Monthly Archives: February, 2010

In a week where several news outlets recognized significant happenings involving the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Associated Press seems to have decided that none of them merit mention. A search on "acorn" at the AP's main site returns the following:

This search doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that AP ran local or regional stories, but I didn't locate any in a Google News search on "ACORN."

What follows is a small sample of other coverage generated as a result of goings-on at ACORN during the past week. Readers can decide whether the wire service has decided that recognizing negative news about a scandal-ridden "progressive" organization is a bad idea:

• Fox News, Feb. 23 -- "ACORN Hopes New Image Can Save Disgraced Advocacy Group"
• New York Times City Room Blog, Feb. 23 -- "Restart, ACORN Edition"
• Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 23 -- "ACORN breaks apart in scandal's wake"
• New York Daily News, Feb. 23 -- "ACORN's New York branch to cut all ties with national parent group"
• Reuters, Feb. 22 -- "Scandals weaken liberal group ACORN"

AP has done stories with far less substantive raw material from elsewhere. Why not on ACORN?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Chris Matthews believes it's too soon for George W. Bush nostalgia.

Such was discussed during this weekend's syndicated program bearing his name.

In fact, Matthews made this his big question of the day asking his guests, "Will there be George W. Bush nostalgia this November when his book comes out?"

To his discredit, Matthews was the only person of the five in front of the camera that felt the answer was no concluding, "I think he needs a little more time to be away" (video embedded below the fold with transcript):  

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Welcome back. On Friday, George W. Bush said his memoir comes out November. That'll be two years since Barack Obama's victory, which some say was a repudiation of the Bush years. And that brings us to this week's big question: Will there be George W. Bush nostalgia this November when his book comes out? Kelly.

KELLY O'DONNELL, NBC NEWS: Well, every president gets a bit of that and I think the more George Bush is not visible, not talking now, the more there will be interest in what he had to say.

MATTHEWS: Will there be nostalgia?

O'DONNELL: For some there will be.

MATTHEWS: Okay, David Ignatius.

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: It depends in large part on where things are in Iraq. If after the election next month, Iraq looks stable, a lot people are going to say, you know, we weren't comfortable with it at the time but George Bush was right.

MATTHEWS: Kathleen, Bush nostalgia for the young Bush?

KATHLEEN PARKER, WASHINGTON POST: I think David makes an excellent point. That will be the key to whether there's any nostalgia. But, you know, George Bush has conducted himself awfully nobly since he left office in terms of hanging back.

MICHAEL DUFFY, TIME MAGAZINE: Compared to Cheney.

PARKER: Yeah. Compared to Cheeney, as Chris would say.

MATTHEWS: No, that's how his name is pronounced actually.

PARKER: I think people will appreciate that. And they, you know, there's admiration for certain things about him that transcend his accomplishments.

MATTHEWS: So, there will be nostalgia?

PARKER: Some, yes.

DUFFY: Sure, as long as everyone's competing memoirs don't open up all the debates we've been talking about. And they are all coming out. But I think these things get better with time.

MATTHEWS: I think it's too soon. I think he needs a little more time to be away before he gets the David McCullough treatment.

Interesting how even those who disagreed with Matthews did so rather guardedly and with disdain for the former President with the possible exceptions of Ignatius and Parker.

Exit question: Who's right?

Pelosi also said of the bill that despite sizable public opposition, "the American people need it," and "We're here to do the job for the American people."

VARGAS: What do you say to your members, when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

PELOSI: Well first of all our members -- every one of them -- wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.

But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self perpetuate our service in Congress. We're here to do the job for the American people. To get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for -- for America's families.

Full transcript here.

Gearing up for a new week after being blissfully unplugged with family this weekend. I’ve got jury duty in the morning. What’s on your minds?

***

How to help the Chilean earthquake victims: Links. More links here.

(AP)
Racist Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan blasted the “white right” for causing problems radical far left President Barack Obama.
Jammie Wearing Fool reported this from the AP:

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan claims the “white right” is trying to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

The 76-year-old says the stalling of health care legislation is proof.

Farrakhan is addressing followers of the Chicago-based movement that has embraced black nationalism since its founding. Sunday’s keynote speech is before an estimated 20,000 people on the last day of the group’s Saviours Day convention.

Farrakhan has vigorously supported Obama.

Farrakhan also used the Chile earthquake to warn America about its own imminent disaster.

The Washington Post issued a correction on Saturday in which it apologized for a mischaracterization of the House Republican Whip's use of a printout of the Senate-passed health care bill:

In a Feb. 26 editorial, we said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was "posturing" during the Thursday health-care summit by stacking the voluminous Senate bill before him. Mr. Cantor says that he had the bill with him, well-tabbed, not for show but so that Republicans could respond if specific provisions of the bill came up for discussion. That makes sense, and we should not have characterized his purpose as we did. 

What the Post didn't tell readers is that it was just mimicking President Barack Obama. As the Associated Press reported Thursday in a story available at washingtonpost.com and headlined "Obama scolds Rep. Cantor at summit for paper prop":

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama scolded Virgina Republican Rep. Eric Cantor for the stack of paper he brought with him to the health summit, calling it the type of political stunt that gets in the way of lawmakers having a serious conversation.

Cantor said he brought a copy of the 2,400-page Senate bill and the 11-page proposal Obama posted online earlier in the week.

Taking offense at the display as Cantor began to speak Thursday, Obama said the "truth of the matter" is that health care is a very complicated subject. He said all the Republican ideas discussed during the first half of the daylong summit would generate a bunch of paper, too.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. [...] Read the rest »

I spent my boyhood years in Montreal, a sojourn from which I retain a love of hockey, snow, and -- most of all -- poutine, the world’s greatest food. But one thing I never got used to in the Canadian character was a kid-brotherish resentment of the superpower next door; as a proud American, I thought it would have been psychologically healthier for the Canadians to have been located somewhere, say, between Samoa and Goa. “Be yourselves, guys! You’ve got nothing to prove!” The Olympics were an especially sore point: The Summer Olympics were held in Montreal when I was 12, and the host country won exactly zero gold medals. So I am genuinely thrilled that at these Winter Games, Canada has tied the record for most gold medals at a Winter Olympics, and set a record for the most ever won by a host country. (Lest my jingoistic credentials be questioned, though, I must point out that the U.S. has set a new record for total number of medals. U.S.A.! U.S.A.!)

UPDATE: Whoops! The victory over the U.S. in hockey means Canada actually breaks the record for most gold medals.

Demonstrating how Hollywood writers aren't reticent about inserting gratuitous political points into prime time dramas, on last Sunday night's (February 21) episode of ABC's Brothers and Sisters, “Nora Walker,” played by liberal actress Sally Field, walked into her kitchen during a kick-off party for her daughter's Republican senatorial campaign, and complained to another daughter, a son and his husband:

I can't believe the three of you are in here drinking while the GOP is out there denying global warming.

The far-fetched current storyline has “Kitty Walker,” played by Calista Flockhart, weeks after a battle with cancer and adopting a baby, running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican from California to replace her husband, “Senator Robert McCallister,” played by Rob Lowe, who is stepping down after a heart attack.

Another episode will air tonight on ABC at 10 PM EST/PST, 9 PM CST.

In the early days of the program produced by ABC Studios, “Kitty” was a DC-based conservative host of a TV debate show who was frequently at odds with her liberal and vocally so mother, “Nora.” As recounted in a November of 2006 NB post, “ABC's Conservative Character: 'Acknowledge the War Was a Mistake,'” it “took ABC until just the ninth episode...to have its sole conservative character 'grow' -- as they say of conservatives who move to the left -- from a pro-war right-winger to a critic of the Iraq war who declared it 'a mistake.'” Specifically:

On Sunday's episode [November 19, 2006], Nora was very upset by the Army's decision to recall her son, “Justin,” who had served in Afghanistan, to go to Iraq. Feeling guilty about her pro-war sentiments which may have influenced Justin to enlist in the first place, before an interview with “Senator Robert McCallister,” a California Republican played by Rob Lowe, Kitty plead with him to get the order rescinded. He refused, but she did him the favor during the interview of not asking about his divorce and rumors he had sex his family's nanny. Before the taped interview aired, she introduced it with an apology as she asserted:

I made a mistake in compromising the interview that you're about to see, and I made a mistake in continuing to defend a war that is in a desperate need of re-examination, re-examination which cannot come until we acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake.

Flashback to 2007 Emmy Awards: “Field: 'If Mothers Ruled World, There Would Be No Goddamned Wars.'”

Had a little item about snow last week (here). Reader wrote,

Growing up in Mississippi, snow was rare. We prayed hard and often every winter for the white salvation from school. My Calvinist father always told us to accept God’s will cheerfully -- and, sure enough, every three or four years He would answer our prayers with a three-inch creation celebration! And guess who had the most fun? Daddy.

 

My stars and garters! The man transformed into some sort of snow beast -- breaking his ribs riding sleds, pegging his children’s sweet faces with snowballs, and so on. The man embraced the gift of snow like no other, giving us the gift of memories. Our yellow labs were always in on the action too, and now my three boys get to watch their granddaddy act like a fool every few years as well.

 

Those were the days, and so are these.

That letter came from Yazoo City, by the way. And it reminded me of To Kill a Mockingbird -- when the older sister (I believe) chides the younger brother for walking on the (very light, quickly melting) snow. “You’re wasting it!”

UPDATE: Readers have written to say that the brother, Jem, is the older one. Thank you!

When I made the comment, last week, about contemporary American puritanism, I added a P.S.: “This is not an original point, but if we were allowed none but original points, what could we say?” A reader wrote in, “You’ve reminded me of something one of my history professors used to say: ‘Original thought is like original sin: They both happened a long time ago to people you couldn’t possibly have met.’”

I’ve done a few items about airbrushing -- about latter-day revisions and deletions. For example, I published a letter about a Norman Rockwell painting: A figure got the cigarette yanked from his mouth. And I commented, “. . . we live in a strange society. On television, day after day, night after night, there is practically full-scale [um, coupling]. But figures in Norman Rockwell paintings are deprived of their cigarettes. Americans are puritanical, but they are puritanical in different ways from before.”

A reader now writes,

Hi Mr. Nordlinger,

 

Tonight Hubby & I watched State of Play, a not-too-bad movie about politicians, mercenaries, murder, and the righteous newspaperman who uncovers it all. At the very, very end of the credits -- I always watch all the credits -- there was a tobacco disclaimer, informing us that any smoking shown was for artistic effect and not to be taken as an endorsement of smoking.

 

I wondered, “Where are the disclaimers informing us that the murders, the political corruption, the adultery, etc. were just for artistic effect and not to be taken as endorsements of such actions?”

Last week, I made some comments about panhandlers and their techniques, and this occasioned a great deal of mail. I’ve already published a little of it. Two more letters, just for fun?

Dear Jay,

 

I lived in Charlottesville, Va., for a year going to Army school. Every day for the entire year, there was a woman standing on a busy corner with a sign that said, “Pregnant and Homeless.”

“Pregnant and Homeless” never goes out of style, as a technique. But perhaps some are, actually, pregnant and homeless? This letter continues,

Another favorite story involves a friend of mine from law school. Her father owned several businesses and a large ranch outside Oklahoma City. This was the early ’90s when the “Will Work for Food” signs first appeared. Her father made a point of stopping and offering a job to every person he saw who held such a sign. And he was serious. He owned enough businesses that he could always find at least a day or two of work for anyone. He never once had a taker.

Sad. Is the below amusing?

Last weekend, I was waiting at a stoplight at the top of a highway offramp where panhandlers like to hit up a captive audience. You can imagine my surprise when I noticed something in a panhandler’s ear: the familiar blinking light of a Bluetooth. Apparently business is good for panhandlers in Durham, N.C.!

Yes, but was it the latest Bluetooth?

In case you needed any more proof that Hollywood is out of touch with the majority of Americans…
Actor Matt Damon is disappointed in Barack Obama because he’s not ramming his far left policies down America’s throat fast enough.

Damon is starring in another fantasy anti-Bush, anti-American Iraq War movie “Green Zone.”
The Daily News reported:

It’s hard to think of a movie that’d play better in the Obama White House screening room than Matt Damon’s new Iraq War thriller, “Green Zone,” in which the Oscar-winner adroitly portrays a soldier fighting to expose the Bush administration’s weapons of mass destruction deception. Yet for all the ammo his movie may give Democrats, Damon admits he’s “disappointed” in the man who replaced George W. Bush.

“Politics is compromise,” says the actor, who campaigned hard for Barack Obama. But Damon feels his candidate has compromised too much. “I’m disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Everyone feels a little let down because, on some level, people expected all their problems to go away. But real change comes from everyday people. You can’t wait for a leader.”

Hey Matt. We won the war. Let it go.

In case you needed any more proof that Hollywood is out of touch with the majority of Americans…
Actor Matt Damon is disappointed in Barack Obama because he’s not ramming his far left policies down America’s throat fast enough.

Damon is starring in another fantasy anti-Bush, anti-American Iraq War movie “Green Zone.”
The Daily News reported:

It’s hard to think of a movie that’d play better in the Obama White House screening room than Matt Damon’s new Iraq War thriller, “Green Zone,” in which the Oscar-winner adroitly portrays a soldier fighting to expose the Bush administration’s weapons of mass destruction deception. Yet for all the ammo his movie may give Democrats, Damon admits he’s “disappointed” in the man who replaced George W. Bush.

“Politics is compromise,” says the actor, who campaigned hard for Barack Obama. But Damon feels his candidate has compromised too much. “I’m disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Everyone feels a little let down because, on some level, people expected all their problems to go away. But real change comes from everyday people. You can’t wait for a leader.”

Hey Matt. We won the war. Let it go.

Ironically enough, the medicine applied by our state as the antidote for our ills has proven to be poison.  The welfare state is killing our nation.  Today entitlement spending makes up nearly half of our budget.  Long term, we know that there will be no way to pay off our unfunded obligations — we will go bankrupt.  There will be three options ultimately, though ultimately can come quite suddenly: default, hyperinflation or abolition of the welfare state.

Default is considered by many to be an impossible option as it would likely lead to mass chaos given the necessary suspension of many government services, not to mention the practical reality that WE are the collateral in the event of default.  To default is to be honest, and to be honest is anathema to the state.

Hyperinflation in my view is the most likely outcome given the massive increase in the money supply, which is good for politicians until it hits because it allows them to kick problems down the road and impose a stealth tax.  Currently, government is toeing the line between monetizing debt and intervening to keep its borrowing rates down, while incentivizing banks to keep money in their vaults or pump it into the stock market.

I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks, leading to massive inflation in prices which they will likely blame on evil speculators and greedy price gouging companies.  Hyperinflation would allow the government to pay for the welfare state –  by writing entitlement checks in worthless dollars and lead to economic paralysis as constantly rising prices would make economic calculation and thus commerce impossible.

