…for the Obama administration.
And, I might add, for the American people.
[NOTE: Here’s a roundup from Instapundit.]
…for the Obama administration.
And, I might add, for the American people.
[NOTE: Here’s a roundup from Instapundit.]
Fox News has announced that there’s a hung jury on most counts and a verdict on Count 3, which is illegal campaign contributions from Rachel Mellon (see this for a list of all the counts against Edwards). The maximum penalty for Count 3 is 5 years. The verdict has not yet been announced, even on Count 3, apparently because an Allen charge—instructions to the jury to go back and try to come to a verdict on the remaining counts—is being contemplated.
The hung jury is not surprising; the case against Edwards was weak.
[UPDATE: The defense wants a mistrial declared.
The jury has been ordered to continue deliberations to attempt to reach a verdict on the other counts.]
[UPDATE II: Mistrial declared. And the verdict on Count 3 was not guilty.]
…about that “Polish death camp” remark of Obama’s. According to Powerline’s Scott Johnson, the citation for the medal read that Karski had “worked as a courier, entering the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi Izbica transit camp, where he saw first-hand the atrocities occurring under Nazi occupation.”
So Obama’s speechwriters, and Obama himself, must have ignored the information present in their own citation when writing Obama’s remarks. Not only was the death camp not “Polish” (although it was in Poland), it was a transit camp and not a death camp, and that information was already known to them.
Maybe Obama should fire his speechwriter and hire the citation-writer to fact-check his speeches.
It’s easy to make fun of NY Mayor Bloomberg’s plans to ban super-sized sugary drinks (over 16 ounces, over 25 calories) from the city. But it’s really not funny; that’s how tyranny begins—for your own good, of course.
Bloomberg knows better than to submit the new rule to a vote. He will implement it through the time-honored method of a Board of Health directive, bypassing the need to get other approval. And of course—as with so many such things—the rule doesn’t even make sense. For example, refills are allowed (at least for the moment), and a person can get two servings at a time. I can also envision vendors having specials on a double serving; will it really stop a determined consumer if he/she has to carry two smaller cups rather than one large one? And I can imagine some people being driven to get more soda just as a form of protest.
And let me just say I have no personal dog in this soda fight. I don’t drink soda, not even artificially sweetened soda, because I can’t stand it, along with a host of other drinks I detest (I’m weird that way). But I defend your right to drink it, even in the exceedingly health-conscious city of my birth, New York.
…that he knows how to be an alpha male.
Romney has a rather gentle, smiling demeanor, which some read as phony, some read as meek, some read as both. But I detect an iron fist in that velvet glove. That’s not a bad trait in a president, in general.
[NOTE: Ace has something similar—although lengthier—to say.]
I’ve read several articles about how the evil Republicans are purging the voter ranks in Florida at the eleventh hour in order to get rid of as many Democrats as possible, complete with egregious examples such as that of “Bill Internicola, a 91-yar-old World War II veteran, [who] was born and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y., and now lives in Florida’s Broward County.”
Mr. Internicola was (gasp!) asked to show proof of citizenship or be removed from the rolls, and he feels “insulted.” Mr. Internicola is entitled to feel however he wishes, and I honor his service, but he could just as easily have felt pleased that the state of Florida is careful that only citizens of the country he fought so hard to defend can vote in that state. No one has stopped him from voting, and I doubt anyone will, since he was able to document his citizenship.
So the outrage isn’t really about Mr. Internicola; he’s just a poster boy.
One objection seems to be that the campaign is being undertaken with little time to spare. I happen to agree with that criticism. I’ve noticed that around an election there are often energetic intentions to reform things before the next election, but then instead of dealing with the problems right afterward, they are somehow forgotten and neglected.
But other objections—that too many Hispanics are targeted, or too many Democrats—are preposterous. Of course any campaign to eliminate illegals from voting in Florida is going to hit Hispanics disproportionately; who else would be over-represented, members of the DAR? Or should it be random, like our stupidly PC method of airline passenger screening?
