You Will Be Assimilated

I've been thinking hard about this and other blogs I currently run. Do I enjoy following and talking about politics? Absolutely. Do I have anything new or original to add to the conversation? Not really. I'll expand on something I saw elsewhere, but that's largely what this blog is--a round-up of stuff I saw elsewhere, and most often on sites who do it much better than I do.

So I'm shutting this blog down. Or merging it into another of my blogs, rather. If you want to follow my political rants then link on over to Vox Potpourri. That's where I'll be doing the bulk of my general blogging from now on. I've also ported all my posts from here into there so you won't miss any of your favorite posts when this blog disappears for good.

Heh. As if I have the readership for anyone to have a favorite post. ;-)

In the mean time, if you're someone who likes to makes things--anything--or read about other people who do, then you may want to check out my new blog, The Joy of Making Things. It's so new that I don't even have anything up yet.

The intent, however, is to discuss the joy and satisfaction of doing things yourself. Like creating funky Excel spreadsheets to manage your budget. Or building a playhouse. Or writing a book. It's a blog celebrating the fun of doing things, of trying things, of surprising oneself with what you can do.

I hope you'll enjoy it as I hope I will.

Just Who IS In Charge?

President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address tonight. I will probably watch, but I'm not sure why. He is not in control of the economy. He wants everyone to think he is. He talks like he is. The reality is different.

If Obama were really in control then careless posturing by Sen. Chris Dodd about privitizing banks wouldn't send stocks into a tailspin.

If Obama were in control they wouldn't have passed an enormous spending bill so complex that no one was able to read it before having to vote on it.

If Obama were in control his administration wouldn't feel the need to respond to criticism from Rick Santelli.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have to hit the road to drum up support for his programs. The press would be doing it for him.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have been caught off guard by so many of his cabinet picks being sunk by various corruption charges.

If Obama were in control we would not have so many Democratic members of Congress under investigation for various corruption scandals.

But the fact of the matter is either that the Obama who we voted into office in November is NOT the Obama who took office, or he is completely unable to do his job. Neither one is acceptable.

But the fact of the matter is this: there is no one clear voice from Washington calling the shots. There is no clear leadership. Obama is going one way, while Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer are going their own ways. Tim Geithner is falling flat.

It's almost as if none of these people have met to come up with any coordinated plan. No one is in control of the message. It's almost as if they are purposely trying to break the economy down further.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that they're doing this on purpose in order to keep us scared enough to accept further hidden social restructuring (even Schumer was surprised by some of the provisions in the stimulus bill and vowed to roll them back). The thought has crossed my mind, but 2010 is not that far away. If they don't want to get thrown out of office they need to show clear progress by then. They would be foolish to dig themselves too deep of a hole.

But if they don't get their act together that is precisely what they will do. And they can ignore or belittle Santelli as much as they like, but they're failing to recognize what he started. Yes, HE may be a former commodities trader--a so-called poster boy for everything that went wrong with the economy--but his frustration is universal. There are a lot of people who are upset with how things are going and what the Administration is doing about it.

I am one of them. I am NOT a commodities trader. I'm a business systems analyst. I bought a house three years ago right before the top of the bubble. I had mortgage brokers encouraging me to buy bigger houses, but I knew what I could afford. I didn't bite. I didn't gamble on an adjustable rate mortgage to get more house. I knew what my budget was, and I knew how much of a house payment I could handle. I paid 20% down.

I save close to 15% of my income each year. I pay my taxes without complaint. I do not carry a balance on my credit cards. I live within my means. In short, I am responsible.

And I've had it with the government propping up all the irresponsible people. Because of all the irresponsible people I'll be losing my job soon. I am not happy about that. I am not happy to see nearly $800 billion dollars--only about 10-20% of which is actual stimulus--added to the public debt in my name, while the bulk of it is actually to appease Democrat supporters and advance socialistic agendas. Frankly, the mortgage rescue is the least of my concerns.

I'm concerned about a government that seems to have lost its mind. I'm concerned about an administration that can't control its message or its people. I'm concerned about a future that not even the people who sold us this stimulus mess will go on record saying will get better soon.

And that's probably why I don't want to listen to Obama tonight. I'm already depressed. I don't need to feel any worse.

Clinton Thinks Obama Doing Fine But Needs More Optimism in Message

From ABCNews.com:

Former President Bill Clinton gives President Barack Obama an "A" grade for his first month in office, but tells ABC News that Obama needs to put on a more positive face when speaking to the American people about the economy and must keep pressure on Republicans who try to obstruct his plans.

I'd argue on the "A" personally, but then I'm not Bill Clinton. But Clinton continues...

"Look, the American people, I think, know the president has tried to reach out to Republicans," Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo. "And it takes two to tango. I think there are some of them who really believe that just-say-no politics is good politics.

"It was -- briefly, only briefly -- in the '90s. It isn't anymore," he added. "So, sooner or later, I think if he just keeps chugging along, just keeps the door open, invite 'em to every economic conference, invite 'em to every meeting, eventually, he'll start getting some votes" in Congress.

You're forgetting something, Bill. Add "listen to them and use their ideas" and you'll have a winner. Just inviting them isn't going to do the trick if they still feel it's only for show.

On the other hand, even that is more than the Congress Democrats have been doing.

Stimulus and Rescue Backlash?

From Mark Whittington at Associated Content:

The markets are not reacting very well to Barack Obama's latest spending plan, which is to spend about seventy five billion dollars to rescue people who can't pay their mortgages. CNBC host Rick Santelli believes he knows why.

Rick Santelli, who also an experienced investment strategist and trader, put it simply that the government would be promoting bad behavior by subsidizing mortgages given to people who ought not to have had them to start with.

Rick Santelli went on to compare what is happening to America under Barack Obama to Castro's Cuba and to suggest a kind of "Boston Tea Party" anti spending revolt. Rick Santelli's impassionate speech on CNBC brought cheers on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, from where he was reporting.
...
More importantly, Rick Santelli's attack on the Obama mortgage bailout scheme seems to reflect a growing disquiet over President Obama's spending schemes, which started with the stimulus package, and will now not only include a bailout for mortgages but also a new bailout for the car companies and perhaps even a second stimulus. That disquiet has been manifest in recent days by protest rallies in Seattle, Denver, and most recently in Mesa, Arizona.

I think a lot of us are getting fed up. Yes, one can use the economy as an excuse to do almost anything. And the Obama administration has. But they are not acting like anything they're doing is actually going to help. It's as if they want to wreck the economy.

Perhaps they do, so they can use it as an excuse to push even more rubbish disguised as stimulus.

A poll on Instapundit asks if I would join in any protests should one be called in my area. I said no, that I'm not the protesting type, but I'm starting to reconsider.

Update: More from Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner:

I think people are hungry for someone who is fed up with the way things are and who seem to believe in something enough to know there in an alternative worth fighting for. Some of the voices may be far from perfect, but Americans are looking for signs of the life of an alternative. And so if a representative pops up — someone who appears to have roots and energy, folks will cheer them on in the hopes there’s a candidate here. Maybe not a presidential candidate, but a leader of some sort. Someone who can offer a vision of something other than a culture of bailout.

