The Lion Shall Lie Down With The Lamb

Shamelessly pinched from ninme via The Daily Mail.

..and the cheetah pat the antelope fawn on its tiny little head. "We're going to have to eat you, but it's nothing personal."

For EW's Music Teacher

She who for reasons unknown felt it necessary to opine in the middle of Eldest Weed's music class that Haiti's problems are the fault of their parents, who never think of anyone else, should be forced to watch this.

Obama Among The Republicans

Good stuff: far more interesting than SOTU. It's Obama relaxed and perfectly articulate without a teleprompter and the GOP chock full of ideas. It's also a good window into the way politicians talk to each other in real life. Notice how polite and respectful the Congressmen are --Mike Pence promises the President that he's being prayed for every night, and Paul Ryan brought his family to meet the President. I love that: civil and American.

The President engages several times with Paul Ryan's plan --both directly, when Ryan asks him a question, and later, when he keeps returning to it. Here's a non-policy exchange that was amusing.

Congressman Peter Roskam had just complained that while he was able to work with Obama in the Illinois State Senate, Nancy Pelosi is impossible.

Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor, on the Republican side, in Illinois. In the Republican primary, of course, they're running ads of him saying nice things about me. Poor guy. (Laughter.)

Although that's one of the points that I made earlier. I mean, we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes, because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together, because our constituents start believing us. They don't know sometimes this is just politics what you guys -- or folks on my side do sometimes.

So just a tone of civility instead of slash and burn would be helpful. The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn-style politics. You don't get a lot of credit if I say, "You know, I think Paul Ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family." Nobody is going to run that in the newspapers.

Q (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, in case he's going to get a Republican challenge, I didn't mean it. (Laughter.) Don't want to hurt you, man. (Laughter.)

alQaeda Sounding Like alGore

Osama's worried about climate change.

"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent," bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.
The terror leader noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment." 

Plus...

To stop global warming, he called for the "wheels of the American economy" to be brought to a halt. "This is possible ... if the peoples of the world stop consuming American goods."
"We must also stop dealings in the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America."
He also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs, adding, "this should be easy for the American people to do, particularly those who were effected by Hurricane Katrina or those who lost their jobs, since these criminals live among them, particularly in Washington, New York and Texas."

Blames Bush, pushes destruction of our economy, hates bankers and  corporations, uses climate change as a pretext for everything.... this isn't a new Osama message. He's just translating SOTU into arabic.

Ralph McInerny (1929-2010)

I'm so sad to hear that Ralph McInerny passed away this morning. There's a lovely first tribute to him here, and the description absolutely matches my own impression from a grad school summer spent at Notre Dame. A real scholar, but also kind, generous, modest, and funny. Frances Beckwith writes:

Ralph was the sort of intellectual giant that becomes more rather than less formidable when one attempts to explain to those outside the guild the scope and influence of his work, the generosity of his spirit, and the habits of Christian virtue and philosophical rigor that he imparted to his students and colleagues in both word and deed. Although I did not have the privilege to study under Professor McInerny, I am one of literally tens of thousands, both inside and outside the academy, who has been deeply influenced by his work and example.

Beckwith quotes a friend:

It was, from what I can discern, a happy death, serene and full of the acceptance that comes from a sure and strong faith. I know that for me, I never expect to know another like him in this life. He was outstanding in all the important roles of life: husband and father, friend and teacher, inspirer and witness, in love with God and truly loved by God. Has there ever been a happier man, a man more able to make all around him smile?

He was all those things, as you can read for yourself in his memoir, I Alone Have Escaped to Tell You. 
He was also, as I say, funny. He was a master of the pun, as a quick scan of titles in the list of his novels will reveal. The last time I saw him was at a banquet in his honor in 2006, at which, after a series of tributes, he was introduced to say a few words and began,

Well, it's only fitting at the wake you should at last get to see the body.

Prayers for his soul. His wife of more than 40 years preceded him in death. He's survived by six kids, and umpteen grandchildren.

Update: Thomas Hibbs with a remembrance.
Tom Hoopes' eulogy in NCRegister.

Not Laughing

Pat Fagan has an excellent piece on the deleterious effects of p0rnography.

Most men, including doctors, have not the foggiest notion that the wives develop deep psychological wounds, commonly reporting feelings of betrayal, loss, mistrust, devastation, and anger at the discovery of their husbands’ use of pornography, especially Internet use.

Many wives also begin to feel unattractive or sexually inadequate, and many become depressed, even severely depressed, so badly that they need treatment for trauma, not just for depression. Many pornography-viewing husbands lose their emotional capacity for marital relations, and this, in turn, causes both husbands wives to be less interested in the marriage bed. (Viagra sales are soaring while Internet viewing of pornography continues to rise steadily). Not only is there a loss in sexual intercourse, but even distaste for the affection of a spouse and a cynicism about love can replace the affection that used to be present between them.

He has far more, and asks where the National Institutes of Mental Health are. His piece reminded me of something I intended to post on earlier in the week: this WSJ piece on the yet-unsolved anthrax attacks. Bruce Ivins, the suspect who later committed suicide, does not appear to have been the actual culprit, but know why the FBI readily believed him capable of anything? His p0rn use. 

A search of his email turned up pornography and bizarre emails which, though unrelated to anthrax, suggested that he was a deeply disturbed individual.

Since p0rn use is still a reliable predictor of other malfeasance to experts on the criminal mind, why do we accept ready reference to its use in all of our sitcoms as if everyone did it and it were no big deal?

Your Cielito Lindo Challenge

My spy in New York writes, re SOTU:

I was struck by the contradictions and blatant falsifications which were all I drew from the speech, except the obvious doubling down.

We must all work together (as tho the D's hadn't shockingly locked the doors on the R's, literally and metaphorically) immediately followed by a gratuitous (false) stinging slap at the R's.

We must all work together-- banks, media, business etc-- among which there are many "good people", immediately followed by a categorical pseudo-populist attack on all the above.(And forgot how he's "worked together" with their lobbyists. Pot/ kettle.)

