Terrance this is stupid stuff

Yes on the Moon Colony

2012-01-30T11:37:00.000-08:00

Jonah Goldberg wrote this in his January 27th The Goldberg File e-mail:

"To the Moon!

"I've got to say, I don't like the way everyone thinks Newt's desire to go back to the moon is proof of his craziness. Now, yes, when the country is drowning in debt, proposing a moon colony is arguably politically crazy (though Floridians on the Space Coast probably don't think so). Indeed, when you have a reputation for saying whacked-out stuff, leading with your lunar ambitions can be confused too easily for lunacy itself ('I see what you did there' -- The Couch).

"But look: I like the idea of space exploration and I see it as one of the few areas where government can and should be involved. No, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of a big white elephant, or Amtrak in space. I think Gingrich is largely right about prizes and the like. When Romney had his line about corporate America having no interest in going to space, he was being deliberately obtuse. Of course 'corporate America' isn't much interested in going to space (though obviously some firms are). That's why you create prizes so you can get corporate America, and Americans generally, interested in going to space.

"I'm a cathedrals-in-space guy. In a previous life, I made a breathtakingly mediocre documentary about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. I learned a lot in the process. One of the enduring takeaways for me was that there are some things society invests in to inspire everyone. The rich can always afford art and inspiration; cathedrals provided art and inspiration for rich and poor alike. In the Middle Ages, cathedral-building represented a space race of a sort. They were built on the highest land around and city-states competed to build the tallest spires in order to get closer to God.

"We are a pioneering people, and I see the effort to, as Reagan said, 'slip the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God' as a worthwhile endeavor for a great nation. I bet the Founders would be more comfortable with the idea of American expansion to the moon than with, say, Medicare. Can you say 'Louisiana Purchase in spa-a-a-a-a-a-ace'?

"If that's all too frilly for you, think of it this way: Lord knows I'm no Keynesian, but if you believe even a fraction of this multiplier stuff or a scintilla about the need to train up a new generation of scientists and engineers, then spending money on space exploration makes a lot more sense than most of the junk in the stimulus. I'm completely pragmatic about how to do it, and heavily biased toward free-market approaches, but I think it's worth doing.

"The mockery of Gingrich over this seems more like a poor reflection on our own national spirit than on Gingrich himself."
[emphasis added]

I remember how inspiring President John F. Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon in a decade was. And the utter thrill in seeing Americans walking on the moon.

It's instructive to remember that JFK said that at a time when the U.S. was in the economic doldrums. That's why Kennedy wanted tax cuts--to spur the economy. What happened that allowed the space race to heat up enough to meet that magnificent goal was that the U.S. economy boomed under President Lyndon Johnson. But, even in leaner times, Kennedy had a vision that inspired Americans.

I agree with Jonah Goldberg that the problem is not with Gingrich's vision, but with the small, cramped spirit of too many American politicians. This is an issue that touches on belief in American exceptionalism and whether the U.S. is just another country or a world leader.

Well said, Jonah!

Does McCain Agree that Chris Christie Made a Rookie Mistake?

2012-01-30T10:19:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Seems like Senator McCain may agree with Governor Palin's assessment that Governor Christie made a rookie mistake in making a Democratic party ad saying Gingrich was an embarrassment to the Republican party.

Drudge Hits One Month Low

2012-01-29T23:54:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's not due to conservatives seeing that Drudge is playing the hit man for the Romney campaign, but his numbers are the lowest they've been in the last month according to Alexa.com.

Thompson: Is Negative Politics the Way to Win a General Election?

2012-01-29T18:24:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Makes me even more glad I donated to the Thompson campaign back in the day.

H/T Jim Hoft

Romney the Type of Man Who Can't Leave the Last Nickel on the Table?

2012-01-29T15:10:00.000-08:00

Professor William Jacobson is rising to the top of conservative commentators with cause. He is among the handful of conservatives effectively speaking out against the Romney campaign's scorched earth policy of destroying other Republicans.

"As reported by Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed (h/t HotAir):
“'It not about winning here anymore,' one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. 'It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.'
"Humiliation, not mere electoral defeat, appears to be the goal. Much as among warring communities in the Middle East and the Balkans, Romney supporters even have sought to deprive Newt of his own history.
. . .
"I’ve been struggling to come up with a good analogy. Perhaps this works. I’ve dealt with many businessmen who just can’t leave the last nickel on the table; they not only have to get a favorable deal, they have to get a deal which humiliates those on the other side of the transaction.

"I don’t know if Mitt Romney was the type of businessman who could not leave the last nickel on the table. But that is the way he is running his campaign.

"And we will all pay the price for it."

Jacobson also quotes Mark Levin, another conservative commentator who has risen to the top because of his courage and ability to tell the truth when other conservatives are flustered are going along to get along. Here's what Levin has to say:

"Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism. Even many years after the success of the Reagan administration, he sought to distance himself from Reagan and the GOP, self-identifying as a progressive and independent. Thus, he resorts to spending multi-millions of dollars trashing his opponents, rather than providing thoughtful arguments on conservatism and constitutionalism. Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him. Romney declined. I have no doubt that Romney would do the same thing to Santorum if Santorum was rising in the polls, albeit on different issues."

Of course, Governor Sarah Palin was the first major Republican politician to speak out against the character assassination carried out by the Republican establishment (and conservative media).

"But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans 'bitterly clinging' to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the 'wisdom' of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all."

Unfortunately, it seems to be true. The Romney campaign has become the face of the Republican party's version of an evil empire--"sad" and "bizarre" in the words of Ronald Reagan.
---
Post edited to reflect the larger meaning of "evil empire".

Chaffetz Shows His Junior High Side

2012-01-28T13:18:00.000-08:00

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

From The Hill:

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) found his own tactics turned against him during a Newt Gingrich event here Friday afternoon.

"Chaffetz, a Mitt Romney supporter, has been turning up at Gingrich events during the past two days, though he denied in a brief interview with The Hill that he was doing so in order to goad the former Speaker. He said he was merely there to 'offer some perspective.'

"But Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond decided it was time to do some goading of his own, as he briefed reporters. Hammond first waved with faux-glee at the Utah congressman and invited him to join the briefing. When Chaffetz ignored him, the spokesman instead marched the press over to where Chaffetz was standing with fellow Romney supporter Bay Buchanan.

"Hammond told Chaffetz that Sen. John McCain, a Romney supporter and former GOP nominee, has expressed distaste for the tactic of having campaign surrogates shadowing an opposing candidate's events. Chaffetz replied, 'I am just here attending.'"

"I am just here attending"? Talk about lame. And following a political candidate to harass is simply junior high. Like shadowing a girl on her dates because she turned you down. Rep. Chaffetz needs some social and political maturity.

UPDATE: Video of Chaffetz at a Gingrich rally. I wonder if Chaffetz is as hot to "shadow" President Obama and encourage Obama's defeat as to shadow a Republican opponent? Don't hold your breath.

UPDATE 2: Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion commenter Weirdave suggests that the Romney campaign's "Occupy Gingrich" is inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Heh.

Drudge Down; Newsmax and Memeorandum Up

2012-01-27T21:51:00.000-08:00

The link to Matt Drudge's site has been removed from my side bar. He is more and more idiosyncratic politically--choosing to bash one primary candidate (Newt Gingrich) and not give equal coverage to the errors of the other leading candidate (Mitt Romney). Unfortunately Matt Drudge's flaws as a news aggregator have come to outweigh his value. Slanted news on the right (or left) is not my cup of tea. A viewpoint is fine, but irrational slashing is not.

Newsmax and Memeorandum have taken Drudge's place among the links in the Resources section. Both Newsmax and Memeorandum are highly recommended. I also have started a subscription to Newsmax magazine.

UPDATE: Drudge followed Romney team lead:

"A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

"The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that 'very little can be done.'”

Palin: We Will Look Back on This Week and Realize Something Changed

2012-01-27T16:44:00.000-08:00

Governor Palin on her facebook page:

"We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

"We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

"I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

"We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, 'The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.' As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

"But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

"I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

"As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?"
[emphasis added]

Sarah Palin is absolutely right. This week the GOP establishment and conservative establishment press and pundits have turned my stomach with their duplicity and lack of concern with the truth. I just posted Byron York’s mild rebuke, and here's another demurral from Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson:

"Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program--as you'll recall if you're of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President's staff should 'let Reagan be Reagan.' If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried--and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt's comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.--WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them--and I'd have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough."

Thank God we have Sarah Palin (who the GOP establishment has tried to destroy) calling GOP and conservative "leaders" out on becoming conservatism's "New Left".

Conservative Media Incompetent and Biased?

2012-01-26T18:07:00.000-08:00

Byron York directs his comment to the Romney campaign, but it is more aptly directed to conservative media and conservative pundits.

Why is a charge proven false still being allowed to stand? Not by the mainstream media but by conservative media?

Conservative media and pundits are looking like their mainstream media counterparts in incompetence and bias. The cloud's silver lining is that they too are no longer the gateway to information. The thousands of points of information on the internet, including original documents, speeches and interviews, have changed the rules of the game.

For me that means being able to find better sources of information than Drudge or NBC and better interviewers and commentators than Ann Coulter or Katie Couric. It also means I can and will fact check National Review as well as the New York Times.

Still it's sad that instead of challenging the mainstream media to higher standards, conservative media has dropped to the mainstream media's incompetence and bias.

Newt on President Obama, Jan Brewer, Raising Capital Gains to 30%

2012-01-25T23:05:00.000-08:00

Wouldn't it be nice to have a happy president again who can laugh? And be able to admit mistakes? All the current candidates except Newt take themselves so seriously.

Nancy Reagan: Torch Passed from Goldwater to Ronnie to Newt

2012-01-25T22:19:00.000-08:00

Nancy Reagan:

"The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive."

Uh, oh! Lots of conservative pundits and establishment types will be scandalized. Though they make take solace in trashing Goldwater's heroic loss along with their speculation about Newt's chances of losing.

The real conservative champions, like William F. Buckley, Jr., backed Goldwater to the hilt and saw in his loss the seeds of later success (as Nancy Reagan does in this clip). But the new conservative wanna-be leaders never think long term or about building conservatism. It's all about the odds of winning an election. They would have been against Goldwater too and even Reagan (as some like George Will were for Bush or Baker on grounds of electability rather than Reagan in 1980).

Total thanks to William Jacobson!

Gingrich Cleared of Ethics Violations

2012-01-24T21:38:00.000-08:00

Byron York covered the case in the 1990's. Here's the conclusion of a long article on what he discovered:

"The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

"Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was 'Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws.' That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, 'Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics'). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that 'only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail.'

"The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.

"Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. 'I consider this a full and complete vindication,' he wrote in a brief statement. 'I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague.'"

SOTU Address and Response Surprises

2012-01-24T21:06:00.000-08:00

1. President Obama threatened less taxpayer funding if tuition goes up. Rightly so since higher education costs have increased significantly (439% since the 1980's). The increase is starkly more even than the increase in healthcare costs (251% since the 1980's).

"And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."

The American Federation of Teachers isn't going to like the threat of cutting federal dollars.

2. The President ended his speech with a double God bless: "Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

3. Governor Mitch Daniels, by contrast, did not invoke God's blessing or directly refer to Him at all. Rather Daniels used the more tepid "city on a hill" reference to link back to Reagan to link back to the Puritans to link back to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:14).

Strange when the Democrats do better at speaking the language of faith than Republicans. Though, perhaps, not a Republican who called for a "truce on the so-called social issues". Maybe to Governor Daniels that means avoiding all things religious as well as moral.

4. Neither man made any sort of clear comment on Obamacare. It's like one of the main political issues has just disappeared. Odd for President Obama because it is his claim to presidential fame. Odd for Governor Daniels because it's the single targeted issue that most Americans agree with Republicans on.

5. Just technically Governor Daniels needed help on his microphone quality. Especially in the beginning one could hear him drawing in deep breaths. Why do Republicans have such difficulties with small technical issues like this? (Remember Sarah Palin's teleprompter difficulties that she masterfully overcame so that no one noticed?) Unfortunately it leaves the hint of a question as to whether people who can't even get the sound quality right really can solve complex issues.

UPDATE: I forgot one big point. What's with Governor Daniels saying that the rich shouldn't get benefits like social security?

“Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can’t, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most."

Maybe he forgot that social security was set up to be retirement insurance not a welfare tax. And, if we're only going to give to those who "need" it most, then payout should not be determined by years in the system or amount paid in, but purely by need. Talk about bankrupting the system. Someone in only 10 months might need a full pension more than someone in 30 years.

11 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan January 15 to January 21, 2012

2012-01-24T18:44:00.000-08:00

January 15 - Died conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
- Cpl. Jon-Luke Bateman, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.
- Lance Cpl. Kenneth E. Cochran, 20, of Wilder, Idaho.

January 18 - Spc. Keith D. Benson, 27, of Brockton, Mass., died in Paktika province, Afghanistan.
- Cpl. Phillip D. McGeath, 25, Glendale, Ariz.., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

January 19 - These Marines died while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
- Capt. Daniel B. Bartle, 27, of Ferndale, Wash.
- Capt. Nathan R. McHone, 29, of Crystal Lake, Ill.
- MSgt. Travis W. Riddick, 40, of Centerville, Iowa.
- Cpl. Jesse W. Stites, 23, of North Beach, Md.
- Cpl. Kevin J. Reinhard, 25, of Colonia, N.J.
- Cpl. Joseph D. Logan, 22, of Willis, Texas.

January 21 - Cpl. Christopher G. Singer, 23, of Temecula, Calif., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Republican Elites Want Smoke-Filled Room Instead of "Democratized" Primaries

2012-01-23T23:00:00.000-08:00

From the truth is stranger than fiction file comes this Real Clear Politics piece on an Andrea Mitchell report:

"'I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, 'Look, if Mitt Romney cannot win in Florida then we're going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we're going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.' Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that's exactly what Gingrich is playing against,' Andrea Mitchell said on NBC tonight after the debate."
[emphasis added]

The process is too democratic for them. They need to make sure they, not the voters, make the selection. You couldn't sell a novel based on this thesis, and here it is in real life. Republican insiders are trying to figure out how to derail the "democratized" primaries and get back to the "smoke-filled room".

Gingrich: A Natural Like FDR and Reagan

2012-01-23T22:13:00.000-08:00

Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, compares Newt's political speech genius with FDR and Reagan using the following video clip as an example.

Did Chris Christie Miss 1999?

2012-01-23T17:31:00.000-08:00

UPDATE 2: Byron York, who covered the Gingrich ethics case as it was developing gives a full blown description here. His conclusion:

"The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

"Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was 'Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws.' That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, 'Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics'). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that 'only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail.'

"The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word.

"Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. 'I consider this a full and complete vindication,' he wrote in a brief statement. 'I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague.'"

UPDATE: Governor Palin is kinder to Governor Christie on this. Says "poor Chris" made a "rookie mistake" of "playing into the media's hands". He got his "panties in a wad" over Romney's South Carolina loss, and "[h]e just produced an ad for the Democrats." Read and enjoy:

"On New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calling Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich an 'an embarrassment' to the Republican Party:

“'I do care to take him to task — poor Chris. This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hands. Here’s a host that asked Chris, ‘Does Newt embarrass the party.’ I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and spewed that about Newt embarrassing the party. Sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy, you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that that’s what Chris Christie did. His response to what the media was asking him was reflective of a lack of self-discipline. I’ve learned my lessons all along the way, too, and not responding, not playing into the media’s hands when they’re trying to get you to say something like is this candidate an embarrassment to your party?'

"On if Christie was tricked into calling Gingrich an 'embarrassment':

“'I think if Chris were asked about some of his past actions, taking a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game, some people may say, well, that sort of embarrassed your party, Chris. And he would then be on the receiving end of a comment that maybe he wished that somebody kept as an inside thought and not blasting that to the rest of the nation. He’s been in office a year or two is all, and he’ll learn that the media goad you. They want you to say things like that in order to boost ratings and make it more of a reality show-type scenario that we’re watching in the GOP primary. And a comment like that just kind of played right on into that narrative.'

"On how Democrats will use Christie’s comment against Gingrich:

“'He just produced an ad for the Democrats. If Newt is the nominee, he just handed them free this negative PR ad that they’re going to incorporate into their negative scenario against somebody who came out there against HillaryCare back in his day, who came out balancing budgets, working with a Democrat governor, who came out cutting taxes and trying to rein in government growth in order to put the country on the right track back then, and has intentions of doing that today.'”

-------

This weekend Governor Chris Christie stated that Speaker Gingrich was an embarrassment to the Republican party because of being "fined $300,000 for ethics violations".

Did Governor Christie miss 1999 (not to mention not do his homework of verifying before asserting)? As CNN reported in February, 1999:

"The Internal Revenue Service Wednesday cleared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of an alleged tax law violation in connection with a controversial college course he taught."
. . .
"Democrats said it was a campaign gimmick and filed ethics complaints accusing him of illegal use of tax-exempt funds for political purposes. A tax expert hired by the House Ethics Committee said the course violated tax laws, and in 1997 Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics panel and failing to seek better legal advice before using tax-exempt money for the course.

"As it turned out, the course was legal after all. The IRS found that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, 'did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich' or Republican organizations."

Assuming Governor Christie was not in a coma during 1999, one is left to infer that Christie is willing to spread half-truths (Gingrich did pay $300,000) which imply falsehoods (Gingrich was guilty of ethics violations) for political benefit. Appalling.

H/T William Jacobson and Carolyn Gargaro

Daniel Henninger: Why Isn't Mitch Daniels Running?

2012-01-21T12:28:00.000-08:00

On the Journal Editorial Report today Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal remarked that the Republicans had their "B" team in the presidential race, and he was perplexed why, for example, Mitch Daniels wasn't running.

Henninger is usually level-headed, but this was boiler-plate. In every presidential election I've voted in except when the incumbent president was running the complaint was the poor candidates to choose from--even in 1980 when Reagan was running.

Further, apparently Henninger didn't listen to Governor Daniels' statement as to why he didn't run. Concerns for his family. Yes. He didn't want to be put through the same wringer Sarah Palin went through. Or that Newt Gingrich is going through. Daniels' wife left him for another man, and then came back. Imagine how that would play out in the press. Imagine the two hour Brian Ross interviews on the subject.

All the people yelling about how Gingrich can't win running against the press (including some on the Journal Editorial Report), apparently don't see what their wide open standards on what is okay for the serious press to do has an impact. The same people who don't refute* poor and biased reporting (like that of Brian Ross) have no clue that it is forcing good, even "A team", people out of the public square. People like Mitch Daniels.
____
*The Wall Street Journal has a fig leaf on this because at least James Taranto in his opinion column pointed out some of Ross's fact problems. But, unfortunately, not the hard news or editorial divisions.

Brian Ross and ABC Fail Journalism 101

2012-01-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

William Jacobson points out basic failings:

"The 'interview' was not so much an interview as an 8-minute ABC News attempt to portray Newt in an unfavorable light interspersed with very short clips of Marianne.

"A prime example was Brian Ross asserting that Newt divorced his first wife while she was 'being treated for cancer.' That account has been disputed, but no note of the dispute was made by Ross."

Further:

"Robert Costa of National Review reported yesterday a news story from 1999 that Marianne was the one who broke the relationship years before the divorce by cleaning out the house of all furniture while Newt was away, and that they were separated for six years before briefly reconciling[.]"
. . .
"Second, Marianne stated that Newt asked for a divorce after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Again, Ross did nothing to challenge the statement even though James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal reported earlier in the day that Marianne’s account was not consistent with an account she gave to the Associated Press in July 2000[.]"

Bill O'Reilly (who knows the turf and often has Bernard Goldberg address MSM journalistic failures) also failed Journalism 101. He interviewed Brian Ross last night without asking Ross about failing to address contrary evidence.

UPDATE: Scott Whitlock of NewsBusters points out that the blockbuster TWO HOUR interview with Marianne Gingrich laughably turned out to yield TWO AND A HALF MINUTES of actual footage in an EIGHT MINUTE report.

"How bereft of new information was the segment? According to reports that broke on Wednesday, Ross sat down with Marianne Gingrich for two hours. In the eight minute segment, ABC only used two and a half minutes of actual footage from that interview. But Ross breathlessly hyped, 'And we begin tonight with a story at the white-hot intersection of presidential politics, private lives and character.'"

Tebow Played With Injuries Saturday; Tebow Starting QB in 2012 Season

2012-01-18T13:18:00.000-08:00

Tim Tebow played after rib, lung and chest injuries received in the 3rd quarter of Saturday's playoff game with the New England Patriots.

“'It’s just the physicality of playing football. Sometimes you get hit and it can hurt a little bit. But, I wanted to play a lot of the game,' Tebow said after the game.

"The outcome had long been decided by the time Tebow got hurt.

“'I just wanted to show character. You just continue to fight and it doesn’t change who you are, how you play, how you go out there, you should be the same at all times,' Tebow said. 'That’s what I wanted to show, it didn’t matter if it was the first play or the last play or you were down by 42. I was going to be the same player and I was still going to give everything I have. Because that’s all I have to give.'”

Tebow noted that running isn't as dangerous as staying in the pocket.

