Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Seeing Red


From Fox News:

NEW YORK — New York is seeing red over the decision to turn the city's highest beacon — and one of America's symbols for free enterprise — into a shining monument honoring China's communist revolution Wednesday night.

The Empire State Building is set to be illuminated in red and yellow lights to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the bloody communist takeover.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

French Rage

I'm not sure that people are necessarily quaking in their boots with French anger aimed at them, but it's interesting nonetheless. From the Wall Street Journal:
President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

An Incredibly Accurate Indictment

From Richard Cohen (hardly a right-wing cheerleader by any standard), writing for the Washington Post:
Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

Hot Spots

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, offers an insightful analysis of the situation in Iran and Honduras. His book, No Surrender, was a bit of a disappointment, too pedantic and tedious for my taste (a friend rightly described it as Bolton's "anti-U.N. manifesto/daily schedule"). The "anti-U.N." part is understandable and enjoyable but the play-by-play account of every bit of the excruciating minutia of Bolton's tenure was tiring. That said, he is a pleasure to listen to. He clearly knows his stuff.

Monday, September 28, 2009

In Pursuit of Glory (and nothing more)

Robert Samuelson, writing for Newsweek, discusses the real motivation behind the health care "reform" movement.
What's driving the great health debate of 2009 is not a popular clamor for universal insurance. "Many Americans are balking again at the prospect of health care reform," writes pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center. A new Wall Street Journal poll found 41 percent of respondents opposed to President Obama's proposals and 39 percent in favor (the rest were undecided). The underlying driver is politicians' psychological quest for glory.

"My colleagues, this is our opportunity to make history," Chairman Max Baucus implored last week as the Senate Finance Committee opened consideration of his bill. Politicians, in their most self-important moments, see themselves as instruments of national destiny. They yearn to be remembered as the architects and agents of great social and economic transformations. They want to be at the signing ceremony; they want a pen.

Ordinary Americans are rightly suspicious of this exercise in collective ego gratification, which has gripped Obama and many of his congressional allies. Even when the goals are worthy—as they are here—the temptation to exaggerate, simplify and sugarcoat often proves irresistible. Baucus's promotion of his handiwork is a case in point.

On the Wise Man



"Invite a wise man to a feast and he'll spoil the company, either with morose silence or troublesome disputes. Take him out to dance, and you'll swear a 'cow would have done better.' -Folly on the 'wise man,' taken from Erasmus' In Praise of Folly

Funny!

Adding 'em up

National Review Online features an excellent piece that lists the staggering number of lies Obama uttered in his address to Congress.
By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.

One Time??

A startling revelation from the Washington Times: Obama has only spoken to the U.S. Commander of Afghanistan once in 70 days! But nevertheless, as has been mentioned here before, the president has abundant time for David Letterman, for jetting off to Denmark to plug Chicago for the Olympics and for pitching his health care scheme on every Sunday morning talk show. Time for the general though, not so much.
The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

Just Words?

"May the Lord receive the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His Church."

Or

"May the Lord receive the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God's name, for our good and the good of all God's Church."

Of course, the second formula was born out of the shrill demands of political correctness, but, even from a stylistic/linguistic point of view, it also comes across to the ear as ridiculously clumsy. And while the willy-nilly tinkering with liturgical prayers is expressly verboten by the Church, this and a host of other p.c. interventions in the liturgy have caught on. Excepting the implacable feminists (and you know them when you see them) is anyone else seriously offended if "his" is used instead of "God's"? I doubt it. Priests need to start speaking out on this. But then again, they are often the ones encouraging it.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Angie Stays Put



Conservatives in Germany showed their strength today, giving Chancellor Angela Merkel another term with a healthy majority in parliament.

Vaclav to the Rescue!

