Today's posts - Quoteworthy - Obamanalysis - Michelle O - Mark Steyn - Women - Children - Parenting - Education - Culture - Culture of death - Music - Sinatra - Books - Best of P&P - Twitter

When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Mark Steyn
.

January 31, 2010

Hog wild

Daily Mail exposé: The computer consultants turned swineherds' Happy Pig farm was anything but. The pigs were forced to live in mud and squalor:

Touring the farmers' markets, the owners of the Happy Pig Company trade on a growing consumer demand for meat from animals reared with kindness.

They charge £35 for a few 'organic' chops and pork joints in a pack bearing their logo of a smiling cartoon pig leaning on a wall.

They boast that the 'top quality, additive-free' pork comes from pampered pigs living free-range in a field close to the sea, eating 'only natural foods'.

But the truth about the 'happy pigs' kept by Andrew Dyer-Wright and Keith Barnett is that they have endured such squalor that several have died in their field and been left to rot in the mud.

It all went horribly wrong:

When the farmers failed to clear the corpses away, the remaining pigs were so hungry that they turned cannibal and ate the dead pigs where they lay.

At least they were organic.

Owners comment:

'I didn't know they were eating each other - and I'll certainly carry on with the Happy Pig Company when the investigation is over. The dead ones were happy pigs until they got hungry.'

Mr Dyer-Wright said: 'To have my own pigs was a dream come true. I don't know what's gone wrong.'


Most recent posts here.

Never pay full price

In praise of haggling:

But when I called Verizon to tell them I was thinking of switching to satellite TV -- shhh, I really wasn't -- they lowered my bill by about $50 a month, doubled my Internet speed, tripled my HD channels and added free Showtime. I am not making that up.
Holy canoli. So I asked husband, when does our FIOS contract run out?

(Haggling is very effective with newspaper subscriptions, especially when you're absolutely prepared to bail.)

Most recent posts here.

January 30, 2010

Liberal columnist hopes Obama has hit bottom

A few words of wisdom from . . . Ruth Marcus:

On health care, he accepted "my share of the blame" -- but only for "not explaining it more clearly to the American people." I'm supportive of health reform and the president's decision to try it despite the head winds of a bad economy. No president lacks for explanatory opportunities; this president is a gifted explainer who has seized every such moment. To assess the problem as simply one of salesmanship underestimates the degree and nature of public concern. Likewise, Obama's distancing dismissal of "all the lobbying and horse-trading" ignores the White House's central role at the corral. After you've been in the backroom with PhRMA, it rings more than a little false to express outrage about what was going on in there.

So can a chastened Obama regain the lost sense of excitement and opportunity? Eventually, perhaps, but never entirely. The second time is never as thrilling.
No, it isn't. And once a bubble has popped it's impossible to put it back together.


But she has hopes for next year:
This could be Obama's low point. The economy is slowly recovering. The loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat was a political earthquake, but Democrats have already factored in the likelihood of a bleak November and dramatically narrowed majorities. By next year's State of the Union, the president, I predict, will be neither as beleaguered as he now appears nor as invincible as he seemed a year ago.
That's the best-case scenario. But there's no reason to think Obama and company have hit bottom. Worst case: "an epic party disaster."

And he certainly didn't appear "chastened" yesterday in Baltimore. He struck me as pretty cocky. That probably pleases his supporters on the left but what will independents make of it?

h/t: Jennifer Rubin

Thanks to Doug Ross for the link.

Most recent posts here.

Arrogance unlimited: Pelosi abuses USAF travel privileges

And the sky's the limit for Nancy and family. Doug Ross:

What hasn't been revealed so far is that military aircraft are being used to shuttle Pelosi's kids and grandkids between DC and San Francisco without any Congressional representatives even onboard! Put simply, the United States Air Force is serving as a multi-billion dollar chauffeur- and baby-sitting service for Nancy Pelosi's kids and grandkids -- presumably because commercial travel is beneath the families of the autocrats.
Click here to view the many documents and details of this flagrant abuse of power.

More details from Judicial Watch, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act:
the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. The following are highlights from the recent release of about 2,000 documents:
  • Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international CODEL is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House Speaker’s family.
  • One CODEL traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
  • According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29—April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.”
  • The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to “view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.” The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

This horrible woman needs to be voted out of office.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.

Most recent posts here.

Saturday miscellany

First up, a must-read post from Creative Minority Report on the pro-life Super Bowl ad controversy.

Everyone's freaking out that during the Super Bowl Tim Tebow's mother will tell us that she chose life and you should too. Gasp!

And yet nobody's talking about the fact that rocker Pete Townsend of The Who, who is the halftime entertainment, was involved in a child pornography scandal in 2003. Apparently bored with the thousands of women throwing themselves at him, the guitarist was busted for using his credit card to view images on a child porn website. Townsend insisted he was researching a book or something ridiculous like that and he was never convicted.

In an odd note, let's remember Michael Jackson was also halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl. Seriously, who is booking these acts, Paul Reubens?

Firstly, I blame the rock community because if rockers weren't forced to be celibate, this never would've happened.
Matthew Archbold is the man. Read the rest.

More thoughtful Tebow commentary here.

Next: Confusion reigns over whether Christopher Buckley's latest is satire or just another besotted fan letter. Cases in point: Ace of Spades (content warning) takes it at face value, as did Laura Ingraham on her radio show. Most of Buckley's commenters do, too, but a few are sure it's satire, and some just can't tell.

My theory: it's satire, but made deliberately ambiguous in order to make fools of Buckley's critics when they fail to get it.

More miscellany:

If you missed it, Scott Brown made a brief appearance on Leno. Fun. The guy is, like, a normal guy.

It's true: Rush grooves to Lady Gaga. I don't get Lady Gaga and I don't think Dave does, either.

Sports fans: Click here and plan your weekend.

Pat wants to know who dat NFL think they is.

Video from the Gormogons (via Big Journalism) on How to Report the News. Very funny. (Caveat for parents with kids in the room: One f-bomb.)

Back to politics, Adrienne succinctly sums up the State of the Union address for those who missed it.

