Thursday, April 30, 2009
Guilty Pleasures Part Forty-Four -- Ben Picks, Maria Comments
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Time is Tight
- Had my last religion class teaching tonight, so I missed Obama's 100 Days Victory Tour press conference, but he did say this (h/t: Instapundit): OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me. While it's probably a waste of breath to point this out, I would be remiss if I didn't. The Democrats controlled Congress in 2007-2008. They held the purse strings. Last I checked, Obama was the junior senator from Illinois during that time period. So yes, Mr. President, it was you.
- Stinger points out that Congresswoman Bachmann was as silly as the Democrats in discussing the swine flu epidemic. He's right, of course. She's having fun being a distaff Bob Dornan these days and that's fine. But Stinger is also right that if you're going to make bold statements, they should marry up with the facts.
- We finally have our baseball schedule for Ben's team. He is playing on an in-house team, but that doesn't mean he gets to avoid travel. He's got two games on the schedule up in Forest Lake. It's pretty amazing, actually. Look for reports on Shoreview Red in the coming weeks.
- On a personal note, this is my 1,400th post on Mr. Dilettante. Guess I had more to say than I thought....
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Another Reason Why You Shouldn't Play Politics with the Swine Flu
Another Frog Volunteers to Carry the Scorpion
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.
Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
For his part, President Obama says he is thrilled:
President Obama was informed of Specter's decision at around 10:25 a.m., according to White House officials, and reached out to the senator minutes later to tell him "you have my full support," and we are "thrilled to have you."Sure he is, Sen. Specter. He's already decided to give you a present:
ALBUQUERQUE — In a dramatic move yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the air quality permit it issued last summer for the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant, which is slated to be built on the Navajo Nation in the Four Corners region just southwest of Farmington, New Mexico.The action drew praise from critics of the plant and blistering commentary from its proponents.
So do you suppose that the EPA is going to be providing any support for new coal-fired plants? Or are they just picking on Native Americans? And if memory serves, don't they mine a whole lot of coal in Pennsylvania? That should help the ol' reelection campaign.
Your Government at Work
- I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to send Air Force One, accompanied by a military escort, on a low fly-by of lower Manhattan. But it wasn't a good idea. Unsurprisingly, New Yorkers are a just a little bit skittish about that sort of thing.
- I wasn't aware of this until yesterday, but it's good to know. Apparently the Centers for Disease Control and pretty much all other public health efforts in this country have no money at all to battle the swine flu. No really, it's true. Apparently, if these agencies didn't get money from the stimulus bill, the researchers are forced to use specimen jars as tin cups and beg for money. Mostly because of Susan Collins and Karl Rove. I just can see Collins now, twirling her Snidely Whiplash mustache. I guess the only reasonable conclusion is that Republicans are just heartless bastards.
- Speaking of heartless bastards, House Minority Leader John Boehner has called for release of CIA documents detailing what Congress knew about the programs that some are now calling torture, especially the efficacy of the programs. Good. If we're gonna have a witch hunt, let's make sure we get all the witches.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Notre Dame Takes One on the Chin
There's more in the letter, but that is the gist of it. I've written a few posts about this matter in the past month and plan to write at least two more in the coming days. Let's just say that Glendon's decision pretty much exposes Notre Dame's game for what it is.Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
Leo Notices Something
"This bill proposes the most significant tax overhaul in 20 years," said the bill's chief author Rep. Ann Lenczeswki, DFL-Bloomington.
In addition to the tax hikes, Lenczewski's bill removes a variety of tax breaks for homeowners and businesses. Charitable contributions, the mortgage interest tax deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are eliminated and replaced with a tax credit based on income. The bill also eliminates several business tax breaks, like the Research and Development credit and parts of the governor's JOBZ program.
Lenczewski said she wants to clean up the state's tax code. "Which is to sweep the tax code clean of all of the preferential treatment and subsidies and things we can't afford anymore and instead bring a fairer, more progressive income tax to Minnesotans based on the ability to pay," she said.
Hey, what a great idea! Let's eliminate any shelters available and just get to taxing the snot out of those bastard rich people! What could go wrong?
