What a great idea – Thanks to Cheryl Johnson of Los Angeles for the suggestion to hear the words of the Gettysburg Address rather than reading.
Actor Jeff Daniels does the narration.
My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4bM9geY0do
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Politicians Oil Crisis
Newt Gingrich speaks in the featured video, below, on the true causes of the rise in gas prices and what has to happen to fix the problem. (video is 5 min 45 sec)
His program for change is titled. “ Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less”
If you would like to add a widget to your website or AR page which you see to the right of this post, you can add the following html code to your AR settings: This is not a link – it is html code.
<a href="http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659"><img src="http://www.americansolutions.com/directupload/widget/drillnow.gif"></a>
Additional information is available from AmericanSolutions.com (that one is a link)
My Source: http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
Lest We Forget
Those who know me will recall that I post the Gettysburg Address written and delivered by President Lincoln every year on Memorial Day and other days when I feel it is appropriate. Mr Lincoln’s words have always been special to me – in the same class with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So think back to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 18, 1863, during the American Civil War and think of the speech that has become more important than the battlefield it commemorated.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their
lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and
proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Republican Solution
I am featuring a Terry Paulson article below which calls for a 2008 version of the Contract with America as a solution to the malaise that engulfs the Republicans this year. While Terry’s article is long on motivation, he needs to understand the mechanics of the Contract with America movement from 1994 and why the effort achieved some of the goals that were set and not others. The policy initiatives were drawn from The Heritage Foundation and from Reagan State of the Union speeches. The work on the Contract involved a number of congressmen and others but I credit much of the concept and content to Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey.
The Contract with America was nothing short of a Republican revolution in 1994 that resulted in a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.
Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill (retired in 1987) was fond of saying that all politics is local. This is the conventional wisdom for congressional elections. But the Contract with America changed that to our advantage.
The Contract was very specific and contained a number of rules changes which would be brought to a floor vote the day the Republican majority convened and a number of policy initiatives which would be promptly introduced as bills and acted upon within 100 days. All were published for the public and media and the Contract was formally signed by all but two Republican Congressmen and all of the non-incumbent candidates prior to the 2004 election campaign.
One can debate whether the Contract was successful as all provisions were not adopted or passed into law (although, I believe, all were brought to floor votes). But what cannot be denied is that a Republican majority took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. The congressional elections around the country were run on a national set of promises and issues because the Republicans took control of the agenda and the discussion all over the country. In effect, we nationalized the elections for Congress that year. Former Speaker Tip O’Neill had died in January of 1994, so I do not have his comments.
We need a unifying theme for the 2008 Presidential and congressional races that will excite the public and shift the focus from the Bush administration.
Where is Newt when we need him.
Terry Paulson’s article featured below appeared at the Townhall.com site. It should be noted that whether I feature excerpts or a complete article, the source post still contains additional data such as reader comments which are displayed. I always try to provide a clickable source link, not only for attribution of the the excellent work of others but also to permit readers to read further for additional information if they wish.
My source:
End the Republican Pity Party, Give Us a Contract With America We Can Support!
By Terry Paulson
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The media pundits and many Republicans themselves have all but conceded the November election. They seem paralyzed like a deer in the headlights by the mid-term election setbacks, the unpopularity of President Bush and the recent special election losses.
Some psychologists have termed the depression of our age learned helplessness-“There’s nothing I can do that will make any difference in what will happen to me, so I might as well wait until they do it to me!“ Some Republicans are settling for an early pity party and hoping that the Democrats will falter and hand the GOP a November happy accident!
John McCain may not be many conservatives’ favorite candidate, but he’s putting the rest of the party to shame by running an aggressive campaign trying to sell himself and his agenda to independents and core conservatives alike.
Where are the rest of the Republican leaders? They’re hiding or complaining! GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia complained recently that "if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf." California Gov. Schwarzenegger warns that Republicans are in danger of "dying at the box office." All this, while their core constituency faces a nightmare—four years with an inexperienced liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate and House of Representatives. You don’t get support by hiding—you win elections by leading!
There are no perfect candidates and no perfect strategies, but we expect our party leaders and candidates to fight for the principles and values we believe in whether they win or lose. Wayne Gretzky, the all-time NHL scoring leader, gave credit to an early coach for some compelling advice—“You miss a 100% of the shots you never take!” Winston Churchill had his own version—“I never worry about action, but only about inaction.”
It’s time for action. Don’t wait for the Democrats or for the Republican Convention. Go on the offense by coming together to communicate a 2008 Contract with America. Take the focus off of Bush and the past, and put the focus where it belongs on a simple but compelling vision for what we can and must be! Newt Gingrich has helped champion the importance of focusing on the future; it’s time the party listens.
Uniting the party behind a “Contract with America” worked in 1984 because it gave Republicans a focus they could communicate that went beyond any candidate. Many independents found that they were actually “Republicans” but didn’t know it. Parties ebb and flow, people come and go, but principles last!
