Bible Out of ContextRandom Quotes from the Bible
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. KJV: Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand. NASB: Isaiah 64:8
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand. NIV: Isaiah 64:8
...Random blessings from the Word of God...
Put His Word in the context of your life!
www.Christ.com
|
|
|
Jesus Only Churches (Paperback) by E. Calvin Beisner, Dr. Alan W. Gomes (Series Editor)
|
|
|
Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook (Paperback) by William D. Mounce
|
|
Bible Out of ContextRandom Quotes from the Bible
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. KJV: James 1:5-8
5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. NASB: James 1:5-8
5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. NIV: James 1:5-8
...Random blessings from the Word of God...
Put His Word in the context of your life!
www.Christ.com
|
|
|
The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age (Paperback) by Peter Jones
|
|
|
God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Paperback) by John Piper
|
|
Bible Out of ContextRandom Quotes from the Bible
34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. KJV: John 13:34-35
34"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NASB: John 13:34-35
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV: John 13:34-35
...Random blessings from the Word of God...
Put His Word in the context of your life!
www.Christ.com
|
|
|
The Bondage of the Will (Paperback) by Martin Luther, J. I. Packer, O. R. Johnston
|
|
|
Morphology of Biblical Greek, The (Paperback) by William D. Mounce
|
|
Bible Out of ContextRandom Quotes from the Bible
7Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. KJV: James 4:7-8
7Submit therefore to God Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8Draw near to God and He will draw near to you Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. NASB: James 4:7-8
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. NIV: James 4:7-8
...Random blessings from the Word of God...
Put His Word in the context of your life!
www.Christ.com
|
|
|
Exegetical Fallacies, (Paperback) by D. A. Carson
|
|
|
The Gospel of John (Paperback) by James Montgomery Boice
|
|
Bible Out of ContextRandom Quotes from the Bible
10And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. KJV: Matthew 9:10-13
10Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" 12But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13"But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." NASB: Matthew 9:10-13
10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." NIV: Matthew 9:10-13
...Random blessings from the Word of God...
Put His Word in the context of your life!
www.Christ.com
|
|
|
My Heart's Desire: Living Every Moment in the Wonder of Worship (Hardcover) by David Jeremiah
|
|
|
Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Paperback) by Robert E. Picirilli
|
|
|
National Review: Corner
|
| The Corner | More Palin
The explanation suggested by this latest Martin story seems pretty persuasive to me: get out of Alaska as a bigger stage beckons, earn lots of money to support your family, and keep your options open in national politics. If the world wants you to be a celebrity, why bother with the grinding details and all the frustrations of being governor of Alaska? Be a celebrity.
Cutting bait
With respect to many of the Palinologists below, I think they're getting way too hepatomantic over the entrails.
As a political move for anything other than the 2010 Senate race, today's announcement is a disaster. And I'm not sure it's a plus for the Senate - and, even if it were, the manner and timing suggest it was not a professionally planned event and therefore is unlikely to have any grand strategy behind it.
So Occam's Razor leaves us with: Who needs this?
In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people. You're a mayor or a state senator or even the governor, but you lead a normal life. The local media are tough on you, but they know you, they live where you live, they're tough on the real you, not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics who'd never heard of you a week earlier and media grandees supposedly on your own side who pronounce you a "cancer".
Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.
Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?
National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.
The Many Scenarios of Mickey
I don't apologize for posting his entire post here, because if you want the links to every theory, you have to go over there. Mickey Writes:
I can see 5 6 7 8 9 10 Palin theories ... and counting: 1) She's running for president; 2) She's undergoing fame withdrawal and plans to get more attention in the lower 48; 3) She wants to cash in ($); 4) There's another shoe about to drop; 5) She'll now run against Murkowski for Senate. 6) She needs to tend to her family. 7) She's bonkers. 8) She's preggers. 9) She wants to "effect positive change outside government at this point in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities." 10) Actually being a governor in a recession is no fun. Gives you ulcers. ... These theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ... I have no fish in this hunt. ... Update: Mediaite has intravenous drip. ... see also HuffPo ... Murphy is morphing! ...
P.S.: Kurtz is sure! "No way Palin can run for president now." ...Update: Now he asks, "How can these talking heads pop off about the meaning of Palin's resignation when not one of them saw it coming?" ... It's the return of Kurtz vs. Kurtz! ... 4:35 P.M.
The Lessons of History
As America looks forward to celebrating Independence Day, this open letter from Tory Diary's Tim Montgomerie to British Conservative leader David Cameron -- a letter partly prompted by unsurprising but appalling revelations of how little young Britons are being taught about their history -- is worth mulling, not least this: "It's difficult to love a country that you know little about."
Food for thought.
Hard to Figure
If Sarah Palin was trying to make news today, she had odd timing. At a time when Farah Fawcett and Ed McMahon's deaths paled -- almost as much as another recently departed celebrity's skin -- into insignificance, perhaps she hoped her resignation on a holiday Friday would pass unnoticed. But that isn't really her style, which makes today's abrupt announcement seem more like a whim -- a characteristic her detractors worried about during the campaign.
I suspect the media is both concerned and delighted by her news. On the one hand, she's great material -- ridicule sells, and if she really does exit the stage, they'll have to find someone else to pick on. On the other hand, the great 2012 GOP nominee chess match has already started, and this ensures that her name will be in the mix, even if she has no plans to launch a campaign.
Here's something I've always thought -- if a major television network pre-empts regularly scheduled programming to run its anchor comedy show during prime time, and you are the butt of their jokes, you have a serious problem. And I've never felt that politically she could ever recover from the 2008 campaign.
While we all speculate about this, it could be that she'd just had enough and wants her life back. Who could blame her?
I wish her well.
Re: 2012 or 2016
Rich -- What's Charles K's argument?
'Schmidt Wins'?
Now that strikes me as beltway talk, even micro-beltway talk. Schmidt's behavior would not be excusable even if the things he said we're proven true (and I don't think they have been). Schmidt was given a monumental privilege, to essentially run a presidential campaign for a candidate who, despite his flaws, was about as honorable a politician as we've seen in a very long time (yes, sometimes McCain's honor crossed the line into vanity). Schmidt's leaking and self-aggrandizing during the campaign and after reflects poorly on him, and needlessly embarrassed the candidate -- regardless of the merits of his complaints. The man is not a journalist, he's not a priest, he's not Thomas More. He's a very, very partisan campaign functionary and his behavior has been tacky, his judgment questionable and his loyalty beyond dubious.
I don't mean to single him out in this regard. Many, if not most, campaign flacks have these qualities to one extent or another. But Schmidt couldn't do what the really talented flacks do -- hide his tracks. Schmidt couldn't manage that, which compounds his failures, not exonerates them.
Charles K
It has to be about '16 or beyond, not '12.
Predictions in Politics Are Useless
That's my takeaway from today. Not too long ago, "President Barack Obama" was far from "inevitable," while the current secretary of state was. A year ago, the resignation of the Alaska governor would be far from breaking news. A day ago, I thought the July 4th weekend Friday afternoon news story would be Sanford's resignation. A month ago, Jenny Sanford wasn't a obvious candidate for a Vogue profile.
Have a happy Independence Day. God's speed if you're fighting for our continued independence.
Fridge Wisdom
Whatever you think of Palin, there is a lot of truth to this statement, isn't there? "Don't explain: Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it anyway."
NRO Tweet Tracker
has some Palin updates.
'Speaking from the Heart'
People who liked Palin's statement tend to say she was "speaking from the heart." But if this decision is about running for president, the speech wasn't quite speaking from the heart.
Vanity
The title of that last Geraghty post is "Steve Schmidt wins." I note that only because a smart, pro-life, conservative said to me earlier today after listening to the Palin statement: "this statement is bizarre -- is she trying to prove Steve Schmidt right or something?!"
The Mom Thing
From The Campaign Spot:
On the theory that the scrutiny of her children was the straw that broke the camel's back, the consultant said, "From the interaction I've had with her, that would make some sense." He noted that Palin had been "really down" at one point after the 2008 convention, largely from being separated from Todd and her children for days at a time; the campaign leadership was nudged to have the family traveling with her as much as possible, having a major impact on her morale. "They finally let her be a mom," the consultant said.
2012 or 2016?
If she's running for president, I have no idea whether this was shrewd or not. But I'm pretty sure Steve is wrong that if she's running this is a longterm run for 2016 or 2020. If it's 2016, why on earth do you resign now? Why invite all of the criticism about being a "quitter" and so on if you're not running -- and therefore don't need to raise money -- until 7 or 11 years from now? No, if she's resigning to run it seems it has to be for 2012.
Maybe She's Pregnant
Palin speculation jumps the shark: CNN's Rick Sanchez wonders if she's pregnant.
Palin Prospects
Wow. Not sure what to make of this. Perhaps she's trying to one-up Michael Jackson in taking the heat off Mark Sanford. ("Take that, Jacko!" Which Republican governor will step up next?)
This could be, as Bill Kristol suggests, part of a risky but shrewd long game, not for a run in 2012, but way off in 2016 or 2020. Some folks have mentioned Nixon, rehabilitating himself in the 1960s, and skipping the 1964 election. She may have the self-awareness that she's taken big hits below the waterline, and that her best course is the patient rebuilding of her political life over a decade rather than the next two election cycles. Now she'll have the time to read and study and cultivate wider portfolio as Jonah and others have suggested. But even if she wants to run in 2012, it is certainly the case that it is hard to be a player on the national stage while being governor of Alaska since it is so remote, even in the jet age. (It take longer to get to Alaska than Europe from the east coast and midwest.) If so, she should say this openly. Make a virtue out of it.
Then, too, I wonder, and am slightly hopeful in fact, that she is indeed doing this for authentic family reasons. Political life is hell on decent family life. I have a hard time thinking of a single politician, at any level, who has a happy family life. Kids are usually a mess; non-messed up kids are the rare exception. Whenever I talk to someone about whether to run for any office, that's the first and last aspect I bring up. You shouldn't do it until your kids are grown or off to college is my opinion. This might really be a case of where she has reckoned the cost to her family of near-term political ambition, and chosen her family. Good for her if so.