MotorCityTimes: No one to blame but themselves:
Don’t you think Democrats could get a few glory hog Republicans to support their agenda if the American people were on board with the Democrat plan? Truth be told, if their was even a hint of public support for socialized medicine, John McCain and his ilk would beat a path to the nearest camera letting the world know that “we are on board with the plan” as they they proudly tout their independent streak.
Judd Gregg is completely fed up with the spin.

Doug Ross: Desperate presidents do desperate things

From Carol:



Jimmie wonders if there is any such thing as real evidence of global warming.

PoliticaljunkieMom: Osama is the new Gore, another (ghastly) reason to homeschool.

Just One Minute:
The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual."
From el Troglo, one of my favorite posts of the week has now become interactive.

Grandpa John/Steve interprets Obama's post-speech fundraising letter and reminds us that history repeats itself.

Grammar nazis

RS McCain destroys the slanderous Keith Olbermann. But he still won't go away:
What’s amazing is how casually Olbermann makes the accusation, as if it were a thing of no consequence. And indeed, there will be no consequences for Olbermann. Liberalism is like a free pass to ride the Irresponsibility Express.
Bob Belvedere finds meaning in Janet's nap.

You know what would make the world a better place? Animatronic ground hogs.

Da Tech Guy: defender of the unborn, and serious Doctor Who fan.

Chris Christie proved himself worthy this week when he clamped the hose on wasteful spending. (Also from Chris Wysocki, a lovely compliment to yours truly. Don't give me compliments in writing unless you're willing to see them cast in bronze and permanently installed in the testimonials sidebar.)

It's been a big week for birthdays. (I had one, too.)

But I missed the celebration at the Daley Gator. Everybody dance now.

Don't forget your morning Steyn.

(I'll keep updating until the kids kick me off the computer.)

Most recent posts here.

January 29, 2010

Relief: It's not a Bolshevik plot

President Obama, from his televised guest-spot in Baltimore:

The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom -- and certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much...

(LAUGHTER)

... but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.

(LAUGHTER)

No, I mean, that's how you guys -- that's how you guys presented it.

(APPLAUSE)

And so I'm thinking to myself, "Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist..."

(LAUGHTER)

No, look, I mean, I'm just saying -- I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- it -- it's similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I'm saying is we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

Those poor gullible constituents. Video of the lecture here. Q&A here. Long but fascinating, especially the exchange with Rep. Tom Price, 40 or so minutes in (clip here).

One of Obama's best lines, uttered with a straight face: "Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day." He's got a million of 'em.

Mary Katharine Ham has some good analysis.

Peter Wehner fact-checks one of the president's claims:

Barack Obama’s claim to the GOP lawmakers today — “I am not an ideologue” — calls to mind Richard Nixon’s famous claim, “I am not a crook.” Unfortunately both Messrs. Obama and Nixon were what they claimed they were not. Now being a crook is much worse than being an ideologue; but being an ideologue, especially a liberal one, can have its own high costs, as our 44th president is discovering.

I rather doubt Obama considers himself an ideologue; he has probably convinced himself that he is what he wants to project: an empiricist, a pragmatist, and person who makes decisions based on evidence and reason instead of ideology. The fact that he has pursued an agenda blessed, in almost every instance, by Nancy Pelosi is the oddest of coincidences.

Quin Hillyer wasn't favorably impressed:
ThisPresident is an Arrogant, Thin-Skinned, Prevaricator...
...and I could tear him limb from limb (figuratively speaking) in a Q & A give-and-take. I am watching him act like a haughty, angry, self-righteous, self-reverential (insert appropriate noun) in his meeting with House Republicans right now, and he is lecturing them like they are teenagers. What an arrogant so-and-so.
Read the rest. He's just warming up.

But Rep. Mike Pence thinks something was gained. I agree. The GOP stood their ground with substantive comments and questions and hammered home the fact that they have indeed offered their own plans.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.

Most recent posts here.

"Indifferent and irresolute"

Another theory of Obama, which we might call Obama as Underachiever. Byron York:

This is about the time Barack Obama becomes bored with his job.

He's in his second year as president, and he's discovered that even with all the powers of office, he can't do everything he wants to do, like remake America. Doing stuff is hard. In the past, prosaic work has held little appeal for Obama, and it's prompted him to think about moving on.

Read the rest. We've remarked before on Obama's curious lack of accomplishment. The late Dean Barnett wrote about this with prescience in September of 2008:
While it has become almost a cliché on the right to belittle Obama as a talker rather than a doer, his résumé suggests just that. Obama does have the requisite brain power to be president; it's unlikely that the intellectual demands of the job would overwhelm him. But his past work experience is unnerving. Obama had ample talent to excel at all the other positions he has held, and yet he accomplished little at each. So what would he do as president? Would his efforts in the Oval Office be as indifferent and irresolute as they've been at every other stop along his professional path?
Bingo.

And now, as Mr. York points out, Obama has nowhere else to go:
In the State of the Union address, Obama declared, "I don't quit." And of course, there's no danger he would just up and quit the presidency. But throughout his life, his reaction to frustration has been to look for a bigger job. What does he do now?

Related:
What's wrong with Obama?
Theories of Obama
Obama, beta male

Most recent posts here.

Perpetually pressing the flesh, but out of touch

Our once and future campaigner did his thing in Tampa yesterday:

The President again defended his overall agenda with an air of defiance. "We ran to get the tough stuff done. I make no apology for trying to fix stuff that's hard. Because, I'll be honest with you, Joe and I are both pretty smart politicians…the easiest way to keep your poll numbers high is to say nothing and do nothing that offends anyone. You just wave and smile, that's how ya do it. The minute you actually start doing something, someone's going to disagree with you. "

Mr. Obama said he is governing exactly how he promised he would when he was a candidate in 2008. "I wasn't just going to tell you what you want to hear. I'm going to tell you what you need to hear."

He also took aim at the press specifically, "Our friends with the pads and pencils ." Specifically the suggestion in the press that he has channeled a more populist tone in the weeks since the Massachusetts Senate election which put his party and his agenda on the ropes."

"I just have to do a little rewind of how we ran our grassroots campaign. I've got some news of my own here. I've been fighting for working folks my entire life."

He again talked about the need for real bi-partisanship in Washington: " I want the Republicans to get off the sidelines. I want them working with us, not to score points. I want a partnership." [. . .]