Go read the Leo's whole piece, in which he even provides the appropriate music. And the appropriate conclusion:
It has proven to be axiomatic that when liberals get ahold of vast amounts of power, they will inevitably over-reach.
No doubt about it.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Eagle Scouts
You have to do a lot of things, and do them well, to become an Eagle Scout. Most kids aren't up to the challenge. The kid who earned his eagle is an impressive fellow. He's going to be playing NCAA Division II football and he's been an obvious leader and role model to the other scouts in my son's troop. He's a bright, personable young man and he'll go a long way in life.
We even had a few local politicians at the ceremony, including one or two with whom I've crossed swords in the past. Such an occasion is a time to put politics aside and I was glad that they took the time to be there, because recognizing the achievements of young people is something that politicians ought to be doing.
We will need leaders to emerge from the generation that is coming of age right now, because the world they inherit will be even more complicated than the one that the current politicians face now. We will need leaders who are resourceful, work hard and have a demonstrated record of achievement. We will need Eagle Scouts.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The NFL's Administrative Exercise in Group Dynamics
Happy St. Mark's Day!
I, For One, Appreciate Our Adversarial Fourth Estate
Then there's CNN's Bill Schneider:
The first President Bush was criticized for being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Do people think Obama understands the problems of ordinary Americans? Yes -- 74 percent.I've been able to get a copy of the original draft of the article that Schenider prepared for CNN's 100 Days extravaganza, which the CNN honchos had to spike because their fact checkers weren't able to independently verify claims 3 and 7:
Jimmy Carter was not considered a strong leader. Ronald Reagan was. Does the public think Obama is a strong leader? Yes -- 76 percent.
Richard Nixon turned out not to be honest and trustworthy. Do people think Obama is honest and trustworthy? Yes -- 74 percent.
Is Obama the superpresident? So far, so good.
Feature: Little known facts about our 44th president, Barack Obama.
By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst
01
Barack Obama's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
02
Barack Obama counted to infinity - twice. He then used the numbers as a basis for his FY 2010 budget.
03
Barack Obama does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Barack Obama goes killing.
04
If you can see Barack Obama, he can see you. If you can't see Barack Obama you are truly an impoverished soul.
05
Barack Obama sold his soul to the devil for his beatific good looks and unparalleled ability to read a teleprompter. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Barack gave the devil a 25 DVD set of great American movies and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
06
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Barack Obama.
07
Barack Obama built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Barack Obama met all three bullets with a 1000 word speech repudiating the Monroe Doctrine, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
08
Barack Obama has already been to Mars; he was stunned to learn it was a CIA rendition site.
09
They once made Barack Obama toilet paper, but it wouldn't take shit from anybody. However, you can get Barack Obama jewelry at J. C. Penney.
10
A blind man once stepped on Barack Obama's shoe. Barack replied, "Don't you know who I am? I'm Barack Obama!" The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw, was the glowing visage of Barack Obama, which so inspired that blind man that he immediately went off to join AmeriCorps but was tragically killed when he was hit by an SUV.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Who Framed Ken Lewis?
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly
troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. — a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA — according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank’s chief executive.
Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York’s attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.
Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren’t normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill — which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter — could have given BofA’s shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.
“Isn’t that something that any shareholder at Bank of America…would want to know?” Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.
“It wasn’t up to me,” Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would “impose a big risk to the financial system” of the U.S. as a whole.
Immediately after learning on December 14, 2008 of what Lewis described as the "staggering amount of deterioration" at Merrill Lynch, Lewis conferred with counsel to determine if Bank of American had grounds to rescind the merger agreement by using a clause that allowed Bank of America to exit the deal if a material adverse event ("MAC") occurred. After a series of internal consultations and consultations with counsel, on December 17, 2008, Lewis informed then-Secretary Henry Paulson that Bank of America was seriously considering invoking the MAC clause. Paulson asked Lewis to come to Washington that evening to discuss the matter.