Today, Rick Santelli was that sign of life.

People are fed up with the administration.

Bear in mind that this administration is barely a month old.

Censorship?

According to Instapundit, the article I quoted yesterday about the response of students to Obama's visit has been significantly changed to eliminate any critical statements.

Yes, heaven forbid we show that our education system has actually been doing what we've paid it to do--teach our kids to think.

And A Child Shall Lead Them

Phoenix's East Valley Tribune has a story on high schoolers who watched Obama on TV while he was at their school giving his address on housing relief, and gave their impressions. Some interesting points:

"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."

Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.

"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."

Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good but questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Even though I don't support him, I think it's cool he's here," said Miller, 18. "I just don't believe all the things he's telling us. His goal is just too big and broad."

Good...respect for the position, but critical evaluation of the occupant. There is hope for the future.

The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn't talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.

And they say no one is teaching critical thinking any more.

Who Is Blocking Investigations?

I have no idea how this is supposed to stimulate the economy:

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

So far no one is claiming credit for the provision.'

Snuck in by whom? It’s not entirely clear. “I intend to get down to the bottom of where this comes from,” Grassley vowed. “And quite frankly, it better not come from this administration, because this administration has reminded us that it is not about business as usual, that it is for total transparency.”

Maybe not this time. When I inquired with the office of a Democratic senator, one who is a big fan of inspectors general, I was told the RAT Board was “something the Obama administration wanted included in this bill.” When I asked the White House, staffers told me they’d look into it. So for now, at least, there’s been no claim of paternity.

Somehow I think this just the tip of the iceberg of bad provisions we were forced to accept in the name of saving the economy. More and more it's looking like the bill was a trojan horse for fundamentally changing our government. This seems like "change" intended to dash "hope".

It would be beyond ironic if the Democrats actually DO what they ACCUSED Bush of.

Freedom of Speech Under Fire?

(hat-tip Instapundit) An Oklahoma City man gets pulled over for having sign on his vehicle reading "Abort Obama, not the unborn". The policeman confiscated the sign and informed the man he was now part of an investigation. Internal Investigations later returned the man's sign. But next the Secret Service show up at the man's house and ask to walk through the house to make sure the man wasn't part of any hate groups.

Somehow I don't think anyone would have looked twice if it had said "Abort Bush". The double-standard here is quite sad, and disturbing as well.

Motivation, Efficiency, and Corruption

Ben Stein raises some good points about the "excesses" displayed by leaders of various companies in America:

We all want efficiency and frugality. But banning highly productive means of travel such as private planes is simply misguided. We all want people to work. But keeping them from having face time at large gatherings with their colleagues -- in essence, keeping them from being well-informed -- is a step away from productivity. And kicking the towns that accommodate these meetings is just plain cruel.

I hadn't thought about it from that angle where the automakers were concerned, but making Wells Fargo cancel its Vegas retreat for its top loan officers struck me as heavy-handed--and clueless about how business works. Did anyone stop to consider how much money those being rewarded made for the company in proportion to how much was being spent on rewarding them?

While I'm sure that level of productivity has its own rewards, I'll bet the yearly Vegas trip was at least part of the movitation for a lot of them. Take that away, and chances are they're not going to work as hard next year. How does that help the bank? How does that help its investors? How does that help its depositors?

I'm willing to bet that the amount of money they would have spent on the retreat is less than 10% of the value of the loans these people wrote. And yet if they're 5% less motivated to perform next year? In a year when people are less motivated to take out loans? It could spell the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Let's not forget that these people are the TOP money-makers. Not only do these people make money for the company, their example (and the subsequent rewards) also serve as a motivation for the other loan writers who didn't make the cut this year--but could next year if properly motivated. Cutting the rewards for the top loan-writers doesn't just demotivate them, but the entire company.

I'm against wasting taxpayer money as much as anyone. But micromanagement of bailed-out companies--by some of the most notoriously bad money-handlers in history--is not the way to economic recovery.

Such political witch-hunts are counterproductive. It also keeps attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess: the government. Every time we start figuring out who the real enemy is they simply point at Wall Street and yell "There's your enemy! Not me! They're wasting millions of dollars!"

And then they sit down to add billions more pork into the Stimulus Bill to help stimulate their next campaigns. And take retreats to Virginia and the Caribbean.

This Much Is True

From President Barak Obama:

“All of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis,” Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at a ceremony announcing the program at a Phoenix area high school.

...and for the banking crisis, and for the automakers crisis, and for the Democratic Wish-List Funding Deficiency crisis, and for the supporter payback crisis...

At least it's coming from money that's already been wrung from our dissicated corpses.

Obama Delays Signing "Emergency" Bill

From the DC Examiner:

“Sunlight Before Signing” faded into darkness with the first bill that came across Obama’s desk. The new president signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act two days after it was passed by Congress — and without posting it on the White House Web site.

Then he signed the second bill of his administration, an update of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, within hours after Congress passed it.
.....
As Gibbs spoke, the massive economic stimulus bill was racing through Congress, and the spokesman stressed that Obama’s campaign pledge specifically exempted “emergency” legislation. “If we get this [stimulus] bill, this would certainly meet the president’s test of emergency legislation,” Gibbs explained. “And if we’re lucky enough to have it pass, we’ll sign it rather quickly.”

Then, late Friday, after House and Senate Democratic leaders moved heaven and earth to pass it, the bill was ready for the president’s signature. And did President Obama sign it rather quickly? Not at all.

He also chose not to sign it on Saturday. And not to sign it on Sunday. And he chose not to sign it on Monday. Only on Tuesday, with a big campaign-style event in Denver, would the president finally be ready to put his signature on the bill.

He signs nonemergency legislation in the blink of an eye. And he lets emergency legislation sit for days before lifting his pen.

I don't see the sense in this, either. Either it was an emergency or it wasn't. Weren't we facing the end of civilization as we know it if the bill wasn't passed quickly?

If he didn't plan to pass it for four days, why not let us all have those four days to look it over? I think we know the answer to that one. "Sunlight" was not something this vampiric bill could tolerate for long.

I think he was expecting to see a massive Wall Street rally today. Had he signed it on Friday the markets would have been closed and we would have missed seeing the seas receding and the blossoms blooming. Except today there was no rally. The Dow fell nearly 300 points today. Wall Street, it seems...is not impressed.

I think this "emergency for thee, but not for me" moment will come back to bite him.

Bailout Banks, Not Hobble Them

The Chicago Tribune criticizes language in the Stun-ulus Bill to cap executive compensation:

But keep something in mind: Taxpayers are now deeply invested in the companies that receive a federal bailout. We want these companies to succeed.

Compensation caps would hurt the ability of these firms to attract and retain top talent. If salaries are higher at robust firms that aren't taking federal help, that's where talented people would go. Taxpayers are not going to be better off if the best business minds in the land avoid working at firms that receive federal help. The comp rules may also persuade execs at troubled firms to leave the federal assistance program before those firms are on sound footing.

I think that is right. If you're going to tinker in businesses, why not just insist that the boards fire the bad eggs, but don't hamper their ability to replace them with good ones. These banks are still struggling. They're going to need all the help they can get to survive. Just throwing money at the problem is not going to help. They need better management.