There’s much that McCain and the Republican Party can unite behind—Cutting federal spending and government regulations, holding the line on taxes, winning in Iraq by leaving when the job is done, securing the border and employer accountability before addressing guest workers, appointing conservative judges who don’t legislate from the bench, and promoting personal responsibility and free enterprise to save the American Dream. Make it simple. Make it compelling, but take a stand for something we can get behind!
If you’re not excited about some of McCain’s positions, get busy working to elect as many conservative Republicans as possible to Washington in order to influence the future of our country. McCain made a life as a political maverick; we need to send a few more conservative mavericks to Washington. A few conservative hot peppers will do wonders to the recipe!
The Democrats won’t hand this election to us, but they’re seriously wounded. Obama is looking more and more like their defacto standard bearer. But he is so untested and lacking in experience that his questionable associations and recent policy gaffs will cause people in the middle and “disappointed” Clinton supporters to choose McCain.
The Democrat super delegates are feeling a lot less super these days. They hoped to put their stamp of approval on an obvious winner. Now facing a close, contested convention, casting their vote is going to alienate part of the electorate they have to reach in their own campaigns. Those senators and representatives up for election are going to hate upsetting half of their core voters when choosing between Hillary and Barack. If we go on the offense, we will win the White House and some unexpected congressional victories.
Give us a Contract with America worth getting excited about. It’s time for action—You lose 100% of the elections you fail to contest! It’s time to come out of hiding and to stand for something. When you do, you just may find that there are a lot of people ready to join you in the fight!
This is my Candidate ?
For several years global warming has been the crisis du jour for the environmnentalists, liberal law makers and the media. We have endured academy awards and Nobel Peace Prizes for AlGore and endless hype from the press.
For whatever reason, the Republicans have recently started to preach the party line (the Democrat party line) – now at the very moment growing groups of top scientists have declared global warming to be a hoax.
The administration has sold out oil drilling in ANWR in favor of polar bears at the very time that we look for riots at the gas pumps over high gas prices. And now Senator McCain, already a disappointment to many, adds his voice to the global warming chants.
Senator McCain is rock solid on my three major issues for the election: Conservative Justices for the Supreme Court, Control of spending and maintenance of Bush tax cuts, and International Security in the Middle East. But he is wrong, in my view, on global warming and climate. Senator McCain is still my candidate – but someone should tell him not to push his luck.
The attached article is from Steven Milloy and is drawn from the Competitive Enterprise Institute web site.
My source: http://cei.org/articles/mccain%e2%80%99s-embarrassing-climate-speech
McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech
Milloy column on Foxnews.com
by Steven J. Milloy
May 15, 2008While no one knows who first uttered the sentiment "It’s better to say nothing and seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt," Republican presidential hopeful John McCain’s speech this week on climate change certainly supports the phrase’s validity.
McCain spoke at the facilities of Vestas Wind Technology, an Oregon-based firm that manufactures wind-power systems. The irony of the setting was rich given McCain’s outspoken opposition to pork-barrel spending.
He even risked his presidential hopes by criticizing ethanol subsidies ahead of the all-important Iowa caucuses. Next to solar power, however, wind power is the most heavily subsidized form of energy.
Taxpayers cough up an astounding $23.37 per megawatt hour of electricity produced, according to the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, coal and natural gas are only subsidized to a tune of 44 cents and 25 cents, respectively.
McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes.
"Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated.
What he’s talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years, as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy.
If anything, we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power, which provides about 20 percent of our electricity, shrinks in availability as a supply of energy.
Although our energy needs are ever-growing, construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace — not one has come online in the last 30 years. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades, they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level.
McCain then demonstrated how little he knows about the science of global warming.
"No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close…"
Global warming alarmism, however, is entirely based on the "guesswork and computer modeling" that McCain says isn’t necessary. The reason the United Nations relies on "guesswork and computer modeling" is because the glaciers that are receding have been doing so since at least the 19th century, before significant human output of greenhouse gases.
In any event, the melting of glaciers is not evidence that humans are involved. Glaciers have been advancing and retreating for hundreds of millions of years. Just because humans are witnessing changes in glaciers does not mean that humans are causing them; moreover, Antarctic ice is expanding while any melting of Arctic ice is not likely due to warmer air temperatures.
"We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events," McCain stated.
But that "sustained drought" is why the Southwest is commonly known as a "desert" — and it was a desert long before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
As to global temperature, the world has cooled since 1998 and the latest research from U.N.-approved researchers indicates that more global cooling is on the way. With respect to extreme weather events, I can’t think of a single scientist — even an alarmist scientist — who has the temerity to stand up and link specific weather events with climate change.
McCain’s apparent climate mentor, Al Gore, learned this lesson the hard way last fall.