The nasty slap at the court and the rabble's cheers.

We stand for freedom everywhere in the world, unbelievably adding something about the students in Iran-- when, when it really counted,he shockingly sat it out.

His claim to no lobbyists in his lobbyist-riddled admin!!?? To transparency?? To posting irrelevancies on the net while nothing important gets posted?

The "I'm willing to listen" challenge, when he never listens, or listens and answers, "Uh-huh, but I won."

He comes off, not even like a college professor, but more like a high school principal, as though we're all The Kids and he's the one with the Power. And I'm starting to await an Obama parody to the tune of Celito Lindo. (I, I, I, I.)

So...anyone up for the challenge posed by my spy's last remark?

Forgetting Obama Is Black

Great Post from Julie Ponzi on Chris Matthews' latest absurd comment.

The thing is, it isn't really Obama, per se, who is post-racial.  If anything, it is America.  And I'm rather tired of the argument that Obama is anything but the beneficiary of this fact.  He didn't make it so (and he's not old enough to have had anything to do with it); it just is so.  I think the thing that really shocks Chris Matthews is that most of America--that is, the only important or meaningful segments of America--really doesn't care about Barack Obama's race one way or the other.  He is accepted or criticized by most Americans in much the same way that any other president has been or would be.  The only outliers, as I say, are the knuckle-dragging and last remaining racist hold-outs (of no significant political importance) and the self-important, guilt-ridden, condescending, liberals of the Matthews variety.

Oh, yes, yes, yes! We are all tired of the old obsessions. Or as ninme (who started it) & I might put it: Die, Boomers, Die!
Update: Best headline on the topic.

The Wholesale Product Of A Harvard Education

I started writing this SOTU evaluation this morning but was interrupted by real work and a very busy day. Now, 12 hours later, I probably don't have anything to add to what others have said, although I penned this without reference to anyone else's opinion. For external memory drive purposes, then.

Every system of education has a desired end product, and as I've said previously, President Obama is, in both his virtues and weaknesses, the epitome of an Ivy League education in the United States today.

I like the President. In all the relaxed and jokey moments of last night's speech he came off well (and Michelle had a nice, modest moment of shooing away applause that made me like her, too). But last night's speech was like a Sophomore debate, with the dubious grasp of history, condescension, petulance, lack of self-awareness and overblown self-importance of a kid in college.

Mr. W. has a young cousin who went to college and came back a neo-Marxist, with nothing but contempt for her supposedly selfish, greedy, conventional businessman father, never noticing that his conventional business is what paid her tuition. She's a sweet girl, but naive, and a terrible ungrateful scold to her parents, now that she is enlightened and above them in every way. She could have given last night's speech.

And the Sophomore speechwriters outdid themselves. I think they rang every one of their bells.

Inappropriate use of history? Check! Obama's team loves to cite instances from the past that actually mitigate his point as if they substantiated it. Every doggone speech they do it, making me think they crammed for their history tests with Cliff Notes rather than doing the reading. We all presented exam essays like this, remember?

when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

One of these things just doesn't belong here, one of these things is not the same. The Civil War was not an instance of our choosing to move forward as one people. It was an instance of half the nation imposing its will on the other half in a bloody war. The Bloody Sunday example doesn't work either, in that the success of the Civil Rights movement is due to a pernicious idea in conflict with our national creed being repudiated and beaten down --it wasn't a matter of joining hands and "moving forward, " whatever that means.

Later on they'd claim the fact that we are "all created equal" is enshrined in the Constitution. I suppose we have to give them that on a technicality --the Constitution does say how the rights are to be enshrined. But the text comes from the Declaration and I heard it as a mistake.

Maudlin emotion? Check!

I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

Appropriation of other people's success? Check! This was amazing, given the later Bush-bashing:

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

Excuse me, but wasn't the bank bailout Bush's doing? TARP, which is the single positive step for the economy Obama can point to in his entire speech, was passed under Bush, which is why all Obama can say about it is:

I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

So...thanks to Bush the markets are now stabilized, and that is the only actual accomplishment Obama had to offer on the economy.

Similarly, Obama took credit for ending the war in Iraq --not a word about how it happens that we can manage a peaceful transition there. (Hint: because of Bush.)

Self-contradiction? Check.

We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession, and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pa., or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies.

Where do we imagine big companies come from, if not small companies? And he'd just got finished excoriating banks for bad loans --and now is mad at them for playing it safe?

Unmanly not-my-fault whining? Check!

By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

No mention of 9/11, which made the first 4 items necessary; he acts as if Bush did these things on a whim. Obama opposes the prescription drug program? Didn't he vote for it? 

Total un-self-awareness? Check! Here's one of three unintentional  laugh lines ( I don't recall any President ever being laughed at in a SOTU when he wasn't cracking wise):

We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists, to do our work openly, to give our people the government they deserve.
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

Mr. President, your 18 or however many it is czars, appointed to circumvent the Senate-approval process, are all lobbyists. What do you suppose a community activist is if not a lobbyist?

And ditto for this:

I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics.  I know it's an election year.  And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual.  But we still need to govern. 

In the middle of a speech that is one long campaign speech, which was followed within one hour by a note in my inbox from the President using the speech to raise funds for the DNC.

And that long scolding to Congress about not being so mean and partisan --in the midst of a speech that was one long attack on George Bush? He was indulging in a mean and partisan attack on the GOP with the very words he used to ask them to be non-partisan.

Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership.  We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

Stunning ignorance? Check! Mr. W. says the line about the Court permitting foreign interference in our elections is just a lie, flat-out. (It's forbidden by law, and nothing in the Citizens United case touches that at all) I don't think so. I think this administration is simply so sloppy it doesn't know or bother to fact check its own "certainties." Like AG Eric Holder arriving for Congressional hearings unprepared for the most obvious question as if the thought had never crossed his mind, these people --like college Sophomores-- have formed their opinions by absorbing cant from their professors and cramming in some reading a few hours before the exam.