Tell How You Really Feel!

MSNBC.com's Politics section sports the following headline today:
"Obama urges Americans to follow Lincoln"
The snide cynic in can't leave that one alone, of course! Just how would he like us to follow Lincoln? Based on the rubbish he's been pushing lately I think he means:

Drop dead, America!

Or is he admitting that he's a lousy president? "Don't follow me anymore! Follow Lincoln! A dead guy would be better than any of our so-called leaders right now!"

Read My Lips, Chuck

Charles Schumer of New York has declared that when it comes to the pork in the Stimulus bill, the American People don't care.

To that I can only say Chuck, pull your head out of your butt so you can hear better. We care. Remember, both McCain and Obama campaigned on cutting pork. It wasn't that long ago that Obama promised to veto any bill that crossed his desk with pork in it. It was a part of what got him elected.

We care. We're sick of it. STOP IT! You are wasting my money, you're wasting my children's future. Just stop, you frickin' idiot.

Not Change, Not Even Business As Usual

The behavior of the Congress Democrats is utterly disgraceful. They're acting like they don't even have to acknowledge the opposing party--or even America--anymore. They won the election, but they're treating it like the succeeded in a coup. Case in point: The Senate/House negotiations to reconcile the two separate Stimulus bills. According to Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, an agreement on the bills was reached around noon today. Republicans weren't invited to the negotiations until 3:00 pm.

“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill."

Negotiators were slated to meet later in the day. However, since news of a deal was leaked to the media, Price questioned if there were “shady deals” going on.

“It’s curious because Republicans were invited to a meeting they said at 3 o’clock this afternoon,” Price continued. “What this means is there are more shady deals going on behind closed doors -- without the public, without Republicans in attendance.”

Either they just don't care about winning the next elections or they figure they can do all their damage before then. Either way, this does not bode well for the country.

Well, THIS Is Good News!

Nick Gillespie at Reason.com has some data to suggest that the Recession may have already ended, based on the fact that the Stimulus Bill (or ARRA, as in "Arrrrrrra, Matey!) is about to be passed. Read the whole thing, but based on previous recessions and stimulus plans, it appears that the stimulus almost always comes about the same time the recession is ending, if not already over.

In this case, just in time to cause the next one.

And if that doesn't fill you with confidence in our elected officials, how about this Rasmussen poll that suggests that 2/3 of American think they could do a better job on the economy than Congress.

It wouldn't even take an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. I'm thinking two or three dozen, tops.

Change?! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Change!

Obama nominee Kagen is all set to reverse Bush's policies. NOT!:

Elena Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School and nominee for Solicitor General, announced that she believes that the government has the authority to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects because the country is "at war" with Al Qaeda. Because I am busy finishing edits on a law review article, can someone please explain to me how this differs from Bush's position, which liberals condemned, bashed and burned in effigy? (from Dissenting Justice via Instapundit)

Oh, times they aren't a-changin'....

Eh? What's That?

A few days ago when the stock market was rallying the headlines indicated it was rallying in anticipation of the Stimulus Bill's passage and the Bailout Plan being revealed.

So how come today, when both actually occur, stocks are tanking? Even the headlines blame it on these events:
Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan is unveiled (MSNBC).

At any rate, let me get this straight. Congress is looking to spend as much as $839 billion, and this bailout plan will cost $1 trillion? We're not talking about the same money, are we? Where is all this money coming from?! We're talking about a 10-20% increase in the national debt load here, folks!

According to this source, the total value of mortgages in the US is about $3.6 trillion. So we're already half-way to buying back every mortgage in America. In fact, as someone where I work was saying yesterday, why don't we do just that? Instead of all this crap they're proposing, why don't they pay off all the mortgages on primary residences?

Consider that. I'm currently paying about $800 per month on my mortgage. If I suddenly didn't have to pay that I would probably invest much of that and spend the rest on stuff. Both moves would stimulate the economy. Now multiply that by every mortgagee in America. That, folks, would be stimulus. Plus the banks would be able to close out the books on the bulk of their bad mortgages at the same time they'd see a massive influx of cash. That would free up credit.

Americans wouldn't have any mortgage interest to deduct on their taxes. Tax revenues would increase. Many people might just roll their current mortgage payment into buying up some of the depreciated and un-sellable houses currently on the market. That would stimulate demand on housing and raise property values again, further stimulating credit and the economy.

Yes, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, and there would be other consequences (ie. banks also writing off good loans that would have earned the 100-150% returns over time, and perhaps inflation from the sudden supply of money when production is actually down), but I don't think it's any more lame-brained than what we're currently being force-fed. If we're going to put the country that far into debt, we may as well do something that increases the likelihood of getting back OUT of debt as soon as possible.

I don't see how my plan is any worse than what we're getting.

You're Making Me Sick!

Bloomberg.com reports on the various medical reforms hidden in the Stimulus Bill, which seem to be going completely unnoticed by both sides of Congress:

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

President Obama can warn of national apocalypse until he's blue in the face. Senate protocol is there to protect us from idiotic moves such as this. We're being given a trojan horse, and it's not all chocolates and daisies inside. We're being force-fed worms fried in dung-sauce, told its for our own good, and forced to vote for it quickly before anyone can really understand what's in there.

The president who promised us unparalleled transparency is throwing a thick cloak over everything he's doing, and it's going to cost us all very, very dearly.

Read the whole thing. If it doesn't make you sick, then you'd better hope you never get sick after it passes.

More Publicity, Please!

I followed a link from Instapundit this morning to an article in the DC Examiner about a House Democrat with a much cheaper and more targeted alternative to the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) stimulus bill:

His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Who is behind this revolutionary approach? Walt Minnick, the brand-spankin'-new representative from Idaho.

I had the opportunity to vote for Minnick. I listened to him talk in the debates and thought his ideas sounded good, while his GOP opponent rubbed me the wrong way. But he's a Democrat, and the last thing I wanted was more Democrats in Washington. I couldn't see him standing up to Pelosi.

I'm becoming a believer. He was one of the few Democrats who voted against the stimulus bill. And now he's prepping a much better backup plan. Keep it up, Walt, and I'll vote for you next time!

You Still Need to Ask?

Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media asks "Have They No Shame?"
A lesser-noticed development in Washington lately is that Obama has moved jurisdiction over the 2010 Census under the White House instead of the Commerce Department.

I can't think of a good reason for that. Can you? Neither can Rubin:

Had this stunt been attempted during the Bush years one certainly would have heard a hue and cry from good government groups, the media, and academics. We no doubt would have heard a chorus of opposition: “The professional public servants are being shunted aside!” And from those so aghast about attempts to suppress or manipulate voting, we would have expected the shrieks: “This is an attempt to politicize the census and stack the deck for reapportionment!” It is not hard to imagine the reaction if the Bush White House had suggested that a supposedly unbiased statistical undertaking should be directed by, say, Karl Rove.

More Support For "Do Nothing"

(hat tip: Gateway Pundit)
The Congressional Budget Office predicts the recession will end in 2009 even without the stimulus. Actually, they're even predicting the stimulus will hurt rather than help.