McCain touted a so-called cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, citing the supposed success of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments’ cap-and-trade system for the sulfur dioxide emissions linked to the alleged phenomenon of acid rain.
But even if acid rain were a genuine environmental problem — and studies leading up to the 1990 law cast significant doubt — controlling sulfur dioxide emissions is many orders of magnitude easier than controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
The volume of sulfur dioxide emissions to be eliminated is much smaller, the sources (coal-fired power plants) are relatively few and the smokestack technology is comparatively inexpensive.
McCain said that "A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy." This is unlikely since cap-and-trade’s economic harms have been exposed and condemned by the likes of the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and renown economists such as Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer.
Even the Clinton administration warned of the economic harms that would be caused by cap-and-trade.
Although China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, vows not to reduce its emissions, McCain says the U.S. should act anyway. So as China, India and other developing nations become the world's greenhouse gas smokestacks, thereby nullifying any reductions made by the U.S., McCain willingly condemns the U.S. to more expensive and less available energy supplies for no environmental benefit whatsoever.
Undaunted by facts, McCain appears to be programmed with every nonsensical green platitude and policy — a truly worrisome situation since global warming regulation is shaping up to be the most important domestic policy issue of the upcoming election.
Many McCain supporters believe he is the candidate to lead the country at a time of war. But there is a war of sorts at home, too — the struggle against the greens for control over vital domestic energy and economic policy. We can’t afford to lose the latter war, either.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Firefox 3 Release Candidate 1 released
For those who use Firefox as their browser, the next version has advanced a step closer to final. After several months in beta testing, Firefox 3 is now available as release candidate 1.
A release candidate in the software world is a version that has completed beta testing and is in what is expected to be final form. In effect, the product is now ready for testing by the general public. If there are no major problems, the final version is expected to be released in June.
For those who use Firefox now, some of your add-in features may not work with the new version until updates are provided by the author of the add-in. The system will periodically check for updates for you.
Note that Firefox will not work well with many of our MLS systems (real estate agents) which require Internet Explorer. I use the Maxthon browser for my MLS work.
A Yahoo news article about the new release and its new features is available < here >
The FIrefox 3 RC1 program is available for free download at the Mozilla site. It is available for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. Be sure to select the English (US) version – unless you prefer one of the 40+ other choices. < link for download here >
I am enjoying the new release on Windows XP and note improved speed and performance. Check it out.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Quo Vadis - a Question for Republicans
Tom Davis is a Republican member of Congress representing the 11th district of Virginia (located in Northern Virginia). He is serving his seventh term and has announced he is not running for re-election.
Representative Davis has written a 20 page memo to the Republican leadership which is receiving wide distribution and attention lately.
Tom is well qualified to critique the Republican position for the fall elections since he has been a very active party member during his tenure in Congress, to include chairing the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for four years ending in 2002. The NRCC is responsible for electing Republicans to Congress and is responsible for strategy and fund raising.
So when he remarks that if the Republican brand were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf – he has my attention.
Tom describes the problems facing the Republicans in terms of brand, an unpopular President and war, economic factors, voter turnout and party registration, slow fundraising, lack of Presidential coat tails even in the event of a McCain victory and loss of early special elections. He expects, in the absence of immediate steps to take corrective action, a further loss of 20 seats in the house and up to 6 additional Senate seats in the fall election.
Representative Davis has some specific recommendations and lists specific issues that can be energized to assist the candidates for Congress. It is interesting reading, but if I outline his answers to his questions, many of you will not do your next homework assignment and review the actual memo.
Tom was planning to run for the Senate this year, but backed off when the State party decided to use a nominating convention rather than a primary election to select the candidate. Davis’s voter strength is the Northern Virginia counties where he is well known and liked. The party convention would be made up of party activists, who might find Davis to be too moderate for their tastes. He is now focused on a 2012 race against Jim Webb, Virginia’s other Senator. Interestingly, that opportunity may come sooner as Senator Webb is mentioned as a possible running mate for Senator Obama’s campaign.
I recommend you read the Tom Davis memo. It will provide you an understanding of the level of our problems and will also offer solutions which may mitigate the damage or produce an unlikely upset in the fall race for control of Congress.
The full memo is available from :
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/Davis051508.pdf
Gingrich on US Security and Strategic Interests
Newt Gingrich delivered a major foreign policy speech recently (May 15, 2008) which echoed some of his familiar themes but expanded some specific ideas which are useful.
Gingrich feels that we are in the most dangerous period in our national history since the decade immediately preceding the Civil War. The failure of our governmental and cultural institutions to properly address those problems led directly to the Civil War of the 1860’s.
It could be said that we faced another set of challenging times in the depression of the last century and the drift into World War II. But the American economic strength and other advantages led to our success over the Axis powers and later the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
But it is Gingrich’s position that our advantages in economic, cultural and governmental power have eroded over the past twenty years and he fears for the eventual outcome in the forseeable future. One need only look at the decline of the British Empire in the twentieth century to understand the nature of his argument.