What would be relevant—and yet I’ve yet to see an article that goes into it—is a discussion of what criteria the state of Florida is actually using to select the people who will be receiving its letter. It is certainly possible that there is something unfairly discriminatory about the process, or something stupid. States have been known to do such things, after all, including the state of Florida in 1998-2006 regarding felons (although the errors in question were actually committed by a private firm hired by the state for the process). But so far I haven’t been able to find anything about what’s actually happening in the present case that might really be unfair, just a lot of huffing and puffing from journalists and officials.
…gives Obama a searing history lesson.
I’ve rarely seen Frum so angry.
And Andrew Sullivan (known far and wide for his own calm rationality) is nonplussed at what he calls Frum’s hyperventilation:
No, this was quite obviously a speechwriter’s fault, or “an ignorant error,” as David concedes. And yet when you read his piece, it is brimming with outrage, spluttering, and vituperation, as if some deliberate harm had been wantonly done. No one “slaps” someone “in the face” by accident. Look: I can understand why Poles are deeply upset about this. But it was a mistake, it seems to me, an error of cultural insensitivity – in a bid to honor someone – not a deliberate act of animus, for goodness’ sake. Blowing it up into the greatest insult ever committed by an American president is bizarre.
What Sullivan fails to appreciate is the fact that a president shouldn’t just read the words of a speechwriter aloud—he should also vet them beforehand. The error was egregious and ignorant, and should have been caught. It is also in line with a whole lot of other insults Obama has flung Poland’s way, and so it is congruent with his previous behavior towards that country. Therefore it behooves Obama to issue an apology himself rather than through surrogates.
And even that probably won’t repair the rift with the Poles, because it started long before this remark. First there was Obama’s snubbing the Sept. 1st ceremonies at Gdansk in 2009, marking the 70th anniversary of the German invasion. Then there was the scrapping of the missile shield negotiated by his predecessor, George Bush. Obama also managed to not let the funeral of the Polish president and nearly a hundred other Polish officials who died in a plane crash in 2010 interrupt his golf game (to be fair, he couldn’t get to the funeral because of the Icelandic volcano eruption; but he also failed to visit the Polish embassy in DC to offer his condolences). Obama’s actions towards Poland have been so dreadful prior to his “Polish death camp” statement that Lech Walesa decided to snub him a year ago, saying, “I won’t meet him, it doesn’t suit me.”
Would that Obama’s “Polish death camp” statement were a “deliberate act of animus.” At least then it would show some knowledge of history on Obama’s part, and some attention to little details like the words in his own speeches.
[ADDENDUM: I’m beginning to think that, even if the original insult wasn’t intentional, Obama has a real yen to insult Poland once more. From Allahpundit:
I said last night that, at the least, Tusk and foreign minister Radek Sikorski could expect groveling phone calls from Obama. But I was wrong: To my amazement, Jay Carney told the White House press corps this afternoon that he’s not aware of any plans by Obama to phone either. Can that possibly be true? Calling them “Polish death camps” is profoundly stupid but can be explained away as an accidental lapse in thought. Refusing to call and apologize for the error is much more of a deliberate slight. What’s the hold up, champ?
And the following is a seismic event—Michael Tomasky, who’s heretofore been just about the staunchest Obamaphile on the face of the earth, writes:
I have to say I’m in wholehearted agreement with David Frum on this one. For Obama to refer to a “Polish death camp” is just ghastly. How in the world could that happen? Some callow kid in the speechwriting office didn’t know the difference? His or her boss also didn’t know? And what of Obama? I will assume that he does know better. But he said the words.
Assuming he knew it was wrong when it was coming out of his mouth, why didn’t he just stop and say: “You know, Mr. Karski, it says here ‘Polish death camp,’ so that’s what I said, but I want to correct that. We all know that these were German camps.” That’s all. Easy peasy. He really should have just taken charge of the moment there and shown some honesty and candor…
Yes–it’s the first time he’s ever embarrassed me as president. He came kinda-sorta close when he called the Cambridge police “stupid,” but that was more of a political thing, not a sin against history. This was just shameful; a shameful thing for a president to say.
