We respond at last to the clamor of our gentle readers for our take on Barak Obama's pastor problem. We warn our readers that we are likely to frustrate their desire for red meat.
In short, we think that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and especially his parishioner Senator Obama should be given a pass on this one. Mostly, that is. We don't deny that Wright has made multiple statements that are highly provocative, even offensive, and sometimes just silly. We don't deny that Obama has some explaining to do about his relationship with Wright. We just aren't as exercised about this as are many of those who share our wish that a candidate besides Obama be the next POTUS.
But here's the deal (and we say it with massive love and respect for the profession we are about to characterize, as we are one ourself): Wright is a preacher. Saying stuff like this is what preachers do.
OK, now that most of our readers are as mad at us as they were at Wright, we will hasten to explain our intemperate remark.
Preachers orate. Oratory involves highly charged, provocative rhetoric, intended less to describe or inform than to summon to commitment and action. When Wright referred to the US of KKKA or said that America deserved the 9/11 attacks for its own terrorism or suggested that because of the country's many sins of oppression the appropriate song would be "God Damn America," he was doing what preachers do as they reach the emotional climax of their messages: having gained the congregation's trust and carried them to the point of decision, he was crystalizing the message in sharply ironic language that left no room for indifference.
It has been widely observed that Wright's remarks on 9/11 were similar to Jerry Falwell's except that their cited proximate causes were on different sides of the political spectrum (for Falwell it was abortion and homosexual behavior that left America deserving what it got). Let's say further that (a) the same could be said for thousands of obscure sermons preached in the wake of 9/11 from varying political perspectives; (b) any of Wright's other remarks could find parallels from various preachers on the religious right (e.g., "United States of Infanticide" has probably been uttered in more than one American pulpit). These observations have been widely employed to argue whether a politically conservative candidate would be called to account for his pastor's similar remarks (and the obvious answer is yes). We cite them merely to illustrate that there's nothing unique about Wright's language.
Further, many of Wright's remarks were particularly expressive of frustrations about racial issues in the United States. We are not terribly shocked that an African-American preacher would be so blunt on the subject. It is not so long ago that rampant racism produced lynchings, Jim Crow laws and various other acts of systematic exploitation of African-Americans. Though the worst of racism blessedly is now history, its legacy is hardly erased in the day-to-day experience of many. By definition, SWNID is not an object of racist attitudes, but we find it hard to imagine that our being otherwise would be less than a source of outrage for our otherwise placid self.
All that having been said by way of excusing the Rev. Wright, we nevertheless offer some less charitable evaluations.
By all accounts, Jeremiah Wright is an enormously talented preacher, powerfully charismatic (in the non-theological sense). In our experience, preachers of exceptional talent are sometimes seduced by their talent into a habit of intemperate and inconsiderate expression. Seeing only a glimpse of Wright through media reports and clips of recordings, he might just fit that category.
What's obvious about the Rev. Wright, however, is that his commitment to making the gospel relevant in the here and now is a commitment to the political agenda of the radical left. For that, we find fault. The failures of American society are many, but the solutions of the left can only deepen those failures. When concern for the plight of the oppressed glibly equates to pacifism and socialism, critical judgment has failed.
Some of Wright's failures of critical judgment are pretty obvious. While it's not at all outrageous to suggest that the higher legal penalties for the usage of crack cocaine over powder cocaine have had a disproportionate impact on African-Americans, it's silly to suggest that the government created crack to oppress blacks. Same goes for suggesting that the government created AIDS for the same reason. And giving an award to Louis Farrakhan is the epitome of silliness.
So we SWNIDishly judge Jeremiah Wright guilty of being an uncritical thinker who lets his talent get the better of him, but in largely harmless ways. That's a venial sin, not a mortal one. We absolve him. Preachers do that kind of thing. We reserve the privilege of nominating him as Most Embarrassing Christian, but that's about the worst of it.
Now, where is Obama in all this? He's been a member of Wright's church for 20 years, is reported to have donated $20,000 to the church in that period (a figure that Thomas Sowell cites as considerable but which should be a source of shame for someone with Obama's family income), and names Wright as his spiritual mentor. Why is Jeremiah Wright's church Barak Obama's church? Should Obama be castigated for his long-time association with Wright?
Well, we ask SWNIDishly, why is your church yours? We suspect that the answer is more complex than we are inclined to admit. It always has to do with much more than our agreement with what we hear from the pulpit. People choose churches for all kinds of reasons, but in general I suspect that most would say "It feels like a place where I can belong."
For the Obama family, prominent and ambitious members of Chicago's African-American community, Wright's church would present a place where they could "belong" in many respects. It was a church where being black is the norm (those who think it reprehensible that Wright's church is avowedly "Afrocentric" should consider how "Eurocentric" are other churches, without their admitting it openly). It had plenty of members like them, black folk on the move to power and prestige. It was big enough that their celebrity would not be an enormous distraction. There are lots of churches in Chicago, but probably not many that offered all that.