Overall, the President's message: times are tough and he's not backing down. "Won't stop fighting for your future, no matter how many lumps we take to get it done."

At least he's upfront about his perpetual campaign, though he decried it in his speech the night before, just before he sent out a plea for donations. More instant hypocrisy here, this time on lobbyists. (Is it just me, or is he becoming increasingly incoherent?)

Anyway, the campaign goes on. Today it's small businesses in Baltimore and a visit to Republicans which might be interesting. Eric Cantor, for one, isn't up for another lecture.

*Update: A sister asks Obama what he can do for her brother who has committed 33 felonies. Video here. (Another felon sought Obama's help last week in Ohio.)

Most recent posts here.

Kyl says reconciliation is on

Sen. Jon Kyl to Hugh Hewitt yesterday:

JK: This is kind of breaking news. As you say, we’re just hearing it. We haven’t been formally advised, but we have it on relatively good authority. And this would be what they call the nuclear option. This would be we can’t do it with 60 votes, because now we have a new Senator from Massachusetts, so we’ll do it with 51. Now it’s called the nuclear option, because it really upsets all of the tradition and precedent within the Senate which on a really big bill on the magnitude of health care, would always have strong bipartisan support, and therefore the 60 vote requirement really doesn’t matter. But here, using an arcane part of the budget that ordinarily relates to tax cuts or tax increases, it doesn’t relate to comprehensive bills with a lot of substantive provisions in them, but just changes in the tax code, usually. They’re going to try to rewrite this bill to, where it would only need 51 votes, and still accomplish most of what the bill will accomplish. Now what this will do is let the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons and Evan Bayhs and other to say oh, I can’t go along with this now. And of course, that’s exactly what their constituents want to hear. But it doesn’t matter, because their votes in effect at this point don’t count. They don’t matter. All it takes is 51 Democrats to vote for it, and it becomes law. It remains to be seen how long the process will take, and whether, and how much of the provisions of the comprehensive health care reform that we’ve been looking at can be scooped up into this legislation. But it now appears the Democrats are going to try that. [. . .]

HH: What would be the consequences in terms of fallout unrelated to health care for a Senate that sees Chicago-style politics invading its 220 years of tradition?

JK: Well, they’ve now broken tradition in several respects, and they seem not to really care. It’s the issue of the moment, it’s winning the fight that’s right in front of us, and worrying about other things later. I think that the American people, however, are in a very anxious and grumpy mood right now. And if they see them try to pull this stunt, which is appears now they’re going to do, it may be the last straw. And what you saw in Massachusetts may become the nationwide revolution that you and I have kind of seen here. But it’ll be unmistakable, and Barack Obama won’t fail to see it next time.

Read the rest.

Most recent posts here.

"It became apparent that the government believed that they could ban anything"

Robert Costa: First Amendment 451: How one man irked Obama and won a historic victory for free speech:

“Our argument in the case wasn’t complicated,” says Bossie. “It was about freedom, and it ended up hinging on a very simple question: If the FEC is comfortable banning political films, like Citizens United’s Hillary: The Movie, around election time, would it also be fine with banning political books financed by corporations? The Justice Department’s attorney answered yes, the government did have the power to prohibit the publication of a book. When they admitted that, everything changed.”

“I think that answer sent a chill through the Court,” says Bossie. “It was that moment that was a catalyst for us, and gave us the opportunity to win on much bigger constitutional grounds than we anticipated. It became apparent that the government believed that they could ban anything: movies, books, pamphlets, the Kindle, you name it. It was a shocking revelation.” [. . .]

“When I heard the ACLU was supporting us, I had to question myself for a moment,” Bossie laughs. “I mean, wow, I’ve never had their support, ever. Think about this: One of our films was called ACLU: At War With America. To have them agreeing with us, plus the AFL-CIO and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press — both not exactly bastions of conservatism — was a sign of how powerful our position was. I’m eternally grateful to all them for bringing forward a view of how important this was to groups across the political spectrum.”
Read the rest.

Afterthought: Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn say this on Obama's "due deference" re this decision:

MS: I mean, what I find so odd about this is that Justice Kennedy is the new Sandra Day O’Connor on that Court. He’s the swinger. He’s the swing vote. And I think, I don’t think it’s strictly in naked political interest, it’s sensible for Obama to actually publically sneer at Justice Kennedy when he’s sitting a few feet away from him. It just seems to me a very odd thing to do, and yet another example of how isolated and detached from the facts on the ground this Oval Office is.

HH: You’re absolutely right. I wrote that on the blog earlier today, that although the attention’s on Justice Alito mouthing the words not true, in fact the President was attacking Anthony Kennedy, the key vote on the Court.

MS: Exactly, exactly, the 5-4 swinger he’s going to be needing in the years ahead.

HH: It’s, that was crazy, a little bit of thrill in exchange for a tactical blunder.

Another afterthought, not strictly relevant, but also from the Steyn & Hewitt discussion of the State of the Union address:
MS: It’s time to man up. You’re the president. Nobody forced you to be the president. You wanted the job. Man up or get the hell out of the way. But to stand there blaming in this cheesy, tacky, finger pointing at a guy who’s been gone now for over a year just makes you look Princess Fairy Pants. It’s pathetic.
Most recent posts here.

January 28, 2010

Quote of the day

Don Surber:

Tonight’s State of the Union address is the least important one since Richard Nixon’s in 1974. The State of the Union address was delivered 8 days ago by the voters of Massachusetts. They killed the centerpiece of Barack Obama’s presidency and without his health care plan, he is nothing.

There is nothing President Obama can say or do tonight that could save his presidency. It is over. He is through. It lasted exactly 365 days. The one year president.

The stench of political death permeates from him. Soon, he will be mocked as his irrelevancy becomes more and more apparent by the week, by the day and eventually by the hour.

Read the rest.

Most recent posts here.

Bullying from the bully pulpit

So much for deflated; Obama was full of himself last night.

Marc Thiessen on our taunting, scolding leader:

The speech began with an elegant and elevated opening, but quickly descended into scolding and condescension.

He scolded the justices of the Supreme Court in front of their faces and led the entire Democratic side of the aisle into cheering his taunts. The justices sat there stone-faced (save Justice Alito, whose reaction probably betrayed what the rest were thinking).

