FACEbook

Saturday, January 12, 2013

President Obama's Diversity Kerfuffle

    President Obama has been taking friendly fire lately for the "lack of diversity" in recent cabinet picks.  As I noted yesterday, even Charlie Rangel was a bit put out by President Obama's lack of focus on symbolism in personnel decisions.  Perhaps there is nostalgia for the glory days when pandering to groups was more of a priority.  One such example is the president's signature accomplishment  ObamaCare.

    While perusing the ObamaCare law for another story, I made an inadvertent discovery.  I noticed the references to "women" were fairly frequent, but I had trouble finding "men."  As it turns out, there's a good reason that the disparity was so apparent.  A search of the document reveals 145 uses of "women."  And "men"?  One.  And here it is, in Section 1101, page 418:
(3) provide information to women and health care providers on those areas in which differences between men and women exist;
    "Men" only makes it into the law as a point of reference to define areas of care for women.  Men are simply the not-women of ObamaCare.

    Obviously men are covered under the (endless!) general provisions of ObamaCare.  Women have unique health needs that the framers of the law felt necessary to spell out.  Is this 145:1 ratio evidence of discrimination against men?  I suppose it's possible, but unlikely.

    The point here is not one of complaint, but rather illustration.  In the current kerfuffle with the president, liberals have painted themselves into a corner given their history of incessant emphasis on externals ("color of their skin", in the words of Martin Luther King, and "war on women", in the words of countless liberals.)  When a conservative or a Republican violates the unwritten rules of diversity, it's easy to shout "racism" or "sexism."

    But this is their man.  What are their alternatives?  Is the president deliberately or carelessly overlooking more qualified minorities in favor of "good ole (white) boy" picks?  That's virtually unthinkable for a true progressive like Obama.  Or are the minority candidates not as qualified, but the president's critics believe he should choose them anyway?  Diversity trumps qualifications?  Or are the good ole boys and the minorities equally qualified, and the critics believe a tie goes to "diversity"?

    Perhaps this conflict will help expose the hypocrisy of the "diversity" crowd to a wider audience.  I do not know Barack Obama's motives for choosing the men he has to fill the open cabinet positions.  But it is obvious that at least in these cases, he's not pandering on the basis of race or sex.  Would that liberals could give conservatives and Republicans the same benefit of the doubt.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

President Obama and Women: The Face-off [Photo]

    President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately, even from his most ardent supporters, such as Congressman Charlie Rangel, for the "lack of diversity" in his latest Cabinet appointments.  As Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard reported, Rangel called the lack of diversity "embarrassing."  In an effort to dispel the notion, Jay Carney was compelled to tick off a list of as many women in the Obama administration as he could think of in a press briefing yesterday.  In this context, one can only wish there was an audio track accompanying the latest photo of the president released by the White House:


    Feel free to supply some dialogue in the comments section below, but keep in mind my Comments Policy in the right-hand column, please.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The NEA's Excellent HERadventure [Updated]

    During my politically formative years, the National Endowment for the Arts was a frequent target of derision from conservatives and Republicans for the unnecessary and often ridiculous use of tax dollars.    Along with the Department of Education and public broadcasting, it was high on the list of government boondoggles to get the axe once conservatives held the purse strings.  Somehow, that day never came.  With the resurgence of interest in cutting government spending now that the country has had four trillion dollar plus annual deficits in a row, the NEA might start to feel the heat again, especially in light of the story below.