Tough talk backed by nothing whatsoever? Check!

as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt:  They, too, will face growing consequences.  That is a promise. 

An utterly empty one. Name one thing we can threaten them with besides war, which is off the table.

Glittering generalities? Check!

We find unity in our incredible diversity

I have no idea what that even means. The American ideal is that in spite of our diversity, we are united around certain principles. Our diversity is in that sense a blessing and no obstacle to unity. But it isn't the cause of it.

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. 

Translation: we are going to prescribe what employers can pay women, making job-sharing, work-from-home, 3/4 time and other contemporary accomodations for working mothers costly and difficult, making it even harder for a woman to juggle work and family.

And then all the "I's." I'm sure someone's counted them all by now. I can't express how jarring it is to me to hear him talk that way, as if he were elected to be our prince and not our president. It's "we," Mr. President. Always, "we," unless you are making an aside about your favorite sports team or snack.

I give him credit for standing up for Afghan women, for supporting nuclear energy if he's serious, and for praising the decency of the American people. The rest seemed both amateurish, and remarkably defensive --the speech of a lame duck president, not a guy finishing up his first year.

Anyway. If you want to know what your $47,215/ year Harvard tuition gets you: we were lookin' at it.

Update: neo-neocon coins the term: "Blame Duck President."

Abe Foxman, SLJ

Mark Steyn let loose a mighty rant against Abe Foxman of ADL for accusing Rush Limbaugh of anti-semitism.

Abe Foxman is a lot like what my friend Ezra Levant up in Canada calls "the official Jews." He calls them "official Jews." They're people who belong to liberal Jew— official liberal Jewish organizations who are never there on any of the key issues and want to obsess with peripheral, irrelevant issues of no consequence for the Jewish people. And that is exactly what Abe Foxman did. And it would be funny if we hadn't seen, across the Western world, the biggest resurgence in anti-Semitism since the second World War. What does Abe Foxman have to say about that? What does Abe Foxman have to say about the demonstration in Fort Lauderdale last year where people are doing — where demonstrators are doing oven jokes? What does Abe Foxman have to say about the American who was visiting the East End of London on Holocaust Day last year and touring parts of the old Jewish East End and had concrete thrown at them and were told, "If you go any further, you're gonna die," and had to be taken to hospital. What does Abe Foxman have to say when a soccer match between Sweden and Israel is scheduled for the stadium in Malmo, and they have to play it behind closed doors to an empty — a tennis match, I beg your pardon, tennis. They have to play it in an empty stadium, because if they open the doors to people in Malmo, Sweden, they'd want to kill the Israeli tennis players. What do they — what does Abe Foxman have to say when people are marching through the streets of Calgary, Alberta, shouting, "Death to the Jews"? A timeless slogan, a timeless slogan, admittedly, but not one hitherto associated with the Rocky Mountains.
We are witnessing across the planet the biggest resurgence in anti-Semitism since the second World War, and this boob, this pathetic, contemptible, cowardly man thinks it's his job as spokesperson for a major Jewish organization to attack Rush. This is beyond pathetic. It is actually self-destructive. It is going to the soft target because he doesn't have the guts, he doesn't have the guts to actually confront the real sources of anti-Semitism in the world today, which is an alliance between psychotic Islamists and the college left, the polytechnic left, the educated left in the United States and in the broader Western world. And it goes along with other pathetic spectacles of his, such as when he attacked — what was that? Mel — not, uh — Mel Gibson movie from a couple of years ago, when he attacked Mel's movie, which is no threat to the Jewish people. When he attacks evangelical Christians, who are the best friends of Israel on the planet today. Unlike the secular, post-Christian European university-educated types, evangelical Christians are the best friends of Israel on the planet today. And this idiot Foxman attacks them, and then he goes and attacks Rush, too.

A little more:

I was on a long car journey, driving along listening to Rush reminiscing about when he'd visited Israel, and he'd been up — I think he'd — correct me if I'm wrong, H.R. — but I think he'd been up at Ariel Sharon's house. And Sharon had been actually showing him around, showing him the Golan Heights and showing him overlooking the West Bank and Gaza and all the rest of it. Yeah. And Rush made the point that at some places, the state of Israel is narrower than a New Hampshire township. Rush understands Israel very well, and he understands this — the preposterousness of a — the entire Muslim world stretching from Morocco — at the very northwestern corner of Africa to Lahore in Pakistan. This entire Muslim world stretching like a bloc blames all its problems on a tiny little strip of land narrower than a New Hampshire township. And Rush was never more persuasive and never more moving than when he was talking about what he understood about Israel and the situation that Israelis find themselves in than when he was talking about his visit with Ariel Sharon. And there — I have never heard — I mean, Rush is a big guy. He doesn't need me coming to his aid. I didn't really say anything when he had his little problem in Hawaii and all these idiot websites were saying, "Go on, die. Burn in hell, Rush." He's a big guy. He can take that. But what is at issue here is the stupidity of Abe Foxman and the failure of the official Jews to identify the real threats to Jews in the world today, and instead pick on soft targets like evangelical Christians, Mel Gibson's movie, and Rush Limbaugh. And in the case of Rush, you're talking about one of the best friends the Jewish people ever had. . . .

This is exactly what I think of the "official Jews" who participate in the slander against Pius XII against all evidence, and are perpetually on red alert for manufactured sleights on Pope Benedict's part (he came to Israel and honored us all, but he didn't say what he said exactly the way we would have said it! Shame!), but have nothing to say about actual anti-semitism anywhere else in the world. There is no political and intellectual figure in the world today posing as bold a challenge to extremist Islam as the Pope (in concert with his bishops in Muslim lands), and wherever Jews are persecuted in this world, Christians suffer right beside them --yet certain people are never happy unless they're accusing their friends of treacheries. It's particularly gross in Abe Foxman, who survived the holocaust because his parents left him with their Polish Catholic nanny when they were forced into a Jewish ghetto.

