SATURDAY,  DECEMBER 12,  2009

A ROYAL MESS - AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  From London's Daily Mail:

The Queen is to hand over a substantial part of her public duties to Prince William to help him prepare for the day when he becomes King, according to a confidential document obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

Secret papers reveal that plans to ease the strain on the 83-year-old monarch and her 88-year-old husband, Prince Philip, are at an advanced stage.

The disclosures come despite months of denials from the Palace that the Queen was planning to step back from her official work in favour of her 27-year-old grandson.

You can be sure the White House is on the case, figuring out ways to snub Prince William. 

It is bound to lead to new speculation that when the Queen dies, the monarchy could skip a generation, with the Crown bypassing Charles and being handed straight to William, although Royal sources strongly discount this option.

What would happen to Prince Charles?  Would the new king name him Not Quite King, but Knows Alot?

There is speculation that Charles is reading the biography of Almost President Al Gore. 

What does a guy like Charlie say when his son gets the job, and he doesn't? 

Stay tuned.  The Brits know how to do these things.  They've even done abdications.

December 12, 2009   Permalink   

ANOTHER PHILLY CASE FOR THE OBAMANS - AT 8:47 P.M. ET:  They certainly botched the first one.  You may remember that, earlier this year, the Obama Justice Department dropped a case against the Black Panthers, who'd been charged with improper activity at polling places during the 2008 election.  The dismissal created an uproar because the case had been considered airtight, and there were suggestions of racial favoritism.

The Obamans will have a second shot:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A national Asian American advocacy organization says it plans to file a federal civil rights complaint against the Philadelphia School District after a series of attacks on Asian students at a high school.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund said Friday that it would accuse the Philadelphia School District of violating the equal protection rights of the students.

Dozens of students have been boycotting classes at South Philadelphia High School. They say that the Dec. 3 assaults were racially motivated and that the school hasn't done enough to prevent the violence.

COMMENT:  The alleged assailants were African-American, so once again the administration has a walk-on-eggshells case.  We'll follow it and see how it's handled this time.

December 12, 2009   Permalink

U.S. NOT HAPPY WITH IRAN NUCLEAR OFFER - AT 8:23 P.M. ET:  There was really nothing else the U.S. could have said.  From AP:

A senior Obama administration official on Saturday said the White House was unhappy with remarks by Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki's remarks, who said Iran accepted the West's nuclear fuel proposal, but according to its own timetable.

"Iran's proposal today does not appear to be consistent with the fair and balanced draft agreement proposed by the IAEA in consultation with the United States, Russia, and France," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the US has yet to formulate an official response to the development.

In Bahrain on Saturday, Mottaki said that Iran is ready to exchange the bulk of its stockpile of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel rods - as proposed by the UN - but according to its own mechanisms and timetable.

COMMENT:  I'm getting a sense from the murmurs coming out of Washington that Obama has already decided on a tough line in January, in part, as we wrote earlier today, to buck up his image.  But the question is whether other countries will follow him.  That will be the key test of his diplomacy.

December 12, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA - THE POLITICAL LEDGER - AT 11:24 A.M. ET:  Ron Brownstein, in National
Journal, has a solid piece sizing up Obama's political position, a year before midterm elections:

As 2010 approaches, President Obama is displaying a familiar strength, a familiar weakness, and a new vulnerability that could tip next year's midterm election.

The familiar strength is his standing among racial minorities. In the 2008 race, Obama won four-fifths of nonwhite voters. Nearly three-fourths of nonwhites still approve of his performance, the latest Gallup weekly polling average shows...

...This takes us to Obama's familiar weakness: his difficulties among white voters without college educations. He's not the first Democrat with that problem. Although such working-class whites anchored Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition, no Democratic presidential nominee since 1988 has carried more than 44 percent of them, according to exit polls; Obama captured a meager 40 percent.