Pope and President: Yesterday in Prague

Vaclav Klaus wrote an excellent op-ed that appeared back in May in The Guardian. Of all the world leaders, the President of the Czech Republic stands alone as the voice of reason and common sense on the issue of global warming. For our part, with the ascension of Barack Obama, the United States has joined the ranks of the nail-biters, hand-wringers and crazies who are hell-bent on enacting insane, anti-capitalist policies to "save the planet." So sad.
I am surprised so many people in Europe, the US and elsewhere have come to support policies underpinned by hysteria over global warming, particularly cap-and-trade legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions and subsidies for "green" energy sources.

I am convinced this is a misguided strategy - not only because of the uncertainty about the dangers that global warming might pose, but also because of the certainty of the damage that policies aimed at mitigation will cause.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

U.N. Circus Redux

From Mark Steyn, writing for National Review Online
When you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn’t that they'll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way. That’s what happened in New York last week. Barack Obama is not to blame for whichever vagary of United Nations protocol resulted in the president of the United States being the warm-up act for the Lunatic-for-Life in charge of Libya. But it is a pitiful reflection upon the state of the last superpower that, when it comes to the transnational mush drooled by the leader of the free world or the conspiracist ramblings of a terrorist pseudo-Bedouin running a one-man psycho-cult of a basket-case state, it’s more or less a toss-up as to which of them is more unreal. To be sure, Colonel Qaddafi peddled his thoughts on the laboratory origins of “swine flu” and the Zionist plot behind the Kennedy assassination. But, on the other hand, President Obama said: “No nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”

For better or worse, we are defined by our differences — and, if Barack Obama doesn’t understand that when he’s at the podium addressing a room filled with representatives of Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela, and other unlovely polities, the TV audience certainly did when Colonel Qaddafi took to the podium immediately afterwards. They’re both heads of state of sovereign nations. But, if you’re on an Indian Ocean island when the next tsunami hits, try calling Libya instead of the United States and sees where it gets you.

This isn’t a quirk of fate. The global reach that enables America and a handful of others to get to a devastated backwater on the other side of the planet and save lives and restore the water supply isn’t a happy accident but something that derives explicitly from our political systems, economic liberty, traditions of scientific and cultural innovation, and a general understanding that societies advance when their people are able to fulfill their potential in freedom. In other words, America and Libya are defined by their differences.

Putting the Sixties to Rest

Not a bad idea.

From Gill Hornby, writing for The Telegraph:
The Mamas and the Papas: Peace, love and unhappiness

Never has a decade been more pleased with itself than the Sixties. It was supposedly our Renaissance, our Cultural Revolution. But when did you last curl up with a Sixties novel, or stare in wonder at the beauty of a building thrown up then? It was that famous time of great political and social progress, and by the end of the decade racism was rife and feminism just a twinkle in a dolly bird’s eye. Sixties fans may mention, just drop it in, that there was some music. The Beatles might crop up, perhaps The Rolling Stones. Yes. And who had the Christmas number one in 1969? Rolf Harris, with his groundbreaking, radical Two Little Boys.

The Sixties was a very bad party, to which most of us were too young or uncool to be invited. But those who went, and did not die choking on their own vomit or bombing out their own brains, will not stop banging on about it. And yet little stories like Mackenzie Phillips’s memoirs, or the revelations this week that, while purring as a sex kitten, Brigitte Bardot was attempting to commit suicide, or the childhood of Michael Jackson, should remind us to put their paradise in perspective.

It’s been a difficult year, 2009 – coming, as it does so neatly, 40 years after 1969. Apparently, back then, they all had a whale of a time. There was a concert in a muddy field and everyone took a lot of LSD and their tops off, and there was some peace as well as, I gather, some love. And just as we finish the fascinating retrospectives of Woodstock – you can shake yourselves awake now – we approach the most dangerous anniversary of all. 2010: 50 years since the dawn of civilisation as they think they knew it. Time for the rest of us to brace ourselves, drop off, and tune out.