Gingrich cites his own work with the Hart-Rudman Commission which identified five major strategic threats to the United States over the next 20 years. It should be noted that the report was submitted in March 2001 – prior to the events of 9/11/01.
“The greatest strategic threats to the United States come from:
* a rising Chinese system of economic, scientific, and military power;
* a resurgent autocratic Russia using energy wealth to rebuild military power in a decaying and declining population base;
* an aggressive and dedicated effort by the Irreconcilable wing of Islam to defeat the West, eliminate Israel, and impose a fascist Islamic dictatorship;
* a growing number of rogue regimes eager to acquire weapons of mass murder, mass destruction and mass disruption to protect themselves against the democracies and enable them to impose their will on their neighbors; and
* an emerging system of pseudo-legality sustained by a bureaucratic international elite which weakens the democracies, protects the vicious and the evil, and absorbs the energy of decent countries into endless maneuvers of utter impotence and dishonesty.”
Gingrich goes on to give specific directions which must be examined and specific examples of failures of our nation to meet the coming challenges. The total text is lengthy (Newt can do that) but I ask that you follow this link to read the complete text of the speech. It is worth your time.
http://aei.org/publications/pubID.28007,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Why we do not Negotiate
Senator Obama decided (I hesitate to use the word elected) to insert himself into the comments of President Bush before the Israeli Knesset at the 60 year anniversary of the Partition of Palestine by the United Nations in 1948 and the creation of the State of Israel.
I have already expressed my opinion in these pages that Senator Obama and other Democrats were wrong in their characterization of the President’s remarks. The President’s discussion of appeasement was not aimed at Obama and it was not the President’s intent to insert himself into the 2008 election while on a foreign trip.
However, since Senator Obama brings up the issue of his repeated statement of his intent to meet personally with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it may be useful to discuss the problems with his intended actions.
Ahmadinejad represents the most political radical segment of his society. The people of Iran are not particularly anti-American and there are more moderate political elements in Iran. So the long term stabilization of the Middle East would benefit from a regime change in Iran and a coming to power of more moderate elements. It appears that pressure can be brought on the regime with economic actions. The political power of the regime is dependent upon revenues from foreign sales of oil and the domestic consumption of that resource is increasing while the development potential for more oil seems limited. The country is currently producing less oil per day than the nation produced under the regime of the Shah thirty years ago.
Dick Morris provides a cogent explanation of the benefits of economic pressure on Iran and a condemnation of Senator Obama’s plan to meet with the current political leaders in Iran as against the President’s correct policies in the region.
My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/05/17/obama_wrong_on_iran
Saturday, May 17, 2008 Obama: Wrong On Iran By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.
The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.
The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.
Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.
Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.
If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.
But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.
Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.
Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.
Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.
We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.
Friday, May 16, 2008
The Changing World
When I see a major corporation change its brand or well known logo, I fasten my seat belt. Frequently it may just be the ego of a new Chairman of the Board, but frequently it may be an indication that the company is in a transition phase and may be facing difficulties.
Shortly after CitiCorp jetisoned the very well known logo of the umbrella (acquired with the acquisition of Travelers Insurance and maintained when the insurance division was sold) they have become caught up in the sub-prime/real estate foreclosure fiasco of recent times and are restructuring their operations.
In 2004, GE stopped being the company that “brings good things to life” and became the rather boring “Imagination at work”
Current Chairman Jeffrey Immelt took over the reins of the company 4 days before 9–11–01. He is currently being skewered nightly by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News for permitting his company to do business with Iran in the face of proof that Iran is providing explosives and other weapons to be used in the Middle East to kill Americans.
Today’s stories carry the news that after 101 years in the home appliance business, GE may be pulling out of the consumer market. Once viewed as the very model of American corporate efficiency under former CEO Jack Welch, GE is still the third largest corporation in the world (in terms of market capitalization). The consumer appliance division, with sales revenues of 7 billion dollars is a small part of the 172 billion dollar world wide Goliath that is GE. But is is the consumer division that is the face of GE for millions of Americans who have purchased washers, refrigerators and cook tops for generations. But in the rough and tumble world of corporate management, “Momma don’t allow” declining sales. The consumer appliance division draws most of its revenues from domestic US sales and has become a victim of the declining real estate development market in recent years. So the consumer appliance division may soon be, well, history.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
What did he Say ?
I am not sure I understand the uproar over the Bush speech in Israel at the 60th year anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.
Bush included remarks in his speech, “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," the President said.
Senator Obama has voiced his outrage that the President was talking about him. Speaker Pelosi was shocked at the President’s politicizing the Israeli celebration to take a cheap shot at Senator Obama.