So hurry up folks! Let's pass that bill soon so we can take the credit for something that would have happened anyway--unless of course the bill destroys any hope for that predicted rebound...

National Security Council Expanded

Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post has the details:

President Obama plans to order a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Council, expanding its membership and increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Too soon to tell. It's a known maxim in business that "to err is human, but to really screw things up requires a committee". All I know for sure is that if this were Bush making this change there would be all sorts of protests.

Pres. Obama - Insurance Salesman

MSNBC.com is running the following lead paragraph today:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama takes to the road this week to promote his plans for reinvigorating the economy.

Except it's not his plan. Pelosi and Reid wrote the thing, remember? So why does Obama have to work so hard to sell their plan?

I think Pelosi and Reid see Obama as a useful fall-guy. If their plan is defeated, or if it doesn't work, it'll have Obama's name and fingerprints all over it, so it'll be his poltical neck.

What gets me is that Obama is not stupid. Why is he sinking so much political capital into this?

My guess is that the Democrats--and perhaps the Republicans, too--see this issue as the battle. If the Dems win it the Republicans may be forced to roll over and sit things out for awhile. If the Republicans win it they're suddenly a party to be reckoned with again, and their minorities in Congress become less symbolic.

Both sides realize the importance of this issue. Still, it bothers me to see Obama taking the role of foot-soldier instead of general. It would be different if it were his plan, but it's not. If he's not careful he could become a lame duck before he completes his first month in office.

UPDATE:

Toby Harnden of the Telegraph has an interesting take:

After a distinctly rocky start to his presidency, he has admitted he "screwed up" and is returning to one thing in his political career that he has perfected – campaigning.
...
Already, however, he is struggling, and the product he is now selling is not himself but a near-trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package loaded with pet Democratic spending projects that has awakened slumbering Republicans in Congress and is now supported by barely a third of Americans. In between the Indiana and Florida stops, he will return to the White House for a prime-time press conference in which he will appeal directly to citizens and seek to rekindle the magic of his campaign.

Read the whole thing for additional insight on Obama's presidency and the Stimulus Bill.

No Bleeding, No Leading

Michael Totten goes to Sderot, Israel and reminds us why Israel's response to the Gaza rocket attacks was disproportionate:

Living under Qassam and Grad rocket attack doesn't sound like much fun, but it's worse than the low body count makes it seem. Thousands of rockets have fallen on Sderot. And every rocket launched at the city triggers an air raid alert. Everyone within ear shot has fifteen seconds to run into a shelter.

Imagine sprinting for cover 5,000 times.
...
“The small number of physical casualties is not because their weapons aren't working,” he said. “The small number is because the population understands the protection guidelines. They know that they have fifteen seconds to find shelter.”
(Major Chezy Deutsch, IDF)

So the reason why the Israeli death toll was so low is not because Hamas can't hit the broad side of a barn, or they weren't trying that hard. It's just that the Israelis are very good at hiding.

Read the entire article for a reality check on what Israelis are up against. If Americans were going through this we'd be demanding Obama pull out the nukes. Yet the world expects Israelis to sit down, shut up, and take it.

Dogma Dogma Dog ma' Dog is Brown

The debate over god and religion is currently being waged on the sides of busses in London.

It started with an atheist campaign in which a sign on the sides of busses proclaimed "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Several religious groups and churches have responded with upcoming ads of their own:

"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."
...or...
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
...or...
"There is a God, believe. Don't worry and enjoy your life."

What is most interesting, however, is the response from the head of the organization sponsoring the atheistic ads.

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Society, said the society supported the right of religious groups to post their messages but said the advertisements were "dogmatic and declaratory, leaving no room for reason and debate."

"Our ads were undogmatic and funny, with the addition of the 'probably' in line with the continuing openness of humanists to new evidence," she said in a statement on the British Humanist Association Web site.

She misses the point--and her own hypocrisy. There were two prongs to the atheist's attack. The first prong, contrary to what she says, is only less dogmatic (to be truly "open" they might have said "there may be no god", whereas "probably" implies a statistical weighting that does not exist). While some religous persons might still get upset at this declaration, most would just shake their heads and move on. I'm sure most relgious people have entertained at least once the thought that there may not be a God.

No, it's the second prong that is likely to elicit objection, and is dogmatic and declaratory. It's the strong implication that religious people A) are unduly worried because of their belief in God, and B) do not enjoy their life as a result. Conversely implied is that atheists are not worried and do enjoy life. They don't seem to be leaving the door open for reason or debate on what causes this worry, even though the current economic climate, for one, seems every bit as likely a candidate.

Furthermore, what exactly is funny about calling a group of people fussy and depressed? It's only funny for people who agree with you. So the British Humanist Society ads are divisive, dogmatic, discourage reason and debate, and are intentionally insulting. Hence I also have reason to doubt Stinson's "openness...to new evidence" based on the dogmatism of her own statements.

In short, Stinson's belief seems to be "We are open-minded and clever. They are depressed, close-minded, and daft. End of discussion." She's a true humanitarian--in the culinary sense.

Now if open, respectful debate were the goal, I'd have kept the whole debate off of busses. Such advertising--on both sides--does not provide a forum for discussion. It thrusts inflammatory statements in front of people while giving them no means to respond. Other than buying an ad of their own, anyway, which excludes the average person lacking the $22,000 to splurge on legalized graffiti. This is bound to leave most people with any strong beliefs to the contrary feeling publicly attacked and helpless to respond. Neither of which is likely to endear them to one's cause or convince them to listen to you.

The BHS fired the first salvo. Stinson can defend the message of the ad all she wants, but she purposely or ignorantly fails to mention or defend the reason for the ad in the first place. What exactly were they hoping to accomplish? Funny or not, if I were to buy a bus ad that stated "People who wear red are probably covering for their own insecurity", I should not be surprised if people who like red get upset with me and ascribe uncharitable motives to my actions.

No, such unprovoked and insulting attacks (for that really is what it is) are little more than bully tactics: build camaradarie with the presumed majority who agree with you by putting down the presumed minority who do not. It is reinforcing unfair and unsubstantiated stereotypes in an attempt to establish them as truth by repetition.

So let's call a spade a spade, Stinson. You attacked a group in an attempt to demean and cow them. Your gracious support of their right to respond is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Your conceding them a right they already possess does not give you the high ground. That is only an attempt to both confirm your self-righteousness and deflect the issue.

What's more, you couldn't even support their right to a response without taking another potshot and implying that A) you won, and B) you're still right and better than they are. Why are you so insecure in your position? If you were at all secure you wouldn't have needed to buy the ads in the first place, let alone fell a need to defend them.

Unfortunately, Stinson saw, in her insecurity, a wrong that must be righted. Oh dear, oh dear! People are sad and uptight! It must be because of their belief in a god! I must save them from themselves! Quick! To the bus company! We shall win them over with a clever and carefully worded ad! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Stinson the one who needs to stop worrying and just enjoy her life?

Would it have been so wrong to have the ad simply read "Don't worry! Enjoy your life while you have time!"? Leave it up to the reader to decide what it is they really shouldn't be worrying so much about. I fail to see how that would have made the ad less effective, unless it truly was meant as an attack.