The final option would lead to the crucifixion of politicians.  Of course, this might not be such a bad thing.  All joking aside, there is a reason that entitlement spending is categorized as “mandatory” spending in our budget.  It is wrongfully viewed as an essential function of a civilized western nation, and its end would be met with a serious backlash from all of the welfare state’s recipients.

Yet while default is the most honest option, hyperinflation the most likely and abolition the most untenable, in my view it is the third option which is the inevitable end, regardless of the path we choose, with the only question being whether we take our lumps now or at some unknown and jarring point in the future.

But it never had to be this way.  Back in February of 1887, Texan farmers were struggling as a severe drought was killing their crops.  Congress was looking to pass an appropriations bill to bail out the ailing farmers.  President Grover Cleveland had the following to say on the matter:

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune…Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Unfortunately, as we well know future politicians failed to heed these words.  Due in large part to the New Deal and Great Society legislation, post-Lochner era court decisions and ideological subversion of the left in media and academia, the state became the paternalistic figure that it is today.  The welfare state imposed on the people the notion that we were morally required through the force of government to help out our fellow man, an inherently immoral argument.  In so doing, the state became the institution of moral hazard.

By providing aid to untapped politically lucrative constituencies for many of life’s woes, the state altered the character of the American people.  When before, life was based on self-reliance, innovation and entrepreneurship, today a wide swath of American life is based on dependency, complacency and politics, an ironic assertion in that we built our wealth that funded the welfare state on the very foundations that the welfare state undermines.  George Will outlined this transformation eloquently in his CPAC speech.

The demoralizing nature of the welfare state in absolving people from making decisions on matters of health, career and retirement in altering our character necessarily altered our actions, the sum of which make up our economy.  By taking long term planning out of the hands of people, the welfare state led us to increase our time preferences.  Time preference refers to our relative short term or long term orientation.  When we prepare for the long term, we make prudent decisions such as saving more and borrowing and spending less, in expectation of reaping greater rewards down the road.  On the other hand, when government taxes, reducing returns on capital and removes the need for cogent planning, we become more short term oriented, valuing more highly instant gratification achieved through spending and borrowing more to consume today.  High time preferences result in low capital formation, high real interest rates and diminished prosperity.

It should be noted that politicians are not immune to time preferences.  Since politicians are concerned most with getting re-elected, and the state came to be seen as the mechanism for spreading the wealth around to various voting blocs, naturally there grew a conflagration of welfare programs (using the term welfare loosely) funded through direct taxation, inflation and debt with little regard for the future.

The psychological and concomitant economic effects of the redistributive state cannot be understated.  What has been consistently understated is what the world would look like without the welfare state.  If we were to abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, billions of dollars would return to the hands of the people.  People would have to plan their lives more carefully and responsibly and redevelop the drive that had been taken from them by the state, and they would allocate these new funds accordingly.  This influx of new cash to be reallocated according to the preferences of consumers would lead to unimagined innovations.

How many new hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers would crop up?  How many more dollars would people save for retirement and in so doing invest in the private sector?  How many charitable organizations would be created for people to voluntarily help their fellow man?  How many government bureaucrats would be unleashed into the economy and employed in productive jobs?  How many productive jobs would the private sector create?  How many people would pick themselves up out of poverty?  One fascinating anecdotal example of the types of innovations that occurred when the government did not coddle people from cradle to grave was the institution of the fraternal society, one of the functions of which was healthcare provision under “lodge practice,” whereby society members could voluntarily pool their money and draw upon it when in need of medical care.  Prices were low and service was of quality until government intervened and destroyed the practice.

Now surely, as a practical matter the scrapping of the welfare state would cause great disruption, and people expecting to receive and/or reliant on benefits would incur immediate hardships.  But with the infusion of capital back into the hands of private individuals making decisions for themselves, in the long run our standard of living would increase, our competitive advantage in the world would widen and we would restore the national character to which Cleveland spoke.  We would reverse the demoralization and economic stagnation induced by the state.  We would see the bountiful unseen benefits blocked by the massive edifice of the state that holds our people back.  It bears remembering that we didn’t grow wealthy with a safety net under us in the first place.

Our society was built on the non-aggression principle.  Individuals should be free to pursue purposeful ends so long as they do not harm others.  Government’s role is to protect us from external harm by providing defense, public safety and the courts.  By government attempting to protect us from the harm of our own decisions, imposing morality on the people through forcing some to subsidize others, government becomes an immoral, socially and economically destructive institution and perpetuates a cycle of intervention, dependency, crisis and further intervention.

As the healthcare debate rages on, and in context of the reality on the ground today, it surely seems as if we are miles from the end of the welfare state.  But indeed, we are going to arrive at the end of the experiment of the Ponzi welfare scheme, and it will not be by government fiat but by gravity.  This will be a blessing in disguise, though the short term pain of a sudden collapse will be great.  Traumatic as the collapse of the welfare state will be for those reliant on it, collapse will go quite a ways towards restoring power back with its rightful owners, the people.

To emphasize Barack Obama's frustration with what Republicans were saying at Thursday's healthcare summit, CNN aired a montage of the faces the President was making as prominent members of the GOP spoke.

Candy Crowley introduced the segment on Sunday's "State of the Union":

As we mentioned earlier, President Obama's face said a lot last week. I was in the studio where you can watch what which call an ISO, that's the camera focused only on the president as Republicans made their points. We wanted to share.

As you watch, consider how much differently this would have been presented if it was about a Republican President's reactions to what Democrats were saying (video embedded below the fold with transcript): 

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: As we mentioned earlier, President Obama's face said a lot last week. I was in the studio where you can watch what which call an ISO, that's the camera focused only on the president as Republicans made their points. We wanted to share.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA.): Between eight million and nine million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OHIO): For the first time in 30 years, allows for the taxpayer funding of abortions. What we've been saying for a long time is let's scrap the bill.

CANTOR: What is the consequence of that? We know there are consequences that small businesses will feel because of the impact on job creation.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R-IOWA): Both bills hit small business with higher tax rates. The House bill by 33 percent, the Senate bill by 20 percent.

CANTOR: We're here because we Republicans care about health care just as the Democrats in this room.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon. Whether you heard it or saw it, the message was pretty clear, patience and the days of debating health care are growing short. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the president will likely make an announcement this week about the next step forward.

All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon.

That's it? That's all you're saying?

Well, here are a couple of suggestions, Candy, and likely what you would have said if this was a Republican behaving this way in front of Democrats:

• This was worse than all of Al Gore's famous sighs during a presidential debate against George W. Bush in 2000 that might have cost him the election
• The President acted like a spoiled child not only in front of America's leaders but also on national television
• The President demonstrated a surprising lack of leadership and diplomacy with his behavior, and not at all what we expected from the most powerful man on the planet whose greatest skill was supposed to be communicating and being able to bring people together
• This might have been why the President failed at bringing any Republicans over to his side of this issue. 

Nope. 

All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon.

The Internet’s ability to sustain the Long Tail, to provide enough space to cater to the interests of what would otherwise have been a small and scattered group of people sharing similar interests, has allowed not just communities of perverts, but connoisseurs of esoterica to flourish. For example, there are a strangely large number of sites devoted to Last Meals. For some reason people seem very interested to know what people ate, or chose to eat, before they died.  The motivation for this morbid curiousity ranges from the exalted sociological and culinary investigations of the Last Dinner on the Titanic, a best-selling book which has inspired numerous historical recreations of the final meal served on that Night to Remember, to the more inexplicable fascination of with menus selected by the Death Row prisoners on the final mile.

One source of interest is probably the unanswered question of what we ourselves would order if our last hour had come. The Edwardian elite on the doomed Titanic might have preferred Veuve Cliquot believing they going to live, but what would they have chosen knowing they were about to die?  Would they have dulled themselves with drink? Or would they as so many others have done, opened the windows to look their last, with senses undulled at the sky and the sea. Although the policy which denies alcohol and tobacco to condemned men (because prisons are now alcohol and smoke-free zones) may distort choices, a large number of those condemned to die on Death Row prefer soda and comfort food — bars of chocolate, ice cream, beef enchiladas and the like, to pate de foie gras and lobster americaine, as their last meals on earth. Society may pretend to run on champagne but maybe it really travels on Dr. Pepper.

There’s something about comfort food that takes us back to when it all seemed right. The longing for the food of our childhood may explain the popularity of an obscure pie shop in Woolloomooloo, which has served Frank Sinatra, Robert Mitchum, Marelene Dietrich, Kerry Packer and more recently, Sir Richard Branson, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Brook Shields, Pat Rafter, Olivia Newton-John, Jerry Lewis, Billy Crystal, Pamela Anderson, Sara O’Hare, Lachlan Murdoch, Kerri-Anne Kennerley, Adrian Greiner, Anthony Bourdain and Colonel Sanders — served them a meat pie topped with mashed potato, pureed peas and brown gravy. It may explain why the loco moco or plate lunch is popular in Hawaii, because when you come right down to it, what could be better than having two scoops of rice and one of macaroni salad plus a hamburger topped with a fried egg?

In times of trouble we go back to the old ways, the criminal with his simple food to the time before he was a perp and societies with their Tea Parties to the time before cool and sophisticated wrecked it all. Societies like individuals have a way of reverting to checkpoints in the same way that a database administrator goes back to a known good configuration when all the current data is sour. When we are lost we instinctively return to a place when it all worked before things went wrong.

America is now in the middle of a crisis but it has still not reached the point of ordering its last meal in the sense of trying to get back to the place it was before. On the contrary, as Mark Steyn points out, it is still ordering champagne it can’t afford on the basis that the future is anything Europe does; and therefore anything Europe does it must copy. The irony that Europe is literally in the midst of a “Greek tragedy” — with Greece pulling at the financial strands that will unravel the EU — is lost to Washington. It is in the grip of the need to flatter itself by imitating others and has ordered full speed ahead. The result will not only be a Greek tragedy, but a ersatz one, with fake columns of styrofoam. Writing in the Washington Times Steyn says of Greece:

They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is further upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided instead that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe.

And the best way to catch up is to double down on the welfare state and hopefully reproduce the societies that can’t sustain it.

What’s happening in the developed world today isn’t so very hard to understand: The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they’ve reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1, or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: 10 grandparents have six kids have four grandkids – i.e., the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 “lowest-low” fertility – the point from which no society has ever recovered. And compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe. …

Think of Greece as California … the problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end, it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?

What could go wrong? I wah-wah-wah-wonder. And while we figure it out, pass the Dr. Pepper.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Liz Cheney pointed out the “supreme arrogance” of the radicals in Washington today.
Thanks to Media Matters for the video:

Liz Cheney on FOX News Sunday: “You know I think it’s really supreme arrogance frankly. You know you’ve got a situation here where it’s absolutely clear the American people don’t support the bill. It’s absolutely clear they don’t support ramming it through using reconciliation. The Republicans, I agree with Juan, showed up at that summit and laid out very clearly the concerns about the cost of the bill and the substance of what’s in the bill and yet still the White House says we’re going to push this thing through. Speaker Pelosi this morning was out there saying, ‘Go ahead and vote for this even if it’s going to destroy your career– Which it will because the American people do not support it. So, it’s fascinating as a political exercise but it’s dangerous as an exercise in democracy.”

Good evening, and thank you for joining me.  Many of you in this room are my friends.  Some of you are members of “Organizing For America,” formerly called “Obama For America,” and before that “Operation PUSH.”

Many of you know me.  You have cheered for me.  I miss those days.  I just want to say to each of you, simply and directly, that I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior.

I was unfaithful.  I consorted with Republicans.  I engaged in bipartisanship.  What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

As you know, I am trying to get a health care reform bill through Congress.  In so doing, I made a reach-around across the aisle.  I avoided talk of a single-payer system.  I watered down and then removed the public option.  I took out the death panels, benefits to undocumented immigrants, and federal funding for abortion that our critics so callously and falsely observed were in the bill.

I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you.  I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did.  I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position.

To everyone involved in the White House, my staff, cronies, minions, toadies, lackeys, lickspittles, parasites, finaglers, blackmailers, and, most importantly, the young people, I want you to know that I’m sorry.

To my outside allies, the netroots, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, myDD, firedoglake, trousersnakeswamp, and the Soros Alliance for Liberalism And Democracy — shout-out to my SALAD tossers! — your support means more than ever.

I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife Michelle, who had just become proud of this country.

I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that the normal rules didn’t apply.  I ran straight through the boundaries that a liberal president should live by.  I felt that I had worked hard for several months of my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations that the Beltway could provide, including the forbidden fruit of David Gergen’s love.  I felt I was entitled.  I was not.

First, let me address one issue.  Some people have speculated that Susan Collins somehow hurt or attacked me.  It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that.  Yes, we had lunch several times.  Once, Susan became angry with me when I made her pick up the check because I mistakenly thought she was nodding her head.  And yes, we engaged in a threesome with Olympia Snowe at a public golf course.  I shot an 87.  That is no excuse for rumor-mongering.

Still, I have much to atone for.  I stopped living by the core values that were inculcated in me at a young age by the public schools of Jakarta.  It was there that I was taught such Christian beliefs as love thy neighbor, do unto others, and there is no God but God.

Those values led me to consider the opinions and beliefs of my Republican friends.  This was wrong.  As a liberal president with large congressional majorities, I should not have given in to the temptations of bipartisanship.  I am deeply ashamed that our health care bill was so badly compromised it attracted one Republican vote.  Some Vietnamese dude.  Let me be clear, I shall never cave in again.

It’s hard to admit that I need help, but I do.  For 30 days since the election of Scott Brown, I have been receiving inpatient therapy from Barney Frank, Barbara Lee, and Bernie Sanders.  I also built a house for homeless AIDS patients.  It has been rewarding and enlightening work.  But I know I have a long way to go.

As we move forward on legislation that shares our progressive values, such as closing Guantanamo Bay and eliminating the scourge of carbon dioxide from this Earth, I will adhere to the one clear path, the path of partisanship.  You have opened my eyes.  I will no longer engage in backdoor shenanigans.  I will not bend over for Ben Nelson.

I once heard, and I believe it’s true, that it’s not what you achieve in life that matters.  For that reason, I have tried to achieve as little as possible.  Instead, it’s what you overcome that’s important.

Together, we shall overcome the false prophets who say this is one America, red, white, and blue.  It is blue, period.  And as long as I’m in the White House, the blues will continue.  Thank you.

Frank Rich of the New York Times retired as a drama critic in order to take up his new role as the paper's full-time drama queen. As an op-ed columnist for the Times, his assignment, apparently, is to write in such a hysterical fashion that Paul Krugman seems rational by comparison.

Currently, the most-recommended article on the Times web site is Rich's column, "The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged." The "axis," as described by Rich, includes 1) a murderer, 2) kooks, 3) Tea Partiers, and 4) Republican politicians and Presidential candidates. The point of Rich's column is to suggest, in his usual subtle fashion, that these groups are more or less interchangeable.