This Is Sarah
From an Alaskan in Palin circles:
many are writing her political obit now but in the past she's always
risen from the ashes because she "connects" so well w/ ordinary people.
will she run for prez? I would say "probably" just because that's her
history/pattern. she ran for lt guv in 2002 and no one thought she had a
prayer. she spent pennies compared to the other 4 and came in 2nd.
then she took that job at the oil & gas commission but quit that to run
for guv. no one gave her a chance and yet she won the primary then went
on to beat Tony Knowles.
honestly, I have to take the resignation at face value -- she was weary
of the unending ethics complaints that she had to defend personally --
they are not wealthy people and the debt was staggering. This allows
her to finish her book, go on tour, and never have to worry again about
being a state employee subject to the Executive Branch ethics laws. she
can hopefully knit her family back together and then after the 2010
election, see how she's polling and how much $$$ she's raised.
My Alaskan adds: "she has seemed tired ... not having any fun anymore. The Auburn thing was such a shot of adrenalin. Why stick around here?"
Today's News
Palin is running for president, get used to it.
Sarah Palin
No way around it. She has just labeled herself a "quitter." Someone who doesn't finish what she started. What in the world is wrong with Republican governors? One self-absorbed politician after the next. Governors: "It's not all about you!"
And her bit about polling her kids on her decision to resign was also egregious. We women abruptly quit our public responsibilities because our kids don't want mommy working anymore? This is from the woman who wore a black business suit while she baked hotdogs for her kids. (One of the many weird moments in her "Home with the Palins" Greta van Sustern interviews.)
Here's a suggestion. How about a Ensign/Sanford/Palin YouTube mash up to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust"? Disgraceful.
Kristol's Take
Here.
If You Can't Stand the Cold, Get Out of Juneau
As Cole Porter said, Sarah Palin's got that thing, that special thing that makes the birdies forget to sing, yes she's got that thing -- that special thing.
Yet she also makes a more than normal share of misjudgments.
Are we to accept in an aspirant to the Oval Office cutting short her tour of duty in the Alaska statehouse?
Martin on Palin
Here.
The Sanford Show
The Sanford Show reminds me of the remark of a South Carolina Unionist shortly after his state seceded.
'Poor South Carolina -- too small for a country, too large for a madhouse."
Jim Thinks 2012 Is Out
Here.
Palin Today
I think I have pretty well-established credentials when it comes to being charmed by Sarah Palin, but that statement, as a statement, was simply terrible. Rambling and not at all persuasive as an argument for her decision. More Gibson/Couric than GOP convention speech. She shouldn't have said a thing without getting Matt Scully -- or some similarly talented speechwriter -- on the case first. As to how this decision plays out ultimately, we'll see. There's plenty of time if (as I assume) she wants to run in 2012, and she obviously has plenty of capital with Republicans. But not an auspicious start.
RGA on Palin
Via e-mail:
Republican Governors Association Executive Director Nick Ayers issued the following statement in regards to Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will not seek reelection in 2010 and will step down from the governorship.
"While we regret the news announced by Governor Palin today, Alaska will continue to have a Republican governor through 2010 and we are confident the state will elect a Republican in next year's election.
The RGA's focus remains firmly on the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia this year, and the 37 gubernatorial elections that will take place in 2010. We know that winning these races is the most important task facing our Party over the next two years."
The Republican Governors Association press office has been working overtime on surprise announcements lately.
Re: Tweeting Palin
The woman in question, meanwhile, tweets: "We'll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election... this is in Alaska's best interest, my family's happy... it is good, stay tuned"
Tweeting Sarah
Jim G. and I have been doing some Palin tweeting.
Just in the Very, Very, Very Slim Chance this Was My Fault . . .
I'm gonna need to write "A Letter to Barack Obama."
A Mom's Reaction
Anchoress has a very mom reaction.
Mother Palin
Who knows all the reasons -- Todd and Sarah Palin presumably fully understand.
Listening to her, it seems like this is a combination of stepping back and moving forward. Stepping back, because it's way too overwhelming to be Sarah Palin, political phenom, Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, and Sarah Palin, wife and mother. I don't know that anyone can fulfill all those roles well, simultaneously. And we're unrealistic, I think, when we assume people can or should.
One reservation I've always had about Sarah Palin has to do with her family. If she is stepping down because of what politics has done to her family, because of something in her family life she doesn't want to see as David Letterman fodder, because it's impossible to be governor, a star, and a mom to an infant . . . this is good. It demonstrates good judgment and priorities.
Re: Jonah's Don't Blame Me
When I wrote "Move over, Sarah Palin?" I didn't actually think that was about to happen in any way.
Palin Resigning
Well, aside from my timing being impeccable, the best I can say is I'm flabbergasted.
Not running again could make sense as a pre-presidential move. Resigning strikes me as very strange. I do hope all is well with her family and that there's the best possible reason for this fairly shocking news.
Oh, and: It's not my fault!
'I Know When to Pass the Ball for Victory'
Palin, from Alaska.
With a SarahPac Ad above His Spot
Jim Geraghty on Palin.
Palin Stepping Down
MSNBC is speculating it's a scandal.
Or it's a brilliant way to keep people guessing about you, perhaps?
Prevailing Wages for Everyone!
Mickey makes a good point:
According to National Review's impressive indictment, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill has this payoff for organized labor:
Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete - and ensuring that these "investments" pay out inflated union wages. And it's not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.
Stick the equivalent provision in a health care bill--requiring government-administered union wages for hospital janitors and uniform-launderers as well as nurses--and you can kiss Obama's curve-bending health-care cost-savings goodbye. ...
One Last Palin Point
A lot of these folks are angrily writing in to dispute that I ever supported her. For those interested, here's the archive of Corner posts written by me mentioning Palin. Here are longer pieces published on NRO that I've written about her or mentioning her. That's not everything, of course. It doesn't include USA Today stuff, TV appearances, speeches, etc. But I think it rebuts the idea that I've always had it in for the woman.
Update: Folks who want to hash this all out might check out the comments over at Hot Air.
My Letter To Sarah Palin
As I expected, the e-mail in response to my column is all over the place this morning, but there's a heavy dose of sophomoric name-calling. Here's a smattering (all asterisks are mine):
Jonah,
How about you go back to your basement apartment and shut the f**k up. Maybe study up on the fact the nobody gives a rats a** what you think about Palin.
What a bandwagon rider you are. You write nothing new in this recent little spewing that wasn't spat out by the Vanity Fair article. If anyone is tarnishing their reputations by opening their mouths it is pompous pieces of s**t like yourself.
You and the rest of the "elite" may have a problem with her defending herself from ...well...from people like you, but the rest of us have tired of the Grin and Bear it technique which has done nothing but failed. ...and sorry someone, even a comedian comes out and makes Jokes about my kids on National TV, I am going to have something to say about it...If people from my campaign start leaking innuendo to the media about me and the campaign...I am going to have something to say about it.
Where is your letter to Huckabee? Romney? You are dickhead.
Bottom line you article wreaks of sexism, elitism, and arrogance. You may have your panties in a bundle but luckily the only weight you carry is also held by those same panties.
Okay, before I proceed. Just a few quick points, because I think this e-mail represents, in its purest form, everything I was talking about in my column. Lots of others make similar, some less vitriolic, arguments about "blue bloods" like me ruining the party. Others insist she has perfect political instincts and doesn't need any advice at all.
If Sarah Palin follows the advice of readers like them, she's doomed on the national political stage. She'll make a great Joan of Arc for a certain segment of the public, but she'll never go beyond that. And I think that would be a shame. The upshot of a lot of e-mail is that she hasn't done a single thing wrong -- at least nothing that warrants criticism. The idea that she's, in effect, done everything right, baffles me. Palin has lost a huge chunk of her popularity over the last six months. Some readers say that's because the media has been unfair to her. And that's true! The press has been unfair. But guess what? The press isn't going away and successful politicians learn to deal with the reality of liberal media bias. You don't get extra points or extra votes because the press slimes you. What Palin needs to do is figure out how to win back the people she lost, not elicit more cheers from the folks she already has. That's how politics works.
What baffles me even more is the idea that politicians -- any politician -- doesn't need advisors or advice. Reagan had fantastic political instincts. He also had some of the savviest and most sophisticated political advisors in modern political history. Good politicians know how to take serious advice. Now, maybe my advice is wrong. It's been wrong before, to be sure.
But the idea that a political columnist shouldn't offer advice and observations is just silly and to suggest otherwise bespeaks of a certain thin-skinnedness on the part of some of the fans shouting at me.
Still, the question: "Where is your letter to Huckabee? Romney?" is a good one.
What this reader, and many others, fail to understand is that I haven't written columns like this about other candidates is because I either don't think they need the advice (Romney) or because I have no interest in seeing them succeed (Huckabee). The retreat to charges of sexism is as absurd as it is convenient. As is all of this knee-jerk junk about elitism and snobbery. If I was an elitist and snob of the sort these people claim I am, then why did I ever support her in the first place? Why did I tout her for the job? Is it all part of some elaborate ruse?
Again: If Sarah Palin becomes nothing more than expression of populist resentments of a certain portion of the base she will lose the ability to persuade anybody who isn't already a diehard fan. That is not the route to success.
Anyhow, some more e-mail:
Jonah,
You and Krauthammer are two of my favorite commentators but I have a bone to pick with both of your recent critiques of Palin.
You both essentially say that one cannot get elected POTUS by just peddling platitudes, cliches and truisms. Call me crazy but didn't we just elect a man who did just that!!??
Deep down inside you are probably correct in much of your assessment but you and the great Krauthammer (and a few others at NRO) should guard gainst drifting into snobbery and esotericism.
Perhaps we conservatives need to learn what the Schumers, Durbins, Leahy's, Kennedy's etc etc have learned so well. Never give an inch!! ATTACK, ATTACK toujour ATTACK!!
Respectfully,
[name withheld]
And:
Jonah,
I am a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin and as such I want to thank you for the advice you're giving her. It was hard to admit at first but you are spot on. I think you're right that she has "it" but I also think that the Republican party does need someone who is serious because we do not elect lightweights like Obama and feel proud of it. She needs to study, get serious and don't engage the haters. I was happy that she made Letterman apologize because there's just so much abuse one can take. President Bush was very good at staying above the fray but it cost him a great deal. So, that fine line of standing up for your family and beliefs and ignoring the small minds is a tough one, especially when they are set on destroying you. But, she does have a lot in common with another "commoner" and that's Margaret Thatcher IF and only IF she gets serious and starts studying and, like Dr. Krauthammer said, stop talking in platitudes and bumper stickers. I hope she will follow your advice and come back and show "them" that she can be a serious contender. It would be wonderful to have our first woman President be a Republican because it would mean she has earned it and not simply because she's a woman married to a good politician.