And if it was meant as an attack, that doesn't speak well for humanists. We've got enough to worry about without dragging religion into it and turning us against one another. Or is she just trying to prove that humanism can be just as devisive as religion is reported to be? If so, who needs it? To quote from Star Trek, "We need no encouragement to hate humans!"

Au contraire, my dear Stinson.

We Have Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself

Fear sells. We all know that. Salesmen especially. I've had salesman after salesman, selling vitamins to vacuums, use fear to peddle their product. Our environment is poisonous, and our food is losing its nutrition value. We need super-vitamins to survive. There are dustmites everywhere, and they'll kill you! Buy our vacuums. When people don't already have a need for something, create that need. Fear sells.

So what do you do if you're the candidate of hope and you've got a major expenditure to sell? Drop the hope, pump up the fear:

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill. (Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post)

The lead story on MSNBC.com today is jobs: Worst Job Loss Since '74. Meanwhile the Dow is up 174 points. Wall Street has taken a nasty beating, so I don't know why they would be unduly optimistic at this point. But if you look over the last six months you'll see the markets have largely flattened out. We're bouncing around between 8000 and 9000. We've spent about four months in that range now. This would seem to suggest a bottom.

In short, things may be poised to start getting better. So act now, before the Democrats lose this golden opportunity! Pay no attention to the good news coming in. Things are BAD! Trust us on this! We're the politicians that, through our economic ineptitude, brought you this recession in the first place! We KNOW what we're talking about (this time)!

I've said it before. Now could very well be the time for our leaders to boldly stand up and do nothing!

I Can't Afford To Take That Job

Here's an angle on the economy I hadn't considered: Because of the housing bubble, people can't afford to move to where the work is.

More than one hundred thousand Americans have just lost their jobs. According to psychologists who study happiness, that is the most miserable experience many people will ever endure. Getting back to work is the best medicine. For thousands of workers and their families, getting back to work means packing up and heading to a new gig in a new town. But many will find it difficult even to consider a move. Because it's tough to sell a house you could never really afford in a town now bleeding jobs.

Patriotism Vs. Business

It's easy to be hard on companies who accept bailout money and still continue their lavish ways.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there a bunch of other banks who were asked to accept bailout funds even though they didn't want them, just to help with a) protecting the anonimity of some of the other banks, and b) to stimulate the economy?

So if you're one of these banks that took money they didn't need, and now you're being told you have to abide by certain rules, including some that didn't exist when you accepted it, doesn't this actually interfere with their successful operation?

In other words, no good deed goes unpunished. This should make anyone else who wants to be helpful in the future think twice.

UPDATE: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon criticizes the restrictions and makes a few good points:

“Pay got a little exuberant, and there were some legitimate complaints,” Dimon said. “But I don’t think the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush.”

New York-based JPMorgan, the second-largest U.S. bank, doesn’t have so-called golden parachutes or retirement packages, and all top executives must retain 75 percent of their stock- based compensation, Dimon said.

This is essentially government micromanaging businesses. Yes, there needs to be some concession from bailed-out institutions, but I don't think the Federal Government is a good candidate to determine how business should be run. After all, this is the group that has posted losses that make the banking sector look successful by comparison. And whose top officials don't feel obligated to pay taxes.

Good News? Maybe.

Daschle feels the heat, gets out of the kitchen. I'm still waiting for Geithner and Rangel. I'm not holding my breath.

And frankly I'd feel a bit better about all of this if it was Mr. "I will change the way Washington does business" Obama calling for their withdrawal. But no, he fully supports them. It's up to THEIR consciences to get the better of them. But I guess what likely got to Daschle was Nancy Killefer's withdrawal over a mere $1000 tax lien. His sin was 128 times that.

Republicans in the Senate at least managed to block $25 billion in more spending being added to the Stimulus, though I note the total has somehow grown to $885 billion. And this would be more comforting if Minority Leader McConnell hadn't pledged to make sure the bill passes in the end.

Audit Them All!

I'm not the only one upset by all the tax cheats in the administration. A comment on Instapundit is calling for a moratorium on audits for the middle-class for a year. Others are calling for an audit of all public officials.

That's a great idea! Just Geithner and Daschle owed more in taxes than I make in three years. You want to bolster the government coffers? Shake down the "public servants" who are obviously making boat-loads of money while dodging boat-loads of taxes.

Let's deploy our auditing assets where they can do the most good--and save a bundle on transportation costs!

Either that, or we launch a tax revolt. No taxation without reciprocation!

Show-me State

Megan McArdle addresses her commenters who claim it should be up to the opponents of the Stimulus to prove it won't work.

Her response:

Let's recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)--the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

Proponents say that that's because there wasn't enough stimulus, which is possibly true, but not really satisfying, because first, how do we know this package is enough, and second, that leaves us with a belief in the virtues of stimulus that is essentially non-falsifiable. We might as well move macroeconomic policy to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

Amen, Sister!

As I keep saying, this isn't about Stimulus, it's about "Getting Our Way--Finally!" It's not a recession to these guys. It's Christmas!

The Senate was supposed to inject some sanity into the bill. Instead they're injecting more spending. At this rate our only hope is that they get this thing passed and signed before it gets any bigger.

I applied for a job with a government contractor yesterday. I hope I get it, as the government seems to be the one industry that is NOT cutting back.

Draining [Into] the swamp of Gov't Corruption

Weren't the Democrats going to clean up Washington? Oh, they're setting the bar on ethics, all right. As low as they can get it.

RepublicanAmerican has a round-up of "honest mistakes" from the Democrats that would get you or me sent to prison, but gets them cabinet posts and senate seats.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!

As mentioned before I will be laid off from my job in two months, so I've been doing a lot of thinking about how to further my career. And then it hit me--the one critical thing I can do to improve my marketability:

Don't pay my taxes.

It would be the first step in a glorious political career. Then I can join Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, et al, in running the country and making rules for everyone else to follow.

Is there anyone left in Washington with any moral fiber?

You Won't Hear This Anywhere Else

Michael Totten has been in Israel lately, and reports on an interview with Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, who offers a fresh, apolitical viewpoint on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Based on what he says, it sounds like the Bush Administration really screwed up in that area. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but he feels that when they won the election and we refused to accept them--and worked to undermine them by backing the corrupt Fatah movement--we showed ourselves as hypocrits and only bolstered Hamas' position.

Read the whole thing. It provides a lot of context we never hear about in the West because it doesn't "fit the narrative".

We need journalists like Michael Totten. I'm losing my job soon and had to cancel my subscription for now, but I'll promote him as much as I can in the mean time. If there is ever such a thing as the truth, you're more likely to learn it from Michael Totten than any mainstream media outlet.

How's That Again?

Here's a video of Sen. Claire McCaskill protesting Wall street executives for taking $18.4 Billion in bonuses, comparing it to "kick[ing] taxpayers in the shins".

She's not wrong, but I can't help but wonder. If $18.4 billions is a kick in the shins, just what is $820 billion? A double-tap with a .45 to the head?