"Tebow ran for 660 yards, most by a quarterback in team history, in the regular season and another 63 in the playoffs, leading to concerns among some that he was exposing himself to injury. But Tebow noted that he actually takes glancing blows, if any, from smaller defenders while on the run, making him less vulnerable than when he stays in the pocket and might get sandwiched by 300-pound linemen."

John Elway said on Monday that Tebow will be the Bronco's starting quarterback in training camp next summer.

Tebow led the Broncos to their first playoff games in six seasons.

Gingrich for President!

2012-01-18T09:56:00.000-08:00

We need a president who can articulate common sense and conservatism like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is head and shoulders above all the other candidates in being able to do this.

We need a president who knows how to balance the federal budget. Gingrich is the only candidate who has been able to do this.

Like the First Dude, I'm going rogue. Gingrich for President!

14 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan July 18, 2011 to January 15, 2012

2012-01-17T11:55:00.000-08:00

July 18 - The Department of Defense announced today the death of a sailor who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom [Afghanistan]. Petty Officer Stacy O. Johnson, 35, of Rolling Fork, Miss., died July 18, while supporting operations in Bahrain. Johnson was a master-at-arms assigned to Naval Security Force Bahrain.

December 31 - Spc. Pernell J. Herrera, 33, of Espanola, N.M., died in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered in a non-combat incident.

January 2 - Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin, 24, of Cottonwood, Calif., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Regelin was assigned as an explosive ordnance disposal technician to Marine Special Operations Company Bravo.

January 5 - Died in Shir ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan, when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
- Senior Airman Bryan R. Bell, 23, of Erie, Pa.
- Tech. Sgt. Matthew S. Schwartz, 34, of Traverse City, Mich.
- Airman 1st Class Matthew R. Seidler, 24, of Westminster, Md.

January 6 - Died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.
- Staff Sgt. Jonathan M. Metzger, 32, of Indianapolis, Ind.
- Spc. Robert J. Tauteris Jr., 44, of Hamlet, Ind.
- Spc. Christopher A. Patterson, 20, of Aurora, Ill.
- Spc. Brian J. Leonhardt, 21, of Merrillville, Ind.

January 8 - Pfc. Dustin P. Napier, 20, of London, Ky., died in Zabul province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from enemy small-arms fire.

January 10 - Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va., died in Parwan province, Afghanistan.

January 11 - Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash., died in Logar province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident.

January 15 - Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin B. Wise, 34, of Little Rock, Ark., died in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, of injuries sustained on Jan. 9 in Balkh province, Afghanistan, when enemy forces attacked his unit with small-arms fire.

Sarah Palin: Conservative "Elder" Statesman

2012-01-12T16:50:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin is acting like a conservative elder statesman at a time when other conservative leaders are throwing brickbats at top conservative candidates. She stands up for and highlights the conservative reasonableness of the candidates when other conservatives are criticizing them.

In contrast, National Review (which managed to take out four conservatives with one swipe), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and lesser conservative lights have bashed one or more of the conservative candidates for one reason or other.

Compare Palin's response to the supposed anti-capitalist statements of Gingrich and Perry against Romney. First, she put them in the context of the harsh attack ads unleashed by Romney supporters against Gingrich in Iowa. Second, she pointed out the reasonableness of asking for proof when past business experience is used to claim ability to spur job creation as president. Third, she pointed out the importance of Republicans vetting the candidates hard enough to prevent an October surprise by the Democrats to swing the election at the last minute (as almost happened to George W. Bush).

Palin also points out strengths of the conservatives. For Perry it's his job creation success in Texas when the rest of the nation is crying for jobs. For Ron Paul it's his fiscal conservatism and realizing that a bankrupt nation cannot be a militarily strong nation nor can the U.S. afford to intervene in other nation's affairs when it can't even fund its own affairs. (This reminds of Senator Rand Paul's statement: “If you ask the American people if we should borrow money from China to give it to another foreign country, they look at you like you have three eyes”.) Palin also has warned against marginalizing Ron Paul and his supporters.

As to Speaker Gingrich's new strategy of attacking Romney, she didn't call it "angry" or "vindictive" as other commentators did. Governor Palin noted that the only way to win an election is to go on offense--especially after having "faced millions and millions of dollars in negative ads being run against them. You know, they kind of bucked up, and they said, 'Well we’re going to take some shots at the front runner who had just taken shots at us', via his superpac."

Governor Palin is showing herself as a defender of conservative values and conservative candidates in a way no other major conservative voice is doing. Having received incoming hits from conservative critics on everything except her political positions, Palin has taken Reagan's 11th commandment (say no evil of a fellow Republican) and is applying it wholesale to conservatives as well as to moderate Republicans (though, like Reagan, a bit more lightly to the latter).

At this point, Palin is the only major conservative figure playing the elder statesman role. She keeps growing into bigger and bigger boots and dwarfing other conservative "leaders". It seems she was right in saying that she could accomplish more by staying out of the presidential race than by running--at least for now.

UPDATE: Palin also stood up for Donald Trump. She's not allowing any conservative (other than conspiracy nuts, racists and the like) to be painted as "crazy" or someone to dismiss without addressing their arguments. Palin stands up for them even when they have conflicting positions and arguments. This is like William F. Buckley, Jr., who held together a broad coalition of conservatives with differing views but a central core.

Palin: Bain Is Fair Game

2012-01-11T15:50:00.000-08:00

Governor Palin says that Governor Romney's time at Bain Capital is "fair game" and brings up important issues like how to get back jobs sent overseas and how to incentivize the private sector to create more jobs.

Transcript from about the 1:25 mark:

GOV. PALIN: "Mitt Romney, though, being the front runner, I think he having recently come under some criticism for some past actions in the private sector that he was involved in in Bain Capital, gives an opportunity for us to talk about some of these issues now, today, in case he is the nominee before some kind of October surprise were to be thrust upon voters."

ERIC BOLLING: "Well, Governor, let’s talk about that for a little bit. We knew the Left was going to come out. We heard David Axelrod trashing Mitt Romney. We heard the White House trashing Mitt Romney for his time at Bain Capital. They claim that he destroyed jobs. But, were you surprised to hear Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman also taking shots at Mitt Romney for the same time at Bain Capital. I mean, after all it is Bain Capital, capitalism, isn’t it?"

GOV. PALIN: "Well, I think having just come out of that Iowa race where these other candidates, especially Newt Gingrich, had faced millions and millions of dollars in negative ads being run against them. You know, they kind of bucked up, and they said, “Well we’re going to take some shots at the front runner who had just taken shots at us”, via his superpac. Though I know that they all distance themselves from these super pacs. But, I think that, you know, that that’s fair game.

"That issue, of course, the Democrats were going to come after him. I think the Democrats wanted to wait for an October surprise to be able to start talking about those efforts at Bain Capital that did result in some jobs being lost or being chased overseas. Now we get to talk though about what it’s going to take to get those manufacturing jobs back here in America. How we can incentivize the private sector to create more jobs for our skilled work force that’s ready and waiting."

H/T Stacy Drake

Political Insight: Sarah Palin vs. the Other Conservative Commentators

2012-01-08T22:01:00.000-08:00

You don't see George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove or the editors of National Review and the Weekly Standard pointing out the reason for the media's strange lack of attack on Governor Mitt Romney. Time will tell whether Governor Sarah Palin is smarter than the other conservative political commentators.

Palin believes the mainstream media is going to hit even harder at Romney's challengers while going easy on Romney himself because the mainstream press (as well as the Obama campaign team) want Romney to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Romney will be a much easier candidate than Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Paul for identification with the 1% vs. the 99%, already a major Obama campaign theme.

Here's what Governor Palin had to say on Judge Jeanine Pirro's show yesterday [about the 6:10 mark; transcript below].

Transcript:

Gov. Palin: "You know what Mitt Romney is going to face, though, in these coming days? He’s going to face from the mainstream media, I don’t really know how to describe this except to say, kind of a hands off approach from the mainstream media, because I believe the mainstream media and Obama want to face Mitt Romney in the general election because they are already gearing up to be able to portray him, accurately or inaccurately, they are going to portray him as being out of touch with the working class. As being so rich and from such a kind of perfectly coiffed family, maybe not facing the hardships that a lot of Americans do face, so hence being a bit out of touch from working class, middle class Americans, and the challenges that we all face. They are going to portray him as that, and I believe that they are going to have a hands off approach to him in the primaries, and really start beating up even heavier on Newt and on Santorum and all the other candidates in order to, I believe, try to bolster Romney’s chances of being the candidate to finally face Obama.

Judge Pirro: "But, isn’t it true, Governor, that most of the surveys that have been done indicate that Mitt Romney would indeed be the strongest Republican candidate against Obama? So, that would kind of go against your theory that they want to run against Mitt. I mean he is certainly, he appeals more to the independents, does he not?

Gov. Palin: "Well, my opinion is that I can see what’s coming and that’s that the media will try to bolster Romney so that they can try to tear him down. And that’s quite unfortunate. And my opinion, though, as we head through these primary states and get finally to the end of the line where we have a candidate is any of the candidates are going to be better than what we have in there today with the failed socialist policies of Barack Obama. Here, you know, thwarting the Constitution, and making appointments not even while the Senate is actually on a recess. While he’s cutting the military at a time when we shouldn’t be seen as an isolationist nation and why we shouldn’t be seen as being disinterested in what is going on in Iran and in Russia and in China. Here all the things that Obama is doing wrong that is still leading to high real unemployment rates, ridiculously high, and mortgages under water. And you know the housing crisis that really isn’t getting any better. Well, all those failed policies of Obama, any of these GOP candidates know better how to defend our Republic and the free market and free men and women who want opportunity to progress."

H/T Ian Lazaran

Tony Blankley, RIP

2012-01-08T19:09:00.000-08:00

I will miss Tony Blankley and his clear-headed, insightful, charitable political commentary. I second Cal Thomas' praise: "He was the kind of writer who made me want to read what he said because I was always interested in what he said."

From the Washington Times tribute:

"Tony Blankley, a noted conservative commentator, Ronald Reagan speechwriter and former editorial page editor of The Washington Times, died late Saturday, leaving a legacy of significant analysis that bridged politics and culture with finesse, optimism and a sense of history.

"He was 63 and had been battling stomach cancer.

"At the time of his death, Mr. Blankley was an executive vice president of the Edelman public relations firm in Washington, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank, a syndicated newspaper columnist and an on-air political commentator for CNN, NBC and NPR.

"He was also a regular weekly guest on 'The McLaughlin Group.'

"From 1990 to 1997, he served as press secretary and general adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ultimately earning a reputation among political friends and foes as one of Washington’s most genial, quick-witted and effective operatives.

"Mr. Gingrich, campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday for the Republican presidential nomination, called his former press secretary a 'very dear friend' and a key part of the team behind the 1994 Contract With America.

"'His father had been the accountant for Winston Churchill. Tony grew up with this deep passionate commitment, that I think he got from his dad, for freedom,' Mr. Gingrich said. 'Tony was a very special person. He was more than a great professional. He was a great human being. He was a caring and loving person. He was a tremendous amount of fun, remarkably erudite and educated.'"

From Tony's last column: Newt's Past and Future Leadership published at Real Clear Politics December 14, 2011:

". . . And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.

"Just who the heck do all these wizard political pros think managed all that? It wasn't us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd. We helped, but Gingrich led. I admit Gingrich's methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled."

Associated Press Again Fails on Basic Reporting (and Misleads the Des Moines Register)

2012-01-04T16:12:00.000-08:00

According to the Des Moines Register (relying on Associated Press reports*), there were no votes cast in Keokuk County for Jon Huntsman or "other" candidates.

However, Keokuk County's Daily Gate City reports that votes cast just at the Republican caucus at Keokuk High School included votes for Sarah Palin and Jon Huntsman:

"Other totals from the Keokuk Republican caucus were: former Pennsylvania congressman Rick Santorum, 46 votes or 14.6 percent; Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 24 votes or 7.6 percent; Minnesota congressman and Iowa native Michele Bachmann, nine votes; former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, five votes; and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, two votes."
. . .

"Mike Foley, a self-described tea party member, asked caucus goers to write in Palin’s name.

“'We’re not looking for (former President Ronald) Reagan, we’re looking for Sarah Pallin (sic),' he said.

"Dr. Eloise Skelton backed Huntsman.

“'He can speak with people on foreign policy, he can work with people of both parties and he is smart,' Skelton said.

"When asked later about Huntsman’s lack of attention to Iowa compared to the other candidates, Skelton said Huntsman probably is trying to get more national exposure for a more serious presidential run in 2016."

The Associated Press couldn't find either Sarah Palin's or Jon Huntsman's votes, though the Daily Gate City was even able to name and interview some of the voters.

That's a mistake of 7 votes caught in just one caucus venue in one Iowa county. And Romney supposedly won the Iowa caucuses by only 8 votes. How many other counties' votes are inaccurate as well?

This, again, shows why 54% of Americans have a reason for not trusting the press. (Though, kudos go to small town reporters like those at the Keokuk Daily Gate City who with real shoe leather reporting embarrass the big guys at Associated Press.)

*The Des Moines Register's county details chart states it was "Designed and developed by Craig Johnson. Election returns as reported by the Associated Press."

H/T Ian Lazaran

Did Santorum Mistakenly Cite C. S. Lewis for Friendship Quotation?

2012-01-04T14:45:00.000-08:00

I think Senator Rick Santorum mistakenly cited C. S. Lewis as the author for the quotation he read on friendship last night. Tony Lee:

“'C.S. Lewis said a friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words,' Santorum said last night, referring to his wife."

That doesn't sound like C. S. Lewis. In fact, Coolnsmart.com attributes it to Bernard Meltzer.

C. S. Lewis did highly value friendship and wrote about it at some length (see his chapter on "Friendship" in The Four Loves). But, Lewis saw friendship much less romantically than the quotation above.

First of all, Lewis saw friendship as group-oriented.

". . . for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship. Aristotle placed it among the virtues. It causes perhaps half of all the happiness in the world, and no Inner Ring can ever have it." ("Inner Ring" in The Weight of Glory)

"In a perfect Friendship this Appreciative Love is, I think, often so great and so firmly based that each member of the circle feels, in his secret heart, humbled before all the rest. Sometimes he wonders what he is doing there among his betters. He is lucky beyond desert to be in such company. Especially when the whole group is together, each bringing out all that is best, wisest, or funniest in all the others." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

Second, C. S. Lewis saw friendship as based on common interests and commitments rather than the more emotional figure of seeing into another person's heart.

"Friendship, I have said, is born at the moment when one man says to another, 'What! You too? I thought that no one but myself . . .'" ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

"In [friendship], as Emerson said, Do you love me? means Do you see the same truth?--Or at least, "Do you care about the same truth?" The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

This is the closest I can find to Lewis linking "heart" and "friend".

"For we all wish to be judged by our peers, by the men 'after our own heart'. Only they really know our mind and only they judge it by standards we fully acknowledge. Theirs is the praise we really covet and the blame we really dread." ("Friendship" in The Four Loves)

But this isn't about seeing into another person's heart, but about sharing his values.

There isn't a lyrical passage like this in any of Lewis' letters to his life-long best friend, Arthur Greaves. (See They Stand Together)

Even in Lewis' most emotional book, A Grief Observed, on the loss of his wife, he does not write romantically about what lovers see in one another.

"Does H. now see exactly how much froth or tinsel there was in what she called, and I call, my love? So be it. Look your hardest, dear. I wouldn't hide if I could. We didn't idealize each other. We tried to keep no secrets. You knew most of the rotten places in me already. If you now see anything worse, I can take it. So can you. Rebuke, explain, mock, forgive. For this is one of the miracles of love; it gives--to both, but perhaps especially to the woman--a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted." (Chapter 4, A Grief Observed)

Singing the song back to you when you have forgotten the words is a lyrical way to say "encourage someone in tough times", but it was not C. S. Lewis' way. Senator Santorum might need someone to vet the quotations in his speeches.

Go Santorum!

2012-01-02T11:24:00.000-08:00

I hope Rick Santorum does well, even comes in first, in Iowa. Not because I have decided that he is the best presidential candidate (even though he is in my top three).

It's because I want to see Dan Savage's sicko conspiracy buried. Savage plotted to make Santorum's last name bring up a filthy concept in Google searches. The Santorum presidential surge means that lots of people google his name to find out political and personal information, and those searches are eclipsing Savage's despicable plan.

So, do a few google searches on Santorum and click on the political and personal information links.

The sweet thing is that Savage's comeuppance didn't have to be orchestrated. Googling his last name already brings up a good description of his character.

H/T Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion

Idaho Beats Oregon, California, Washington on Charitable Giving

2011-12-31T16:37:00.000-08:00

Idahoans average over $1,000 more per year in charitable giving than Oregonians. In terms of percent of income donated to charity West Coast states rate (average amount charitable donation is in brackets):

6. Idaho (1.58%) [$4,483]
22. Oregon (1.33%) [$3,368]
27. California (1.25%) [$3,929]
32. Washington (1.21%) [$3,896]

More Oregonians (31%) gave something to charity, with Californians at 29.6%, Washingtonians at 27.5%, and 25.9% of Idahoans contributing to charity.

Most generous states:

1. Utah (3.09%) [$7,142]
2. Georgia (1.85%) [$4,605]
3. Alabama (1.76%) [$5,349]
4. Maryland (1.67%) [$4,073]
5. South Carolina (1.66%) [$4,621]

Least generous states:

52. Maine (0.80%) [$2,702]
51. North Dakota (0.82%) [$4,584]
49. Vermont (0.86%) [$3,094]
49. New Hampshire (0.86%) [$2,727]
47. West Virginia (0.90%) [$5,053]

In terms of the percentage of the population who gave to charity, Maryland ranked first with 40.8% and West Virginia ranked last with 13.1%.

H/T Byron York

Republicans and Democrats Agree: Virginia Primary System Needs Help

2011-12-31T15:27:00.000-08:00

United Press International reports that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is preparing emergency legislation to allow adding more candidates to Virginia's primary ballot.

"Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said he is intervening in the GOP primary process because only two candidates, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, were able to secure the 10,000 signatures -- with a minimum of 400 from each congressional district -- to gain access to the March 6 primary, Fox News reported Saturday.

"'Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,' Cuccinelli said in a statement Saturday. 'Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.'"
. . .
"Two former Democratic attorneys general, a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman have expressed support for Cuccinelli's action, Fox News said."

Apparently only Governor Bob McConnell is less certain.

"Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Gov. Bob McDonnell, said: 'Virginia's laws regarding ballot access are well known and have been in place for many years. All candidates seeking to be listed on the Virginia primary ballot in a statewide race have known the requirements well in advance. ... It is unfortunate that this year, for whatever reasons, some Republican candidates did not even attempt to make the Virginia ballot, while others fell short of submitting the required number of valid signatures.'

"'That leaves Virginia voters with only two Republican choices in the March primary, and the governor certainly would have preferred a broader field. He is always open to reviewing how Virginia's primary system can be improved to provide voters with more choices.'"

5 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan December 21 to December 27, 2011

2011-12-29T13:48:00.000-08:00

December 21 - Spc. Mikayla A. Bragg, 21, of Longview, Wash., died in Khowst province, Afghanistan. She was assigned to the 201st Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Knox, Ky.

December 25 - Staff Sgt. Joseph J. Altmann, 27, of Marshfield, Wis., died in Kunar province Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

December 27 - Died in Paktia, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device.
- Sgt. Noah M. Korte, 29, of Lake Elsinore, Calif.,
- Spc. Kurt W. Kern, 24, of McAllen, Texas, and
- Pfc. Justin M. Whitmire, 20, of Easley, S.C.
They were assigned to the 720th Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas.

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-24T20:22:00.000-08:00

Dedicated to my brother, C. G.:

2011 Newspaper Job Losses 30% More Than In 2010

2011-12-20T11:50:00.000-08:00

Alan D. Mutter reports:

"The number of jobs eliminated in the newspaper industry rose by nearly 30% in 2011 from the prior year, according to the blog that has been tracking the human toll on the industry for the last five years."

This is in line with the percentage of newspaper jobs lost since 1989.

"Nearly 1 in 3 newsroom jobs have been eliminated since the number of journalists peaked at 56,900 in 1989, according to an annual survey by the American Society of News Editors. At the end of 2010, only 41,600 scribes were left on the industry’s payrolls.

"If only a fifth of the cuts identified by Smith in 2011 were in newsrooms, then barely 41,000 journalists will be left at America’s newspapers at year’s end. With the ASNE reporting that 52,600 journalists were on the job in 2007, then the projected newsroom headcount at the end of this year would be 22% lower than it was in 2007.

"In other words, the decline in newsroom employment has been twice as great since 2007 as the 11% drop in over-all industry employment. "

Mutter gets his 2011 numbers from the newspaperlayoffs.com which is running this newspaper job loss map (information on Oregonian clicked).

5 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan December 10 to December 14, 2011

2011-12-19T16:05:00.000-08:00

December 10 - Lance Cpl. Christopher P. J. Levy, 21, of Ramseur, N.C., died Dec. 10 of wounds sustained Dec. 7 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

December 11 - They died in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device.
- Sgt. Christopher L. Muniz, 24, of New Cuyama, Calif., and
- Spc. Ronald H. Wildrick Jr., 30, of Blairstown, N.J.

