Random spell-challenged spambot seeking sympathy:
Some bowling balls are heavy and i accidentally dropped one on my foot. it is quite painfull.
Obama, one-termer?
Roger Simon (not the one at Pajamas; the political reporter one) says it’s very possible that Obama will be a one-termer, because he doesn’t “get” that to be re-elected he’s got to play to the polls.
But there’s a lot that Roger Simon doesn’t seem to “get,” either.
The first thing he doesn’t appear to get is that Obama didn’t choose his overbearing, rushed course because he’s tone-deaf to the wishes of the people. He chose it because he’s a statist with tyrannical desires. He did it, in other words, because he yes, he could. As Obama boasted at a big-bucks Hollywood fundraiser last night, when he was among friends and could speak freely:
We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda ”” one that helps working families ”” not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three…This is exactly when you want to be president. This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better…
I hope you understand why we’re here tonight. It’s not to take a picture with the president. We’re here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.
Does that sound like a man who doesn’t get it? Not at all. The idea was to lie about who he was, get into power, and then ram a progressive agenda through as quickly as possible before any consequences could be exercised by voters at the ballot box. The results were to be transformative in terms of the way government works—even though some of the other consequences might be a single term for him, and the end of the political careers of those who took what he calls “the tough votes” in order to push it all through despite the will of the people.
If you read the entire piece, you’ll see that Simon seems to approve of what Obama and the Democrats have done; he just wishes they would have done it a bit more slowly and not riled so many people in the process. And he makes the excellent (and quite correct) point that just because a position is popular it doesn’t make it right.
He then adds sarcastically:
Maybe Obama is disconnected. After all, as a former professor of constitutional law, he actually knows what the Constitution says.
His opponents have no such fetters. They know what they want the Constitution to say: yes to guns, no to gay marriage and never to mosques close to hallowed ground, though churches and synagogues are OK.
What’s so wrong with that? I’ll bet they poll great.
Earth to Roger Simon:
Obama was not a professor of constitutional law, he was a lecturer. And many legal scholars—and actual professors of constitutional law—say that the second amendment does indeed say “yes” to guns. In fact, the Supreme Court reaffirmed just that in a recent landmark case called District of Columbia v. Heller (you can look it up).
Oh, and the issue of gay marriage has yet to be put to that definitive test. You should see the back-and-forth arguments on the issue at the legal blogs and periodicals! No consensus whatsoever among legal scholars and con law experts—although there’s a somewhat prevelant idea even among liberals that Judge Walker may have overstepped in quite a few of the details of his Perry ruling.
Let’s see—that leaves us with the 9/11 mosque. Simon seems not to “get” (or is he being disingenuous?) that the vast majority of those criticizing the promoters of the mosque are saying that, although they have the constitutional right to build, they should decide not to, if they want to be sensitive to the feelings of the people. And that sort of freedom of speech—to criticize someone’s actions, and request that they do differently, and even demonstrate against them—is also an exercise of one’s constitutional rights, when last I checked.
But hey, I’m not a law professor. Or even a journalist writing at Politico. So maybe I don’t get it.
Or maybe I do.
DeLay: after 6 years, no charges in Abramoff case
It took six years, but Tom DeLay has been cleared in the investigation of his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
One is tempted to make puns on “DeLay” and “delay”—six years is an awfully long time—but at least the process was bipartisan, from the Bush to Obama presidencies, as well as the Attorneys General under each man.
And nada was found:
“The federal investigation of Tom DeLay is over, and there will be no charges,” [DeLay’s attorney] Cullen said. “This was one of the longest and expensive and thorough investigations in recent memory. DeLay took a tack right from the start that he had nothing to hide, and we have been in a routine and constant dialogue with [prosecutors].
Well, the wheels of justice grind slow, and all that. Please take a look at comment #6 in response to the Politico article (made by commenter “spontaneous” at 9:40 AM today; linking to it directly doesn’t seem to work):
A moment ago this story was a simple Post It Note, the way all Republicans are cleared, buried in another story. The double standard in this town is so deep, I’m surprised they mentioned it at all. While Democrats currently accused of wrongdoing host lavish parties for themselves as they wear broad smiles for the camera, they poignantly cry for mercy. Apparently, in the current climate of the Democratic Hypocritical Culture of Corruption, it is not welcome news that their premiere Republican target that they personally destroyed was cleared. As triumphant Democrat Nancy Pelosi rode to victory back in 2006 on her Trojan Horse of Ethics, her large coterie emerged — a literal army of Democrat offenders — that have made DeLay look like a saint.