One problem Obama has with working-class whites, Brownstein says, is that he has an intellectual, rather than a personal, problem-solving manner.  But there are other issues:

The president's difficulties extend beyond manner. Polls show most working-class whites doubt that his flotilla of federal initiatives will help them. In a recent survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, only one-third of noncollege whites said that their families would be better off if health care reform passes. ...

The bottom line:

Like all downturns, this recession has hit hardest at the most economically vulnerable, particularly racial minorities. But this storm has been unusually egalitarian, battering those at the top too. Since 2007, median incomes have plunged more for white families headed by men with a college degree than those headed by men with only high school educations, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

That widening distress changes the political equation. A possible Republican surge next year in blue-collar "beer track" districts remains the biggest threat to the Democrats' House majority. The Democrats' vulnerability will deepen, however, if they cannot hold the line in "wine track" districts whose education levels exceed the national average. That's one way a difficult 2010 election for Democrats could turn catastrophic.

COMMENT:  There's been a remarkable role reversal in American politics.  At one time Republicans wrote off "beer track" districts and Democrats wrote off "wine track" districts.  Now the situation is flipped.  Those of us brought up in the liberal politics of the 40s and 50s never thought we'd see the day when the GOP could seriously claim that it was the "party of the people."

Democrats, to win, might have to introduce themselves to working people again.

December 12, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO THE CLUB, FELLAS - AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  Remarkably, both The New York Times and the Washington Post, the pillars of journalistic liberalism, have major stories this morning on the danger of homegrown Muslim terrorism in the U.S.  Congratulations, guys.  What took you so long?  From the Times's story:

WASHINGTON — As the years passed after Sept. 11, 2001, without another major attack on American soil and with no sign of hidden terrorist cells, many counterterrorism specialists reached a comforting conclusion: Muslims in the United States were not very vulnerable to radicalization...

...But with a rash of recent cases in which Americans have been accused of being drawn into terrorist scheming, the rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., last month and now the alarming account of five young Virginia men who went to Pakistan and are suspected of seeking jihad, the notion that the United States has some immunity against homegrown terrorists is coming under new scrutiny.

That's a relief.  But you can be sure that some, including members of our own Justice Department, will stick with the old dinner-party narrative - no threat, no threat, just friends and neighbors. But there's been a disturbing series of incidents:

There were the November shootings that took 13 lives at Fort Hood, with murder charges pending against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born Muslim and an Army psychiatrist.

There was the arrest of Najibullah Zazi, born in Afghanistan but the seeming model of the striving immigrant as a popular coffee vendor in Manhattan, accused of going to Pakistan for explosives training with the intention of attacking in the United States.

There was David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American living in Chicago, accused of helping plan the killings in Mumbai, India, last year and of plotting attacks in Denmark.

There was Bryant Neal Vinas, a Muslim convert from Long Island who participated in a rocket attack on American troops in Afghanistan and used his knowledge of commuter trains in New York to advise Al Qaeda about potential targets.

And others are listed.

There's no silver lining, but maybe a bit of one:

Yet amid the concern about the five Virginia men and the impact of the wars on Muslim opinion, Audrey Kurth Cronin of the National War College in Washington said she found something to take comfort in.

“To me, the most interesting thing about the five guys is that it was their parents that went immediately to the F.B.I.,” she said. “It was members of the American Muslim community that put a stop to whatever those men may have been planning.”

Oh, no, no.  It was the Pakistani government, joined by our FBI, that put a stop to that.  Even at the National War College we see political correctness.  But, true, the parents did go to the FBI, and that is a good sign.  Trouble is, it's one of the rare good signs.  We may not be that lucky next time.

December 12, 2009   Permalink

IRAN MAKES A CONCESSION, KINDA SORTA, NOT REALLY - AT 10:35 A.M. ET:  Right on schedule, and as expected, Iran has made a bit of a concession on the nuclear issue, just before Barack Obama's end-of-December deadline:

MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) -- Iran is ready to exchange the bulk of its stockpile of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel rods -- as proposed by the U.N. -- but according to its own mechanisms and timetable, the foreign minister said Saturday.

