Remember Michael Moore? Yes, it was nice when he’d faded from view for a while. But now he’s briefly back in the limelight, offering to post bail for Julian Assange.
HCR ruled unconstitutional
[NOTE: I have a busy busy day today, and don’t have time to discuss this right now, although I plan to later. But it’s so potentially important that I thought I’d put up a quick post and a link so you can talk about it in the comments section.]
A federal district court judge (and Bush appointee) in Virginia has ruled the individual mandate in HCR unconstitutional. However, it’s always been clear that these cases will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, which will have the final word (that’s why it’s called “Supreme”).
Volokh has more discussion of the legal issues.
Spambot of the day
Accountable and alliterative bot:
Superb blog post, I accept book apparent this internet website so alluringly I’ll see abundant added on this accountable in the accountable future!
Hitler assassination plots: Henning von Tresckow
Most of us know about the famous July 1944 Hitler assassination plot that failed, led by Claus von Stauffenberg and code-named Operation Valkyrie. The co-conspirators paid with their lives, and their families were punished as well.
I became interested recently in the life story of one of the co-conspirators, Henning von Tresckow. Like most of the others who plotted to kill Hitler, he was a member of an old aristocratic family (note all those “vons”). They constituted a German Resistance moverment within the Wehrmacht itself.
Tresckow not only was the mastermind of the Valkyrie plot, but it was not his first attempt to kill Hitler. He had tried as early as March of 1943. Tresckow was a German of a certain sort; although born into a military family, he seemed to have had more of the poet’s temperament:
He wore his uniform only when it was absolutely required and disliked the regimentation of army life. He was lyrical, recited Rainer Maria Rilke, and spoke several languages…
His disillusionment with Nazism began very early on, in 1934, after the Night of the Long Knives, when the SS “murdered extrajudicially many SA leaders and political opponents, including two generals.” He saw Kristalnacht as an abomination. Nevertheless (or perhaps because of this), he made a fateful decision to stay in the Wehrmacht:
[Tresckow] sought out civilians and officers who opposed Hitler, such as Erwin von Witzleben. Witzleben dissuaded Tresckow from resigning from the Army arguing that they would be needed when day of reckoning comes. By the summer of 1939, he was saying to Fabian von Schlabrendorff, his cousin by marriage, that “both duty and honor demand from us that we should do our best to bring about the downfall of Hitler and National-Socialism in order to save Germany and Europe from barbarism.”
So he always saw himself as a secret agent, working within the Wehrmacht for the destruction of Hitler. It was a delicate balancing act, one with a multitude of moral complexities. But I cannot find it in my heart to condemn him at all; in fact, I consider him a heroic figure. And he did not remain silent, either:
When he learned about the massacre of thousands of Jews at Borisov, Tresckow appealed passionately to Field Marshall Fedor von Bock: “Never may such a thing happen again! Therefore we must act now. We have the power in Russia!” (Although Bock personally detested Nazism, he remained loyal to Hitler.) As the chief operations officer of Army Group Center, [von Tresckow] systematically placed officers who shared his views in key positions…The headquarters of Army Group Center thus emerged as the new nerve center of Army resistance
What’s more, Tresckow started sending messages that this group was ready for some sort of action as early as 1941, when Hitler’s campaign was going very well. However, it wasn’t until March of 1943 that the first assassination attempt was finally hatched and executed:
[Tresckow] asked Lieutenant Colonel Heinz Brandt who was traveling with Hitler if he would oblige to take a bottle of Cointreau to Colonel Helmuth Stieff (who was then not yet a conspirator) at Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia as a payment for a lost bet. Brandt readily agreed. The “Cointreau” was actually a bomb constructed of a British plastic explosive “Plastic C” placed into the casing of a British magnetic mine, with a timer consisting of a spring which would be gradually dissolved by acid. Before Hitler’s Condor plane was to take off, Schlabrendorff activated the 30-minute fuse and handed the package to Brandt, who boarded Hitler’s plane. After takeoff, a message was sent to the other Berlin conspirators by code that Operation Flash was underway, which they expected to take place around Minsk. Yet when Hitler landed safely at his East Prussian headquarters, it became obvious that the bomb had failed to detonate (probably due to the extremely low temperature in the unheated luggage compartment thereby preventing the fuse from working). The message of failure was quickly sent out and Schlabrendorff retrieved the package to prevent discovery of the plot.