"Normal Weight Obesity"

The latest health crisis . Do they by any chance mean "flaccid"?

Out of Jail & On the Campaign Trail

Here's a bit of good old-fashioned political hilarity. James Traficant may run for his old seat.

'I don't know if I'm going to win, but people want someone who is like them. I admit I am at the zenith of my jackass-hood.'

Frostie Gets His Groove On

Forgive me if this is an oldie, which it must be, since YouTube says it's the 5th most popular animal video worldwide. It's new to me.
It is sad when a "bare-eyed cockatoo" has better dance moves than you.

Copenhagen Syndrome

Brett Stephens on the President's first year.

It's not as if he lacks for charisma. It's that he believes too much in the power of charisma itself and specifically too much in his own.
He seems to have come to office believing that America's problems abroad could mainly be put down to the rough-edged persona of his predecessor. Change the president, change the tone, give magnificent speeches, tinker with the policy, and the world would revert to some default mode of liking America and wanting to work with it. It doesn't work that way. Nor does it work in domestic policy, where personal salesmanship has failed to overcome the defects of legislation. Americans still generally like Mr. Obama, or at least they'd like to like him. It's the $12 trillion deficit and Rube Goldberg health schemes that rub them wrong.

Comments, Complaints.

I knew it was coming, but this morning I got the official death-ray on Haloscan (my comment system), so I have two weeks to either upgrade to Echo for an annual fee or lose all comments you folk have made in the past 6 years. I installed Echo free on a trial basis. When you leave a comment, let me know if you like or hate the system.

Right now I am inclined to simply "lose" the comments --especially since they're not really lost, they're exported to a file and surely someone will come up with a way to import them into the normal blogger template eventually. I really hate the blogger comment system, though.

Anyway, let's conduct a test together and see which system we like least worst. And for the next 30 days, if you say anything brilliant in comments, keep your own copy.

Obama Caused The Haitian Earthquake

Or so says Hugo Chavez. Curtsy: Gateway Pundit

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

President Obama at a 6th grade in my neck o' the woods.

Shamelessly pinched from here.

On The Right: Dennis Kucinich?

Not really of course. It's just amazing and amusing what gets unleashed when leadership is weak. Here, Dennis Kucinich speaks well of the Tea Partiers.

Citizens United And Just Plain Citizens

I'm already on record being delighted with the Court's decision in Citizens United (eroding McCain-Feingold). However, my delight is moderated now that I've read it. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

As Mr. W. noted in his comment on that original post, critics of the decision are correct when they say that the balance of power in political speech now lies with corporations. Since there are strict limits on what individuals may give to campaigns, candidates are now obviously going to focus on engaging the help of corporations.

1. The USG simply does not have any power to limit speech, and this was recognized at last by 5 of our 9 blackrobes. However, 2. the consequence of it must be a massive shift of candidates now sucking up to corporate entities (businesses and unions) and away from the piddling personal contribs. In other words, "crony capitalism" will be intensified.

Hadley Arkes has a nice comment on Justice Thomas' partial dissent, which argues the Court didn't go far enough and is further proof that Thomas is the wisest Justice and most original thinker on the current Court. Specifically, Thomas argues 

the disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional

on the ground that disclosure rules subject voters to intimidation (he cites hate crimes against CA Prop 8 supporters as examples).

the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Ante , at 55. Thus, “disclosure permits citizens … to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably improper —“way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge. ² Ibid.

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’ ” McConnell , 540 U. S., at 264 ( Thomas , J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC , 528 U. S. 377, 410–411 (2000) ( Thomas , J., dissenting)). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment upholding BCRA §§201 and 311.

Bravo, Justice Thomas!  But Mr. W. & I would go even further than you. What Congress (or the Court if necessary) ought to do  is repeal all limits on individual spending, to level the playing field, because as usual, when Gub'mint starts mucking about in speech, nothing good happens. As Mr. W. notes:

Conservatives were happy with the Buckley decision of the 1970s, which said that Congress could not put limits on how much a candidate himself spent of his own money in a campaign. They were correct of course, but the effect of leaving in the rest of the limits was to create a massive incentive for rich candidates (think Jon Corzine) to buy political office, so now we have lots more rich office holders than before. The Court, in other words, transformed what was supposed to be a pro-democracy reform into a pro-aristocracy reform, the direct opposite.

These 2 cases should be a lesson to conservatives: when the Court overrules legislation as unconstitutional, the Court must consider the consequences of its ruling and take that into account. So the Court should have said in the new Hillary case [the presenting case was filed by an anti-Hillary group -ed] that it could not enforce individual speech limits any more than corporate limits. THAT would have been constitutional reform to write home about!

 What is so hard for Congress and the Supremes to understand about the First Amendment? And why does anyone imagine he can improve on it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please To Call It "Partnership"

From a story in today's WaPo about Obama going populist:

"I understand how people have become mistrustful of government," Obama told his Ohio audience. "We don't need big government. We need smart government that works and interacts with the private sector to create opportunity for ordinary people."

Ahem, but government-business "partnership" is just a fancy-pants euphemism for the very crony capitalism* that has gotten us into the fiscal mess we're already in.

* Crony capitalism: we'll use Mr. W's definition, taken from comments here:  

I am finding that more and more good people who attack "capitalism" are actually attacking a phony form of it which we call "crony capitalism." This is the form practiced in Europe, Latin America, and backward nations, in which large established businesses "partner" with government bureaucracies. They combine to accomplish 2 things: (1) close market access to new, small potential competitors, and (2) establish a system of rules with virtually no appeal process -- in contrast to true free markets (genuine "capitalism") which always work to offer alternatives if you don't like the current rules.

This is the precise formula you want if your desire is to corrupt everything, crush small businesses, eradicate the family and destroy any sense of fellow-feeling and devotion to the common good.

Politics Still Local

Ted Kennedy's home town still adores him... but voted for Scott Brown.