And:
You are probably going to get a lot of angry emails from Palin supporters. Just wanted to write and say I agree with your article and it was well argued. Conservatives must be honest with ourselves.
Keep up the good work!
And:
me thinks thou doth protest too much jonah...therein lies the "IRONY" of your column...sounds to me like you and the rest of the media elite crowd are the ones who are doing the whining...palin is only defending herself...and stating fact...that is not whining...it's getting the real story out...you dufus...wah, wah, wah...what in the hell is the media elite's obsession with constantly harangueing this woman?..oh..i forgot..this will get you some pats on the back from your friends in the media, some real "atta boys"...you self serving jerk...this is how it works...media elites like yourself whine and whine, blah, blah, blah, about how palin "whines" in a commentary...then, at the next cocktail party you will get all kinds of bravo's jonah, from the rest of the members of the "club"...and you do not even see the riony in the fact you are the real whiners jonah...just stop and think about it for a minute...really think about it...and that's what is so funny..you don't recognize yourselves as the real "WHINERS"...we're on to you...what a joke you and the rest of the media have become..i got news for ya JG...here's a big 411...the laughin' stock in case you haven't noticed is you guys...not palin..narcissistic, whining, pompous, arrogant, condescending, self rightetoeus phony indignation... yep, that's pretty much sums up the traits of the media....
And:
Well what a piece of s**t that uninformed letter was. You've just humiliated yourself beyond repair. You have no f**king idea what you're talking about. How embarrasing that letter must be for you. Perhaps you should stay home and do you homework.
I'm not going to do your homework for you (I've done mine) and fisk your out of touch with reality letter, but I will tell you one thing I know. Sarah Palin will be the next President. That is almost a certainty. Why? Because that is what the base wants. You remember the base? Yeah, that's correct...those people in "fly over country" who actually choose who they want to run. I'm one of those and let me be clear: We want Sarah. Not Mittens. Not Huckster. SARAH,SARAH, SARAH. Didn't you listen to the chants?
If you continue on the path you have chosen, then Barry the Con Artist gets eight years. If you do your homework and research Sarah Palin's accomplisments and get with the program, then you will know that Sarah is the only republican who can beat Obie.
It might be too late for you. Fly Over does't care what you have to say after that shitty commentary that just came from your apparently small brain. You might just be talking out of your ass to your elitist colleagues at this point. I suggest you stop reading the biased media and watching the edited tv and get out in the real world and do actual research on Sarah Palin. Jesus Christ...what a lazy piece of s**t you are.
You can begin your research at conservatives4palin.com. You dumb f**ker!!
And:
Jonah: I have great respect for the points of view and clear writing that I see daily on NRO. However, many of you at NRO (Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru and you) talk rather condescendingly to us plain-old folks out here who have no connection to D.C. Sarah Palin does not travel the country whining about her press coverage. /[For starters, every time I see you on TV, you're whining about unfair press coverage] /Your exaggeration does not help make your point. / / She also rarely leaves Alaska and seems to be running her state just fine.. As a matter of fact, recent press coverage has noted just that. She and her family have been subjected to the most vile media coverage I have seen in my 55 years of life on this planet. How in the world can you say she's been playing the victim when you have no frame of reference for a politician taking the shots she has? If she had remained silent about the David Letterman "jokes" I would have lost a great deal of respect as most people would have. She garnered very little support from NRO after those abhorrent remarks. For you to pick this time and place to decide that Ms. Palin needs an open letter of advice on NRO reflects an odd disconnect that your publication has with outside the beltway Republicans. She has again been attacked, anonymously throughout the national press in the last week because the inside-the-beltway - RINOs - are afraid of her. That is why they are tearing her down. She has done nothing to deserve it and the recent press stories are not based on recent events but are recycled garbage. Your letter should be targeted at the McCain and RINO crowd - they are trying to bring Ms. Palin down. Some of your advice is solid regarding honing her knowledge in certain areas but your tone remains condescending and ill-timed when this good woman has been attacked in the last 3 weeks more viciously than you and I - or any D.C. politician - can imagine. Poor time to join the chorus from within the D.C. echo chamber, Jonah.
Thanks for your time,
And:
Jonah,
I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your article on Sarah Palin. You gave her some wonderful advice. I just hope that she reads it and follows it.
And, last but not least:
Well said Jonah.
She needs to keep Alaska's house in order, and prepare for the ugly, ugly fight in 2012. I hope that she does. I feel strongly that she would be an excellent President, but she has to earn it.
I have a theory about Mrs. Palin - that I can tell just about all I need to know about a person' character by how they voice their opinion about her.
If they resort to calling her unqualified (as opposed to who, exactly?), stupid (because she is not a graduate of an approved college, as an Alaskan politician she was not instantly an expert on every area of potential interest to a hostile national media, or believes things all self proclaimed intelligent people quit believing in 1968, etc, etc) or a crazed religious fundamentalist, I know the person I am dealing with is an ass.
If they disagree with her policies or question her judgment on particular issues, fine, that is why there are different political parties. If they disagree with her politics without belittling her life, family, intelligence, clothes, fact that she is from Alaska, etc, then I can say that person is a Democrat (i.e., ignorant of how the world works but at least potentially reasonably intelligent and well mannered).
I first became familiar with Governor Palin on a series of trips to Alaska in the winter /spring of 2007. I was browsing a hotel book shop when I saw a strikingly beautiful woman on the cover of a magazine, and to my surprise the magazine was "Alaska Business Monthly", and to my further surprise the lady was the Governor of Alaska. My respect for Alaska instantly went up. I read the article and interview, and was greatly impressed by the Governor's attitude, accomplishments, and expressed political philosophy.
She was not prepared in 08, and some very poor decisions exacerbated that fact. She is ultimately responsible for what happened and she needs to do better in the coming years.
Just think of it, a politician and potential President who is not a lawyer or Ivy League graduate-someone who actually worked for a living without the benefit of a powerful family. It has been a long time. What a great day for the country that will be! Something to look forward to in 2012.
Happy Independence Day!
Regards,
One last thing: It's a holiday weekend. I don't plan on posting Palin-related e-mail all weekend. Feel free to send your thoughts, but I don't expect to run a Palin seminar all weekend.
There's Something about Jenny
My column on Sanford and Sons and the woman in their life is here.
Around NRO Today
Krauthammer on Ricci.
Dave Kahane on the frogmarch to the progressive future.
Jonah writes to Sarah.
Rich goes to the Founders.
Mona on Obama's cap-and-trade humbug.
Pryce-Jones on the Times and the times.
Reihan on scoring "reform."
From Reagan Back to National Airport?
DC Examiner:
At Wednesday's Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford - a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante - told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan's name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.
"It was just a discussion. We're not aware of anything specific," MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
It's clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan's grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that's already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.
Mopping-up Operation
Basic hygiene accounts for a big chunk of physical well-being, but it's one of the first things to fall by the wayside in socialized systems, which is why they become hotbeds of C Difficile, MRSA, and the like. From the Daily Mail:
Hospital Patient So Shocked At Dirty Ward She Climbed Out Of Bed To Clean It Herself
'The only thing more obvious than the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the legacy media is its breathtaking arrogance.'
Roger Kimball diagnoses the Salon Sale at the Washington Post. Priceless.
Britain, Mass Immigration, and Poverty
There's a fascinating (and not just for Brits) piece by Fraser Nelson in the Spectator on the immigration data he recently obtained from Britain's Office of National Statistics. Here are some key sections:
The figures show the extent to which Brown's "boom" was a mirage built not just on debt, but foreign labour. Most seriously, we can see a deep dysfunctionality in the UK labour market. Our system keeps millions on benefits (never less than 5 million have been on some kind of benefits since 1997) while meeting the needs of expanding the economy with a limitless supply of industrious immigrant labour. This means that the direct link between a growing economy and combating poverty is broken. . . .
At no point in the boom did the number on out-of-work benefits fall below five million souls. Almost half have been on welfare for five years or more - and are, therefore, statistically more likely to die than to work again. As I say, were it not for immigration, we'd be forced to confront this problem or our economy would not grow. When I was a business journalist in the late 1990s, I remember writing stories about how bus companies were recruiting in homeless shelters because they couldn't find the staff. The people in those shelters were being offered structure to their lives, from an employer forced by economic conditions to deal with the greater risk they pose. It was a sign of economic growth addressing social problems - as it should be.
But mass immigration has broken this link. It meant Gordon Brown could actually afford to keep so many million on benefits, as tax receipts were being generated by comparative newcomers. It was a lot easier than trying to reform welfare. Scandalously, that's what Brown did. To my mind, it is the most contemptible failure of his time as Chancellor. He had the money, the economic boom, to sort out the welfare dependency that afflicts so many communities in Britain. But he took the easy, short term route.
It's worth noting that Mr. Nelson describes himself as a "supporter of immigration."
Food for thought -- and not just in the U.K.
The Onion Does South Carolina
This piece in the State (h/t RCP) on Sanford's mental state reads a little like a parody:
Psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who work with behavior disorders were reluctant to diagnose Sanford based on what they have seen on television or read in newspapers.
But a few were willing to offer theories as to what could be driving the governor's behavior.
Susan Hardwicke, a licensed social worker who runs a clinical practice in Columbia, said Sanford could be under the influence of brain chemicals that fire when a person falls in love.
"People do crazy things for love," Hardwicke said. "That's what all the songs are about. Nobody in their right mind would do what he's doing."
This behavior is temporary, she said. Research shows romantic love lasts less than two years. (Sanford's term as governor has 18 months remaining.)
Wal-Mart's Seat at the Table
Megan McArdle:
I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition. Yet somehow, this appears nowhere in any of the analysis.
Wal-Mart is always going to have a seat at the table when employer mandates are discussed, because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest private employer. Target and Macy's probably won't have a seat at the table. So Wal-Mart can influence the rules in ways that benefit Wal-Mart at the expense of the competition. This is partly because the regulators often cycle into jobs at the firms they regulate, but also simply because the regulator's attention is finite, so being consistently at the table allows you to shape their views over time.