    Last spring, the National Endowment for the Arts announced its 2012 grant recipients.  The vigilance of conservatives must indeed have slipped, because other than a brief mention by Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts, the following seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed:
Spelman College (aka Digital Moving Image Salon)
Atlanta, GA
$100,000
To support HERadventure, a multi-episode, augmented reality computer game. Targeted to young women ages 18-25, HERadventure's story focuses on a young female superhero sent to Earth to save her own planet from devastation because of climate changes caused by social issues impacting women and girls. The game will be designed to be accessible online, on mobile platforms, Facebook, and Twitter and is designed and led by filmmaker and digital media artist Ayoka Chenzira with a team of artists.
    The description defies parody.  $100,000 of taxpayer money is going to help develop a video game about a female alien sent to earth to rescue her own planet (sorry, I just can't paraphrase this - must quote) "from devastation because of climate changes caused by social issues impacting women and girls."  Fortunately, we are not left to fill in the details for ourselves.  A fuller description is available on the website of Spelman College:
The backstory of HERadventure begins when HER, a warrior woman and inhabitant of Earth’s sister planet, comes to Earth to investigate why it is causing her native planet to freeze and slowly die. HER discovers that the auras of Earth’s women are diminishing. Consequently, Earth and other parts of the universe are negatively impacted. HER enlists a corps of “superheroes in training” (HERadventure users) to take meaningful action and offer solutions to issues such as negative self-esteem, discrimination, eating disorders, and depression, which are causing women’s auras to suffer. These issues are dealt with through visual metaphors in a 3-D environment. HERadventure users “teleport” through various levels of the gaming experience by using social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, with a goal of helping the superhero save her planet and ultimately serve as catalysts for positive change in the virtual and real world.
    An article from the college's electronic newsletter Inside Spelman goes even further:
 What would happen if the societal issues affecting women put other planets at risk? Well, of course, HER, a Black female superhero, would swoop in with a plan to save the universe. HER is central to HERadventure, a science fiction-based, multimedia platform project that interweaves virtual worlds, digital  and social media to create a gaming and storytelling experience. HERadventure not only entertains but tackles social issues that permeate the daily reality of many women.
    Although it is the smorgasbord of politically correct elements that makes this project entertaining to write about, the bottom line is that the government has taken $100,000 from the taxpayers and given it to someone to develop a video game.  It is one thing to argue that tax dollars should be used to prop up art forms that may be suffering from popular neglect (opera, painting, ballet, symphony orchestras) but have earned the right to be preserved for cultural and historical reasons if for nothing else.  But a video game?  Does America need government sponsored video games?  Even those that purport to be "art"?  Cannot our free marketplace of ideas even be trusted with that minor task?

    As the Inside Spelman article goes on to note:
HERadventure is scheduled for release on International Women’s Day on March 8, 2013. However, that is only the beginning. The transmedia, interactive story of HERadventure will be made up of several interconnected projects including a film that will engage film directors from around the world.
    Mark your calendars for March 8th.  We paid $100,000 for it.  We might as well see if we got our money's worth.

UPDATE: In a remarkable coincidence, this story at IndieWire.com just showed up this morning:

Filmmaker Ayoka Chenzira Launches HERadventure Sci-Fi Multimedia Project To Empower Women 
NEWS BY TAMBAY A. OBENSON
JANUARY 10, 2013 11:27 AM 
As the conversation continues on the dearth of black representation in sci-fi cinema, I receive an email with this announcement.
When she's not partnering up with acclaimed best-selling author Pearl Cleage to bring her novels to the screen, in what has been dubbed The Pearl Cleage Film Project, filmmaker and professor Ayoka Chenzira is developing an innovative sci-fi multimedia (film, gaming, social media) project called HERadventure.
I'll be interviewing her in a little bit about both her teaming with Cleage as well as on this newly-announced HERadventure project.
     The full story is at the link.

Hillary Clinton: "Retirement"? Perhaps not...