At a meeting that evening Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Lewis, Bank of America's CFO, and other officials discussed the issues surrounding invocation of the MAC clause by Bank of America. The Federal officials asked Bank of America not to invoke the MAC until there was further consultation. There were follow-up calls with various Treasury and Federal Reserve officials, including with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke. During those meetings, the federal government officials pressured Bank of America not to seek to rescind the merger agreement. We do not yet have a complete picture of the Federal Reserve's role in these matters because the Federal Reserve has invoked the bank examination privilege.
Bank of America's attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21, 2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America still wanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulson advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, its management and Board would be replaced:
[W]e wanted to follow up and he said, 'I'm going to be very blunt, we're very supportive of Bank of America and we want to be of help, but' -- as I recall him saying 'the government,' but that may or may not be the case -- 'does not feel it's in your best interest for you to call a MAC, and that we feel so strongly,' -- I can't recall if he said 'we would remove the board and management if you called it' or if he said 'we would do it if you intended to.' I don't remember which one it was, before or after, and I said, 'Hank, let's deescalate this for a while. Let me talk to our board.' And the board's reaction was of 'That threat, okay, do it. That would be systemic risk."
In an interview with this Office, Secretary Paulson largely corroborated Lewis's account. On the issue of terminating management and the Board, Secretary Paulson
indicated that he told Lewis that if Bank of America were to back out of the Merrill Lynch deal, the government either could or would remove the Board and management. Secretary Paulson told Lewis a series of concerns, including that Bank of America's invocation of the MAC would create systemic risk and that Bank of America did not have a legal basis to invoke the MAC (though Secretary Paul's basis for the opinion was entirely based on what he was told by Federal Reserve officials).
Despite the fact that Bank of America had determined that Merrill Lynch's financial condition was so grave that it justified termination of the deal pursuant to the MAC clause, Bank of America did not publicly disclose Merrill Lynch's devastating losses or the impact it would have on the merger. Nor did Bank of America disclose that it had been prepared to invoke the MAC clause and would have done so but for the intervention of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.
Lewis testified that the question of disclosure was not up to him and that his decision not to disclose was based on direction from Paulson and Bernanke: "I was instructed that 'We do not want a public disclosure.'"
Ken Lewis confirms my suspicions
CEO Ken Lewis is an aggressive businessman, but he's never been a fool. So why did B of A go through with what was clearly a bad deal? The Wall Street Journal has now provided the reason (via Hot Air):
Emphasis mine. Awfully nice of Paulson and Bernanke to expect Lewis and my friends who have now lost their jobs to fall on their swords, huh?Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. — a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA — according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank’s chief executive.
Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York’s attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.
Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren’t normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill — which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter — could have given BofA’s shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.
“Isn’t that something that any shareholder at Bank of America…would want to know?” Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.
“It wasn’t up to me,” Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would “impose a big risk to the financial system” of the U.S. as a whole.
Official Washington is all aflutter about torture memos and similar minuets this week and the various portside windbags on Capitol Hill are primping and putting on their makeup to have hearings about it. Forget all that. You want to have a Truth Commission? Let's get to the truth of this matter. If what Lewis is saying is true, and based on my experience as an old B of A hand I have no reason to believe it isn't, this is one of the worst things that has ever happened in Washington. And yes, it happened on George W. Bush's watch.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Comedy Gold Part Two
The president flew all the way out to midcountry in his large airplane to the Hawkeye State to talk about saving the environment and developing green energy, which a 747 isn't. But who would ever point out such an inconsistency if it didn't involve evil automobile chief executives in their private jets?
As the Instapundit (who deserves a hat tip for this one) would say -- Heh.
Comedy Gold
The chairmen of both the Senate and House Judiciary committees. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are proposing an independent "Truth
Commission," and Conyers also is planning committee hearings of his own. His panel is populated with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, a prescription for a bitter fight.