One week later, another attempt was made, this time by co-conspirator Gersdorff, who volunteered to be a suicide bomber while giving Hitler a tour of a military museum:
He had with him bombs with ten-minute fuses, knowing that Hitler was scheduled to be in the museum for 30 minutes. However, at the last minute just before Hitler was to appear, the duration of his stay was reduced to just eight minutes as a security precaution. Hitler breezed through in two minutes. As a result Gersdorff could not accomplish his mission, and the assassination plan failed again, but he barely managed to get out and defuse the bombs.
Hitler lived a charmed life, apparently. After Operation Valkyrie—the plot that actually was carried out, but failed to do any serious harm to Hitler—failed, Tresckow killed himself at the front. “To protect other conspirators, he staged an appearance of partisan attack by firing his pistols and then dispatched himself by holding a hand grenade below his chin.”
This is what he told a colleague before he died:
Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours’ time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. No one among us can complain about his death, for whoever joined our ranks put on the shirt of Nessus. A man’s moral worth is established only at the point where he is ready to give up his life in defense of his convictions.
It is of interest that most of the Wehrmacht plotters were religious men as well as aristocrats and patriots. I believe that was of consequence; note the religious reference in Tresckow’s final words. He fought Hitler the best way he knew, and if he was a failure, he was aware that at least his gesture proved that there were some righteous people in Germany.
This is why it’s called Palin Derangement Syndrome
Case in point: the big hoo-ha over Sarah’s supposed “hairdresser” coming to Haiti with her on her humanitarian trip. Only trouble is that said hairdresser, who had the nerve to fix a strand of Palin’s hair in front of the AP cameraperson, was none other than Palin’s daughter Bristol.
And then there’s the nefarious hand-washing. At the Huffington Post, Michael Shaw writes:
…[T]he multiple shots of Sarah sanitizing and washing her hands suggests the former Gov is primarily concerned, above all humanitarian else, about catching something.
Shaw thinks the AP is out to get Palin by showing these particular photos, and he’s correct. He also indicates that it’s the “Palin team’s behavior, attitude or reputation” that may have brought it on. If he really thinks that, he hasn’t been following this thing right from the very start; it began the day Palin was chosen as VP pick.
As for the handwashing—would Sarah finally prove her selfless bona fides by coming down with some disease as a result of her travels? I doubt it; it would probably be interpreted as merely another bid for attention.
Nixon…
Madoff’s son a suicide
This is terribly sad. It’s not for Bernie Madoff that I have compassion, it’s for the wife and the children.
I have written several times before about the Madoff family and their guilt or lack thereof (this piece focused primarily on the sons). I am of the opinion, until proven otherwise, that the sons did not know of the father’s crimes until he confessed.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s an article that appeared in the WSJ today, but before the news of Mark Madoff’s suicide broke. It discusses some of the repercussions of the Madoff scandal for the family members, and says this about Mark:
“Mark remains unalterably bitter about his father’s deception and the injury his father has caused,” said a spokeswoman for the two men. “Andy was also deeply impacted by his father’s deception.”
Neither has talked with his father or mother in two years, mostly out of personal choice and also because of legal sensitivities, a person familiar with the matter said. Mark Madoff recently has been using an email address that doesn’t include his first or last name, a friend noted.
This week Mr. Picard, the trustee, sued children of Andrew and Mark, alleging that Ruth and Bernard Madoff transferred funds to them. A spokesman for Mark and Andrew and their wives declined to comment, as did Mark Madoff’s ex-wife.
And here’s more on the Picard suit.]