The minister's remarks come just days before an expected meeting between the U.S. and allies to discuss new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. The offer, however, falls far short of the conditions set by the international community.

Speaking to reporters at a regional security conference in Bahrain, Manochehr Mottaki said Iran agreed with a U.N. deal proposed in October in which up to 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of its uranium would be exchanged for fuel rods to power its research reactor...

...The deal would leave Iran -- at least temporarily -- without enough enriched uranium to produce a bomb. However, after signaling in October that it would accept the proposal, Iran has since balked, giving mixed signals over the deal, including several statements from lawmakers rejecting it outright.

COMMENT:  Oh, come on.  The clear purpose of this is to stop the clock.  You know, let us negotiate further.  How dare you Americans talk about more sanctions when we're being so reasonable?

The sad fact is, though, that some Western nations may buy the Iranian line...because Iran is buying their product lines.

So now the test will come for Obama.  Will he stand firm and move forward with a drive for tougher sanctions, or melt once more?  My guess is that he'll go for the sanctions, if only to continue the campaign, begun at West Point, and furthered at Oslo, to prove that he isn't a weak pushover.  After all, elections are coming up in 2010. 

December 12, 2009   Permalink

POLL STUNNER - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen this morning reports the lowest rating ever recorded for President Obama in Ras's presidential approval index.  That measures the gap between those who strongly approve of the president's performance and those who strongly disapprove:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

The 25% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. That’s partly the result of declining enthusiasm among Democrats. While Democrats continue to offer their approval, just 43% Strongly Approve.

COMMENT:  The decline in Democratic support has to be looked at closely, since it's come after the West Point speech.  Part of this polling was also done after the president's centrist speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  Are some Democrats jumping ship because they think the president is drifting toward the center?  That may or may not be true. 

But it would still be good strategy for Mr. Obama to move toward the middle.  That's where the real bulk of the votes is.  The hard left may be able to elect a multicultural studies director in San Francisco, but that's about it.

It's well known that the White House has a meeting every Wednesday to go over poll numbers.  This Wednesday's meeting should be marked by indigestion.  But don't sell these guys short.  Politically, they're sharp.  They'll come up with a strategy.  They were damned good in 2008.

December 12, 2009   Permalink

TERRIFIC - AT 10:14 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, at Top of the Ticket, has the video of Sarah Palin's surprise visit to Conan O'Brien.  Watch the whole thing.  She's terrific. 

Palin has just ended her book tour, during which she reconnected with the American people.  She's developing more confidence.  She got cheers at O'Brien's show, which has a young audience.  She's already said she'll be making a number of campaign appearances next year, which is all to the good.  Her job now is to study, study, study, and be ready to take on any issue. 

Hey, you never know.

December 12,  2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 11,  2009

A LESSON FOR THE NATION - AT 11:22 P.M. ET:  Some New Yorkers like to think of themselves as quite superior to mere humans.  You may have seen the old New Yorker cartoon depicting a map of the U.S. - New York on the right, a thin strip to the west, and then the huge Pacific Ocean.

Uh, that was then.  This is now.  New York is in pathetic shape, and the reasons should be a warning to the rest of the country.  New York is what happens when the left takes over, when small business is treated with contempt, and taxes are collected to benefit "the people," without regard to the effect on those same people five years down the road.  The New York Post, in an excellent analysis piece, has the sad story:

IT'S no secret what drives innovation, economic growth and job creation forward: It's entrepreneurs and investors taking risks and starting up, investing in and building businesses.
New York policymakers often talk a good game about all this -- but over the years they've worked hard to make the state one of the most inhospitable places in the nation to invest and do business.
Just consider what state lawmakers did this year. Facing huge budget deficits and a grim economy, they recklessly jacked up government spending and imposed big tax hikes -- including higher tax rates on upper-income individuals who tend to be business owners and investors and a new payroll tax on businesses to feed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

And...

In fact, according to the just-published 2009 "Small Business Survival Index," New York has the fourth-worst public-policy climate for entrepreneurship among the 50 states and District of Columbia. Only California, New Jersey and DC rank worse.