Rich starts with "the murder-suicide of Andrew Joseph Stack III, the tax protester who flew a plane into an office building housing Internal Revenue Service employees in Austin, Tex., on Feb. 18. It was a flare with the dark afterlife of an omen." The last sentence is classic Rich. I'll hazard a guess that Stack's murder-suicide was not an omen of anything, and will not ignite a rash of intentional airplane crashes.

Rich admits that "Stack was a lone madman, and it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a 'Tea Party terrorist.'" No kidding: Stack had zero connection to the Tea Party movement. None. So why would it occur to anyone to refer to him as a "Tea Party terrorist"? This is not guilt by association, this is guilt despite a complete lack of association. Rich suggests that the answer lies in Stack's online political screed:

But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner.

No, it doesn't. Stack's essay is left-wing, not right-wing; it ends with a denunciation of capitalism and a quote from the Communist Manifesto. The Tea Party is a highly diverse movement, but you will find very few Communists in it.

Rich proceeds to try to tie conservatives and Republican politicians to this suicidal left-winger:

That rant inspired like-minded Americans to create instant Facebook shrines to his martyrdom. Soon enough, some cowed politicians, including the newly minted Tea Party hero Scott Brown, were publicly empathizing with Stack's credo -- rather than risk crossing the most unforgiving brigade in their base.

I can't find any "shrines to [Stack's] martyrdom" on Facebook, although there are a number of anti-Stack groups. The only one that could be considered pro-Stack is called "His Name is Joseph Stack." It has a whopping 343 members. Since the Facebook page highlights Stack's quote from the Communist Manifesto, I assume most of the group's members are Communist sympathizers and likely are members of Rich's Democratic Party. The Facebook group was started by a kid who graduated from high school last June and works in a deli. I don't think we're seeing a noteworthy political movement here. [UPDATE: A reader notes that there was a Facebook page that honored Stack, but Facebook deleted it. However, the prediction in the linked CBS article that "others seem sure to follow" has not materialized.]

Of course, Rich's real target isn't the deli guy. As always, it's the Republican Party, of which Joseph Stack was not a member and which had nothing to do with his murder-suicide. Thus the reference to Scott Brown's supposed "empathy" with Stack's credo. I was surprised to learn that Brown empathizes with the Communist Manifesto--even in Massachusetts, Republicans are rarely that liberal--so I looked up the comments Rich was referring to. Brown was interviewed on Neil Cavuto's television show on the day when Stack flew his airplane into the IRS building and was asked about the incident. You can watch the exchange here. Brown's comments were in no way controversial, and it is absurd to say that he "publicly empathiz[ed] with Stack's credo." To my knowledge, Brown has never in his life cited the Communist Manifesto with approval.

Next, Rich takes on Congressman Steve King. Here as elsewhere, Rich picks up on a meme that comes from the far-left blogosphere; in fact, Rich's columns, like Krugman's, mostly parrot the left 'sphere. It's easier if you don't have to think for yourself:

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, even rationalized Stack's crime. "It's sad the incident in Texas happened," he said, "but by the same token, it's an agency that is unnecessary. And when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the I.R.S., it's going to be a happy day for America." No one in King's caucus condemned these remarks.

You can watch the King interview with someone from the far-left Think Progress web site here. What King wants to talk about is replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. Nowhere, not surprisingly, does he "rationalize" flying an airplane into an IRS building (or any other building). It's hard to imagine what anyone in King's Republican caucus could have found to condemn in the Think Progress interview.

Now Rich returns to the Tea Partiers (logical connections in his columns tend to be rather loose):

Two days before Stack's suicide mission, The Times published David Barstow's chilling, months-long investigation of the Tea Party movement. Anyone who was cognizant during the McVeigh firestorm would recognize the old warning signs re-emerging from the mists of history. The Patriot movement. "The New World Order," with its shadowy conspiracies hatched by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Sandpoint, Idaho. White supremacists. Militias.

Barstow's article may have been "chilling," but it did not mention a single act of violence. Not one. So far, the only violent acts that have occurred in connection with either town hall meetings or Tea Party events have been perpetrated by union thugs representing the Democratic Party. There wasn't anything about white supremacism in Barstow's breathless, left-wing article, either, but Rich could hardly leave out that chestnut.

Now, for the first time, Rich actually makes sense:

Equally significant is Barstow's finding that most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P. despite the party's ham-handed efforts to co-opt them. The more we learn about the Tea Partiers, the more we can see why. They loathe John McCain and the free-spending, TARP-tainted presidency of George W. Bush. ...

The distinction between the Tea Party movement and the official G.O.P. is real, and we ignore it at our peril.

That's an unusual accumulation of true statements for a Frank Rich column. It's hard to understand, however, how these admissions fit with the murderer=Tea Partier=Republican theme that is the main point of the column, and to which Rich shortly returns. Rich continues by identifying three Republicans who have an affinity with the Tea Party movement and who are not part of the despised "old Republican guard":

The leaders embraced by the new grass roots right are a different slate entirely: Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Simple math dictates that none of this trio can be elected president.

No kidding! At least two of the three aren't running--Beck is not a politician and has never sought elective office--and I don't think Sarah Palin is running, either. So, what's the point? Hard to say. Rich tries to explain:

But these leaders do have a consistent ideology, and that ideology plays to the lock-and-load nutcases out there, not just to the peaceable (if riled up) populist conservatives also attracted to Tea Partyism.

This is the kind of slur you can get away with if you're only accountable to editors at the New York Times who share your paranoid liberal ideology. I dislike Ron Paul and am not a fan of Glenn Beck, but how do their ideas "play to the lock-and-load nutcases out there"? If either of these gentlemen has done something to encourage violence, as Rich unambiguously implies, you might think that he would tell us what it is. They haven't, of course, so he doesn't. That leaves Sarah Palin, whom I do like and whose utterances I have followed rather closely for a while now. Has she done something to incite violence or "play to lock-and-load nutcases"? Of course not. Like most of what Frank Rich writes, this is sheer fantasy. If he worked for a competent newspaper, its editors would not let him get away with this kind of partisan slander.

Now Rich turns to CPAC. He notes that the John Birch Society was one of many sponsors; here I agree with him. Whoever runs CPAC should have turned down their contribution, just like the Democratic Party and its affiliates (MoveOn, etc.) should turn down contributions from George Soros. From there on, Rich's paranoia goes steadily over the top:

[J]ust one day after Stack crashed his plane into the Austin I.R.S. office -- the heretofore milquetoast Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, told the audience to emulate Tiger Woods's wife and "take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country."

Such violent imagery and invective, once largely confined to blogs and talk radio, is now spreading among Republicans in public office or aspiring to it.

I criticized this part of Pawlenty's speech, but give me a break. Is Rich seriously trying to convince us that Pawlenty's ill-chosen joke constituted "violent imagery and invective"? Does he mean to suggest that Pawlenty intended to endorse Joe Stack's fatal airplane ride, or some other act of violence, or that his audience somehow took his joke that way? Frank Rich never argues--he only associates, almost always falsely or unfairly. He continues:

Last year Michele Bachmann, the redoubtable Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, set the pace by announcing that she wanted "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous" to oppose Obama administration climate change initiatives.

Here, Rich is quoting from an interview that I did with Michele on the radio last year. The point of the interview was to promote two public meetings that Michele was holding in her Congressional district on the subject of global warming. In these meetings, experts on the topic gave talks and answered questions. Michele said that she wanted her constituents to be armed with information, and therefore dangerous to the hoaxers in Washington who are trying to extend control over our economy with cap and trade, etc. Again, Rich is too lazy to do his own research, and instead channels morons in the liberal blogosphere who tried to portray Congresswoman Bachmann's support for rational debate on the issue of climate change as advocacy of political violence. Nothing could better illustrate the low standards of the New York Times. It is hard to imagine that the National Enquirer, say, would print anything this blatantly misleading.

Rich's character assassination continues:

In Texas, the Tea Party favorite for governor, Debra Medina, is positioning herself to the right of the incumbent, Rick Perry -- no mean feat given that Perry has suggested that Texas could secede from the union. A state sovereignty zealot, Medina reminded those at a rally that "the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

Yes, well, that's a quote from Jefferson. It's not a sentiment that I agree with, but it comes, after all, from the founder of Rich's beloved Democratic Party. More:

In the heyday of 1960s left-wing radicalism, no liberal Democratic politicians in Washington could be found endorsing groups preaching violent revolution. The right has a different history.

Let's just stop there. What Republican politician has ever "endors[ed] groups preaching violent revolution"? I am not aware of any; we'll get to that in a moment. But many liberal Democratic politicians in the 1960s and 1970s--like, for example, George McGovern, the Democrats' 1972 Presidential nominee--proclaimed their sympathy with the views and objectives of violent groups, if not the tactics used by those groups, i.e., their opposition to the war in Vietnam and their desire to take the government of the United States in a more socialist direction. In fact, many of those very Democrats--John Kerry, Bill Clinton and others come immediately to mind--are now the leaders of their party. Rich now tries to support his slander of "the right":

In the months before McVeigh's mass murder, Helen Chenoweth and Steve Stockman, then representing Idaho and Texas in Congress, publicly empathized with the conspiracy theories of the far right that fueled his anti-government obsessions.

Rich links to a rather funny and typically paranoid Times piece on Congresswoman Chenoweth of Idaho, who served three terms in Congress and then retired consistent with her term limits pledge. But the Times article to which he links, while lengthy, makes no mention of Chenowith supporting any violent acts or "endorsing groups preaching violent revolution," which was the standard that Rich applied to his own Democratic Party. Likewise, Rich's link to a Times article on Steve Stockman, of whom I have no recollection, does not in any way support his claim that Stockman somehow supported violent political action.

Rich winds up his pastiche with a swipe at Sarah Palin, who, for obvious reasons, is the bete noir of homosexual activists like Frank Rich and Andrew Sullivan:

In his Times article on the Tea Party right, Barstow profiled Pam Stout, a once apolitical Idaho retiree who cast her lot with a Tea Party group allied with Beck's 9/12 Project, the Birch Society and the Oath Keepers, a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose. She frets that "another civil war" may be in the offing. "I don't see us being the ones to start it," she told Barstow, "but I would give up my life for my country."

Whether consciously or coincidentally, Stout was echoing Palin's memorable final declaration during her appearance at the National Tea Party Convention earlier this month: "I will live, I will die for the people of America, whatever I can do to help." It's enough to make you wonder who is palling around with terrorists now.

Would any newspaper other than the New York Times publish anything this dumb? There is no apparent connection between Ms. Stout's declaration and Governor Palin's speech; it isn't even clear which came first. In any event, would Rich put anyone who expressed a willingness to give up his or her life for his country in the same suspect category? Was Nathan Hale the first Tea Partier? Have none of Rich's fellow Democrats expressed such a sentiment? Are we to assume that, from now on, anyone who says he or she would be willing to die for our country is "obsessed and deranged"? If not, what, exactly, is the point?

Rich concludes with the suggestion that Sarah Palin is "palling around with terrorists." What on earth is he talking about? The only apparent reference was to Ms. Stout, a random woman in Idaho who is not a terrorist or anything like it. Is that what Rich had in mind? If so, Ms. Stout should sue him. Did Rich mean something else that would be completely opaque to any reader? If so, he is an incompetent columnist.

You really shouldn't read the New York Times. It has lower editorial standards than any other newspaper in America, and if you read it enough, it could make you stupid. Like Frank Rich.

On February 18 a crazed leftist loon wrote a Marxist manifesto on his internet page and then flew a plane into an IRS building. It took dishonest crank Frank Rich writing at The New York Times 10 days to distort the truth and blame it on the tea party protesters.
He’s slipping.

What made that kamikaze mission eventful was less the deranged act itself than the curious reaction of politicians on the right who gave it a pass — or, worse, flirted with condoning it. Stack was a lone madman, and it would be both glib and inaccurate to call him a card-carrying Tea Partier or a “Tea Party terrorist.” But he did leave behind a manifesto whose frothing anti-government, anti-tax rage overlaps with some of those marching under the Tea Party banner. That rant inspired like-minded Americans to create instant Facebook shrines to his martyrdom.

Frank Rich forgot to include these Marxist lines written by the kamikaze pilot before his fateful flight.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

For some reason Rich forgot to mention these Marxist lines in today’s column.

Astute Bloggers has more.

More… John Hinderaker dissects Rich’s Republican hit piece today.

How often does a network interviewer declare to the interviewee that he loves him and "would take a bullet" for him? On his self-titled PBS show on Thursday night, Tavis Smiley declared his love for radical 9-11 truther/Obama adviser Van Jones: "I believe in supporting friends and you know I love you, would do anything - would take a bullet for Van Jones." He concluded the interview by oozing "Van Jones is among the best our community has ever produced."

Worse yet, Smiley attacked the Obama White House for not fighting the "absolute lies" that sunk Jones – without ever bringing specifics. Smiley raised "this notion of if what was said about you was an absolute lie, it was untrue and it was manufactured and it was just a bunch of - it was a gotcha game, to use your word from earlier, why not defend Van Jones?"

PBS is taking our tax dollars to provide a completely sympathetic platform for a radical-left scandal figure, a place where he can seek to rehabilitate his image with the kindest of collaborators. Smiley offered no skepticism whatsoever to the strange claims of Jones that he never signed the petition demanding an investigation into charges the Bush administration "deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur."

SMILEY: Let me just throw a few things at you. These 9/11 truthers - what did you make of that story that started this ruckus about Van Jones in the White House?

JONES: Yes, yes. Well, I learned a tough lesson on that. First of all, let me say what I actually believe. I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and nobody else, trying to hurt America.

What happened to me on that, a tough lesson learned for me, six years ago I was at a conference. Some people came up to me. They said, "Hey, we represent 9/11 families. I'm like, "Oh, okay, good to meet you." They said, "We need your help. Will you help us?" I said, "Sure, whatever you want.

Then these people - I didn't know what their agenda was - they went and put my name on some abhorrent, crazy language they never showed me, I never saw, and it just sat there on this website for years.

Somebody discovered it, and then boom. So people actually believe that I actually signed on to something I never saw, never signed on to, and that became a part of this whole firestorm.

I decided at that point that I needed to resign, because I was becoming a distraction. From my point of view, the president of the United States deserved to be able to talk not about my past and everything I either did or didn't do, but about America's future. So I chose to step down.

Instead of questioning which claims about Jones were untrue, Smiley put all his weight on how Obama’s people shouldn’t have backed down from a fight where Jones was being unfairly and dishonestly maligned:

SMILEY: But it does raise this question, though. When you said to the powers that be that I am going to step aside because I don't want to become a distraction, did anybody in the president's circle say, "Van, let's rethink this, we don't want you do this, let's fight this?" Did anybody say that?

JONES: Of course. It was heartbreaking inside the building because everybody knew that this stuff, a lot of it was just manufactured. At the same time, these are serious times and the president's staff is there to protect and defend him, not the other way around. I don't think people understand that....

