There seems to be no point, since her nomination is a done deal and the hearings a formality. Also, I’ve written about the issues connected with her nomination several times before (see this).
But I thought you might appreciate a thread on the subject anyway—so, talk amongst yourselves.
Entrepreneur Dan Kennedy writes of the fear Obama’s economic policies are sowing in the business community. He offers the following quote from a board member of a community bank, a man Kennedy describes as someone not prone to wild fears and exaggerations:
The new and proposed regulations will remove every competitive advantage of the community bank, and make every bank identical, forced to operate exactly as does Bank of America,” he explained. “Then, absent competitive opportunity, all of the independent banks will be greatly de-valued and handicapped. They’ll be vulnerable and easily rolled up into the handful of remaining giants ”¦ the small bank’s wealth made into fresh food for the insatiable hunger of the big banks’ deficits and losses. This is, I and others believe, the next step in Obama’s plan to take total control of the financial system and money supply, a requirement of dictatorship.
Kennedy also reports owners of small businesses as wanting to sell and even leave the country, while the getting out is good. He says many believe that Obama is “deliberately, systematically destroying the economy as a whole and is specifically targeting small business for extinction—because it’s too difficult to exercise dictatorial control over millions of small enterprises.”
You can say they’re overreacting, and perhaps you’re correct. But I think their fears are an understandable response to the signals Obama has been giving out.
One of the reasons it’s been difficult for many people to see what Obama may be doing is distraction; there’s been such a flurry of activity on so many fronts at once. So it’s not that easy to see the bigger picture.
Obama also utters soothing words every time he does something against the interests of the business world: he’s not really trying to stifle small business. And he’s not really trying to take over (fill in the blank) the banks, the auto companies, whatever. He’s just reacting to the crisis, reluctantly doing what must be done. That’s what he says.
But successful business people are adept at reading which way the wind blows. If they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t be successful. And they sense that Obama is against them; every single policy he has championed seems to have that effect, despite his stated reluctance to harm them.
The small business owners have reason to be especially concerned: when in doubt, Obama will tax them. Need some money for health care? Tax the “rich”–those making more than that magical $250,000 number we’ve heard so much about, which for a small business just isn’t all that much.
Kennedy also describes a person he knows who is director of marketing for a private aviation company, a woman who has worked for over fifteen years in the industry. She says that because of the excoriation of the CEOs who used private jets, her business has suffered. She, like the others in the article, asked not to be named, but she said that her job now feels as though she’s “doing business in a climate of fear, almost clandestinely, as if engaged in espionage rather than commerce.”
Kennedy concludes with the following chilling words:
This is an untold story. The mainstream media would mostly refuse to report on it. But even if they wanted to, these business leaders and countless others like them would refuse to publicly talk about their views. Because they are afraid.
From free enterprise to fearful enterprise. From ambition, initiative and investment, to hoarding and inaction and exit. This the only thing Obama has actually stimulated: a climate of fear.
Here’s an excellent summary of what has happened to Sarah Palin at the hands of the press both during the campaign and after.
I recommend it for two reasons. The first is that it is written by a journalist who doesn’t appear to be a conservative and yet is able to see how unfairly she was treated. The second is that the article contains one of the best analyses I’ve ever seen of Joe Biden’s extraordinary errors in the Vice Presidential debate against Palin, misstatements which for the most part were ignored by the MSM or even defended.
Revisiting that event on reading the article, I realized I’d forgotten how outraged I was after the Palin/Biden debate. I had noticed how dreadful Biden’s lies and errors were, and how little they were remarked upon. It’s a cautionary tale—as though we need more caution at this point—of how far the press was willing to go to carry the Obama-Biden water and to destroy the opposition, especially Palin.
The question now is: is this attitude on the part of the MSM changing, or about to change? Not towards Palin (on whose slender shoulders the entire opposition to Obama cannot rest, and who may or may not have a political future), but towards Obama?
So far, I have seen only slight glimmerings of criticism of Obama from the mainstream non-conservative press—even now, when his missteps have been so numerous and so damaging on so many fronts. That is not encouraging.
