Keeping Cap and Trade on the Radar

In recent conversations with friends regarding political happenings, we've often compared the tiresome task of keeping up with and fighting against the liberal legislative onslaught to attempting to plug up holes and seal off cracks in a weakening dam, with new fissures and cavities appearing every day. The cap and trade legislation has been eclipsed by the health care "reform" juggernaut but it cannot be forgotten. Writing for the American Spectator, Roger Abbott and Iain Murray remind us why:

Amid the public outrage surrounding health care reform, another issue of equal importance for the average American has been nearly forgotten: the upcoming Senate debate on the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill. This bill attempts to "cap" -- that is cut -- U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by forcing all energy producers to pay for expensive emissions permits, which can be traded on the basis of need and cost. The idea is that making fossil fuel-based energy less affordable create incentives for investment in low-carbon energy supplies, or energy-efficient equipment, that otherwise would be prohibitively expensive.

Read it!

As I make my way through Edmund Morris' Theodore Rex, I'm repeatedly struck by his exceptional writing ability and gift for language. Virtually every page is peppered with a beautiful array of metaphors and lyrical imagery, bolstered and enhanced by a wonderfully rich vocabulary. He makes me appreciate the subtle, delicate intricacies of the English language, which may not roll and flow like the Romance tongues, but more than makes up for it with its unrivaled bounty of words. Quite often while reading, I find myself pleasantly stunned by Morris' way with words and I say to myself, "Wow! That's good!" I never though Joseph Ellis (author of Founding Brothers and American Sphinx and other first-rate books on the founders) could be matched in terms of his superb writing ability, but Morris comes terribly close. Pick up Theodore Rex if you get the chance. You won't regret it.

A few standouts I noted:

"He [Roosevelt] gave off a godlike aura of radiance and vitality, and the children luxuriated in it, like bees in sun."

"The sun was setting, and its rays gilded the misty transpirations of peach orchards and tobacco fields."

"To the west...he could see the nimbus of New York City, and, northeast across the Sound, the twinkling lights of Connecticut. At regular intervals, Falls River Line steamers en route to Massachusetts drew chains of gold across the water."

Describing J.P. Morgan: "There was something volcanic about Morgan. The hot glare and fiery complexion, flushing so deep that the engorged nose seemed about to burst, the smoldering cigar, the mountainous shoulders-merely to look at him was to register tremors."

Is the "Unthinkable" Possible?

1994 All Over Again in 2010?

With the town hall argy-bargy garnering more headlines every day, there's growing chatter that the political climate may be ripe in 2010 for major Republican gains in Congress. Unlikely? A long shot? Byron York offers his insightful analysis.

It's a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big -- really big -- in next year's elections?

Ask them about it, and many Democrats will point to the continued personal popularity of Barack Obama. But that's not the story. "I think what's going to happen is Obama's going to be fine, and the Democrats in Congress are going to get their asses kicked in 2010," says one Democratic strategist who prefers not to be named.

Pelosi's Double Speak

If you can stand it, and it's difficult, I know, watch this brief clip. It shows an awkward Nancy Pelosi back in '06, during an appearance in that fusty cesspool of arch-liberalism known as San Francisco, asserting that she's a fan of "disrupters." In that instance they were the gals of Code Pink and other anti-war ne'er-do-wells. Now that the masses vociferously oppose her tainted agenda, she has taken to drawing comparisons between the "disrupters" and Nazis.

Reagan's Echo

Already back in 1961, the Great Communicator was warning us about the perils of socialized medicine. Obviously, this is very relevant for today. It's remarkable how things really have not changed after all these years. Reagan hits all the major points, which are nothing less than the general principles of liberty and tyranny.

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine."

Filibustering the Town Hall

I caught only about fifteen minutes of Obama's town hall yesterday, but as I was watching, I remember thinking, "When is this guy going to stop flapping his jaw?" He'd take a "question" and then go on and on and on...the modus operandi is obvious, it's a parliamentary tactic: bury the interlocutor in a torrent of words so that the initial point is swept away. Next, take command of the rest of the time to answer, yada yada yada, and then, done.

From FoxNews:

A look at President Obama's health care "town hall" Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., shows the president out-spoke his audience by a margin of nearly 9-to-1 -- hardly the kind of even-handed exchange of ideas that marked the town meetings of colonial America.

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama

CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

The Campaign Trail and Health Care

Karl Rove has an excellent piece in today's Wall Street Journal.
Here's an excerpt:

Team Obama is suffering from Extended Campaign Syndrome. In an election, campaign staffers are often just trying to survive until the next week or the next primary. They cut corners because they are fatigued or under pressure. They can be purposely combative and even portray critics as enemies.

Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.

For example, there's a video being circulated online of Barack Obama telling the Illinois AFL-CIO in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health-care program . . . we may not get there immediately" and then telling an SEIU Health Care Forum in 2007, "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system."

The White House now insists that the president doesn't want to enact a single-payer health-care system or eliminate private insurance. What's more, a White House spokeswoman attacked the video, saying its compilers "Take a phrase here and there—they simply cherry-pick and put it together—and make it sound like he's saying something that he didn't really say."

That's laughable. Mr. Obama's remarks are straightforward and indisputable. Rather than saying his views have changed as he has worked to create a national consensus, the administration denies what is obviously true.

Emphasis added

Health Care Bill

John David Lewis, a classics professor at Duke University, picks apart the House Democrat health care bill. It's a great analysis and well-worth a look. Here's a snippet:

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

Moore Tells the Truth

Michael Moore, that unbearable liberal blatherskite, said during an interview with Rolling Stone what we all know to be true regarding the health care debate:

“If a true public option is enacted -- and Obama knows this -- it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won't be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make … I probably shouldn't be saying this, but I'm counting on the fact that Republicans won't be reading this Rolling Stone.”

At least he, unlike the president, is being honest about it.

Clinton Implodes (Again and Again)

Few news stories over the years have struck me for their offensive outlandishness as much as this one about Hillary Clinton. Traveling in Abuja, Nigeria, the splenetic Secretary of State made the following remarks within the context of discussing the need for fair elections:

"Our democracy is still evolving. You know we've had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so we have our problems, too."

This is, without a doubt, the most unprofessional, petulant remark ever uttered by an American diplomat of such high rank. On foreign soil, the United States Secretary of State called into question the very legitimacy of our democratic system. To make such an assertion at all, let alone in a foreign country rife with political corruption and then to attempt to draw a moral equivalency between the two nations, using former President Bush as the punching bag leaves one thunderstruck. How trite, how small of her! Clearly, no one ever bothered to tell Mrs. Clinton that the role of Secretary of State is a diplomatic one that traditionally does become embroiled in domestic political controversies. It is unseemly and distasteful to do so. But strident unseemliness and jaw-dropping distaste, not to mention eye-averting dowdiness, are arts that Mrs. Clinton has perfected, sans réplique. The woman is utterly unhinged. Judging by Clinton's ferocious and humiliating battle-axish breakdown the other day before Congolese students, she is obviously bedeviled with personal issues after being repeatedly upstaged and sidelined by her husband on the world stage in recent months. She is struggling to stay relevant. It almost makes me want to shoot Obama a letter, thanking him for having defeated her in the primaries. What an embarrassment to the tradition of Jefferson, Madison, Kissinger and Rice.

Let's propose an honest question: Does anyone really like this woman? Watch the video before answering the question.


Mr. Jefferson once counseled, "When angry, count to ten. When very angry, count to one-hundred." When this angry, however, resign from the position of Secretary of State and check into anger management.

Pistol Packing President

I take note whenever I come across examples from a bygone era of American presidents committing acts that would make the left of today squirm. For all of his importunate progressivist tendencies, here's one anecdote from the life of Theodore Roosevelt in which lovers of the Second Amendment will surely delight. From Edmund Morris' superbly written biography, Theodore Rex:

The President's behavior after receiving his honorary LL.D. was so archetypal as to imprint itself on the eyes and ears of many observers. Dr. Eliot escorted him to a guest suite to change, and watched with fascination as he tore off his coat and vest and slammed a large pistol on the dresser. Eliot asked if it was his habit to carry firearms. "Yes, when I am going into public places."

Refreshing. This, obviously, was before schools and universities became "Gun Free Zones." The students were probably much safer back then too.

Progressive Era Q & A

Teddy Roosevelt: Progressive Republican


"Unregulated competition is a bad thing."

"The chaos of the market..."

"Wall Street is a vicious, cut throat, den of vipers."

And so on.

These are but a sampling of the more common hackneyed bromides fired at the free-market system. While statements like these are far more common in Democrat circles, Republicans are not immune from falling into the trap of clichés, as in the case of the administrations of Teddy Roosevelt and, more recently, George W. Bush. (Remember how, in the twilight hours of his presidency, Bush, channeling Keynes, famously declared, "I sacrificed my free market principles in order to save the free market." to justify the disastrous stimulus package he signed into law and for which Republicans are still paying for dearly as they somewhat disingenuously offer granitic resistance to Obama's equally disastrous "stimulus" packages.) Anyway, I contacted an old economics professor with a statement made by the Attorney General under T. Roosevelt, Philander Chase Knox, regarding the government's desire at the time to break up the putative "monopoly" of railroad industries:

"Uncontrolled competition, like unregulated liberty is not really free."