SMILEY: I only raise that because as you well know, we're big boys, we can handle this - I only raise that, Van, because as you know, there have been some questions, legitimate, illegitimate, we can agree or disagree, but questions about what this president and his staff truly believe in, what their principles are, what they are really willing to stand up and fight for.

That's the reason why I ask that question, because it's connected to this notion of if what was said about you was an absolute lie, it was untrue and it was manufactured and it was just a bunch of - it was a gotcha game, to use your word from earlier, why not defend Van Jones?

Jones discussed how the White House was a "dream job" and how Obama signed on to be "captain of the Titanic," and it would be rude to expect a fight. Smiley continued:

SMILEY: One other question about this, and this really isn't about your time in the White House, it is prior to that - your decision to go inside the White House. When you told me that you were going to do this - I can say this now.

JONES: Yes, sir.

SMILEY: My friend Geraldo Rivera used to host a show that said, "Now it can be told." (Laughter) I can now tell you this, since you're out of the White House.

JONES: Exactly, it's all right.

SMILEY: When you told me that you were going to go inside the White House, I didn't want you to - I believe in supporting friends and you know I love you, would do anything - would take a bullet for Van Jones.

JONES: Yes, sir, yes, sir, yeah.

SMILEY: But I'm thinking this Negro has lost his mind. (Laughter) I'm like, I know what it means to have the freedom as an advocate on the outside - I've been on the inside and on the outside - the freedom that you have on the outside to tell the truth, to speak truth to power, to side with truth over power.

That freedom - and this is not about Obama, it's just the whole political infrastructure. You know where I'm going with this.

JONES: Yes, I do.

SMILEY: When you go on the inside, your wings get clipped a little bit. You can't speak truth the way that you've been speaking it for all these years on the outside. So I'm thinking Van is one of the freest Negroes I know. (Laughter) Why does he want to bind himself up to some degree and go on the inside?

Jones talked about all the good green things he could do on the inside. Smiley then tried to spur Jones to attack Fox News and Glenn Beck for ruining him:

SMILEY : But that's my point, though. When you see what you saw on the inside that you're now describing for us so beautifully, it must really anger you, then, that the Glenn Becks of the world on the outside --

JONES: Here's the thing - I have one thousand defeats from last year, and one victory. I don't have any hatred in my heart for anybody, I'm not mad at anybody. I understand the pain of Glenn Beck's listeners; people who are wondering where are we going as a country? How am I going to get a job? All these different people are coming here, am I going to be respected?

I understand that, and I feel like what we've got to do is to answer to the pain, not respond hatred to hatred or bitterness to bitterness or add to the divisiveness, because that actually will keep us where we are.

Jones returned to more gooey statements about the wonderful Barack Obama.

Other media outlets are helping on the rehab tour. At TimesWatch, I reported on how John Broder of the New York Times announced his new job by referring to his charisma, and not his ideology:

"Van Jones, the charismatic advocate for environmental jobs who resigned from a White House post last September over a number of controversial past statements, has found a new job with the Center for American Progress in Washington."

He added that NAACP leader Benjamin Todd Jealous is on the Tavis Smiley wavelength, calling Jones an "American treasure."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich isn't just convinced suicide pilot Joe Stack shared many views with the Tea Partiers.

He also believes some of the movement's members are basically domestic terrorists whose leaders include Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

"What made that kamikaze mission eventful was less the deranged act itself than the curious reaction of politicians on the right who gave it a pass — or, worse, flirted with condoning it."

Yes, Rich's "The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged" was the kind of column we see too often from his ilk these days basically blaming all that's wrong in the nation -- even a disgruntled man flying his plane into an IRS building -- on regular Americans concerned about the direction of the country:

It is not glib or inaccurate to invoke Oklahoma City in this context, because the acrid stench of 1995 is back in the air. Two days before Stack's suicide mission, The Times published David Barstow's chilling, months-long investigation of the Tea Party movement. Anyone who was cognizant during the McVeigh firestorm would recognize the old warning signs re-emerging from the mists of history. [...]

Barstow confirmed what the Southern Poverty Law Center had found in its report last year: the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback. And now it is finding common cause with some elements of the diverse, far-flung and still inchoate Tea Party movement. All it takes is a few self-styled "patriots" to sow havoc. 

So, a Times reporter confirmed what a far-left leaning legal organization wrote last year, and this mean's he's right?

What would REALLY be shocking is if Barstow AND Rich DIDN'T agree with SPLC's views.

But this is common for liberal shills like Rich: reference articles published by your own newspaper to prove your point. This allows you to completely misrepresent the truth with impunity:

Equally significant is Barstow’s finding that most Tea Party groups have no affiliation with the G.O.P. despite the party’s ham-handed efforts to co-opt them. The more we learn about the Tea Partiers, the more we can see why. They loathe John McCain and the free-spending, TARP-tainted presidency of George W. Bush. They really do hate all of Washington, and if they hate Obama more than the Republican establishment, it’s only by a hair or two.

Nonsense. Tea Partiers certainly didn't agree with Bush's policies, and likely were not McCain supporters in 2008. But their hatred for Obama is far greater than for the Republican establishment.

Rich knows this, for this is what he wrote last May:

At those tax-protesting "tea parties" on April 15, signs and speakers portrayed Obama as a "fascist," a "socialist," a terrorist and Hitler. 

A month earlier, Rich wrote, "Even the anti-Obama 'tea parties' flogged by Fox News last week had wider genuine grass-roots support than this so-called national organization."

So, less than a year ago, Rich saw this movement as clearly anti-Obama. But now that the Tea Parties have indeed become a powerful force, the Times columnist views them as being almost equally opposed to Republicans as they are the current White House resident.

As anyone that has attended a Tea Party knows, nothing could be further from the truth. But facts weren't getting in Rich's way, for he was clearly on a conservative-bashing roll:

The passion on the right has migrated almost entirely to the Tea Party's counterconservatism.

The leaders embraced by the new grass roots right are a different slate entirely: Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin...But these leaders do have a consistent ideology, and that ideology plays to the lock-and-load nutcases out there, not just to the peaceable (if riled up) populist conservatives also attracted to Tea Partyism. This ideology is far more troubling than the boilerplate corporate conservatism and knee-jerk obstructionism of the anti-Obama G.O.P. Congressional minority.

Wow. So some Tea Partiers are "lock-and-load nutcases." This image allowed Rich to crescendo towards a truly disgusting conclusion:

In his Times article on the Tea Party right, Barstow profiled Pam Stout, a once apolitical Idaho retiree who cast her lot with a Tea Party group allied with Beck's 9/12 Project, the Birch Society and the Oath Keepers, a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose. She frets that "another civil war" may be in the offing. "I don't see us being the ones to start it," she told Barstow, "but I would give up my life for my country."

Whether consciously or coincidentally, Stout was echoing Palin's memorable final declaration during her appearance at the National Tea Party Convention earlier this month: "I will live, I will die for the people of America, whatever I can do to help." It's enough to make you wonder who is palling around with terrorists now.

So, some Tea Partiers are domestic terrorists, and Beck and Palin are their leaders.

And this guy writes a regular column for the New York Times.

Of course, like so many things, Rich is quite clueless about the Tea Parties, for here's what he wrote almost exactly one year ago today:

G.O.P. pseudopopulism ran riot last week as right-wing troops rallied around their latest Joe the Plumber: Rick Santelli, the ranting CNBC foe of Obama's mortgage rescue program. Ann Coulter proposed a Santelli run for president, and Twitterers organized national "tea parties" to fuel his taxpayers' revolt. Even with a boost from NBC, whose networks seized a promotional opening by incessantly recycling the Santelli "controversy," the bonfire fizzled. It did so because - as last week's polls also revealed - the mortgage bailout, with a 60-plus percent approval rating, is nearly as popular as Obama.

The Santelli revolution's flameout was just another confirmation that hard-core Republican radicals are now the G.O.P.'s problem, not the president's.

So, on March 1, 2009, Rich declared the Tea Party movement dead.

Should anyone care what he has to say about it or any of its members now? 

This completes today’s Pelosi trifecta…
Speaker Pelosi told CNN today that, “A bill can be bi-partisan without bi-partisan votes.”
The Hill reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

The public option, for example, has been stripped from the bill because Republicans were so adamantly against it, she said.

“They’ve had a field day going out and misrepresenting what the bill says,” Pelosi said. “But that’s what they do.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” just a few days after the bipartisan healthcare summit, Pelosi said, “What’s the point of talking about it any longer?”

For 15 years, the B & B Do it Center, a local hardware store in the small California town of Camarillo, has been putting out coffee and doughnuts for its morning customers. Actually longer, says owner Randy Collins; the previous owner did it too. Customers liked the courtesy, but... well, you know where this is going.

An anonymous customer complaint to the county brought health inspectors to the store, who determined its tradition of more than 15 years of offering coffee and doughnuts to customers violated food-handling regulations...

Inspectors told Collins that unless he was willing to install stainless-steel sinks with hot and cold water and have a prep kitchen to handle the food, he was violating the law.

As California government has solved all of its other problems, it seems appropriate to regulate coffee and doughnuts. The county bureaucrat, apparently with a straight face, described what Collins must do before he can offer the doughnuts to his customers:

“What some establishments do is hire a mobile food preparation services or in some cases a coffee service,” said Huff. “Those establishments have permits.”

It’s amazing that they still allow people to have children without permits.

At last there appears to be a president worse than Jimmy Carter - at least according to conservative talk show host Mark Levin. 

That was the question host Don Imus asked Levin on the Fox Business Network's "Imus in the Morning."  "So the President Obama, worse than Jimmy Carter?"

"Worse than Jimmy Carter? I mean they're not mutually exclusive, they're both disasters," Levin replied, citing many of the parallels of the two administrations. 

But on the home front, Levin said Obama was beyond comparison: "I think on domestic policy, nobody comes close to Barack Obama. I think he's the biggest disaster in modern American history."

That led the duo to discuss the $787 billion stimulus bill, that turned 1-year-old Feb. 17. "Regarding the stimulus package, the president says that that kept us from sliding into Depression," Imus noted.

Levin claimed concerns about a Depression were false, and that Obama was harming America's economy with government intrusion - choking out the private sector. "You know, this is what you do when you're desperate, and you're a radical propagandist," Mark Levin said.

"This is a very vicious recession and we would have been out of by now if he wasn't smothering the private sector, threatening to tax them, nationalizing major industries, government doesn't spread wealth, it destroys wealth and it spreads misery. Now we've had trillions of dollars spent in the last 13-14 months...trillions...following this failed ideology.  We still have almost 10 percent unemployment, still foreclosures, soon the fed is going to back off  pumping money into the housing market, interest rates are going to go up..." Levin continued, not buying the merits of the stimulus.  

Then came the harshest remarks from the politically incorrect commentator about the perceived socialist ideology of the president:

"This philosophy that Obama embraces has failed whenever it's tried, wherever it's tried. And you notice they always try to say the same thing - ‘we haven't gone far enough,' ‘we need more money,' ‘we need more government,' and then they pick enemies - this industry, that industry - it's because they're failures. And this is how they continue to push their propaganda.  We weren't sliding into a great Depression, so now he's rewriting history."   

Imus then switched topics, asking his guest about his thoughts on national security and the events surrounding the Guantanamo Bay and terror trials. 

Levin said he simply doesn't know what is going to happen as a result of Obama's "illogical" stance on terror:

"There is utter chaos in this administration on how to treat terrorists who are captured on the battlefield and there shouldn't be utter chaos.  We should know exactly what we're doing and our enemies should fear us exactly what we're going to do to them - and they used to."

One thing Levin was sure about was  that America's credibility has been shot and consequences inevitable:

"Now they laugh at us.  They'll laugh in our faces and behind our backs," he continued. "And this doesn't just resonate with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it resonates with the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese have no respect for Obama at all. The Russians could care less about what he has to say, and what happens under those circumstances - they create enormous danger - because our enemies are going to press and push and test us. And I'm not sure this president is up to it."

We've written many times about the seemingly odd-bedfellow alliance between the Left and Islamic radicals. Today, the Telegraph reports on the "infiltration" of the Labour Party by Islamists:

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) -- which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state -- has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve "mass mobilisation" of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties. ...

IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already "consolidated ... a lot of influence and power" over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget. We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers' money, much of it from government funds designed to "prevent violent extremism".

This is a common dodge. Gullible (or worse) governments funnel money to extremist organizations in the guise of fighting extremism.

IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.

Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed "un-Islamic". The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.

George Galloway, a London MP, admitted in recordings obtained by this newspaper that his surprise victory in the 2005 election owed more to the IFE "than it would be wise - for them - for me to say, adding that they played a "decisive role" in his triumph at the polls.

Galloway is, of course, a perfect example of how easily the far Left can accommodate itself to Muslim radicalism. On the whole, I think the Telegraph gives Labour too much credit in saying that pro-sharia elements were required to "infiltrate" the party.

In August Speaker Pelosi compared the Tea Party Protesters to the Nazis.
Today she told ABC that she shares the same views as these astroturfed Nazis:

The Note reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has much in common with the Tea Party. The speaker now says she shares views with movement she dismissed last summer as being “Astroturf” — her suggestion that the grassroots of the Tea Party were a creation of the Republican Party.

In a “This Week” interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, Pelosi said, “We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as — it just has to stop. And that’s why I’ve fought the special interest, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on health insurance, whether it’s on pharmaceuticals and the rest.”

Pelosi held to her skepticism about what is behind the movement. “Some of it is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters,” Pelosi said. She also added that, “Some of it is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests.”

In August Speaker Pelosi compared the Tea Party Protesters to the Nazis.
Today she told ABC that she shares the same views as these astroturfed Nazis:

The Note reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has much in common with the Tea Party. The speaker now says she shares views with movement she dismissed last summer as being “Astroturf” — her suggestion that the grassroots of the Tea Party were a creation of the Republican Party.

In a “This Week” interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, Pelosi said, “We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as — it just has to stop. And that’s why I’ve fought the special interest, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on health insurance, whether it’s on pharmaceuticals and the rest.”

Pelosi held to her skepticism about what is behind the movement. “Some of it is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters,” Pelosi said. She also added that, “Some of it is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests.”

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some rightwing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the left play the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

During my difficulties with the Canadian Islamic Congress, some leftie commentator would occasionally wonder how it came about that some right-wing loudmouth like Steyn got to appoint himself the champion of free speech. Well, that's because, as Politiken's weaselly "settlement" makes plain, when it comes to upholding bedrock principles of liberty before their avowed enemies, the nancy boys of the Left fold like a cheap Bedouin tent. The Islamo-leftist "alliance" is a pantomime horse in which the Left plays the rear end and Islam sets the direction and pace.

Pelluhue is a Chilean resort town with 1,000 inhabitants.