December 13 - Pvt. Jalfred D. Vaquerano, 20, of Apopka, Fla., died in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries suffered from enemy small-arms fire while deployed in Logar province, Afghanistan.

December 14 - Maj. Samuel M. Griffith, 36, of Virginia Beach, Va., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Mark Steyn's Death Blossom

2011-12-19T15:44:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn is a brilliant writer and analyst, but when he reaches his limits he can become a Death Blossom.

I get that he doesn't like Newt Gingrich and thinks Newt sums up the problems of the other candidates.

"Unlike the niche candidates, he offers all the faults of his predecessors rolled into one: Like Michele Bachmann, his staffers quit; like Herman Cain, he spent the latter decades of the last century making anonymous women uncomfortable, mainly through being married to them; like Mitt Romney, he was a flip-flopper, being in favor of government mandates on health care before he was against them, and in favor of big-government climate-change “solutions” before he was against them . . . ."

There are many passages of Steynian brilliant insight in this article. He got me yelling "uncle" a number of times. And there are some great asides.

"A year ago, we were still talking about Palin and Daniels and Christie and Jindal and Ryan, an embarrassment of riches."

Yes! He even starts the list with my favorite person who brings "riches" to Republicans: Sarah Palin.

But too often Death Blossom has its way in this piece.

1. On presidential ex-wives:

"On the eve of Iowa it seems the Republican base’s dream candidate is a Clinton-era retread who proclaims himself a third Roosevelt, with Taft’s waistline and twice as many ex-wives as the first 44 presidents combined; a lead zeppelin with more baggage than the Hindenburg; a self-help guru crossed with a K Street lobbyist, which means he’s helped himself on a scale few of us could dream of. For this the Tea Party spent three years organizing and agitating?"

Mark, remembering that Ronald Reagan was the first (and so far only) president with an ex-wife, frames the line "twice as many ex-wives". All the other presidents, except Reagan, had zero ex-wives. So, is having one (or two) ex-wives an impediment to being a good president?

Death Blossom hits Reagan.

2. On voters vs. consultants, money and endorsements.

"'Teacher of the rules of civilization.' I’m not sure I’m quite ready to acknowledge Newt as the 'definer of civilization,' but he is certainly the teacher of the new rules of primary season. Consultants, money, endorsements are for schlubs."

With campaign consultants like Steve "my 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate voted for Obama in 2008" Schmidt, Nicolle "we talked about replacing Sarah Palin as vice-president if she was elected" Wallace and Ed "I trash my candidates" Rollins, Republican consultants may not be what they are cracked up to be.

Money is helpful, but not necessary (e.g., Huckabee win in Iowa in 2008). I think many conservatives are leery of mega money whether it comes from big unions or big business. That's why cronyism is an issue in this campaign. Can you say Solyndra?

Endorsements at the presidential level are mostly worthless. Sarah Palin (about the 2:10 mark) is right about this. Endorsements mainly put the endorser in the list of possible political appointees or receivers of presidential largesse.

Death Blossom hits the good sense that real political power comes (or should come) from the voters.

3. On Gingrich/Churchill comparisons:

"Warned against his tendency to self-glorification, Gingrich reacted to his amazing revival by modestly comparing himself to Reagan, Thatcher, and the founders of Walmart and McDonald’s. He left it to Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, to produce a comparison more appropriate to a statesman-historian of his stature: Winston Churchill."

Unfortunately, Mark didn't read the recent piece comparing Newt to Churchill by Steven F. Hayward a National Review contributor and expert on Reagan and Churchill.

Death Blossom hits Steven Hayward.

4. On conservatives serving as consultants to governmental entities.

"At Freddie Mac, Newt was peddling influence to a quasi-governmental entity. At Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was risking private equity in private business enterprise. What sort of 'conservative' would conflate the two?"

I thought the conservative position included farming out to private enterprise all governmental tasks possible. I thought we liked private enterprise bidding on projects rather than instituting an ongoing bureaucracy to care for them. And if consultants are to be hired, no conservatives should ever be consulted? Kind of rules out non-elected conservative influence in government, doesn't it?

Death Blossom hits conservative participation as contractors or consultants for government and quasi-government entities. Not a great idea to leave all the consulting and government contracts to the left end of the spectrum.

5. On zany, sci-fi type ideas.

Mark uses Mitt Romney's comment to mock Gingrich (though, to be fair, Mark bludgeons both Gingrich and Romney in this section).

"Asked where his policies differed from Gingrich’s, Romney cut to the chase: 'We could start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon.'”

This reminds me of all the criticism directed at Reagan for proposing his "crazy" Star Wars defense scheme. That non-functional Star Wars program ended up being a key element in ending the Cold War peacefully.

Death Blossom scores another hit on Reagan.

6. On writing political books, serving in government and staying in political power even when out of office.

"Perhaps the single most repellent feature of the political class that has served America so disastrously in recent decades is its shameless venality in parlaying 'public service' into a guarantee of an eternal snout at the trough. Newt writes bestselling books about government, produces DVDs about government, sets up websites about government, but he is as foreign to genuine private-sector wealth creation as any life politician. Indeed, his endurance in Washington represents one of the worst aspects of contemporary 'public service' — that a life in politics no longer depends on anything so whimsical as the votes of the people."

Someone else writes bestselling books about government, politics and political campaigns, has been the subject of a DVD about government in Alaska, and has been in politics (either elective office or working for quasi-governmental agencies) since 1992 and "no longer depends on anything so whimsical as the votes of the people."

Death Blossom hits Sarah Palin.

There is much important in this article. Newt Gingrich does have real problems. All the candidates do. That's why people express disgust with the choices at every presidential election--or at least have for all the elections in my political life time.

I love you, Mark! But, take a deep breath next time before firing the rockets. Death Blossom is not the way to underline the dilemmas.

Though one does have to admit that in being directed at everyone and everything, Death Blossom is more honest than those who criticize other candidates but shield their own preferred candidate(s). And miles above those who were cheerleading the wonders of Obama not so long ago (David Brooks, George Will, Peggy Noonan) and small ballers (like Kathleen Parker) who still are.

National Review's Self-Defeating Poll

2011-12-19T12:08:00.000-08:00

National Review ran this poll on Saturday.

If Paul supporters are spamming National Review Online polls, they aren't particularly effective.

It puts in doubt the good judgment of NRO as well as those who voted "yes".

For the record, I voted "no". :-)

Daffy National Review: We Don't Like the Candidates 52% of Republicans Like

2011-12-15T17:36:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Can Andrew McCarthy save National Review's brand? As an admirer of Bill Buckley, I hope so. McCarthy's conclusion:

"There is no avoiding the fact that we live in a practical, tactical world. Personality has its place and electability matters. But National Review has endured as a beacon of our movement for over a half-century because the power of conservative ideas can trump personality and dramatically alter voters’ notions about who is electable. If we lose that conviction — if we convince ourselves that conservative candidates, effectively arguing conservative ideas, cannot persuade a center-right country to reject the most radical Leftist ever to occupy the Oval Office — we are nowhere."

Read the whole column. He's on target with every single argument.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

for original NR cover see below

National Review only likes three presidential candidates, and one of them is NOT Newt Gingrich. Publishing at National Review Online, the editors assert:

"We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity [to win the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress]. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. Very few people with a personal history like his — two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses — have ever tried running for president."

Even worse, as their cover proclaims (see below), Newt is, well, somewhat looney. My take (expressed in the Photoshopped cover to the left) is that National Review editors are the ones with reality problems. Actually, National Review editors are not even up to the Marvin the Martian bar. At least Marvin knew whose side he was fighting on.

National Review editors seem to think that arguing against four top tier Republican candidates, all of whom have garnered good numbers in the polls at one time or another, none of whose main positions are not conservative (except Ron Paul on foreign policy), is a winning strategy. Maybe. Sure goes against Reagan's 11th commandment.

Not to worry, it's only a horrible strategy if one of the bashed gets the nomination. Additionally, in one fell swoop National Review has alienated the supporters of Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Paul (adding up to 52% of Republican or Republican-leaning voters in the latest Gallup Poll). Even worse, the candidates they choose win a meager 28%.

It's one thing to boost a preferred candidate. It's quite another to tear down other candidates--especially those who garner over half the voting preference and buy in to the "conservative consensus". Would you take advice on any important issue from people who think it smart to alienate 52% of their base while appealing to only 28%? Especially since, as they argue, there isn't much difference in the candidates' conservative bona fides.

"A hard-fought presidential primary campaign is obscuring the uncharacteristic degree of unity within the Republican party. It has reached a conservative consensus on most of the pressing issues of the day. All of the leading candidates, and almost all of the lagging ones, support the right to life. All of them favor the repeal of Obamacare. Most of them support reforms to restrain the growth of entitlement spending. All of them favor reducing the corporate tax rate to levels that will make the U.S. a competitive location for investment. Almost all of them seem to understand the dangers of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and of a defense policy driven by the need to protect social spending rather than the national interest. Conservatives may disagree among themselves about which candidate most deserves support, but all of us should take heart in this development — and none of us should exaggerate the programmatic differences within the field.

National Review even takes mild swipes at the three they like. Huntsman and Romney have trouble with voters, and Santorum has no executive experience.

"Three other candidates deserve serious consideration. Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience."

There's nothing to like about this editorial no matter who you are for. No man-the-barricades call to action. No bold colors. Only pastels and sniping. Looney Tunes? Well, maybe Daffy rather than Marvin.

original cover

Are Rep. Paul and Bachmann the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

2011-12-13T21:54:00.000-08:00

Both Rep. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are criticizing Newt Gingrich for accepting a paid position with Freddie Mac.

“'Freddie Mac [was] bailed out by the taxpayers,' Paul continued. 'So in a way, Newt, I think you probably got some of our taxpayers’ money.'

"Paul isn’t simply spreading that meme in debates. He’s also pushing the message in two attack videos his campaign has released online — both of which have scored links on the Drudge Report. The two versions of the first video — one is ad-length, the other longer — have together been viewed over 1 million times. On an appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, Paul commented that he wouldn’t 'have taken their money just for the fact that I think it’s an immoral thing.'

"Bachmann, too, has harshly criticized Gingrich for 'shilling' for Freddie Mac. 'Whether former speaker Gingrich made $300,000 or whether he made $2 million, the point is that he took money to influence senior Republicans to be favorable toward Fannie and Freddie,' Bachmann said in November."

The interesting thing is that both Paul and Bachmann are currently on the public payroll, and are campaigning for president rather than doing what one assumes is a fairly full-time job of being a congressional representative.

The point was brought home to me when I was looking up Congressional votes. Here's a link to a roll call vote today. Scroll to the bottom and see whose names are listed as among the 6 (of 433) not voting. Both Rep. Paul and Bachmann are in the 1% of U. S. Representatives who didn't vote on a bill "To provide incentives for the creation of jobs, and for other purposes". Perhaps that's a 1% we can all be against.

Apparently, it's okay with Paul and Bachmann to take public funds for their quite well paid jobs though they aren't even showing up to vote let alone conduct the other public business a U.S. Representative is asked to do like oversight of government operations via committee assignments.

Not that this is unusual political behavior, but for Paul and Bachmann to call out Gingrich for receiving a publicly funded salary from a mismanaged federal entity all the while not showing up at their own publicly funded work place is at the least like the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe worse, if Gingrich actually did his job well.

Another "Not the Sharpest Knife" Anonymous Source Against Gringrich

2011-12-12T12:42:00.000-08:00

Human Events is running a lame anti-Gingrich story based on information of an anonymous "former House GOP leadership staffer".

1. Apparently because Gingrich didn't ask the Senate to stay in session in October 1998 while the House still had to vote on the 1999 budget, five Republican candidates (four of them were at the time serving in the House) lost Senate races.

“'When the House finally voted on the budget October 20, it was too late for any of them,' [the anonymous staffer] said.

"When the November 3 election votes were tallied, the GOP lost five seats in the House and gained no new seats in the Senate, he said."

Remember the brouhaha over the supposed cost of the House taking an hour and a half to read the Constitution?

“'When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on.'"

Apparently this anonymous staffer believes it is a good use of taxpayer funds to keep the Senate in session three weeks or so without any work to do (how would that have played in the headlines?) to keep five Democrats from campaigning as effectively as when not in session. Maybe the anonymous staffer does not know that even when Congress is in session individuals can be out campaigning. Most of the last six months while Congress was in session, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep Ron Paul have been out campaigning. This anonymous staffer gives us a twofer. No political or monetary sense.

2. Apparently Gingrich convinced this staffer that Republicans would gain 30 seats in 1998 instead of losing 5.

“'What was even more galling to the members was the way Gingrich and Linder had everyone convinced we were headed for a 30-seat gain,' said the former staffer, who is not affiliated with a presidential campaign."

Political leaders are supposed to be overly optimistic. They're supposed to say they will win even though it looks like they will lose. But, staffers are supposed to be hard-headed and doing real research. But somehow the anonymous staffer was credulous enough to believe that though there were no (none, zero) seat gains in the 1996 elections, there would be a blow out of a 30 seat gain in 1998 as a delayed follow up to the 63 seat gain in 1994.

3. The 1999 budget was a "disaster".

“'It also didn’t help that the budget that passed was a disaster. It had no tax cut and Clinton got everything he wanted,' the former staffer said. 'Limbaugh was killing us and calling the budget a sellout, so conservatives stayed home.'”

One of only four balanced federal budgets in modern history (1998-2001) was a disaster? If a balanced budget is a disaster, what does that make all the budgets passed before and since? Cataclysms? Utter ruinations? Armageddons?

4. Then there are the small ball gripes. Newt wanted to "be driven in [an] American-made car".

“'Even when he campaigned for candidates it was a crazy production,' he said. 'He had a 13-page rider with requirements like: Must be driven in American-made car, must have steak for lunch and must have a treadmill in hotel room.'”

Talk about crazy. Why would any candidate want to boost American-made products? Or someone trying to keep in shape ask for a treadmill in his hotel room? Or, having to eat the junk food that is part of campaigning, ask for certain food to be provided at least at lunch?

No wonder the staffer wants to remain anonymous. Who would want to be identified as the professional pol who said this stuff? It doesn't say much for Human Events that they are publishing such drivel.

H/T Byron York

4 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan November 21 to December 3, 2011

2011-12-12T10:28:00.000-08:00

December 3 - Sgt. Ryan D. Sharp, 28, of Idaho Falls, Idaho, died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered Nov. 21 at Kandahar province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

Died in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device.
- Sgt. 1st Class Clark A. Corley Jr., 35, of Oxnard, Calif.,
- Spc. Ryan M. Lumley, 21, of Lakeland, Fla., and
- Spc. Thomas J. Mayberry, 21, of Springville, Calif.

Pearl Harbor and FDR

2011-12-07T16:14:00.000-08:00

photo from Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library

December 7, 1941, is a day that will live in infamy, and a large part of its living on in the American memory is due to the spectacular war time leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Though my parents changed early on from Democrat to conservative Republican, they still revere Franklin Roosevelt. Not for his domestic policies but for his ability to galvanize and lead the country in time of war.

My dad served in the Pacific theater in World War II. America lost over 400,000 men with another 600,000 wounded in World War II. My mom, on the home front, suffered not only the anxiety of her young husband going off to war but a stiff rationing program endured by the entire nation for more than four years.

Yet from December 7, 1941, to his death on April 12, 1945, President Roosevelt rallied the country to overcome economic and military obstacles in pursuit not only of military victory, but an "unconditional surrender" victory in a two front war in which military service was not for a fixed time period but for the duration plus six months.

The nation also peacefully accepted the "relocation" of nearly 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese to internment camps by executive order--with no civil or political rebellion. Though this proved an unnecessary precaution, it is a token of Roosevelt's ability to unite the nation to all out war at whatever cost.

The national unity and resolve that Roosevelt inspired is breathtaking in light of the civil and political opposition against every significant U.S. war since World War II, especially the war in Vietnam. This despite the fact that none of the succeeding wars have incurred anywhere near the losses in terms of military casualties and home front sacrifices of World War II.

Franklin Roosevelt, like Winston Churchill, was an extraordinary war time leader. Churchill gave the British spine to resist and fight when their homeland was daily under attack. Roosevelt gave Americans a resolve to fight, sacrifice and die in the hundreds of thousands even when their homeland was not under attack after Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor, a surprise attack American loss matched only by 9/11, stands as a monument to the greatness of the American people to turn an unprovoked attack into a complete military victory in African, European and Pacific theaters of war and as a monument to the outstanding war time leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

2 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan November 21 to November 30, 2011

2011-12-05T10:59:00.000-08:00

November 21 - Sgt. 1st Class Dennis R. Murray, 38, of Red Broiling Springs, Tenn., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

November 30 - Staff Sgt. Vincent J. Bell, 28, of Detroit, Mich., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Yuval Levin on Constitutional/Conservative vs. Progressive Liberalism

2011-12-03T12:26:00.000-08:00

Yuval Levin at National Review:

"As the framers saw it, both populist and technocratic politics were expressions of a modern hubris about the capacity of human beings--be it of the experts or of the people as a whole--to make just the right governing decisions. The Constitution is built upon a profound skepticism about the ability of any political arrangement to overcome the limitations of human reason and human nature, and so establishes a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus."
. . .
"In the view of the framers, there is no omniscience; there is only imperfect humanity. We therefore need checks on all of our various excesses, and a system that forces us to think through important decisions as best we can. This may well be the essential insight of our constitutional system: Since there is no perfection in human affairs, any system of government has to account for the permanent imperfections of the people who are both governing and governed, and this is best achieved through constitutional forms that compel self-restraint and enable self-correction.

"This emphasis on moderating forms--that is, the focus on arrangements that impose structure and restraint on political life--is crucial, and it has always been controversial. Indeed, it is what troubled the progressives most of all about our system, and what troubled many other technocrats and populists before them. But as Alexis de Tocqueville noted a century before the New Deal, “this objection which the men of democracies make to forms is the very thing which renders forms so useful to freedom; for their chief merit is to serve as a barrier between the strong and the weak.” And he added, with his usual prescience, “Forms become more necessary in proportion as the government becomes more active and more powerful.” In other words, we need them now more than ever."
[emphasis added]
. . .
"The difference between these two kinds of liberalism--constitutionalism grounded in humility about human nature and progressivism grounded in utopian expectations--is a crucial fault line of our politics, and has divided the friends of liberty since at least the French Revolution. It speaks to two kinds of views about just what liberal politics is.

"One view, which has always been the less common one, holds that liberal institutions were the product of countless generations of political and cultural evolution in the West, which by the time of the Enlightenment, and especially in Britain, had begun to arrive at political forms that pointed toward some timeless principles in which our common life must be grounded, that accounted for the complexities of society, and that allowed for a workable balance between freedom and effective government given the constraints of human nature. Liberalism, in this view, involves the preservation and gradual improvement of those forms because they allow us both to grasp the proper principles of politics and to govern ourselves well.

"The other, and more common, view argues that liberal institutions were the result of a discovery of new political principles in the Enlightenment--principles that pointed toward new ideals and institutions, and toward an ideal society. Liberalism, in this view, is the pursuit of that ideal society. Thus one view understands liberalism as an accomplishment to be preserved and enhanced, while another sees it as a discovery that points beyond the existing arrangements of society. One holds that the prudent forms of liberal institutions are what matter most, while the other holds that the utopian goals of liberal politics are paramount. One is conservative while the other is progressive."

H/T Andrew C. McCarthy

PEW: Americans the Mirror Image of Europeans on Freedom/Nanny State

2011-12-02T14:04:00.000-08:00

From the PEW Research Center:

"American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

"Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view."

There's a lot interesting in this PEW study not only on state matters but on cultural superiority, religion and morality. The chart on Morality and Belief in God reminds me of Mark Steyn's discussion of Nietzsche in After America:

“We know [Nietzsche] called the twentieth century right ["as an age of ‘wars such as have never happened on earth.’"]. So what did he have to say about the twenty-first? He foresaw a time even worse than the ‘wars such as have never happened,’ wars that were after all still fought according to the remnants, the ‘mere pittance’ of the late God’s moral codes. But after that, what? The next century–-our century–-would see ‘the total eclipse of all values.’ Man would attempt a ‘re-evalutaion,’ as the West surely did through multiculturalisms, sexual liberation, eco-fetishization, and various other fancies. But you cannot have an effective moral code, Nietsche pointed out, without a God who says ‘Thou shalt not.’” (pp. 321-322)

PEW: 38% of Americans Think Global Warming Is Human Caused

2011-12-01T16:03:00.000-08:00

A November, 2011, PEW Research Center poll finds that only 38% of Americans think that global warming is human caused. That's the exact same percentage who think global warming is a "very serious" problem.

Corporal Adam J. Buyes of Salem Killed in Afghanistan

2011-11-29T15:45:00.000-08:00

Cpl. Adam J. Buyes

Cpl. Adam J. Buyes, 21, of Salem, Ore., died Nov. 26 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. This incident is under investigation.

