Somehow…
…I missed this the first time around:
Certain events of Michael Bublé’s early life and teen years, detailed here, give strong clues as to why he may have invited this kid onstage, and why he got so very excited when the young man turned out to really have talent.
[NOTE: Yeah, I know, gratuitous obscenities. I still think it’s rather sweet nonetheless.]
Kinsley on what Obama left out of his Kansas speech
Michael Kinsley dissects Obama’s Kansas speech—otherwise known as his attempt-to-channel-Teddy-Roosevelt speech—and finds it wanting in several telling ways:
…[I]n addition to being unfair, [Obama’s] conflating actual crooks and the innocent affluent makes it hard to claim that raising their taxes isn’t punishment for some form of misbehavior. Taxes are not a punishment; they are a source of necessary revenue. But if you tie them to the financial scandal, they sound pretty punitive.
A second big problem with Obama’s philosophy, as revealed in this speech, is really the biggest economic problem facing the U.S. in general. That is, the middle-class sense of entitlement…
In Obama’s speech, he went into great detail about the first part — the spending part, the part about how unfair life has been to the middle class — and somehow forgot to mention the second part — the savings part, the part about how the middle class is going to have to fork over like everyone else to get us out of this jam…
I also wrote a piece last night on Obama’s Kansas speech, one that probably will appear at PJ within a couple of days. My focus was on the concept of “fairness” and why it’s—well, an unfair one, at least as Obama defines it (or actually, cleverly fails to define it).
I also agree with Kinsley. However, when I read Obama’s speech in its entirety, I was struck by a larger and more global (although closely related) omission than the one Kinsley mentions about middle class entitlement. It was the apportioning of responsibility and the failure to appoint responsibility.
In Obama’s world (his rhetorical, speechifying world that is; one really doesn’t know what goes on in the recesses of his mind) the act of assigning blame is a simple thing: bankers and rich people are guilty unless they’re penitent Democrats like him who are ever-so-eager to fork over more money if only the government would make them do so. Anyone who earns under $250,000 is by definition innocent, and the less they earn the more innocent they are and the more clearly they segue into being not just innocent, but automatic victims of the others. Poor people in particular have no responsibility for their lot and no need to do anything about it other than to get a handout that will level the uneven playing field at least a little bit, and hopefully more than a little bit.
In the world of Obama’s Kansas speech, consumers are always the victims, and it’s never of their own greed. The greed is always on the part of the bankers. Now there’s no doubt that some people were convinced to take out mortgages they couldn’t cover without the real terms and real costs being properly explained to them, and they are victims of a sort (although what ever happened to caveat emptor?). But surely not all of those people were innocent, and perhaps not even most. There were many who wanted a house that they simply couldn’t afford, and they thought the ever-rising [sic] housing market would allow them to get one rather easily.
But Obama does not acknowledge that possibility because to do so would be to criticize too many of his own supporters. No, the only greed was, and still is, on the part of the lenders, never the consumers.
Another annoying reminder…
…to please use the neo-neocon portal when buying Amazon. Just click through on one of the widgets in the right sidebar, and enjoy the hassle-free shopping experience at Amazon while giving a bit of holiday cheer to moi.
And thanks to those who’ve already done so. Much, much appreciated!
Democrats enjoying the Republican fray
It’s often noted that incumbents have an advantage over their opponents. It’s usually assumed that’s because incumbents have an inherent gravitas, familiarity, and seeming inevitability. But it’s also because incumbents ordinarily don’t have to duke it out anymore with anyone to gain the nomination, while the opposition—unless there’s a clear frontrunner—spends months and/or years tearing into each other and spotlighting each other’s weaknesses.
That’s been happening on the Republican side, and the Democrats are understandably enjoying both watching the fun and entering into it. The emergence of Newt Gingrich as a surprise leader has momentarily left the Democrats a bit unprepared, but never fear, they are catching up quickly while making sure they don’t ignore Romney in the process.
After all, it’s not as though Gingrich is an unfamiliar figure. It doesn’t take much work to recycle the old arguments and the old attacks, and no doubt Gingrich will oblige by tossing them some new grist for the mill.