He scolded Republicans for obstruction and declared “we can’t wage a perpetual campaign” — even as he continued, in his speech, his perpetual campaign against President Bush.
[. . .]

He scolded Scott Brown (without mentioning his name) and all those who have criticized his handling of the Christmas Day bomber, declaring that “all of us love this country” and warning critics to “put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.” [. . .]

It was quite possibly the most partisan, condescending State of the Union address ever. Tonight, Obama was unpresidential. The permanent campaign continues. In the long run it will backfire.
Read the rest. More from Mr. Thiessen on Obama's response to terrorism in the Washington Post:

Listening to President Obama's speech, I could not help wondering how different this night would have been had Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's bomb not malfunctioned. Four weeks ago our country was the target of a catastrophic terrorist attack. But for the grace of God, Northwest Flight 253 would have crashed into downtown Detroit, killing thousands. Yet just a month later, it is an afterthought for this president. His only mention of the failed attack was a passing reference that he was responding with "better airline security."

Worse, the president's brief discussion of terrorism focused not on what he was doing to defend the country but was, rather, a vigorous defense of himself. His first words on the subject were a chastisement of those who would dare criticize his handling of terrorism, declaring that "all of us love this country" and warning his Republican critics to "put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." It's all about him. No acknowledgement of how close we came to disaster or praise for the brave passengers who subdued the terrorist. No, only this message for his critics: If you question the wisdom of telling a captured terrorist "you have the right to remain silent," you are really questioning the president's patriotism and engaging in childish taunts.

No, leave the taunting to him. Pundit and I looked at each other in disbelief at the inappropriateness of this. From Hot Air:
Politico’s calling it his [Justice Alito's] Joe Wilson moment.

When you hear the president of the United States demagoguing the First Amendment, you sit there and you take it, son.

The person who was way out of line was our arrogant president. And like Joe Wilson, Justice Alito was right and Obama was wrong:
Apparently, Obama is just wrong. The Court’s ruling didn’t impact the section of the statute that prohibits foreign corporations from making campaign donations or expenditures. (And the ban on direct corporate contributions remains in effect.) No wonder Justice Alito mouthed “not true.” (Even the New York Times’s notoriously liberal-leaning former court reporter Linda Greenhouse says Obama botched the case description.)
For more mouthed truth telling see John McCain: "Blame it on Bush."

One of President Obama's proposals aroused spontaneous open laughter in the chamber. From Michelle:

9:54pm Eastern. Snort: Obama’s spending freeze proposal falls totally flat. Not even a smattering of applause. A smittering. Is that a word?

Obama says the freeze won’t take place until next year.

LAUGHTER from the chamber. LOLOLOL.

Snippy Obama: “That’s how budgeting works.”

More laughter.

Video here, at about 4:30 in. Americans are laughing, too. Only 9% believe it will make a real difference. Another funny fact about this:
The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Lunch money.

By the way, someone should tell Obama that Americans despise snippiness in their leaders.

On healthcare, Obama renewed his vow to force "the plan we've proposed" (whichever on that may be -- he's never endorsed a specific plan or offered his own) down America's throat, repeating the same false claims that Americans clearly don't believe. From the transcript (emphasis added):

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

I didn't expect him to hit healthcare as hard as he did, considering its overwhelming unpopularity. Sigh. Jennifer Rubin on this:
It’s not an inconsequential thing for the president to declare “Do not walk away from reform.” There’s at least some expectation he’ll accomplish it.

But as with so much else in the Obama administration, there’s no game plan for getting from speech to legislation. It’s startling in some ways that, as the report noted, “he broke little new ground, defending the bill with many of the same lines he has used for months to boost support for the initiative.” Meanwhile, the House and Senate Democratic leaders are at each other’s throats, with no prospect of real progress anytime soon.

Obama has simply dumped the whole mess back in the lap of Congress. That’s a recipe for getting through a speech and deflecting responsibility, but not for governing. Well, that’s pretty much par for the course in the Obama presidency.


Comic relief: Who can blame Janet for snoozing (though I'm a little surprised Rahm didn't give her a sharp elbow). The speech was really long, packed with chunk after chunk of meaningless filler, or what Obama and his high school speech writers think of as soaring rhetoric.

Which brings us to Mark Steyn's analysis of the speech. For him it had a generic "State of the Unions for Dummies" quality:
It sounds like an all-purpose speech for President Anyone: We've met here in good times and bad, war and peace, prosperity and depression, Shrove Tuesday and Super Bowl Sunday, riding high in April, shot down in May. We've been up and down and over and out and I know one thing. Each time we find ourselves flat on our face, we pick ourselves up and get back in the race. That's life, pause for applause . . .

And, when he moves from the gaseous and general to the specific, he becomes petty and and thin-skinned and unpresidential. And, unlike the national security feints and 101 Historical Allusions For Public Speakers stuff, the petulance is all too obviously real.
Mark marvels, again, at the lousiness of the Obama speech writers. But they apparently give him exactly what he wants. Or perhaps he's writing most of it himself.

Transcript here.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

January 27, 2010

"Deflated, aggravated"

Tweet from Katie Couric:

Just had lunch with the president who seems pensive, slightly deflated, realistic, aggravated and resolute. Didn't eat his pie.
Hmmm. Realistic?

h/t: Critical Condition

Most recent posts here.

Happy Mozart Day

Thanks to Obi's sister for reminding me that today is the anniversary of Mozart's birth. Listen live to WFMT in Chicago as they play only Mozart all day almost all day.

A couple of goodies for you via YouTube, here and here.

*Correction: It's not all-Mozart day, but mostly-Mozart week. So the beat goes on.

Most recent posts here.

Gibbs: Obama will explain to us why we're angry

Tonight's State of the Union address promises to be unbearable:

"The president's going to explain why he thinks the American people are angry and frustrated," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on "Good Morning America" today.
Dude. We know why we're angry!

Short of wearing a cone of shame or rigging up something like this (please pardon the tacky, stolen photo shop), it will be hard to believe that he comprehends our anger.


