According to Tuesday’s New Haven Register, the fourteen New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotion in 2003 due to a racial quota system, will be promoted.  A formal promotion ceremony is scheduled for December 10th. 

Last week the Civil Service Commission, in a unanimous vote, certified two 2003 promotional lists for fire captain and lieutenant, clearing the way for the city to present the lists to the fire commission. 

The victory here is for people who believe that people should be promoted on merit regardless of the color of their skin.  If a minority is not doing well on a specific test, spend some time teaching the members of that minority what they need to know in order to be promoted, don’t penalize the people who scored well on the test.

Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted color blindness–not color preference.

According to NBC News New York yesterday, New York City officials were not consulted by the Justice Department before deciding to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in civilian courts in New York City.  (As an aside, where are they going to find a ‘jury of their peers?’)   Mayor Bloomberg was informed the morning that Attorney General Eric Holder made the announcement. 

According to the article:

“The terror suspects are expected to arrive in New York early next year, at least 45 days after the Justice Department formally notifies Congress of its plans to bring the suspects here.”

New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated, ” The fact is we weren’t asked.  And we will make the best of a situation.  We weren’t.”

Because of the budget crunch that many city and state governments are currently facing, New York City has fewer policemen today that it did on September 11, 2001.  I hope that the federal government will at least increase the security funding for the City during the trial.

Last week, the Telegraph.co.uk reported that five members of the Australian Congress have resigned rather than follow their party and vote for Australia’s version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and global-warming skeptic, pointed out last summer that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, which are both dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal.

The article observes:

“For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW  (Anthropogenic global warming) is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.”

I agree. 

Obviously there were numerous articles written last night and this morning about the President’s speech at West Point last night.  The sources for this article are a piece by Rich Lowry in the New York Post, an article by Chris Stirewalt in the Washington Examiner, and an article by Michael Rubin at Forbes.com. 

Rich Lowry begins his analysis of the speech by giving the President credit for stepping up to the plate and sending most of the additional soldiers that General McChrystal requested.  He then mentions the President’s commitment to begin bringing the troops home in 18 months.  Mr. Lowry points out that some Americans see that as a commitment to a speedy victory, others see it as a promise to get the troops home well before the next presidential election.

Chris Stirewalt points out:

“To anti-war liberals, it was a reminder of their revulsion every time George W. Bush used the (9/11) attacks as a pretext for his foreign policy. From the moment Bush grabbed the bullhorn at the ruins of the World Trade Center, they felt that he had co-opted a national tragedy for his own agenda.

“So it came as a particularly cruel irony for many of the president’s most ardent supporters when he argued for escalating a war most liberals believe should be ended, framing his argument in the same terms that launched the Bush doctrine.”

Mr. Stirewalt points out the President Obama won his party’s nomination on an anti-war platform.  He regards last night’s pledge by President Obama to increase troops while promising their withdrawal as cynical.  There are some real doubts that the war can be successfully wrapped up in eighteen months.

Michael Rubin stated that he felt the President ignored the advice of General McChrystal by sending only 30,000 troops.  He points out that General McChrystal is experienced in counterinsurgency and asked for the number of troops he needed to get the job done quickly and efficiently.  To send him less is to undermine the mission.  Mr. Rubin points out why the commitment should be open-ended depending on conditions on the ground.  The message the President is sending to the Afghanis is ‘we have your back for the next eighteen months, after that you are on your own.’  All the Taliban now has to do is go into the villages and say, ‘the Americans are leaving in eighteen months, and we will still be here.  Watch what you do.’   It’s the equivalent of giving the mob the names and locations of all the people currently in the federal witness protection program.  Anyone who helps us for the next eighteen months will be putting his life on the line.

The content of the speech was not totally unexpected.  This was a speech that was designed to please everyone and wound up making very few people happy. 

My main source for this article is a news item found in the November 27, 2009, issue of THE WEEK.  I have not linked to the site, because you need to be a subscriber to the magazine to read the articles on the site.  The background information for the article comes from a website called the Institute for Justice.

In June of 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the City of New London, Connecticut, could, under the rule of eminent domain, seize the homes of several homeowners in order to use the land for a purpose that would generate more tax revenue for the City.  One of the homeowners, Susette Kelo, challenged the City’s right to do that, and the case eventually went before the US Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the City could take the land of one property owner and give it to another person.  This was a horrible ruling, and undermined the whole concept of protecting private property ownership, but it happened.

So let’s look at where we are now.  The taking of the property was used to lure Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company to New London to build a research center.  Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company arrived, built its New London research center on the seized property, and this week announced that it was closing the plant.  Most of the plants 1,400 employees will be relocated to nearby Groton. 

Now the City of New London won’t even have the tax revenue from the people who once lived in that area of New London.  They will simply have a vacant research center.  Poetic justice at its best.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released figures showing that health insurance costs will rise if the current healthcare bill is passed.  Roughly 43 percent of the American people would be paying more for their health insurance.  Everyone’s premiums would increase, but 57 percent of Americans would recieve government subsidies to cover the increase in premiums.  Where does the money come from to finance the government subsidies–the taxpayers.  We get hit coming and going!

The CBO also reports that 19 percent of people with private insurance plans would be hit by the ‘luxury tax’ on those plans.  All premiums would be expected to increase slightly due to the fees that would be levied on insurance companies and the taxes levied on  manufacturers of medical devices.

This does not strike me as cost-saving, deficit-busting lelgislation.

One of the things that is supposed to be the basis of American law is that the law (and rules) apply equally to every man.  We have gotten away from that is some cases, but theoretically it is still a binding principle.  One of the problems with the healthcare bill currently under consideration in Congress is that if passed, it does not apply to Congress.  One of the problems with Social Security funding problems is that Congress is not under Social Security–they have no incentive to fix it!  Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, the concept of ‘rules for thee but not for me’ has reared its head in a big way in the climate-change debate–and this time it’s not Al Gore.

Mark Steyn posted something today at The Corner at National Review about Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

According to the article, Dr. Rajendra has stated:

“Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.”

I admire the man’s dedication.  It’s impressive until you mention a few facts. 

According to the article:

“Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.”

Please read the Mark Steyn post on this, I love his conclusion.

As President Obama prepares to make his speech tonight at West Point, there are a few things to keep in mind.  A timetable for withdrawal is seen by the Arab culture as weakness–it says to the average terrorist, “All we have to do is lay low until they leave.”  That is why we still have a fairly large force in Iraq–the Iraqis are taking over their security, but we are there in case we are needed.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee has released a 43-page report today saying that Osama Bin Laden is still at large due to the unwillingness of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to deploy more troops at Tora Bora in 2001.  This is a somewhat amazing statement to make after President Obama has stalled for four months in providing General McChrystal the troops he needs.  It is also something of a rewrite of the history of American efforts to capture Bin Laden.

According to a Washington Times article on July 4, 2006, commenting on a Richard Clarke book, “Against All Enemies.”  :

“Mr. Clarke’s book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel’s failure to condemn Mr. Clinton’s failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.”

I added the boldface type.

It needs to be mentioned that as Senator Kerry releases this report condemning the fact that we did not send enough troops into Tora Bora in 2001, we need to remember what he was saying at the time.  The Wall Street Journal reminds us:

“In 2001, readers may recall, the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the “quagmire” point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker.”

John Kerry has taken so many stands on troop levels in Afghanistan it makes my head hurt!