Well, I don’t know about the “saint” part; DeLay still faces state charges in Texas (and I wonder whether there’s not some cause of action against him for his execrable showing on “Dancing With the Stars”. If not there should be; click the link at your peril.)
But the double standard “spontaneous” writes about has historically been the case more often than not. Remind me—why is Barney Frank still a member of the House in good standing despite this?:
In 1991, Barney Frank received an official reprimand for reflecting “discredit upon the House.” The reprimand came as a result of his relationship with a man named Steve Gobi, a male prostitute whom Frank initially paid $80 for sex. Frank later took Gobi to live with him in his home, making him a personal aide. He paid him $20,000 in compensation (unreported to the IRS) and let him use his car. Subsequent investigation revealed that in the course of their relationship, Frank used his congressional office and stationary to fix Gobi’s 33 parking fines. Frank also used his congressional letterhead to write a reference letter to Gobi’s probation officer — Gobi was under court supervision as a convicted felon with a prison record — in which he gave false information. Most damningly, the investigation found that Gobi ran a prostitution ring from Frank’s home. In his defense, Frank asserted he knew nothing of Gobi’s illicit enterprise.
The Democrat -controlled House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank after a heated debate during which some Republicans demanded expulsion…
After Gobi, Barney Frank become involved in another questionable — and possibly criminally tainted — relationship with a man called Herb Moses. Moses, whom Frank called his “spouse,” was a high-level executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998. Dubbed a “mortgage guru” by the National Mortgage News, Moses boasted that he helped develop “many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”…Frank continued to claim almost until the day of the collapse that the two mortgage giants were financially sound. If we lived in a sane world, Barney Frank would be compelled to testify about his culpability in the current crisis and what role his romantic involvement with Herb Moses — as well as the campaign contributions he received from Fannie and Freddie — played in his shilling for these two moribund institutions.
Ah, dream on—it’ll never happen.
Or will it? Depends on the results of the elections of 2010 and 2012, I suppose. Of course, it’s always possible that the voters in Frank’s district will make the question moot by finally refusing to re-elect him. But I wouldn’t sit on a hot stove waiting for that to happen, either.
Are the mosque sponsors about to back down?
I have no idea whether this report in Haaretz is true; only time will tell. But it’s certainly interesting:
Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the [9/11 mosque] project in the next few days.
…[S]everal people familiar with the debate among New York’s Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.
They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally.
A show, indeed—because they have already amply demonstrated their lack of true sensitivity.
But it still would be a good thing, and an example of how peaceful public pressure can sometimes work. The move—if it occurs—could also have some financial advantages for the mosque-builders:
Another factor in the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center, estimated to cost a hundred million dollars. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.
I think not. But stranger things have happened.
Poor boomers
Ah, have sympathy for us poor (in the literal sense of the word) boomers, even though many of you hate our aging guts:
…[C]urrent and prospective retirees have been hit on many fronts at once: They have less money, they earn less on what they have, their houses aren’t rising in value and the prospect of working longer to make up the shortfall has dimmed significantly in a lousy job market.
And watch out; we may drag you all down with us:
Low yields present retirees with a difficult choice: Accept the lower income offered by safer bonds, or take the risk of staying in the stock market. Either way, their predicament could put a long-term damper on the consumer spending that typically drives U.S. growth.
Obama and that local issue—the 9/11 mosque
Here’s the current state of the president’s position on the 9/11 mosque:
“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” [presidential spokesman] Burton said. “It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.”
White House officials later said that Obama was simply saying that since there is no local ordinance that would prevent construction of the mosque, he believed local officials made the right decision to allow it to go forward.
Ah, what a tangled web Obama and his spokespeople weave whenever they start off with “just to be clear.”
I offer the following in response:
(1) In his speech, Obama addressed a straw man, as well he knows. No one said the mosque-promoters have no right to build there. Critics say it’s nevertheless an error of judgment and taste to build a mosque there.
(2) As for the analogy to building churches or synagogues or Hindu temples, there would not be the same objections because 9/11 was not perpetrated by Christians, Jews, or Hindus in the name of their religion. To reiterate: all religions have a right to build there. But there’s only one religion whose building there would be particularly insensitive, and that religion happens to be Islam.
(3) Building permits and zoning laws are indeed a local issue. But this is not just any local project—it’s a local project on a piece of land that has enormous national significance.
(4) If the president didn’t want to comment on the issue of the project because he really does believe it’s only of local significance (a shocking statement in itself, showing he does not understand the emotional valence and significance of the 9/11 site), then he should not have commented at all on the subject. Defending the mosque-builders’ right to religious freedom was, as previously stated, unnecessary; there was no attack on said religious freedom.