Just guessing, but I expect the speech to feature
  • obfuscation
  • spin
  • outright falsehoods
  • faux admissions of mistakes
  • complaints about how hard it is to be president
  • protestations of intense caring -- he reads ten letters a day! he thinks about the unemployed morning, noon, and night!
  • straw men -- "there are those who..."
  • manipulation in the form of a goody-bag for the middle class
  • blaming
I think he'll spread the blame around, including the usual "mess we inherited," and supplementing that with condemnations of "special interests," "fat-cat bankers," and "rapacious insurance companies." I wouldn't be surprised if he reserved his strongest complaints for Congress, an entity Americans hold in very low esteem. Its "ugly" ways and his inability to "change how it operates" make it, he may believe, his best blame-deflector.

In other words, it will be a load of expired baloney. So let's move on. What inquiring minds really want to know is this: What will Michelle O wear? Will the arms be showcased the way they were last year, by a sleeveless silk blouse in the middle of winter? Or maybe she'll sense the gravitas of the occasion and wear what she wore to that Medal of Honor ceremony.

Update: Obama will re-commit to Obamacare? How's that going to work?

Post-speech analyses here.

Thanks to Doug Ross for the link.

Most recent posts here.

Pro-life Super Bowl ad a threat to abortion industry

Without despair the abortion industry would be out of business. So it follows that what it fears and opposes is an upsurge in despair's opposite, hope (the real thing, not that mushy "the government will save you" 2008 variety). This kind of story propagates genuine hope:

Tim Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time. While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life. She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.
Sensing the threat, abortion proponents are pulling out all the stops to prevent the huge Super Bowl television audience from hearing what abortion advocates fear will be a compelling pro-life message in the 30 second ad produced by Focus on the Family.

Gator Doug on the controversy over the ad no one has seen:
Tebow, along with his mother Pam, have agreed to do a 30-second spot for Focus on the Family that will run during the Super Bowl on February 7. CBS has approved the spot, which is called “Celebrate family, Celebrate Life”. Pretty simple, it might seem to most folks. A very nice message, celebrating family, and life. What could go wrong? Well, for one, a group of radical “feminists” might develop Offendeditis over it, and start behaving like the intolerant bigots they are.

A national coalition of women’s groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year — an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.

The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups

Ah, so they are outraged over an ad that no one has seen yet and are upset because they think it might, might mind you, contain a message that is, “anti-abortion”. Well, sorry to use a bit of common sense here, but, is Tim’s mother Pam, not a woman? Was she not pregnant with Tim? Did she not choose to give birth to her son? Now, I know we all are well aware that these “feminist” groups champion , say it with me, “a woman’s right to choose”. So, what is the problem? Is the choice Pam Tebow made not fit to be shared? Is her choice somehow less deserving than if she had decided to abort her baby?
Well, yes. That "choice" in pro-choice only applies to one particular choice:
The pro-abortion side loathes choices like this, and will do anything to prevent that message from being shared. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Pam Tebow wanted to do an ad for Planned Parenthood, or one of these other radical, pro-abortion groups, they would be all for it.
Read the rest of Doug's post.

More background from LifeSiteNews:

Tim Tebow Defends Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad under Fire

Confirmed: Tim Tebow Superbowl Ad Set to Run

Mother of Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow Rejected Doctor's Advice to Abort Him

David Shuster flips his wig over the ad, which no one has seen. David, get a grip.

Sarah Palin calls the wimmin out:

Women’s Rights groups, like NOW, commendably call out advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.

What a ridiculous situation they’re getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances. Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women – and life. Evidently, some women’s rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick.

Speaking of Bristol, I find it passing strange that Oprah "bristled" at Bristol Palin's vow to remain celibate until she's married. Please don't tell Oprah about this: Florida Quarterback Tebow Leaves Reporters Speechless: "Yes I am" Saving Myself for Marriage

Most recent posts here.

Congress and White House blame each other as Obamacare lies on its deathbed

We'd like to see it with a stake in the heart and buried six feet under but this monster is hard to kill. Getting close, though. The NYT declares Obamacare all-but-dead:

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama’s top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, deflected questions about health care. “We’re not on health care now,” Mr. Reid said. “We’ve talked a lot about it in the past.”

He added, “There is no rush,” and noted that Congress still had most of this year to work on the health bills passed in 2009 by the Senate and the House.

There is no rush? That's what you call an admission of defeat. There's been nothing but rush since this all began, because speed, along with secrecy, were necessary conditions for success, even with the Dem majorities.

We've talked a lot about it in the past?
Yes, I dimly remember that. Cue the flashback music and listen to our president, way back on 1/22/10 (yes, last week), vowing to "fight" for healthcare reform as long as he "has breath":
And I'm not going to walk away just because it's hard. We are going to keep on working to get this done -- with Democrats, I hope with Republicans -- anybody who's willing to step up. Because I'm not going to watch more people get crushed by costs or denied care they need by insurance company bureaucrats. I'm not going to have insurance companies click their heels and watch their stocks skyrocket because once again there's no control on what they do. So long as I have some breath in me, so long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I will not stop fighting for you.
That was five days ago. It will be interesting to hear what the president says tonight about this white whale of his. Whether he continues to push passage of the unpassable, or, er, "walks away," it will be awkward for him. More on the conflict between the House, the Senate, and the White House below.

Back to Harry:

Mr. Reid said he and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, were working to map out a way to complete a health care overhaul in coming months.

“There are a number of options being discussed,” he said, emphasizing “procedural aspects” of the issue. [. . .]

Some Democrats said they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at the earliest.

But the Democrats stand to lose momentum, and every day closer to the November election could reduce their chances of passing a far-reaching bill. [. . .]

The lawmakers’ comments also served to lower expectations for the president’s State of the Union address on Wednesday.

“I would be surprised if he says specifically exactly how he hopes to get health care done,” said the House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland. [. . .]

“Frankly, we’re trying to figure out what is possible,” Mr. Hoyer said. “Senator Reid needs to determine what is possible on his side of the aisle — you know, what kind of support he can get. And we’re trying to figure out as well what we can pass.”

Mr. Hoyer added, “I think by next week we need to come to focus on the way we want to move forward.” [. . .]