I agree. Companies that take bailout money should not be offering executive bonuses. Executives in those companies should not be taking them. But I wouldn't extend that any farther. If those companies who are staying afloat by themselves want to give bonuses, that's their business. Stockholders should hold their boards accountable, but that is it.

Meanwhile, don't lecture people about wasting $18.4 billion of taxpayer money and then turn around and waste $820 billion of it. To be frank, I think the Wall St. executives will probably do as much or more to stimulate the economy with those $18 billions as the Democrats will with their "stimulus bill".

I'm just disgusted with the whole mess right now. A few bad apples on Wall St. are ruining it for everyone, while the Democrats take full advantage of it to ram a bunch of wasteful, crony-rewarding spending down our gullet. I hope there's a line in the stimulus bill to buy everyone in America shin-guards, because the shin-kicking is just beginning.

Stereotyping - It's Okay Now

I've been meaning to get around to this for awhile now, as it's been tickling the back of my mind for days:

First Obama tells GOP leaders to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Then he dings them for watching and/or appearing on Fox News.

Then, of course, there was the "bitter, religous, gun-owners" crack during the elections.

Is it just me, or does Obama have a real stereotypical view of people in Middle-America and on the Right? Wouldn't a black person and the "first post-racial candidate" know better than to trade in stereotypes?

It bothers me more than a little that he seems to make such sweeping generalizations about people. Just because one is a Republican doesn't mean they all listen to Rush or watch Fox News, and it's rather offensive for him to suggest that. You'd think if he were serious about ending partisanship and opening up a dialogue he wouldn't start with a pointless dig--if not insult.

Or, to put it bluntly, Mr. President, don't bite the hand you claim you want to shake.

Now add to all that his "I won" crack. Even if in jest, it was poor form. And largely irrelevant. As someone pointed out, he was talking to other elected representatives--all of which could say the same thing. They won their respective elections or they wouldn't be there. Sure, they can't claim to have won "the big one", but they still merit some respect, lest Obama be guilty of implying their individual constituencies don't matter.

What I see here is a disturbing trend toward arrogance. He seems to be going through the motions of reaching across the aisle, but it seems to be to deliver a slap rather than a handshake. If he's not careful in two years he's going to wish he'd shown a little more magnanimity and respect.

As it is, his first report card on how he's doing at building bridges came back tonight: a big red "F".

Bi-Partisan Cooperation...But Not Today!

The House passed the Stimulus Bill over unanimous GOP dissent. Eleven Democrats also broke ranks to oppose it (including the one from my district--kinda makes me wish I'd voted for him).

It'll probably pass the Senate, too, but it'll be obvious that the Democrats will own this one, whatever happens. Obama had better pray this works, or else it'll go down in the history books that his first significant act was to blow his political capital to further trash the economy.

Uh Oh, Buck!

Didn't I predict this? Even the New York Times is noticing that the Stimulus Bill is quickly becoming a Trojan Horse for everything the Democrats want to accomplish but wouldn't be able to without a fight. More here, from The Heritage Foundation.

UPDATE: The Wall Stree Journal weighs in with their analysis of the bill. To the Democrats this isn't a recession. This is Christmas.

I Am Standing Here Beside Myself

Dr. Mark Dybul, coordinator of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has been sacked. Selected during the Bush Administration, Dybul has done a remarkable--even heroic--job, and had originally asked to stay on for a few months during the Obama Administration until a replacement could be found.

The day after Obama's inauguration Dybul as asked to resign immediately.

This makes no sense, does irreparable harm to the cause (which I thought Democrats got behind), and smacks of the nastiest of political maneuverings--something Obama had vowed to change.

Perhaps he was not behind this. Perhaps he doesn't even know yet. Perhaps he has nothing to do with it other than hiring the rat that did it. So far, though, his promise to surround himself with good people is sounding rather hollow.

Mr. President...Tear Down This Stimulus!

James Pethokoukis presents 10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan. A sample:

5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

In other words, it doesn't help to create 500,000 construction jobs if there are only 100,000 unemployed construction workers. How many unemployed bank employees do you think will apply for the other 400,000? Knowing that those jobs may--and should--go away in a few years?

The more I hear about this "Stimulus Package" the more I think it's a smoke screen to get a bunch of other things pushed on America that might not have had a chance under better circumstances. Obama claimed he'd oppose any bill with pork in it, and yet this bill is designed in such a way that nothing is pork, so that's an empty threat.

Economist Stephen J Entine has this to add:

The idea is to jump-start "aggregate demand," according to traditional Keynesian precepts. Milton Friedman, on the other hand, taught us that government spending and tax handouts do not stimulate demand, because every dollar doled out by government must be first taken in by taxes, borrowing or other spending cuts. The net effect on aggregate demand is zero.

Read the whole thing. He gets quite detailed on some of the specific points.

It's a big enough concern that Obama and his team of experts are proposing all this in the first place. It's a bigger concern that they've let Pelosi and Reid write the details. It's an even bigger concern still that the conservatives aren't offering any better plans. They've had time, since the Democrats didn't ask for any help in writing their plan.

In short, our ship is sinking. Obama wants to bail with a very large sieve. Pelosi and Reid want to use a hose to pump the water from one deck to another. The GOP is standing around wringing their hands hoping no one will ask for their opinion.

Is it any wonder Consumer Confidence is at an all time low?

Yes, We Can, But We Don't Dare

Philip K. Howard has some ideas on why Obama's call for people to get involved may fall on deaf ears:

Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.

That instruction to teachers is one of the reasons I did not become a teacher. As a man, I sensed very early on that the risk of lawsuit or arrest was just too great to risk touching children, even though it broke my heart.

I did a short-term teaching job at a private Catholic school for a few hours each week. The moment I stepped onto the playground the kids would come flocking up to me and wrap their arms around my legs. I longed to hug them back, and I know that some would have benefitted from it enormously. But I couldn't afford to care about their needs. The threat to my potential livlihood was greater than their need.

As long as the modus operandii in America remains "No good deed goes unpunished" we will not live up to our values, no matter who is in office. Indeed, I have to question if those are still our values anymore.

My sister-in-law is a speech therapist in the public school system--at least for a few more weeks. Part of her job is working with mainstreamed special needs students. She tells of the incessant paperwork involved in her job and the lawyers constantly looking over their shoulders looking to sue if every piece of documentation isn't completely perfect. How does that serve the students?

It doesn't. The best special education teachers are quitting in droves, because they got into the job to help children, not file paperwork and fend off lawyers. But the job has become all about the latter and not the former. So they leave. In their place school administrators are forced to hire lesser-skilled stand-ins who are good at neither helping nor paperwork. In the end no one is served.

But it's not about helping people any more. It's about extorting money from the system. It's about "getting yours" regardless of who you have to crush in the process. It's about forcing people to do what's right, even if the definition of "what's right" is unclear or even contradictory.

The very people who are accusing churches of trying to legislate morality are doing just that themselves. Only they can't even get that right, because they have no moral compass of their own. Common Sense has become an oxymoron. Common decency has been replaced with lowest common denominator.

The problem is going to take much more than a sharp-dressed president with a bag full of platitudes. His community organizer tactics won't work here. America needs more than a bandaid, and he's offering little more than to kiss our owie better.