If the American public is ever to understand what Obama has been doing, and act to pressure Congress to turn away from that course in time to avoid some of its worst effects (we certainly can’t rely on Obama to change his mind in response to public opinion and abandon the radical agenda to which it’s now clear he’s devoted), the press will have to do its duty and report fully and fairly.
In other words, pigs will have to begin to fly.
I’m not sure how likely that is. I have no doubt that some in the MSM who praise and defend Obama are in sympathy with the more radical aspects of his agenda. But I also have no doubt that some are not, and that they are simply useful idiots who have failed to perceive his game; they could turn against him if they ever did catch on. But for those particular pigs to take wing, will it take something so cataclysmic, so unequivocal, and so much a done deal, that by the time the awakening happens it will be too late?
For your viewing pleasure;
I received the following lovely note from FredHjr’s wife, who wanted me to post it on my blog. Feel free to comment with messages to her and to the family.
To all of FredHJr’s blogger buddies:
I am Fred’s wife Monica. All of your comments have been so kind and comforting. From what Fred at times told me, I know some discussions on the blogs could be heated. I appreciate everyone being so respectful with their comments, as I know my husband would have been in a similar situation. His mom and dad and siblings never knew of his blogging interest and were amazed and comforted by the comments as well.
You have all seemed to have had a good sense of who he was even though you never met him face to face. He was a gentle man with a big heart, lots of compassion and a wonderful brain. He also had a sense of adventure and although he suffered from arthritis we were still able to enjoy traveling and some outdoor activities.
His death was sudden. I tried all I could to revive him when I got home. All my health care training kicked in but he couldn’t come back to me. I have lost my core, after 20 wonderful years of marriage.
Fred and I are very sensitive people. Not a day went by without saying “I love you” to the other: usually more than once a day. We had disagreements but never a heated argument. We never said words we wished to take back. We never took each other for granted. I have no regrets except that we didn’t have 20 more years together.
I’ve been telling all who came to his wake and funeral to never take a loved one for granted.
Let me end this message with a quote my cousin gave me because it reminded her of my Fred:
Live Simply
Love Generously
Care Deeply
Speak Kindly
Sincerely,
Monica
I write a great deal about what I call “political changers,” those people who have had some sort of political conversion or political evolution experience. As I explained here, this change is ordinarily unidirectional, from Left to Right; and (as I explained here) its origin and course tend to follow certain universal patterns.
The Left fears and loathes changers, with a revulsion and anger akin to that which religions such as Islam claim towards apostates. In the case of the Left, there are several reasons why this might be so. One of the milder ones is the phenomenon of condescension on the part of the changer (which I described here):
Inherent in the idea of anyone changing his/her mind from one position to another is that the person must think the second position is superior to the first””else why the change? So, whether or not the changer intends to be condescending, the reader/listener hears condescension because in fact it is implicit in the situation.
But among the doctrinaire far Left, much more is going on to make the resentment and fear of the apostate reach fever pitch. The changer who was once a political operative him/herself, such as David Horowitz (see my posts about him here) is especially hated and feared. Not only is his betrayal greater because his commitment was greater and his personal relationships with those on the Left tighter and therefore more trusted, but he is possessed of inside information that can be very helpful to the enemy. He knows the mind of the Left and its strategy, and therefore he is more of a defector than a changer. He has gone over to the Left’s enemy and he is ready to tell the tale, as well as to sound the warning for the future.
A changer of this type can spot clues that the rest of us have trouble seeing. That’s why some of the people who were earliest at calling Obama a man of the far Left were those who knew the Left from having been there. They could spot the “tells” and call Obama out on it, but their voices were neither heard nor believed by the vast majority of Americans.
Another group with the ability to spot Leftist tendencies, especially of the tyrannical hard Left type, are the escapees. These are either people who grew up in Communist countries and managed to leave, or who were born in freedom as the children of such refugees and were raised on tales of the horrors that prevailed under the previous regimes. Another closely related group are the populations of Eastern European countries who used to be under the Soviet umbrella and were liberated during the breakup of the USSR about twenty years ago. Twenty years is not such a long time, and most of the populations of these countries recall only too well how it was, and know what to look out for.