Asked if there was a way forward, a Congressional aide who worked closely on the bill replied, “If you find it, let me know.”
Thank you, Scott Brown and all your supporters.
h/t: Allahpundit

And Politico reports that the blame-game is in full swing. House members reveal their contempt for the Senate, Senators dis the House, Pelosi blames the White House, the White House blames Reid, and so on:

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be all smiles as the president arrives at the Capitol for his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, but the happy faces can’t hide relationships that are fraying and fraught.

The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.

But sources say there’s also signs of strain between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.

In a display of contempt unfathomable in the feel-good days after Obama’s Inauguration, freshman Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stood up at a meeting with Pelosi last week to declare: “Reid is done; he’s going to lose” in November, according to three people who were in the room.

Titus denied Tuesday evening that she had singled out Reid, but she acknowledged that she said Democrats would be “f—-ed” if they failed to heed the lessons of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat last week.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), a Pelosi ally, took his shots at the Senate on Fox radio Tuesday, describing the Senate as the “House of Lords” and accusing senators of failing to “understand that those of us that go out there every two years stay in touch with the American people.”

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters the legislative process in the Senate is “broken” — prompting Reid to later quip: “I could give you a few comments on how I feel about the House.”

Pelosi and her allies blame the collapsing health reform negotiations, in part, on Obama’s reluctance to sacrifice political capital to seal a final deal in mid-2009. House Democrats also resent that Emanuel and other White House officials forced them to take tough votes on cap and trade and health reform while allowing Reid and Senate Democrats months of fruitless frittering on the details. [. . .]

Emanuel, several Senate and House aides said, hasn’t been shy about assigning blame, either. He’s been especially critical of moderate senators, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for wasting months negotiating with Republican senators, such as his friend Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

While shouldering some of the blame for the Massachusetts debacle, Emanuel has reportedly criticized Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey — and, on occasion, even Reid himself.

Reid and his staff were infuriated when they got word Emanuel was apparently telling associates the majority leader did too little to force Baucus to accelerate his work, according to two people familiar with the situation.

A White House official said that account “couldn’t be further from the truth,” adding that the Emanuel-Reid relationship “couldn’t be closer.”

Heh.

The Democrats' supermajority has degenerated into ineffectual drama. So much for "I won. I think I trump you on that." Power to the people.

Most recent posts here.

January 26, 2010

All is not forgiven

I thought the big Obama backlash, when it came, would be fun. Turns out it's just . . . annoying, kind of like the feeling you get when you're on the beltway and you see car after car plastered with Obama-Biden stickers. Bloggers William Jacobson and Clifton B. are beyond annoyed and make short work of hope dope Jill Dorson, for whom the thrill is gone.

Former fan Christopher Buckley isn't feeling the thrill anymore, either. The first-class temperament and impressive writing talents never panned out; the former was a fantasy and the latter, most likely, a fraud. Barack Obama turned out to be precisely what the rubes thought he was -- a Chicago-style power-amassing politician with a head full of slogans, a socialist heart, and no relevant job experience. Toss in an astonishing degree of narcissism and behold what the Obama voters have wrought.

Mr. Buckley probably cringes at the sound of their names, but Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber read Obama like a book. They were exactly right and Buckley was as wrong as he could be. Writing some mediocre satire will not make things right. It's just . . . annoying.

But some of the comments are pretty entertaining.

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.

What would you pay for two days in Copenhagen?

Or more accurately, what did you pay?

In a follow up to her initial report, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS does more real reporting on our governing class, for whom nothing is too good as long as the taxpayers are so generously picking up the tab.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is a key climate change player. He went to Copenhagen last year. Last week, we asked him about the $2,200-a-day bill for room and food.

"I can't believe that," Rep. Waxman said. "I can't believe it, but I don't know."

But his name is in black and white in the expense reports. The group expense report was filed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She wouldn't talk about it when our producer tried to ask.
Click over there to see a copy of the official expense document and the long list of attendees.

The grand total: mere chicken-feed by Congressional standards.
Flights weren't cheap, either. Fifty-nine House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates -- $5-10,000 each -- totaling $408,064. Add three military jets -- $168,351 just for flight time -- and the bill tops $1.1 million dollars -- not including all the Obama administration officials who attended: well over 60.
But they worked really hard and tried not to have a good time:
"I was there because I thought it was important for me to be there," Rep. Waxman said. "I didn't look at it as a pleasure trip."
(And anyway, it's only money.)

Maybe Scott Rasmussen or somebody could find out how important the global warmism summit was to Americans and whether they're satisfied with their investment in this multi-layered fraud.

h/t: Don Surber

Related: Money to burn: Congressional junket to Copenhagen heavily attended

Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.

Obama takes faux responsibility for lack of transparency

In an ABC News interview with Diane Sawyer, the president feigns a mea culpa on shutting out C-SPAN. It might have been more convincing if Ms. Sawyer hadn't taken him at his word. That triggered an abrupt "clarification" from Obama.

SAWYER: Health care -- going forward, should all the conversations, all the meetings be on C-SPAN?

OBAMA: [laughing] You know, I think your question points out to a legitimate mistake that I made during the course of the year, and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right. But I had campaigned on process. Part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up transparency and I think it is -- I think the health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.

Now I think it's my responsibility and I'll be speaking to this at the State of the Union, to own up to the fact that the process didn't run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more.

Okay. He actually says "A mistake I made." But . . . Sawyer must have forgotten to drink her pre-interview Kool-aid. The common-sense center of her brain was still functioning:

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida...

OBAMA: Let's hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that's point number one.

He uses the language of apology -- own up, legitimate mistake, responsibility -- but finesses it carefully to lay the blame for the real problem on Congress and its "ugly" processes. His "mistake" is that he was not able to change them.

And by the way, he didn't answer her question --"should all the conversations, all the meetings be on C-SPAN?"

He promises more pseudo-responsibility-taking in tomorrow's State of the Union, just as predicted: "Obama will acknowledge some shortcomings but they will be formulated, as above, to reflect positively on himself and to subtly (or not) lay the blame on others."

Perhaps we've moved on from Bush did it to Congress did it?