All the news outlets I watched discussed the issue in similar terms, although White House spokespersons said the President was not referring to Obama. < link to news article >
What am I missing. I don’t think the President was talking about Obama at all. He has been quite careful not to become too embroiled in the election politics up to this time. Why should he offend Senator Obama – if there is another interpretation available.
I believe Mr Bush was speaking of Jimmy Carter and his trip to visit with Hamas. He is speaking in Israel – and the Isralies were very upset with the Carter visit. It makes more sense to me that he was speaking about Carter in a show of solidarity with his Israeli hosts.
I do not have the full speech with all comments in context, but, based upon the limited information I have, I interpret the comments very differently than the media or the candidates.
The Cost of Responding to Global Warming
As I have written about global warming in these pages I have been concerned about several critical features of the claim of a crisis related to global warming. First, the premise of the existence of the problem of global warming and further that the problems is man-made is suspect. In my view and in the opinion of an increasing number of scientists in the related fields of study, the very existence of the global warming crisis is not proven, is based upon bad science and reliance on flawed computer models rather than global observations over time.
My second concern is that the focus on the hype of the alleged global warming crisis will result in the allocation of billions of dollars to programs and remedies that will have no impact on the problem (if it did exist) and will divert funding from more critical and more immediate areas of concern.
Currently under consideration in Congress is S. 2191 sponsored by Senator Lieberman and Warner to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. This economic disaster is the subject of a Heritage Foundation report which is summarized in a news article below.
The Heritage Foundation report referred to in the article can be found < here >
Rebecca Hagelin summarizes the Heritage Foundation article for Townhall.com.
Climate Control: A Costly Proposal
By Rebecca Hagelin
Thursday, May 15, 2008Think energy is expensive now? Wait until Congress plugs in the “Climate Security Act of 2007.”
That’s the leading piece of legislation on Capitol Hill designed to combat "climate change." Lawmakers have cooked up an expensive solution to a hyped-up rallying cry against a "problem" that scientists can't even agree exists in the first place. Of course, Congress is doing what Congress seems to do best -- pass laws in response to the latest craze. In this case, if the politicians are successful, you may find yourself nostalgic for the days of $3.60 gasoline.
And that would be only the start. The overall economic costs could be staggering.
Economists at The Heritage Foundation rolled up their sleeves and got under the hood of current proposal. They’ve run the numbers -- and what they found will make all Americans want to buckle up. If the Climate Security Act becomes law, lawmakers would thrust our economy downhill in a hurry.
First, a quick look at what the legislation aims to do: Strictly limit the amount of greenhouses gases (primarily carbon dioxide, or CO2) each power plant, factory, refinery or other regulated company could emit. Those who cut emissions below what the government allows annually could sell their excess “allowances” to other companies. It sounds like a sick joke -- sort of like saying such emissions are sins, but if you don't indulge in yours as much as Big Brother says you can, then you can sell your “sin rights” to others. My goodness, has Washington really gotten that absurd?
It gets worse. The limits in the bill rely on “multiple, untested and undeveloped technologies” that “will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy costs,” according to Heritage researchers William Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris. All in all, the legislation -- sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) -- “represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government,” the researchers write.
The bill also would take a serious gamble: Rely on what the researchers call “a critical but unproven technology” known as “carbon capture and sequestration.” That’s a fancy way of saying carbon would be caught and stored underground, rather than continuing to be released into the atmosphere. The Lieberman-Warner bill assumes it won’t be ready for another 10 years -- an assumption that the Heritage researchers consider too optimistic.
So how would Lieberman-Warner affect our economy? Start with something we can all relate to: personal income. Under the bill, income in the U.S. would drop significantly, starting in 2012, from a decline of more than $30 billion that year to $121.9 billion in 2016. Or, to put it another way: All other things being equal, by 2016, the annual household income for a family of four would fall by $1,494 -- about what that family pays now for two months of food.
Gross domestic product would start to take a nosedive in 2012 as well. By 2030, GDP would be $436 billion less than it would be if the bill hadn’t become law.
Energy prices would spike, too. Heating oil would go from $2,120 annually per household in 2012 to $2,728 by 2030. Over the same period, electricity would rise from $1,213 per year to $1,860, and natural gas would go from $1,090 to $1,393. By 2030, the Heritage researchers write, “the total energy bill for the average American consumer has gone up $8,870.”
How would Lieberman-Warner affect employment? The Heritage analysis shows that annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1 million. Factory jobs would decline sharply; we’d lose 2.3 million jobs in durable-goods manufacturing in 2029 as the changes forced the economy rapidly away from that sector.
What about the “green-collar” jobs the bill is expected to create? The researchers did find an initial bump in employment as firms buy the equipment they need to make themselves more CO2-friendly. “However, any ‘green-collar’ jobs created are more than offset by other job losses,” Heritage experts note. “The initial uptick is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in later years.”