Doc Bainbridge has much more. An excerpt:
In fact, however, Wal-Mart has been suckling at the government teat for decades, transferring costs to the tax payer whenever possible.
Indeed, Wal-Mart is heavily dependent on government subsidies. Wal-Mart routinely gets sales and property tax abatements when it opens a new store, to cite but one example. According to a 2004 study (albeit one funded by a union) the subsidies can amount to as much as 12 million dollars per store. Additional de facto subsidies come when uninsured or under-insured Wal-Mart employees get health care at government expense. Supporting government-run health care looks like a sop to the politicians who control the subsidy tap.
I examined Wal-Mart's dependence on government subsidies back in 2006 for TCS Daily, writing that:
... both the left and right implicitly cast Wal-Mart in the role of free market capitalist. What's missing from the debate is the extent to which the Wal-Mart story really is the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism. When you look under the rug, it turns out that Wal-Mart is a beneficiary of corporate welfare.
When Wal-Mart plans a new store, it typically asks local and county governments for an array of benefits, principally in the form of various economic development subsidies:
Infrastructure assistance in the form of new or expanded roads and utilities servicing the store location.
Sales tax abatements.
Property tax abatements.
Income tax credits.
Enterprise zone treatment for the store location.
Eligibility for job training programs.
Eligibility for tax exempt industrial revenue bond financing.
Economic development loans and grants.
Radio Derb Is Up
Radio Derb is ON THE AIR, though for subtle technical reasons, we can't post a notice on the NRO home page.
Good Thoughts for the Fourth
It's always a bit difficult not to be sappy about the Fourth, which I insist on calling The Birthday of the Modern World. But a reader sent me a letter that contains two great paragraphs:
Long before the modern rationalizations for the "benign" nanny state, Confucius had given his own vision of the perfectly ordered pyramid with the emperor at the top, talking to God, and most of the rest of us at the bottom, lucky for the privilege to talk to their dog.
The bulk of human experience is tyranny, whereas liberty is the ultimate unprobability, a.k.a., America. Government of the people, for the people, by the people cannot survive unless the people has enough intestinal fortitude to make it work.
Which is so true. Remember it. And fight.
It's Okay Because It's Obama Dept.
From the Washington Post:
Obama Administration to Involve NSA in Defending Civilian Agency Networks
The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials.
President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve "monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic" and Department of Homeland Security officials say that the new program will only scrutinize data going to or from government systems.
But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the current and former officials said, because of uncertainty over whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency's involvement in warrantless wiretapping under the Bush administration would draw controversy.
"We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has. But . . . they will be guided, led, and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security," the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano, told reporters in a discussion of cybersecurity efforts.
Re: Your Green House
A Texan reader suggests the Gonzalez Flag. "A bit more defiant, in my opinion," he says. He's right!
Re: Kmiec to Malta
Who will Nina Totenberg consult for the conservative point of view now?
Doug Kmiec
is going to Malta. He's been nominated as Obama's ambassador there.
Re: Your Green House
The more this gets out, the more I predict a revival in sales of Gadsden Flags.
Re: Sanford Must Go
Still, if Sanford's going to do this schtick, it would be cool if he followed McGreevey's example and said something like "At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is. And so my truth is that I am a straight American."
Update: From a reader:
Nah, he's a "promiscuous American" or maybe a "crossing-the-line American."
A Wonderful Spice
In the course of today's Impromptus, I express admiration for the name Cinnamon Stillwell -- she is a journalist, writing in particular about the Middle East. Would you like to hear from the lady herself?
In case you're wondering, it is indeed the real thing. I'm of that generation of hippie babies born in California in the late 1960s/early '70s and given names like Forest, Summer, and, well, Cinnamon. Although I wish I could say I were related to Gen. "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell (I get that question a lot), Stillwell is my married name. And as you have noted before, it all flows together rather well, if I say so myself.
Best regards,
Cinnamon
P.S. Some of my friends call me Cinn, although I urge them not to take it literally!
In the past, I've said that "Ramesh Ponnuru" and "Michelangelo Signorile" are the two most beautiful names in journalism. (Very, very different views, those guys.) "Cinnamon Stillwell" joins that class.
Re: Your Green House
Stephen, speaking as a foreigner, I confess I'm finding it harder and harder to see why you fellows bothered holding a revolution. Under this bill, it will be illegal for me to sell my property to a willing buyer without first bringing it into line with some twerp bureaucrat's arbitrary and ever shifting "environmental" regulations originally designed for California, and which have helped turn the Golden State into the foldin' state, but which are nevertheless now to be applied from Maine to Alaska. And no matter what you spend a couple of years down the road the standards will be "revised" and you'll be out of compliance all over again.
In my part of New Hampshire, come the late fall you'll drive around and see many homes with plastic sheeting over windows and the less-used doors, and bales of hay round the foundation. I doubt that would pass muster with the twerp bureaucrat, but it's what self-reliant people of modest means do to get through the winter. Without that attitude there would be no United States.
This is an assault on property rights, and, more fundamentally, like so much of the Obama program, an assault on citizenship. It seems an odd way to mark "Independence" Day.
Re: Sanford Should Go
I'm with Jonah, Ramesh, and others. My points last week were that I didn't think the fact that the guy had an affair, by itself, was a reason for him to have to resign, and that what I took to be the ethical standard suggested by Chuck Colson -- namely, that someone shown to have failed in his private life would necessarily abuse his public duties and therefore shouldn't be permitted to hold public office -- was unreasonable and unwise. Maybe I was wrong (I don't think so, but it sure seems like a dumb thing to have said at the moment). But in any event, we've traveled a good distance since then. Apparently his trip to Argentina was on the public dime, and his idea of public office as a side-issue to his personal journey for growth and redemption is nauseating. He ought to resign voluntarily, go away for a while, and get back to us if/when the journey is done.
'Teach Your Children Well,' Cont.
Earlier today, I had a post on a study by the Goldwater Institute, which found that 3.5 percent of public-high-school students -- 3.5. percent -- know the answers to basic questions about America (e.g., "Who was the first president?"). This is in marked contrast to immigrants taking the citizenship test, who tend to pass with flying colors -- never mind that they prepare for the exam (unlike the surveyed high-school students). (Although you can say that the students have had a lifetime of preparation, or should have.)
I had a thought: Every new American -- every young American -- is like an immigrant. Every new American should learn about the country, should be acculturated (to use an old-fashioned, possibly discredited word). This is true whether the new American comes from across a border or out of a native-born womb. (Sorry for that slightly cringe-making phrase.) If we thought of our children as immigrants, of a kind, in need of acculturation -- we would all be better off.
Is that too mushy for you? Hope not.
What Day Is Saturday?
In response to my Impromptus today, I have gotten several e-mails just like the below. It has rather surprised me -- although I understand the point of the e-mails. See what you think.
Hi Jay,
My one quibble with your column today has to do with your valediction, which wishes us all a "Happy Fourth of July." I have put this phrase in the same category -- although it is a lesser offense -- as "Happy Holidays." I much prefer "Happy Independence Day."
When my now teenagers were much younger, I asked them what we were actually celebrating on the Fourth of July. While they did respond with the correct answer, it did not come immediately. We already struggle enough to remember the meaning of what were once revered holidays -- holidays that have now been relegated to barbecue and super-sale weekends. I figure it's worth the extra syllable to remind people what the Fourth is all about.
I like it.
The Fate of the States
In the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson writes about five states that:
went into the final day of the fiscal year facing the prospect of shutdowns of public agencies or paying bills through IOUs unless they devised ways to close the yawning gap between their obligations and their recession-savaged revenue.
The list of states -- Democratic and Republican, old economy and new -- is sufficiently diverse to dispel any notion that the fiscal crisis of the states is disproportionately the problem of one party or one region. It is, rather, hard-wired into the American system of governance, wherein virtually all the states have required themselves to produce balanced budgets even during depressions -- which means they must slash services and lay off workers even though such actions actually deepen the downturn.
Recessions aren't new, and neither are state balanced-budget requirements. To understand the cause of today's budget brinkmanship, we would probably be better off looking at such things as the percentage of state budgets spent on Medicaid -- something that has changed, largely in response to federal policy.
The Divine Economy: On the New Papal Encylical
On Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI will release his first social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. The pre-release buzz from the Catholic Left on each of his two previous encyclicals has so far proven wrong each time, so the rule should be to wait and see what the pope will actually say.
Each time, with previous encyclicals, we have been told that the pope is preparing to lambaste capitalism and call for state measures to heavily regulate it with an eye to redistributing wealth, cleaning up the environment, controlling consumption, etc. Each time, the final text has demonstrated that the pope's conversion to progressivist causes has been greatly exaggerated. Invariably, his arguments have been highly sophisticated and have defied easy political categorization.
In advance of Caritas in Veritate, Catholic "progressives" are working themselves into a frenzy of predictions, recommendations, and anathemas -- and not one of them, to my knowledge, has seen even an early draft of the encyclical which has been two years in the making.
Will the document draw attention to the weaknesses of Western-style capitalist systems? One hopes so. We might expect the pope to call on market forces to be regulated by moral concerns, within a strong juridical framework, and an exogenous apparatus of standards to curb excesses.
But here is the operative question: In what sense would such a call be a blow against the idea of free economic institutions? The short answer is that it will not be.
There are few advocates of market economics who advocate a complete lack of regulation rightly understood. Every transaction in the marketplace is in fact regulated by contract law, reputation, industry standards, competition, certification and monitoring, and profit and loss systems that reward prudence and punish excess over the long term.
Do these need strengthening? Certainly, and it should be noted that a main force for weakening them is not the market as such, but partisan interventions in the market.
Consider the drive for ever-lower interest rates as one of many examples. This is a subsidy for excess because it encourages borrowing at the expense of saving. If Benedict writes of the need for greater prudence and caution in economic affairs, permitting interest rates to rise to a market level would go a long way toward achieving that.
Will the pope overtly call for a global, centralized, state-based management of economic systems about which would-be central planners have long dreamed? I would be very surprised. This is a man who has stood firm against every form of statist control of society. As his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, illustrated, he has a deep attachment to subsidiarity as an essential principle for a free and good society, and I would be amazed to see him give up his love for liberty because the concern of the moment is economics.