*Update: Michelle Malkin, among others, takes issue with Obama's washing his hands of the deals that got Obamacare passed in the senate:
The unmitigated chutzpah here is so blinding that I don’t just need sunglasses to protect my eyes. I need blackout curtains. Watch President Obama blame Congress for Demcare bribery and sabotage of transparency. As if Rahm and all the senior goons in the White House weren’t twisting arms and cracking heads to ensure that the deal met their boss’s timeline. As if the Cadillac tax break for unions hadn’t been hashed out at 1600 Pennsylvania.
More from John McCormack: Obama Didn't Sign Off on the Cornhusker Kickback?

Video of the interview here, transcript here. Jake Tapper has more.

Bonus items:

Stock up on the marmalade. From the Cook Political Report via Jennifer Rubin:
If this level remains constant, you can count on the Democratic majority in the House being toast this fall.
Jim Geraghty:
Those Stupid Voters! They Don't Even Realize How Awesome Obama Is!

Joe Klein can't believe that our excellent government has to put up with such idiots as the general populace:

Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them.
Fred Barnes sees Obama on the brink of a crackup:

The populism continued the next day in a speech in Ohio. “We want our money back,” he said, regarding banks that received bailout funds. “We want our money back! And we’re going to get your money back – every dime, each and every dime.”

This was the language of a rattled president in search of enemies to scapegoat. Obama didn’t mention that all but one of the major banks have paid back the bailout money with interest. There’s a word for this kind of rhetoric: Unpresidential.

RTR.

Baseball Crank tweets:
I hope our Winter Olympians do well so we don't have to listen to Obama complain that he inherited them from Bush.
h/t: Pundit


Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.

January 25, 2010

Virtues too numerous to mention, but the Post does its best

I guess this is the second wave of the Obama for President campaign. The Washington Post, most likely at the behest of the White House (just a guess), prints a puff piece that may cause readers to blush. Highlights:

During one of his Afghan review meetings last year, President Obama surprised senior advisers by jumping into a discussion between two military officials about a new study of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The flow of information to the president is usually carefully managed, and no one in the room had briefed Obama on the data. "It's not like we'd sent him the study, but he'd clearly seen it," one adviser said. "It was telling."

What it told of was a president who persists in seeking his own information, beyond what is offered to him. His lawyerly and orderly reliance on facts and data often has created an impression that Obama is cool and detached.

But in a good way, not in a cold-fish way at all!
"This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity," said senior adviser David M. Axelrod. "He does have an incisive mind; that mind is always put to use in pursuit of tangible things that are going to improve people's lives."

When he turns to solving problems through policy, he reveres facts, calling for data and then more data. He looks for historical analogues and reads voraciously.
He's mastered physics, law, history, mathematics. And though we are unworthy, he has chosen to use his superpowers for us. Because he cares.

But he's above caring about his own political fortunes:

"If he was poll-driven, we'd be doing better," one senior adviser said ruefully, adding, "but the country would be in a depression."

The president is affected above all by the calendar, which limits what he can accomplish before the White House must shift into reelection mode. That political reality has lent his first year in office a sense of urgency.

As yet unable to transcend the limits of time.

He uses technology to feed the powerful intellect:

This fingertip access sends him "constantly" online, said one senior adviser, and the information he finds there influences his thinking and some of his deliberations. He also "uses the Internet like a normal adult," said another aide, "reading news articles, checking sports scores."

Just like us! Only better.

"Periodically, I mention to him articles that I have found particularly interesting, and that he might find interesting, and a very high fraction of the time he has already read them and has some kind of reaction," economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers said.

He reads magazines "like crazy":


The Mind demands stimulation, not yes-men:

Whereas most journalists are brought in to see the president in order to try to shape a news story, the private meeting between Krugman and Obama was something of a policy debate on the economy and health care, although aides would not disclose details. Obama, said one aide, was grateful to have the "intellectual challenge" of an adversary who would help refine his own thinking.

"He likes the rigor of having a conversation with someone who's going to push him," Jarrett said. "There's really no point in him wasting time with people who simply agree with him all the time, because it's not going to refine his position. It's not going to enlighten his position." She added: "Also, then Paul gets to hear an opinion different than his own, too."
(Yeah, that Paul Krugman.)

Speaking of yes-men, they can be such a bore:
Obama also seeks out rival views among his staff to whatever idea is on the table. During one economic session, his advisers were all on the same page; that annoyed Obama, and he sent them out of the room with a request to return with a dissenting view, a participant said. What ensued resembled a debate club meeting.

Very edifying, no doubt. And it staves off the tedium between speeches.

The article goes on and on. Subtlety isn't a strength at the White House or at the Post.

Credit where it's due: Anne E. Kornblut, Michael A. Fletcher, and Scott Wilson put that together.

Most recent posts here.

Egobama strikes again

Jake Tapper and Yunji de Nies report:

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

I'm speechless, but Peter Wehner calls that:

more evidence — as if we needed any — of Obama’s almost pathological self-regard. He seems to dismiss President Clinton — a successful five-term governor who won his presidential re-election by a comfortable margin — as a political hack compared to The One. It explains how Obama can interpret the results of the Massachusetts Senate race — the third in a series of pulverizing losses for Democrats since November — as confirmation that he, well, spent too much time doing too many good and important things for the American people and, in the process, forgot to inform the simple-minded citizenry what a treasure we have in Obama.

Whatever strengths Mr. Obama brought to the job as president — and they now appear to be quite limited — they are overwhelmed by, among other things, his massive ego and otherworldly arrogance. It is leading him and his staff into a state of self-delusion. Mr. Obama’s self-regard is not only utterly unwarranted, especially given his failed first year; it is downright dangerous. He is a man whose wings are made of wax; if he’s not careful, a long fall into the deep blue sea awaits him.



h/t: Pundit

Most recent posts here.

Porn is bad

And it's really, really bad for children:

Boys exposed to porn are more likely to indulge in casual sex and less likely to form successful relationships when they grow older, according to research carried out in a dozen countries.

The report, Harms of Pornography Exposure Among Children and Young People, also found that young boys who see pornography are more inclined to believe there is nothing wrong with pinning down or sexually harassing a girl.

Michael Flood, who carried out the study at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, said: “There is compelling evidence from around the world that pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities.