It’s more difficult for the Left to discount the testimony of these types of people because they have the power of experience on their side. For example, the Left can’t deny the fact that Horowitz was a major player on the Left for many years; all they can do is call him a right-wing lunatic who’s now gone off the deep end for his own nefarious reasons. As for those who escaped from countries on the Left and are saying “it can happen here” (see this), I’m not sure the Left has a response to them at all.
As for people like me—who used to be a liberal Democrat but hardly a political operative nor a refugee from Communism—the easiest and most common mode of attack, and one I hear all the time, is that I’m lying about my political past. I never was a liberal at all, don’t you see?
Why I would pretend such a thing is never explained, of course. And the second most common charge I get is that I heard about 9/11, panicked, and immediately became a person of the Right because of my overwhelming fear.
The goal is to discredit the process of change itself, especially its deeply cognitive and thoughtful nature, in order to keep people from understanding what would make a person do such a thing. The danger is that someone might follow the reasoning involved, and leave the fold as well. The fact that I’ve written what amounts to a small book on the subject of how and why I changed (as well as how slowly it occurred) doesn’t matter to these critics. The idea is to discredit the teller of the tale and therefore neutralize the tale itself, and whatever threat it might represent to the Left.
I’m not saying I reach that many people or change that many minds. But apostates and escapees as a whole represent a sizeable force to drive a wedge into the approved “narrative” of the Left, and as such they have a special authority and authenticity that is hard for the Left to deny.
Michael Totten is one of the few people visiting Iraq and writing about what’s going on there now.
A friend sent me the following video, which amazed me at the same time it warmed the cockles of my susceptible sentimental heart. Perhaps this birdy theme will become a recurring feature of my blog, replacing for a time the ubiquitous jello posts that used to be a regular escapist feature here.
Birds do it, bees do it—often with great flair:
[NOTE: If you examine the lyrics to Cole Porter’s “Let’s Do It” referenced above, you may be interested to learn how slyly risque they are, and that most of the versions (including that one) are shortened and expurgated. Here’s a Wiki article on the history of the piece, and here’s a longer (although hardly complete) version of the lyrics.]
Remember Gerald Walpin? The man the White House fired as AmeriCorps Inspector General when he had the audacity to investigate Sacramento Mayor (and Obama supporter) Kevin Johnson for his alleged mismanagement of AmeriCorps funds? The one whose firing the White House initially failed to give proper notice to Congress about in violation of statutory requirements to do so, and then offered a bunch of excuses about that haven’t held up to scrutiny? The one whose canning is being investigated by Congress at the moment?
If you do remember Walpin, you may be one of the few—in fact, not many ever heard about him in the first place. That seems to be the way most of the MSM want it, because the incident could reflect poorly on President Obama and reveal the Chicago thug behind the facade.
I have little doubt that, had the same allegations been made towards the Bush administration, the story would rate front page headlines every day. But somehow, the following news failed to make the cut at the NY Times, the Boston Globe, as well as the WaPo (although I must say that the WaPo, being among other things a DC paper, has been a great deal better about covering the Walpin case in general). Imagine, if you will, how the following would have been covered by the MSM if the administration in question had been a Republican one; I doubt that Byron York and the Washington Examiner would be the lonely voices letting us know that the Obama administration is stonewalling Congress by refusing to answer pertinent questions and figuring that they can probably get away with it.
And they are getting away with it—at least for now:
[Frank Trinity,] [a] top official of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the government agency that oversees AmeriCorps, has refused to answer questions from congressional investigators about the White House’s role in events surrounding the abrupt firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin…
“He said that’s a prerogative of the White House, so he didn’t feel at liberty to disclose anything regarding White House communications,” says one aide.