But details aside, it is good to step back a moment and reflect on what Catholic social teaching is and what it is not, so that in studying the new encyclical, we gain a deeper appreciation of its intent and scope.
Since 1870, the papacy has explicitly claimed to exercise the charisma of infallibility in the very area that "progressives" -- "dissenters" is a more accurate word -- have labored to dilute and "episcopalianize" for 40 years: faith and morals. In fact, Catholic progressives will find themselves on the horns of an intolerable ecclesiological dilemma no matter what the contents of the document.
On the one hand (doctrine, liturgy, and sexual morality), progressives tend to take dissenting positions from defined and binding Church teaching. On the other hand (economic and social policy), they want to boast of the Church's "best kept secret," especially to the extent that they think it coheres with any number of secular-left platforms, while ignoring those aspects of Catholic social teaching that clearly don't fit the leftist nostrums.
It is quite a spectacle to see Catholic progressives -- who in other circumstances contort themselves into exegetical pretzels when they want to undermine clear, emphatic, authoritative, and repeated magisterial prohibitions on same-sex relations, female "priests," and contraceptive acts -- morph into virtual Ultramontanists on prudential matters such as the precise level of a minimum wage.
Let us be clear: The Church explicitly makes no such claims of infallibility on those policy matters that it considers a matter for prudential judgment (i.e., most policy issues) but allows for Catholics to hold a variety of viewpoints on such questions such as the exact size of the state's share of the economy. Clearly no Catholic can be an anarchist or a communist -- but there is a lot of room for prudential disagreement within these parameters. Benedict XVI has followed the model of John Paul II in saying that the Church has no infallible model of political economy to impose on the world. The Church's social teaching is not, as John Paul stated, a "third way."
Further, as pointed out by my friend Michael Novak, the word capitalism is being thrown around in reckless ways these days. Citing Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., whom Novak charmingly calls "one of our most reliable leftist bellwethers," in an article in the Washington Post, Novak shows how such thinkers don't even know what modern capitalism is.
Fr. Reese asks, "If they think that Obama is a socialist, what will they think of Benedict after the encyclical?" and prophesies, "Conservatives will be shocked and disappointed by the encyclical, which will reflect Benedict's skepticism toward unbridled capitalism based on greed."
I am not sure who such conservative defenders of "unbridled capitalism based on greed" are supposed to be. Perhaps Fr. Reese has the disciples of the atheist Ayn Rand in mind, but they are hardly representative of those modern defenders of the market economy such as Rocco Buttiglione, Wilhelm Röpke, and William F. Buckley. I think it is a fair prediction to say that any pope would come out against any system "based on greed." Erecting fictions about capitalism and its defenders -- and then criticizing them -- might take you a long way in the bubble of the Georgetown Faculty Lounge, but that hardly constitutes a serious argument.
-- Father Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.
Sanford Should Go
I'm with Jonah.
Something I Will Never Understand
Why exactly do people read Michael Wolff, or pay for him to write? His work is wholly devoid of insight, wit, or sparkle.
Your Green House
After I posted this item yesterday, a reader sent me the following question:
No personal reply desired, but I've heard on other websites that the Waxman-Markey bill contains a little-publicized provision that would require private homeowners to retrofit their homes to meet federally-mandated energy-efficiency standards when they put their homes up for sale. If this is true, it deserves much wider publicity. I believe many people who are not conservatives would deeply resent this intrusion of the federal government into their personal affairs.
It is true. Kevin Williamson and I came across this provision when compiling our 50 things wrong with Waxman-Markey, up on the home page now. "Your Green House" is no. 24:
The bill requires the EPA to establish environmental standards for residences, meaning a federally dictated one-size-fits-all policy for greening every home in America. When you're retrofitting your home according to EPA guidelines, it will come as little comfort to know that the government is reimbursing you for your troubles, especially if you're doing the work around April 15.
There are 49 more where that came from, so read on and spread the word.
Update: The link to the retrofit provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill stopped working, so I removed it. The link to the whole bill can be found here, and from there the retrofit provisions are pretty easy to find. This Reuters story has more info on the national energy efficiency building codes that would become a part of our lives if this bill were to become law.
Media Update
I'll be on C-Span tomorrow from 9-10 AM.
Veep Joe in Iraq
Washington Times:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has arrived in Iraq on a surprise two-day visit, just as U.S. troops have pulled out of the country's cities as part of President Obama's planned withdrawal plan.
The White House announced Thursday that Mr. Biden had arrived, and a pool reporter required to keep the trip secret for safety reasons said the visit was to "try to re-establish contact with Iraqi leaders and try to help foster efforts at political reconciliation."
Make Ahmadinejad's Day!
The Wall Street Journal reports that "Tehran is threatening to cut off relations with EU countries unless they apologize for considering pulling their ambassadors out of Iran."
But of course, were the EU serious about stopping Iran's fraudulently elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the militant mullahs who back him from acquiring nuclear weapons that would be one major component of its policy.
The Obama administration should be working hard, using diplomacy to persuade our European allies to recall their ambassadors -- at least for "consultations." Last weekend, Obama deputy David Axelrod said that the clerical regime's harsh repression of dissidents is isolating Iran "in every way from the community of nations." As of this moment, that's just wishful thinking.
My column today has more along these lines.
Access Denied
Here's why I find the Washington Post cash-for-access story so disturbing. As even Helen Thomas is now realizing, this administration favors certain journalists with extra access. In that respect, it is mimicking the Blair government in the U.K., which was famous not just for giving extra access to favorable journalists, but denying it to critical journalists. Putting the two pieces together, it might not be long before access becomes a commodity, and writing favorably about the administration not only gets extra access, but becomes profitable. That's why I am also very glad to see the excellent Howard Kurtz and via him, the Post's executive editor, recognize that possibility and how appalling it would be.
I fear, however, that other journalists might not be so scrupulous. As to the scruples of the administration, I have no comment.
Nits within Nits
Numerous readers have picked a nit with the nit I picked with Chris Buckley's "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy cow" in my June diary. Not only should "cow" be "dog," they observed, but "jumped" should be "jumps," for the "s" (and then you need "dog" even more, for the "d").
This is right, of course. That Cape Cod air must have addled my brain; or perhaps it was the chowder. For penance I shall now transcribe, with no typographical guarantees at all, the entire entry for 23 February from the late Willard R. Espy's 1975 classic Almanac of Words at Play, which I take to be the last word on these matters.
23 FEBRUARY
Squdgy Fez, Blank Jimp Crwth Vox
The quality of existing pangrams is unsatisfactory. Augustus Morgan's nineteenth-century "I, quartz pyx, who fling muck beds," ignored v and j, recent arrivals on the alphabetical scene. "Cwm fjord-banks glyphs vext quiz" makes room for the v and j, but is not likely to become a common remark even among geologists. Claude E. Shannon wrote, "Squdgy Fez, Blank Jimp Crwth Vox," which has something to do with wearing a squashed Turkish hat and muting a Welsh violin.
If you are willing to fudge by repeating a few letters, the problem of including all twenty-six letters in a single passage becomes more manageable. For instance:
"The five boxing wizards jump quickly." (31)
"Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs." (32)
"Jim just quit and packed extra heavy bags for Liz Owen." (44)
If you wish to use each letter twice, your goal is a sentence of fifty-two letters. The nearest to this I have run into is Mary Youngquist's "Sylvan plight: five jinxed wizards jump, weigh quartz, mock quick baby fox." (60)
Darryl Francis found in Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition, three words totaling thirty-nine letters and including all the twenty-six letters of the alphabet. The words are quick-flowing, semibolshevized, and juxtapyloric. The following verse is a lipogram, since it lacks the letter e, and also a pangram, since it contains all the other letters of the alphabet:
Quixotic boys who look for joys
Quixotic hazards run.
A lass annoys with trivial toys
Opposing man for fun.
-- Author unknown
[Me] Not quite the last word, perhaps. The utterance "Jump, dogs! Why vex Fritz Blank, Q.C.?" is a perfect pangram, containing each letter of the alphabet precisely once. It makes a great deal more sense than any other perfect pangram I've seen. It also manages to include four different punctuation marks. Unfortunately (a) it's two sentences, not one, (b) it only makes sense in the U.K., where "Q.C." stands for "Queens Counsel," a barrister, (c) it includes that abbreviation, which disallows it, and (d) it includes a made-up proper name -- though a very plausible one: Lenin's mother was originally a Blank.
And there's a nit to be picked with Espy, too: It was Augustus De Morgan.
I For One Welcome Our Insect Overlords
Yes, yes, like a zillion readers, Andrew's post below about the globe-spanning Argentian ant colony competing with humanity for conquest of the globe immediately made me think of the Simpsons episode -- "Deep Space Homer" -- in which newscaster Kent Brockman thinks earth is being attacked by giant ants:
"Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over -- 'conquered' if you will -- by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."
I would have said something earlier, but I was looking all over the place for video of the scene. Apparently, the clip is closely held by the producers so they can accrue even more filthy lucre.
Anyway, as several readers suggested, perhaps Mark Sanford's trip to Argentina wasn't a booty call after all. Perhaps he was promising eternal fidelity to the Queen in her Argentinian sugar cave?
Update: Badabing. Reader Ronny sends this along.
Whose Reagan Is It, Anyway?
Ramesh has a smart piece in the latest NR on the right and wrong lessons to draw from Ronald Reagan. "When invoking Reagan," he writes, "conservatives are prone to two characteristic vices: hero-worship and nostalgia. To hear some conservatives talk, you would forget that Reagan was a human being who made mistakes, including in office. You would certainly forget that movement conservatives were frequently exasperated with Reagan's administration."
Indeed, during Reagan's final years in the White House, many conservatives became disillusioned with his embrace of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his pursuit of arms control. In January 1988, the New York Times Magazine published a lengthy article documenting this angst (titled "The Right Against Reagan"). "The president doesn't need to discard the people who brought him to the dance," grumbled North Carolina senator Jesse Helms. Conservative activist Howard Phillips labeled Reagan "a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda."