IPCC Wheels Coming Off

First it turns out the Himalayan glaciers aren't melting, or at least not at anything like the pace the UN asserted, and the whole idea was drawn from a speculation.

Now the association of climate change with intensified weather disasters is based on weak evidence that the authors themselves have long since withdrawn.

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.
The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn

Yay for the Times for real reporting...although, ahem, a bit slow on the uptake. (Why are we unpacking the IPCC report three years after the fact?)
As for the UN Panel on Climate Change, fear not, a vice-chair says:

Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific.

Except when it absolutely isn't.

Update: Tim Blair has much, much more, including typical UN $$ scandals associated with the false melting Himalayan stories, and the news that NASA is quietly deleting any references to the IPCC from its climate change evidence website. As Blair says,

it’s almost as though the IPCC is … melting.

Spy With CoCo

I do not watch late night television as a rule, and if we are speaking candidly, while I used to love stand-up, I find all the late-night hosts too crude for me --not just the jokes, but their generally graceless interviews. No one is Johnny Carson, you know?

It's all very well to dump on Leno for jumping at the chance to be on at 11:35 again when offered, but I don't recall any similar fellow-feeling for Leno when Conan used his contract negotiation to push Leno prematurely out of the Tonight Show. In both instances, NBC pursued what it perceived to be its ratings interests, and both men were happy to take what shots were offered them, presenting the other with a fait accompli irrespective of each other's feelings. This particular change appears abrupt and stupid on the network's part, but I'm afraid I don't really see Jay Leno in the role of supervillain. (Conan rose to the occasion and handled his last show with grace, by the way. His parting words were great --gratitude to NBC for what it's done for him for 20 years in spite of the current disagreement, and telling young fans not to be cynical, because he hates cynicism and no one ever gets exactly what they want in life, but if you work hard and are kind, amazing things happen anyway)

I did have a wee bit of a dog in this hunt, however, because my spy in LA has been part of Team CoCo for many years, and I always root for my spies. Here he is at the rap party. With CoCo...and with his good friend Jameson. (And do I detect a wee bit of comic ambition on my friend's part? See -- in Hollywood, one seizes opportunities.)

Guess Which Reporter Was Actually There?

Two stories on the March for Life, from the same MSM conglomerate company, if not the same news organ.
Newsweek:  Who’s Missing at the 'Roe v. Wade' Anniversary Demonstrations? Young Women.

“The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says.
So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home. “Young women are still concerned about these issues, but they’re not trained to go out and protest,” says Kristy Maddux, assistant professor at the University of Maryland, who specializes in historical feminism.

Eh...not so much. Nellie Grey, the founder of the March, is getting older. But adapting to the grandmother of the event out of respect is not the same thing as the movement being all grandmas.  As you would know if you took even a cursory glance at the crowd, Ms. Inquisitive.

WaPo: Young activists adding fuel to anti-abortion side.

The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it's not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous. As always, we in Washington enjoy an up-close view of the health of various causes because of the city's role as the nation's most important setting for political demonstrations. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.
"We are the pro-life generation," said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30.

It's hardly worth refuting the preposterous Newsweek charge, but... here, just look at all the no young women.

 

 

All photos shamelessly pinched from here.

Amazing how being on the scene instead of at your desk can change what you report, isn't it?

Incidentally, just for the external hard drive, it appeared to me the March was bigger this year than last, which I wasn't expecting. It was obvious there would be a strong turn-out last year, in protest against Obama's election, and this year the weather reports insisted there was "100% chance" of precipitation, predicted to be sleet --so I was sure the numbers would be dimmed.

In the event, it didn't precipitate a drop and the sun even shone mildly and the crowd appeared to me to be roughly double last year's --which was itself the largest crowd I'd ever seen for the March for Life. It's a little hard for me to gauge because of the route change this year (since our parish marches from the same spot at the back of the usual route, I judge by how crowded it is where we are), but the crowd was very dense. 

That impression is justified by various unofficial reports --some are saying as many as 400,000 people participated, although the March for Life people are saying 250-300,000 I think. Check this out, for an idea:

Keep in mind the "spectators" watching the March go by are themselves Marchers, waiting for the crowd to pass so they can take up their places at the end of it.

Sincerely, Satan

From ninme's tweets, Satan responds to Pat Robertson, pasted in full.

Dear Pat Robertson,
I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher.

The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake.

Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.

You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

Bigger Than The Beatles

Shamelessly pinched from American Digest

Scott Brown & the Cistercians

Always working the Catholic angle, I am. Scott Brown attends a Protestant Church that has a relationship with a local Cistercian convent.

"We pray for them every day,'' Sister Katie said of Brown and his family.

"When you have nuns praying for you three times a day and you're not Catholic, anything that anybody can do or say about me, it's Teflon,'' Brown said. "It bounces right off.'

How they met is a nice story...click through.

Reading Poetry to the President

If you needed proof that some folks respond to the President as a saviour, not a political figure, get a load of the questions he was asked at an Ohio town hall (which apparently didn't go too well).

A very out-of-rhythm speech was followed by some of the most obscure and unhelpful questions ever uttered at a town-hall meeting. I was left with a bit of sympathy for President Obama, as questioner after questioner asked about their own specific concerns, often way out of the president's duties, responsibilities, and  realm of expertise: One guy was an inventor who wanted to give him a sales pitch, one woman lamented the impatience of the American people before complaining about a slow response from the state environmental agency over her toddler's lead poisoning, one guy wanted to read the president a poem; there was a woman who talked about the problem of finding students for her truck-driving school, an old lady who was upset that her Social Security didn't have a cost-of-living increase, and a guy who had the patent for some wind-turbine issue that he was in a fight with some company about. One poor soul raised his hand and just wanted to shake Obama's hand.

Pius Haaretz

Toldja Pius XII was much-maligned, and here's an article from Haaretz to prove it.

The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him - that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews - with evidence. Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation.

Curtsy: Fr. Z.