"Does this follow?" I asked him. Here was the reply.

It's baloney. It was the government which set up railroad monopolies by giving monopoly grants of land for the railroads, who then charged farmers a fortune to ship their stuff to the commodities markets. The only non-monopoly railroad was the Northern Pacific, privately financed, privately built, and who never ripped people off. Teddy's statement is progressive era myth.

Remember all competition takes place within a moral/religious system and a political/legal system, both of which pre-date the particular market system. So, competition is already regulated because it takes place in an already existing society.

As an aside, Jonah Goldberg makes an interesting observation about Progressivism in the America of T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson:

Some Progressives focused on social reform (Wilson) while others were concerned with America’s greatness (T. Roosevelt.) Roosevelt reflected the masculine side of Progressivism while Wilson the maternal side.

One could make pretty much the same comparison using Bush as T. Roosevelt and Obama as Wilson.

The Worst Film Ever?

Ramine Setoodeh offers this hilarious play by play account of the "awful" G.I. Joe flick that just came out this past weekend. I confess, I felt somewhat embarrassed that I even endured the online trailer, perhaps hoping it might be a neat war film or something. After it was over, I actually laughed out loud in disbelief. This is not the G.I. Joe I knew as a kid. And yet, it is the number one movie in the nation!

This could segue into a robust discussion on the near total collapse of quality film making in today's Hollywood, and the relationship between totally banal, inane, insulting films like this one and their remarkable ability to rake in mountains of cash and draw masses of people. What does this say about what people really want? Supply and demand? A.J. Nock's (rather Hamiltonian) observation on "the Masses" and "the Remnant" ring truer to me with each passing day.

Some of my favorite observations on G.I. Joe:

12:22 a.m.: In the not-too-distance future. NATO Weapons Command. Some dude with a red tie is giving a presentation about army tanks and cancer cells. I'm already confused.

12:28 a.m.: I'm feeling sick from all the turbulence.

At headquarters: Lots of things happen. I don't pay attention to any of it. This movie is worse than the Fantastic Four.

12:38 a.m.: Two people seated behind me leave.

12:41 a.m.: We are introduced to some doctor wearing a mask who looks like Skeletor, the bad guy in He-Man. Remember the '80s? If not, don't go see this movie. If you do, still don't go see this movie.

12:57 a.m.: Channing corners Sienna with a big gun. "Do it," she purrs. "You already killed me once." But he's distracted and now a white ninja is fighting a black ninja and it makes me miss the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Saint Lawrence

Martyrdom of St. Lawrence

Some pictures for the Feast of St. Lawrence:


Exterior of the Basilica of St. Lawrence in Rome

Sepulcher containing the relics of Saints Stephen and Lawrence

Marble slab upon which St. Lawrence was martyred


View of the interior

Petition Relevance

How relevant are the petitions at Mass? You know:

"We pray to the Lord."

"Lord, hear our prayer."

The thoughts presented here are still in the inchoate stage, and perhaps ought to be polished a bit or thought over more carefully before posting but, that said, here goes. Every now and then, the "petitions" raised during Mass are nothing more than thinly veiled appeals wrapped in the patois of the social justice left, as in those that lump capital punishment and war with abortion and euthanasia. These kinds of moralistic lectures, called "petitions," rich in sanctimony and invisible finger wagging, are more accurately described as mini-discourses in public policy, more suited for town halls and congress than for church. Petitions like these need to go.

Sometimes too, the petitions are relatively innocuous, even laudatory, as in those that call for a respect for life from conception to natural death (although petitions making specific reference to abortion are rare to find, as opposing war is far more hip). Clearly, in addition to the prayer aspect, petitions like these are intended to gently remind the faithful of the Church's immutable teaching on the "non-negotiables." And that's a good thing.

But all too often, the petitions are just bizarre, bordering on the risible. Now, given the eminently forgettable trait of most "petitions," my recollection is not presented verbatim, but I've heard some that go more or less like this: "May students return to school refreshed after a relaxing summer, ready to start the new academic year. We pray to the Lord." Or, before summer you might have, "May students enjoy a safe and relaxing time during summer break. We pray to the Lord." I mean, really. Or another went as follows: "May the wealthy nations of the world learn to share their resources with those that are less fortunate. We pray to the Lord." Seriously, are petitions like these necessary? For the sake of our ears, can't we retain these in the silence of our hearts? The response emanating from the faithful has become so rote and sleepy that I wonder who is really listening to the petitions anymore. Of course, people should pay heed, but with the preponderance of schmaltzy supplications, and a generous smattering of bad ones, I can't blame them for tuning out.