Stars and Stripes reports:

"The 21-year-old joined the Marines Corps in January 2009 after graduating from McKay High School in Salem the year before. Buyes’ brother Joshua is also a Marine, The Oregonian newspaper reported.

"'He cared for his Marines as if they were brothers from the beginning,' said 1st Sgt. Daniel J. Wilson, the battalion first sergeant, in a statement released Tuesday by the Marines on Okinawa Tuesday. 'Cpl. Buyes was just one of those Marines that made being in Okinawa, Japan, or deployed to Afghanistan better and more enjoyable for everyone.'

"A high-school athlete, Buyes 'had high morals, a great work ethic,' his high school football coach Jay Minyard told The Oregonian. 'His peers loved him; his teachers loved him.'

"A memorial service will be held Dec. 4 at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan, Marine officials said."

According to the Oregonian, Cpl. Buyes is the 31st Oregonian to die in Afghanistan. Full list of Oregon and Southwest Washington servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan before Buyes is here.

[Photo is from the Statesman Journal (Salem).]

Andrew McCarthy: Republicans Subsidize Mansions

2011-11-26T17:11:00.000-08:00

Andrew McCarthy in National Review:

"Almost two weeks ago, when they figured no one was watching, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, by an overwhelming 292–121 margin, voted to increase funding for the Federal Housing Administration. Just as government debt hit $15 trillion, edging closer to 100 percent of GDP, these self-proclaimed scourges of spending decided Uncle Sam should continue subsidizing mini-mansion mortgage loans — up to nearly three-quarters of a million dollars."
. . .
"Not housing for the poor, mind you, nor even for the middle-class — luxury homes. The real-estate market is so depressed at the moment that the median sale price of a single-family home is less than $170,000. Even in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, the Wall Street Journal reports, it has plunged to less than $325,000. Yet the Republican House — installed by the Tea Party in a sea-change election to be the antidote to Obamanomics — decided the taxpayers should guarantee FHA loans up to $729,750. Had they not acted, the public obligation would have been reduced to “only” $625,500 per FHA loan — couldn’t have that, right?"
. . .
"If Republicans really thought the growth of government was unsustainable, they’d stop growing it. As it is, the truly profound difference on “a vision of government” is between those who believe that government “growth” is unsustainable versus those who realize that government is unsustainable as is — those who grasp that throwing untold billions at Baby Boomer palaces is not compassion; it is the grandest of larceny, robbing our children and grandchildren of the chance for prosperity our forebears laid down their lives to preserve for us.

"It was only a decade ago that we were getting by on 18.2 percent of GDP, and only about half a decade ago that a $400 billion annual deficit (about a trillion less than what we’re running now) was considered unconscionable. Where are the Republicans who are going to tell us how we get back to that?"
. . .
"Obama Democrats demagogue about the need to balance spending cuts with tax hikes. Republicans predictably respond that they were willing to compromise. When you are $15 trillion in debt, a debate over whether we should borrow another $6 trillion or another $5 trillion is not an exercise in compromise. It is an exercise in insanity."
[emphasis added]

Occupy Portland City Costs Nearing $1.5 Million

2011-11-25T16:02:00.000-08:00

The Portland Tribune:

"The cost of rehabilitating Chapman and Lownsdale squares after five weeks of an Occupy Portland encampment could be substantial, with the price tag hitting $100,000 or more. That is in addition to the police overtime costs for dealing with the protesters, currently pegged at nearly $1.3 million and rising."

Thankful for William F. Buckley, Jr. - 2011

2011-11-24T23:48:00.000-08:00

William F. Buckley, Jr., with Jeff Greenfield on Firing Line set in 1973

William F. Buckley, Jr., was born in 1925 on this date. He not only changed the course of conservatism in America, but he set a standard of intellectual integrity and personal warmth that changed the lives of many young conservatives. I was among them in the late 1960's. The first time I saw him debate, I asked him to sign my paperback copy of Rumbles Left and Right. The was the first of many kindnesses he showed me.

Proverbs 19:22 says "What is desirable in a man is his kindness". Bill Buckley was a kind, generous and loyal man--to many individuals and to his nation. He remains a blessing from the Lord.

Thankful for C. S. Lewis 2011

2011-11-23T16:56:00.000-08:00

Hans Wild photo from Life Magazine

After leaving a Christian legacy that is stronger today than during his lifetime, C. S. Lewis passed into the presence of his Lord forty-eight years ago today.

Lewis's passing was little noticed at the time because he died the same day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Here is a quotation from a favorite Lewis book, Mere Christianity (from The Case for Christianity).

"Another possible objection is this. Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is is that He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else–something it never entered your head to conceive–comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it."

Lewis housekeeper Mollie Miller's nephews playing at the Lewis house in 1973

8 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq November 14 to November 21, 2011

2011-11-23T15:09:00.000-08:00

November 14 - Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, N.C., died in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device.

November 16 - They died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device.
- Spc. James R. Burnett Jr., 21, of Wichita, Kan.; and
- Pfc. Matthew C. Colin, 22, of Navarre, Fla.

- Spc. Sean M. Walsh, 21, of San Jose, Calif., died in Khowst province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained after encountering indirect fire.

November 18 - Pfc. Adam E. Dobereiner, 21, of Moline, Ill., died at Kandahar province, Afghanistan of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

- Lance Cpl. Joshua D. Corral, 19, of Danville, Calif., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

November 21 - Pvt. Jackie L. Diener II, 20, of Boyne City, Mich., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.

- Cpl. Zachary C. Reiff, 22, of Preston, Iowa, died of wounds suffered Nov. 18 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

The Parkerization of Conservative Pundits

2011-11-22T17:16:00.000-08:00

Kathleen Parker’s recent column asserts a change in the GOP “in which the least informed earns the loudest applause.” She calls it the Palinization of the GOP.

Unfortunately, earning the loudest applause while being the least informed seems all too apt as regards some conservative pundits, too. Parker comes up short on facts supporting her assertions.

Parker starts by citing liberal Democrat strategist Paul Begala on the horrible state of the GOP as the "stupid" party. She goes on.

“. . . as [Begala] also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind. Moreover, where Buckley tried to rid the GOP of fringe elements, notably the John Birch Society, today’s conservatives have let them back in. The 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference was co-sponsored by the Birchers.”

But, Parker, who likes to evoke Buckley as a model, departs from Buckley’s own standards and positions.

The first departure is in quoting a leading liberal Democratic strategist as the basis for slamming conservatives and the GOP. Bill Buckley didn't look to leading liberal Democrats (or liberal Republicans for that matter) for political advice. Buckley was on the receiving end of too many of attacks from such as Begala warning Republicans to turn away from hyper-conservatives like Reagan, Goldwater, and Buckley himself.

Second, Parker finds problematic scientific skepticism among global warming skeptics. Buckley found it among global warming supporters. Parker writes:

“Scientific skepticism, the engine that propels intellectual inquiry, has morphed into skepticism of science fueled by religious certitude. In this strange world, it is heresy to express concern about, for example, climate change — or even to suggest that human behavior may be a contributing factor. Jon Huntsman committed blasphemy when he told ABC’s Jake Tapper that he trusts scientists on global warming.”

Buckley, though believing scientists on global warming, made the opposite case. It was the global warming supporters who were closed to scientific evidence.

“For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1) Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for Exxon Mobil, a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us from.”

Further, Buckley, too, was somewhat skeptical about the extent of the impact of human behavior on global warming.

“Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific acts of natural propitiation.

“The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.

“It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility for them.”
[emphasis added]

As for Parker’s claim that "skepticism of science" is "fueled by religious certitude", we see which side Bill Buckley thought was more in tune with the spirit of the Inquisition. It wasn’t the global warming skeptics.

Third, Buckley was very warm to religion in the public square. Parker asserts “No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square.” Where that comes from I have no idea. Buckley, along with the U.S. Supreme Court, believed that free speech allowed for revivalists in the public square. Buckley was for more religious involvement in public life not less.

Buckley promoted public discussion of religion and Christianity. Parker may have missed the Firing Line programs with Malcolm Muggeridge, Billy Graham and R. C. Sproul, among others. In one of them Buckley wonders why people aren’t allowed to talk about religion at social occasions without being considered a fanatic.

Then there’s Buckley’s belief that the separation of Christianity from the public square is a "terrible idea". In an interview with Bill Buckley, in August, 2004, Terence Smith asks if the Christian conservative movement has taken over.

"WILLIAM BUCKLEY: That's important. No, they certainly haven't. But certain people in politics feel that in order to engage in politics, it's by no means necessary to forget that you also believe in religion. And to the extent that religion is emphasized, it becomes irksome for people who are skeptical about religion or even hostile to it.

"Because every time Jimmy Carter said grace or -- or President Bush mentions it, there are certain people who wince.

"TERENCE SMITH: Do you?

"WILLIAM BUCKLEY: No, not at all, no, because I like to think of myself primarily as a Christian. That's what I seek to be. And when you consider the extent to which people feel that Christianity and politics should be completely separated, I think that's a terrible idea because the principal animus for a harmonious polity I think is religious.

"One's concern for somebody's civil rights, for equality, derives, in my judgment, from the fact that we acknowledge that we are all creatures of God. In the absence of that, of that kind of direction, it would be an afterthought."

Parker does not seem to know that traditionally the Catholic church has supported, not opposed, religion in the public square even up to actual establishment. Buckley, being a firm constitutionalist, did not support establishment in the U.S., but did not rail against state supported churches abroad. For example, he didn't seem much bothered by the established church in Norway or England.

Fourth, Parker intimates that Buckley was not at all like, say, Rush Limbaugh who “says that climate change is a hoax and so it must be.” But Bill Buckley liked and mostly agreed with Limbaugh (maybe he would even agree on it being a “hoax” after learning of the Climategate scandal--about, among other things, "hiding the decline"–-which occurred after Buckley died).

In his interview Terence Smith asked what Buckley thought about the emergence and success of "a voice like Rush Limbaugh".

"WILLIAM BUCKLEY: Well, of course I'm grateful because I'm a fan, and I believe in most of the things he believes in.

"There are stylistic differences which [inaudible] the fact that he's broadcasting 15 hours a week, and under the circumstances, has to be repetitious."

Parker loves to evoke Bill Buckley and his “pedigree” and “nimble mind”. One wonders if he would have thought her mind a little too nimble for minds like his and Limbaugh’s. The Parkerization of conservative pundits?

Oregonian Doctors Account of Circulation "Gain"

2011-11-20T14:56:00.000-08:00

Oregonian reporter Allan Brettman notes a 1.6% rise in circulation from September, 2010, to September, 2011.

"Average daily circulation for The Oregonian increased to 242,784 for the six months that ended Sept. 30, according to figures released Tuesday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That's up 3,713 copies or 1.6 percent, from the same period a year earlier."

Oregonian Managing Editor, Therese Bottomly echoes Brettman's account.

Though Brettman links to the the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) report, neither he nor Bottomly mention ABC's advice not to compare this year's September numbers to last year's September numbers because measurement standards changed last October

"Today’s FAS-FAX report reflects the U.S. newspaper rule changes that went into effect last October. This FAS-FAX report, therefore, has new and redefined categories of circulation. A fact sheet and a list of frequently asked questions about the changes are available here. And as a reminder, ABC recommends not making direct comparisons of September 2011 data to prior audit periods."
[emphasis added]

Brettman also fails to note the Oregonian's 6.7% circulation drop (and here) from six months ago (March, 2011) when ABC was using the same standard as in the current September report. Further though Brettman states that the Oregonian is now #21 among the top 25 U.S. newspapers, he does not report that this is a drop from #19 in March, 2011.

If Oregonian reporters and editors leave out three key facts in an article on a subject they know intimately, it seems risky business to depend on Oregonian reporting for a clear, in depth account of other issues.

Kathleen Parker Gets Reagan and Buckley Wrong

2011-11-20T05:59:00.000-08:00

Kathleen Parker seems to think the best way to emphasize a point is to demean others. Her current column not only takes a hit at Sarah Palin (who Parker targets even though Palin is not running for president or leadership of the Republican party). It also mischaracterizes Ronald Reagan and, strangely enough, questions William F. Buckley Jr.'s friendships.

Parker says the GOP has been Palinized--meaning it has become anti-elite and anti-intellectual.

"It takes courage to swim against the tide of know-nothingness that has become de rigueur among the anti-elite, anti-intellectual Republican base. Call it the Palinization of the GOP, in which the least informed earns the loudest applause."

Interesting that this was the same charge thrown at Ronald Reagan. According to his critics, he was a B movie actor who could smile and look good on camera, who went to a no name college, and was known as a rancher not an intellectual. His persona was of a guy out riding horses or clearing brush rather than spending long hours in his personal library reading. Some questioned whether he read much at all. Not a really smart guy like Jimmy Carter or the reporters and pundits who wrote about Reagan's manifest intellectual weaknesses. Nor was Reagan Ivy League, with a pedigree like George H. W. Bush (son of Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush). Shoot, Reagan wasn't even top tier in the Hollywood set.

Parker omits these facts about Reagan because they weigh against her analysis. To sort of smooth over the manifest Reagan common man appeal, Parker intimates that Reagan was a big tent Republican. Heh. Gerald Ford might dispute that since Reagan ran against Ford in the 1976 Republican presidential primary on the basis that Ford wasn't conservative enough. Big tent people don't usually challenge their own party's sitting president.

But Parker isn't satisfied with swiping at non-candidates like Palin and painting Reagan as "big tent" and, one assumes, different from Sarah Palin, in being pro-elitist and pro-intellectual. Parker takes a swipe at people who were Bill Buckley's friends.

"Republicans aren’t really stupid, of course, and Begala acknowledges this. But, as he also pointed out, the conservative brain trust once led by William F. Buckley has been supplanted by talk radio hosts who love to quote Buckley (and boast of his friendship) but who do not share the man’s pedigree or his nimble mind."

The intimation is that people who "boast" of being Buckley's friends couldn't really have been such because they don't have the same sparkling wit and intellectual class as Buckley himself. Of course, that would mean that Buckley had almost no friends since few were his intellectual equals.

The most prominent talk show host who has mentioned his friendship with Bill Buckley is Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh from time to time talks about Buckley's friendship, encouragement and kindness in welcoming Limbaugh to the conservative circle when Limbaugh was starting his rise. (Buckley even interviewed Limbaugh on Firing Line. See below.)

To imply that someone else's talk about a personal friendship is meaningless with no evidence other than that the friends have differences is not only anti-intellectual because no proof is given, it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of friendship.

Here's what National Review editor Rich Lowry had to say in March of 2008 about Bill Buckley's friendship with Rush Limbaugh when an unfavorable comparison was made between Buckley and Limbaugh:

"Let me stick up for Rush, though. Because Bill adored Rush. And you know, Rush is not a public intellectual. That’s not what he’s doing. And no one would have ever for all Bill Buckley’s talents, 20 million people would never have listened to Bill Buckley on the radio for three hours every day. So, it’s an unfair comparison." (about the 30:50 mark in the discussion)

Ms. Parker seems to have missed one of the main points of friendship--to admire differences while basking in the points of similar interest that brought you together.

One can only feel sorry for a professional political pundit who not only gets it wrong that Reagan stood for expanding the Republican Party to include elites and intellectuals (rather than calling in the conservative, non-elite, non-intellectual working class Reagan Democrats), but who scoffs at other people's friendships just because one of the parties isn't of a "pedigree" that Parker personally likes. Sad.

Oh, and it goes without saying that Sarah Palin having been elected the first woman and youngest governor in Alaska's history (the forced dump of 25,000 of her e-mails showing her as an "effective", "attentive", "hands on", "decisive", governor in areas "ranging from small issues to very large issues"); having effectively fought political corruption and quit a well-paying public job to do so; having authored two best sellers (one vying for the best selling political memoir of all time); having been the first woman Republican vice presidential nominee; having had opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal (and here and just this week here), New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post (and here), and National Review (and here); and having negotiated the largest private sector infrastructure project in North American history has arguably done more intellectual and practical good work than Ms. Parker. Though one must admit that Ms. Parker had a longer running TV series than Governor Palin though with only a fraction of the weekly viewers Palin garnered.

UPDATE: Another good take by J. Robert Smith: Kathleen Parker's Trash Talk

Occupy the News Media?

2011-11-15T15:52:00.000-08:00

If this survey is right maybe there should be Occupy the News Media rallies.

Big business gets a higher favorable rating from the public than the news media. In fact the Public Affairs Council finds that only the federal government gets lower marks than the news media.

"A new survey finds that the federal government is the only sector that people like less than the media. The survey was about how Americans view big businesses. Fifty-four percent viewed news media somewhat or very favorably, while 44 percent said their overall opinion of news media was not favorable."

Here's the breakdown:

Is the Oregonian building next after Chapman and Lownsdale Square parks?

5 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan November 5 to November 13, 2011

2011-11-14T21:16:00.000-08:00

November 5 - Lance Cpl. Nickolas A. Daniels, 25, of Elmwood Park, Ill., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

November 9 - Pfc. Cody R. Norris, 20, of Houston, Texas, died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire.

November 11 - Pfc. Theodore B. Rushing, 25, of Longwood, Fla. died in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

November 12 - Spc. Calvin M. Pereda, 21, of Fayetteville, N.C., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device while on dismounted patrol.

November 13 - Sgt. 1st Class Johnathan B. McCain, 38, of Apache Junction, Ariz., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device while on mounted patrol.

Anchorage Daily News Loses Almost 30% of Subscribers in Three Years

2011-11-10T21:55:00.000-08:00

In the three years since Sarah Palin was named the Vice Presidential nominee of the Republican party the Anchorage Daily News has lost 29.23% of its subscribers.

Audit Bureau of Circulations reports Anchorage Daily News paid circulation at 43,794 as of September 30, 2011 (though the newspaper's website posting today notes "yesterday 159,853 visitors viewed adn.com"). The Anchorage Daily News circulation for September 30, 2008, the month when Palin officially become the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, was 61,882. In three years more than 18,000 subscribers left.

The September 1, 2008, Anchorage Daily News ran a nice "isn't this great" lower front page story (with photo) on Palin's parents dealing with the upheaval in their life because of her nomination ("World's Gaze Falls on Wasilla, Palin's Folks: Amid Swarm, Chuck Heath says: 'I just hate not being hospitable'). It even ran a quarter column top of the front page Associated Press article about her qualifications ("Is Palin Qualified? Just Look Says GOP: REASONS: Proximity to Russia, Mayoral Experience Cited"). Imagine that. Proximity to Russia was accepted by Associated Press as a real qualification pre-Charlie Gibson.

The next day saw the beginning of the Anchorage Daily News' growing disenchantment with all things Palin. On September 2 there was a front page banner headline running the full width of the paper on Bristol's pregnancy ("Pregnancy Steals Spotlight") with a back page story on the difficulty of finding Alaskans who could substantiate her vetting ("VETTING: It's tough to find Alaskans who were queried about Palin").

From then on the Anchorage Daily News began to take a much tougher stance (sometimes almost childishly so) on Palin. The iciness was well expressed by Anchorage Daily News former editorial page editor Michael Carey less than a month after Palin's nomination.

"Sarah Palin may be making new friends as she campaigns the nation, but at home, she's making new enemies. She better get elected vice president. If she returns to Alaska as governor, the reception will be frosty -- and not because winter has arrived.

"In the last month, Palin has become something inconceivable during her first two years as the state's chief executive: A polarizing figure rapidly emptying the storehouse of good will she accumulated."
[emphasis added]

The Anchorage Daily News' three year circulation drop rate is twice as bad as that of, for example, the Oregonian (circulation down 14.31% in three years).

Maybe Alaskan readers noticed the Anchorage Daily News growing more and more "frosty" in its unfairness toward Palin. Something to think about anyway.

The GOP Smart Set vs. Experience

2011-11-10T17:14:00.000-08:00

I'm not a Rick Perry supporter. Actually, since my candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, decided not to run in 2012, I'm keeping my powder dry. I need to see more before jumping in to support a specific candidate.

But, all the GOP Smart Set ruckus over Rick Perry's debate flub and difficulty in the debates and Perry's statement that he's not running for Debater-in-Chief but as someone who has created jobs reminded me of one of my favorite films, Buster Keaton's The General.

The scenes having to do with a bent rail give Keaton's commentary on the importance for solving a problem of actually having done something previously in the problem area.

Because the clip would be too long, I've edited out the scenes which separate the ones included. The scenes edited out set up background for the coming final battle. But, since they also let the viewer know that the struggle with the rail is a longer, more involved process than the few scenes shown, the humor of the "smart set" being completely befuddled is somewhat dimmed in this shortened version. I've added subtitles to give context and the idea of passing time. The great Keaton didn't need subtitles.

Palin: Fire Eric Holder

2011-11-10T13:01:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin:

"And where is President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in all of this? When did he first know about the [Fast and Furious] operation? In his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on May 3, 2011, Holder stated, 'I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.' But the DOJ’s own documents prove that Holder had been receiving briefings on Fast and Furious for nearly a year before that date. In other words, our government’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder, lied to the American public. He finally admitted this week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 'In my testimony before the House committee [on May 3], I did say a few weeks. I probably could have said a couple of months. What I said about a few weeks was inaccurate based on what happened.'

"When the nation’s highest law enforcement official lies to the American people, he must go.

"And if he claims that he didn’t lie, then how else do we explain this situation? He’s either lying or he’s so grossly incompetent and lazy that he didn’t read important life and death briefings from his deputy attorney general and didn’t know about this deadly operation run by people under him. So, which is it? Incompetent, lazy, or lying? No matter which explanation fits, he needs to go."

Quite distinct from Holder and his boss, President Obama, is the "effective", "attentive", "hands on", "decisive" governor in areas "ranging from small issues to very large issues" Palin was revealed to be in the forced dump of 25,000 of her gubernatorial e-mails last June.

She's still my number 1! Just moved up to 2016.

Mark Steyn and the Right Kind of Hits

2011-11-09T12:26:00.000-08:00

from SteynOnline.com

If you want to increase your blog traffic, just have Mark Steyn link to you.

Day before yesterday SteynOnline.com and the SteynOnline.com facebook page linked to my review of Mark's After America. So far I've gotten over 1,200 extra hits and still going strong.

The best part of it is that Mark and his staff apparently liked the review. Nice, coming from a man I admire.

Victor Davis Hanson on Labyrinths and Herman Cain

2011-11-09T10:47:00.000-08:00

Again, Victor Davis Hanson sets current events and stories in historical, even mythic, perspective.

"'Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here,' is the placard that Herman Cain must have read last week when he descended into the Sexual Harassment Inferno, from which he has not yet emerged."

Dr. Hanson comes right to the point on the absurdity of modern thinking.

"Stranger still, this metamorphosis of liberated women into Victorian-era puritans was accompanied by yet another wild card: Sex was now everywhere. The old probity was gone, whether through blonde bombshells with low-cut dresses on the news, raunchy language and acts on reality TV, or soft porn on mainstream cable packages. Today’s mall is a showcase of trashy overt sexuality among even preteens. It was almost as if the more sexual suggestiveness became ubiquitous, the more we reverted to New England puritanism. The office coffee break with colleagues was now more explicit and yet more prudish than its 1950s counterpart — in the sense that almost no topic was taboo, and yet any careless flippant sexual remark could boomerang as a career-ending offense."

Then there is the blatant hypocrisy.

"Both supporters and detractors agree that Cain should know by now that alleged misdemeanors by Republican frontrunners are always more serious than known transgressions by Democratic rivals. All true — and all irrelevant in the age of liberal indulgence and exemption where noble ends sometimes must justify tawdry means. Yet it is not quite clear whether Cain is supposedly guilty of attempted, fantasized, or foiled womanizing of the sort that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have confessed to actualizing. Or is he just a little creepy, in the manner of Al Gore and his masseuses, or the late Strom Thurmond and his wandering hands, or the late Ted Kennedy and his late-hours frolicking?

"Note there is no exemption for Cain even though the charges date from over a decade ago . . . .

"Cain, who has not as of yet actually been accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with a female subordinate, finds himself in the 'sexual harassment' labyrinth, from which there are few paths out in the present era."

Not to mention the lack of the normal mention of white women's supposed inordinate fears of black men--which even Barack Obama referred to in speaking of his grandmother as a "typical white person" and a woman "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street."

"Oddly, so far no African American spokesman has stepped forward to 'contextualize' the charges in the long history of sexually charged stereotyped slurs about supposedly undisciplined ascendant black males."

Dr. Hanson amplifies the disjunction in media treatment of Herman Cain's race.

"Yet Cain also wins greater scrutiny, not exemption, because he is black — or at least a certain sort of black. In addition to his conservatism, his voice, bearing, grammar, and diction, even his showy black cowboy hat, bother liberals in much the same way that Joe Frazier was not Muhammad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Anita Hill. Black authenticity, as defined by Southern mannerisms and darker complexion, amplified by conservatism or traditionalism, earns liberal unease. Rarely has anyone been so candid in confessing just that unease as were Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden in their backhanded praise of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. I think Reid ('light-skinned,' 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one') and Biden ('I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy') both were trying to say at the time that Barack Obama did not look or sound like someone analogous to Herman Cain."

Cain is not the only one in the labyrinth. The media with its pretzel-like moral and reasoning standards have pushed American society into its own labyrinth. How to get out?

Bill Buckley Was Not the Pompous Ass Neal Freeman Channels

2011-11-07T14:43:00.000-08:00

WFB and Edward Teller

Neal B. Freeman, a long time friend of William F. Buckley, Jr., thinks he knows how Buckley would have reacted to current GOP candidates. Freeman's opinion piece praises Buckley as courageous (which he was), but errors significantly by channeling a caricature of Bill Buckley instead of Buckley himself.

"How then would Bill Buckley have addressed today's question: 'Buckley's Legacy: How Would the Patron Saint Turbo-Charge Conservatism?'"
. . .
"First, he would have summoned the Republican stalwarts for catechismic instruction."

Huh? Buckley didn't do this in any of the presidential elections during his lifetime. But, that doesn't deter Freeman, who wraps his political dreaming in personal anecdotes and Buckleyesque words and phrases such as "synecdoche" and "ontologically speaking".

I was not a close friend of Bill Buckley as Freeman was. But I did have a 30+ year friendship with him. The last time I saw him was when I was visiting New York in the late 1990's, and he invited me to lunch. On the basis of my own friendship with Bill Buckley I find it odd that Freeman would assert:

"It was a humbling experience to be edited by Bill Buckley. I still have the original of the first editorial I wrote for National Review. We used Royal typewriters in those days to pound out copy on yellow foolscap: Here and there, one of my black words peeks through a blaze of red ballpoint ink. It was his conceit that if you couldn't write, you couldn't think; and that if you couldn't think, you were unlikely to prosper in his friendship."
[emphasis added]

Freeman seems to confuse Bill Buckley as a boss with Bill Buckley as a friend. Never in our three decades of correspondence did Bill ever take me to task for my written prose. I don't think that is due to the fact that I'm superior to Freeman in either thinking or writing, but perhaps I am in understanding what friendship meant to Bill Buckley.*

Bill Buckley did not normally critique his guests and friends. His personal interaction was unlike the pattern of his professional life as a polemicist and debater. Even in that he was a joy to watch because he skewered the opinion not the person and often used a kind of backhanded wit not a sledge hammer-type attack or meanness.

Bill was not the type of person who would have called current Republican presidential candidates on the carpet and presumed to lecture them on their errors. He had too much respect for the kind of courage and substance it takes to become a prominent conservative political figure and endure the kind of anti-conservative blows those in the media deliver daily. Though Bill Buckley might have talked about questions he had about Mitt Romney's economic plan, he would not have:

"bored in on what he perceived to be a lacuna: namely, the widespread presumption that Mr. Romney can fix our broken economy with an economic plan that is manifestly inadequate to the challenge."

Neither would Bill have:

"segued quickly into a mini-lecture on why contemporary international affairs call for a somewhat less, uhhhh, parochial foreign policy than [Governor Perry] has heretofore advanced"
. . .
"concluded, under the unbending terms of the Buckley Rule—-which, as you will recall, holds that conservatives should support for election the rightward-most viable candidate—-that Mrs. Palin was sufficiently rightward but insufficiently viable."
. . .
"counseled [Speaker Gingrich] to add to his senior staff an editor with plenipotentiary powers"
. . .
"spent his time much as he had with Mrs. Palin, in a quiet inventory of the intellectual warehouse. What does Mr. Cain know? What has he read? Is he . . . up to it?"

In other words, in personal interaction, Bill Buckley was fun, funny, sparkling and made you feel like you were the center of his universe. He was not the grilling, pompous ass, always out to lecture that Freeman channels.

How do I know this aside from the fact that personally Bill was gracious and caring and never in his lifetime called in presidential candidates to lecture them on their flaws?

Take Freeman's application of the "Buckley Rule" which says that "conservatives should support for election the rightward-most viable candidate". Bill Buckley supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 and never, so far as I know, rescinded that support after the Goldwater electoral debacle. If Goldwater was a "viable" candidate, gaining only 39% of the votes cast, "viable" is a fairly low standard--one which the candidates Freeman's Buckley "interviewed" have pretty much met.

Then, of course, there was Bill Buckley's own run for mayor done not for the purpose of winning but of forwarding the conservative case against the liberal Republicanism of John Lindsay. Apparently, as in his support for Goldwater, a viability that gets the candidate within a few percentage points of winning, was not a key factor in his own decision to run.

Again, I say, Bill Buckley was not the condescending, pompous ass that Freeman paints. He was warm, witty, charming and really cared about the people he talked to. That's why he had so many friends of quite different political views, religious views and social class.

-----
*Bill Buckley was the kind of friend who, when I wrote that I was trying to get into a graduate program at a picky school, asked if there was any way he could help. He ended up writing a recommendation for me and overstating my abilities: "I have met, and experienced intellectually, hundreds and hundreds of young people in the last twenty-five years, and [T D] Williams is among the two or three whose promise is in a class of its own." He continued noting my "formal credentials", "high intelligence", "fine character" and being "well read". That's the kind of encouragement and support that flowed out of Bill Buckley. Unfortunately, Freeman missed it in his portrait of Bill. I cherish as a material indication of Bill's friendship the carbon copy he sent me of that wonderful recommendation.

8 Heroes Who Died Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq October 29 to November 3, 2011

2011-11-07T12:11:00.000-08:00

October 29 - Died in Kabul province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.
- Lt. Col. David E. Cabrera, 41, of Abilene, Texas;
- Staff Sgt. Christopher R. Newman, 26, of Shelby, N.C.;
- Sgt. James M. Darrough, 38, of Austin, Texas; and
- Sgt. Carlo F. Eugenio, 29, of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

October 30 - Staff Sgt. Ari R. Cullers, 28, of New London, Conn., died in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when an insurgent rocket-propelled grenade exploded near him.

November 1 - Died in Paktia province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.
- Sgt. Christopher D. Gailey, 26, of Ochelata, Okla.; and
- Pfc. Sarina N. Butcher, 19, of Checotah, Okla.

November 3 - 1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent, 25, of Mesquite, Texas, died in Kirkuk province, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire.

Review of Mark Steyn's After America

2011-11-05T17:18:00.000-07:00

After America: Get Ready for Armageddon
by Mark Steyn
424 pages, $29.95 (print)/$9.58 (digital)
Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2011

Mark Steyn’s After America is a factual and witty stroll down America’s decline and what it means for life in the future--a decline that started decades ago and keeps accelerating.

To highlight his points Steyn uses a supposed time traveler’s view of the difference of America in 1890, 1950 and 2010 as well as the difference between the life of the futuristic eloi and morlocks described by H. G. Wells in The Time Machine.

On some differences between 1890 and 1950:

"Why, the poor gentleman of 1890 would be astonished. His old home is full of mechanical contraptions. There is a huge machine in the corner of the kitchen, full of food and keeping the milk fresh and cold! There is another shiny device whirring away and seemingly washing milady’s bloomers with no human assistance whatsoever! Even more amazingly, there is a full orchestra playing somewhere within his very house. No, wait it’s coming from a tiny box on the countertop!

"The music is briefly disturbed by a low rumble from the front yard, and our time-traveler glances through the window: a metal conveyance is coming up the street at an incredible speed–-with not a horse in sight. It’s enclosed with doors and windows, like a house on wheels, and it turns into the yard, and the doors open all at once, and two grown-ups and four children all get out–-just like that, as if it’s the most natural thing in the world! He notices there is snow on the ground, and yet the house is toasty warm, even though no fire is lit and there appears to be no stove." (pp. 25-26)

Steyn goes on to describe the telephone and airplanes.

Now onward sixty years to 2010.

“. . . [When] he dismounts he wonders if he’s made a mistake. Because, aside from a few design adjustments, everything looks pretty much as it did in 1950: the layout of the kitchen, the washer, the telephone. . . . Oh, wait. It’s got buttons instead of a dial. And the station wagon in the front yard has dropped the woody look and seems boxier than it did. And the folks getting out seem . . . larger, and dressed like overgrown children.

“And the refrigerator has a magnet on it holding up an endless list from a municipal agency detailing what trash you have to put in which colored boxes on what collection days.

“But other than that, and few cosmetic changes, he might as well have stayed in 1950.” (p. 26)

Steyn does note that the one exception is the computer, but what about other major areas of life?

Steyn asks: When was the last big medical breakthrough? (polio vaccine 1955; insulin 1920s; penicillin, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough vaccines 1920s). Cancer and Alzheimer's? All races and no cure.

“In the last decade of the twentieth century, what? A vaccine for Hepatitis A, and Viagra. Good for erectile dysfunction, but what about inventile dysfunction?”

In the 1920's insulin went from concept to use in two years. Today

“the U.S. Food and Drug Administration now adds half a decade to the process by which a treatment makes it to market, and they’re getting slower. Between 1996 and 1999, the FDA approved 157 new drugs. Between 2006 and 2009, the approvals fell by half–-to 74.” (p. 28)

The reason? Inhibiting statism with its monopoly on allowing and regulating in almost every area of life.

Statism has created two Americas.

“. . . [I]n one America, those who subscribe to the ruling ideology can access a world of tenured security lubricated by government and without creating a dime of wealth for the overall economy; in the other America, millions of people go to work every day to try to support their families and build up businesses and improve themselves, and the harder they work the more they’re penalized to support the government class in its privileges.” (p. 69)

Steyn piles example upon example of the infantilization of Americans via government regulations with the resulting lack of thinking, invention, production and power. The end result of statism can be seen in the deterioration, looming bankruptcy and decline in population of European states that have followed the nanny state approach.

So, what does the future look like for the world with America’s decline? It will be sicker (p. 281), poorer (p. 283), more Muslim (p. 291), less Jewish, gay, and with fewer feminists (p. 298), less diverse (p. 302), more dangerous, violent, and genocidal (p. 304, 310), reprimitivizing (p. 312). Life after America's decline will be a life much nastier, more brutish, and short than that to which we have become accustomed.

Steyn ties this plummet in life environment to Friedrich Nietzsche’s insight about what “God is dead.” means for society.

“Many westerners were familiar with Nietzsche’s accurate foretelling of the twentieth century as an age of ‘wars such as have never happened on earth.’ This was a remarkable prediction to make from the Europe of the 1880s, a time of peace and prosperity. But too many forget the context in which the philosopher reached his conclusion–-that ‘God is dead.’ Nietzsche was an atheist but he was not simply proclaiming his own contempt for faith, as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other bestselling atheists would do in our own century. ‘God is dead’ was not a statement of personal belief, but a news headline–-in the author’s words, a ‘tremendous event.’ If, as he saw it, educated people had ceased to believe in the divine, that entailed certain consequences. For God–-or at any rate the Judeo-Christian God whose demise he was reporting–-had had a civilizing effect during his (evolutionarily speaking) brief reign. Without God, Nietzsche wondered, without ‘any cardinal distinction between man and animal,’ what constraints are there? In the ‘arena of the future,’ the world would be divided into ‘brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of non-brothers.’ . . .

“We know he called the twentieth century right. So what did he have to say about the twenty-first? He foresaw a time even worse than the ‘wars such as have never happened,’ wars that were after all still fought according to the remnants, the ‘mere pittance’ of the late God’s moral codes. But after that, what? The next century–-our century–-would see ‘the total eclipse of all values.’ Man would attempt a ‘re-evalutaion,’ as the West surely did through multiculturalisms, sexual liberation, eco-fetishization, and various other fancies. But you cannot have an effective moral code, Nietsche pointed out, without a God who says ‘Thou shalt not.’” (pp. 321-322)

In the epilogue Mark Steyn gives a few hints for hope: de-centralize (p. 333), de-governmentalize (p. 335), de-regulate (p. 336), de-monopolize (p. 337), de-complicate (p. 339), de-credentialize (p. 339), dis-entitle (p. 340), de-normalize (p. 341) and “do” (p. 342).

Let me close with something Steyn says about “do”. We need more tinkerers.

“Messing about with stuff–-taking it apart, figuring out how it worked, putting it together again with some modification of your own. What boys (and a few girls) used to do in the garage or the basement before the Internet was invented. . . . Tinkerers built America. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, all were tinkerers in their childhood. Everything from the airplane to the computer started in somebody’s garage. . . . The great scientific thinkers of eighteenth-century England couldn’t have been less interested in cotton spinning and weaving. Why would you be? If was left to a bloke on the shop floor who happened to glance at a one-thread wheel that had toppled over and noticed that both the wheel and the spindle were still turning. So James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny . . . . John Ratzenberger likes to paraphrase a Stanford University study: ‘Engineers who are great in physics and calculus but can’t think in new ways about old objects are doomed to think in old ways about new objects.’ That’s the lesson of the spinning jenny: an old object fell over and someone looked at it in a new way.” (p. 344)

After America is the kind of book that helps the reader look at an old thing, life as we live it, in a new way. It's a "must read".

Politico's Failure to Respond and Overt Falsehoods Raise Questions

2011-11-02T14:05:00.000-07:00

I like Professor William Jacobson's take on Politico's failure to respond to questions on its journalistic ethics.

John Nolte adds fuel to the fire on Politico's lack of journalistic ethics as well as its failing journalistic competence.

"Huge headline at Politico: Herman Cain now recalls 'couple of other' items in accusers complaint

"Opening paragraph of the story:
'Herman Cain once again revised his account of the sexual harassment allegations he battled in the 1990s, saying in a TV interview he recalled there were additional 'ridiculous' items in his accuser’s complaint, beyond the single incident he detailed Monday.'"
. . .

"[Politico is] gleefully looking to tie Cain up in what they will claim are contradictory statements, because we all remember the exact details of what happened 15 or so years ago, correct?

"Oddly enough, though, it looks as though Politico can’t remember what happened yesterday, because later an 'update' was added to their story. Yes, an update found waaaaaay at the bottom of the story and that explosive headline is this:
"'UPDATE: Christian Heinze points out that Cain mentioned in his interview with Greta Van Susteren yesterday that there had been additional 'simple stuff' in the harassment complaint, but said he couldn't recall the details. NRA's general counsel 'may have told me what incidents that she might have included in the claim, but all today, as I've been getting beat up, I've been trying to recall what some of those things were and haven't been able to recall a lot of them because that's why they got dismissed,' Cain said on Fox. 'It was no basis because it was simple stuff.'"

So, the price the public pays for Politico's free "news" is indexed to its value. Zero. Or maybe they should be paying those who are cleaning up their messes. Heh.

Oregonian Continues to Lose Readers; Circulation Down 6.7%

2011-11-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

The September 2011 Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) report shows a 6.7% drop in Oregonian circulation from six months previous.

Circulation reported in March 2011 was 260,248. For September 2011 it has fallen to 242,784.

Changes ABC made in the March 2011 circulation report (such as adding e-edition circulation to print circulation figures) gave the Oregonian an 8.86% spike in total circulation (from 239,071 to 260,248) over the preceding September 2010 report. But now the Oregonian is back near where it was in September 2010 before the expanded counting began.

Adding e-circulation was a good idea because it measures a new form of readers. Still, readership is not increasing for the Oregonian. The Oregon paper has lost more than 1/5th (68,000) of its circulation in five years and more than 1/4th (90,700) in six years.

September 2005 circulation - 333,515
September 2006 circulation - 310,803
September 2011 circulation - 242,784

Here are the stats on the top 25 U.S. newspapers from Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Average Circulation at the Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspapers
For the Six Months Ending 9/30/11

WALL STREET JOURNAL - 2,096,169
USA TODAY - 1,784,242
NEW YORK TIMES - 1,150,589
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - 605,677
LOS ANGELES TIMES - 572,998
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS - 527,568
NEW YORK POST - 512,067
WASHINGTON POST - 507,465
CHICAGO TRIBUNE - 425,370
DALLAS MORNING NEWS - 409,642
NEWSDAY (NY) - 404,542
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES - 389,353
HOUSTON CHRONICLE - 369,710
DENVER POST - 353,115
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER - 331,134
STAR-TRIBUNE (MN) - 298,147
ARIZONA REPUBLIC - 292,838
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER (CA) - 270,809
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER - 243,299
SEATTLE TIMES - 242,814
OREGONIAN - 242,784
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES - 240,024
DETROIT FREE PRESS (e) - 234,579
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - 220,515
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE - 219,347

H/T Editor & Publisher

9 Heroes Who Fought in Afghanistan and Iraq Died October 13 to October 27, 2011

2011-10-31T16:22:00.000-07:00

October 13 - Airmen 1st Class Jerome D. Miller Jr., 23, of Washington, D.C. died due to a non-combat related incident in Parwan province, Afghanistan.

October 21 - A soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn, Pfc. Steven F. Shapiro, 29, of Hidden Valley Lake, Calif., died in Tallil, Iraq.

October 23 - Lance Cpl. Jordan S. Bastean, 19, of Pekin, Ill., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

- A soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn (Iraq), Capt. Shawn P. T. Charles, 40, of Hickory, N.C., died in San Antonio, Texas, from a non-combat illness.

- A soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), Sgt. Edward S. Grace, 39, of South Dartmouth, Mass., died in Silver Spring, Md., from a non-combat illness.