You have to be familiar with Tomasky’s usual columns to understand what a departure this is for him.
And by the way, Tomasky makes quite an error here himself. He doesn’t seem to be aware that the president was awarding the medal posthumously to Jan Karski, so had Obama followed Tomasky’s suggestions and said, “You know, Mr. Karski, it says here ‘Polish death camp,’ so that’s what I said…,” it would have been another exceedingly odd and ignorant gaffe, although not one that insulted an entire nation.]
…(and we were, at least sort of) did you know that some of his best friends are? And that he thinks he knows more about Judaism than any past president, because he read about it?
By the way, at the ceremony where Obama honored Jan Karski and made his controversial error, he also gave the same award—the Presidential Medal of Freedom—to many others, including Toni Morrison, John Glenn, Madeleine Albright, and Shimon Peres.
And to Bob Dylan, who got a lot of press coverage for wearing his shades for the occasion:
Ouch, Dylan’s looking—there’s really no other word for it—old. He’s only 71, but I guess he’s packed a lot of living into those years, and I suppose he never was what you’d call robust.
But why the Medal of Freedom? I dunno. Dylan did write a song called “Chimes of Freedom” back in 1964, but that doesn’t seem quite enough.
The answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind…
However, a somewhat lesser-known effort of Dylan’s ties into the Jewish and the political, which after all is the theme of this post. Are you familiar with the lyrics of Dylan’s 1983 “Neighborhood Bully,” which seems to be on the topic of Israel? Here it is:
Well, the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man
His enemies say he’s on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He’s the neighborhood bullyThe neighborhood bully just lives to survive
He’s criticized and condemned for being alive
He’s not supposed to fight back, he’s supposed to have thick skin
He’s supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He’s the neighborhood bullyThe neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He’s wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He’s always on trial for just being born
He’s the neighborhood bullyWell, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
He’s the neighborhood bullyWell, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
He’s the neighborhood bullyHe got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he don’t get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he won’t be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
He’s the neighborhood bullyWell, he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldn’t hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
He’s the neighborhood bullyEvery empire that’s enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no one’s command
He’s the neighborhood bullyNow his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
He’s the neighborhood bullyWhat’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed
He’s the neighborhood bullyWhat has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully
[ADDENDUM: As for why the sunglasses, so far Dylan has been mum. Ann Althouse and her husband speculate here that it’s because Dylan felt emotional and doesn’t like scrutiny.
But being the intrepid researcher and truth-seeker that I am, I offer Dylan’s own words from this 1978 interview with Playboy that might shed some light (ahem) on the situation:
PLAYBOY: Would you say you still have a rebellious, or punk, quality toward the rest of the world?
DYLAN: Punk quality?
PLAYBOY: Well, you’re still wearing dark sunglasses, right?
DYLAN: Yeah.
PLAYBOY: Is that so people won’t see your eyes?
DYLAN: Actually, it’s just habit-forming after a while, I still do wear dark sunglasses. There is no profound reason for it, I guess. Some kind of insecurity, I don’t know: I like dark sunglasses. Have I had these on through every interview session?
PLAYBOY: Yes. We haven’t seen your eyes yet.
DYLAN: Well, Monday for sure. [The day that PLAYBOY photos were to be taken for the opening page]
And you can order your Dylan sunglasses from Sears. Who knew?]
By now you probably know that Obama has committed another huge boo-boo: he has managed to outrage the Poles by referring to a Nazi death camp in Poland as a “Polish death camp.”