And now we have: President Clinton, doing Obama’s pressers
It’s the talk of the blogophere: Obama’s bizarre (there’s no other word for it) decision to leave a press conference in Bill Clinton’s more capable hands.
Here are some very truncated video excepts:
What are we to make of this? I think that Allahpundit’s points are well taken: the whole sorry episode indicates that Obama has lost confidence, and that he’s also implying that the discussion (and Clinton himself) isn’t important enough to change his holiday schedule to accommodate it. And, as Bookworm points out, Obama’s remark about Michelle (the excuse for his leaving being that he had to meet her at a Christmas party) and Clinton’s quip in response reinforce already-existent perceptions that both men are henpecked.
In the very first post I ever wrote about Obama on this blog, back in May of 2007, I made the following observation after Obama had offered tiredness as an excuse for a minor error he had made:
…[I]t may indicate…a certain lack of toughness on Obama’s part…I’ve often thought that, if the campaign is a grueling marathon, it’s probably a (pardon the phrase) cakewalk compared to the actual Presidency.
Just as the Presidency is not for the shy or those tortured by ambivalence, just as it requires a certain amount of narcissism (perhaps more than is healthy in ordinary life), it also requires true grit and enormous””almost superhuman””endurance. And if the President doesn’t feel up to it all the time, he/she is supposed to shut up about it and not let others see.
Obama is in the “grueling marathon” part of the deal. And not only does he not seem up to it—as even the left is beginning to notice—but his political instincts appear to have deserted him while the psychological tone-deafness he sometimes shows is revealed once again.
Obama seems oblivious to the emotional message of his action in leaving the press conference (note, for example, the astonishment of MSNBC’s Cenk Uygar at the end of the clip above). In addition to the previously-mentioned messages, it conveys an inappropriately arrogant disregard for the public that he attempts to clothe in casualness, and is an indication that he simply doesn’t know what appropriate behavior is, or doesn’t care.
In other words, he’s giving the finger to the lot of us.
This is quite separate from any political or policy differences one might have with him. It’s hard to imagine that any but a tiny number of viewers—whether on the right or the left or in-between—could find his conduct anything but clearly inappropriate or at best puzzlingly juvenile.
This is hardly the meltdown some have predicted. But it’s very, very unsettling.
The Voices: Roy Orbison, Karen Carpenter
I do a lot of YouTube surfing. It’s a way to relax and unwind, and it’s addictive, like potato chips, although less fattening. Last night, it started out when I came across one of those silly Rolling Stone polls—you know, the ones that purport to list the 100 greatest this and that of all time.
Rolling Stone‘s 100 Greatest Singers of All Time is a curious document. The order seems confused, featuring some people who rank higher than they should be as vocalists (IMHO), since they are really more notable for songwriting.
And what’s up with no mention at all of Dionne Warwick, a pure vocalist who was effortlessly musical? Roy Orbison at 13 was a good choice (his voice quality and range are extraordinary; memorably described by Dwight Yoakam as “the cry of an angel falling backward through an open window”). And it’s good that the fabulous Nina Simone (talk about distinctive voices!) comes in at 29. But I don’t like a lot of the others.
And then there’s Karen Carpenter. I never paid much attention to her, and Rolling Stone only clocks her at number 94, probably because she was considered corny, sentimental, hokey. But YouTube makes it so easy to go back and listen and, lo and behold, what a voice! Phrases such as “smooth as silk” and “warm maple syrup pouring” come to mind. She had what all great singers possess, a totally unique and instantly recognizable sound.
I have never heard such an effortless voice before or since (although Johnny Mathis and Nat King Cole come somewhat close on the male side, and Patsy Cline—Rolling Stone’s 46—had some of the same quality), unforced and flowing and almost unbelievably rich:
The great tax compromise: falling out of love with Obama (cont.)
Many Democrats in Congress are finally expressing their rage at Obama, an anger been growing for quite some time and seems to have reached a (temporary?) head with the tax cut compromise. Major Democratic donors are not happy either; some say they’ll even sit on the sidelines in 2012:
“I do not plan to support Obama and his reelection effort,” said Utah-based hedge fund manager Art Lipson, who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party and its allies in recent elections. He views the tax-cut compromise as a giveaway to Republicans that will increase the deficit.