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Economy and the Blame Game

Here's an excellent post by James Pethokoukis that appeared on the Reuters Blog. He nails it.
The one baddie Washington doesn’t want to touch is, well, Washington. Its crime: pushing federal policies that favored ever-increasing home ownership, particularly from the mid-1990s on, and thus helping spawn the housing bubble at the center of the devastating meltdown. (We’ll focus on its legacy of financial bailouts another time.)

The sheer scope of the bipartisan, federal pro-housing undertaking is mind-boggling.

As Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard University economist, noted in testimony this week to the House Financial Services Committee, a list of past and ongoing efforts would include the Federal Housing Administration, Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, the deductibility of mortgage interest, the tax-favored treatment of capital gains on housing, the HOPE for Homeowners Act and the $8000 homebuyer tax credit.

Then, of course, there are the Federal Reserve’s efforts to bring down mortgage rates.

The federal tax subsidy alone amounts to some $200 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Put it all together and it’s clear that Uncle Sam created immense incentives for home ownership, from which Wall Street eventually found a way to coin huge profits.

Well, at least for a while. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker conceded this week to the same committee that government housing efforts, in the form of Fannie and Freddie, were a “factor” in the crisis.

But while Washington is creating financial regulations and regulators, going after banker pay and questioning the role of the ratings firms, it seems intent on leaving its pro-housing policy bias intact.

A Review

Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of Obama's address to the United Nations. I think Goldberg gets it right in pointing out that Obama can't make it through a speech on any subject without making repeated references to himself, his "story," etc. The ego on display is astonishing.
It was the most Obamaesque address to date.

“For those who question the character and cause of my nation,” the president pronounced Wednesday, “I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.”

America is 233 years old. Some think that there are ample accomplishments speaking to our character and cause that predate Obama’s ascension to the presidency.

Feh, Obama seems to be saying. Look instead to our new greatness, for we have elected a man like him!

Having anointed himself America’s vindicator and redeemer, Obama’s real purpose seems to be to become the leader not of the free world but, simply, the world.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Destination: Czech Republic

The Infant of Prague

From the Associated Press:
VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI is going to the heart of central Europe 20 years after the fall of communism ended restrictions on religion. But what he will find is a Czech Republic where nearly half the population professes to be nonbelievers.

Like an ancient missionary on his three-day pilgrimage starting Saturday, Benedict will try to reinvigorate the faith with a series of religious services, make a side trip to the traditional Catholic heartland in Moravia and repeat reminders of the country's Christian roots as he pays tribute to the nation's patron saint, Wenceslas.

Though the latitude's rather uncertain,
And the longitude likewise is vague,
Still the people I pity who know not the City,
The beautiful City of Prague.
- William Jeffrey Prowse

It's a pity that a country boasting one of the world's most breathtaking cities is inhabited by so many people who question the cause and source of inspiration for such beauty.

Women Warriors: A Good Idea?



From FoxNews:
Report: Mullen Backs Women Serving on Submarines

Female sailors can broaden their role in the Navy by serving on submarines, an activity currently prohibited by the Armed Service, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has advised the Senate Armed Services Committee.

According to Defensetech.org, a site run by Military.com, a group boasting a membership of 10 million veterans and active duty forces, Adm. Michael Mullen told senators in a recent survey that he's long been an advocate for improving diversity in the Armed Forces.

"I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines," he added.

The policy change would mark a huge shift for the Navy, whose submarines have been devoid of female sailors even though women began flying fighter jets and performing other seagoing combat roles 15 years ago.