(5) As the Skip Gates incident showed, Obama is hardly reluctant to pass judgment on other local issues.
Obama’s explanations feature the sort of legalistic hair-splitting that doesn’t play well with the American public, who want to know where a president stands (nobody liked Clinton when he said “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is”). This is Obama’s modus operandi, however; he habitually talks out of both sides of his mouth in order to appeal to the widest possible audience and to take advantage of people’s desire to project positive intentions and attributes onto him.
But it’s starting to wear thin, even to his usual supporters. They seem to be realizing that it makes him look weak and vacillating.
Why does Obama continue to do this? I submit that it’s probably because it has served him so well for most of his life—and besides, he has few other tools in his kit. Until now, he surfed on waves of adoration and respect for his supposed intelligence, cool temperament, and ability to give an effective speech. He was (as he himself has said) a blank screen. He never had to produce results, and he never had to answer to a constituency that wasn’t predominantly liberal. Now he has to do both, and the old games aren’t working any more. But Obama can’t seem to stop playing them.
The Florida Senate race
The case against Judge Walker
Walker’s course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case. That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.
I can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.
Zero waste design
My guess is that this herald’s the demise of the patchwork quilt:
Zero-waste design strives to create clothing patterns that leave not so much as a scrap of fabric on the cutting room floor. This is not some wacky avant-garde exercise; it’s a way to eliminate millions of tons of garbage a year.
And the worst offender is, of all things, the ubiquitous blue jean:
“Jeans are one of the most wasteful and polluting garments that are made,” said Mr. Collins of Parsons, citing not only the unused fabric, but also the dyes added only to be washed out again, the energy used to transport the denim all over the world, the packaging, and the gallons of water used by consumers to clean the jeans. “And of course it’s one of the staples of everyone’s wardrobe.”
Not mine; I decided quite some time ago that jeans weren’t flattering to me, and I don’t ordinarily wear them. Who knew in doing so I’d be striking a blow for the environment?
Obama, America, and the Ground Zero mosque
No one should be surprised at President Obama’s defense of the planned mosque at Ground Zero. It’s another in a long series of stands Obama has taken that runs counter not only to the opinions of the majority of Americans, but of the vast majority of Americans—and what’s more, they’re the ones who’ve got the principle right while he’s the one who’s got it wrong.
Polls show that 64% of Americans disapprove of the building of the mosque there and only 30% approve. But in the same poll, 61% noted that the mosque-builders have the right to construct it there, while only 34% say the group doesn’t have that right.
All in all, a pretty good demonstration of the fact that Americans get the concept of freedom of religion, and they also get the concept of what is appropriate and what isn’t. Our supposed con law expert president appears to not understand these things—or not to care about making such fine distinctions, when it happens to suit his purposes to ignore them.
Here’s a transcript of Obama’s remarks on the subject. Note that he says:
The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But the above paragraph proves that he doesn’t understand. To call this a “deeply traumatic event” is both true and inadequate. It uses the language of grief counseling rather than political leadership. The 9/11 site is not hallowed ground merely because there was a trauma and people died there; that would be true of any site where tragedy occurred. This was more, far more. It was a place where radical Islamicists, bent on our destruction, set out to kill innocent and unarmed citizens in a craven act of terrorism and assymetrical warfare, and succeeded in doing so to a degree unprecedented in our history.
Most Americans know that. But when Obama defends the building of the mosque in freedom of religion terms (“I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”) he is refusing to make the obvious distinction most ordinary Americans have managed to draw: that just because there’s a right to do something doesn’t mean it should be done.
To Obama’s credit, he does mention terrorism and al Qaeda and uses the words “our enemies” in a later part of his speech. Let’s take a look:
And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders — they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion — and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.
But although the first two sentences are correct, the next part of the passage is misleading. Al Qaeda’s cause is not random or non-religious; its leaders espouse a subset of Islam that is in conformance with many of the religion’s basic and traditional positions, although it goes against some others.
In fact, there is an internal religious war going on in Islam, and al Qaeda is part of it. The fact that its members have murdered so many Muslims around the world is evidence of that war and part of its religious aspects and the jockeying for power in many countries between factions of Islam that are less tolerant and those that are more tolerant. And the Muslim victims of 9/11 were accidental collateral damage as far as the perpetrators were concerned; they were not their targets.
The left loves Obama’s position, of course. Perhaps that’s part of his motivation; he’s given and taken a lot of flak from them lately. This may be part of a kiss-and-make-up routine.
But the 9/11 families are not happy with the president’s words. I’ll close with part of a statement by Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the pilots who was killed that day and co-founder and spokesperson for a group representing 9/11 families:
Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see…Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit…
No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.