“He’s got many great qualities, but he is not a fighter,” Lipson said of the president. “I’ve met with many donors and the level of disappointment is extreme.”
Somehow, I don’t think it’s the increased deficit that really concerns these donors. They were and are only too happy to increase it for other reasons—just not for things that make Republicans happy.
And I wonder which elements of the recommended changes in entitlements that would really decrease the deficit are the ones they’d support if Obama were so bold as to champion them. I suspect the cuts they’d like would mainly have to do with defense. And it remains to be seen, of course, how serious Republicans will be about cutting the deficit when they control Congress starting in January. If not, they’ve chosen stimulus at the expense of a deficit that will swell, which was not the bargain voters thought they were making by electing them last month.
A while back I wrote this piece on the left’s falling out of love with Obama. In my earlier post, I compared the phenomenon to that of the lovers in Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” who are manipulated by Puck placing magical drops in their eyes that cause them to fall in love with the first being they see on awakening. When he later administers the antidote, they can’t understand what they ever saw in their erstwhile beloved. This is the situation we have here, despite the fact that, as Krauthammer notes, Obama really won the deal if you look at it as a way to get a stimulus going that might help the economy by 2012, although at great cost. But that’s not the way liberal Democrats look at it.
I’ve located the passage from the play that says it all, and quite succinctly:
TITANIA
My Oberon! what visions have I seen!
Methought I was enamour’d of an ass.OBERON
There lies your love.
TITANIA
How came these things to pass?
O, how mine eyes do loathe his visage now!
Dowd, Palin the huntress, and protecting wealth
Maureen Dowd seems deeply offended by Sarah Palin’s shooting a moose on the latest episode of her TLC Alaskan show (actually, Dowd seems to be deeply offended by nearly everything Palin does, including drawing breath).
You may wonder why I continue to even bother with Dowd or what she thinks. But I find it a continual wonder that she writes for a prominent newspaper. She is also a fascinating example of the full bore Palin Derangement Syndrome so prevalent among liberals, women in particular.
But Dowd doesn’t stop with Palin and the unlucky moose; she also draws the following analogy:
…[T]rigger-happy Sarah represents the Republicans, who have spent two years taking shots at the president, including potshots, and tormenting him in an effort to bring him down.
So Obama is like Sarah’s victimized moose, stalked and hunted by Republicans during the entire two years of his presidency (note especially the sadism implicit in the word “tormenting), and finally cornered, weakened, and bloodied.
Dowd then ends her piece with the following observation about Obama and the Bush tax cuts:
It’s not that hard to explain to Americans in distress that the protection of vast fortunes should not be the priority of government.
That just may be the most extraordinary and revelatory sentence in the entire column. Dowd appears to be implying that an income of $250,000 a year (the amount involved in the disputed tax cut extensions) constitutes vast wealth (although it’s hard to believe she really believes that, given the circles in which she moves). But more importantly, is not one of the main functions of government to protect the property of everyone, rich or poor or in-between? As far as I know, if wealth—whether “vast” or middling—is amassed without robbing anyone or breaking any laws, the default position is that it belongs to the person or persons who earned it.
Yes, the rich pay taxes, as well they should. But there’s nothing special about being rich that entitles other people to take more and more your money just because they’re in “distress.” And a government that sees the money of the rich merely as fruit ripe for the picking, and not worthy of being protected, is in big trouble.
Mark your calendars for the sky show
There’s a pretty exciting week coming up in the sky starting next Monday. First, on Dec 13-14, we have the Geminid meteor shower. Then, on Dec 20-21, a total eclipse of the moon, visible in the entire northern and southern American hemispheres. Details here.
Hope it’s not cloudy!
And speaking of total eclipses:
And remember the literal version of the original video? It’s even got a moon in it (at minute 00:29):