This motion of advocacy, coming from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on behalf of women in the armed forces, more specifically in the Navy, allows for a segue into a broader discussion on the question of women in combat. To do so, I will borrow liberally from an excellent piece that appeared in National Review back in 2003, written by Kate O'Beirne, entitled "An Army of Jessica's: About Women in Combat: Let's fight. Hard." (Of course, women have demonstrated great heroism in battles past and are sure to do the same in the future. However, the wider and almost universal acceptance and incorporation of women in the military is a worthy subject of debate, although it is a sensitive one to broach nowadays because unfair implications of sexism, male chauvinism etc., are immediately unleashed on anyone brandishing the temerity to argue the more traditional stance.) Here are some of O'Beirne's observations:
Overplaying women's exploits permits proponents of gender-integrated combat to discount the masculine traits that the history of warfare shows to be vital to military success. In an article for the Buffalo Law Review, Wayne State law professor Kingsley R. Browne examines the historic link between masculinity and warfare: "Be a man" was the core value by which combat soldiers judged each other, according to Samuel Stouffer's classic study of soldiers in WWII; as Browne notes, Northwestern professor Charles Moskos--America's leading military sociologist--explains that one of the few ways to get men in combat to behave so irrationally as to risk getting killed is to appeal to their masculinity. A study of the Spanish Civil War found that the greatest fear of men facing combat for the first time was that they would turn out to be cowards. Historian S.L.A. Marshall found that a man in combat will overcome his fear and do what's required because he risks losing "the one thing that he is likely to value more highly than his life--his reputation as a man among other men." Browne concludes: "If the need to prove one's manliness is an essential motivator of combat personnel, what motivates women?"

A 1985 Navy study found that large majorities of women were unable to perform any of the eight critical shipboard tasks that virtually all men could handle...In her 2000 book, The Kinder Gentler Military, Stephanie Gutmann recounted how the harsh demands of basic training have been largely eliminated to make the experience more female-friendly. With basic training now gender-integrated in all the services except the Marines, the emphasis is increasingly on self-esteem and positive motivation. Recruits are shown videos that reassure them that "anybody can get through boot camp" and that it's "O.K. to cry." A commission appointed by defense secretary William Cohen...concluded that basic training should be separate because integrated training resulted in "less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs.

Margaret Thatcher, in her must-read book entitled Statecraft, echoes many of the points made here by O'Beirne. The Iron Lady also highlights the enormous financial inconvenience that results from having to re-outfit Navy vessels with female friendly facilities, all in the name of living up to modern notions of equality. She also raises a good question: Should grenades be made lighter and less deadly, allowing women to throw them far enough so as to not incur injury from the explosion? For, if grenades are too heavy (and more potent as a result), only the men are able to hurdle them far enough to avoid getting hurt. Historically, culturally and practically speaking (perhaps most relevant for winning a fight), impressive arguments can be marshaled in defense of an all-male military, at least in terms of combat roles.

With Friends Like These...


Joining the ranks of the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, and other left-wing blatherskites wreaking havoc across the globe, Muammar Gadhafi, the insane president of Lybia, gushed over President Obama and endorsed him, well, "forever" during his 94-minute rambling screed at the UN yesterday. Is anyone surprised by this coquet between Obama and the world's fringe elements? You'd think the White House would be embarrassed. Certainly, Americans are. From Politico:
Qadhafi railed against the United Nations for giving the United States and a few other countries veto power over its actions. But he had surprisingly warm words for Obama.

“We Africans are happy, proud, that a son of Africans governs the United States of America,” the Libyan leader said. “This is a historic event. ... This is a great thing.” “Obama is a glimpse in the darkness after four or eight years,” said Qadhafi, who referred to Obama as “my son.” “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.”

The Libyan leader, who at times rummaged through a sea of handwritten yellow papers spread across the lectern, also praised Obama for taking a “completely different” approach to nuclear proliferation and other issues than his predecessor did.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Obama and the Indoctrination of Children

Sad stuff. Where are the parents?

Bullets Flying Out the Door

Here's a heartening story from the Associated Press:
America armed, but guns not necessarily loaded

NEW ORLEANS – Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can't keep up with the nation's demand for ammunition.

Shooting ranges, gun dealers and bullet manufacturers say they have never seen such shortages. Bullets, especially for handguns, have been scarce for months because gun enthusiasts are stocking up on ammo, in part because they fear President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass antigun legislation

Bullet manufacturers...one corner of the market that is thriving. And go figure, the Democrats are in charge!