But this NY Times article cites two ways in which Gingrich gives the Democrats more cause to worry than Romney does. The first is that it’s harder to paint him as warring on the middle class, which they feel they can do more easily with Romney because of his history with Bain. The second is that Gingrich has more appeal to Hispanics.
I would imagine there’s a third, although they’re not owning up to it. Both Gingrich and Romney are quick on their feet and fast with the comebacks in debate, but Gingrich is more aggressive and will be far less polite to Obama. In 2008 that might have been a drawback, since voters were inclined to like Obama and dislike those who critiqued him, as well as to be receptive to the idea that the latter were racists, a charge the Obama camp was quick to make. But now that the public has seen a great deal more of Obama, they are less inclined to defend him and more inclined to nod their heads when he is attacked.
And when did you last hear the old “criticism of Obama is racism” charge? Now that it’s Democrats who’ve been criticizing him as well, funny how that approach has fallen by the wayside.
Jewish birth boom?
Are Israel’s projected demographics changing?
And the Israeli Jewish baby boom doesn’t seem to be confined to the religious, either.
More killings…
Is it a mere coincidence, or is there something about the place that seems to foster or attract violent types?
Did Obama get on the Indiana ballot in the 2008 primaries due to forged signatures?
The evidence mounts (hat tip: Ace) that Obama’s name may have been placed on the Indiana Democratic primary ballot due to petitions with some forged signatures:
The prospect that [Jeff and Charity Rorie’s] are two of an estimated 150 signatures that may have been forged on the petitions has raised the question of whether President Obama actually reached the legitimate number of signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in Indiana. Under state law, presidential candidates need to file 500 signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton’s camp had 704. The certified signatures were never challenged.
“I had always thought that, now-President Obama, had earned his victory in Indiana,” said the state’s Republican chairman, Eric Holcomb. “But then I quickly learned that he had cheated his way on to the ballot in the primary.”
The allegations that election fraud touched a race for the highest office in the land are at the center of an investigation by St. Joseph County Attorney Michael Dvorak. He would not comment, but sources say the probe is gaining steam as prosecutors delve into the petitions that sailed through the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Board, located in South Bend. There have been reports that as many as seven people may have been involved in an alleged conspiracy to fake the petitions.
If so, I somehow doubt that Obama’s presidency will be invalidated. But still, it would be a neat and almost poetic “what goes around, comes around” circle if such a challenge were to occur, because that’s exactly how Obama got his start in politics. It was by successfully questioning in court the legitimacy of petition signatures for former mentor Alice Palmer, as well as all the other contenders besides himself for the Democratic nomination for Illinois Senate from his district, that Obama ultimately obtained his first political office.
The Chicago Tribune article relating the sad and sorry details of this 1996 event is headlined, “Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot.”
And so he did. And so he does.
Taps for the greatest generation
Today is the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day. I reposted something I wrote a few years ago in honor of the occasion, but I have a few more thoughts to add.
Seventy years is a long time, but not so long that there aren’t veterans of that day still alive and even kicking. But the sad truth is that each year there will be fewer and fewer to tell the tale, and one day there will be none.
The funeral I attended yesterday was for one of those veterans, not of Pearl Harbor but of World War II. He had graduated from college at the ripe old age of 18 and enlisted almost immediately, becoming one of the youngest naval officers ever.
I learned all these facts for the first time at his funeral. The coffin was flag-draped, and the stories of his service were related as part of the eulogy. At the gravesite there was another surprise (at least to me): a two-person honor guard from the Navy, who removed the flag before the coffin was lowered into the grave, folded it into the familiar triangular packet, and presented it to his widow.
Before that, the older of the two had played Taps on a bugle, standing (as the rules dictate) “at a distance 30 to 50 yards from the grave site while a ‘Final Salute’ is given.” This particular bugler was some sort of musical genius; I have never before heard Taps played with such a beautifully heartbreaking tone.
[NOTE: See the Wiki entry for more about military funerals, including who is eligible.]
70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor
[NOTE: This is an updated repeat of a previous post.]
Today is the seventieth anniversary of the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. The generation that reacted to it by mobilizing and fighting World War II is on its last legs. But they were the ones we still call “the Greatest.”