And look at the shape they're in.  Do I see D.C. listed there?

And what is the result of New York's policies?

As it turns out, New York's biggest export in recent decades has been people. In terms of net domestic migration (that is, movement of people between the states, excluding births, deaths and international migration), from 2000 to 2008, New York ranked as the nation's top exporter of people, registering a loss of 1.6 million.

People both follow and create economic opportunity. It should be no surprise, given New York's dismal business climate, that so many are seeking and creating opportunities elsewhere.

COMMENT:  Will others learn from our mistakes?  I certainly hope so.  Will New York learn?  Possibly.  New York City hasn't elected a Democratic mayor in 20 years because of the damage the Dems did.  But there are still powerful interests who believe the state should just be a cash machine for special interests and "oppressed" communities.  The result has been that the oppression is worse, and other states gain from our losses.  Those leaving New York tend to be the most productive citizens. 

So, enjoy our exports.  They're excellent.  And they'll appreciate you.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

A CONFLICT OF INTEREST - AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Don't think there are conflicts of interest in the "science" of global warming?  Reader Brian Kuhn alerts us to this CBS story that should open eyes.  And it deals with one of our great universities:

The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change.

Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government.

Ahem.  A bit of a problem:

"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.

That nails it exactly.  And we see these conflicts all over science.  We've noted that President Eisenhower warned about the influence of funding on scientific results in his farewell address to the nation some 48 years ago.  The problem hasn't been solved.

Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.

And...

Petr Chylek, a fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and an adjunct professor at New Mexico State University, said in an open letter that climate scientists "have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view." And 141 scientists have signed a statement at CopenhagenClimateChallenge.org that says actual evidence of human-caused global warming is lacking and "unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation."

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  How many trillions will be spent, how much of our economy will be damaged, before we realize that climate-change "science" is shot through with conflicts of interest and political agendas.

And while we're at it, maybe it's time to take a look at some of our "leading" universities and the way they do business.  And remember:  It's a business.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

AND STILL ONE MORE - AT 7:20 P.M. ET:  We've noted the sheer number of terror incidents, and near-incidents, in the United States in the last year.  We haven't highlighted some strange occurrences aboard airliners.  Here's another, which occurred just this week.  From Canada Free Press:

It happened again on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, less than a month after the incident aboard AirTran Flight 297.

United Airlines Flight 227, scheduled to depart Denver International Airport at 1:50 pm Wednesday for Los Angeles was disrupted when several passengers who were described as Middle Eastern in appearance, confirmed by this investigator to be a group of Muslims traveling together, were removed from that aircraft due to suspicious behavior that originated in the terminal and continued to the airplane. Their behavior was consistent in some respects to the behavior of the Muslim passengers aboard AirTran Flight 297 on November 17, 2009 that caused a flurry of controversy over its legitimacy, and the now infamous case of the “Flying Imams” of 2006.

And...

According to information obtained by this investigator, seven men of Middle Eastern appearance, boarded flight 227. Two took their seats in coach, while five took their seats in the first class section of the plane. At a critical pre-flight point, the individuals appeared to act in concert with one another, changing seats and moving stowed luggage to very specific areas of the aircraft, often having to move the stowed bags of other passengers to do so. They disobeyed or otherwise ignored the admonitions of the flight attendants to remain seated.

The flight crew had those passengers removed.  There's a TV report here.

The passengers were put on another flight.  No criminal activity was found, but the pattern was similar, as the story notes, to one on a flight in November. 

These incidents tend to be downplayed, partly because of political correctness, and partly because of the commercial interests of the airlines. 

Two of the strangely behaving passengers were in coach, and five were in first class, but they all seemed to know each other. 

COMMENT:  We can't make any charges, of course, but we should be concerned.  The general excuse given for behavior like this is "cultural difference."  But there's another, more ominous explanation - testing the system and rattling flight crews.

We say we've been lucky so far, although we weren't so lucky at Fort Hood.  The American people are dozing.