    At a flag ceremony for the United States Ambassador to Ireland, Dan Rooney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had this exchange with a reporter:
QUESTION: So things – you’re ready – you’re back in the swing of things - 
SECRETARY CLINTON: I am back -- 
QUESTION: -- even though it’s closing down your operation? 
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. It’s obviously somewhat bittersweet, because I’ve had the most extraordinary experience, and I work with just an amazing team of people. But I’m very much looking forward to doing everything we can these last few weeks to resolve and finish up wherever possible and then to have a very smooth, seamless transition to Senator Kerry to continue the work. 
QUESTION: And then retirement? 
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know that that’s the word I would use, but certainly stepping off the very fast track for a little while.
     However, Mrs. Clinton has vehemently denied her intention to ever run for President again.  Via Business Insider from March 2011:
Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?
No
Q- Why not?
Because I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region. So I want to be part of helping to represent the United States at this critical moment in time, to do everything I can in support of the president and our government and the people of our country to stand for our values and our ideals, to stand up for our security, which has to remain first and foremost in my mind and to advance America's interests. And there isn't anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding.
Q- President of the United States?
You know, I had a wonderful experience running and I am very proud of the support I had and very grateful for the opportunity, but I'm going to be, you know, moving on.
Q- I asked my viewers and followers on Twitter to send questions and a lot of them said, "Ask her if she'll run in 2016 for the presidency." A lot of folks would like to you to do that.
Well that's very kind, but I am doing what I want to do right now and I have no intention or any idea even of running again. I'm going to do the best I can at this job for the next two years.
    The "very fast track" that Mrs. Clinton is getting off for "a little while" apparently does not include another campaign.

Monday, January 7, 2013

"Whole-of-Government" Commitment: And This is a Good Thing?

    Today, an article appeared on the White House blog with the grandiose title "A Whole-of-Government Commitment to Inclusive Entrepreneurial Growth." The post begins:
Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the engines of American innovation and our economic success, and President Obama is committed to helping them grow and prosper. Our nation’s small businesses employ over 60 million Americans, or half of the private sector workforce. 
    The article goes on to list a multitude of government resources available to entrepreneurs and small business owners, but the tone of the piece is set early with this [emphasis mine]:

Last year, President Obama spoke with his Cabinet about how every Federal agency has a role to play in promoting the success of American entrepreneurs[.]
    Every Federal agency?  All 479 of them?  Including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry?  The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports?  Even the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation?  The disturbing answer is probably, yes, although a cynic might substitute "thwarting" for "promoting" in the sentence above.


    I realize the Small Business Administration has been around for decades (since 1953,) but the level of government involvement in the creation, direction, and nurturing of small businesses has been taken to a whole new level by the Obama administration.  One of the websites featured in the White House blog article is business.usa.gov.  Based on its interface, it might as well be named Starting a Small Business for Dummies:


    If that's not enough, the About Us page of the website spells out the administration's vision of small business in America, 2013:
To strengthen America's competitiveness in the global economy, businesses will need to be equipped with the best tools and information available to support innovation and job growth in the 21st century. BusinessUSA is your front door to all the government has to offer...
    "All the government has to offer."  I fully expect the Obama administration to soon throw all pretense to the wind and name its next website "youdidntbuildthat.gov".  Hey, maybe I should register that domain name now!  I wonder where I could find out how to do that?

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Taxing the Flu [Updated]

    While the nation's attention was focused on the approaching holidays and the (indulge my use of the word one more time) looming fiscal cliff, some in Congress seized upon the distractions to try to make sure when it came to money being spent to battle the growing flu epidemic, Uncle Sam got his fair share.  In the past few weeks, bills were introduced in both houses of Congress to make sure seasonal flu vaccines are subject to a 75¢ per dose tax imposed by Section 4131 of the IRS code. [See update below: the tax funds the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.]

    The bill (H.R. 6687) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Jim Gerlach with Democrat Richard Neal co-sponsoring.  The purpose of the amendment is stated in its rather unwieldy title: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines." According to govtrack.us, the bill died in committee when the 112th Congress came to a close at the end of the year.

    However, an identical bill (S. 3716) was introduced in the current session of the Senate on January 2, 2013 by Democrat Max Baucus and co-sponsor Republican Orrin Hatch.  The bill was passed immediately by unanimous consent and passed on to the House.  Presumably the dead House bill 6687 will now be resurrected in the 113th Congress for action, though this has not yet occurred.

