day....

Gun Control: Calls for gun control after a public shooting even though none of the proposals would have prevented the shooting.  More gun control feels good.

The minimum wage: The overall net value is nothing.  It makes those getting the raise temporarily more happy (until prices adjust) and some people a lot less happy when they lose their job.  At best liberal economists will argue that it does no harm overall, admitting that it probably does no good.  But it feels good.

The Keystone Pipeline: Everyone acknowledges that it would've actually reduced carbon emissions and would have also reduced the risk of oil spills.  But environmentalists hated it and Obama killed it.   Why?  Oil pipelines don't feel good.  Killing the pipeline was environmentally "symbolic."

Paris Climate Talks: The talks were full of talk and not much else.  There are no legally binding agreements, and no means of enforcement.  But getting that many countries together to talk about "Climate Change" feels good. (Ask NPR).

Affirmative Action: It stigmatizes minorities and mismatches their current abilities with requirements.  But even if it did neither ill nor good, it definitely feels good.

That's all for now.  I bet if we thought about it we could come up with a pretty long list.

I'm a Global Warming-Climate Change-Mother Gaia Skeptic

The Maverick sums up a number of my views I've expressed before but not on this blog.  I'm somewhat inclined to lean towards the view that Global Warming is partly anthropogenic, but not, for instance, because NPR journalists preface their 'Global Warming' (or is it 'Climate Change'?) stories with "most scientists agree about climate change, but...."
Question: Do most scientists study climate change?  Ah, silly question.  Read on for my more silly questions.

Global Warming: Questions That Need Distinguishing

My posting of the graphic to the left indicates that I am a skeptic about global warming (GW).  To be precise, I am skeptical about some, not all, of the claims made by the GW activists.  See below for some necessary distinctions. Skepticism is good.  Doubt is the engine of inquiry and a key partner in the pursuit of truth.

A skeptic is a doubter, not a denier.  To doubt or inquire or question  whether such-and-such is the case is not to deny that it is the case.  It is a cheap rhetorical trick of GW alarmists when they speak of GW denial and posture as if it is in the ball park of Holocaust denial. 

What can a philosopher say about global warming? The first thing he can and ought to say is that, although not all questions are empirical, at the heart of the global warming debate are a set of empirical questions. These are not questions for philosophers qua philosophers, let alone for political ideologues. For the resolution of these questions we must turn to reputable climatologists whose roster does not sport such names as 'Al Gore,' 'Barbra Streisand,' or 'Ann Coulter.' Unfortunately, the global warming question is one that is readily 'ideologized' and the ideological gas bags of both the Right and the Left have a lot to answer for in this regard.

I have not investigated the matter with any thoroughness, and I have no firm opinion. It is difficult to form an opinion because it is difficult to know whom to trust: reputable scientists have their ideological biases too, and if they work in universities, the leftish climate in these hotbeds of political correctness is some reason to be skeptical of anything they say.

For example, let's say scientist X teaches at Cal Berkeley and is a registered Democrat. One would have some reason to question his credibility.  He may well tilt toward socialism and away from capitalism and be tempted to beat down capitalism with the cudgel of global warming.  Equally, a climatologist on the payroll of the American Enterprise Institute would be suspect.   I am not suggesting that objectivity is impossible to attain; I am making the simple point that it is difficult to attain and that scientists have worldview biases like everyone else.  And like everyone else, they are swayed by such less-than-noble motives as the desire to advance their careers and be accepted by their peers.  And who funds global warming research?  What are their biases?  And who gets the grants?  And what conclusions do you need to aim at to get funded?  It can't be a bad idea to "follow the money" as the saying goes.

Off the top of my head I think we ought to distinguish among the following questions:

1. Is global warming (GW) occurring?

2. If yes to (1), is it naturally irreversible, or is it likely to reverse itself on its own?

3. If GW is occurring, and will not reverse itself on its own, to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e., caused by human activity?

(3) is the crucial empirical question. It is obviously distinct from (1) and (2). If there is naturally irreversible global warming, this is not to say that it is caused by human activity. It may or may not be. One has to be aware of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Suppose there is a close correlation between global warming and man-made carbon emissions. It doesn't straightaway follow that the the human activity causes the warming. But again, this is not a question that can be settled a priori; it is a question for climatologists.

4. If anthropogenic, is global warming caused by humans to a degree that warrants action, assuming that action can be taken to stop it?

5. If GW is caused by humans to an extent that it warrants action, what sorts of action would be needed to stop the warming process?