December 11, 2009   Permalink 

THE FAST HUSTLE SLOWS DOWN - AT 10:29 A.M. ET:  A few days ago, Senate Dems were ready to hold tofu parties, believing they had health care nailed down because of a compromise over the "public option." 

Well, not so fast, fellas.  Apparently, there are people in the Senate who actually read things, and think about them.  I know that's dangerous, but they do it.  From The Politico:

Senate moderates who are the linchpin to passing a health care reform bill raised fresh worries Thursday about a proposed Medicare expansion, complicating Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority for the legislation in the coming days.

Two days ago, the Medicare proposal appeared to be the elusive bridge between liberals, who were being forced to give up a public health insurance option, and moderates, who said they couldn’t vote for a bill that included one.

But by Thursday, the shine had dimmed, as senators grew restless over a lack of information and declined to commit their vote until they could review the legislative language and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. Republicans also stepped up their criticism of the plan.

The three moderates — Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), whose votes could make or break health reform this year — expressed varying degrees of resistance to the Medicare idea.

Snowe said the Medicare expansion exacerbates an “already-serious problem,” with the low government reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. It could force her to vote no, she said.

COMMENT:  Every poll shows increasing public opposition to the Dem health plan.  You'd think they'd put it away for a while and go talk to their constituents.  But the "we know best" crowd is in charge, and they're headed over the cliff. 

December 11, 2009   Permalink

WHISTLING DIXIE? - AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  There is a disconnect between the statements of administration officials on Iran and facts on the ground.  From The New York Times:

ERBIL, Iraq — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Friday that he expected the United States and its allies to impose more stringent sanctions against Iran because the country had not followed through on promises it made in October to open its nuclear program to international inspection.

“I think you’re going to see some significant additional sanctions imposed by the international community, assuming that the Iranians don’t change course and agree to do the things that they signed up to do at the beginning of October,” Mr. Gates said during a question-and-answer session with American troops in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region north of Baghdad. He spoke before flying to Erbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan.

Under a deadline imposed by President Obama, Iran has until the end of this year to show progress in engaging with the West to limit its nuclear ambitions. Mr. Gates’ comments were the first from a senior member of the Obama administration to say that tougher sanctions were now likely.

Well, actually Hillary Clinton has said pretty much the same thing.  The problem here is that, as administration officials speak, China and Russia are making it clear that they oppose any significant sanctions.  They both have veto power in the UN Security Council, which presumably would be asked to impose the sanctions.

True, we can act on our own, or in conjunction with real allies, but without Russia and China, sanctions will probably prove ineffective. 

Our ace in the hole may turn out to be Iranian dissidents.  It is possible that the Iranian hard-line government could be significantly weakened, or even toppled, by the street protests, which are growing by the month.  Please remember that it took many months to topple the Shah in 1979.  I'm told by Iranian experts that March is critical month, when the demonstrations may reach a new intensity.

If the mullahs can be weakened or swept away, that could, and probably would, have an effect on Iran's level of cooperation on nuclear matters.  Big if.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

THE KIND OF THING THAT DRIVES US CRAZY - AT 8:50 A.M. ET:  I cannot abide when public people refuse to describe their views accurately for fear of the consequences.  Thus, Betty Friedan, in "Feminine Mystique," misrepresented her Marxist background, knowing it would hurt the book.  Not excusable.

Now we have a more modern example, and the hypocrisy flows: 

ITHACA, NY — Nominations for the 2009 Izzy Award are officially open. The annual award for special achievement in independent media — named after legendary muckraker I. F. “Izzy” Stone — is a project of the Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College. Last year’s inaugural award was shared by blogger Glenn Greenwald and “Democracy Now!” host/executive producer Amy Goodman.

“The award honors journalists who follow in the independent footsteps of Izzy Stone,” said Jeff Cohen, PCIM’s founding director. “Our 2008 Izzy winners, Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman, personify the growing clout of independent media today in exposing government and corporate misconduct, media bias and human rights violations.”