Sounds good. Might I suggest that Christopher Dodd would make an excellent chairman for this commission? Maybe they could hire Eliot Spitzer to be lead prosecutor, or he could split time with Bill Clinton.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Country's in the Very Best of Hands
Today President Barack Obama opened a door that his chief of staff and his press secretary had closed in recent days, suggesting that it is possible that his administration may attempt to try former Bush hands who were involved in formulating interrogation rules for suspected terrorists:
While the Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods "reflected us losing our moral bearings," the president said, he also that he did not think it was "appropriate" to prosecute those CIA officers who "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House."
But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that "with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
This is stupid, stupid, stupid. Breathtakingly stupid. Stupid on steroids. Doubleplus Unsmart stupid. Meta-stupid, even.
Let's do a thought experiment. What happens if Eric Holder decides to go forward and charge the former Bush hands? What follows is by no means an exhaustive list of possibilities.
- The Bush hands (probably John Yoo, perhaps Alberto Gonzales and maybe even Evil Dick Cheney) lawyer up. In order to mount their defense, the lawyers demand reams of classified documents, especially those that would be exculpatory. Does Obama dare release classified information?
- Suppose the administration denies the request for the information. What does the court do? Which federal judge wants to be the one to oversee a Star Chamber? Line forms at the left. And if no judge accepts the assignment and throws the case out, Obama has managed to humiliate his entire Department of Justice.
- If the administration releases the information, what happens to it? Does it remain classified? Or do we give away information that would be highly useful to those who still have a little grudge with the U.S.?
- Meanwhile, the Obama hands who are now responsible for administering the War on Terror (or whatever we call it these days) now have a decision to make. Do we take bold action when needed, or do we go into a bureaucratic fetal position, knowing full well that the next administration may take a similar avenging angel approach to the work they are currently undertaking? What would you do?
Look, we can agree to disagree about whether the Bush administration "lost its moral bearings" or not. We can even put up with a certain amount of preening and moral vanity from Obama and his team, which should last until they are faced with the next attack. But woe betide Obama and all his people if we are attacked and his team fails to take action because it is afraid that at some point in the future, it will be put in the dock because its political enemies call for retribution.
I'm hoping that Eric Holder is smart enough to do a cursory "investigation," cover his boss's ass and bury this breathtakingly stupid idea once and for all.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Meaning of Notre Dame — III
It is certainly true that Catholics look to the Pope for moral instruction and leadership, but the widespread notion that the Pope dictates how individual Catholics behave is a fallacy. The Pope's representatives are the bishops, but they have less loyalty to Rome than you might think, and certainly less control over their flocks than the popular conception would have. In addition, there have always been many independent power sources within the structure of the larger Church – the religious orders are the most prominent example, but other Catholic institutions have long had wide latitude in how they conduct their affairs. Which brings us back to Notre Dame.
As I discussed earlier, the University of Notre Dame is one of the most prominent Catholic institutions in this country. For many Catholics, especially in the Midwest, it is a pre-eminent symbol of the Church. This is equally true for non-Catholics, who may know little of Catholic doctrine but recognize Notre Dame as a quintessentially Catholic institution. That means that the public actions of Notre Dame are bound to influence the perceptions of Catholics and non-Catholics about what Catholics believe and the values that Catholics put forward.
"The reason for the strong reaction lies in the growing dismay among many, after years of discussion and organizing, over their inability to stop the killing each day of about 4,000 unborn babies," Cardinal George said in the statement.
"The indications now that the present administration intends to solidify the right to abortion as a permanent civil rights law, without possible qualification of any sort, add to that dismay and increase frustration," he added.
"Abortion is a society-dividing issue."
The statement said Cardinal George has not urged Notre Dame to "disinvite" the president. "He said that both the president and his office should be respected and that the university could not and should not rescind an invitation to the president of the United States," it said. "The president's views are well known as are his reasons for them; he is not himself the issue here."
Cardinal George said "those who were upset about the invitation should let their opinions be known to the university, not to him or other bishops, since the bishops do not control or manage the university."
An excellent question
The country has gotten into a painful fiscal predicament because both parties have let us believe we can have more and more goodies from Washington at no additional cost. The recent explosion of federal spending has succeeded in one way: It has exposed that assumption for the fiction it was.I have a feeling about that -- it may take a little while, but the ground that's been shifting under our feet is not done shifting by any means.