Why Yes, Yes I Do...

Richard Rahn at the Washington Times is asking "Feel like a chump?:"

While you may have thought you are required by law to pay taxes on all your income, you learn the "important" folks in Washington seem to think paying taxes is optional. Chairman Charles Rangel of the House Ways and Means Committee responsible for writing tax legislation has admitted he did not pay the required income taxes on some of his private income (Caribbean rental properties, etc.); and the proposed Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, did not pay the required income tax on part of his income from the International Monetary Fund, where he worked for several years.

I thought Obama was going to hold government accountable to higher standards. It turns out (surprise, surprise) a politician lied to us...again. Geithner gets excused for his "goof". Rangel and Dodd will not be investigated by their respective Ethics Committees. At least Bill Richardson had the decency to remove himself from consideration. He probably would have gotten a pass from the Administration as well. So ironically the one politician with some integrity will NOT be part of the administration.

If I failed to pay taxes the IRS would have me in jail. Ignorance of the law would not be a valid excuse. Why is it only the "important people" don't have to obey the law? And why aren't more people worried that the current Administration is filling up with law-breakers?

"Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!"

John Stossel has an article in the Weekly Standard making the case that there is no reason for the panic we're seeing over the economy right now:

But people are losing their jobs! President Obama frets that "the unemployment rate could reach double digits." Yes, that would be bad, but in the recession of '82, it reached 10.8 percent. Yet no one even remembers the "crisis" of '82. Today's 7.2 percent unemployment rate is higher than we've grown used to, but we've experienced that rate 16 times over the past 35 years. And it pales in comparison to the 25 percent rate of the Depression era.

"The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it," economist Peter Schiff told the Wall Street Journal. "The free market does have a cure: It's called a recession."

Have we become so fragile that we can't handle any recession? The 11 recessions since World War II are part of the "creative destruction" that ultimately drives our economy, yet today politicians act as if they can insulate us from pain with bailouts and "stimulus packages."

Or, to quote from my favorite quotable movie: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

I don't want to make light of the problems many people are facing right now. And I say this as someone working in a company that has announced pending lay-offs. But the government has been throwing money at the problem with no visible result so far. I don't think solution at this point is "More cowbell!"

We're in this mess, as someone pointed out, because people have gone havily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due. So why would the answer be to go heavily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due? I've only got an MBA, mind you, so perhaps I'm just not smart enough to see it.

I don't mind the government putting out a safety net to help those in need. I may be relying on that net myself in the next few months. But as someone who has scrimped, saved, and spent responsibly I'm still waiting to see a reward for positive behavior. And I'm not seeing that much of a punishment for bad behavior, either. In a world of no consequences one should not hope for change.

Speaking Truth To The Lesser-Powered

Andy Lew offers some sage advice to conservatives, including:

DON’T make it personal. We don’t need another Derangement Syndrome. We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause, or to the country as a whole, is beyond me. Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are smushwords like BusHitler, or sillywords like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.

DON’T pretend you’re being brave when you criticize your government. Not while people in other countries actually, y’know, DIE, when they do that.

DON’T use the phrase “speaking truth to power.” EVER.

DON’T say or do everything in your power to drive this country apart and then claim you want unity when it’s your guy in power. This is like the convicted felon who conveniently finds God when he’s up for parole.

DON’T automatically think people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. Some of them are, of course. But most of them aren’t, and you might actually learn something if you listen to them.

And finally, DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

Hear, Hear! Read the whole thing.

He also gets in a swipe at Tom Hanks:

DON’T call people un-American one week, and then talk about how “We are not blue states or red states, we are the United States” the next. (This rule may only apply to Tom Hanks, but I put it in just to be safe.)

Further proof that most calls for unity from celebrities and the left (did I just repeat myself?) are little more than "We have you now! Surrender!"

Say It Ain't So, Tom

Tom Hanks, who is currently making a fair bit of money from producing a television show about an offshoot of the Mormon religion, fails to see the irony when he criticizes the church about their stance on California's Prop 8:

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'll grant it's one of the more calm and moderate criticisms I've heard, and I hope what we should read between the lines is a call for more dialogue and understanding on both sides rather than intimidation and violence. But still, the gist of his criticism is that donating money to unpopular causes is "un-American."

What, exactly, is un-American about backing unpopular causes? Gay rights was, at one point, extremely unpopular and considered by the mainstream to be immoral. So were the people who backed the cause then un-American? Were the Founding Fathers, who undoubtedly opposed "buggery" as it was known then, un-American? Bill McKeever of the Mormonism Research Ministry puts it best:

"Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."

One look at the Mormon Research Ministry's website will confirm that McKeever is not a fan of the church.

So meanwhile, I have this to say to Mr. Hanks. I've appreciated your work. You've brought a lot of enjoyment into my life. I doubt I'm going to stop watching your movies just because of this. But I do have to say that it's rather hypocritical of you advocate denying Mormons of the right to political expression while simultaneously profiting from a TV show about Mormon splinter groups.

With the support of people like you, Mr. Hanks, how long will it be before Hollywood forms their own "Un-American Activities Committee" to snuff out dissent from people whose political opinions disagree with your own? And by the way? Where is your criticism of the also-un-American black and Muslim communities? Or does your courage not extend to criticizing those minorities?

But I will give you points for at least taking a more moderate line. When Hollywood is on a pogrom against anyone who would dare support Prop 8, being moderate is as close to dissent as some people can dare come.

From The Diversity Files

I'm not a minority--at least not in the standard political definition. Let's just say that nothing I'm a minority in is likely to gain me any special protections.

But I try to be sensitive enough to realize that my perspective on race relations in America could use some expansion. It's just that (and perhaps this is wrong of me) I don't like having to take personal responsibility for the entire scope of American history.

I'm willing to take responsibility for whatever prejudices my parents may have passed along that I may not have questioned yet. I'm willing to accept that my nervousness about some people may run deeper than my own personal insecurity with any stranger, and with the lifestyles certain clothing choices communicate.

I try not to be prejudiced, but let's face it. We all make choices about people and our reactions to them based on appearance. And when people dress in a specific way because it advertises a specific lifestyle they can't really hold people responsible for judging them based on that. In short, if you're going to dress like a gang-banger or rapper, it's not unduly prejudiced of me to suspect that you're going to be angry with me for being white--and as a result be nervous about you or even try to avoid you.

It would be unduly prejudiced of me to be nervous about or seek to avoid a black person who dresses within the realm of socially acceptable norms. I believe that is the key. If someone chooses to dress or act in an intimidating manner they should not expect people to react positively or even neutrally to them. I have as much right to be nervous about someone dressed like a gang-banger as I do a white person with disheveled hair and clothing walking down the street muttering to themselves and gesticulating wildly. It's simply, like the old Far Side cartoon, nature's way of saying "Do not touch".

Anyway, what I started out to say is that I do appreciate efforts by minorities to politely give the rest of us insights as to what their world is like for them. One such example is an article by John McWhorter in Forbes. This article makes it clearer that blacks in America are not unified in how they see themselves, but just as it appears more and more whites are moving past their historical prejudices, so are blacks.