6. How much curtailment of economic growth would we be willing to accept to stop global warming?

The first three of these six questions are empirical and are reserved for climatologists. They  are very difficult questions to answer.  And it is worth pointing out that climatology, while an empirical science, falls short of truly strict science.    This useful article lists the following five characteristics of science in the strict and eminent sense:

1. Clearly defined terminology.
2. Quantifiability.
3. Highly controlled conditions. "A scientifically rigorous study maintains direct control over as many of the factors that influence the outcome as possible. The experiment is then performed with such precision that any other person in the world, using identical materials and methods, should achieve the exact same result."
4. Reproducibility. "A rigorous science is able to reproduce the same result over and over again. Multiple researchers on different continents, cities, or even planets should find the exact same results if they precisely duplicated the experimental conditions."
5. Predictability and Testability. "A rigorous science is able to make testable predictions."

These characteristics set the bar for strict science very high, and rightly so.  Is climate science science according to these criteria? No, it falls short on #s 3 and 4.  At the hardest hard core of the hard sciences lies the physics of meso-phenomena.  Climatology does not come close to this level of 'hardness.'  So don't be bamboozled: don't imagine that the prestige of physics transfers undiminished onto climatology.  It is pretty speculative stuff and much of it is ideologically infected. 

Our first three questions are empirical. But the last three are not, being questions of public policy. So although the core issues are empirical, philosophers have some role to play: they can help in the formulation and clarification of the various questions; they can help with the normative questions that arise in conjunction with (4)-(5), and they can examine the cogency of the arguments given on either side. Last but not least, they can drive home the importance of being clear about the distinction between empirical and conceptual questions.

Obama: Wrong Again

As a Constitutional lawyer, Obama is either lying or once again being mendacious, but the Puffy Host won't call him on it of course.

On NPR yesterday I heard him say more or less what is reported here, that according to the Constitution the Senate "is to consider that nomination and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court" [my emphasis].

Not true at all. There's no such duty, constitutional or otherwise. There's no mention at all in Article II. Section 2 that the Senate is to do this, so the President is wrong on a second count in his "amusement" of strict constructionists:

"I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there," Obama said.
"The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now," Obama, a former constitutional law professor, told a news conference at the close of a two-day meeting with leaders from Southeast Asia.

Implied is that what he is saying is correct even on strict constructionist grounds (rather than on "living breathing" grounds where whatever a living Democrat says that it says or means is true).  Article II. Section 2 is vague other than to say "by and with advice and consent" from the Senate. But no rules are laid down for how this should be done--nothing about giving an up or down vote--and each House can determine its own procedural rules. So the President is wrong--probably lying--and the Senate is within its Constitutional right to (e.g.) filibuster.

Slavery and States' Rights

A very well-written historical piece here.

Excerpt:

According to the standard version of history, states’ rights was a doctrine invented by Southern politicians to perpetuate slavery. One high school textbook, for example, describes the term “states’ rights” as an antebellum euphemism for “the right of the states to maintain slavery and the right of individuals to hold property in slaves.” In a 2011 interview on NPR, Adam Goodhart, author of 1861: The Civil War Awakening, asserted that “the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property.” A 2013 New York Times op-ed declared that “since the nation’s founding, ‘states’ rights’ has been a rallying cry for those who wished to systematically disenfranchise and exploit large segments of their population.” A plaque at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery describes states’ rights as a doctrine that “protected the institution of slavery.”

This conventional history provides a handy rhetorical weapon for liberal commentators, who accuse states’ rights conservatives of embracing a doctrine historically identified with “pro-slavery ideologies and . . . the disenfranchisement of African-Americans,” as the Nation puts it. Now that the 2016 presidential campaign is getting under way—with some GOP hopefuls advocating a return to states’ rights—expect many in the media to warn us that the Tea Party is forgetting the lessons of history.

But what if the lessons of history are wrong, and the doctrine of states’ rights was actually an antislavery ideology?

[...]

No sane African-American would support the Tea Party, MSNBC host Chris Matthews said in 2013, because it is “a group that is basically pro-states’ rights.” Yet contrary to many such arguments you hear today, the Civil War was not sparked by federal efforts to abolish slavery: there were no such efforts before the South seceded. The war arose from Northern assertions of states’ rights and from the South’s frustration at the federal government’s failure to rein in those assertions. After the war, however, it became irresistible for federal politicians—eager to justify an expanded role for the national government—to associate states’ rights with the Confederacy and, therefore, slavery. By 1909, progressive journalist Herbert Croly could assert—with little fear of contradiction—that the growth of federal power since Reconstruction had been necessary to slay “the double-headed problem of slavery and states’ rights.” The rest is history—sort of.

Right and Left Explained in 5 Minutes

Right: Does it do good?  Left: Does it feel good?

This seems about right, at least as far as pithy explanations go.  It's certainly true that the left tends more towards subjectivism about value.