McCain/Feingold and the March for Life

We're out marching today, but have to draw attention to the absolutely remarkable Leftist response to yesterday's SCOTUS decision gutting McCain/Feingold --a response which has bearing on the March. See for example the President's statement.

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Say what? What happened to passive deference to SCOTUS? What entitles the President and many Democrats to denounce this Supreme Court decision, but it's somehow verboten to criticize Roe v. Wade, as heavy-handed an exercise in arbitrary judicial ukase as could be conceived?  (And, please to note, much criticism of Roe comes even from pro-aborts, on legal and logical grounds: it's a poorly crafted decision. The President here has nothing to say on legal grounds, he merely dislikes the result.)

I disagree with them emphatically on this issue, but I am glad to see Liberal exercise of the true principle of our government --namely, that the three branches of government are co-equal interpreters of the Constitution, and Congress & the President can and must correct improperly decided SCOTUS decisions. If they don't exercise these checks, we become not self-governing citizens, but subjects, of "The Nine." (Which, ordinarily, is precisely what the Left wants --they see Courts as policy-making entities. Moderates and wimpy Conservatives like this, too, because they love to evade taking stands on divisive issues, and enjoy punting to the Court. "I'm pro-life, but Roe v. Wade is the law of the land....what can you do?")

The President here is wrong on the policy but correct in the exercise of powers --may the Congress and some future pro-life President take note.

Update: in comments, Mr. W. has more on the ruling itself.

McCain-Feingold Eroded

Well! Color me pleased as punch --you can advertise during the actual campaign season again.

Awesome.

WaPo's Chris Cilizza finds an ad to dishearten Dem candidates this year. Heh.

Click to enlarge.

Revising Good News Downward

Instapundit points out that jobless claims are up "unexpectedly" yet again. What I notice is that every economic report that comes out is now revised to a worse number a little later when the full stats are in. This is precisely the opposite of every economic report during the Bush era, in which the actual numbers (hardly noticed) always turned out to be better than originally expected.

Remember posts like these?
A little bit better's the same as worse. (In which the "growth recession" was occurring.)
Depressingly good news. (In which growth was reported as a bad thing.)
No such thing as a good economy.(My formula for economic reportage revealed)

What accounts for the fact that during the Bush administration, conservative estimates made headlines, and the more positive actual numbers didn't, whereas now inflated estimates make headlines, and the later downward revisions are barely touched?

Bueller? Anybody?

P.S. Bless you, C. Blosser, for restoring my search button. Finding stuff makes me happy.

Freedom Measurably Lessened

Did you catch the news yesterday that for the first time in history, the US has dropped out of the list of "economically free" nations?

For the first time since we began measuring economic freedom, the United States fell out of the top tier of free economies into a lower “mostly free” tier, now ranked with countries like Belgium, Botswana and Sweden. The United States came in dead last among the 20 major economies of the world.

Most humiliating? Canada is now more economically free than we are. You can't let your condescending neighbor get the better of you! Explore the data here.

Kerry Aid Gives Bush Love

People have their different explanations for the Scott heard round the world. I've assumed that people were mostly tired of the heavy-handedness of the Dems, so discounted the claim that Brown's numbers started rising after the Knickerbomber incident at Christmas. Now I'm not so sure it didn't play a more important role. See for example this essay, written by a member of John Kerry's legal team for the 2004 election. (In other words, a guy committed to challenging Bush's presidency if the vote was close.)

It should be obvious now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like “hope” and “change.” Bush’s detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

Curtsy: Brutally Honest
It seems the inept handling of the Knickerbomber inspired this re-thinking --ineptness described in disturbing detail by Stephen Hayes. For example, the team created to interrogate the Knickerbombers of this world was not so much as contacted in the recent incident. The guy was just Mirandized on the spot, with no effort to find out about other plots! This was not policy, as our Director of National Intelligence (!) explains:

"I've been a part of the discussions which established this high-value interrogation unit, [HIG] which we started as part of the executive order after the decision to close Guantanamo. That unit was created for exactly this purpose -- to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. We did not invoke the HIG in this case," he said. "We should have."

That's quite an admission. Blair wasn't finished (see the 51:00 mark of this video). "Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh!, we didn't put it then. That's what we will do now. And so we need to make those decisions more carefully. I was not consulted and the decision was made on the scene. It seemed logical to the people there but it should have been taken using this HIG format at a higher level."

When Blair said "Duh," he literally gave himself a slap on the forehead, as if to say I-cannot-believe-we-were-that-stupid. It was an appropriate gesture.  Blair admitted that Abdulmutallab was not interrogated for intelligence purposes because the Obama administration had not considered using the newly-created elite interrogation unit on terrorist in the United States.

Living in DC, a likely Ground Zero which has already come under attack, it's nice to know when the hijacked plane crashes into us, the DNI will slap his forehead.

It gets worse. Read Hayes' entire piece.

Senator Sessions, who did a great job interrogating our FBI director (video here --get a load of Sen. Leahy's utter cluelessness), sent a strongly worded letter to the President (signed by all the GOP senators) and released a statement:

I am deeply disturbed by the stunning revelations from today's oversight hearings in the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. The decision to prosecute Umar Abdulmutallab in civilian court, which required him to be given a Miranda warning and access to a defense lawyer, may have cost us crucial intelligence about current and future plots against our country. Even more alarming, we learned today that these rash decisions were made without consulting key counter-terrorism officials in the administration, including the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair.
In his testimony today, Mr. Blair stated that the administration failed to deploy the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group that was put in place for this very purpose. We learned that the administration had no policy in place to determine whether Abdulmutallab would be treated as a civilian or as an unprivileged belligerent-that, in effect, these decisions were made "on the fly" without any meaningful consideration of the consequences. And we learned from FBI Director Mueller's questioning that responsibility for the decision to switch gears from intelligence collection to criminal processing lies with an unnamed high-ranking official at the Department of Justice.

snip

Director Mueller stated flatly that intelligence gathering stopped when Abdulmutallab was told he had the right to remain silent and to an attorney. By contrast, captured enemy combatants are not provided with these same privileges. While they do have important rights, they are available for interrogation and can be detained as long as the war continues.Intelligence saves lives-but this administration's wrongheaded quest to grant American criminal trials to foreign terrorists puts valuable intelligence out of reach.