The occasion was some scripted remarks during a ceremony posthumously honoring Jan Karski, a Pole who led at least nine lives (all of them heroic) during and after World War II: as a Polish cavalry officer, escaped prisoner of war, resistance member, survivor of torture, observer of the Warsaw Ghetto in its death throes, visitor (in disguise) to a concentration camp, reporter on the Holocaust to London and Washington DC, beloved professor at Georgetown, and American citizen.
It is especially ironic that Obama made his error while honoring Karski, because Karski spent a fair amount of energy combating the notion that Poles all cooperated with the Germans in killing the Jews. And he was hardly the only one who tried to save the Jews of Poland, as the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial acknowledges in its Righteous Among the Nations awards: Poland has the highest number of recipients.
I’ve written before about the Poles who saved Jews during WWII, here and here. Here are a few relevant excerpts:
…The camps in Germany were labor camps. Although conditions in labor camps were dreadful, and death was a common and expected occurrence in them, the main purpose of these camps was not to exterminate directly, but rather to harshly extract the full measure of hard labor out of the inmates with the least cost. If they happened to die from the conditions there, then so be it—and die they did, in droves. The death camps, however, existed solely for the purpose of efficiently killing virtually all their inmates shortly after arrival.
A related distinction is also not ordinarily understood: none of the death camps was located in Germany. Rather, all six were in Poland. Why was this? Poland had a large Jewish population, and therefore the camps were located near the source and less transport would be needed. But it seems that the Nazi leadership may also have wanted to protect the German population from exact and precise knowledge of what was happening, by placing the death camps far away…
Anyone who knows Holocaust history knows that Poland was its center. The Polish people have often been condemned for their participation in the death of their Jews–but…it turns out that the situation was far more complex than that. Not only were there also a great many rescuers in Poland…but the Poles had a great deal more to lose than most from saving Jews. Not to minimize the accomplishments of the Danes or the Bulgarians, but to be a hero in Poland was a lot more meaningful than to be one in Denmark or Bulgaria–or even, as it turns out, in Germany.
Why? Because Poland was the only Nazi-occupied country in which helping Jews would officially get you the death penalty. Here are the horrific facts (read them and ask yourself if you would have been as brave as the many Poles who did shelter and save Jews):
Poland was the only place where German law rendered any assistance to Jews punishable by death. That punishment was severe and collective: It was meted out not only to the rescuer but also to his entire family and to anyone else who knew about such activities and did not report them. Almost 1,000 Poles were killed this way, including entire families whose children were not spared.
…Poland itself has a mixed history regarding the Jews (as does Germany, by the way). Why were so many there in the first place? Because Poland was originally one of the most welcoming and tolerant nations in Europe for the Jews. The history of Poland’s long and relatively intimate relationship with its Jewish population includes a golden age in which the Jewish community there flourished.
The varied motivations [of Polish rescuers of Jews during WWII] are delineated in a remarkable book entitled When Light Pierced the Darkness, by Nechama Tec. Some did it for money, some out of political or religious conviction, and some for personal reasons related to the good relations they had previously enjoyed with their Jewish neighbors and friends.
When I write that these people risked their lives, I don’t think the phrase conveys exactly what that meant. But I’ll add an anecdote that might illustrate the situation more graphically (unfortunately, I can’t find a link to it, nor can I recall the source). When the Nazis entered a Polish village and caught someone who had sheltered or aided Jews, they called a meeting of the town. It was compulsory to attend, and villagers were treated to a spectacle guaranteed to discourage further such assistance: a public execution of the offender and his or her family and relatives, including the children.
Effective, no? I would challenge all of you to ask yourselves how brave and noble you would have been in the face of such a threat; I’m by no means absolutely certain of my own answer.
And yet, even under such circumstances, quite a few Poles considered it their duty to help the Jews who had been part of the fabric of their lives.
One of them, of course, was Jan Karski, who worked on a larger scale than most.