October 24 - Lance Cpl. Jason N. Barfield, 22, of Ashford, Ala., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

October 25 - A soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn, Sgt. 1st Class David G. Robinson, 28, of Winthrop Harbor, Ill., died Oct. 25 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

October 26 - Sgt. John A. Lyons, 26, of Seaside Park, N.J., died Oct. 26 in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.

October 27 - Staff Sgt. Stephen J. Dunning, 31, of Milpitas, Calif., died Oct. 27 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Andrew McCarthy on the Brutalization of American Foreign Policy

2011-10-27T14:29:00.000-07:00

Andrew McCarthy eviscerates the go along-get along supporters of the current administration's "get Qaddafi" policy (especially Republican Senator Lindsey Graham). What Obama policy really means is not only imposing another brutal regime on Libya. It has also resulted in the strengthening of jihadist terrorists as well as undermined the very principles of American democracy and basic ethics of keeping one's word.

First there's the disjunction between those squeamish about waterboarding (done to get crucial information and which did no permanent harm to the three men questioned) but okay with torture and assassination.

"Qaddafi’s escape from his last holdout was thus cut off by NATO airstrikes. Trapped and hidden in a sewer, he was dragged out and brutalized — not for intelligence, but for sport. There is video here if you can stomach it. What NATO abetted was not a military capture. It was an assassination. We will be worse off that it happened. And the way it happened should sicken us."

Then there's the hypocrisy of turning on a dime in feting Qaddafi one day and making him public enemy #1 the next.

"In 'leading from behind', our government went rogue — to the evident satisfaction of the formerly antiwar Left. Obama claimed to be keeping the peace and protecting civilians while waging an unauthorized offensive war against Qaddafi’s government — a regime with which the United States was at peace; a regime with which the United States had made a great show of arriving at friendly relations; a regime to which the United States (urged on by such official emissaries as Sen. Lindsey Graham) had provided foreign aid, including assistance to prop up Qaddafi’s military; a regime to which the Obama administration, including Secretary Clinton’s State Department, had stepped up American taxpayer subsidies — including aid to Qaddafi’s military and contributions to charitable enterprises managed by Qaddafi’s children."

And for what purpose? To protect innocent civilians?

"Protecting civilians? Please. We jumped in as a partisan on the side of the Islamists, who sported violent jihadists in their ranks and among their commanders — including al-Qaeda operatives whose dossiers included a stint at Guantanamo Bay and the recruitment of jihadists to fight a terror war against American troops in Iraq. While NATO targeted Qaddafi, the rebels rounded up black Africans, savagely killing many. (See, e.g., John Rosenthal’s reporting on summary executions, lynching, and a beheading — but be forewarned that the accompanying images are deeply disturbing.)

"When the Islamists finally began seizing territory, which they could not have done without NATO, they raided weapons depots. In Qaddafi’s Libya, his regime controlled the materiel; once the “rebels” swept in, weapons started going out — to other Islamists, like al-Qaeda in Northwest Africa and Hamas in Gaza."
[emphasis added]

Then there's the hypocritical undermining of American legal processes and protections.

"That is not to say the administration was above frivolous legal claims. President Obama overruled administration lawyers who ever so gently pointed out that his sustained war-making ran afoul of the War Powers Act — a suspect piece of legislation, but one the administration was loath to ignore given Obama’s support of it (at least until he became the president whose hands it tied). Not to worry: Obama reached outside his Justice Department to find his trusty State Department counsel Harold Koh — the former Yale Law School dean, War Powers Act enthusiast, and incessant critic of the cowboy militarism of George W. Bush (you may recall Bush as the president who used to get Congress’s blessing before attacking other countries). Presto: Koh rationalized that invading Libya, dropping bombs on it, and trying to kill its leader didn’t quite rise to the level of “hostilities” — suddenly, a very elusive concept. Party on, dudes!"
[emphasis added]

Andrew McCarthy's bottom line: Qaddafi was better than the violent thugs who are following him and threatening not only their own people but the rest of the world. Further, our complicity in facilitating mob "justice" against a former heavily lauded and supported "ally" who has engaged in no recent anti-US, let alone warlike, acts is a dangerous foreign policy precedent calling into question whether we have any principles.

"Yes, Qaddafi was a creep. If we lived in a static, zero-sum world where the killing of a single creep equaled a net decrease in global creepiness, that might be cause for cartwheels. But the world is dynamic. When one leader is ousted, another takes his place. Even if the leader happened to be a tyrant with a yellowing résumé of anti-American terrorism, it matters what his status is when the Arab Spring comes a-callin’. It matters who replaces him and how that transition comes to pass. The changing threat environment matters. The example we set, what it tells others about our principles, matters.

"To borrow Mr. Wallace’s phrase, I am not 'suggesting that we would be better off with the Qaddafi dictatorship still in effect.' I am saying it outright. If the choice is between an emerging Islamist regime and a Qaddafi dictatorship that cooperates with the United States against Islamists, then I’ll take Qaddafi. If the choice is between tolerating the Qaddafi dictatorship and disgracing ourselves by lying about the reason for initiating a war and by turning a blind eye to the atrocities of our new Islamist friends — even as we pontificate about the responsibility to protect civilians — then give me the Qaddafi dictatorship every time."
[emphasis added]

8 Heroes Who Died October 14 to October 22, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq

2011-10-24T13:36:00.000-07:00

October 14 - Spc. Michael D. Elm, 25, of Phoenix, Ariz., died in Khowst, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

October 17 - Staff Sgt. James R. Leep Jr., 44, of Richmond, Va., died in Babil province, Iraq.

October 19 - Staff Sgt. Jorge M. Oliveira, 33, of Newark, N.J., died in Paktika province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

- Chief Petty Officer Raymond J. Border, 31, of West Lafayette, Ohio, died while assessing a route in Paktika province, Afghanistan. Border, a Navy Seabee, was assigned to a provincial reconstruction team in Paktika province, Afghanistan.

October 22 - Died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device:
- 1st. Lt. Ashley I. White, 24, of Alliance, Ohio.
- Sgt. 1st Class Kristoffer B. Domeij, 29, of San Diego, Calif., and
- Pfc.Christopher A. Horns, 20, of Colorado Springs, Colo.

- Sgt. Paul A. Rivera, 26, of Round Rock, Texas, died in Logar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered in a vehicle rollover during an attack by enemy forces.

7 Heroes Who Died October 10 to October 13, 2011

2011-10-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

October 10 - Chief Warrant Officer James B. Wilke, 38, of Ione, Calif. died in Doha, Qatar.

- Staff Sgt. Nathan L. Wyrick, 34, of Enumclaw, Wash., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

October 12 - Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Michael R. Tatham, 33, of University Place, Wash., was involved in a fatal motorcycle accident while on rest and recuperation leave from supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Bali, Indonesia.

October 13 - Lance Cpl. Scott D. Harper, 21, of Winston, Ga., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Staff Sgt. Robert B. Cowdrey, 39, of Atwater, Ohio, died in Kunar province, Afghanistan, from injuries suffered during combat operations.

Spc. Jeremiah T. Sancho, 23, of Palm Bay, Fla., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

Staff Sgt. Houston M. Taylor, 25, of Hurst, Texas, died in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.

More Portland Crony Government

2011-10-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

Peter Korn of the Portland Tribune notes the different treatment of Occupy Portland protesters and compliant city officials with that accorded to a private downtown land owner when both were violating the same ordinance (and city officials and Occupy Portland were violating two additional ordinances as well).

After the Portland Tribune reported that the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) had sent a camping violation letter to a private land owner but not to Occupy Portland protesters, BDS finally sent the public land owner in violation of the same ordinance a letter warning the Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation about changes in usage to allow camping at Chapman and Lownsdale Squares.

"On Wednesday, the bureau of development services sent a similar letter to Michael Wright, owner of the vacant lot next to the Chinatown Gate on Northwest Burnside Street. Wright has leased his property to a group that set up a Dignity Village-like camp for homeless people. A story in Thursday’s Tribune noted that the Burnside Street homeless camp had been notified of potential violations but the Occupy Portland camp had not.
[emphasis added]

Korn continues:

"The complaints about the Occupy Portland site could force the bureau to examine three primary issues, [Mike] Liefeld [BDS enforcement program manager] said. The two city parks are zoned for open space, which appears to be disrupted by the tents. Overnight camping could be a second violation, since, like the West Burnside Street property being used by homeless campers, the park is not zoned for campground use, though the city’s anti-camping ordinance is being challenged in a three-year-old lawsuit in federal court. And, one of the complaints to the bureau involved late-night drumming from the Occupy Portland campground, which potentially could violate city noise ordinances."
[emphasis added]

Korn notes that while Wright was given ten days to respond, no deadline was given to the Park Bureau.

BDS is having a hard time sorting out how to handle public officials who violate the law:

"All of those [ordinance violations on city property] represent an unusual, possibly unique mess for bureau of development staff to wade through even as [Mayor Sam] Adams has allowed the protestors to remain encamped.

“'We’re trying to figure out how the codes would apply to this situation,' Liefeld said."
[emphasis added]

How to "apply" pretty basic laws to public officials and their favorites appears to be a real head scratcher in Portland.

Portland's Crony Government

2011-10-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

KGW reports:

"[Mayor Sam] Adams said allowing the protesters to remain was part of 'a balancing act. The city has discretion.' He likened the situation to a traffic officer handing out a warning or a ticket."
. . .
"Main St., which has been closed since the parks were occupied, is normally used by eight bus lines, as well as bicyclists and 7,500 cars. Mayor Adams gave protesters an exception from city policy that prohibits overnight stays, allowing them to camp at Chapman Park."
. . .
"What started as a march last Thursday [a week ago] resembled an encampment in the heart of downtown by Monday.

"Adams initially bent the rules against overnight stays in city parks, saying the protesters would be allowed to camp overnight in Chapman Square, something the city ordinance does not allow. By Monday, Occupy Portland had set up medical, food and supply tents. Some had even plugged in to an electric car charging station near the parks. On Tuesday, the city reportedly turned off power to the charging station."

Can the mayor give his friends and people he likes an "exemption" from following the law?

Remember when Mayor Tom Potter gave himself and Critical Mass cyclists an "exemption" from following city stop signs when other vehicles were not similarly exempted?

"But Friday night, [Mayor Tom] Potter -- a man who won by 23 percentage points without taking a donation over $100 -- once again showed that he takes his mandate as the city's new mayor seriously.

"He pedaled his Recumbent, a bike resembling a lawn chair on wheels, through a steady rain with about 250 Critical Mass demonstrators.

"At the first stop sign, Potter, 64, squeezed the brakes until he noticed the rest of the pack rolling through the intersection. 'I'll just follow you,' he told another cyclist, chuckling.

"The next three stops signs were a blur."

If those with government authority like you because you vote for them or funnel money to them, you get a pass on following the laws/ordinances/policies everyone else has to follow. Mayor Potter set a public precedent that his successor, Mayor Adams, is following. If the mayor say it's not illegal, it's not. City codes and ordinances do not apply to political friends.

Crony government is more toxic than crony capitalism.

Christie's Decision

2011-10-11T13:44:00.000-07:00

Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Apparently Governor Chris Christie didn't need the drama of playfully threatening to commit suicide or holding the big press conference last week saying he was not running. All he had to do was endorse Mitt Romney a lot earlier.

4 Heroes Who Died October 3 to October 8, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan

2011-10-10T12:25:00.000-07:00

October 3 - Pvt. Danny Chen, 19, of New York, died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

October 6 - Lance Cpl. Benjamin W. Schmidt, 24, of San Antonio, Texas, died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

October 8 - They died in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with a rocket propelled grenade. Killed were:

- Capt. Joshua S. Lawrence, 29, of Nashville, Tenn. and

- Capt. Drew E. Russell, 25, of Scotts, Mich.

Operation Counterweight

2011-10-10T00:05:00.000-07:00

I'm in for Professor William Jacobson's Operation Counterweight:

"'Why do I have this feeling that the back-stabbing and petty politics of the Republican insiders are going to leave me completely unexcited about the presidential campaign, and more focused on electing conservatives to Congress as a counterweight to the (hoped for) new Republican President?

"'Fight for the Republican nominee we want and the defeat of Obama, but also commence preparations for Operation Counterweight.'
"That will be my strategy for 2012, focusing on critical races in which we can elect Republicans willing to stand up to the Republican President who will take the oath of office in January 2013, and keep the Republican Speaker of the House and Republican Senate Majority Leader from repeating the mistakes of the past."

Palin's Decision; Palin's Importance

2011-10-06T13:01:00.000-07:00

In her interview with Greta Van Susteren last night, Sarah Palin said one of her considerations was:

"I would go back and forth about whether now is the time, and if I say no to the opportunity that's in front of me via running for office now will, politically speaking, will I die? Will I be ineffective? But, no, after making the decision today and making the announcement I know beyond a shadow of a doubt after great confirmation today too, Greta, personally speaking, I know that it's the right decision. And I know that I can join others in being effective in helping change what's going on in our country and helping wake up Americans to what is going on in our country." [starts about the 3:00 point]

Governor Palin dealt with the central issue: effectiveness. She did the same when resigning as governor. She said about that decision, "Politically speaking, if I die, I die."

Well, resigning as governor didn't turn out to be the fatal move every major political commentator said it would be. And Palin became more relevant to the 2010 electoral change in American politics after resigning than she was before.

Will she remain a potent political figure? If she continues saying what is needed, yes. Her criticisms of death panels, quantitative easing and crony capitalism were not powerful because she was a possible presidential candidate. They were powerful because she was right. (see New York Times commentator Anand Giridharadas and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend)

Reagan wasn't a "has been" after losing his presidential bid in 1976.* He ran against the Republican establishment and a sitting Republican president who did not have the message the nation needed. Reagan didn't "die" in 1976 because what he was saying was needed in 1980, 1984 and beyond despite his loss in 1976 and his advanced age.

In the end, Palin said she asked for God's guidance and felt confirmed in her decision not to run. Those who have made a similar type of decision in their own lives know what that feels like. Something looks like the right thing to do, but day by day the positive interior feeling goes south rather than settling in and becoming a firm conviction.

I don't know what Sarah Palin's future holds, but I don't expect that the content of what she says will become any less relevant tomorrow than it was the day before yesterday. It's the rightness of what is said rather than if it is said by someone actively running for office.

Leadership is about giving needed direction. Unfortunately most campaigners don't lead when it requires setting a hard course for the nation. Mostly the importance of what they say for the voter is in figuring out what the candidate believes and how the candidate will act in office rather than illuminating the trail the nation needs to follow.

For me, there is no political figure on the national scene who gives better direction than Sarah Palin. Actually, she even makes it into the handful of pundits who are worth reading because they understand basic principles rather than flipping from one position to another because of shifts in the daily news.

Only when Sarah Palin stops giving needed analysis and direction will she stop being important and politically powerful.

*I should make clear that I expect Governor Palin's political influence to go down just as Ronald Reagan's badly slumped after his 1976 defeat. He had no real impact on the 1976 or 1978 elections. However, despite having to fight the issue of his age, his perceived "dangerously conservative" stance and having alienated the Republican establishment by running against Ford in the primary and weakening Ford's chances at re-election, Reagan had the answers the nation needed, and his substantive impact became clear in 1980.
_________
I appreciate the commentary of Professor William Jacobson on Palin's decision, corruption in the media and establishment Republicans, and the dangers the political class present for the nation.

"[Palin's not running is p]robably for the better in the drive to unseat Obama, but only because of the political corruption of the media and establishment Republicans, who have been relentless in their attacks on her. It disgusts me that a candidate of such quality cannot run as a practical matter, and that we are left with second and third choices. But reality is reality, and it would have been a tough road to overcome the past three years.

"Palin had the opportunity to be a game-changer in the direction of this country; someone who really understood at a gut level how far down the road we are on the path to a country we will not recognize; someone who understands that the political class holds the country by the throat, and that removing the grip is necessary not just changing who holds the grip.

"I do not begrudge her the time she took at all. I respect that she took the time, and in the end made a sound decision, even if it is a decision which leaves me profoundly disappointed in the coming year."

Palin: Restoring America Together

2011-10-05T17:20:00.001-07:00

Palin Not Running for President in 2012

2011-10-05T16:00:00.000-07:00

I agree with John Nolte's tweet:

"Of course we are disappointed @SarahPalinUSA, but thank you for all you have done and will continue to do for your country."

UPDATE:
Governor Palin's announcement:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

Link to Mark Levin's interview with Governor Palin about her announcement.

P.S. I just donated to SarahPAC the $100 I had been planning to initially donate to her presidential campaign.

Palin's Sanity vs. Nicolle Wallace's

2011-10-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Byron York:

"I just spoke with Charlie Black, who was McCain's top campaign adviser in the 2008 race. 'I never heard any such discussions,' Black told me. 'There were no discussions like that with McCain, or I think I would have known about them. That doesn't mean some subset of the senior staff might have talked to each other about it.'

"As for the constitutional issues involved with blocking an elected vice-president from taking the oath of office, Black said, 'Whoever was having that discussion, if there was one, didn't have a good lawyer in the group.'"

The June dump of Sarah Palin's 24,000+ pages of e-mails showed Palin to be, in Politico commentator Andy Barr's words an "effective", "attentive", "hands on", "decisive" governor in areas "ranging from small issues to very large issues".

"The e-mails (not only ?) show like how effective she is, but it shows how attentive she is as governor. She’s paying very close attention to stuff. You know, ranging from small issues to very large issues. She’s very hands on with her staff in terms of not only reaching out and soliciting advice, but offering her own. She is, like, very decisive in a lot of these things."
. . .
“Because the movie [The Undefeated] is painting her as a very serious executive . . . and there are e-mails in here that corroborate a lot of that and will be good for her.”

The e-mails cover through half of Palin's time as Vice Presidential candidate--September 30, 2008--just two days before Palin's Vice Presidential candidate debate with Joe Biden. Still Nicolle Wallace thinks she can credibly say:

"WALLACE: Well, first let me just say that the novel is by no means meant to build a case against Sarah Palin. However, to the extent that the people around [the fictional vice president] Tara watched in this troubled state of confusion, despair and helplessness as she flailed around — that was something I experienced. Palin vacillated between extraordinary highs on the campaign stage — she ignited more enthusiasm than our side had seen at any other point — to debilitating lows. She was often withdrawn, uncommunicative and incapable of performing even the most basic tasks required of her job as McCain's running mate.

"The decision to relocate debate prep from the campaign trail, which is where McCain did his prep, to Sedona, was to isolate her and help her overcome the shock of becoming an overnight celebrity. There certainly were discussions — not for long because of the arc the campaign took — but certainly there were discussions about whether, if they were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in."

Funny that Palin's e-mails don't show any of that.

One wonders what a dump of Nicolle Wallace's e-mails at the time would show.

Desire to sell one's fiction book is understandable. But, in the face of 24,000 pages of public evidence?

Who is unbalanced?

H/T Byron York

15 Heroes Who Died September 24 to October 1, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq

2011-10-03T15:52:00.000-07:00

September 24 - Lance Cpl. Franklin N. Watson, 21, of Vonore, Tenn., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

September 25 - Spc. Francisco J. Briseno-Alvarez Jr., 27, of Oklahoma City, Okla., died in Laghman province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.

- 1st. Lt. Andres Zermeno, 26, of San Antonio, Texas, died in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with a rocket propelled grenade.

September 26 - Spc. Garrett A. Fant, 21, of American Canyon, Calif., died in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

September 28 - 1st Lt. Ryan K. Iannelli, 27, of Clarksboro, N.J., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

- Lance Cpl. John R. Wimpey Cagle, 19, of Tucker, Ga., died while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

- Died in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device:

- 1st Lt. Ivan D. Lechowich, 27, of Valrico, Fla.,
- Spc. Steven E. Gutowski, 24, of Plymouth, Mass., and
- Pfc. David A. Drake, 21, of Lumberton, Texas

- Staff Sgt. Nicholas A. Sprovtsoff, 28, of Davison, Mich., and
- Sgt. Christopher Diaz, 27, of Albuquerque, N.M., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

- Spc. James A. Butz, 21, of Porter, Ind., died in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.

- First Sgt. Billy J. Siercks, 32, of Velda Village, Mo., died in Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered Sept. 27 in Logar, Afghanistan when insurgents attacked his unit using indirect fire.

September 29 - Spc. Adrian G. Mills, 23, of Newnan, Ga., died in Kirkuk, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his unit was attacked by insurgents using indirect fire.

October 1 - Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Caleb A. Nelson, 26, of Omaha, Neb.,died after his vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a combat patrol in Zabul province, Afghanistan.

Review: Unnatural Selection

2011-09-27T22:59:00.000-07:00

Unnatural Selection: choosing boys over girls, and the consequences of a world full of men
by Mara Hvistendahl
PublicAffairs, New York, 2011
314 pages, $26.99 list; $17.81 street

Mara Hvistendahl has written an important book that highlights the practical consequences and immorality of aborting babies on the basis of their sex, especially aborting girl babies. In the process she unwillingly makes a case for the immorality of aborting babies at all.