Shorts in Church

It's an interesting contrast that Americans, by and large, sport shorts in the balmy summer months while Europeans, by and large, do not (except of course when playing sports or frolicking on the beach, where they often sport much less). To wear or not to wear shorts during the dog days of summer is a matter of personal preference. I don't own a pair of "dress shorts" (an oxymoron?) but that's just my "thing." I suppose it may appear somewhat odd from the perspective of most Americans but, in my defense, I just don't think that putting on shorts makes me feel that much cooler. So what's the point?

One assertion regarding shorts that I think ought to elicit a general consensus, but which unfortunately does not, is that they are not appropriate for church, let alone for liturgy. Shorts are casual wear and church/liturgy is something of a much higher order and, as such, should summons one to raise the bar both interiorly and exteriorly. The near universal assimilation of shorts, here, there, and everywhere, by Americans from coast to coast means that many have lost the ability to make proper distinctions regarding when shorts might not be appropriate. Shorts have become the toga of the masses in America.

I attended liturgy in Old Town Alexandria a couple months ago on the Feast of Corpus Christi. During his homily, the priest made a simple but powerful point, which came as a question. "Would any of us arrive at the White House for a meeting with the president wearing shorts?" No. It would be inconceivable to do so. Respect for the office alone, irregardless of the current occupant, dictates certain unquestionable White House protocol: a suit for gentlemen and an appropriate dress for ladies. What about shorts for an audience with the pope? The priest continued, "Now that we all agree, why then do so many people come to Mass wearing shorts to greet the Lord?" The common sense reaction of an intelligent observer might go something like this: "Well of course Father, what a silly question! Who would come in shorts to meet the Lord?!" But the fact is, go to any parish and see, a great number of people do just that. Why?

It goes without saying that everyone is ultimately responsible for his own actions and that adults especially should possess the maturity, and not to mention taste, to make the correct fashion call before leaving the house en route to Mass. In this situation though, part of the blame must reside with the pastor and his reluctance to consistently implement a dress code and to frequently remind the people about its existence and why it applies, especially during the summer months. Unchecked and uninformed, people generally tend to push the envelope, even unconsciously so, testing to see what they can get away with and are keen to search out the easiest path. Albert Jay Nock coined the phrase "Epstean's Law" after an acquaintance who once noted to him, "I tell you, if self-preservation is the first law of human conduct, exploitation is the second." Elaborating on this "law," Nock wryly noted, "Man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion." This adage carries over to clothes. Once the standard of dress (among other things) has been whittled down and accepted as de rigueur, it's mighty difficult to break the template.

In churches across Rome, a dress code is vigorously enforced. Signs are posted at the doors of the church to remind the people, mostly tourists, what is acceptable and what is not. At St. Peter's Basilica, vigilant workers frequently have to stop camera toting tourists from entering, reminding them of the dress code. The odd thing is, these folks appear genuinely punch-drunk when they are denied entry on account of their short skirts, shorts, or tank tops. Their shock evinces the crux of the problem. For those Catholics stopped at the door, no one back home at their local parish ever told them about the basics of church attire. They are literally clueless.

The eagle-eyed vigilance at the churches in Rome is encouraging. The curious thing is that, here in the states, a similar standard is not enforced. Simply put, priests need to remind the flock. Otherwise, people will simply do what comes naturally, what's most common and what's easiest. And in the casual, sloppy America of today, this means shorts and tee shirts in the summer, every day, all day.

Changing Tide

From the Telegraph:

Last year, five per cent of the total population of the 27 EU countries was Muslim. But rising levels of immigration from Muslim countries and low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population mean that, by 2050, the figure will be 20 per cent, according to forecasts.

Data gathered from various sources indicate that Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time.

Fatal Flaws

Ramesh Ponnuru has an excellent piece in TIME that eviscerates the straw man arguments favoring a radical upheaval of the health care system.

So the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want. And the Democrats wonder why selling health-care reform to the public has been so hard?

Again and again, their effort has brought us into a land of paradoxes. Public skepticism is warranted when the President promises to cut costs while simultaneously providing coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured people. It is even more warranted when his congressional allies seek to raise taxes to pay for all the new spending that this cost-cutting entails. We aren't talking about short-term spending either; this isn't a trillion-dollar investment in a new system that will ultimately save money. The Congressional Budget Office says the leading health-care-reform proposals will increase health-care spending and make the budget harder to balance in the long run. Yet saving money is the President's principal stated rationale for reform.

Figure that one out, if you can.

A Closer Look

Drawing from statements made by the president's own advisers, Rep. Michele Bachman analyses the chilling details buried deep in the Obama health plan.