Lost income. Higher energy costs. Fewer jobs. Even for Congress, that’s quite a list of unintended consequences -- and all to satisfy the mass-hysteria fueled by junk science, Hollywood and an out-of-control public-education system that’s brainwashing an entire generation of kids to think we're all going to burn to a crisp. Seems the only thing that truly fried at the moment is common sense.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Take a Bareak - The Empire Strikes Barack
I am unable to determine at this point whether some folks have entirely too much time on their hands or whether this is the way history will actually record this year’s political activity. But the video clip below is cleverly conceived. The clip comes from you-tube.com and contains as much credit information (from Humanitainment) as I have. Thanks to tywkiwdbi.com for the heads up.
Enjoy
My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Outside the Two Party System
Months ago I described “Electile Dysfunction” as the result of not being able to get excited about any of the candidates. I just don’t know where to get a red, white and blue tablet to relieve the symptoms.
The text below came to me from an email, attributing the quote to Lee Iacocca, former Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, in his new book. I believe the quote is accurate – but I can say that the words resonate with me in our current situation. (besides, I remember Chairman Iacocca in a walk on guest appearance on “Miami Vice” – very cool). I have ordered the book (Where have all the Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca from Amazon.com) During the course of the rant quoted below, the author calls for a leader who can articulate a plan for the various concerns that he expresses. Well, not to say I told you so, but I recall Newt Gingrich being available a few months ago.
Chairman Iacocca …
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clue-less bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course"
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned "Titanic". I'll give you a sound bite: "Throw all the bums out!"
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the "America" my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
The Biggest "C" is Crisis !
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are sky rocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "The Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough?
Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope; I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the "Great Depression", "World War II", the "Korean War", the "Kennedy Assassination", the "Vietnam War", the 1970 s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:
"You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to "Action" for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had "enough."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Unity Ticket Folks are Back
The talk of a unity ticket for the Democrats is back in play. The dream ticket discussion is on.
An article in the newsletter Wall Street Journal Political Diary carried this image from column author John Fund:
Anything is possible but one Democratic superdelegate I spoke with is highly skeptical that Mr. Obama could be talked into sharing the ticket with his current rival. ‘We have seen the Clinton machine in action and it is not pretty… if Hillary were the Vice-President you would have Bill rattling around the West Wing and Obama would need a food taster for four years. No Way’”.
Kind of has a way with words, doesn’t he.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
A Sports Analogy for our Times
The campaign season has certainly had something to offer for everybody in the rich catalog of unusual events. But I note that Hillary has sought to use some sports analogies to prove that she is one of the guys.
Perhaps she would do better to skip over these in future weeks.
First she likened herself to Rocky Balboa (from the original Rocky with Sylvester Stallone) hoping to gain some favor from the locals in Pennsylvania with the familiar analogy expressed in Philadelphia. Perhaps nobody told her that in the end of the movie, Rocky loses his bout to Apollo Creed, a Black actor.
Now this week in Indiana, she has told everybody to bet on the filly in the Kentucky Derby. Again the filly came in second, (losing to Big Brown, no racial insensitivity intended) with the added insult that they shot the filly after she lost the race because she incurred serious and painful injuries running the race.
Sometimes Hillary just can't catch a break.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Take a Break - Movie Review
The Tom Hanks picture “Charlie Wilson’s War” has been recently released to DVD and I am finally catching up with those of you who have a life and can go to the movie theater occasionally.
The 2007 film stars Tom Hanks, Phillip Semour Hoffman and Julia Roberts and is directed by Mike Nichols. Script is wonderfully written by Aaron Sorkin, creator of the West Wing. Tom Hanks is the producer. The film is based on the book of the same title by George Crile.
So all of the pieces are in place for a marvelous political and topical film. The finished product does not disappoint. Charlie Wilson is a real character and the events described are based upon real events. All of the characters are bigger than life – The cover notes describe them as “one congressman who loved a good time, one socialite who loved a good cause and one renegade CIA agent who loved a good fight”. This unlikely trio becomes a military and diplomatic force when they join forces to create and then fund the largest covert operation in history in the 1980’s to provide weapons to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.
Despite the clever and entertaining dialog, this story is no joke. These people provided sophisticated weapons and training to the Mujahideen exceeding a billion dollars and may have changed the course of history and contributed to the eventual breakup of the Soviet Union. Although the US manages to screw up the endgame – as usual.
It is a throughly delightful film with Mike Nichols deft management of sophisticated comedy, Aaron Sorkin’s fast paced dialog and an outstanding cast.
If movies were this much fun, I would start going to them in the theater again. Borrow it from Netflix or buy it from Amazon.com but see this movie if you like politics and irony on screen.
The Truth that will set you Free
You have heard a lot about the Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright lately. One of the things you have heard is that the US government invented the AIDS virus as part of a plan of genocide directed against people of color. When challenged on this rather sensational assertion at the National Press Club, Pastor Wright responded that after what the government did to Black men at Tuskegee, he would believe that they were capable of doing about anything.