Investigators asked Trinity whether he was claiming executive privilege, something that could only be authorized by the president. Trinity answered again that it was a White House “prerogative.” When the investigators pointed out that, in the words of one aide, “there is no legal basis whatsoever” for such a claim, Trinity still declined to answer.
According to the knowledgeable sources, Trinity refused to say what contacts the Corporation had with the White House prior to the firing, or after the firing. He refused to say who at the Corporation had spoken to whom at the White House. He refused to say whether Corporation officials had discussed the specific reasons for the firing with the White House.
This is important because the White House claims to have conducted an “intensive review” prior to firing Walpin, in order to investigate what happened in Walpin’s final meeting with the Americorps board, the one at which the White House alleges Walpin acted “confused and disoriented.” But several members of the Board say they were not contacted by the administration, and Walpin asserts that neither was he nor any of his aides.
York reports that investigators “believe the Obama administration may be constructing an after-the-fact rationale for canning Walpin.” Ya think?
In addition, Trinity has brought up a whole new reason the White House says it fired Walpin—a parody newsletter written by his staff but approved by Walpin, containing some jokes the White House appears to think are insufficiently politically correct. Not only did Walpin not write the newsletter, however, but it was composed more than a year before his firing, was never cited by the Board as a problem with Walpin, and was previously unmentioned by the White House as well:
Yet at the meeting with congressional investigators on Monday, Trinity pointed to the newsletter as one of the main reasons for Walpin’s dismissal. When asked whether anyone at the Corporation had discussed the newsletter with anyone at the White House, Trinity refused to answer.
I’m no longer surprised at the decline of any semblance of press objectivity or devotion to truth in the mainstream media. This story will have to leap out and grab them in a manner much too powerful to deny in order to gain any traction whatsoever. And even then, my guess is that much of the press effort will be devoted to covering up what’s actually happening here.
Of course, it’s possible there’s a rational and innocuous explanation for the Obama administration’s actions. But nothing in the case so far points in that direction, and virtually everything indicates its opposite. But Congress—which has a dog in this fight, since they are the ones who should have been properly informed by the White House due to their duty of oversight over IG firings—will have to come up with a smoking gun to get much coverage on this one.
Humorist David Kahane has some good stuff on the Left’s rabid attitude toward Sarah Palin.
Kahane also nailed it quite some time ago, one of the first who did.
Next, the airlines?:
Mr. Obama blabs about the evils of lobbying, but his administration is fast becoming the greatest fillip to lobbying ever seen. Ms. Varney has now horned in on the DOT’s action, forcing the airline business and all its camp followers to come and pay tribute. Her choice of targets is obviously designed for political effect. Airlines and mobile-phone operators both touch the public in ways that leave the public frequently annoyed.
What we’re seeing here and elsewhere from the new administration is not some rebirth of thoughtful liberalism, but a spastic descent into machine liberalism — government for the benefit of government officials and their hangers-on. Mr. Obama, however, may not be so pleased with the result if it means he must soon add the airlines to the collection of failed industries being run out of the White House.
Some time ago I took note of the following offering in a comment thread. It’s a Talmudic saying that goes like this:
The truth is a heavy burden; only a few can carry it.
Yes, indeed.
When I did a search to find its origins I came up with a few more (they were under the heading “Hebrew proverbs”—but unfortunately I can’t seem to find the link right now) that seemed equally impressive, equally appropriate, equally wise, equally sad, and equally previously unknown to me.
Here they are for your contemplation:
The world is in the hands of fools.
Two farmers each claimed to own a certain cow. While one pulled on its head and the other pulled on its tail, the cow was milked by the lawyer.
The thief who has no opportunity to steal thinks he is an honest man.
Buttered bread always falls dry side up.
If someone is coming to kill you, get up early and kill him first.
This one’s a bit more cheery:
Whoever teaches his son teaches not only his son but also his son’s son, and so on to the end of generations.
This one may have guided Freud:
A dream which has not been interpreted is like a letter unread.
This one, however, I’d already heard:
To save one man is like saving a world
Only I know it in a more poetic form:
Whoever saves a single life it is as though he saved the universe.