Hvistendahl chapter by chapter traces the effect of policies and views that have led to a growing serious imbalance, especially in Asia, of boys over girls. This is due to parents choosing to abort baby girls in order to have at least one son. [In India, for example, there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls and in China 121 boys for every 100 girls. (p. 5) That means that over 10% of Indian men and 20% of Chinese men in the future won’t find a mate.] Consequently, world-wide there are about 160 million women “missing”. Compare that with the concern over the number of deaths due to AIDS–25 million worldwide. AIDS gets 1/4th of global spending on health. (p. 9, 16) That’s the first shoe.

The second shoe is that in much of the world, abortion has succeeded as a brake on population growth beyond the wildest dreams of its promoters. South Korea, for example, has an average birth rate of 1.22 children per woman. (p. 235) Since replacing current population requires something like 2.1 children per woman, South Korea’s population is in a nose dive that portends fewer workers and a contracting economy and inability of the society to economically (and perhaps physically) take care of a rapidly aging population. This is a worldwide problem with most developed nations that promoted population control now facing a population implosion.

In describing causes of these two disasters, Hvistendahl presents important players who brought on a population catastrophe of too few women and too few young people to sustain healthy societies.

Some key organizations:

“On the heels of the meeting [John D.] Rockefeller [III] founded the Population Council. [Hugh] Moore went on to found the Population Crisis Committee. These two organizations, together with the Ford Foundation, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), helped sell Asian nations on population control, primarily spreading the logic that lower birth rates lead to richer people.” (p. 33)

Modeling the worst kind of colonialism, these UN, Western governmental and private organizations purposefully forced Western thinking and values on weaker peoples against the cultural and religious values of those people. (p. 127-129)

Abortion turned out to be an effective means of promoting population control. And sex selective abortion was accepted as an easy way to introduce abortion into societies that valued boys but had traditionally been opposed to abortion. Hvistendahl points out that among first children, girls and boys are born in nearly equal numbers. But, when it comes to the second and especially the third child girls get aborted in order to make room for the desired son.

The worldwide result of this imbalance, beyond the 160 million female babies now "missing", is sex trafficking in women and girls, bought or kidnapped brides, child brides, and a society more prone to violence because single men are more likely to engage in violent and criminal activity than married men or women.

Other well known key players promoting population control and abortion around the world were political figures like Robert McNamara involved in forced sterilization of millions of men in India (p. 89), George H. W. Bush and Henry Kissinger (p. 127). (Hvistendahl doesn't mention leading Democrats from the Clinton administration, but surely there were.)

Especially influential in helping sex selective abortion were big business corporations like General Electric which garnered attractive profits in marketing ultrasound machines in Asian markets in the 1990's. Ultrasound technology was an easy way to discover the sex of the baby in the womb. Then when GE needed a boost in sales it developed and marketed compact ultrasound machines.

“In 2007, after GE’s market share in China dropped, the multinational introduced a low-end, compact machine that could be hooked up to a PC–-at one-sixth the cost of a conventional device. The compact machine, [Jeffrey R.] Immelt writes, was ‘a hit in rural clinics . . . Today the portable machine is the growth engine of GE’s ultrasound business in China.’” (p. 50)

So, high powered non-profits and social help agencies, United Nations’ and Western governmental agencies, high-powered Western political figures and big business all had a role in aiding and promoting sex selective abortions around the world. Some were inspired by misguided idealism and false fears of the results of growing populations and some were in it for the money. It’s a tawdry tale that Hvistendahl uncovers.

Hvistendahl is a good writer. She packs facts and information into a prose style that flows and carries the reader along. And she uses lots of personal story examples.

But, all the good writing and research, cannot deflect from her major problem. Hvistendahl believes that women have the right to choose whether their babies in the womb live or die. She believes the pro-life movement is wrong and blasts individuals and groups who, in working against sex selective abortion, believe it is wrong because fetuses are human beings with rights. (pp. 239-244)

Why is it okay to abort children because you don’t want that child, but wrong if you abort on the basis of sex? Hvistendahl has a hard time with this. She comes up with two main tries at argument.

1. If a woman doesn’t want to be a parent of a child at a given time time for whatever reason, it’s perfectly all right to abort for no other reason than whim. No questions beyond personal desire are to be asked.

However, if a woman wants to be a parent, then the woman's desires are only valid if they fall within what the left and progressives think are good reasons (congenital disease or some "imperfection" in the baby). Wanting a girl or a boy is not sufficient even though strong personal desire or cultural need may come in to play.

Hvistendahl quotes Mark Hughes "who unveiled embryo screening to help couples avoid passing on devastating diseases" as saying:

"'I went into medicine and into science to diagnose and treat and hopefully cure diseases. . . . Your gender is not a disease, last time I checked.'" (p. 253)

Yet Hvistendahl, in upholding the right to non-sex selective abortion, seems to forget that being a fetus is not a disease either. Not to mention that killing the patient should not be the preferred method of treating and curing diseases. (I'm reminded of a Law and Order episode where SVU Detective Benson yells the supreme damning indictment in the face of a doctor who supposedly was silent about the goings on at Abu Ghraib prison, “Do no harm!” However, no character on the show would ever yell that at a doctor who performed abortions.)

2. Hvistendahl’s second argument is that a child has the right to his or her own independent personhood.

“Bioethicists have mostly abandoned choice and privacy as starting points for thinking about reproduction. These days they talk about a framework that balances the rights of women with the rights of her potential children. Central to the new approach is the premise that every individual has the right to an ‘open future–instead of having expectation foisted on him or her even before birth. Preimplantation sex selection, some theorists now conclude, prioritizes the needs of one generation over another, making having children more about bringing parents satisfaction than about responsibly creating an independent human being.” (p. 200)

A fetus has the right to future independent personhood but not to life. A woman can decide to abort a child if it doesn't bring personal satisfaction, but not to specify characteristics that would bring personal satisfaction. Go figure.

So, what can be done to stop sex selective abortion or, more recently, sex selective in vitro fertilization?

Hvistendahl points to two current strategies.

One is a public information campaign to highlight the value of girls (or boys–U.S. mothers are partial to girls) when women are choosing to have babies of the other sex. Though it has worked somewhat in China and India, Hvistendahl notes it is not a campaign that will work in the U. S. (p. 226-229, 256, 258)

Second, make sex selective abortion criminal activity for the doctor and health professionals involved in it (5 year prison sentence) and any helpers who know what is going on (1 year prison sentence). (p. 244) Wow! Remember when an argument for legalizing abortion was that if you kept it criminalized women would just continue to get dangerous back alley abortions? And now here are pro-choice people suggesting that criminalizing sex selective abortion is the way to go. Who cares about back alley abortions any more.

The desire to limit population by persuasion or force has created a monster. As with declaring blacks sub-human in order to justify enslaving them, babies had to be declared sub-human in order to justify killing them. And mothers had to be given the god-like right of determining life or death in deciding how many and what kind of children they give birth to. Hvistendahl states the central problem succinctly. “In China and California alike, mothers have become their own eugenicists.” (p. 258)

How do you unwind that clock? It will be hard unless mothers again come to feel that the child within in them has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Continued talk by leftists and progressives about the right to abort for any reason, other than sex (or other personal attribute) selection, just pounds in belief on the right to abort for any reason, including sex (or other personal attribute) selection. (p. 244)

This is an important book because it puts on the table for discussion the moral and societal crisis caused by the West’s massive promotion of population control and abortion. Kudos to Mara Hvistendahl for an in-depth, well sourced look at the severity of the problem.

H/T Ross Douthat

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Facing Imminent Execution in Iran for Not Recanting Christianity

2011-09-26T17:07:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Photo of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani and his wife Tina

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani faces execution as early as Wednesday if he doesn't recant his Christian faith.

From ACLJ:

"Pastor Youcef will be brought to the court for two additional 'hearings' on September 27th and 28th for the sole purpose of being called upon to recant his Christian faith. The ACLJ’s sources report although Pastor Youcef’s attorneys will attempt to appeal the case, there is no guarantee that the provincial court will not act on its own interpretation of Shariah law and execute pastor Youcef as early as Wednesday."
. . .
"It is reported that Pastor Youcef was able to see his children for the first time since March and was in good spirits speaking of how he longed to serve the church upon his release."

From Nina Shea at National Review:

"As early as this week, the British-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports, Iran may execute Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani for refusing to recant his Christian faith.

"As my colleague Paul Marshall recently wrote, evangelical Pastor Nadarkhani was sentenced to death for apostasy because he converted to Christianity. He had been tried and found guilty a year ago, even though the court also found that he had never been a practicing Muslim as an adult. Nadarkhani, from Rasht, on the Caspian Sea, converted to Christianity as a teenager.

"Iran’s Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict in June, ordered that the pastor be given four chances to renounce Christianity and accept Islam. Two hearings for this purpose took place yesterday and today. Two more are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday."

8 Heroes Who Died September 18 to September 24, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq

2011-09-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

September 18 - Sgt. Timothy D. Sayne, 31, of Reno, Nev., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

- Staff Sgt. Estevan Altamirano, 30, of Edcouch, Texas, died in Tikrit, Iraq, of injuries suffered in a non-combat related incident.

September 21 - Died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked their unit with small arms fire. Killed were:
- Spc. Jakob J. Roelli, 24, of Darlington, Wis.; and
- Spc. Robert E. Dyas, 21, of Nampa, Idaho.

September 22 - Sgt. Andy C. Morales, 32, of Longwood, Fla., died in Baghdad, Iraq.

September 23 - Died in Wardak, province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked their unit using an improvised explosive device. Killed were:
- Sgt. Rafael E. Bigai Baez, 28, of San Juan, Puerto Rico and
- Pfc. Carlos A. Aparicio, 19, of San Bernadino, Calif.

September 24 - Sgt. Tyler N. Holtz, 22, of Dana Point, Calif., died in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.

For 69% of Americans Local Newspapers Not Important

2011-09-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

PEW Research Center does a couple of reverses in its analysis of the importance of local newspapers for local news.

First, PEW reports that 69% of Americans say they would not miss or not much miss their local newspaper if it disappeared.

". . . when asked, “If your local newspaper no longer existed, would that have a major impact, a minor impact, or no impact on your ability to keep up with information and news about your local community?” a large majority of Americans, 69%, believe the death of their local newspaper would have no impact (39%) or only a minor impact (30%) on their ability to get local information."

Then PEW notes the contrary point that local newspapers take the top spot in 11 of 16 subject areas.

"Yet when asked about specific local topics and which sources they rely on for that information, it turns out that many adults are quite reliant on newspapers and their websites. Of the 16 specific local topics queried, newspapers ranked as the most, or tied as the most, relied upon source for 11 of the 16."

But, it turns out that the 11 local topics that newspapers won are not topics that most people are interested (e.g., zoning and social services).

"The problem for newspapers is that many of these topics are followed by a relatively small percentage of the public. As noted in Part 2 of this report, just 30% of adults get information about zoning, 35% about social services, 42% about local government, and 43% about real estate. Thus, overall, the total number of Americans who rely on newspapers for the local information that matters to them is smaller than is the case for other platforms such as television."

The cloud gets darker for newspapers with those under 40, where newspapers are the top source for only one area of information: taxes.

"For adults under age 40, newspapers do not hold nearly the same appeal. Consider this stark difference: among all adults, newspapers are the clear top source for seven local topics (and tied with the internet as the top source for four other topics). Yet, among adults under 40 newspapers are the clear top choice for one topic, taxes, are tied with TV news for another topic, crime, and tie with the internet for four other topic areas."

Didn't See It Coming Stories

2011-09-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

After the Oregonian editorial board slams those who want to cut taxpayer funding for green energy, their reporter Ted Sickinger writes that the State of Oregon not suffering massive green energy investment losses may be "more lucky than good."

"State [of Oregon] business recruiters courted Solyndra, but came in second to California. They danced with Evergreen Solar, a company that tapped Massachusetts for $58 million in subsidies before collapsing in August. And they dodged another bullet when SprectraWatt, a spinoff of Intel in Oregon, spurned the state's advances for New York, only to declare bankruptcy in August."

Then a recent Gallup poll shows that President Obama's long history of referencing George W. Bush's presidential problems has been counterproductive: "Poll: 56% of surveyed think Barack Obama is worse President, or just as bad, as George W. Bush". Way to tie your wagon to a losing comparison.

Finally, many of those who have been telling us that it is too late for anyone to get in the Republican presidential primary race and that waiting this long is not serious, a big "tease", and merely for self-publicity haven't uttered a peep against Governor Chris Christie's apparent new look at getting into the race. This despite the fact that Christie said he was not ready to be president and had 0% chance of running. Talk about a tease.*
----
*Though the statement about not being ready to be president would hurt Governor Christie if he did get in, I would like to see him run (and Governor Palin too). Contested primaries are good tests of strengths and weaknesses. They are also helpful in verifying or debunking high hopes of wistful supporters.

PEW: 4/5ths of Americans Think Press Is Often Influenced by Powerful Special Interests

2011-09-22T18:30:00.000-07:00

PEW Research Center reports:

- Almost 2/3rds of Americans say press "[s]tories are often inaccurate".
- More than 3/4ths of Americans say the press "[t]end to favor one side".
- An astounding 4/5ths of Americans say the press are "[o]ften influenced by powerful people and organizations".

Sloppy and biased reporting. Influenced by special interests.

PEW has a slight positive spin in saying that the press is more trusted than political candidates, government and business corporations. Not a high bar to beat.

Who wasn't on the comparison list? Family and friends. In a poll conducted September 8, 2008, Rasmussen found that "46% of voters say they most trust information about the presidential campaign from family and friends as opposed to 32% who trust the information from news reporters more." (Unfortunately the article is now behind a pay wall.)

Also not on the comparison list: military officers, day care providers, auto mechanics, nursing home operators and bankers who all ranked above TV and newspaper reporters in honesty and ethics.

9 Heroes Who Died September 9 to September 18, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan

2011-09-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

September 9 - Pfc. Brett E. Wood, 19, of Spencer, Ind., died in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

September 10 - Staff Sgt. Keith F. Rudd, 36, of Winder, Ga., died in Parvan, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained while supporting combat operations.

Master Sgt. Danial R. Adams

September 13 - Master Sgt. Danial R. Adams, 35, of Portland, Ore., died in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using mortar, machine-gun and small-arms fires. Oregonian obituary:

"Danial R. Adams joined the Army as an infantry man in 1995, when America wasn't at war. He took difficult assignments and passed demanding classes, becoming a Ranger and, in 2005, earning his Green Beret. In 2009, he joined the 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, based in Stuttgart, Germany.

"He had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and was leading a team of special forces soldiers on a mission in Wardak province in central eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday when they encountered insurgents and engaged in "a very intense firefight," according to a spokesman for the 10th Special Forces Group. Adams was the only U.S. casualty of that engagement, the spokesman said.

"Adams, who was a promotable Sergeant First Class, was posthumously promoted to Master Sergeant.

"His wife, Melany, and sons, Jeffrey and John, and daughter, Skye, have returned to the United States from Germany to make funeral arrangements. His parents, James and Penny Adams, live in Hillsboro.

"Adams had won a series of commendations reflecting his service in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Among other honors, he was awarded the Parachutist Badge, the Air Assault Badge and the Combat Infantry Badge. He was 35."

September 14 - Sgt. Rodolfo Rodriguez Jr., 26, of Pharr, Texas, died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan of injuries sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.

September 15 - Sgt. Mycal L. Prince, 28, of Minco, Okla., died in Laghman province, Afghanistan of injuries sustained when insurgents attacked his unit using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire.

- Cpl. Michael J. Dutcher, 22, of Asheville, N.C., died while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

September 17 - Staff Sgt. Michael W. Hosey, 27, of Birmingham, Ala., died in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.

- Sgt. Garrick L. Eppinger Jr., 25, of Appleton, Wis., died in Parwan province, Afghanistan.

September 18 - Spc. Chazray C. Clark, 24, of Ecorse, Mich., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.

Sexual Violence, 1800flowers.com, ESPN Radio and the Daily Caller

2011-09-18T16:19:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: The ESPN hosts who laughed at Tyson's violent sex talk and apparently agree that white women* have a thing for sex with blacks are:

Mitch Moss
Paul Howard
Seat Williams

H/T Dana Loesch

The Daily Caller posted an article by Jeff Poor which consists basically of vile remarks Mike Tyson made on ESPN Radio. The remarks laughingly call for violent sex with women--especially Sarah Palin. The ESPN Radio interviewers laugh throughout an interview in which Tyson calls for the kind of sex which causes "Pushing her guts up in the back of her head!" or "Just imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping. Yeehaw!”

That's the sort of talk one would expect from convicted rapist Mike Tyson, but unfortunately it's also clearly the kind of thing the ESPN radio guys laugh at.

I went to the ESPN radio site, and the link for comments on their programs was sponsored by 1800flowers.com. Not particularly smart for a flower delivery company to be sponsoring shows that promote "rough sex" with women in general and Sarah Palin in particular and laugh about it.

Not great for ESPN either. Not exactly family friendly radio you'd want to listen to with your kids or wife or anyone you hope thinks you are a good and caring person. If this is the kind of thing they laugh at on the air what kind of violence do they think is funny in private comments? The ESPN brand now makes me gag.

Unfortunately the Daily Caller, which may have had good intentions in calling ESPN radio out (but didn't), first posted the comments without the current mild disclaimer which was posted after they got lots of flack from people like Dan Riehl and Greta Van Susteren.

"Editor’s note:

"Many of the quotes in this story are offensive, indeed repulsive, and not suitable for younger readers or those who are easily shocked. They are also newsworthy. Had Tyson used this language to attack virtually any other person in public life, he’d be vilified on the front page of the New York Times. But you won’t read these quotes in the Times. We believe they deserve public scrutiny and condemnation."

Even the disclaimer is clueless. Nothing about ESPN radio interviewers laughing or the promotion of violence against women in general and Sarah Palin in particular. Unfortunately, the Daily Caller guys still don't get how vile this is. Matt K. Lewis, a usually level-headed guy, calls the comments just "inappropriate".

Apparently the people at the Daily Caller are deep in group think and can't see the difference between vile, violent imagery and merely inappropriate language. Like Greta Van Susteren, I can't believe that either Tucker Carlson or Matt K. Lewis would think it only "inappropriate" if the names of their wives or daughters were substituted for Palin's. I'll close with Greta's take which says it well [emphasis in the original].

I really don’t understand my friend Tucker Carlson. He owns the website The Daily Caller and it currently has on its front page the most vile story — referring to a sex act with Governor Sarah Palin as a “womb shifter.” It is even the headline. Do you know what that means? Figure it out It is really vile. It is not just smut…this is violence against women.

The “womb shifter” reference reported in the story is only the tip of the ice berg in terms of the vile nature of the posting. I am sparing you the details. To show you how bad it is, however, I have put a screen grab up of the front page reference on Tucker’s website. (I am deliberately not putting the link up since I am not going to help Tucker be a pig…he apparently can do it all himself without my help.)
. . .
I don’t like it when I see that my friends do disgraceful things – but we need to start calling out even our friends to stop this. Tucker has daughters and a wife and I would think he in particular would not want to be a purveyer of smut (and this is actually more, this is violence against women) and allow this to be posted on his website. There is nothing funny about violence against women and repeating what a thug (I thought – even hoped – Tyson had outgrown that) says on a radio show is also not news. I know he loves his wife and children and would never want this said or reported about them….so why is it ok to report about another? This is not news."
. . .
"In case you have any doubt, there is an easy test as to whether this is deeply wrong. To all you Palin haters out there, ask yourself, would this be ok if this were written about others – eg Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? or Speaker Nancy Pelosi or any other woman leader? or put in the name of your mother….your daughter…your own name…your sister…etc."
. . .
"I hope Tucker does something about this. For starters, he should pull the posting down and then fire anyone who used this bad judgment and was part of posting it. This is not journalism. It is denigrating women."

-----
*“'[I]n life in general you know … everybody got to get that out of their system when they get out of college,' [Tyson] said. 'If you’re a black man, every white girl, every uppity middle class … everybody got to get their share of love.'”

New York Times: Joe McGinniss Book Is Nasty, Unsubstantiated, Not Lucid

2011-09-15T15:42:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Joel Pollak shreds McGinniss and his book. Sample:

"[McGinniss's] malevolent accusations evoke George Orwell’s observation on antisemitism: 'Obviously the charges made about Jews are not true. They cannot be true, partly because they cancel out, partly because no one people could have such a monopoly of wickedness.'

"Take McGinniss’s most infamous claim, leaked days before The Rogue appeared in stores–the accusation that Palin had sex with basketball player Glen Rice in 1987. The charge appears in the book exactly one page after McGinniss claims Palin declined to enroll at the Hilo campus of the University of Hawaii because 'the many people of color there made her nervous,' and that she later abandoned the Honolulu campus because '[t]here were people of color…even on Waikiki Beach.' McGinniss attempts to explain the abrupt transition by speculating that she might have become 'a basketball groupie who’d begun to find black men attractive.' And then, on the very next page after that, he quotes an unnamed 'friend' who claimed that Palin 'totally flipped out' about her alleged encounter with Rice: 'I fucked a black man! She was just horrified. She couldn’t believe that she’d done it,' the alleged 'friend' claims (original emphasis).