In commenting on the many problems created by Wright's amazing sermon in the church of the National Press Club - and that is certainly a group of people who should keep a church close at hand at all times - it may be worth noting that what Rev Wright thinks happened at the Tuskegee Institute may never have happened.
It is generally accepted in the media that the doctors of Tuskegee deliberately injected black men with syphilis for the purpose of medical experimentation. According to Jonah Goldberg, an editor for the National Review, it never happened. I am relying on Jonah's article which I will feature here, and I am not particularly proud of what did happen, even according to Jonah's article. But he make a convincing case that nobody was intentionally injected. The infamous Tuskegee experiments beginning in 1932 involved 399 Black men who already had the disease. In fact the criteria for selection of the patients was that they were in the tertiary (third) stage of the disease because they would not be contagious. The disgrace of Tuskegee was that the patients were told they were being treated, while the intent was only to observe and study them and their disease. But there may not have been effective treatments available at that time and the study was conducted with the knowledge of leading Black medical professionals and hospitals at the time.
So it appears that in addition to Jeremiah Wright being a racist and a practitioner of hate - he may be historically uninformed. The facts accepted by historians and scholars may not be convenient for his accusations and ravings.
Jonah Goldberg, for TownHall.com:
Tall Tales About Tuskegee
By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, May 2, 2008“Based on this Tuskegee experiment ... I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”
So said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright when asked if he stood by his claim that “the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
The infamous Tuskegee experiment is the Medusa’s head of black left-wing paranoia. Whenever someone laments the fact that anywhere from 10 percent to 33 percent of African-Americans believe the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill blacks, someone will say, “That’s not so crazy when you consider what happened at Tuskegee.”
But it is crazy. And it’s dishonest.
Wright says the U.S. government “purposely infected African-American men with syphilis.” This is a lie, and no knowledgeable historian says otherwise. And yet, this untruth pops up routinely. In March, CNN commentator Roland Martin defended Wright, saying, “That actually did, indeed, happen.” On Fox News, the allegation has gone unchallenged on “Hannity & Colmes” and “The O’Reilly Factor.” Obery Hendricks, a prominent author and visiting scholar at Princeton University, told O’Reilly “I do know that the government injected syphilis into black men at the Tuskegee Institute. Now we know that the government is capable of doing those things.”
To which O’Reilly responded: “All right. All governments have done bad things in every country.”
True enough. And what the U.S. did at Tuskegee was indeed bad, very bad. But it didn’t do what these people say it did.
So what did happen? In 1932, public health researchers set out to study syphilis, particularly among African-Americans, who had higher infection rates than whites. They recruited 399 black men who already had syphilis. The doctors infected no one. In fact, the patients were selected in the first place because they were tertiary-stage syphilitics who were no longer contagious.
The researchers studied the progress of the disease, without treating it, for 40 years.
Prior to the availability of penicillin in the 1940s and 1950s, the researchers couldn’t have treated the men even if they wanted to. Even after standardized penicillin treatments were available, it wasn’t clear that the patients could have been helped. Some of the doctors believed that treating the decades-long infections would kill the men.
Among scholars who’ve studied Tuskegee, there’s a lot of debate about how much — if any — racism was involved in the experiment. But no one disputes that Tuskegee had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or even a desire to spread the disease among the black population.
What was bad about the Tuskegee experiment was a callous disregard for the humanity and integrity of the patients. They were told they were getting “treatments” when they were merely being studied. They were lied to, treated as objects rather than citizens. This is even more offensive today, now that we have modern legal and ethical rules about informed consent — rules that did not exist when the study was launched. But it was still wrong.
But the idea that the Tuskegee experiment somehow validates the deranged, paranoid view that the U.S. government created AIDS to murder African-Americans — in one of the most hideously painful, drawn-out and expensive manners imaginable — is a riot of ridiculousness and a maelstrom of mendacity. And yet, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard guilt-ridden white liberals say exactly that. “Considering what we did at Tuskegee,” they opine, “who can blame them for being distrustful of government?”
Well, as a conservative, I have no problem with distrusting government, nor can I fault the descendants of slaves or the victims of Jim Crow for distrusting government more than most.
But why blacks remain the most reliable voters for the party of ever-expanding government power is something of a mystery. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population,” writes University of Chicago professor Richard Schweder. He adds: “The study was done with the full knowledge, endorsement and participation of African-American medical professionals, hospitals and research institutes.”
Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government. But Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government.
A sick irony is that Jeremiah Wright’s lies, and liberal apologies for them, make it more difficult for government to do the job these people want it to do, starting with helping people with AIDS. But that’s only one of many reasons they should be ashamed.