Oh please.  Spare me.  Independent media?  Why don't they get an honesty attack and tell it like it is - these are far leftists.  I.F. Stone wasn't "independent."  He was a leftist, and, if the Venona intercepts are to be believed, his leftism may have drifted into something worse.  (I stress "may."  I'd want more confirmation.) 

Glenn Greenwald is a leftist.  Amy Goodman is way out there.  To describe these people as independent is an outrage.  But "independent" is one of those code words used on the left.  Like "progressive."

It's hilarious that this award is given at Ithaca College, a hotbed of the zanies.  A few years back, when challenged over the ideological imbalance in the school's political science department, the departmental chairman denied it, saying that Ithaca boasted a variety of "progressive" viewpoints.  That is absolutely self-indicting.  What she's saying is that Ithaca has intellectual diversity - a variety of leftist positions.

They are teaching our children.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  There is still plenty of buzz about Obama's Nobel Prize speech, and plenty of praise, sometimes qualified, from conservatives.  That's the way it should be.  If the man says or does something right, we note it.  Karl Rove has commented that if you keep demonizing an opponent, no matter what he does, pretty soon people stop listening, and he's right.

Here, Abe Greenwald, at NRO, wonders whether the president has gone neocon:

During his Nobel Peace Prize–acceptance speech today, Barack Obama said, “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.” He cited the historical example of Adolf Hitler and the present-day example of al-Qaeda. This rounds out a year that has seen a succession of real-world object lessons that bear out the claims of the intellectual tendency known as neoconservatism: Iran has rejected a torrent of American obsequiousness and will not be charmed out of pursuing nuclear weapons; its population, meanwhile, is clamoring for a robust American defense of democracy; a far-left American president has determined that a significant surge of American troops is the only way to win a faltering war effort in a far-off Muslim land; that same president has acknowledged that “we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq” and is using the basis of those achievements as the model for his new ramp-up strategy.

Ah yes, we remember it well.

In these, three convictions often linked with neoconservative thought have been affirmed:

1. No matter how technologically advanced and interconnected the world becomes, there will be bad actors, and their obstinacy will remain intact...

2. Populations living under despotic leadership are at all times engaged in a desperate struggle for liberty. Moreover, these populations look to America, the world’s longest-running constitutional democracy, for moral and material support...

3. A willingness to apply overwhelming and innovative military force remains critical to America’s wars — regardless of their asymmetric natures...

The president's speech wasn't perfect, far from it.  But it was an important move in the right direction...if those words are translated into sustained action.

The key question is this:  Was Obama's Nobel Prize speech his own declaration of independence?  Was it his way of signaling to us that he is moving away from the claustrophobic confines of his party's rigid left wing?  Well, we hope so, but we'll require plenty of proof, week by week, to be convinced.  After all, in his first ten months in office, this president has often seemed to follow the Leninist principle - two steps forward, one step back.  We hope the speech wasn't just the step back, but a step forward.

December 11, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Reader Errol Phillips alerts us to this quote from author Andrew Klavan, at frontpagemag.com:

Shame and guilt and self-hatred are universal.   Whether you chalk it up to original sin or to Oedipus or call it Jewish guilt or Catholic guilt or white guilt or black guilt,  every single one of us knows he is not the person he was made to be.  There are honest ways to confront that.  You can kneel before God and  pray for forgiveness and live in the joy of his love.  Or you can  drink heavily and make sardonic remarks until you destroy everyone you care about and then keel over dead – that’s honest too.  

But what a lot of people do is try to escape their sense  of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves while simultaneously indulging in  self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil.  That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle.  And that’s exactly the sort of religion leftism is:  an elaborate system for hiding shame behind a cheap mask of virtue.  That’s why they demonize any opposition.  To them,  we’re not just disagreeing with them, we’re threatening to tear off the  mask of their virtue and reveal them to themselves.  Which, without  God or sufficient whiskey, would be unbearable.  

COMMENT:  Beautifully said. 

December 11,  2009   Permalink