Travel-Weshots

A view of the debris on the shore near Pelluhue after the earthquake and tsunami yesterday. (Reuters)

A view of debris on the coast, close to the epicentre of the Chilean earthquake that generated waves flooding many towns to the north and south, in Pelluhue. (Reuters)

From the Chilean blog Bread Crumbs (translated), via Newsolio:

Some findings verbatim of our conversation:

• “She cut the bridge Mariscadero”
• “The coastal road to Pelluhue Curanipe is torn, filled with debris, you can not pass”
• “In a bus grandparents came when 47 people hold the sea, rescued 20 of the others do not know”
• “A car Wave take it with a person inside, the guy saved”
• “The sea is reflected in and out, the water is cloudy and full of sticks”
• “The trucks and cars from the people down below, walk on the waves”
• “In the sea are refrigerators, toilets”
• “Today (27/02) was sunny all day with tremendous heat, then entered a very thick fog at sea”
• “at night the full moon lighting the way”
• “the rock of the turret, and which is next, the wave slowed down a bit, but to the south, hit them at full speed”
• “Pelluhue has nothing, is a town that’s dead”
• – According to my old, witnessed the entry just before the tsunami, said:
• “The noise was deafening, the first wave was 10 feet, was impressive to see the advancing speed”

The Wall Street Journal had more on the destruction in Pelluhue:

Several seaside resort towns were severely hit by the quake and ensuing waves. Such was the fate Pelluhue, and its roughly 1,000 residents.

“The earth started shaking so violently that we couldn’t stand,” said Maria Julia Aguilar, who was vacationing with her husband in Pelluhue. They struggled to their feet and fled by car into the hills above the town. She said the air was filled with the tidal waves’ loud crushing of houses along the shoreline.

In one spot, the waves had harpooned 70-foot-high Cypress trees into beachfront homes, while washing other houses up onto the mountainside above the beachfront town. Plywood and housing materials littered the coast and floated offshore.

When Aguilar returned to the site shortly after dawn, she saw four bodies half-buried in the sand.

Residents said a series of waves started to reach shore shortly after the 8.8 magnitude quake struck at 0634 GMT Saturday. The first waves hit about five minutes after the quake, while the biggest one slammed into the town about an hour later.

Clara Lepe was asleep in her beachfront home when the quake jarred her awake. She fled with her husband and two daughters, racing away from the beach in their four-wheel drive vehicle. In the panic, Lepe said two cars crashed head-on as panicked residents tried to get away from the shore.

“People were going crazy,” she said with tears in her eyes. “It was utter chaos.”

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says Congressman Charles Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics scandal has absolutely no national significance.

As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" turned to new revelations concerning the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Sunday, the New York Times columnist was all by himself in making the case that Rangel hasn't really done anything wrong.

"I'm unhappy with this," he said. "I wish Rangel would go away, but it's, it really has no national significance."

Krugman actually said this after everyone on the panel, including host Elizabeth Vargas, Cokie Roberts, and Sam Donaldson, discussed how egregious Rangel's ethics violations were (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: To know Charlie Rangel is to like him. Wonderful spirit and all that. Still, one has to wonder. Suppose a Republican had revised his disclosure form and suddenly his net worth doubled and he came upon not one but two checking accounts with $500,000 in them. I mean, there comes a point at which the tax writing committee be headed by someone without the...

ELIZABETH VARGAS, ABC NEWS: And Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were all calling for Tom DeLay to relinquish his post when he was also admonished by the ethics committee.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, this is, you know, it is worth pointing out that none of these things actually seem to affect national policy. When Billy Townsend, when Billy Townsend basically wrote the drug, the Medicare drug bill, then left to become head of the pharmaceutical lobby, that was much more serious, but it didn't actually violate House ethics rules. So, yeah, I'm unhappy with this. I wish Rangel would go away, but it's, it really has no national significance.

I guess Krugman watched the previous segment when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said almost the same thing:

But the fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not a -- something that jeopardized our country in any way.  

As such, the Times columnist appeared to just be echoing Democrat talking points concerning Rangel; the Nobel committee will probably give him another prize for it.

That said, isn't it amazing how folks like Krugman don't find ethics scandals to be earth-shattering when there's a "D" next to the name of the offending party?

Why is that?

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says Congressman Charles Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics scandal has absolutely no national significance.

As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" turned to new revelations concerning the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Sunday, the New York Times columnist was all by himself in making the case that Rangel hasn't really done anything wrong.

"I'm unhappy with this," he said. "I wish Rangel would go away, but it's, it really has no national significance."

Krugman actually said this after everyone on the panel, including host Elizabeth Vargas, Cokie Roberts, and Sam Donaldson, discussed how egregious Rangel's ethics violations were (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: To know Charlie Rangel is to like him. Wonderful spirit and all that. Still, one has to wonder. Suppose a Republican had revised his disclosure form and suddenly his net worth doubled and he came upon not one but two checking accounts with $500,000 in them. I mean, there comes a point at which the tax writing committee be headed by someone without the...

ELIZABETH VARGAS, ABC NEWS: And Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were all calling for Tom DeLay to relinquish his post when he was also admonished by the ethics committee.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, this is, you know, it is worth pointing out that none of these things actually seem to affect national policy. When Billy Townsend, when Billy Townsend basically wrote the drug, the Medicare drug bill, then left to become head of the pharmaceutical lobby, that was much more serious, but it didn't actually violate House ethics rules. So, yeah, I'm unhappy with this. I wish Rangel would go away, but it's, it really has no national significance.

I guess Krugman watched the previous segment when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said almost the same thing:

But the fact is, is that what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not a -- something that jeopardized our country in any way.  

As such, the Times columnist appeared to just be echoing Democrat talking points concerning Rangel; the Nobel committee will probably give him another prize for it.

That said, isn't it amazing how folks like Krugman don't find ethics scandals to be earth-shattering when there's a "D" next to the name of the offending party?

Why is that?

I have long had a high opinion of the man who (since February 2009) has been the new Catholic archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan: I have read some of his writings, heard anecdotes about his joviality, and seen him occasionally on TV. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the splendid impression he makes in real life. Today, at the 10:15 Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, he radiated a genuinely folksy exuberance combined with theological candor that makes it clearer to me than ever that New York Catholics -- and New Yorkers generally -- are fortunate to have him in our civic life in this dark period for our politics and our economy. I stress the word “genuinely,” in “genuinely folksy,” because there are few things as dispiriting as watching someone try to be “folksy” because his campaign consultants/professors/church superiors/etc. have told him he has to be in order to get the job. With Dolan, you get an exuberance that seems like it comes from deep within. Instead of speaking from a pulpit or a standing microphone, Dolan walks back and forth across the altar end of the nave with the poised assurance of a gifted talk-show host, but without the smarminess or self-regarding staginess that usually accompany professionals of that genre.

Which brings me to the substance of what he said. His ten-minute homily was a meditation on what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples, in the episode of the Transfiguration. In short, said Dolan, Jesus was preparing his disciples for the event that was to happen in Jerusalem -- his passion and death -- and to give them something to remember that would keep their faith alive when the hour of darkness came upon them. I thought he made a strange decision at this point: He didn’t mention that Jesus’s strategy in this regard actually failed, i.e., the disciples did as a matter of fact lose heart and abandon him when he was arrested. Dolan might have used that opportunity to point out that Jesus is with us even when we fail him, and is ready to forgive; perhaps he thought that point would have been too obvious to need stressing. In any case, the point he did make was a striking one, and always in season: that God is with us as much in desolation as in exaltation, when we are being tempted in the desert as much as when we are on the mountaintop with him. It is a not a novel message, but New York needs to hear it, and from a man whose sincerity and likeableness make him an excellent ambassador.

Quite a contrast in how ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, taking her turn hosting This Week, approached House Speaker Nancy Pelosi versus Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, all before agreeing with Sam Donaldson when he urged President Obama to become “ruthless” to pass his health care reform bill since that’s what FDR and Truman “would have done.” She affirmed: “That's a good point.”

With Pelosi, she forwarded process questions about whether the Speaker has the votes to pass the health bill and whether it would have been “more helpful for you” if Obama had put up his proposal earlier, pressed the Speaker from the left on the size of the “jobs” bill and empathized with her struggles: “Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?” Not to mention cuing her up: “How would you rate yourself in the past year?”

But with Alexander, the 20/20 anchor did not wonder if he’s “frustrated” by Obama’s intransigence as she challenged him to help pass the Democratic health bill, raised presumed Republican hypocrisy and rued the inability of Congress to pass “sweeping” legislation to provide “the changes we need in the country.” She demanded to know if Republicans will “play ball,” pressing: “Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?” Raising GOP opposition to passing the health bill via “reconciliation” in the Senate, Vargas asked: “Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?”

When Alexander argued Congress cannot pass such a huge bill all at once, a distressed Vargas countered: “But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?” Alexander said yes, prompting Vargas to bemoan: “That's not good,” before she fretted: “How are we going to...empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country?”

She wrapped up with Alexander by lamenting the conservative reaction to Senator Scott Brown’s actions:

When somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

Vargas, who anchored World News for several months after Peter Jennings died, at least did bring up with Pelosi the ethics issues swirling around Charles Rangel.

During the February 28 roundtable, the retired ABC News veteran Donaldson declared history is on the side of Obama, Pelosi and Reid: “This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.”

(Flashback to This Week in December: “ABC's Roberts: People Will Be Thrilled by Health Bill Once They 'Understand' It, Hails Reid.”)

All of the questions aired from Vargas to Pelosi in the interview conducted on Friday in the Speaker’s Capitol building office:

- Madame Speaker, welcome back, again, to This Week. Let's talk health care. The President said, after the summit, “we cannot have another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now.” You said on Friday, we are determined to pass health care. Do you have the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

- So what are the fixes that the Senate needs to make in your opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote on it?

- You know that the polls show that the American people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to it, even though they are supporting certain specific pieces of it. What do you say to your members when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

- Do you wish, though, that the President had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was willing to drop before you fought so hard for it?

- But would we still be debating this if the President had put his plan out six months ago?

- How long are you willing to wait for the ideas [from Republicans]? The President seemed to make it clear that time's up.

- But, the point is, when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need? Even with the differences over abortion language? There have been members of the House who voted in favor of it before, who are now saying we can't vote for this bill because of the Senate language on abortion.

- You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too little. The Congressional Black Caucus says it shouldn’t even be called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental approach given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this country right now?

- Is it okay to do it in that smaller, incremental way, not the big dramatic way the House proposed?

- The ethics committee, on Charles Rangel, said that he has violated the House gift rule. How can he remain in such a powerful position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee when, in fact, there are further pending investigations and this public admonishment has taken place?

- If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?

- But you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

- Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November. You had recently -- and the Tea Party movement -- do you think it will be a force to reckon with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grass roots movement. You called it the “astroturf movement.” Is the Tea Party movement a force?

- So, common ground with Nancy Pelosi and the Tea Party movement?

- Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B-plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

- Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?

- Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

- Madame Speaker, thank you for joining us.

Vargas, live to Alexander:

- We are joined now by the Republican point man at the health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator, welcome to This Week. You just heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama say, time is up, we’re not scrapping the plan, we’re not starting from scratch, this is it. Are you going to, are the Republicans going to, offer some amendments and play ball?

- But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill. He's moving forward, with or without you, so why not be part of the process? Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?

- You had said, in your opening remarks at the health care summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you called on the President to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through the Senate with the simple majority vote, saying quote, “it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight train with this process.” Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?

- Why political kamikaze [for the Democrats, as Alexander charged]? We know that Americans don’t support health care in general. But when you start drilling to the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those specifics.

- When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if the Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

- You also said in your remarks at the summit that Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress quote “doesn't do comprehensive well. That our country is too big and too complicated for Washington.” But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?
[Alexander: Well the answer is yes, in that sense.]
That's not good.

- So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

- Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced his resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust saying Congress is broken and I don't want to be a part of it anymore. He cited you as one of the few Republican Senators that he felt he that could find common ground with, work with, agree with. How are we going to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country with people like Evan Bayh just take their, go home, in essence, give up and go home?

- But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

- Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much more joining us this morning on This Week.

From the roundtable:

SAM DONALDSON: What the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill. Put back the public option, since it’s their bill, and pass it...The President has to drop his George B. McClellan mask and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless. That’s what a Franklin Roosevelt would have done, that’s what Harry Truman would have done.

VARGAS: And Sam that's a good point, because Paul [Krugman] you've been arguing that the President should be more ruthless....

DONALDSON: This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.

Quite a contrast in how ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, taking her turn hosting This Week, approached House Speaker Nancy Pelosi versus Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, all before agreeing with Sam Donaldson when he urged President Obama to become “ruthless” to pass his health care reform bill since that’s what FDR and Truman “would have done.” She affirmed: “That's a good point.”

With Pelosi, she forwarded process questions about whether the Speaker has the votes to pass the health bill and whether it would have been “more helpful for you” if Obama had put up his proposal earlier, pressed the Speaker from the left on the size of the “jobs” bill and empathized with her struggles: “Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?” Not to mention cuing her up: “How would you rate yourself in the past year?”

But with Alexander, the 20/20 anchor did not wonder if he’s “frustrated” by Obama’s intransigence as she challenged him to help pass the Democratic health bill, raised presumed Republican hypocrisy and rued the inability of Congress to pass “sweeping” legislation to provide “the changes we need in the country.” She demanded to know if Republicans will “play ball,” pressing: “Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?” Raising GOP opposition to passing the health bill via “reconciliation” in the Senate, Vargas asked: “Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?”

When Alexander argued Congress cannot pass such a huge bill all at once, a distressed Vargas countered: “But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?” Alexander said yes, prompting Vargas to bemoan: “That's not good,” before she fretted: “How are we going to...empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country?”

She wrapped up with Alexander by lamenting the conservative reaction to Senator Scott Brown’s actions:

When somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

Vargas, who anchored World News for several months after Peter Jennings died, at least did bring up with Pelosi the ethics issues swirling around Charles Rangel.

During the February 28 roundtable, the retired ABC News veteran Donaldson declared history is on the side of Obama, Pelosi and Reid: “This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.”

(Flashback to This Week in December: “ABC's Roberts: People Will Be Thrilled by Health Bill Once They 'Understand' It, Hails Reid.”)

All of the questions aired from Vargas to Pelosi in the interview conducted on Friday in the Speaker’s Capitol building office:

- Madame Speaker, welcome back, again, to This Week. Let's talk health care. The President said, after the summit, “we cannot have another year of debate on this issue. We need decisions now.” You said on Friday, we are determined to pass health care. Do you have the 217 votes necessary to pass it in the House?

- So what are the fixes that the Senate needs to make in your opinion? Through reconciliation presumably before the House can vote on it?

- You know that the polls show that the American people are deeply divided on health care. Many of them are opposed to it, even though they are supporting certain specific pieces of it. What do you say to your members when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?

- Do you wish, though, that the President had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you, that maybe six months ago you knew that the public option was something he was willing to drop before you fought so hard for it?

- But would we still be debating this if the President had put his plan out six months ago?

- How long are you willing to wait for the ideas [from Republicans]? The President seemed to make it clear that time's up.