Shortly before the Gipper left office, columnist George Will lamented that he had "accelerated the moral disarmament of the West -- actual disarmament will follow -- by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy." Will also said that "in the Reagan years there has been what [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan calls a hemorrhaging of reality regarding the fiscal requirements for strength and prosperity. This is a consequence of the narcotic of cheerfulness."
In recent years, both conservatives and liberals have used the 40th president as a cudgel to bash George W. Bush. Yet they have often misrepresented Reagan's actual record. (Fred Barnes addressed this in a 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed.)
The Reagan record includes lowering the top marginal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent; giving Fed chief Paul Volcker the political support he needed to squeeze the money supply and curb inflation; promoting free markets and limited government; spearheading trade liberalization; making a brief, failed effort to reduce Social Security benefits; putting a slew of judicial conservatives on the federal bench; introducing the pro-life Mexico City Policy on abortion; resisting calls for a nuclear freeze; deploying cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe; launching the Strategic Defense Initiative; invading Grenada; aiding anti-Communist rebels in the Third World; bombing Libya; and talking tough on the Soviet Union.
But it also includes raising various taxes; expanding Social Security; endorsing certain protectionist measures, such as tariffs and quotas on Japanese imports; approving an amnesty for illegal immigrants; appointing two of the three Supreme Court justices who would later author the 1992 Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade; withdrawing U.S. military forces from Beirut after 241 American servicemen were killed in a terrorist attack; trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair; favoring the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, a desire he expressed at the Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev in 1986; signing a landmark arms-reduction pact (the INF Treaty) with the Soviet boss in 1987; and leaving behind a steep budget deficit.
This list is not meant to diminish Reagan's achievements, which were historic: He helped to squash inflation, stimulate a robust economic boom, and win the Cold War. In the process, he moved American politics to the right and enlarged the GOP. His iconic stature among conservatives and Republicans is well deserved. Yet as Ramesh points out, "The conservatives who summon Reagan's ghost for use in today's arguments usually use him as a stand-in for doctrinal purity." Reagan was many things, but he did not govern as a doctrinal purist.
"One of the ideas that has confused everyone about Ronald Reagan," Norman Podhoretz wrote in a 1998 Weekly Standard essay, is "the idea that he was a great ideologue or (if that term seems to carry denigratory connotations) a man of unshakable principle. Certainly this is how Reagan looked as compared with most politicians, very few of whom believe in anything very strongly, or at all. But this is not how he looked as compared with a genuinely principled person, or a truly passionate ideologue."
Podhoretz insisted that Reagan "was much more of a conventional politician than he was taken to be. It is this that explains why he could so often compromise and sometimes violate even key elements of his putatively rock-bottom convictions; or why he tried mightily to pretend both to his friends and his opponents (and in some instances to himself as well) that he was doing no such thing; or why he was even willing to reverse course altogether for the sake of victory."
Of all the recent books on Reagan, perhaps the most provocative is Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History, published in 2007 by the renowned intellectual historian John Patrick Diggins, who died earlier this year. Diggins criticized many of the Gipper's policies and questioned the standard conservative narrative of how the Cold War ended. But he nonetheless argued that Reagan ("our Emersonian president") was "one of the most inspiring political leaders in the second half of the twentieth century" and "also one of the three great liberators in American history," along with Lincoln and FDR. As Diggins put it, "Abraham Lincoln helped emancipate African Americans from slavery; Franklin D. Roosevelt helped wrest Western Europe from fascism; Ronald Reagan helped liberate Eastern Europe from communism."
There are problems with the Diggins book, which Steve Hayward has discussed elsewhere. But it is an immensely thoughtful contribution to the debate over Reagan's political philosophy and his place in American history. Diggins gave Reagan enormous credit for his role in ending the Cold War, as do a growing number of liberals (even if they disagree with conservatives about precisely why Reagan succeeded). "Since the era of Washington and Adams, Reagan was the only president in American history to have resolved a sustained, deadly international confrontation without going to war," Diggins wrote. "American history has seen nothing like Reagan's achievement over two centuries of unrelenting military conflict."
It is this achievement, more than any other, which elevates Reagan into the upper echelon of American presidents. But we should not neglect his biggest economic feat: vanquishing inflation. In his 2008 book, The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath, veteran journalist Robert Samuelson lauds Reagan and Paul Volcker (who served as Federal Reserve chairman from 1979 to 1987) for their "profound" accomplishment. At the start of the 1980s, he notes, "High inflation seemed too entrenched for mere mortals to conquer." Reagan and Volcker proved otherwise. The latter implemented a painfully tight monetary policy while the former provided crucial political backing. "It is doubtful that, aside from Reagan, any other potential president would have let the Fed proceed unchallenged," says Samuelson.
"Of all Reagan's economic achievements," he writes, conquering inflation "was the most definitive." It "reinvigorated the economy as nothing else; the expansion lasted from early 1983 until the late summer of 1990. At the time, it was the second longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history."
In a 2005 survey, an "ideologically balanced" collection of scholars ranked Reagan as the 6th greatest U.S. president -- behind only Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt. Indeed, the Gipper's historical reputation has improved considerably since he left the White House in 1989. That is a welcome development. But conservatives should be wary of letting Reagan nostalgia lapse into Reagan mythology.
Newt Tweets Andy
@newtgingrichAndy McCarthy asks why President Obama has released an Iran backed terrorist responsible for killing our troopshttp://tinyurl.com/n8fqsa
Did Mika Miss the Last Eight Years?
A friend emailed this morning to say he couldn't believe what he heard Mika Brzezinski say on Morning Joe today regarding yesterday's press briefing where Helen Thomas and Chip Reid asked Robert Gibbs several questions about President Obama's so-called "Town Hall" on health care yesterday:
The question I would have for her [Helen] is if she felt she could ask that question during the Bush administration and get that aggressive.
Seriously? I almost injured myself when I fell over laughing when I read that comment.
I am no longer a spokesperson, but I feel I can speak for all of Bush's press secretaries when I say that the question I would like to ask Mika is: Did she miss every press briefing of the Bush administration?
Yesterday was tame by comparison to the grilling we all got -- including questions premised on our troops purposely killing innocent people. Those were really fun to field. Not.
The things all press secretaries have in common are going toe-to-toe with Helen Thomas, living through it, and being better communicators for having had the experience.
I wonder if Helen takes offense at the notion she wasn't aggressive with us.
I don't think I'll ask her!
A Numerical Sleight of Hand
When I served in the Bush administration, we worked to implement a Congressionally mandated rule to end restrictions on HIV-positive people entering the U.S. One of the sticking points in the implementation we encountered was an assessment by the career scientists at the Centers for Disease Control that the new rule would increase the HIV-positive population in the US by 37,780, with an annual cost to taxpayers of $952 million dollars in 20 years, and a cumulative cost of $12.7 billion over the 20-year period.
The Politico now reports that the Obama administration put out a new implementing regulation ending the ban with these same numbers, but then pulled it back in favor of a revised regulation claiming that the rule would only increase HIV cases in the US by 676. As for the cost, they now estimate it to be $342 million annually in five years. The main justification for the switch is that they moved to a five-year rather than a 20-year window, but the fact remains that they adjusted the numbers to reduce the "sticker shock" on the policy.
I cannot imagine the extent of the hubbub that would have ensued if the Bush administration had tried this tactic. I wonder if those who accused President Bush of politicizing science will object to this numerical sleight of hand, but somehow I doubt it.
On Sarah Palin's 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder'
In Todd Purdum's now infamous Vanity Fair profile, one of the more sensational accusations was this:
More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin's extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of "narcissistic personality disorder" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy" -- and thought it fit her perfectly.
Bill Kristol took to The Weekly Standard's blog to declare that this accusation seems somewhat absurd:
Is there any real chance that "several" Alaskans independently told Purdum that they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? I don't believe it for a moment. I've (for better or worse) moved in pretty well-educated circles in my life, and I've gone decades without "several" people telling me they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Even Eric Boehlert, of the lefty Media Matters for America, said he agreed with Kristol that Purdum's claim "doesn't pass the smell test." So I thought some very rudimentary investigation was in order. It turns out that the idea that Palin had narcissistic personality disorder as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is something of a meme in liberal circles and has been long before Purdum's VF profile.
To wit, a Google search of the Huffington Post for "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" and Sarah Palin returns some 752 results. Obviously, not all of those results are relevant but in just the first four pages of Google results I found five different comments from the website which reference Sarah Palin having narcissistic personality disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and all were written well before Purdum's profile. See here, here, here, here and here. (It futher appears that one of those commenters has made the observation more than once.)
Again, these examples are from just the first few Google results on one liberal website. It appears this is a meme that gained currency among those on the far left who actively despise Palin and posess no special insight into her. Either Purdum is far too credulous and should have investigated the claim, or Purdum deliberately wrote up baseless claims of narcissistic personality disorder to make it sound like the diagnosis came from Alaska insiders and in the process made the claim far more salacious. Either way, I don't think Purdum's reporting is to be trusted.
Obama II vs. Obama I
I don't think it has occurred to the divine ones that the administration now is at odds with the sort of ideology and attitudes Obama himself espoused on the campaign trail.
They call for patience and for confidence in Iraq -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, dismiss our chances while demanding a strict and rather rapid timetable to get out.
They ask for understanding about renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, intercepts, wiretaps, and Predator missile attacks as complex issues -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, dismiss these necessary tools as Constitution-shredding authoritarianism.
They ask for patience on jobs -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, pontificate about a "jobless recovery" when jobs and growth were far better.
They reassure us that missile defense is insurance against North Korean lunacy -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, dismiss such investment as needless militaristic provocation.
They ask for latitude about the definition of what is a tax, what defines unemployment, and how we calibrate deficits -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, blast obfuscation while promising "transparency."
They reassure that their planted questions, the favoritism shown some journalists, the refusal to release White House visit logs, and the arbitrary firing of inconvenient auditors are nothing new -- and not, in prior Obama-like fashion, charge government intimidation and suppression of thought.
They ignore corruption in the Democratic-controlled Congress, cater to lobbyists, are not bothered by the tax improprieties of their major cabinet appointments -- and do not, in prior Obama-like fashion, demand an end to executive malfeasance.
I know this is old-story politics, but two things are different. One, never has the gap between pre-presidential and in-office behavior been so wide (heaven and earth really are quite distant), and, two, the past promises of utopia have so conditioned a mesmerized media that they don't realize their own complacency in allowing an administration to use whatever means they chose for professedly exalted ends.