I was reminded of this while watching one of those Oliver North “War Stories” TV shows, about Pearl Harbor. It featured some of the elderly participants reminiscing about that long ago day. Before each one spoke, there was a photograph of him back in 1941: young, vibrant, handsome, full of life. Now they were ancient, and most only vaguely resembled their former selves. But they still transmitted great moral strength and a kind of Gary-Cooperesque stoicism and understated bravery as they told their stories.
A couple of facts: it’s become fashionable to believe that FDR knew about the attack in advance and let it happen anyway. But those 12/7-truthers are almost undoubtedly wrong. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war, and he knew a Japanese attack was coming at some point, and informed his generals to that effect, but he knew none of the particulars in advance.
It’s odd how this idea of a government in cahoots with the enemy, willing to let innocent Americans die, keeps coming up again and again. A certain not insignificant segment of the population appears to favor such conspiracy theories, probably because we don’t like feeling vulnerable to sudden attack. We’d rather think Daddy in the White House could have stopped it but chose not to—that makes him powerful but amoral, rather than powerless to protect us.
Here’s a post I published last year on Pearl Harbor Day. It focuses on FDR’s famous speech afterward, and the will and resolve he amply demonstrated. Will and resolve in war remain extremely relevant these days, in Afghanistan (at least Obama hasn’t made any references yet today to “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor,” his gaffe from July, 2008).
Here is just a little bit of Roosevelt’s post-Pearl Harbor speech, in case we need reminding of what American resolve used to sound like:
”¦No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
Here’s the speech itself:
[NOTE: The memorable phrase that began FDR’s address, “a date which will live in infamy,” wasn’t in Roosevelt’s earlier draft. It reads “a date which will live in world history.” That sounds like a high school essay; Roosevelt crossed out “world history” and added “infamy” in his own hand. A wise choice.]
Do presidents age fast in office?
Demographer S. Jay Olshansky has done a study appearing in JAMA which he claims debunks the popular idea that serving as POTUS is so stressful it shortens a person’s life:
Olshansky found that 23 of the 34 U.S. presidents who died from natural causes did not appear to have their lives cut short by the stress of leading the nation. They lived longer than men of their same age and era – and in many instances far longer.
For example, the average age of the first eight presidents at their time of death was 79.8 years – during a time when life expectancy at birth for men was less than 40.
The reason is likely the effects of advanced education and better access to healthcare, Olshansky said.
Well then, why compare them to average men of their day? Why not compare them to men of similar wealth and education and access to healthcare? Probably because that would be a great deal more difficult to find data for, especially concerning the early years of the US.
Olshansky also touches on the popular perception that presidents age visibly in office at a rate greater than normal, although his study didn’t cover that. This phenomenon of accelerated presidential aging has long been observed and remarked on, but I have a different take on it.
I’ve noticed in my own life and among my friends, as well as for public figures, that visible aging doesn’t progress in smooth linear fashion. It advances in fits and starts and discrete bumps.
One year I look around at my friends at the Christmas party and everybody looks pretty darn good. The next year I wonder who all these old folk are. In their thirties and forties the aging process seems so slow and gentle as to be almost stagnant; most people seem to go on and on looking almost like they did in their twenties.
There’s a group who hit the aging wall in their mid-to-late forties, going almost overnight from young to oldish. They’re the canaries in the mine. Another bunch “turn” quite suddenly in their late fifties, with the early sixties a time of particular peril for many.
These periods happens to coincide with the ages of many presidents while in office. I hereby submit that it’s not so much the stress of office—after all, the stresses come with an awful lot of perks, too—but the age of presidents during their administrations that is accountable for some of this perception of accelerated aging in presidents on the part of the public. Most of us would be perceived that way as well, if we were subject to the sort of relentless scrutiny presidents undergo.
Movie stars try to counter this through cosmetic surgery; presidents rarely do. But the way so many of those stars look after the age of 50 makes me think the presidents are wise not to follow suit.
[ADDENDUM: One president who aged a great deal in office was FDR. But he was also the president who was in office longest, over twelve years, and he had some very special health problems that made him different. Even then, most of his aging occurred in the last year or couple of years of his life when he had lost a remarkable amount of weight, not long before his death in office:
Roosevelt, by the way, was a heavy smoker, which may have contributed to his demise.]