- But, the point is, when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you're certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need? Even with the differences over abortion language? There have been members of the House who voted in favor of it before, who are now saying we can't vote for this bill because of the Senate language on abortion.

- You mentioned jobs. Members of the House have already weighed in on the Senate jobs bill saying it's too small and does too little. The Congressional Black Caucus says it shouldn’t even be called a jobs bill. Should you agree to the smaller, incremental approach given that unemployment is the single biggest issue in this country right now?

- Is it okay to do it in that smaller, incremental way, not the big dramatic way the House proposed?

- The ethics committee, on Charles Rangel, said that he has violated the House gift rule. How can he remain in such a powerful position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee when, in fact, there are further pending investigations and this public admonishment has taken place?

- If there are further admonishments, though, should he remain in this position?

- But you understand this is why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn't -- it doesn't look good. It doesn't pass the smell test.

- Let's talk a bit about the coming elections in November. You had recently -- and the Tea Party movement -- do you think it will be a force to reckon with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grass roots movement. You called it the “astroturf movement.” Is the Tea Party movement a force?

- So, common ground with Nancy Pelosi and the Tea Party movement?

- Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B-plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

- Are you frustrated so many bills have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting, languishing in the Senate?

- Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

- Madame Speaker, thank you for joining us.

Vargas, live to Alexander:

- We are joined now by the Republican point man at the health care summit, Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator, welcome to This Week. You just heard Speaker Pelosi and President Obama say, time is up, we’re not scrapping the plan, we’re not starting from scratch, this is it. Are you going to, are the Republicans going to, offer some amendments and play ball?

- But he has said he's not going to scrap the bill. He's moving forward, with or without you, so why not be part of the process? Why not take what you consider to be an imperfect bill and at least attach some proposals that you support?

- You had said, in your opening remarks at the health care summit, you quoted Senator Byrd when you called on the President to renounce using reconciliation to push the bill through the Senate with the simple majority vote, saying quote, “it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the Senate like a freight train with this process.” Why are you so opposed to this given the fact that Republicans have used reconciliation more often than the Democrats in the past?

- Why political kamikaze [for the Democrats, as Alexander charged]? We know that Americans don’t support health care in general. But when you start drilling to the specifics, a lot of people do support some of those specifics.

- When you say political kamikaze, are you saying that if the Democrats push this through, they will lose all their seats in November? I mean, what are we talking about here?

- You also said in your remarks at the summit that Republicans have come to the conclusion that Congress quote “doesn't do comprehensive well. That our country is too big and too complicated for Washington.” But Congress has passed many historic and sweeping and comprehensive bills in the past. Medicare, the civil rights bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Are you saying that this Congress is uniquely incapable of doing something sweeping and massive and dramatic?
[Alexander: Well the answer is yes, in that sense.]
That's not good.

- So the country has changed or Congress has changed?

- Your colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, recently announced his resignation, basically throwing his hands up in disgust saying Congress is broken and I don't want to be a part of it anymore. He cited you as one of the few Republican Senators that he felt he that could find common ground with, work with, agree with. How are we going to fix Congress and empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country with people like Evan Bayh just take their, go home, in essence, give up and go home?

- But very, very quickly, when somebody like a Senator Scott Brown, for example, breaks ranks with Republicans and votes against a filibuster to get the jobs bill to the floor of the Senate, he gets on his Facebook page, you know, all sorts of angry postings calling him a “double-crosser,” a “sellout,” a “Judas.” What does that say about political environment right now?

- Senator Lamar Alexander, thank you so much more joining us this morning on This Week.

From the roundtable:

SAM DONALDSON: What the Democrats have to do now is pass the bill. Put back the public option, since it’s their bill, and pass it...The President has to drop his George B. McClellan mask and become Ulysses Grant. Be ruthless. That’s what a Franklin Roosevelt would have done, that’s what Harry Truman would have done.

VARGAS: And Sam that's a good point, because Paul [Krugman] you've been arguing that the President should be more ruthless....

DONALDSON: This is the only chance in how many years to do this? And I think history will show that they were right if they get it done.

Al Gore emerged from his undisclosed location and took to the op-ed page of the New York Times:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skepticsmay not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Read the whole piece of performance art here. No doubt Al Gore believes that the really important thing here is that the ‘global consensus’ remains unchanged. For him and other climate-profiteers, science has been flipped; it is the conclusion, not the premises, which is set in stone. If some facts fall apart, they’ll just find some new ones to prop up their proposals.

Al Gore emerged from his undisclosed location and took to the op-ed page of the New York Times:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skepticsmay not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Read the whole piece of performance art here. No doubt Al Gore believes that the really important thing here is that the ‘global consensus’ remains unchanged. For him and other climate-profiteers, science has been flipped; it is the conclusion, not the premises, which is set in stone. If some facts fall apart, they’ll just find some new ones to prop up their proposals.

The US hasn’t won Olympic hockey gold since the Miracle on Ice in 1980.  Canada last won the gold in 2002 — by defeating the United States in the final.  Canada has lost once in the Olympics, to this same US squad, while the Americans have gone undefeated.  This may well be the most dramatic competitive moment in the games, at least for television viewers.  Who will win — the commanding Americans or the Olympic hosts? [...] Read the rest »

A little more than a year ago, Gary Williams and his University of Maryland men's basketball program was under attack. The Washington Post led the charge, with an assist, it seems, from the Maryland athletic department. The word was that Willaims had lost his touch and might well lose his job.

A stirring win against North Carolina, the eventual national champions, and a trip to the NCAA tournament ended most of that talk. However, there's no doubt that the vultures were ready to pounce again as soon as the team's performance fell below their expectations.

Expectations were pretty high for this season. The Terps graduated only one important player -- small forward cum center Dave Neal -- and were able to replace him with a bona fide center -- freshman Jordan Williams. The team started a little slowly, but as Willaims improved and his backup Dino Gregory came back from suspension, things picked up.

Today, Maryland is an second place in the ACC with a conference record of 11-3. Although the ACC is experiencing a down year, this is still quite an accomplishment. Maryland has its NCAA bid locked up, and if we can beat Duke at home this week, a tournament seed will not be out of the question.

The three most recent victories have been the most remarkable. They provide further evidence (if the Washington Post still needs it) of the grit that has always characterized teams coached by Gary Williams.

Last weekend, Maryland got by Georgia Tech thanks to an off-balance three-pointer off an in-bounds play that began with one second on the clock. Moments earlier, another Maryland three-pointer, this one from beyond half-court, had been waved off after the bench called time-out.

Next, Maryland came from 15 points down to beat Clemson. Neither Georgia Tech nor Clemson is a great team, but they're both pretty good, and they were playing with the intensity you see this time of year from teams on the "bubble" of the NCAA tournament.

Yesterday, Maryland went on the road to play Viriginia Tech, a team that has yet to lose at home this year. The game was delayed by three hours due to a series of burst water pipes that flooded parts of the campus including the gym. The game proved worth waiting for. Maryland won in double overtime, with star guard Greivis Vasquez scoring 41 points.

Coaching college big-time college basketball is a young man's racket these days. Its demands go well beyond teaching fundamentals and X's and O's, inspiring the team, and maintaining discipline on the court, around the campus, and in the classroom. Coaches are also expected to make themselves appealing to 18 year-old recruits, their parents, and assorted hangers-on.

Williams has never been that adept at winning these beauty contests. But his consolation has been recruits who reflect his personality and who, by virtue of not being super-stars, tend to remain at College Park for four years. There has never been a better example than Greivis Vasquez, a strong candidate for ACC player of the year but not, according to reports, for the first round of the NBA draft.

The product on the floor has been, and remains, something Maryland fans should be proud of.

Remember Danny Williams, the premier of a Canadian province who ditched Canada-care in favor of having heart surgery done in Miami? Lucky for him he didn't speak first with the BBC's Katty Kay. She might have convinced him he'd be better off in Costa Rica . . .

On today's Meet the Press, Kay cited some kind of study to claim that the US has the 37th highest quality of care, "just above Cuba, just below Costa Rica."

Kay thinks things will only get worse if "something isn't done": translation--if we don't adopt ObamaCare.

Can Kay or anyone else possibly believe this? Does she honestly think that the quality of care in the US is "just above Cuba, just below Costa Rica"?  Would she really choose Costa Rica over America if she or a loved one need crucial care?  Please.

Update: Kay Was Citing Biased UN Study

A bit of Googling reveals that in claiming that the "quality" of health care in the US ranks only 37th in the world, Kay was citing a UN study that takes into account factors utterly unrelated to the quality of care such as "financial fairness."  Cato Institute has an excellent deconstruction of the study here.

George Will Sunday gave New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a much-needed lesson on what happens if ObamaCare is passed.

Krugman wrote a piece Friday accusing Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) of lying at Thursday's healthcare summit about premiums going up if the Democrats' plan is enacted.

During the Roundtable segment of Sunday's "This Week," Will pointed out, "You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

Krugman responded by explaining that even though "the average payments go up," many people will receive better coverage.

To this inanity, Will marvelously asked Krugman if the government forced him to buy a more expensive car, but told him it's not really more expensive because it's a better car, "Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, relevant section at 4:30):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: Now Paul says, that, in fact, the Republicans have no ideas. They do. Cross selling across state lines. Tort reform. All this. Just a second, Paul. Then you say they're telling whoppers, that was your view. He said about Lamar Alexander, "When he said, ‘For millions of Americans, premiums will go up.'" You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: No, that's not what it says. Can explain this? This is actually a point.

WILL: Let me set the predicate here, because you then go on and say, "The Senate does say the average premiums would go up but people would be getting better premiums."

KRUGMAN: Let me explain what happens, because you actually have to read the CBO report. And what the CBO report tells you in fairly elliptical language is that what it will do, what the bill will do is bring a lot of people who are uninsured, who are currently young, and therefore relatively low cost into the risk pool which will actually bring premiums down a little bit. It will also however let a lot of people get better insurance. It will lead a lot of people who are currently underinsured who have insurance policies that are paper thin and don't actually protect you in a crisis, will actually get those people up to having full coverage. That makes the average payments go up, but it does not mean that people who currently have good coverage under their policies will pay more for their insurance. It does not. In fact, they'll end up paying a little bit less.

WILL: One question: If the government came to you and said, "Professor Krugman, you have a car. We're going to compel you to buy a more expensive car, but it's not really more expensive because it's a better car." Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?

Delicious.

Taking this a step further, ABC's Jonathan Karl fact-checked what Alexander said Thursday, and reported the following:

Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that "the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law." This affects the roughly 17 percent of Americans below age 65 who do not get their insurance from their employers.

Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:

• Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.

The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.

As such, once again Krugman was basically making stuff up.

Alas, NewsBusters readers are quite familiar with him doing this.

Bravo, George! Bravo! 

George Will Sunday gave New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a much-needed lesson on what happens if ObamaCare is passed.

Krugman wrote a piece Friday accusing Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) of lying at Thursday's healthcare summit about premiums going up if the Democrats' plan is enacted.

During the Roundtable segment of Sunday's "This Week," Will pointed out, "You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

Krugman responded by explaining that even though "the average payments go up," many people will receive better coverage.

To this inanity, Will marvelously asked Krugman if the government forced him to buy a more expensive car, but told him it's not really more expensive because it's a better car, "Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, relevant section at 4:30):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: Now Paul says, that, in fact, the Republicans have no ideas. They do. Cross selling across state lines. Tort reform. All this. Just a second, Paul. Then you say they're telling whoppers, that was your view. He said about Lamar Alexander, "When he said, ‘For millions of Americans, premiums will go up.'" You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: No, that's not what it says. Can explain this? This is actually a point.

WILL: Let me set the predicate here, because you then go on and say, "The Senate does say the average premiums would go up but people would be getting better premiums."

KRUGMAN: Let me explain what happens, because you actually have to read the CBO report. And what the CBO report tells you in fairly elliptical language is that what it will do, what the bill will do is bring a lot of people who are uninsured, who are currently young, and therefore relatively low cost into the risk pool which will actually bring premiums down a little bit. It will also however let a lot of people get better insurance. It will lead a lot of people who are currently underinsured who have insurance policies that are paper thin and don't actually protect you in a crisis, will actually get those people up to having full coverage. That makes the average payments go up, but it does not mean that people who currently have good coverage under their policies will pay more for their insurance. It does not. In fact, they'll end up paying a little bit less.

WILL: One question: If the government came to you and said, "Professor Krugman, you have a car. We're going to compel you to buy a more expensive car, but it's not really more expensive because it's a better car." Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?

Delicious.

Taking this a step further, ABC's Jonathan Karl fact-checked what Alexander said Thursday, and reported the following:

Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that "the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law." This affects the roughly 17 percent of Americans below age 65 who do not get their insurance from their employers.

Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:

• Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.

The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.

As such, once again Krugman was basically making stuff up.

Alas, NewsBusters readers are quite familiar with him doing this.

Bravo, George! Bravo! 

Okay, let’s be honest. [...] Read the rest »

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

How does this stem from the standpoint of governance -- whatever that means?

Surely, a claim is in trouble when you can swap out a phrase like "from the standpoint of governance" and helpfully replace it with "from the standpoint of Glaxar: Supreme Ruler of the Known Universe" or "from the standpoint of the Hale-Bopp Cult . . ."

I was invited to speak on 21st century missile threats and defenses at the recent 7th annual Jerusalem Conference, 2010, held at the Regency Hotel on Mt. Scopus, in the city of David, but I was pleased as well to hear a wide variety of experts (speeches are delivered in English and Hebrew with convenient wireless earphone translation headsets).

This gathering is rooted in historic Zionism, the meaning of the land of Israel, and the spiritual meaning of Jerusalem. Many Israeli statesman and American political leaders come to address current security crises, as well as existential questions ever-present for the Jewish state still facing war.

The Palestinian Front

On the Palestinian front, many now believe that the idea of a small PLO state within the 1967 borders, to include Gaza, major parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, has lost its appeal within Araby.

Radical Islamism, unrealistic expectations, and daily incitement against Israel in mosques, the media, and madrassas, have all added up to another era of Palestinian intransigence and irredentism.

Unfortunately, the drive for Palestinian independence has not been equated with responsible state building leading to the kind of sovereignty that would help the Palestinian people themselves.

Palestinians universally wish to cast Israel off their shoulders, but this does not mean they support a fair division of land, or a desire to live in peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state in the middle east.

Israeli journalist and commentator Ehud Ya’ari stated that the Palestinians have now fully collapsed into the unwilling arms of the Israelis, and that Israel must urgently solve the seemingly unsolvable.

Israel is today faced with a reverse annexation: It is the Palestinians who have decided to annex Israel, because Israel did not annex them first.

A notion: Palestinians have long been suicidal, both metaphorically, and in recent years, of course, practically. They simply never stepped up to accept the responsibility of accepting a 2 state solution. Not in 1947, when offered a state by the United Nations, and not since.

Israel’s real interest, of course is in a peaceful neighbor, responsible and productive, even a trading partner. But, can Israel force Palestinians into democratic sovereignty? In fact, is any permanent agreement now possible since Gaza has been lost to Hamas, radical Islamic fundamentalists whose charter calls for the genocide of the Jews?