These fundamental stances explain the outrage and cries of racism directed towards Justice Scalia for noting a fact--that a lot of blacks flunked out of school due to affirmative action policies--and that they might be better off going to a lower tier school and passing.  (Of course, as Scalia himself noted, this question only applies to those blacks (etc.) admitted with lower qualifications.)  In short, he asked whether those policies actually do good.  Simply asking that question is impermissible.  Why?  Those questions might make some people feel bad.  This is essentially the objection that a panel on NPR reached the other day.

Do Black Lives Really Matter?

"Do black lives really matter, or does it matter only if you are shot by a white person or a white policeman?"

That's from the testimony of Jamiel Shaw whose son was slain by, as he says, an "illegal alien," or what the Obama administration might prefer to refer to as "an American-in-Waiting."   I'll bet Al Sharpton is on his way to the Arizona border as we speak.  (This is all we're going to be hearing about on NPR for the next month).

Heartbreaking testimony:

Hillary on Supreme Court Nominees

Here is the transcript of an NPR interview of Hillary Clinton I happened upon last week.  She was asked about whether--like Bernie--she would require a litmus test  for Supreme Court nominees and more generally what she would be looking for [my emphasis in bold below].

Well, I believe strongly that we need Supreme Court justices who truly understand the impact of their decisions, and I think some of the recent decisions — Citizens United being one, voting rights being others, the extension of more and more rights to corporations vis-a-vis real people — I think has created some unintended consequences. So I would want somebody who understands when you blow open the door and say money is speech and you have a, in my view, somewhat misguided hope that all of the money that would then be pouring into our political system would be disclosed in real time — which, of course, it is not and in some instances never is — that you would have someone who has ... experience as a lawyer, as a judge in the real world who would say, hey wait a minute, that really undermines and corrupts our political system.

[Ari Shapiro]: "So is that "yes" to a Citizens United litmus test ... ?"

[Clinton again] Absolutely, but it's broader than that. It's not just Citizens United, Ari. Let's take voting rights. I was in the Senate when we voted 98 to nothing to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. President George W. Bush signed it. And we did that because there was substantial evidence that a lot of the discrimination that, unfortunately, was part of our voting system that we addressed with the Voting Rights Act in the '60s was still a problem in some parts of our country.
The folks who didn't agree with that appealed it, took a challenge to it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court really gutted the Voting Rights Act. And their argument, again, in my view, was fundamentally naive.
And that's the best I can say about it, which was, "You know, we really don't need all of this now. Everybody can kind of stand up for themselves." And look at what has happened. We have had a rash of efforts in states to try to suppress and undermine the vote.
So, I'm looking for people who understand the way the real world works, our political system when it comes to money, like Citizens United; our voting rights system; our economics system where, if you keep enhancing the powers of corporation vis-a-vis unions, vis-a-vis, you know, individuals, you're not going to have the kind of balanced economy that produced the middle class.

Notice that conspicuous by its absence is any mention at all that Hillary will be looking for someone skilled at interpreting the Constitution. I have long said that the left has no love for the Constitution and that only the right is concerned that it be interpreted.  It is the sentiment of old, dead, white men which, when properly interpreted, sometimes put the brakes on "progress."  The Democratic nominees will have a litmus test, alright, for the one job justices are there to do: vote.

Gender Wage Gap: Tilting at Windmills?

The Gender Pay Gap Based on Unjust Discrimination is a Complete Myth

77 Cents on the Dollar Myth

Much of the Wage Gap Accounted for by Self-Selection in College Majors

How Many Flight Attendants are Men?

Wage Gap Myth Exposed by Feminists

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

The Radical Democratic Party

If you listen to the mainstream media, you'd get the sense that Ted Cruz is a "radical" and that there are fewer and fewer "moderates" in the Republican Party.  This is the great lie of the left.

More charitably it is the great blunder of the left blinded by their love of Hillary and Bernie.  There is an easy explanation.  A Democratic journalist working for NPR thinks of himself or herself as normal.  As mainstream.  As having the correct political opinion.  As above the fray.  He then naturally  identifies with Hillary.  He's moderate.  She's moderate.  They are both moderate.  Bernie is a little more extreme than Hillary but neither are extremists like Ted Cruz.

But they are the extremists.  Historically, Ted Cruz has far more in common with presidents of the past than Hillary Clinton.  Gay marriage?  Unthinkable.  Bisexuality as morally permissible and upstanding?  Unthinkable.  Zero restrictions on abortion?  Taking away the rights of citizens not to pay for health insurance?  Nuts.  More and more growth of the federal government?

Whenever a Democrat breaths the word "extremist" remind them that a socialist--a socialist--might very well capture their party's nomination.  And remind them that Barack Obama was recognized by the non-partisan National Journal as the most liberal (i.e. leftwing) senator in 2007 before he was elected president; even the leftist mag Mother Jones recognized he was no moderate.

More ammo.