Terrorists are at war with us whether we like it or not. Failing to recognize that reality will not serve us any better now than it did before 9/11. It will only increase the danger.

To quote our DNI: /slaps forehead: "Duh."

On A Curve

Shamelessly pinched from here.

Click to enlarge.

Not To Harsh Your Mellow, But...

Great victory tonight, but FYI, in a meeting recently, Arthur Laffer predicted the economy will decline by 6 pts this year. Yikes.

And Just Like That, It's America Again

Scott Brown is the junior senator from Massachusetts. I am totally in love with the Founders again this evening. They gave us a system hostile to Party government such that even when the President & Congress are of the same party, candidates respond to local interests.

Obama. Pelosi & Reid made the fatal mistake of thinking that their ideological agenda could override local interests. That is costing them dearly tonight.

This could not happen in Europe, where parties rule and parties actually unify in the face of pressure. Our Congressional system was designed to mitigate against parties, which the Founders considered factions.

And the President is now 0 for 3 in states he carried handily only a year ago: VA, NJ, MA.

Update:  Mr. W. asks: what does Obama say in SOTU next week? When Clinton lost the mid-term elections, his speech was, "we heard you, the era of big government is over." What can Obama say?

Stewart Crudely 'Splains It All

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In his foul-mouthed way, he has a few new Coakley gaffes, but what's interesting is the end, which is an unwitting tribute to the leadership skills of George Bush --and a heartening reminder that dyed-in-the-wool liberals are as disgusted with the stupidity of their party as dyed-in-the-wool conservatives are with the GOP.

See Mr. W's advice. Curtsy: Ihatethemedia.

Haiti & Solidarity

Fr. Sirico with an excellent piece on his impulse to go to Haiti to help.

What would I actually do when I got off the plane in Haiti? I do not know how to set broken bones. I can’t fix mudslides. I cannot operate on limbs and eyes. Only after all these things were done would I be able to fit into the division of labor to authentically serve people. I am deeply grateful for those who can do these things, and I am inspired that they are there. In fact, aid workers have been emphatic that the last thing Haiti needs right now is a massive influx of people bringing only their good intentions.

Which brings him to a larger point:

The impulse to help, to do anything — largely and understandably based on our emotions — is exactly what confuses our thinking about charity and economics. It is the confusion between sentiment and practicality, between emotion and reason, between piety and technique.

RTWT.

Remember When King Died To Elect Martha Coakley?

Senate Candidate Margaret Coakley makes Joe Biden look like the strong, silent type.

First she sent out campaign lit denouncing tea parties. In Boston.
Then she said Catholics shouldn't work in ERs.
Then she falsely accused her opponent of wishing to bar rape victims from getting treatment (he's suing); but she has a terrible actual case of not helping a child-rape victim in her past. It was a highly controversial case --why oh why would she bring this topic up?
Then she said Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan.
Then she said there were no terrorists in Afghanistan.
Then she said "we've got to get taxes up."
And today she told a room full of black politicians, businessmen and activists

"I'm running for the United States Senate because Dr. King's work is unfinished; his dream is unrealized," she said.
"Tomorrow we act on the dream and we make sure that we allow me to continue that work," Coakley said. "We remember the dream tomorrow and we will act on the dream tomorrow."

Hoo boy.
Update: Jim Geragty has more Coakley gaffes and Brown's excellent, pitch-perfect campaign in The Perfect Storm Hits.

The Speech of An American

King did not pursue his dream at the expense of the American dream; his dream is the American dream. He was calling America to itself. Nice Paul Ryan speech on that topic at the link. See also Ken Thomas' Martin Luther King and the Great Tradition.

Spunky Scott Brown

Lots of good stuff from The Corner about the last-minute campaigning in MA. I enjoyed the Brown camp's response to Bob Kerrey's bizarre accusation that Brown is a creationist:

Scott Brown believes in evolution but in the case of Bob Kerrey he's willing to make an exception.

Nice speech at his rally, too. It's policy specific, classy, positive and he sounds like an American. I note this for example, about Obama campaigning for his opponent.

The voters are doing their own thinking, and the machine politicians don’t quite know how to react.  So they put in a distress call to Washington, and the next thing you know, Air Force One is landing at Logan.
My first response is very simple: Democrat or Republican, the president of the United States is always welcome in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And who talks like this anymore?

I stand before you as the proud candidate of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across Massachusetts, north and south, east and west.
The party machine is in high gear for my opponent.  The establishment is afraid of losing their Senate seat.  You can all remind them that this is not their seat, it is yours.
Should I have the honor of representing our state in Washington, D.C., I will serve no faction but Massachusetts.  I will pursue no agenda but what is right.  I will be nobody’s senator but yours.

No agenda but what is right? What happened to promising everyone some pork the rest of the nation has been secretly stealing from them?

Unknown Tales From Woodstock

John Ratzenberger (Cliff Claven) at a Scott Brown rally:

This isn't the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the party of Woodstock hippies.  I was at Woodstock — I built the stage. And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie."

Global Warming As Plagiarism

So ninme found a report that the whole melting of the Himalayan glaciers thing (the IPCC reported they'd be gone by 2035) is based on....well, read for yourself:

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research.

It appears one guy made it up and everyone else plagiarized him. This is unbelievable. 

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." 

However:

glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise.

So... scientists find this ludicrous, but the UN is committed to it. Yet another reason to dissolve the UN, our international force for fiscal scams, sex-slavery,  the cult of the condom and sheer made-up nonsense.