"Other contradictions recur throughout the book. McGinniss can’t decide, for example, whether Palin was a 'housewife who happened to be governor' (quoting Gary Wheeler, a state employee whose job she cut), or that Palin neglected her maternal duties such that 'the children literally would have a hard time finding enough to eat' (quoting an unnamed 'friend'). The only common theme is McGinniss’s palpable hatred for Palin."

_____

New York Times' reviewer Janet Maslin skewers Joe McGinniss and his new book on Sarah Palin.

"Mr. McGinniss explains that he was shocked, just shocked, at the angry response his presence in Wasilla provoked. But “The Rogue” makes the Palins’ widely publicized anger understandable, even to readers who might have defended his right to set up shop in their neighborhood and soak up the local color. Although most of 'The Rogue' is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and 'a friend.'"

And these stories need not be consistent. . . .
. . .

"Mr. McGinniss’s most quotable, inflammatory lines call Ms. Palin a clown, a nitwit, a rabid wolf and a lap dancer — and those aren’t the parts that assail her as a wife and parent.

"He even finds a species of Alaska yenta willing to remark on the condition of the Palins’ toilet, and he too (many of these gossips are men) has a place in 'The Rogue.' A journalist as seasoned as Mr. McGinniss surely knows what these details will do to his credibility regarding the book’s more serious claims."
. . .
[The Rogue] cites the investigation that became known as Troopergate, the questions about her involvement with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (Mr. McGinniss covered this in a 2009 Portfolio article) and her possible commitment to such extreme theological ideas as dominionism, although here too 'The Rogue' is too busy being nasty to be lucid. Mr. McGinniss suggests both that Ms. Palin is committed to stealth religious control of government, and that she is not sufficiently devout.
. . .
"Mr. McGinniss puts forth a provocative case for doubting Ms. Palin’s account of Trig’s birth, which involved a round trip between Alaska and Texas while she was supposedly in labor. But then he comes to an indefensibly reckless conclusion: 'It is perhaps the most blistering assessment of her character possible that many Wasillans who’d known Sarah from high school onward told me that even if she had not faked the entire story of her pregnancy and Trig’s birth, it was something she was eminently capable of doing.'"
[emphasis added]

Maslin has only one backhanded compliment for McGinniss, but the target is not the focus of the book, Sarah Palin, but her daughter Bristol:

"There is one area, and only one, in which 'The Rogue' is dead-on. Mr. McGinniss knows how publicity works. He appreciates, not to say emulates, the way members of the Palin family cash in on celebrity and contradict themselves without penalty. He also denounces the press’s willingness to let this happen. How was it possible, he asks, for Ms. Palin’s daughter Bristol to assail Levi Johnston, the father of her son, as being 'obsessed with the limelight,' then turn up herself on 'Dancing With the Stars'"?
[emphasis added]

The New York Times gives McGinniss a well-deserved Bronx cheer.

H/T Byron York

Palin: Crony Capitalism and the White House

2011-09-14T21:34:00.000-07:00

Crony Capitalism on Steroids from GE to Solyndra
by Sarah Palin on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 8:25pm

In my recent speech in Iowa, some eyebrows were raised when I took on our government’s enormous economic problems caused by crony capitalism. As if on cue, just days later President Obama selected someone who exemplifies a major crony capitalism problem to sit next to the First Lady when he delivered his “jobs plan” speech before Congress. He selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as his honored guest.

Having grown up with great respect for GE thanks to stories my grandfather shared with us about his days working for the company and even meeting GE spokesman-at-the-time Ronald Reagan during a company event, I am saddened at GE’s leadership evolution. This corporation is now the poster child of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

This icon of American industry is a company full of good employees who make some good products (and is the parent company of a huge media outlet), but GE is also a large American corporation that pays virtually no corporate income taxes despite earning worldwide profits of $14.2 billion last year, $5.1 billion of it in the United States. In fact, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, meaning they received more of our hard earned tax dollars than they contributed. How is that possible? It’s because not only do they shelter their money from taxes, but they also get many tax credits, loans, government grants, and other benefits from the federal government that our smaller businesses couldn’t even imagine being able to profit from.

Joining GE in the pantheon on crony capitalism is another Obama favorite that has been in the news of late: Solyndra. The President hailed this “green energy” company in a speech last May as “the true engine of economic growth.” When he announced the $535 million guarantee to Solyndra, Vice President Biden said that investments like this are “exactly what the Recovery Act is all about.” (Dear God…If the failed Solyndra venture has been what it’s “all about,” then that explains a lot.) As I pointed out in my speech at the Reagan Ranch Center last February: “History has proven again and again, when government picks the winners and losers, we’re stuck with the losers, and we the taxpayers subsidize failure!” And that’s what we’re seeing now, as the FBI raids the solar energy company’s headquarters to glean more information after the company was handed half a billion dollars in “green energy” Stimulus funds from the American taxpayer only to later declare bankruptcy. More than one thousand Solyndra workers lost their jobs. Now as the truth comes out, we discover that the White House was heavily involved in the Department of Energy’s rushed decision to give the Stimulus funds to Solyndra, and they tried to move the money through so quickly they seem to have ignored concerns that the company was not viable. Why would they do this? Perhaps it’s because a large investor in the company (about 35%) is Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser. And with the way the deal is structured, Kaiser will get his debts paid before we the taxpayers see any relief. That is sickening. And that’s how it works: workers lose their jobs, wealthy political cronies stand a good chance of getting their money back, and the U.S. taxpayer gets the shaft. Again.

President Obama has his sights set on raising $1 billion for his reelection campaign. Raising that money won’t be easy. But if you can hand out other people’s money to friends, it must get a whole lot easier. This crony capitalism and government waste is at the heart of our economic problems. It will destroy us if we don’t root it out. It’s not just a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It’s a problem of our permanent political class. This won’t stop until “we the people” say enough is enough, and we retire the permanent political class that votes for this.

- Sarah Palin

[emphasis added]

8 Heroes Who Died September 4 to September 10, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan

2011-09-12T14:08:00.000-07:00

September 4 - Pfc. Christophe J. Marquis, 40, of Tampa, Fla., died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained Aug. 27 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.

September 8 - Two soldiers died of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Killed were:
- Spc. Koran P. Contreras, 21, of Lawndale, Calif.
- Pfc. Douglas J. Jeffries Jr., 20, of Springville, Calif.

September 9 - Three soldiers died in Paktia, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with small arms fire. Killed were:
- Sgt. Bret D. Isenhower, 26, of Lamar, Okla.,
- Spc. Christopher D. Horton, 26, of Collinsville, Okla., and
- Pfc. Tony J. Potter Jr., 20, of Okmulgee, Okla.

- Petty Officer Brian K. Lundy, 25, of Austin, Texas, died while conducting a dismounted patrol in Marjah, Helmand province, Afghanistan.

September 10 - Staff Sgt. Daniel A. Quintana, 30, of Huntington Park, Calif., died in Paktika province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.

Thomas Anthony Casoria--Hero

2011-09-12T13:43:00.000-07:00

I'm stretching the "day" to honor 9/11 heroes to today as well.

Thomas Anthony Casoria

It's too easy to think of the almost 3,000 killed on 9/11 as just numbers. But, they were vibrant people who loved and were loved. And some, like Thomas Anthony Casoria, were heroes. I first posted this in 2006, and I post it again today because it's right to remember and honor men and women like Tommy Casoria.

Thomas Anthony Casoria was killed by Al-Qaeda terrorists on September 11, 2001.

Tommy was only 29. He was a firefighter with the New York Fire Department, Engine Company 22. He lived his life in direct opposition to the values of the terrorists. He died trying to save lives.

Tommy responded to the call for help in Tower One of the World Trade Center. Here's what one of his cousins, Jo-Ann Casoria, wrote:

Tommy absolutely loved his job and he loved sharing stories of his workdays with his older brother, Carlo, also a firefighter.

(snip)

Tommy radioed in his location twice after Tower Two fell. He and two of his "brothers," Vinny Kane and Mike Elferis, were carrying a paraplegic down the stairwell, when a call came in that another firefighter needed aid. Tommy answered that call, as did many others.

Tommy was engaged to be married. Though he never got the chance to spend those happy honeymoon years with his fiancee, Terri, or raise a family, he left a legacy of love and friendship along with his heroism.

One of Tommy's friends, Richard Vitale, wrote:

Let me tell you about Tommy. This man was the funniest guy I ever worked with. It was always a blast. Tommy could simulate anyone's voice with great detail. I never worked with anyone like him. What a great guy! Tommy knew what was right and what was wrong. He never crackled under peer pressure. Even when he tried to work for me for Thanksgiving. He stood strong. That was some reaction we got from the Truck, wasnt it, Tom. Maguire got red as a tomato. I remember when he told me he was going to get married. He was so happy and in Love. What a big smile he had on his face. I teased him about "dont do it", however, I thought what a lucky man to be in love this much. Tommy was respected and loved by everyone.

Understanding Polls and Electability

2011-09-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

Poll Insider posted an important series earlier this year on how to win the presidency. Part 1 explains how a candidate's "floor" is the key to understanding electability.

"A 'floor' is a candidate’s guaranteed minimum percentage based on current polling data, accounting for all factors."

Poll Insider applies this understanding of a "floor" to Barack Obama and Sarah Palin:

"Obama’s floor, or guaranteed vote, according to analysis of current polling is 43%. What this means is that 43% of people will vote for Barack Obama no matter who his opponent is. It could be much higher, but probably not any lower. This number is arrived at by reviewing 6 months of polling date from all polling firms. This is Obama’s floor because, depending on his opponent, his support grows or shrinks, but rarely below 43%.

"Sarah Palin’s current floor is determined to be 39% as she typically registers 39% or 40% in head-to-head match-ups against Obama (not counting 3-way race polling). So today, the floor stands at Obama 43% and Palin 39%, or Obama +4. Yes, I know what the skeptics/elites would say to this: 'But Obama always scores much higher than 43% against Palin, duh!' That is true, but the point of determining a floor is to understand a candidate’s solid support. Elites prefer to go light on analysis and heavy on drama. If a poll shows Obama scoring 53% against one candidate and 42% against another, his support is quite volatile, and can be changed as information is acquired."*

Poll Insider goes on to point out that the closeness of these floors of support are in contrast to the overwhelming positive media image of Obama and negative media image of Palin.

"What does this all mean? For one, it is good news for Sarah Palin. Figure that almost all media coverage of Palin for the previous 2 years has been incredibly negative, accusatory, insulting, misleading, and 'downright mean', to quote Michelle Obama. It’s amazing to read something Palin writes or says and see how it is maliciously twisted into a salacious sound bite. Unfortunately most people at this stage know the sound bite, but not what she actually says. Meanwhile, despite being generally inept, but receiving glorious and glowing coverage from the media, Obama’s floor is at a mere 43%. This means that all the positive coverage on the world for Obama and all the negative coverage in the world for Palin results only in a 4 point spread.

"When we toss in candidate favorable/unfavorable opinion we find a very interesting fact. Let’s not pretend that Palin’s current favorables are high. In reality, they shouldn’t be. We have to remember that 80% of the population’s opinion of Palin is currently formed by the media’s representation of her. Or, misrepresentation if you prefer, and I do. But Sarah Palin heavily outperforms her favorability rating, in many cases by 2-1 margins. Meanwhile Obama underperforms his favorable rating, usually by 10-15 percentage points. So far more people will vote for Sarah Palin even with a negative opinion of her while far fewer people with a positive opinion of Obama will vote for him. This only works in Palin’s favor as she is able to make the case for herself and opinions of her arise. If a large percentage of people will vote for her when they do not like her, what happens when the percentage of people who do like her increases dramatically, as will inevitably be the case."

As you can tell this is both an eye opening and thoughtful assessment. The whole series is worth reading. Kudos to Poll Insider.
_____
*In support of this is the famous polling done when Reagan was 34 points behind Carter in the 1980 presidential race. (Carter 65 vs. Reagan 31)

H/T Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion commenter Sandy Daze and RED SOUTH at Free Republic

Tammy Bruce Helps Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter See Their Self-Contradictions

2011-09-07T17:32:00.000-07:00

Listen to Tammy Bruce's podcast. Kind, but logically devastating.

I'm with John Nolte who tweeted:

"It only took 9 mins 42 seconds, but I fell in love with @HeyTammyBruce all over again. http://bit.ly/qxWKzo For full context, listen to all."

H/T Josh Painter

New York Sun: Palin Only Key Republican Addressing Union Issue

2011-09-07T12:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the New York Sun editorialized about the importance of Sarah Palin's response to James P. Hoffa's Labor Day comments and the economic crisis in the country which union households also face:

"It turns out that Mrs. Mrs. Palin understands this issue down to the ground. She brings to it the perspective of being the daughter of two union members and the wife of long-time union member, most recently of the Steelworkers, and is, in her own right, a one-time card-carrying member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Addressing what she called 'the hard working, patriotic, selfless union brothers and sisters in Michigan and throughout our country,' she warned the rank and file against being taken in by 'union bosses’ thuggery.'

"She was referring to Mr. Hoffa’s deciding to introduce Mr. Obama at the now famous labor rally in Detroit by declaring that labor was his army and ready to march and exhorting, in respect of the Tea Party, 'let’s take these sons of bitches out.' Said she: 'Just because you claim to represent union members doesn’t mean you are on the side of the angels. The greed of too many of these union bosses has all but destroyed the labor movement in this country, helped chase away our jobs, and is killing the American dream.'

"Quoth the Alert Alaskan: 'To see where this leads, look at what’s happening to the working class in our industrialized cities. These cities are going to hell in a hand basket thanks to corruption, crony capitalism, and the union bosses’ greed. The union bosses derive their power from your union dues and their promise to deliver your votes to whichever politician they’re in bed with. They get their power from you, and yet their actions ultimately hurt you. They’re chasing American industry offshore by making outrageous, economically illogical demands that they know will never work. . . .'”
. . .
"There’s more in Mrs. Palin’s full Facebook posting, and if it is a taste of a campaign ahead, the race will be richer for it. For where are the rest of the Republicans? The Drudge Report has been leading with the story all day. Aside from Drudge, Mrs. Palin was way ahead of the press. Where is the Republican presidential field? Some say that Mrs. Palin is just teasing the Republicans and that she won’t run in the end. But right now there is no one else coming at this issue from quite the angle she is — or with the plain spoken news sense."
[emphasis added]

Paul Gigot and Intellectuals and Society

2011-09-06T18:51:00.000-07:00

A central thesis of Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society is that intellectuals have brought untold pain* upon the world because they never have to pay a penalty when they are wrong. Doctors, architects, financial advisors are held to account for failure, but not intellectuals.

Paul Gigot, editor of the editorial pages for the Wall Street Journal, writes:

"Ms. Palin might have been a contender. Had she finished her job as governor, devoted a year or two to learning what she didn't know about the world and economics, built a network of support around the country, and developed a thicker skin about the media, she might now be a formidable candidate. Instead, she chose to be a media celebrity and to play hard-to-get as a candidate. The best thing she could do for her reputation at this point would be to declare once and for all that she isn't running, and then work to support whoever is the GOP nominee."

Might have been a contender? Maybe Mr. Gigot hasn't read the most recent poll on Real Clear Politics that puts Palin in third place even without running. That's what the current ABC/Washington Post poll shows. Does that mean that only those with an above 14% rating (Mitt Romney and Rick Perry) are "contenders"? The ABC/Washington Post poll taken in July about a month before Perry announced had Palin in second, two places ahead of Perry. Actually, Perry polled behind Ron Paul at that point. So, Perry polling way down the list, should never have been considered a "contender"?

Still, Gigot, knowing he will never be penalized for making a false assessment, feels free to say whatever enters his head. He sniffs at hard evidence. Much like Clark Clifford never was penalized for calling Ronald Reagan an "amiable dunce". When you're an intellectual you can make outrageous statements, smear people, and it's all water off a duck's back.

Fortunately greats like Ronald Reagan prove the smearers wrong in the court of history. Still, there is no price that intellectual incompetence brings in the area of political opinion--except the price a society pays for following bad advice.

If Paul Gigot is wrong about Palin, he will never pay a price at the Wall Street Journal or with a lowered reputation among his fellow editors. He'll still lead the Journal's report on the Fox News channel Saturday lineup.

Of course, this is a small smear, as smears go. But, how sad that neither Gigot nor the Wall Street Journal understand that words really do matter and opinions from those in powerful positions should be based at least partially on fact.
----
*Like the intellectuals who counseled disarmament before World War II or those who thought eugenics and eliminating inferior races and population groups was the key to a successful world order.

UPDATE: The New York Sun has a quite different take and finds Sarah Palin an important, maybe key, voice in the Republican Party right now. (And they use actual evidence for their opinion.):

"There’s more in Mrs. Palin’s full Facebook posting [Welcome, Union Brothers and Sisters], and if it is a taste of a campaign ahead, the race will be richer for it. For where are the rest of the Republicans? The Drudge Report has been leading with the story all day. Aside from Drudge, Mrs. Palin was way ahead of the press. Where is the Republican presidential field? Some say that Mrs. Palin is just teasing the Republicans and that she won’t run in the end. But right now there is no one else coming at this issue from quite the angle she is — or with the plain spoken news sense."
[emphasis added]

Palin: "I fought the corrupt political machine"

2011-09-06T10:03:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin:

"We should not forget that for all his lofty rhetoric, President Obama is a Chicago politician. Graft, cronyism, and quid pro quo are the well-known methods of an infamous Chicago political machine, of which Barack Obama emerged. This corruption isn’t just the result of a few bad apples. It’s the nature of a skewed system that’s typical of one not allowing a level playing field. If one desires opportunity for all, then the only solution is sudden and relentless reform. I know of what I speak. I too served in public office in a state that had a corruption problem. The difference is that I fought the corrupt political machine. Barack Obama used the machine in his state to advance. He never challenged it. And he’s evidently brought the same Chicago “pay-to-play” practices to the White House."
[emphasis added]

A telling comparison.

6 Heroes Who Died August 25 to September 3, 2011, Fighting in Afghanistan

2011-09-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

August 25 - Killed in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle using an improvised explosive device were:

- Sgt. Devin J. Daniels, 22, of Kuna, Idaho; and
- Sgt. Colby L. Richmond, 28, of Providence, N.C.

August 28 - Spc. Douglas J. Green, 23, of Sterling, Va., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device and small arms fire.

- Pfc. Alberto L. Obod Jr., 26, of Orlando, Fla., died in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered during a vehicle roll-over.

August 31 - Spc. Dennis James Jr., 21 of Deltona, Fla., died from wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

September 3 - Spc. Christopher J. Scott, 21, of Tyrone, N.Y., died at Kandahar province, Afghanistan of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.

Does John Fund Have a Political Tin Ear?

2011-09-03T22:36:00.000-07:00

Guess we'll find out soon enough if John Fund has a political tin ear since Governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she will make her decision about running in the Republican presidential primary by the end of this month.

Despite Palin's timeline, John Fund has predicted that Palin will not enter the Republican presidential primary but will endorse Governor Rick Perry. He and Matt Continetti are out on the same limb that Palin will not run, though Continetti has a lot more snark and a lot less firmness in his take.

I like John Fund and think he does good work. We'll see if he's as good at predicting as he is at reporting. Though it's interesting to speculate on what makes a reporter known for doing careful research before releasing a story stake his reputation on an unnecessary prediction when he admits he has no first-hand evidence.

"At the risk of being accused of misleading people, let me state that Sarah Palin isn’t running for president.

"No, I don’t have 'inside information,' other than that Sarah Palin has had the time of her life playing the media and political class like a fiddle by making them respond to her every Twitter twitch."

Ricochet has a post up on Fund's article. I'm partial to Peter Robinson over there (as well as his Uncommon Knowledge interview series on the National Review site).

Peter Robinson won me over in his book on Reagan. Robinson was a Reagan speech writer, and the book describes not only Robinson's experiences as a White House speech writer, but ten lessons of life he learned from Reagan. What is especially interesting is that though Robinson admires Reagan, even loves him, and obviously thinks he was a great president, an undercurrent in the book is the struggle to come out and say that Reagan was really, really smart.

Robinson is not an elitist. Still, he has to phrase the things he learned from Reagan in terms of wise lessons in how to live life. Robinson knows his intellectual colleagues would have laughed him out of town if he had said Reagan was brilliant. (Look how long it took for Lincoln to be thought brilliant.)

But brilliant is as brilliant does. Ending the decades long Cold War without firing a shot and bringing the economy back from a misery index (inflation + unemployment) of 20.76 under President Jimmy Carter to 9.57 at the end of Reagan's presidency is nothing short of brilliant.

Robinson's love for Reagan (way before President Obama made it cool for the intellectual class to admire Reagan) and his polite, even caring questioning when he interviews people make him special. He even tries to help his guests climb down from over the top negative statements about others as he did in his interview with Christopher Hitchens (described in chapter four of his book) and with Claire Berlinski (in a 2010 Uncommon Knowledge interview).

Robinson doesn't seem to have a mean or snarky bone in him. I highly recommend How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. Robinson, James Lileks and Rob Long make a good interviewing/commenting team on the Ricochet podcasts.