Like Bernie Madoff's investors, we now face the bleak truth that the comfortable future we expected is gone. Everything the federal government is doing will be forcibly extracted from our future earnings. The tea party protesters see that and are angry. Can the rest of the country be far behind?
The continuing GM minuet
The party is almost over, though. GM will not survive unless a lot of people take a lot of concessions. It's going to get a lot uglier in the coming months.
So what happens in the end? I suspect that Buick and Pontiac will disappear, Saturn and Saab will be spun off and you'll have a company that makes Chevrolets, Cadillacs and GMC trucks. And if it gets worse, look for the GMC marque to disappear, too.
The UAW will be very angry about all this, but it's been inevitable for a long time now.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Baseball Season About to Start
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Working Blue
I'll stipulate that I'm not always the most sophisticated fellow around -- I grew up in eastern Wisconsin and these days I spend most of my time traveling from my home in one benighted suburb to my job in another benighted suburb. Somehow I'd managed to get through the first 45 years of my life without ever hearing of the term "teabagging," which I've now learned refers to a sexual practice favored in certain quarters that I do not frequent. To my knowledge, teabagging doesn't happen on the turnip truck from which I fell.
So if teabagging means a sexual practice, why on earth would MSM members like Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster and Andrew Sullivan refer to those who were exercising their right to free speech as "teabaggers?" Scott Johnson at Powerline has a theory:
There is not only something funny going on here, there is a story here. These supposed journalists and their networks (or publisher, in Sullivan's case) have rather seriously insulted the citizens who colorfully took to the streets to air respectable views in a most civil fashion.There's no doubt that there was an insult embedded in the messaging, but I think what's really at play here is how fundamentally unserious our media betters are. Sometimes I suspect that the MSMers are jealous of the adulation heaped upon Jon Stewart, the comedian who runs a fake newscast on Comedy Central, and the repeated use of the term "teabagging" gives them the chance to be as naughty as they think Stewart is. Never mind that Stewart is probably the biggest purveyor of conventional wisdom out there -- making fun of hicks is as daring as a Ole and Lena joke. It's the newsman as Bart Simpson, getting the bartender to ask for Anita Mantohug. I understand the impulse -- I once got away with letting fly an X-rated reference over my high school's P.A. system, an especially good trick when you go to a Catholic school. But you'd like to think that trained media professionals would be past that sort of thing. And I would also suggest that people who proffer such juvenile behavior really don't have standing to sneer at the provincials.
Of course, you can go too far the other direction, which brings us to the curious column that George Will let fly the other day. I'm not sure if Will lost money on Levi Strauss, but he came out with a ringing denunciation of those who wear blue jeans:
Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.
You tell 'em, George! I'll get off your lawn, too.
This is such a cavalcade of nonsense that one hardly knows where to begin. Sometimes the best place to begin is with a world-class fisker like James Lileks, who looks at a few of Will's assertions thus:
We can gather much from this, aside from the fact that the tea was tepid when served that morning, which always puts one in a querulous humour. We can assume he hasn’t seen more than two seconds of “King of the Hill,” a very clever show that’s firmly on the side of the folk who share his instincts and understands their culture far better than Mr. Will does. (Hank Hill is a man haunted by Oughts of all sorts, constantly parsing the demands of modern life with the Oughts that arise from being a middle-aged Texan father who deals with propane. And propane accessories.) The self-contented sneer against animation suggests no disrespect for the thing itself, but rather the moving drawings aimed at adults. They should content themselves with the amusing engravings in Punch, which stay in one place and do not excite the blood.Indeed. That's how they did it in 1947, back when we prized individualism. And I'm guessing George would have more credibility if he didn't wear things like this in public. But I digress.