“We know it is shaping sexual knowledge. Some people may think that is good. But porn is a very poor sex educator because it shows sex in unrealistic ways and fails to address intimacy, love, connection or romance. Often it is quite callous and hostile in its depictions of women.
I haven't seen the study, but it makes a heckuva lot more sense than this one, which found that porn was perfectly benign.

We don't really need a study to tell us that tender, developing minds and souls are bound to be malformed and damaged by exposure to pornography. How could they not be? Even less noxious sexual content, in the form of "grown-up" television, can mess our kids up.

By way of anecdotal backup, here's an article (actually a lengthy excerpt from a book) by Natasha Walter. The first part tells the story of a man who has been consuming pornography since kindergarten.

From How teenage access to pornography is killing intimacy in sex:
“I was unable to think of women except as potential pornography. I looked at them in a purely sexual way. I remember one day I was walking to school, I was about 15, and I got talking to a girl who must have been about 18. I immediately said I wanted to grope her breasts. I had no idea how to interact with women as people.”
The porn he viewed was dad's. The man's former girlfriend worries about her own son, and his entire generation:
“I was first aware that he [her son] was looking at pornography when he was 14. But how can boys not see it? Unless they make a concerted decision not to look at it, to delete it from their mobiles when it’s sent to them, or from their emails. You’d be making a singular, probably a unique decision.
Ah, there's the key. Unless they make a concerted decision not to look at it. I'm reminded of the old-fashioned concept of custody of the eyes, one way Christian parents help their sons exercise some control over the encroachment of our hyper-sexualized culture into their psyches. To this end many parents go to great lengths to sanitize the media consumed by their kids, monitoring their internet activity, choosing movies and TV carefully, previewing and editing out that one scene, skipping the commercials.

And as parents make these moral judgments, for that's what they are, the children learn that there's a line between what's okay and what isn't. Eventually they draw their own line for themselves. What seems to be happening now is that many kids are growing up without understanding that a line exists.

All this editing and vigilance is a lot of work and is wildly out-of-step with the world. It may invite ridicule or worse. But with the state of our culture, serious counter-culturalism may be called for. The idea is to protect children while they're still forming; they'll have plenty of time for the "real world" of meat-market dating and relationships based on mutual physical utility when they move out. At that point, if they haven't been immersed in porn, they'll have a fighting chance to love and be loved. I'm not sure how secular parents handle this but would be interested to learn.

If this strikes you as an overreaction read Walter's article in its entirety. She notes a trend in which girls alter themselves physically to conform to a norm inspired by porn films:
“That is definitely tied into porn,” said another. “We know what men will have seen and what they will expect.”

Where the rise of expectations from pornography result just in depilation, that is one thing, but the rise of interest in surgery to change the appearance of the labia is another, far more worrying development. The number of operations carried out in the UK to cut women’s labia to a preconceived norm is currently rising steeply. [. . .]

In an episode of Embarrassing Teenage Bodies, screened on Channel 4 in 2008, a young woman consulted a doctor about the fact that her labia minora extended slightly beyond her labia majora and that this caused her embarrassment. Instead of reassuring her that this was entirely normal, the doctor recommended, and carried out, surgery on her labia.
Oremus.

*Update: RS McCain has a tip on some family entertainment just perfect for your tween daughters.
**Update: Mr. McCain has written his own post (in his own way -- content warning) on this subject.

Related:
Lookin' for love in all the wrong places
What's it all about, Alfie?

Most recent posts here.

Old media on vacation

You already know this but maybe you'd like to forward this story to your grandmother. (See comments for my apology to grandparents!)

If you want to know what's going on, don't rely on newspapers or network news as your primary sources of information. That's what you have to take away from Howard Kurtz's media column in today's Washington Post, in which he chronicles the old media's failure to report on the hugely important Massachusetts special election until it was nearly a fait accompli.

Here's what the NYT wrote about the race in December:

"Now poised to become the first female senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Coakley, 56, is seen as a highly disciplined, if not passionate, politician who rarely surprises or missteps." A companion piece on her opponent, a state senator, said that "for Mr. Brown, it is an uphill race to victory in January."
According to Kurtz, they didn't start to pay real attention until January 8th, followed by the snoozing or deliberately inattentive Washington Post (Jan. 11) and LA Times (Jan. 14). Even slower to cover this enormous story were the networks:
The network newscasts were a step farther behind. ABC's "World News" reported Jan. 15 that Coakley was in a tight contest. The "CBS Evening News" and "NBC Nightly News" aired reports on Sunday, Jan. 17 -- the day that President Obama campaigned for Coakley, and two days before the election. (In fairness, the Haiti tragedy was overshadowing domestic politics.)
But what's the Boston Globe's excuse? Like Coakley, the paper's statehouse bureau chief went on vacation:

Frank Phillips, the Globe's statehouse bureau chief, says he missed the last few days of the campaign by taking a personal trip with his wife that he finalized a couple of weeks earlier. "I made a decision at Christmas that this was not going to be an important race, others could handle it, I could be out of town," Phillips says.

But he says Brown was going nowhere earlier in the campaign: "What would you have written? 'Things were heating up'? Things weren't heating up. It would be unfair to say we had missed it, because it wasn't there."

But by December 30, there was a clue that something was happening. The Globe reported it but didn't put it together the way some bloggers did.

As if to offer extra proof of the old media letting us down, Kurtz himself makes no mention of who filled in the news gap: conservative bloggers, who were all over not only the Brown surge, but his chances for success early on. On Dec. 9, Jumping in Pools noted Coakley's weakness and saw a Brown victory as a possibility. On the same day, William Jacobson told us to watch the Massachusetts senate race, which he continued to do with an unwavering focus. A sample:

12/29/09: GOP Abandons Scott Brown, But We're Not
1/2/10: Martha Coakley's Political House On Fire
1/4/10: Coakley Glances at Her Watch - For Six Days
1/5/10: Earthquake Rumblings In MA

Et cetera. Michelle Malkin reported on the heavy SEIU involvement for Coakley on Dec. 17 and wrote about his shot at victory from at least Jan. 3rd on. Kudos, and apologies, to the many unnamed bloggers who hammered away at the Brown-Coakley story, doing the job that mainstream journalism has abandoned.

*Updated to add link: Chuck Todd on the tea party movement

Most recent posts here.