    The text of the bill is quite short and technical and provides no explanation of the underlying reason for the change [see UPDATE below.] The relevant portion of the proposed legislation simply states:
SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL INFLUENZA TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES. 
(a) In General- Subparagraph (N) of section 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting `or any other vaccine against seasonal influenza' before the period. 
    Section (b) of the bill relates only to the effective date of the legislation.  Section 4132(a)(1)(N) as revised would read in full: "(N) Any trivalent vaccine against influenza or any other vaccine against seasonal influenza."  But Section 4132 deals only with the definitions of the vaccines that are subject to the provisions in Section 4131.  This section reads as follows:
§ 4131. Imposition of tax
(a) General rule
There is hereby imposed a tax on any taxable vaccine sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer thereof.
(b) Amount of tax
(1) In general
The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) shall be 75 cents per dose of any taxable vaccine.
    The last two words are the key to the proposed change: "taxable vaccine."  Due to the lack of explanation accompanying the bill, I am only speculating.  But as drug companies struggle to keep up with new and mutating strains of the influenza virus, this bill widens the definition of "taxable vaccine" to make certain that any and all attempts to fight present and future iterations of the flu are subject to the 75¢ per dose tax.  Given that the Centers for Disease Control projects that 135 million doses of flu vaccine will be used this year, Congress is protecting the government's $100,000,000+ take on flu vaccines alone.

    ABC News is reporting that the flu has reached epidemic proportions in 18 states already this year, and the flu season is still young.  The American public may despise the gridlock in Washington, but if this bill is an example of how bipartisanship works, gridlock might gain popularity.  This bill may simply be an attempt to provide uniformity in the IRS code, but the timing of this "flu tax" is certain to provoke charges that Congress is exploiting a national health crisis, charges that an unpopular Congress may find difficult to refute.

UPDATE: Upon further research, I found that that 75¢ tax per dose is intended to fund the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.  The fund is explained at the Health Resources and Services Administration website:
On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. Three Federal government offices have a role in the VICP:
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); and
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the Court).
The VICP is located in the HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation.
    Although the taxes raised by the vaccine tax go into a "trust fund," this trust fund, like most government trust funds, is on paper only.  According to the most recent report on the fund, November 2012, the balance in the fund is nearly $3.5 billion.  (Since the program's inception in 1988, the fund has paid out only $2.5 billion in 25 years for cases involving all vaccines, not just the flu vaccine.  The balance in the fund could conceivably last another 25 years with no further tax revenue.)   The $3.5 billion balance, of course, is "invested" in "US Treasury Securities."  In other words, financing a portion of the $16.5 trillion national debt.

Honor By Omission

    As part of the 2013 Inauguration of President Obama, the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) has made a rather odd and less than successful attempt to honor Dr. Martin Luther King.  The online store of the 2013 PIC is selling buttons ($5) listed as “HONORING MLK BUTTON”.  The description reads:
Two official 57th Presidential Inauguration buttons featuring a quote from President Obama given at the dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. Made in the USA.
However, on the buttons themselves, the honor paid Dr. King is somewhat muted, or rather, missing altogether:

This is a country where ordinary people find in their hearts the courage to do extraordinary things. - President Barack Obama

    There is no mention of, picture of, or reference to Dr. King anywhere on the button.  Unless someone is already familiar with President Obama's speech and the context in which it was given, there is nothing explicit or even implicit to tie the sentiment to the Baptist preacher turned civil rights icon.

    Ironically, the memorial honoring Dr. King, which President Obama was dedicating when he said the words above, had its own quote controversy.  Critics argued that the "paraphrased quotation [chiseled on the memorial] took King's words out of context, making him sound arrogant."  The Interior Department recently announced the words will be removed from memorial at a cost of some $700,000 to $900,000. (via NBC News)