As for allowing gamers to vote - well, tart, puckish disapproval noted, and keenly felt. I admit that I have used my computer to construct large theme parks, defeat Jedi masters, secure nuclear material in rogue states, and slog through Hell itself. Imaginary pursuits all, and hardly befitting an adult. I should sit myself in a large stadium and watch men in striped suits stand around and spit while waiting for another man to hit a ball with a stick, and I should do this 100 times a year, and I should also issue rhapsodic encomiums to the timeless American nature of watching men stand around and sit an wait for another man to hit the ball with the aforementioned stick. This is what adults do. Unless they are doing it in a simulation on a computer, in case the franchise should be withdrawn. (The vote, not the major-league endorsement of the game.)
I should go the game in a suit, of course.
Why do people wear jeans? They are functional. They are comfortable. They are durable. I wear jeans almost every day. Am I making a statement? Not really. I just figure that linen trousers aren't a wise choice when I'm coaching 3rd base in a Little League game, to name just one thing I tend to do. I've sat in a cubicle in a suit and I've sat in a cubicle in jeans and a polo shirt and the only difference is that I'm more comfortable (and thus more productive) when I wear clothes that don't constrict my movements. I can only surmise that, having failed on his investment in Levi Strauss, George has decided to go long on One-Hour Martinizing.
One last thing: the people making teabagging jokes are wearing suits. Draw your own conclusions.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Guilty Pleasures Part Forty-Three -- What's Old, Pussycat?
The difficulty of achieving work/life balance
"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
CHICAGO (AP) — The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.
Robert Creamer, a political consultant married to four-term U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, could face four years in prison on the two felony counts when he is sentenced Dec. 21.
The indictment alleged Creamer caused a series of insufficiently funded checks and wire transfers to be drawn on accounts he controlled as executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund. According to the indictment, he allegedly then used the inflated balances to pay the group's expenses and own salary.
Creamer pleaded guilty to one count each of bank fraud and failure to collect withholding tax. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors dropped several other counts.
(h/t: Instapundit)
Radio Free Dilettante – 041609
Last Five:
I Think I'll Just Stay Here and Drink, Merle Haggard
U Got the Look, Prince
Like a Rolling Stone, Bob Dylan
So It Shall Be, k.d. lang
God Loves a Drunk, Richard Thompson
Next Five:
My True Story, the Jive Five
I Saw the Light, Todd Rundgren
Lifetime Piling Up, Talking Heads
The Goodbye Look, Donald Fagen
Let Him Dangle, Elvis Costello
Tea Leaves
Conservatives are, in the main, involved in politics on the Cincinnatus model. They get involved when they see something that needs doing, then they return to their plow. There are certainly plenty of conservative political junkies around, and it seems like every single one of them has a blog, but you don't tend to see that many conservative political activists around.
There have always been more liberals involved in politics in this country, for the obvious reason that a lot of liberals tend to make politics their life's work. When you watch the campaigns at the local level, this becomes especially clear. In our house district (50B), if you see Republicans out dropping literature or knocking on doors, you can almost be certain that the volunteers are people who live in the district. The DFLers always have plenty of hessians from Minneapolis and St. Paul. Friends of this blog have seen people like Phyllis Kahn out doing literature drops in our neighborhoods. It's more than just an interest for many on the other side of the aisle.
One feature of the Tea Parties as they played out is that they were expressly non-partisan and, in some cases, just as critical of the GOP as they were of the Democrats. That's understandable, given the way the Republican majorities acted during the Bush administration. But can a non-partisan movement gain enough adherents to force change in what is a two-party system? Or do folks have to choose? That's a far more interesting question. And it's something we have to talk about.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Just checking. . . .
UPDATE (4/16/09, 7:30 a.m.): I owe the Star Tribune an apology: they covered the event prominently, even giving it a picture and article above the fold on the front page of this morning's dead tree edition. Credit where it's due!
res ipsa loquitur 041509
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Still bulleting
- No time to take a bow, apparently, since the Somali pirates are at it again, attacking a U.S. cargo ship today off the coast of Kenya. They weren't able to get on board, thankfully. It may be time to stop worrying about the water and going after these dudes on the shore. I'm guessing the Navy has just the stuff to deal a few blows.
- The endgame draws near in the interminable Coleman/Franken battle, with it now quite likely that Al Franken will actually go to Washington. Norm will keep battling, but while he continues to have a good argument, he doesn't have a good remedy available. What I'd like to see come of this -- a change in the law so that, going forward, an election this close is decided by runoff rather than by which side has the better lawyers.