It is often asked why the US and other Allies didn’t do more to hamper the Nazi effort to kill the Jews. There have been books written on just that question, and I certainly do not have the definitive answer. But in researching Karski, I came across a 1995 interview where he attempted to explain why bombing the train tracks that led to the death camps would not have been practical:
…[To] bomb a narrow railroad, the planes would have to fly low, they would have many losses, the precision of the bombs is not good,for narrow railroads, would have to drop ten times as many bombs. And where will the bombs fall? They will fall on Polish peasants. And what will be the reaction of the Poles to the bombing without any reason?” To destroy from the air railroads would be very costly. And the Germans having slave labor to repair the railroads, they can do it in no time.
Here is Karski’s explanation for why he tried to save the Jews. It shows, among other things, the tremendous humility of this exceptionally heroic man:
Religious people, for many of them, they did see what was happening. They felt simply human. I am human. In my case, not so much, simply I was in the underground. The authorities told me — two Jews learned about your trip and want you to carry a message for them. I couldn’t say I didn’t want to do it. Now, at my old age, I can say that Jews did not have good luck. They did not choose me, I had my own separate mission. For their mission, they needed someone bigger or stronger. I was unknown, a nobody. I couldn’t talk on an equal basis. My job was to report. Yes, it was very important. They wouldn’t interrupt. And I couldn’t tell them to interrupt me. The Jews did not have much luck. I was too little for the enormity of what I brought to the West.
So, to get back to Obama (yes, let’s by all means do that): what’s up with all these errors in Obama’s scripted remarks? It seems that his speechwriters know almost nothing of history, and since Obama doesn’t seem to know a whole lot more, nobody makes the corrections (that is, if we assume the errors are actually mistakes rather than strategic decisions). I wrote about this phenomenon at some length back in July of 2008. Apparently, the problem has persisted.
And by the way, although it’s perhaps a small point, calling the death camp “Polish” was not Obama’s only error. Actually, the camp Karski visited was not technically a death camp (note the distinction I explain earlier in this post), although Karski himself initially thought it was. However, it was most likely a sorting and transit camp, as Karski later came to believe.
This is a relatively minor error which will probably offend no one—unlike Obama’s other error, which was very offensive to the Poles. But it’s another example of the sloppiness of Obama and his speechwriters. It doesn’t take much effort (really, just a cursory reading of Karski’s history), to find the facts. But they don’t seem to want to bother.
Last October I wrote a post about former Congressman Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, which ended with this sentence:
If Davis keeps paying attention, he may discover a lot more out there that’s chilling””and a large proportion of his cold shudder will be engendered by the actions of his own party.
I guess he did keep paying attention, because yesterday Davis announced that might run for Congress from a district in Virginia some day as a member of the Republican Party.
Davis explains what happened to him:
…[C]utting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable””that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country. You have also seen me write that faith institutions should not be compelled to violate their teachings because faith is a freedom, too. You’ve read that in my view, the law can’t continue to favor one race over another in offering hard-earned slots in colleges: America has changed, and we are now diverse enough that we don’t need to accommodate a racial spoils system. And you know from these pages that I still think the way we have gone about mending the flaws in our healthcare system is the wrong way””it goes further than we need and costs more than we can bear.
Taken together, these are hardly the enthusiasms of a Democrat circa 2012, and they wouldn’t be defensible in a Democratic primary. But they are the thoughts and values of ten years of learning, and seeing things I once thought were true fall into disarray. So, if I were to leave the sidelines, it would be as a member of the Republican Party that is fighting the drift in this country in a way that comes closest to my way of thinking: wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities.
Davis actually left the Democratic Party back in December, but he became an Independent at that time. Like Barack Obama, Davis is a graduate of Harvard Law School as well as an African-American. However, he was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against the HCR bill in 2010.
You may—in fact, you probably will—consider that Davis is still deluded about the Democratic Party 20 years ago, under Clinton. You may even think he’s wrong about at least some of the things John and Robert Kennedy stood for. But the change journey can be a long and humbling process.
…had nothing on this story.
…for some cuteness? I am: