Interestingly, it was an attempt at a joke by Obama that finally got Andrew’s goat. it seems that every time Obama tries to be funny, he annoys someone.
Words matter: but not as much as liberals think they do
There’s been some relabeling going on in the Obama administration. The “Global War on Terror,” a term criticized by the Left as too simplistic and truculent, and on the Right as too general and nonspecific, has been rebranded.
The “solution” would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Read about one of the new terms and its rationale, according to Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano (and note that, while the Spiegel interviewer uses the term “Islamist terrorism,” Napolitano leaves the word “Islamist” out in her response):
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
The second and related relabeling effort is to use the term “overseas contingency operations” instead of “global war on terror.” It’s got a real ring, doesn’t it?
It’s not clear who’s at the bottom of this one (the article mentions allegations that it was the Office of Management and Budget, but the OMB denies this). But the term has been used for a while by “senior administration officials,” so there does seem to have been some sort of directive from the administration.
This is an example of language designed not only to be dull bureaucrateese, but to obfuscate, neuter, and hide. Does anyone, even native speakers of English (or perhaps especially native speakers of English), know what this phrase actually means? That, of course, is the point.
This has been the province of government for quite some time. But it seems to be accelerating in the Obama administration.
Strangely enough, I see some of its roots in the efforts of therapists to use less blaming language when working with clients and their families. However, families are not terrorists, and when they’re in therapy, they tend to be there because they actually want to change, at least at some level.
Here’s an example of how it works in therapy: if there’s a child who’s gotten into trouble and has been regarded as a bad seed and incorrigible, the therapist can give the family a message such as “he’s not bad, he’s sad.” This can stop a vicious and spiraling cycle of rage towards the child in question, and help the family to be more responsive to suggestions for setting limits and transforming the child’s behavior in an atmosphere less harshly punitive and more conducive to cooperation.
It’s not appropriate in all cases, of course, even with families. But it can work quite well in a situation in which a child has been acting up because he/she really is crying out for help to the adults in his/her life, and is getting nothing but angry condemnation back.
The key point is that therapeutic clients and terrorists are different (duh!). The latter have not come to us for help. And although it’s true that Islamicist terrorists are indeed mired in an honor-shame culture, and are sensitive to language and face-saving, the situation is not amenable to linguistic gymnastics (and although author Richard Landes is speaking of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in the following passage, he might just as well be speaking of the entire War on Islamicist Fundamentalism):
In this kind of war, negotiations will not work. The Palestinians cannot make any significant concessions to Israel without losing honor. Additionally, they view concessions by Israel as marks of weakness, as invitations to further violence, rather than as invitations to put an end to the war.
The idea that the administration’s linguistic changes will matter to anyone at all—except to draw laughter from the terrorists themselves, approval from the deluded pacifists of Europe and at home, and (I sincerely hope, just for the irony of the thing), anger from feminists who consider “man-caused” to be a sexist term—is a delusion.
The Obama administration doesn’t seem to get the concept of enemies who wish us dead. There really really are such people. And if you call them something nicer, and don’t label the war against them as what it actually is, you only earn their contempt, and their perception that it is you who are the weak horse.
And that’s a recipe for “man-made disaster.”
[ADDENDUM: Great minds think alike.]
College as re-education camp
Please go here to learn about a chilling experiment in indoctrination recently embarked upon by faculty at the University of Delaware. Be sure to watch the You Tube videos, and if you want to see the details of the reading matter that was part of this program, take a look at this.
It’s just another example of the Orwellian transformation of our college campuses. A group that calls itself FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has been fighting the good fight against this sort of thing, and got involved in the Delaware episode. But it should come as no surprise that although the PC mind-control program is no longer in operation there, those who designed and implemented it are still employed by the university.
The private sector has become the Democratic politicians’ punching bag
I didn’t make that line up. It’s an idea voiced by Daniel Henninger in this WSJ article. Henninger believes the disconnect between the majority of Democrats in Congress and the private sector has become profound, leading not only to the demonizing of major industries, corporations, and their executives (not to mention shortsighted bills of attainder such as the AIG bonus tax), but that it will ultimately hurt the economy.
Henninger also points out that “progressive” Democratic groups have—not surprisingly—begun to target those moderate Democrats who are standing up to oppose Obama’s budget. The existence of this thin blue line has predictably aroused their ire.
The Democratic party has now moved so far to the Left that its power is strongly in the hands of its most radical members. In their jubilation at finally being in control after all these years, they would like to crowd out any tempering influences.
However, they are ignoring the law of thirds (which I described several years ago, here). I hope it will be their undoing—that is, before their policies are the undoing of us all.
Obama “artfully dishonest”
I noticed this, too, during Obama’s press conference: the setting up of another straw man. He slipped it in so smoothly it was easy to miss. But that’s his modus operandi.
The magical Munchausen
Speaking of movies—and we were—there’s another I’d place on my list of a hundred favorites, and it would be pretty high up at that. It’s Terry Gilliam’s “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen,” a box office and financial disaster when it first came out.
I saw it in a movie theater, which is by far the best way to view this strange but vastly entertaining movie. The visuals are astounding, the script funny, the kid captivating, the scene with Uma Thurman’s Venus and Oliver Reed’s Vulcan and John Neville’s Munchausen delicious, and the music by the late Michael Kamen (personal disclosure: I knew the charismatic Kamen as a teenager and had a mad crush on him) suitably magnificent.
The following is only a dim echo of the movie, which I urge you to rent if you haven’t seen it before (or even if you have), especially if you own a large TV. You can easily see why it went hugely over budget:
Obamalove: is it the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning?
If even the previously Obama-besotted Tina Brown has begun to tire of the president, that’s news.
Was it a mere two months ago, right after the inauguration, that Brown wrote this love note to Obama? Brown is not a deep thinker, nor is she an especially influential one. But I take her sudden disaffection with Obama to be an important sign that things cannot be going well for the man.
It’s one thing when Republican supporters of Obama such as Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley wake up from their trances. It’s quite another when the liberal Brown does:
Obama is the only person walking around with a big smile on his face. That onset of wild laughter on 60 Minutes about how humorous it is that no one in America, I mean no one, wants a bailout for the auto companies was one of the more surreal presidential performances lately. Why has Obama suddenly turned into the Paris Hilton of teachable moments? We realize he’s just trying to shore up his poll ratings so he can distance himself from Pelosi’s pitchfork mob, but a 60 Minutes sitdown right after the Leno armchair session on the preceding Thursday seemed””for him””strangely tone-deaf to the risk of overexposure.
Note Brown’s words: “surreal;” “strangely tone-deaf.” Her tone is one of shock at the mystery of it all: how can the formerly savvy and sharp Obama be morphing into this doofus? Brown doesn’t realize that the evidence for these traits was there all the time and that it was she who wasn’t paying attention, so blinded was she by infatuation.
Brown doesn’t stop there. She adds:
In this current crisis, I’m not in the mood for an exclusive peek at Sasha and Malia’s new swingset on the grounds of the White House. And it’s time the president dropped his gosh-this-is-fun-and-weird riff about the perks of being the most powerful man in the world…
This is not just a tone of mild disapproval. It borders on contempt (note the comparison to Paris Hilton), and has an accusatory edge of betrayal: how could you, Barack? And just behind those emotions is another one, too threatening to be voiced but only hinted at: guilty remorse. When Brown goes on to say that Obama “is starting to give his supporters little flutters of panic,” the unasked question is “could I have made an error in voting for this man?”
Will the thin blue line in Congress hold?
Moderate Democrats in Congress represent our best—and perhaps our only—hope of keeping the ocean liner (Obama’s metaphor, not mine) of our economy from hitting the devastating iceberg of the proposed Obama budget and becoming the Titanic.
I’ve decided to call this group “the thin blue line*” [see below]. The term is appropriate because the Republicans, even if they hold firm against the excesses of the budget, are essentially powerless to stop it without the alliance of a substantial number of Democrats. So those Democrats (blue, of course!) are the key.
I’ve had difficulty finding a list of names of the Democrats said to oppose some of the worst provisions of the Obama budget (see this and this for a few). But many of them probably come from the ranks of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. Others, of course, would be Senators from more moderate states, such as Conrad of North Dakota and Bachus of Montana (both states went fairly decisively for McCain in 2008, which gives you an idea of where these men’s constituents stand).
Are there enough moderates to hold the line against the efforts of Pelosi to whip them into shape? Who knows what threats are going on behind closed doors?
*Based on the phrase “the thin red line,”
which refers to “a thinly spread military unit holding firm against attack. The phrase later took on the metaphorical meaning of the barrier which the relatively limited armed forces of a country present to potential attackers.” In the present case, the attackers are our President and the more radical Democrats in Congress. The phrase “thin red line” morphed into “thin blue line,” which refers to the police, “suggesting that a thin line of police officers is all that prevents civilized society from descending into chaos.”
Yahoo’s 100 movies to see before you die
I’m pleased to see that “Groundhog Day” made the cut.
But no “High Noon?” For shame, for shame!
And whatever is the transcendently schlocky “Titanic” doing there? Special effects and teenage heartthrobs should only get you so far. As for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” I’ll grant that it’s a fine movie. But if there’s room for only one Monty Python offering on the list, shouldn’t it be “Life of Brian?”
“Raise the Red Lantern” was okay, but mostly forgettable. I think it’s only there for the diversity angle. And although I haven’t seen “Fast Times at Ridgmont High,” I find it nearly impossible to believe it’s one of the 100 must-see movies of all time—or, for that matter, a must-see movie at all.
Why isn’t “Wuthering Heights” listed? I’m sorry guys, but at least one classic chick flick should be part of the mix, and that’s the best. And although I can’t say I’m surprised that one of my non-chick-flick favorites, “Midnight Run,” is missing, it ought to be there too.
As should “The Great Escape.” No one would ever call that one a chick flick, but its all-male cast is very easy on the female eyes.
I’m also stunned to note that I, a relative non-moviegoer, have managed to see eighty-seven and a half of these films. The half? “The Lord of the Rings.” I tried, but just couldn’t sit through the whole thing.
Congressional haste makes Congressional waste
Tim Geithner is trying to reassure us that now there will be more oversight of the indescribably huge amounts of money Congress has been thowing at bailed-out companies courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Whatever we might think of that prospect, and of the government’s ability to oversee much of anything, it reminds us—as if we needed a reminder—that rushing complex and important bills through Congress is ordinarily a recipe for catastrophe rather than a remedy for disaster.
And yet the Obama administration, with the help of Pelosi and Reid, has taken the bad example of Stimulus One, passed hastily and almost unthinkingly by Congress back in the waning days of the Bush administration, as a model for their budget bill rather than a cautionary tale. Most of us on the Right think this is not due to stupidity, but is strategically necessary for them. They have a need for haste, to ram this thing home before the American people know what hit them, when it will be too late.
Then of course there’s the probably unconstitutional excess of the punitive tax on AIG bonuses, passed with lightening speed by the House (boy, those folks can move quickly when they want to, can’t they?) in a fit of fake populist ire and butt-covering anxiety. This bill (of attainder) set a terrible precedent and would have a chilling effect on corporate cooperation with subsequent government measures. To their eternal shame, some Republicans voted for it, too, although a similar bill sits stalled in the Senate due to a more united Republican opposition.
Because of the huge Democrat edge in both houses, right now all that’s standing in the way of passage of the shockingly high budget bill (the one that may indeed bankrupt this nation) is a thin blue line: moderate Democrats in both legislative bodies. Will this group morph into profiles in courage? If things slow down a bit and the American people have more time to get to know the budget bill and its likely consequences, voting against it may not take that much courage, either, since I predict the sentiment against it will build.
What a difference a hyphen makes
For example, take this headline from the WSJ:
Treasury Unveils Toxic-Asset Plan, Citing ‘Acute Pressure’ on Banks
It would take on a whole different flavor if there were no hyphen between “toxic” and “asset,” wouldn’t it?
Another puzzling bout of Obama administration cluelessness—or something else?
It’s hard to know exactly what to think of this:
…[T]he private-sector worries about the plans being cooked up by Geithner and Summers extend into countless corporate suites, start-ups, and small businesses far beyond Wall Street””and that until recently, the administration was comically clueless about it. When I was at the White House recently, I jokingly asked a senior Obama official if the team was having fun turning the country into a socialist state. “What are you talking about?” this official replied. “Business loves what we’re doing!”
Back in New York the following day, I related that story to a CEO pal of mine who is a big Obama backer. “What are they, smoking crack down there?” he replied. “Find me one CEO who likes what they’re doing. Seriously, find me one!”
The story by John Heilemann appeared in the Obama-friendly New York Magazine. It goes on to describe the power and policy struggles within Obama’s ecomonic “brain trust.”
My take the entire matter is this: Larry Summers and Tim Geithner may not have known what they were signing onto when they accepted their positions in this administration. Summers (at least according to the article) was the main person behind the stimulus bill. Geithner, of course, has been (sloooowly and not at all surely) attempting to deal with the financial world and the mess it got into: banks, credit, mortgages, bad paper, and all of that.
Those issues and their proposals have been controversial enough. But the real firestorm about the Obama plan came with the budget: it was shocking to almost everyone except the far Left.
The article agrees:
If the stimulus provokes concern in the private sector, the budget causes nothing short of a total freak-out. The size of it ($3.6 trillion in fiscal year 2010) and the oceans of red ink it threatens to unleash give deficit hawks the heebie-jeebies. The redistributionist tilt it brings to the tax code wigs out the wealthy, the modestly wealthy, and the wannabe wealthy. The oxen it gores (e.g., agricultural subsidies) offend entrenched industrial wards of the state.
Beyond those particulars, the sheer ambition and audacity of the thing””health-care reform, cap-and-trade, and much more””raises suspicions that the Obamans are attempting to capitalize on the crisis instead of solving it.
My guess—and it is only a guess—is that Summers and Geithner, and perhaps other economic advisers as well, spoke to Obama privately in opposition to his going full steam ahead on his budget plans without having first dealt effectively with the more pressing and immediate problems of the economy itself. And that he listened politely, as is his habit (makes everyone feel heard, don’t you know?) and then did exactly and precisely what he wanted.
Leaving Geithner and Summers to twist slowly, slowly in the wind. They may come to learn the character of the man with whom they signed on.
Judd Gregg figured it out a lot earlier, and quit before he even started. Now he’s free to say what he thinks—and there’s not a whole lotta Obamalove in it, although he defends Geithner and Summers:
The money quote:
The practical implications of [Obama’s budget] is bankruptcy for the United States. There’s no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals that are in this budget over the ten-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt; our dollar will become devalued…And I find it almost unconscionable that this administration is essentially saying “Well, we’re just gonna blithely go along on this course of action” after they’re getting these numbers which show that they’re not, they’re not sustainable. And they know that they’re not sustainable.