- I wrote earlier today about the risible, content-free white paper that DHS put out concerning the threat of right-wing extremists. As usual, John Hinderaker at Powerline delivers the appropriate smackdown. Go read it.
- Gino mentioned something else that I should have written about -- the death last week of Angels rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart, who was killed by a drunk driver following his 2009 pitching debut. It's hard to know what would have happened to Adenhart had he been someplace else at the fateful moment -- whether he would have had a glorious career or turned out to be a short-lived sensation like Mark Fidrych, or simply a journeyman. It's unspeakably sad that we'll not find out.
I'm doing my best not to incite you
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.
Emphasis mine. I'll try to be more careful. Really -- wouldn't want to do anything that would cause anyone to "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority."
Gotta get our minds right, people.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Busy days need bullet posts
- They say death comes in threes and it did today in a really odd parlay. The first person was Harry Kalas, the longtime voice of the Philadelphia Phillies and the second "Voice of Doom" for NFL Films after the departure of John Facenda. Kalas had a rich, distinctive voice and was most famous for his "outta here" call on each home run. He also got to call the last out of 2008 World Series as his beloved Phillies pulled it off. Kalas died of an apparent heart attack at the age of 73.
- The second person to leave this world today was Mark "The Bird" Fidrych, who apparently died in an accident at his Massachusetts farm at the age of 54. Fidrych was a colorful righthander who had a phenomenal rookie year with the Detroit Tigers in 1976, going 19-9 and filling stadiums all over the American League. He wore long, curly blond hair under his cap and was compared to Big Bird, the Sesame Street character. He was also well known for grooming the mound and talking to the baseball before he threw it. He was never able to recapture the success of that first season, as a series of injuries kept him off the field until he eventually had to retire in the early 80s. I was 12 years old that summer and it seemed like he was on television every time he pitched. Along with the tall ships and Nadia Comaneci, he was an indelible part of a moment that seems ever more evenascent.
- The last person to die today was Marilyn Chambers. You'll have to do your own research on that one, although these guys can probably help.
- Oh, one more story about death. As you've likely heard, the Navy Seals were able to get 'er done in the waters off Somalia, killing 3 of the pirates who were holding the captain of the Maersk Alabama hostage and freeing Captain Richard Phillips in a daring and highly successful mission. It's a happy ending all the way around and congratulations are in order to the Navy for conducting a successful mission. Oh, and congratulations are also in order to the Commander in Chief.
- And now for something completely different. I heard from Craig Westover today, who is announcing a new effort called Grassroots for an Open Republican Party. Craig is one of the most universally respected conservative voices in Minnesota and he has, along with Marianne Stebbins, come up with a pretty compelling website that outlines some very good ideas for where the GOP should be going, especially in Minnesota. Craig and Marianne have laid out 7 guiding principles, and I think they are pretty good, to wit:
1. Just government protects Individual Sovereignty, Private Property and the Rule of Law.
2. When government is not granted an authority by Constitution, government cannot claim it.
3. Government must be no larger than required to carry out its Constitutional Obligations.
4. A Free Society cannot be "perfect." A “perfect” society cannot be free. Individual Liberty is a higher value than collectivist “perfection.”
5. In a Free Society, one must respect the Liberty of others to live by values different than one’s own.
6. Personal Liberty and Economic Liberty are inseparable.
7. All government policy must be debated, judged, and justified by these Principles.
I think that Craig and Marianne are on the right track. I'll be watching their work closely and would encourage you to give their website a look and, if you are interested, to join the conversation they are fostering there.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
He Is Risen
The Resurrection
Take a bow
What is a big deal is lying about it. Which is what Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs did the other day.
Word to the wise, guys: there are cameras everywhere and just about every public thing a president does is recorded and disseminated. You keep doing that sort of thing, people beyond the Royal Order of Wingnuts are going to start to question your credibility.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Just Read It
Feel the love
Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.
"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)
President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.
Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.