This is a strange time, when we are borrowing into oblivion, redefining 60 years of bilateral foreign policy, embarking on unproven -- but costly -- environmentalism, nationalizing industry and health care, and gleefully establishing a veritable state-sanctioned, pro-government media on the lines Americans used to be terrified about.
In response, as I read between the lines, conservatives are told by the Obamans something to the effect, "Forget our prior demagoguery, aren't you at least happy we backtracked and are now adopting some of your war-on-terror positions we used to trash?", while liberals are supposed to be happy with something like, "Just forget all that stuff about ethics, transparency, and anti-lobbying/influence; we're in power now and will do anything necessary to fulfill your agenda."
There will be a backlash to all this, and one of unprecedented fury.
Welcome to 'White'
I've been getting some interesting mail on race and ethnicity, America's perpetual and vexing topic. Is there any subject on which we're screwier than race and ethnicity? Sotomayormania has only served to highlight this. Anyway, the mail I speak of stems from a couple of items in Impromptus today.
There is mail in that column, too. And I so like one letter I publish, I'm going to talk about it again, here in the Corner. The letter comes from an Italian-American friend of ours -- reader, cruiser, etc. (I'm not implying anything by "cruiser" -- it's just that he has come on at least one of National Review's cruises.) He was thinking about the Ricci case. And he says that, when he was growing up in Kansas City, Italians weren't considered white -- far from it. Now they're lily, it seems.
"I can't figure out if we got a promotion or a demotion. I mean, just as it's time to line up for minority benefits, we get bumped to the back of the line for being white."
And I especially loved this: "Heck, here in Los Angeles" -- where our cruiser now lives -- "people refer to me as Anglo. Imagine that, in the very place where Rudolph Valentino was the original Latin Lover."
Valentino would not be a "Latin lover" today -- Sonia would definitely say no. He would be an unwise non-Latino, with a poverty of experience. America has always been screwy about race and ethnicity, of course. But you'll agree that that screwiness moves.
Re: Jobs Numbers
The labor market remains tough terrain: Companies are still letting more workers go than they are hiring, and wages have stagnated the past few months. But today's data do not reflect another leg down for the economy as a whole. Payroll losses were higher than expected, but still less severe than they were earlier this year. In addition, the unemployment rate ticked up less than expected. Although some will attribute the smaller-than-expected increase in the jobless rate in June to a decline in the labor force (the number of people working or actively looking for work), the labor force has increased 1.2 million in the last five months. Without this increase, the jobless rate would be 8.8 percent today, not 9.5 percent.
Other recent data on the labor market show improvement. New claims for unemployment insurance dropped 16,000 last week to 614,000. Continuing claims for regular benefits fell 53,000 to 6.702 million. Meanwhile, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago-based job-placement firm, reported employers are planning fewer layoffs than at the same time last year. The U.S. economy has never healed in a perfectly straight line with all aspects of the economy getting better at the exact same time. As is often the case, the labor market is lagging behind other indicators showing the recession is over, including yesterday's ISM Manufacturing report. A healing economy with a lagging labor market is a recipe for a major improvement in corporate profits.
-- Robert Stein is a senior economist at First Trust Advisors.
Krauthammer's Take
From last night's "All-Stars."
On prospective GOP candidates for 2012:
Romney really is the frontrunner. He has done himself well. He is a grown-up. He knows economics. He's trusted on that.
There is also a tradition among Republicans of nominating the next in line, as we did with George Bush, Sr. in 1988, Dole in '96, and McCain in '08, sort of the last grown-up who was left over from the last campaign.
And I think that Romney has done well. Look, he is the guy who is as clean as clean can get. You are not going to wake up in the morning and discover he is crying in Argentina. This is a solid guy and he's got a record.
Now, as to Palin, I agree entirely with what Mara said. She is--she has star power without any doubt. She has an extremely devoted following. But she is not a serious candidate for the presidency.
She had to go home and study and spend a lot of time on issues in which she was not adept last year, and she hasn't. She has to stop speaking in clichés and platitudes. It won't work.
It could work for eight weeks if you're the number two candidate, as she was last year. But even so, she got singed a lot in that campaign. You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you're running for the presidency.
On Obama's pattern of broken campaign promises:
If it's a promise that becomes a goal, it's on its way to becoming a betrayal. It certainly will happen on taxes. There is no doubt on that.
The way he reversed himself on a host of issues--on detention without trial, on rendition, on state secrets and on having lobbyists in his administration. But all that is penny ante stuff.
The real betrayal of this presidency, the premise of the campaign last year, which he talked about endlessly--and the audiences were swooning over this--was he was going to introduce a new politics. He was going to have a politics of the people.
He would take the lobbying and the lobbyists and the influence peddlers out of government, the money changers out of the temple. That is what he represented.
All that was rubbish last year, and now it's all the more so. We have had, because of his ambitious government takeover--at least attempted--on stimulus, on health care, on cap and trade, which is the entire energy industry, with so much allocation of capital out of Washington, the frenzy of lobbying in Washington has been unprecedented.
It's not business as usual as he promised. It's worse. It's the biggest frenzy of lobbying in American history.
It's no accident that the oil and gas industries have 50 percent increases in lobbying expenses, and wind industry is on its way to a tripling of its expenses on lobbying. All this is as a result of his ambitions of regulating and controlling the economy...
'Teach the Children Well,' Blah, Blah, Blah
Here's something interesting -- and sad, and a little alarming. Some defenders of public schools -- I mean, die-hard, grasping-at-straws defenders -- say, "The reason we have public schools is that no one else can be counted on to teach basic facts about our country -- to teach civics. And we need such education if we're to hold the country together." We sure do. How are the public schools doing?
The Goldwater Institute, in Phoenix, has explored this question. They commissioned a survey of Arizona high-school students to find out what they know. I will quote from the executive summary (which you can find here):
. . . we surveyed . . . students with questions drawn from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) item bank, which consists of 100 questions given to candidates for United States citizenship. The longstanding practice has been for candidates to take a test on 10 of these items. A minimum of six correct answers is required to pass. The service recently reported a first-try passing rate of 92.4 percent.
The Goldwater Institute survey, conducted by a private survey firm, gave each student 10 items from the USCIS item bank. We grouped results according to the type of school students attend -- public, charter, or private. Questions included (1) Who was the first president of the United States? (2) Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? and (3) What ocean is located on the East Coast of the United States?
All three groups of Arizona high school students scored alarmingly low on the test. Only 3.5 percent of Arizona high school students attending public schools passed the citizenship test. The passing rate for charter school students was about twice as high as for public school students. Private school students passed at a rate almost four times higher than public school students.
This does not mean the sky is falling. But the sky should be watched, for signs of national, civilizational apocalypse. (How's that for non-hysteria?)
Just think of it: 3.5 percent of high-school students passed! That was in the public schools. And the kids in the charter and private schools -- not impressively better. I'm proud to say that I know who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Crispus Attucks, right? And that ocean? Piece of cake: Long Island Sound. I think I'll be in it this weekend . . .
P.S. The first president? You mean, not Barack Obama? Was there America -- any America worth speaking of -- before Barack Obama? (Sorry, I have a case of political crabbiness this morning.)
Rob Long Is Watching
the Sanford Seventies Show. Read his article from the upcoming issue of NR for free here.
Memo To Mark Sanford: Man Up and Go Home
I've not had much to add to what's been said around here about Mark Sanford, and I still don't have much new to say. But Jeez-O-Peet it's time for this guy to step down. Go in the woods and bang drums, wear dresses at the shopping mall or become a Trappist Monk -- whatever you need to do to get your act together on your own dime and on your own time. South Carolina, it seems to me, is not a state where politicians are expected to air out their "personal journeys" from the Governor's mansion and I know the Republican Party doesn't need to become an unseemly hybrid of est seminar, Plato's Retreat and Bible Camp. Invoking King David as your inspiration for hanging around like a lech at a strip club after last call was stupid enough, but if you're going to do that, you can't start crying (again) about your Argentinian girlfriend or blathering on in a way that might cause John Belushi to descend from heaven just to smash your guitar against the wall. If stepping down makes it harder for the GOP or for some rivals to run for governor, Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care. You need to get off the stage.
The GOP needs to march to your office and tell you, "Look, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."
Washington Post Selling Access?
Politico:
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" -- Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it's a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff."
The offer -- which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters -- is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."
Perhaps Governor Sanford Can Learn Something
As far as I can tell, this story out of Kiev, Ukraine is on the level -- though I suspect more than a few Ukrainians wish it wasn't. The mayor of the city, Leonid Chernovetsky, has political style that few American politicians could pull off. Well, okay, Chernovetsky doesn't really pull it off, either. Facing massive fiscal woes and corruption allegations, the mayor staged a media event that put even Sobbin' Mark Sanford to shame:
After jogging and doing 15 chin-ups, he stripped down to a Speedo and swam 15 meters. "I want to demonstrate to the whole world that I am absolutely fit physically and mentally," he announced.
A millionaire businessman and evangelical Christian, Mr. Chernovetsky has gained a reputation for wacky ideas. With Kiev facing an economic crisis, Chernovetsky proposed charging fees to enter cemeteries, selling his kisses in a raffle, and selling burial plots for frogs.
When thousands gathered outside his offices to protest corruption, he entertained them with a song and announced that he was launching a singing career. "I will make millions of dollars per day. Because who sings better than I do? No one does, except God," he enthused.
The lesson? If a politician is going to disgrace himself, he should at least make a good show of it. Come on, American pols, rise to the challenge!
N.K. Fires Another
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea test-fired a fourth short-range missile off its east coast Thursday, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported.
South Korea's Defense Ministry had earlier confirmed three launches, but could not immediately be reached about the fourth reported missile.
The first three missiles were fired at 5:20 p.m., 6 p.m., and 7:50 p.m. local time from Sinsang-ni near the eastern coastal city of Wonsan, a ministry spokesman said.
A U.S. official told CNN "the missile firings come as no surprise."
"The North has been carrying out provocative acts for some time," said the official, who did not want to be named for security reasons. "North Korea needs to stop this type of activity and return to the process of bringing about a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."