Well said, Ms. Burlingame. But it will fall on deaf ears with this president.
[NOTE: Powerline weighs in.]
[ADDENDUM: In his usual attempt to talk out of both sides of his mouth, Obama is now attempting damage control. Like most of his efforts, it will probably please no one—nor should it:
I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.
Yes—and as I tried to indicate, by talking about their right to do so without talking about the wisdom of their actually building a mosque at the 9/11 site, Obama was committing a (purposeful) sin of omission. And if he somehow thinks he shouldn’t comment because the whole thing is a local New York issue (which it is not), then he should have shut his mouth on the whole topic and explained why.
Sometimes I think Obama is like Arafat, in that he—more than most politicians and more than most presidents—tailors his remarks to the occasion and changes them in very basic ways depending on his audience. He also seems to expect not to be caught in the act. At least Arafat did this long before the internet was born, and he did it in two different languages. Obama has no such excuses.]
The dissaffected Obama voter: enthusiasm gap on the left
Progressives and liberals are despondent lately. They’re having trouble mustering up the energy to vote in 2010, or even to defend Barack Obama, once their shining star:
Why, asks a Democrat leading a training session for fellow activists, doesn’t “Yes we can” work as a slogan any more? “Because we haven’t,” a jaded participant responds…The present gap is really more of a chasm. Gallup, a pollster, reckons that a mere 28% of Democrats are “very enthusiastic” about voting, compared to 44% of Republicans.
Of course, the left is disappointed in Obama for different reasons than independents are. The latter think he’s too radical, the former think he hasn’t gone far enough to further their radical agenda. And they’re not buying his blame-Bush line any more, either:
“I’m sick and tired of hearing we don’t have 60 votes. Go get them!” thundered Ed Schultz, a bombastic liberal radio host, at a recent progressive powwow, to equally thunderous applause.
And yet, blame-Bush—and claiming that electing Republicans again would be worse than the status quo—is all that Democrats have right now to campaign on. That’s a sad position to be in, but a well-deserved one. One of the perils of getting what you wish for (in the case of the Democrats, it’s control of both the executive and legislative branches of the government) is that you are held accountable for what you do (or fail to do) afterward, and the old blame game becomes more difficult unless you’re looking in the mirror and accusing yourself.
Disappointment in Obama is wide and deep (the only ones who seem spared are those who never liked him in the first place). I had a personal encounter yesterday that underscored that fact, and left me surprised and hopeful. It happened during a telephone conversation with one of my nephews, whom I’ll call Eric.
Now, I love all of my nieces and nephews very much. They’re great young people in their twenties, smart and funny and decent and even generally kind to their parents and their weird aunt who’s become this right-wing lunatic (that would be me). Politically, they seem to be varying degrees of liberal right now. I don’t talk politics much to them; it’s too contentious and ultimately unrewarding, and I see them too seldom anyway.
However, I happened to speak to Eric on the phone yesterday. Actually, I was talking to another relative he was visiting, and it was Eric who asked to speak to me.
This is unusual. Very. And I was puzzled when I heard what Eric had to say, which was that he needed to apologize to me.
Apologize? Whatever for? I racked my brain to think what he might have ever done to hurt or offend me, and I came up with absolutely nothing. It was even more puzzling when he said he’d been meaning to apologize to me for about eighteen months.
And then he reminded me that we’d had a political conversation the last time I saw him, which was during the summer of 2008. Our talk was about then-candidate Obama, for whom Eric was planning to vote.
I no longer remember the content of the conversation. Actually, I barely remember that it even happened; it was typical of the sort of low-key arguments/discussions I used to have at the time, trying unsuccessfully to tactfully explain why I thought Obama would be disastrous for the country.
But Eric remembered it, and he wanted to tell me that about forty days after the inauguration he realized he’d made a mistake in voting for Obama. His main beef with the president seemed to be economic—turns out Eric is not a Keynesian. We didn’t have a whole lot of time to talk yesterday, but I’d love to hear more.
If Eric stands for a lot of disaffected Obama-voters—and I believe he does—the enthusiasm gap is real, and it’s profound. Most of my friends and relatives have been silent on the subject of Obama—Eric’s is certainly the first apology about him I’ve ever gotten, and I thank him for it—but even their silence speaks volumes.
Spambot of the day
Chatty humanesque self-deprecating spambot:
Ooh shoot i just wrote a large comment and as soon as i hit reply it came up blank! Please tell me it worked correct? I dont want to upload it again if i don’t have to! Either the blog glitced out or i am an idiot, the second option doesnt surprise me lol. many thanks for a great weblog!