Update: ninme's got a Haiti round-up, which includes coverage of the UN evacuating its medical team --literally had them walk away from people gasping for breath-- while CNN's Sanjay Gupta tried to pick up the slack. From one of her links:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who led relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said the evacuation of the clinic’s medical staff was unforgivable.“Search and rescue must trump security,” Honoré said. “I’ve never seen anything like this before in my life. They need to man up and get back in there.”Honoré drew parallels between the tragedy in New Orleans, Louisiana, and in Port-au-Prince. But even in the chaos of Katrina, he said, he had never seen medical staff walk away.“I find this astonishing these doctors left,” he said. “People are scared of the poor.”

That's the UN, my friends.

Sitrep Iraq

From the Official Cartoonist of Wheat & Weed's Facebook page:

Sitrep Iraq: It's Sunday. I've taken the day off from abusing vehicles. I am running the Abu Ghraib of maintenance shops over here. I don't fix trucks so much as find ways of humiliating them until they run. Have I hooked jumper cables on terrified 5 Tons? Yes. Have I stacked humvs in a pyramid and pointed to their ...undercarriages... while making a face with a cig hanging out of he side of my mouth...? I won't say.

Solzhenitsyn Was My Father

A lovely interview with Ignat Solzhenitsyn. A taste.

What shines through instead is his profound empathy: for the erotic longing of prisoners, for the guards terrified of landing on the wrong side of the prison bars, for the wives left behind, and especially for those who disagree with the author’s opinions. Solzhenitsyn’s “polyphonic” structure allows each of the 60 significant characters to speak in his or her own voice. One of the most sympathetic portraits drawn is of Lev Rubin, a Jewish communist, who passionately believes in everything that Solzhenitsyn rejected. More striking still is the portrait of Stalin. The author depicts a man haunted by his past, paranoid, isolated and fearful — almost deserving of pity. Professor Edward Ericson, in the introduction, even declares: “Dzhugashvili the onetime seminarian has turned himself into Stalin the ruler, but also the greatest victim of the infernal empire.”
I put it to Ignat that this sympathy for the tyrant is remarkable, considering how his father suffered at the hands of the regime.
“This humaneness is a very much under-appreciated facet of his world view,” he says. “There is this notion that Solzhenitsyn was so intolerant, that everything was black and white for him and, well — bollocks! He rejected flatly those who sought to reduce his art or everything that he was to a political equation. In The Gulag Archipelago he says: ‘The line between good and evil does not go between parties, it does not go between countries. It goes across the heart of each person.’ He understood that we are all capable of becoming a camp guard, or a KGB informant.”

Good News In Vatican-Jewish Relations

Apparently there was some sparring between Benedict and at least one rabbi during the pontiff's visit to the Jewish synagogue in Rome this morning. Absolutely the best news I've read on this topic in years. It's the "too-sensitive for discussion" attitude that prevents any actual meeting of the minds. Here's the Pope's address. I'm pleased to see he defended Pius, even if obliquely. I am tired of that holy man being calumniated.

Saved By Denzel

Mr. W. & I caught The Book of Eli last night: a solid B movie I would describe as a post-apocalyptic Western. Westerns are works of political philosophy, about imposition of the rule of law on lawless territories, and this is a story about the reclaiming of civilization after nuclear holocaust.

Eli is a survivor of the war and protector of the only surviving copy of the King James Bible. A solitary figure with mysterious powers and insight, he is on a mission from God to carry the Bible "West" to where the Almighty has a plan for it.  Clean water is at a premium, food is scarce, and bands of outlaws, ruffians and frontier tyrants lie in his path.

There's not too much more one can say about the plot without spoilers, but I will say that every part is perfectly cast, Gary Oldman is a magnificent villain, Tom Waits is fantastic in a turn as the proprietor of a General Store of sorts, and Denzel Washington has a manly presence that I think no other leading man of our time does --or anyway no one I can think of as I'm writing this. He was a way of filling silences that none of his peers can touch, which makes him fascinating on screen. The movie is race-free. In the many confrontations between Denzel's Eli and marauders, there was ample opportunity for that note to inject itself, but the directors resisted, bless them, which was refreshing, as is a plot which offers a subtle but unmistakable rebuke to our contemporary iconoclasts and Know-Nothings.

The imagining of post-nuclear America is wonderfully observed --pay a lot of attention to what's in the background of each scene if you see it. In sum: a very good, if not great, film, with interesting Christian overtones --very worthwhile if one is not squeamish about the raw language and brutal violence of a lawless world. (Loads of violence, only some gore, however, if that helps.)

Bad Marriages

Stephen Moore notes the new health care regime will encourage cohabitation and tax marriage unduly. ninme noticed this some time ago, but James Kushiner has another angle. He asks:

marriage correlates with....better health. So why penalize it?

An Evangelical Parable

with easy Catholic parallels. Recounted in full from Mere Comments.

* * *

He also told this parable to some who trusted in their intellectual acumen that they were cultured, and treated simple-minded evangelicals with paternalistic scorn: 

“Two persons went up into their respective, preferred religious settings to engage in spiritual exercises, one a female pastor with a Ph.D. in religious studies from Candler School of Theology and the other an RV-salesman from Alabama, a faithful NASCAR fan. The pastor, standing at the podium of a national academic conference on ‘Imaginative Religious Hospitality: Genesis 19 and the Socio-Linguistic Alienation of the GLBT Community,’ pontificated thus:

'Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, we are celebrating the fact that those assembled here have seen beyond the narrow, petty, doctrinaire perspectives of other men, inerrantists, complementarians, anti-Darwinians, and even ‘single-issue’ evangelicals.  We recycle, read The New York Times, engage in inter-faith religious services with local imams, and write letters to the editor about Darfur, AIDS, global poverty, climate change, and healthcare reform.’

But the NASCAR fan, kneeling at the front altar of his local Southern Baptist church, would not look up at Brother Jim who was standing beside him praying, but wept bitterly in his handkerchief, saying,

‘Lord Jesus, I know you died for my sins, and I just ask you to come into my heart and be my personal Lord-n-Savior.  Amen.’ 

I tell you, this NASCAR fan went to the Sunday potluck meal in the fellowship hall justified, rather than the other.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”