Sanford Needs to Stop 'Embarrassing Himself'
Bill Bennett on the governor of South Carolina:
"We have other people," he said. "We have other people who are not only fiscally interesting and sound but also can keep their lives together. "
Who Knew They Weren't Democrats, After All?
One of the strangest things about the Iranian tragedy is this spate of mea culpa confessionals from columnists who for the last two years insisted that Bush's decision not to talk to the thuggish Ahmadinejad -- e.g., his sending terrorists into Lebanon to destroy democracy; trying to kill Americans in Iraq with lethal IEDs and assassinate Iraqi democrats; subsidies for rocketeers in Gaza; promising to exterminate Israel; violating U.N. non-proliferation accords; rounding up and eliminating journalists, minorities, and dissidents -- was at best counterproductive, and at worst proof of his cowboyish know-nothingism.
Now they've had and gone through our callous realpolitik moment, in which we sat on the sidelines as thousands of brave reformers were silenced. Our administration worried that the internationalist Obama would not have his long-awaited chance to show his "this is our moment" post-nationalist stuff, in charming Ahmadinejad and a few theocrats to promise to kill and maim fewer people.
And as a result they seem to be "shocked" that 1) Iran is really not a democracy after all, and that, after 30 years, it still rigs elections, preselects candidates, and kills off opponents, confident that its thin veneer of voting fools Western elites; 2) does not much care whether we talk or not to its clerics, and whether we act nicely or badly toward them; 3) long ago figured that what little downside there was to getting the bomb was far outweighed by the upside (cf. the deference showed to Pakistan post-1998), and nothing was/is going to stop them.
Jobs Numbers
From CNN's Scott Spoerry at the Labor Department: -- The unemployment rate rose to 9.5 % in June.
*Unemployment rate is the worst since Aug. 1983 --The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June.
***A consensus of economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected the unemployment rate to rise to 9.6% and a loss of 363,000 jobs in June.
Cash or Credit?
Felix Salmon provides a list of who gets paid in cash and who gets an IOU now that California is running out of money. The next time somebody tells you about how the government is looking out for you, take a look at it. The academic name for this is "public-choice theory."
Phase IV
Be afraid . . .
A single mega-colony of ants has colonised much of the world, scientists have discovered. Argentine ants living in vast numbers across Europe, the US and Japan belong to the same inter-related colony, and will refuse to fight one another. The colony may be the largest of its type ever known for any insect species, and could rival humans in the scale of its world domination.
Their plans for the Falklands remain a mystery.
Rounding Up the Usual Suspects?
Homeland Security is making a show of cracking down on employers of illegals, but without raids. They told members of Congress Wednesday that they'd just sent notices to 652 business that their personnel records would be audited to look for illegal workers (as opposed to 503 such notices sent to businesses in all of last year). Obviously, this is part of the administration's amnesty campaign -- the spoonful of enforcement to help the amnesty go down. And I'm happy to see it. But . . . this doesn't tell us anything about a commitment to future enforcement. And that's not just my cussedness talking. In 1998-1999, Janet Reno's INS launched exactly the same kind of effort, called Operation Vanguard, which audited all the meatpacking plants in Nebraska in an effort to have a more orderly and thorough enforcement strategy. (There's a description of the operation, and how it turned out, about halfway down this Washington Post article.) It was meant to be repeated every few months to wean the businesses off use of illegal workers. But the businesses, churches, politicans, et al. went bonkers and it was stopped and the initiator fired from the INS.
This is why no one-time performance should convince anyone of the administration's commitment to enforcement. Only after new enforcement tools have been institutionalized can such a claim be made -- for instance, mandatory use of E-Verify by all employers, and not a promise to do that but actually phasing in the program over a period of several years and overcoming court challenges. Only then is legalization even a legitimate topic for debate.
Caught with Their Pants Down
American Apparel, an L.A. firm which has been very active in promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, apparently did so a for a reason -- ICE has identified one-third of its workforce as illegal aliens!
Full Marks for Honesty (If Not Much Else)
EU Commissioners (the union's top bureaucrats) are not famed for their straightforwardness, so full marks to the Irish EU commissioner for the observation that Europe's political leaders know "quite well" that if their electorates had been asked to vote on the Lisbon Treaty (the "non-constitution" constitution) "the answer in 95 percent of the countries would probably have been No."
And that, of course, is why, in most cases, they were not asked. Charming.
Hat-tip: Eursoc
Defending America
Our missile-defense editorial:
President Obama sounded like a man who was glad to have missile defenses last month, when it became apparent that North Korea was planning to test a long-range rocket over the Pacific Ocean: "Well, first of all, let's be clear. This administration -- and our military -- is fully prepared for any contingencies," he assured Harry Smith of CBS News. "The t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
The launch of North Korea's Taepodong-2 may take place in the next several days, and the rocket may fly perilously close to Hawaii. If it does, mobile ground-based interceptors and a sea-based radar system -- recently deployed to Kauai and the waters nearby -- are in position to protect Honolulu and its environs.
Will this experience give Obama second thoughts about his hostility toward missile defense? It should, but Obama's opposition is deeply ingrained. During the presidential campaign, he pledged to slash missile-defense spending. In recent months, he has made good on his promise. His proposed budget for 2010 includes more than $1 billion in cuts. One of the main casualties is a system of interceptors in Alaska and California whose purpose is to protect the West Coast from North Korea. Obama would halt their deployment at 28 anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs), short of the 44 the Pentagon had hoped to put in place by 2011. Another victim is Airborne Laser (ABL), which seeks to mount lasers on 747s. The goal is to target the fuel casings of enemy rockets just after they've blasted off and to destroy them when they're big, slow, and still over their home territories. ABL may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but the technical aspects of the project are more or less proven. To become a reality, it merely requires continued funding.
Also in jeopardy is a missile-defense system currently planned for Eastern Europe. The NATO-endorsed program, which would include about ten interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, aims to protect Europe and the United States from the emerging menace of Iran. In February, rocket scientists in the service of the ayatollahs demonstrated their sophistication when they put a satellite into orbit, using the same ballistic technology that can launch warheads. Yet Russia has objected to this proposed defensive system on the preposterous grounds that it would create a deterrent to its own massive arsenal. Moscow's real concern is the expansion of Western influence in former Soviet satellite states. Unfortunately, Obama has given every indication that he's ready to abandon the program.
Wishing away these threats won't cause them to disappear. North Korea's imminent test may show that Pyongyang has the ability to strike Alaska and Hawaii with its rockets. Iran already can hit Israel and parts of Europe. It no doubt shares North Korea's ambition of building rockets that can reach the continental United States. New risks may emerge as well, especially if Islamic radicals grab power in Pakistan. The time to prepare for these problems is now, before they've had a chance to mature and when there's still an opportunity to research, build, and deploy the weapons that will continue to let Obama tell the public that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted.
Neither the World Nor Mark Sanford
need a Sanford book right now. News to follow:
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- Prior to revelations of an extramarital affair that effectively brought an end to his political career, Mark Sanford was preparing to publish a book outlining his policy beliefs, his publisher told CNN Wednesday.
Sentinel, a conservative imprint of Penguin Group, has included a book by Sanford entitled "Within Our Means" in their Spring 2010 catalogue, the proofs of which have already been sent to the printers. It was described by the publisher as "a manifesto about fiscal conservatism -- why the government needs to spend less and fix the deficit ASAP."
That was before Sanford's life changed forever. Sentinel associate publisher Will Weisser told CNN Wednesday that the company will "most likely" make an announcement about the book's fate later this week.
Helen Thomas
lashes out:
(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during today's briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.
"Nixon didn't try to do that," Thomas said. "They couldn't control (the media). They didn't try.
"What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
"When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you," Thomas said.
"I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences," she said. "It's blatant. They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame."
North Korea
starts the fireworks:
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea test-fired what appeared to be two short-range missiles off its east coast on Thursday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.
"One was fired at 5:20 p.m. and the other at 6 p.m. from Sinsang-ni," near the eastern coastal city of Wonsan, South Korean defense ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said, according to Yonhap.
With the President in Annandale
Jim Geraghty writes:
It's fairly easy to persuade Americans that health care ought to be "reformed." But the public's thinking on health care isn't too far from the prescriptions of "Oscar Rogers," the faux financial expert on Saturday Night Live who, when asked what should be done in the aftermath of last fall's economic troubles, kept yelling "Fix it!" No matter how he was asked, his recommendations never got more detailed than, "Identify the problem and FIX IT!"
This is, in fact, the path HillaryCare trod 15 years ago. Americans weren't terribly pleased by the way they were paying for health care back in the early 1990s. Employees always think their premiums and co-pays are too high; employers always feel like they're shouldering too much of the burden; and those without insurance always think somebody should step in and provide them with some. Everybody wants everything they need covered by their insurers, as well as some things they probably don't need (e.g., gastric bypass surgery, chiropractors, hair prosthesis -- all subjects of mandates or attempted mandates in various states).
So reform sounds great in the abstract. But then the public learns the details of the legislation -- say, from an incredulous Harry and Louise sitting around a breakfast table -- and it doesn't seem like such an improvement. Town-hall meetings don't build a majority of "aye" votes, and when there is no real effort to engage the arguments of the opposition, just the usual straw man that the alternative is to "do nothing," one wonders whether these town-hall meetings are worth anyone's time, much less the president's.
If Obama really wanted worthwhile reform more than he wants a signing ceremony, he would have to do two things he has not yet indicated he's willing to do. The first is not only to know what you want -- besides "fix it!" -- but to be able to rank those often-competing goals in a hierarchy. At some point, policies aiming to cover everyone and policies aimed at reducing costs crash into each other. A review board that aims to ensure that the government pays only for cost-effective treatments is at some point going to deny citizens care that they want. A president has to know exactly what's a deal-breaker for him, what's worth a veto threat, what provision or concept is so important that he'd rather see no bill than a bill that lacks it. At this point, it's not clear that Obama really knows where his own red line is drawn.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Sayings of Jesus (Jesus Library) (Paperback) by Frederick Fyvie Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
The Revised and Expanded Answers Book: The 20 Most-Asked Questions About Creation, Evolution, & the Book of Genesis Answered (Paperback) by Ken Ham (Editor), Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, Don Batten (Editor)
|
|
|
|