The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy brings Hillary to Fox
I am a little surprised at the lack of comment about the interview of Senator Clinton by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. Mrs Clinton is trolling for votes in Indiana and North Carolina and is having to move to the right to farm the available pool of voters. It is noted that in normal times, the Democrat runs to the left for the primaries and comes back to the right (or at least center) for the general election. These are not normal times.
Bill O’Reilly took his crew to Indiana to spend an hour with Senator Clinton in what is, I believe, her first and only visit to the “No-Spin Zone”. There is no small bit of irony that Mrs Clinton has decided that she will get better treatment on Fox than on the leftist media outlets that are pandering to Senator Obama at the moment.
The interview was professional and fast paced. Mrs Clinton was relaxed and quite effective. O’Reilly was a bit deferential as he sometimes is with female interview subjects. All things considered, it was good journalism and good political theater (not necessarily the same thing)
I will share a video clip of Bill O’Reilly and Dennis Miller talking about the interview on camera. The actual interview is presented in segments, as it was on Fox, over two nights.
The Clinton interview segments can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-9cpABTKco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65yPU3CRm_E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0O6bcfDtm8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGia4JbykEE&feature=related
(audio is a bit high on 3 and 4 – adjust your speakers)
My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcYGhthvdqk&feature=related
A Source for Middle East Information
Just as a point of interest, I receive a newsletter from Daniel Pipes of DanielPipes.org.
Daniel writes on Middle East topics to include politics and religion with knowledge and experience. He has a PhD from Harvard, and an impressive list of publishing credits and teaching positions.
He seems to me to be way ahead of the curve in his thinking and reporting.
If you have an interest in the happenings of the Middle East, radical Islam, and the greatest threats to civilization as we know it, I recommend you add Daniel Pipes to your regular reading list.
His website is www.danielPipes.org. The email newsletter subscription is free.
The Wonderful World of Politics
The life and times of Jeremiah Wright has damaged the candidacy of Senator Obama in surprising ways. The nature of the allegations and the evidence presented are ideally suited for the techno world of blogs and You-Tube. And if the endless looping of the offending statements on television wasn’t enough, the video clips which inundated the internet assured that these video memories were as well known as the Jack Ruby kills Lee Harvey Oswald video.
The Black community in America has produced civil rights leaders of historic proportions. I have written in awe of the character and accomplishments of Dr King and Thurgood Marshall. But the next generation of leadership has been cut from a vastly inferior cloth in my view. Those who have mixed religion with politics have preached hate and separtism and have damaged the Black community by failing to emphasize the ways in which we are the same and always emphasizing what made us different – making real reconciliation impossible.
One of the features of Senator Obama’s campaign which has fascinated me has been the unique approach to racial politics that he represented. There was no reference to victimization – no call for reparations – only a sincere declaration that all people in this country deserve an equal seat at the table. Without minimizing the history of exploitation and hatred, he simply said, OK, but going forward, this is how things should be. It is brilliant and pragmatic in its simplicity and represents the only way to solve problems with historic roots – whether civil rights in America or the troubles in Northern Ireland, the violence of the Middle East, or the hopelessness of Africa. We can solve the problems but there has to be a place to start. Only when peoples realize that the benefits of an improved future can outweigh the grievances of the past can there be progress in these troubled areas of the world, including the USA.
So I have been saddened by the self-destructive ego driven performance of Jeremiah Wright. Pastor Wright has performed a lifetime of service to his community in terms of good works for the poor and hungry of Chicago. But he will be remembered for his bigoted racism and hate which he spread over the nation. Senator Obama is a talented political figure with outstanding communications skills and instincts. Time will tell if he can separate himself from Jeremiah Wright in the political arena. The process that brought Obama to separate himself from Pastor Wright has opened a view into the mind of the candidate which is of concern. The factual inconsistencies which are obscured by his soaring rhetoric are a problem for the 46 year old Senator from Illinois.
Charles Krauthammer, whom I feature frequently for his acute mind and no nonsense writing style points out the tricky manipulation applied by the candidate which seems to require a willful suspension of disbelief to appreciate. That is permissible in the movies – but should not be readily accepted in politics.
This continues to be a street fight for the office of the President. It is unseemly and unlikely to produce a good result.
Film at 11.
Obama's Changing Moral Equivalence
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 2, 2008"I can no more disown him (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother."
-- Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18
WASHINGTON -- Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews.
Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative. Poor Geraldine Ferraro, thrice lashed by Obama in Philadelphia as the white equivalent of Wright's raving racism, is now off the hook.
These equivalences having been revealed as the cheap rhetorical tricks they always were, Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.
At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.
What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming 9/11 on American "terrorism."
But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.
Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."
That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright's outrages. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama's own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright's racist rants.
Obama's turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites -- one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia -- now stands discredited by Obama's own admission of surprise. But Obama's liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.
Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are pre-emptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting"(New York Times editorial, April 30).
On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.
Turns out it was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