If Obama's election does nothing else than open the way for people to have polite, respectful conversations about race he will have done this country a great service. I look forward to the conversation. I have much to learn.

Good Luck, Sirs!

I didn't vote for him. So what? Today he takes office, and I wish him well. I hope he is successful. I hope he does what is right for our country. I hope before his four years are up I find myself wishing I could say I voted for him.

Most indications suggest he's not going to live up to my fears. That's a good start. Much of the changes of direction he's made since the election would have made my choice much, much harder. There are strong indications he might even "out-centrist" McCain. If so, I'll be glad.

As for me, I'm going to learn from the horrible example of our national celebrities (Hat Tip Dr. Helen). I am NOT going to start bad-mouthing my country just because I may not like the man in charge. I am NOT going to start sucking up to ever evil dictator in the world who embodies and embraces the worst (erroneous) accusations I fling at my president. I will not look down my nose at the very people who made me the filthy rich in the first place. Not that the latter one is even an option, mind you.

In short, you will not find in me any justification for how those on the other side have been treating Bush all these years.

And speaking of Bush, I wish him all the best. Thank you, sir, for doing your best for this country, even if it was unpopular and even if I didn't always agree with you on what was best. Thank you for having the guts to do what was right in spite of the disapproving glare of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. It is unfortunate that your predecessor will get much of the credit for your successes while continuing your policies, but that is the nature of a true leader. I do hope that history judges you more kindly than your rabid, loud enemies.

We Shall Make No Policy Until Its Time

Michael Totten defends Barack Obama over his silence regarding the Gaza crisis:

If Obama opposes Israel’s use of force to defend itself from missile attack, he deserves credit for keeping his opinion to himself while he is not actually president. As he has stated on several occasions: the United States only has one president at a time. “We can’t have two administrations running foreign policy at the same time,” he says. “We simply can’t do it.” He could try to undermine the current President Bush, but he’s right that it wouldn’t be proper.

On the other hand, perhaps he silently supports Israel’s short operation in Gaza against a terrorist army with whom he himself repeatedly said he would refuse to negotiate. If he said so out loud, though, his global “hope and change” honeymoon would be over before it even began. It’s not in his interest to hobble himself from the start, nor is it in America’s interest or Israel’s.

I have to agree. While I'm still in wait-and-see mode over many things Obama, I appreciate his respect in not undermining the current president, however unpopular. While it could just be that he really doesn't want to have to take the job any sooner than necessary (and who could blame him), evidence suggests otherwise.

He's NOT silent on the economy. He's saying plenty there, and it's a good thing. Right now the economy is as much a matter of perception as a matter of substance. The Democratic Congress wants to get to work fixing things, and if Obama doesn't want to lose control of the helm there he needs to be involved. Even though it may be weeks before anything gets through congress, it's important to be seen doing something.

Foreign policy, on the other hand, is NOT Congress' arena. It's important there be one and only one Voice of the US. Congress has passed resolutions supporting Bush's position on Gaza, however, and that is entirely appropriate. Obama seems to know that on matters of foreign policy he needs to keep quiet until it's his turn.

He'll get his turn soon enough. For many reasons, most of which could be simultaneously true, he is smart to wait.

Get Satan A Cardigan

It's a little scary, but Harry Reid is starting to sound almost...sensible these days:

“Even though we’re one short of 60 [senators in the Democratic Conference], I don’t want to ever have to depend on cloture,” Reid said. “We may have to do that, but it will be with the support of a few Republicans.”

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Burris Under The Saddle

It appears that the Democratic Majority has a bit of a backbone after all and has refused senate-appointee Burris admission to the Senate. I'm not impressed, though, as the Democrats are the only ones who could get away with it--not to mention they put themselves in this position in the first place.

It was a rather cynical play in the first place to insist that the real reason Burris might not be admitted is because of race. It was mean-spirited and cynical for Gov. Blagojevich to make the appointment in the first place. It does little to dispell the media image of him to lash out like this and try to take everyone down with him.

To be honest, I don't know if Burris is a good choice or not. It sounds like he's at least not a bad one. He's certainly more experienced than Caroline Kennedy. And this is most certainly not about race. To not seat a black man in the Senate to replace another black man who was just elected president should render that accusation dead on arrival.

No, this is about the fact that the governor who made the appointment is currently under indictment for trying to sell that senate seat for personal gain. That places anyone so appointed under a cloud of suspicion from the very start.

It's unfortunate that Harry Reid and the Democrats were not stronger in stating that they would refuse to seat anyone nominated by Blagojevich under any circumstances. But at least they had the basic sense to cut this off before it gets any worse.

I hope that--sooner rather than later--they can resolve this. As others have suggested, the best way would be to impeach Blagojevich and then let the Lt. Governor re-appoint Burris.

But in the mean time, I think we should all remain calm and not turn this into Cirque de Invective.

As Accurate As Truthiness

I read this interesting article today:

(AP) Tel Aviv - The Israeli government today indicated they would bow to international pressure and moderate their attacks on Hamas in Gaza to a more "proportionate response."

"Starting today," said spokesman David Ben-Gasser, "we will withdraw all troops and cease all air operations. Instead we will begin firing between 100 and 1000 rockets per month into the Gaza settlements. We will also reopen all border checkpoints, but will be directing rocket fire at these points as well. We are also recruiting for suicide bombers to send into Gaza marketplaces and schools. In lieu of this--Israeli youth being shamelessly less willing to throw away their lives--we may be forced to place suicide vests on mannequins and drop them by air into these locations. It is regrettable, but demonstrates our commitment to a proportional response.

"We are also, in a proportionate response, ending our disproportionate commitment to establishing peace between Israelis and Palestinians and will instead adopt the Hamas-inspired policy of seeking the eradication of every last Palestinian in the world."

Ben-Gasser then added, "We thank the world for their input on how to secure our population. We appreciate the feedback we have received that has basically told us we've been going about this all wrong. We hope that by adopting Hamas' tactics and policies we will succeed in gaining the good will of the international community. As soon as we have eliminated every last Palestinian in the world I'm certain much of the trouble in the Middle-East will disappear."

Okay, I didn't read this anywhere, but it would serve the world right if this were Israel's response. They are fighting an enemy with the stated goal of eliminating all Jews. This same enemy completely disregards all internationally-accepted rules of warfare. This same enemy deliberately targets civilians and uses their own for shields and camoflage. This same enemy hides behind international agencies.

This call for a "proportionate response" is poppycock. Russia used the U.S. invasion of Iraq to justify their own invasion of Georgia. Well, I say Israel should be able to use Russia's invasion of Georgia to justify their invasion of Gaza. It is time that Hamas be eliminated. Unfortunately that means that some innocent Palestinians will be killed. Perhaps they should remember that next time they elect a terrorist group into power.

Hamas doesn't care one whit for the people they supposedly represent. Palestinians are just chips in the big game. Their primary use is as body count for news stories. So next time you Palestinians decide you don't like Israeli tanks firing at you, why don't you just turn around and beat the crap out of the Hamas militant hiding behind you to attack the Israelis? I'll bet you find the Israelis stop firing at you.