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords and the signing in Washington, D.C. of commitments, Israelis have seen their nation shrink, and their hopes dashed, by the failure of Palestinian society to reciprocate their moves for peace. Israelis have marched and sang for peace, and unilaterally withdrawn from major portions of the West Bank, completely from Gaza, and from their security buffer in Southern Lebanon (and before that from the Sinai desert and other areas).

Israelis now do not even visit their holy Temple Mount, because Muslim rule denies Christian and Jewish access.

A better idea: pathways to parallel statehood on the same territory. Forget about drawing borders and solving for all time the land dispute. No complex borders and tricky transportation connection between a somehow artificially contiguous Gaza and the West Bank. Just citizens with different passports. Jews with Israeli, Palestinians with Jordanian. All living together in a shared economic region.

Would that this have been the path. Instead, since Israel told the world and the Arab community that it questions its own legal and moral rights to its land, it has suffered a dramatically declining strategic position.

The middle east is far worse off for Israeli territorial concessions, which only served to inflame radicals. Hezbollah and Hamas now run Lebanon and Gaza, respectively. Israelis are terribly disunited and a post-Zionism has captured much of its academic community. Israeli quantitative and qualitative military edges shrink over time due to Arab oil wealth and the relativization of power due to the spreading of technology.

Israeli peace moves were met with bloody intifada, and with Iran now funding and training the terror attacks against Israel.

The good news is that Israel’s security fence (opposed 14-1 by the International Court of Justice by the way — the U.S. was the sole supporter early in the decade), has dramatically reduced daily terror attacks and given breathing space to both Israeli economic growth, and any hope for Israeli – Palestinian dialogue.

The bad news is that Israel’s foes just send mortars, rockets and missiles over the fence.

The United Nations’ purposefully hostile Goldstone report on Israel’s 2008 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, in defense against thousands of rocket attacks on civilians over years, received strong condemnation at the Jerusalem Conference for its lack of objectivity and methodology, as did international media and academic blood libels, attempts at de-judaizing Jerusalem’s history, and repeated calls to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel, including by leftist churches (World Council of Churches, Sabeel, and Presbyterian Church USA),

The diplomatic climate for Israel has darkened at the United Nations, and perhaps the worst recent offenses are the British arrest warrants issued for Israeli politicians.

A recent keynote speaker at NYU Law School’s Hausner dinner was none other than Richard Goldstone. One pauses to ponder: Were there any pro-Israel donors in the crowd, and if so, do they have any idea of Goldstone’s nefarious role in serving the anti-Israel cause?

The NGO Monitor organization documents the formal 2001 Durban Conference strategy to use “lawfare” to demonize Israel through well-funded non-governmental organizations, which claim to be human rights organizations but are instead highly politicized and controversial, selectively using the mantle of international law to single out Israel for condemnations, investigations, and trials.

Repeated rebuttals to unsubstantiated and ideological attacks on Israel, including false claims of Israeli violations of humanitarian laws of war in Jenin and Gaza, in recent years, do not seem to slow the crowd which does not focus on Hamas or Hezbollah terrorism, but instead wails about Israeli disproportionate response in defending its tiny population. Israel sent warnings to civilians before hitting terror targets in Gaza. But the world condemns not the violation of the laws of war by Hamas, and Hezbollah, which hide amongst civilians, but Israel, which roots out terror only after years of suffering from it.

Fortunately, most Americans, who would not stand for 5 minutes any mortars, rockets, and missiles raining down on them from across our Canadian or Mexican borders, still believe in notions of self rule and self government, and not transnational law with the disgraced United Nations and biased NGOs as arbiters of sovereignty, security, or sensible defensive operations in response to terror wars.

Post 1948, within Judea and Samaria, there were no Jews before 1967, but still no peace. So “settlements” cannot possibly be the reason for terrorism, economic warfare against Israel, and incessant rhetorical / ideological war against the existence of a Jewish state, no matter it’s (tiny) size and borders.

Has the Palestinian Authority removed illegal weapons, outlawed terror organizations, or stopped incitement and hate education in mosques and schools and websites and in the media?

Even the “moderate” Palestinian Authority leaders Mr. Fayyad, and Mr. Abu Mazen, defame and vilify Israel. Israel is trying to join the OECD, a major economic organization, and a non-political one. Why do these Palestinian leaders continue the war and incitement against Israel? Fatah’s latest conference concluded with a call for more Armed Struggle, emphasizing that the Fatah constitution still refers to the end of Israel.

The Iranian Front

But the major focus of the Jerusalem Conference 2010 was the arrival of Atomic Iran.

There is a long history of positive Jewish-Iranian relations, and the people of Iran are not the enemy.

But the Iranian regime’s repeated threats against both world Jewry and Israel are matched by now well publicized military oppression if its own citizens. Positively, european leaders such as President Sarcozy of France are aggressively confronting the tyranny, terrorism, and nuclear threat presented by the Iranian Revolutionary Republic and its Revolutionary Guard Council.

Noteworthy, Ayatollah Sistani, who supports democracy from his own base of Iraq, is opposed to the IRGC. Many Iranian Mullahs as well would prefer to remain outside of political rule. Unlike Sunni Islam, many Shiite clerics do not prefer to be involved in statecraft and politics.

Ambassador Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, outlined how the entire middle east region is affected by Iranian pressure and proliferation. By crossing the nuclear threshold, Gold argues, Iran would provide an umbrella under which Islamist terrorism proceeds, less fearful or deterred by western response and defense.

Iran supports Hezbollah, which has perhaps more capability than al-Qaeda even to create mass casualty attacks on the United States and our allies. The marriage of terrorism and nuclear cover is today’s state of concern. For example, it confronts India, which faces Pakistani terror attacks under the protection of a Muslim bomb.

Iranian influence in the western hemisphere received special attention. In Central and South America, from the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 to today’s flights from Tehran to Chavez’ Venezuela, financial and ideological enemies of the United States are collaborating.

Raids on Caracas’ hebraic jewish club, day school, and synagogue, Chavez’ rhetorical assault on the Jewish community after the Gaza war, and his intimidation campaign against Jews, has caused many to leave.

The Response to Iran

Will Sanctions work ? Iran has exploited the process, with the EU 3 having failed to deter or slow Iranian proliferation. President Obama’s commitment to multilateralism, using the UN, gives veto power to China, dependent on Iranian oil.

Will Deterrence work ? The Policy of the United States has been: Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But if they do, of what value are western threats and complaint going forward in the nuclear age ?

Iran’s regime is ambitious, seeking regional hegemony, restoration of the caliphate, return of the 12th Imam, and pre-eminence of Shia Islam over Sunni. No amount of rhetoric or hand wringing by western diplomacy seems to slow them down.

The Iranian revolutionary regime lied all along about their nuclear program, including the recently revealed Qom facility, and now boasts a new generation of centrifuges, with enrichment of uranium to 20 % purity, followed by taunts about the price the west would pay for any effective sanctions.

The Jerusalem Conference is non-partisan within Israel, (and vis a vis U.S. politics as well), but President Obama, while rarely mentioned by name, aroused deep skepticism and concern.

His appointments of Chas Freeman (rejected Arabist U.S. diplomat and Saudi client) and Hannah Rosenfeld, (the anti-Semitism Czar who blasted Israel’s Ambassador to the United States), and his advisors on Muslim affairs, and to the Organization of Islamic Conference, and even to counter-terrorism positions within the administration, are all troubling left-wing ideologues. They are apologists for radical Islamism and far out of the mainstream.

Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, his deep bow to the Saudi King, the engagement with Iran and weak response to the stolen June 12th election, the beating up of Israel over 2nd story apartments, and the administration’s friendly approach to the United Nations and its Durban II planning conference and (anti) Human Rights Council are just a few of the wild and weak Obama approaches to U.S. middle east policy.

When Obama told the 2008 AIPAC conference that he support a unified Jerusalem, and then recanted the very next day, bells should have gone off. The President who was mentored by radicals in academe, who opposed Israel’s security fence and who disdainfully stated “you don’t have to be pro Likud to be pro Israel” has clearly picked a fight with the people and government of the Jewish state.

The Islamic War on the West

When Israeli officers enter battle, they pronounce: After me. Israel itself faces battles that eventually come to all who share its values of democracy, pluralism, women’s rights, and Judeo-Christian civilization. The Jihad rejects western ideas not only in its midst, the middle east, but the caliphate is meant to spread globally, and to conquer.

Many western policy makers mis-understand Islam, and Islamic self identity, and assume Islamic beliefs, traditions, processes, and motivations are the same as ours.

Legendary scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis explained that some thousand years ago, Arab theory stated that the essence of magnanimity is to spare your enemy when you have him completely vulnerable, but don’t try to befriend him now. He wants to battle those who do not submit. Islam means submission, and all must convert to Allah, submit to Islamic rule, or die. Temporary truces and practical accommodations are possible, but the world of Islam, Dar al Islam, must be brought to the world of war, Dar al Harb, meant for conquer and conversion.

The Arabic Salaam is close to Hebrew Shalom. But the greetings of Salaam are meant for peace to be upon those who are not infidels, kaffirs, non-believers. When President Obama used the explicitly Muslim greeting, in Cairo, to a large Muslim audience of believers, many within the Islamic world took that to indicate his choice to join them in their religion. This is a betrayal of the west’s belief in itself, its own identity, values, and beliefs, and only encourages the Jihad to sense more western weakness and incomplete dedication to its own tradition and meaning.

Mr. Obama further humiliated himself and the United States with his wrong and bizarre interpretation of President Jefferson’s having a Koran. Jefferson studied the ways of his enemy, the barbary pirates. He was an opponent of Islamic war against the infidel, not a fan.

The Christian notion of church-state separation has no similar parallel in Islam. The mosque is a mere building for worship and study. The mosque is not a complete institution like the church is.

Islam and the state itself are not separated. The entire state is Islamic, only and solely.

Moses never made it to Israel. Christ died on the cross and his followers were scattered. They are profoundly inspiring, of course, to Jews and Christians around the world.

But Mohammed founded a state that became an empire in his own lifetime. A glorified prophet who inspires as if he were here today. The 7th century is very much alive and motivating for Islamic Jihad.

The Final Threat

There were no Palestinians before 1948 (except as the term did refer to the resident Jews). Arabs rejected Palestine as a British creation, as artificial and cut off from Araby. The creation of a Palestinian people and conscience has been a political pursuit. Judea became Palestina, under Roman rule, but it was not an Arab entity. Greater Syria, Iran, Egypt are all much more important historical homes for Muslims. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran.

But the goal of Islamism is to reject the Jewish Abraham and his covenant, and the promise of God to his people and their land. And to reverse Christ’s eternal theology of love and oneness, and promise of salvation. Prophet Muhammed’s truth is the final one. Therefore, to resist the infidel is to exist as a Muslim.

Jihad uses guerilla, asymmetric, and unconventional warfare, by both state and non state actors, and it is networked, lethal, alert, and mobile. IEDs, the use of civilians as human shields, and homicide/suicide terror all are means for Jihad.

Defending against modern terror requires new tactics of intelligence and renewed commitment. But modern western populations are distracted, tired of war, and unsure what constitutes winning. The war of ideas starts with understanding why we believe in our lives, our security, and our liberty.

Israel’s enemies have decided they cannot defeat her with tanks, planes, and masses of soldiers. So they have adopted the technology of missiles, which fly 24/7, are launched with the push of a button, are all weather, and can disrupt an economy, or the rallying of reservists. They are potentially anonymous.

And even when the source of launch is identified, through heat signature or satellite reading, for example, responding to first strike leaves the defender liable to complaint that he is using disproportionate response when the attacker hides amongst civilians, in schools and hospitals.

And, in an age of missiles, everything is faster. Israel’s margin for error is now measured in mere minutes and seconds.

The middle east is a region that favors power, strong horses and winners. But the western mind rejects the idea that others think, plan, and act based on ancient battle plans and a different tradition’s notion of humanity.

Israeli missile defense, against short, medium, and longer range missiles, with interceptors and lasers, layered and eventually meant to strike in the boost phase, over enemy territory, is the correct response to enemy proliferation.

But, in the final analysis, even hitting the enemy’s missiles over his own territory may not deter through fear of mutually assured destruction. Martyrdom and the purposeful coming of the final conflagration excite the true believers. Getting the warhead launched against Jerusalem is worth any risk of pre-emptive attack or second strike Israeli or American retaliation.

Without a liberation of Araby and the Muslim world from their political tyrants, and then the joining of the religious Muslim world with modernity, there is no settlement of claims, no final peace accord, no comprehensive agreement to be made. Diplomats think they can negotiate the solution to a clash of civilizations with the right code, compromise, or cajoling. But the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a rubics cube with a solution. Only fools who think they are wiser than history assert they know the secret.

The Jewish state of Israel is a small country with big dreams and accomplishments, but it faces a big threat. Both ancient and cutting edge, modern Israel is still spiritual but bloodied.

May the stones of Jerusalem remain a strong foundation for the deeper wisdom required by its leaders, citizens, allies, and supporters.

Today marks the beginning of the Jewish holiday Purim (observing Jews will have started celebrating last night at sundown). This joyous festival marks the deliverance of the Jewish people of ancient Persia from a plot to annihilate them, as recorded in the Bible in the Book of Esther.

Esther was the Queen of Persia. Her cousin (or uncle), a Jew, informed her of a plot to massacre the Jews. He asked Esther to implore her husband, the King, to save the Jews. Esther decided instead to reveal her Jewish identity and ask that King save her and her people. The King complied and hanged his chief adviser, who had planned the massacre. Jews then rose up and killed other Persians who had intended to murder them.

As I understand it, the Book of Esther is one of only two books in the Hebrew Bible that does not mention God. It is the straightforward story of how Jews were threatened with genocide but were able to turn the tables and kill those who would kill them.

The Jews prevailed because of the shrewd and courageous actions of Esther, who risked her life to save the lives of her people. No wonder Esther has been lionized by Jews for ages.

As Abby Wisse Schachter reports in the February issue of Commentary, however, Esther's status may not survive the age of modern feminism. For Jewish feminists, or at least the professionals among them, Esther's shortcomings are manifold. For one thing, she is too nationalistic. Thus, although some feminists make note of her bravery, they are troubled that she used it only to make the world better a better place for Jews. And the fact that her actions led to the killing of those who were out to kill the Jews is seen as especially problematic.

But the heart of the problem is that Esther, in effect, slept with the enemy - that symbol of male domination, the King. And it is here that the Jewish feminists have pulled off a tour de force of literary criticism that leaves me wondering whether to laugh or cry.

According to Schachter, the feminists have found a new hero in the Book of Esther. She is Queen Vashti, Esther's predecessor. Vashti appears only briefly, at the beginning of the Book, by way of establishing how Esther came to be the Queen. Vashti was deposed because she refused the King's summons to appear at a banquet and display her beauty. Although some feminists interpret this as a refusal to appear naked, the Bible does not say this. Moreover, it seems that the most exhaustive collection of ancient Hebrew writings from the era of Esther contains no instances in which the Hebrew word that is used in the Biblical story to connote beauty is associated with nudity or indecency.

Whatever the precise nature of Vashti's defiance, it has been enough to propel her to iconic status at the expense of Esther. One Jewish feminist writes that "Vashti fights for her modesty and her honor while. . .Esther is willing to work through the bedroom." A female rabbi salutes Vashti as "the first woman in the Bible who refused to be objectified as a sex object, instead naming such behavior as inappropriate." But the best instance of Vashti worship comes from a Harvard professor who compares her to Hillary Clinton, with Bill Clinton as the King, and "Monica [Lewinsky], needless to say [as] Esther, the beautiful Jewess."

It is not necessarily unreasonable to put in a good word for Vashti. But the Jewish feminists have taken things way too far. As Schachter puts it, they have chosen to exalt "the non-Jew over the Jew and the failure over the success." Most importantly, they have exalted a self-centered act of courage (if courage is what Vashti displayed) over an unambiguous act of courage in defense of an entire people. Even if "the personal is the political," as feminists insist, not all politics is equal.

The modern treatment of Esther and Vashti is not an isolated event. Rather, it is an instance of what all too often passes for "literary criticism" at America's institutions of higher learning. The same kind of analysis is performed routinely on all works of literature, whether by feminists, race theorists, "queer" theorists, etc.

If one can take Vashti as far as the feminists have, there are no limits. And, based on my conversations with college students who are subjected to the stunts of modern English and other literature departments, indeed there aren't.

Read this post »

Remember Van Jones? He's trying to make a comeback, and the mainstream media seems to be lending him a helping hand in getting back into the Washington power structure. Jones, in case, you don't remember, was the administration's Green Jobs Czar. He resigned after his name appeared on a 9/11 Truther petition.

That, it turned out, was not the extent of his wackiness. He led a vigil mourning "the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world." He was an admitted communist and black nationalist. Now, it turns out, he considered Americans who shipped off to Iraq to be human shields for Saddam Hussein "heroes."

He said just that on MSNBC's "The Abrams Report" in 2003, according to a transcript of the show (relevant portion below the fold). I would post video here, but MSNBC refuses to release it:

DAN ABRAMS: If Saddam Hussein uses human shields and he’s captured alive, he’s going to be tried as a war criminal, as will anyone who works with him in that effort. The question we’re asking here is, what about these Americans, these Europeans who are sending over these American and European human shields?

VAN JONES: They’re heroes.

DAN ABRAMS: Could that — well, all right.

VAN JONES: They’re not criminals, they’re heroes.

DAN ABRAMS: All right, Van, before I even get to the intro, Van Jones is jumping in, describing them as heroes. But Ruth Wedgewood, look, apart from the fact that almost everyone doesn’t view them as heroes at all, and everyone in this country particular views the idea of them getting into soldiers’ ways — soldiers’ way in Iraq is extremely disturbing to say the least.

The video would have an impact the transcript cannot possible have. Think about it: would the now-renowned ACORN sting videos have packed the punch they did if only the transcripts--not the videos--were released? Probably not.

As written by a blogger at a site appropriately titled "Why Is MSNBC Protecting Van Jones?",

It’s important that MSNBC release the actual video of this show because many Americans will simply not believe that Jones praises traitors until they hear with their own ears him saying it. Even though the transcript is reliable, and even though anyone could confirm that the screenshot above is real by viewing it on Lexis-Nexis themselves, the issue will not impact a mainstream audience until the video itself surfaces as the final proof. Which is almost certainly the reason why MSNBC refuses to release it, since the network is well-known to have a pro-Obama bias and does not want to do anything which could damage the administration in the slightest—even something as minor as this.

Now, it is not clear that the cable network is simply refusing to release the tape for political purposes. Unlike CNN, which has blatantly shilled for Jones in covering his attempt at a comeback, MSNBC is not advocating his return to the public sphere.

But, if the folks at MSNBC really value investigative journalism, they should be ready and willing to release the tape, as it would provide the American people with significant insight into the minds of people in the upper echelons of the federal government.

Judging by the e-mail we’re already getting on this, Nancy Pelosi’s combination of claim on Tea Party sensibility while attacking Tea Partiers themselves will probably be the story of the day. [...] Read the rest »

The recent revelations of scientific errors (not to say fraud) in the U.N.'s global warming documents are important, but Fred Singer reminds us not to lose sight of the most important point: the IPCC's fundamental conclusions, relating to the allegedly unprecedented warming of the past half-century, are based on bad surface temperature data and are contradicted by more-reliable satellite data and by our knowledge of the earth's climate history. We know for a fact, in short, that the computer models that are the only basis for the AGW theory are wrong:

The reports of the UN-IPCC have long provided the basis of the so-called 'scientific consensus.' Climate statements of assorted national academies of sciences, including the venerable Royal Society, turned out to be nothing more than rehash of the IPCC conclusions, rather than independent assessments. [Ed.: This is true of the EPA's endangerment finding as well.] Similarly, the statements issued by various professional societies simply relied on the IPCC - without adding any analyses of their own.

In turn, this apparent consensus misled not only the media and the public but also the wider scientific community, which had remained largely unaware of the ongoing debate and of the work of the many reputable climate experts who disagreed with the IPCC. Thanks to the e-mails of ClimateGate (CG), we now know of the efforts by a small clique to suppress publication of such dissenting views by subverting the scientific peer-review process - often with the connivance of the editors of leading professional journals.

All this is now changing. The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia server strongly suggest that the basic temperature data had been manipulated, yielding the reported strong surface warming of the past 30 years. Again, we had long suspected this, because the data from weather satellites showed little warming trend of the atmosphere since 1979. Available proxy data seemed to confirm this result (see "Hot Talk Cold Science" [1997] -- HTCS Fig 16). But according to theory - and every greenhouse climate model -- tropospheric trends should be substantially greater than surface trends.

This disparity between the trends derived from weather station data and from satellite data was already apparent in 1996 (see HTCS Fig 9), and was amply confirmed in a special study of the US National Academy of Sciences ["Reconciling observations of global temperature change" 2000].

The NAS report could not reconcile the disparity and never explained its cause. But it has become evident now that the cause may be a greatly exaggerated surface trend - brought about by the CG cabal. We will learn the details once we unravel just how the data were manipulated.

The 'manufacture' of a 'man-made' warming trend, when there is none, likely involved (i) selection of stations that showed a trend, and (ii) inadequate correction for purely local warming influences such as the 'urban heat island' effect (see HTCS Figs 7 and 8; and the recent extensive publications of Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts).

In a sense then, the other 'Gates' discovered since CG - GlacierGate and all the rest - are a distraction from the main story. They were all found in IPCC Volume 2, which deals with climate impacts, i.e. with the consequences of global warming. They indicate a general sloppiness and make a mockery of the much touted IPCC standards and procedures. They have severely shaken the public's and the media's faith in the IPCC. But the main story is still CG - because it impacts directly on IPCC Volume 1, which deals with climate science and the causes of climate change rather than with climate impacts.

To sum up: CG demonstrates just how the IPCC [2007] arrived at its erroneous conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the latter half of the 20th century. They used bad data. It's no surprise then that none of the evidence the IPCC put forth in support of AGW can stand up to scrutiny - as already shown in the reports of the NIPCC ("Nature, not human activity, rules the climate" and "Climate change reconsidered") [2008 and 2009].

Now that we know Al Gore is a hoaxer, can we please get back to drilling for oil and gas? We have huge supplies of oil and gas under our control, but our oil companies--which by international standards are tiny in terms of the quantity of petroleum to which they have access--are legally prevented from developing it and, in some cases, even exploring for it. (Congress doesn't want the American people to understand how much wealth and how many jobs we are forgoing by being the only country in the world that perversely refuses to develop its own energy resources.) Here, Chevron's Vice President for Exploration, Bobby Ryan, explains the need to explore the Outer Continental Shelf, where unknown but no doubt vast reserves of energy are to be found.

President Obama signed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the quiet of a slow-news Saturday–the Act was set to expire Sunday, February 28–as reported by The Hill.

Photo Credit: AP Photo

The reauthorization did NOT include any reforms to the current Patriot Act–an odd display of agreement and submission to Bush-era policy–even though the Democrats had the numbers to reform the Act. The continuance of the current Patriot Act signals that Democrats are fearful of further controversary in light of American’s distrust and poor approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress. From the Hill:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

Apparently without Bush, the Patriot Act is no longer Orwellian as Michael Moore would have it and the ACLU is now quietly voicing its differences. Even Obama criticized the Act’s compromise in 2006, but had no issue, as President, signing the identical Act he wanted reforms on.  In 2006, Obama stated on the Senate floor:

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

The Democrats had the numbers to make changes, but another civil war would have ensued.  In addition, it appears that when these controversial legislative pieces are passed by the Democrats, it makes it all better.  No more outrage from the MSM and the far-left, because the rules of war and engagement are clearly different because, you know, the Democrats are in charge.

Scott Brown likely won his special election to the US Senate through his retort to David Gergen in the final debate that he was running for “the people’s seat” in Massachusetts, not “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” when Gergen challenged his opposition to ObamaCare.  Conservatives cheered the populist message Brown sent to Democrats in one of the most liberal states in the country.  What will they make of Ron Paul’s statement about “attack dogs” coming after him in “my own primary”? [...] Read the rest »

Yesterday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted Fannie Mae's $72 billion loss announcement and the ward of the state's simultaneous $15.3 billion handout request.

Late Friday was also the occasion for the release by the Treasury Department of the "2009 Financial Report of the United States Government." The report shows how seriously the government's financial situation deteriorated during the fiscal year that ended September 30. The coverage of the report prepared by the Associated Press's Martin Crutsinger demonstrated how weak the press's communication of that seriousness is.

After presenting the first several paragraphs of Crutsinger's composition for the purpose of providing the basic facts, I'll concentrate on the AP writer's three worst paragraphs that followed (there is also a summary table from the report at the end of this post):

Report shows government's liabilities surging

The federal government fell further into the red in 2009, with its financial position hitting a deficit of $11.46 trillion.

That figure is 12.3 percent higher than the previous year, according to a new report issued by the Treasury Department on Friday.

The annual report shows that the government's big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are facing a deficit over the next 75 years of $45.88 trillion, an increase in that deficit of $2.9 trillion in just one year.

The $11.46 trillion deficit in the government's net financial position in 2009 represents an increase of $1.25 trillion over 2008. The position reflects the government's assets, such as cash, property and investments, minus liabilities, such as the federal debt held by the public.

Here is the first of Crutsinger's three worst subsequent paragraphs:

Under the cash accounting system, the federal budget deficit for 2009, the budget year that ended on Sept. 30, soared to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion, surpassing the previous record of $454.8 billion set in 2008.

The trouble is the government isn't using a purely "cash accounting system" in its routine reports.

One might be tempted to give Crustinger a pass on this, because Treasury made no effort to elaborate on what "prepared primarily on a 'cash basis'" (the description on Page 7 of the 254-page Financial Report) means. But he doesn't deserve one, because he was around when Treasury made a huge adjustment last April to previously released information from October 2008 through March 2009 that moved it away from "cash basis" in one critical area. In fact, he reported it on May 12, 2009:

However, the Obama administration said it was changing the accounting process to a "net present value" basis, which means it assumes that the government is getting an asset when it provides loans to the banks and auto companies. Based on the new accounting method, the size of the deficit from October through March fell about $175 billion.

If this change hadn't been made, fiscal 2009's reported deficit on a purely cash basis would have been at least $200 billion higher.

Here's Crutsinger's second weak subsequent paragraph:

The deficit surge reflects a deep recession that has cut into tax revenues and boosted spending on such programs as unemployment insurance and economic stimulus packages.

Beyond the fact that Crutsinger's article at various points uses the word "deficit" to describe three very different things (negative net worth, accumulated actuarial obligations, and annual differences between receipts and outlays), more than likely leaving many readers hopelessly confused, the AP writer acts as if this inanimate thing known as "the deep recession" somehow "boosted spending," even on the stimulus, all on its own. Uh, not exactly. Setting aside the issue of effectiveness or lack thereof, Congress and the Obama administration "boosted spending" on economic stimulus in response to the recession, and for that matter passed and signed off on spending programs in general.

The final weak paragraph concerns Crutsinger's characterization of the Government Accountability Office's report on the government's financial statements:

The General Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, said it could not sign off on the government's books because of serious financial management problems at the Defense Department and other financial shortcomings.

Crutsinger got the first word in the agency's name wrong, but far more importantly, he mostly whitewashed what it had to say, as you can see from the first four paragraphs of its related press release (the full letter to the President, the Senate, and the Speaker of the House in PDF form is here):

Weaknesses Evident in Financial Management as Nation Confronts Long-Term Fiscal Problems & Financial Regulatory Weaknesses

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) could not render an opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the federal government (other than the Statement of Social Insurance) because of widespread material internal control weaknesses and other limitations.

“While financial management has improved significantly since the government began preparing consolidated financial statements, for the 13th year in a row now shortcomings in three areas again prevented us from expressing an opinion,” said Gene L. Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. “I’m referring to serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD), the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between agencies, and the ineffective process the federal government uses to prepare the consolidated financial statements.”

Dodaro also cited material weaknesses involving improper payments estimated to be at least $98 billion, information security across government, and tax collection activities. He noted that four major agencies—DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and NASA—did not get clean opinions.

The material weaknesses discussed in GAO’s audit report hinder the government’s ability to (1) reliably report on many of its assets, liabilities, and costs; (2) accurately measure the full cost as well as the financial and non-financial performance of certain programs and activities; (3) adequately safeguard significant assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) have reliable information to operate efficiently and effectively.

Although DOD was the largest department that failed to get a clean opinion, it clearly wasn't the only one; Crutsinger clearly misled readers into thinking it was. Additionally, his characterization of what GAO referred to as "widespread material internal control weaknesses," "serious financial problems," and a huge amount of "improper payments" as mere "financial shortcomings" significantly downplays a very ugly reality. At the very least, the AP reporter could have put the word "shortcomings" in quotes and mentioned that the government has never received a clean audit opinion.

The combination of the government's convenient late Friday release and Crutsinger's awful reportage will work to ensure that the most of the public will continue not to comprehend just how dangerously out of control Washington is.

For those who can't carve out the time to wade through hundreds of pages, here is a summary table from the Financial Report capsulizing the continuing calamity:

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Speaker Pelosi tells democrats to sacrifice their career for the unpopular health care bill.
(At 2:50 mark)

“They know that it will take courage to pass health care. But why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We’re here to do the job for the American people to get them results that gets them not only health security but economic security because the health issue is an economic issue for America’s families.”

Pelosi tells democrats to sacrifice their careers for Obamacare.
The AP reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”
“We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

It took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, she said, “and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.”