And Wright's church was a place where the Obamas could network with other members and with the church's powerful pastor. If Barak Obama wanted a mentoring relationship with an older man of color who had used his talent to gain influence and who could help him think about how to process his life in politics from the perspective of faith, he could have that relationship by joining Jeremiah Wright's church.
In making that move, Obama was in no sense endorsing or agreeing with everything that his pastor might say, let alone his offensive-to-many way of saying it. He took the bad Wright with the good Wright. And SWNID actually thinks that's typical and decent. Leaving a church every time you have a disagreement with the preacher is not exactly what we call good churchmanship.
We actually wonder whether Obama hasn't all along realized that to accomplish what he seeks to accomplish, he will need a very different rhetoric than his pastor's. As Lincoln was to Garrison, so perhaps is Obama to Wright.
Still, it's hard to believe that Obama didn't see this one coming. How could any professional politician with national ambitions expect not to be called to account for his pastor's incendiary remarks? Perhaps Obama's habit of mind, week by week filtering Wright's rhetoric, was so deeply established for him that he couldn't hear what others would hear. Perhaps his loyalty to a friend was so strong that he ignored an issue that he should have at least thought through in advance. Perhaps he thought that anything that didn't come up in a Chicago or Illinois political campaign, where political hardball was perfected, wouldn't come up in a national election. Whatever the cause, not having a planned-in-advance response to the pastor problem was a political mistake that any good politician shouldn't have made.
So for us, the rap on Obama coming out of the Wright imbroglio is not that Obama might be as radical as his pastor. It's that it may show him to be as naive as his opponents suggest he is.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Eliot Spitzer: The Crusader as Compensator
We begin with an apology for gentle readers who have been unable to function in the absence of regular posts. Our excuse is that we have a life outside the blog.
And we take up one of the two hot political stories of the last week: the downfall of New York's crusading and whoring governor, Eliot Spitzer.
With many others, we ask why he did it. But we are asking about a different "it." Most pundits have asked why a successful, powerful, rising politician would risk his future by consorting with prostitutes. The predictable answers repeat the well-worn truism about the congruence of the lust for power and the lust for forbidden sex. The observation that Spitzer regularly stepped outside the bounds of ethics and even legality in his use of prosecutorial powers has been widely collated with his just-revealed habit of stepping outside the bounds of his marriage vows.
We ask a different question: Why did a man who lived a sordid private life fashion his public image as a moral crusader? Spitzer wasn't just a powerful politician addicted to sex, like Bill Clinton. He was an aggressive "reformer," a prosecutor who went after the most powerful figures with what was often the slimmest of justification. Meanwhile, he was privately using his own personal fortune--and likely some of the public purse in the form of security details--to break state and federal laws, not to mention his most sacred personal commitments.
In the SWNIDish experience, such a disparity is not surprising. Those who adopt the persona of crusader and whose crusades appear unbridled, disproportionate to the real nature of their object, are all too often those who harbor some hidden moral failing for which they seek to compensate with their crusading.
We note a particular case of our own experience, with particulars unaddressed to protect the identity of the guilty. Not quite a quarter century ago, we made brief acquaintance with a minister who took brief but intense interest in our SWNIDish career as a young graduate student. The minister decided to ask us about our view of an article, recently published in a prominent Christian journal, that addressed a topic of mild controversy. Expressing our qualified support for the article's point of view, we then experienced about 90 minutes of verbal scorn from our new acquaintance. Being young and inexperienced, we attempted dialogue in violation of the dominical saying recorded in Matthew 7:6, with predictable failure to come to a meeting of the minds. We left the conversation puzzled as to why anyone would argue so vociferously with a new acquaintance on a point of theology that was at most marginally consequential.
Months later, our adversary was revealed as a serial adulterer.
Since then, we have been impressed by other such cases in which individuals with secret moral failures attempt to balance them with their public posturing as ideological or moral exemplars. This, by the way, is more than the talented, charismatic public figure (politician or clergyman) who gratifies his ego with public adulation and private sexual predation. It is the individual who is privately drawn, even addicted, to a darkly immoral behavior and who couples it with a public persona of not just moral rectitude but aggressive moral leadership.
We hasten to add the obvious: not all crusaders are compensating for hidden sins, and not all who hide their sin compensate by crusading. But when a crusader is revealed as was Spitzer, we find ourselves unsurprised.
For SWNID, the lesson of such cases is this: human beings are inherently and persistently compelled to view themselves as moral creatures. Eliot Spitzer, no less than less prominent and powerful folk, wants to be fancied--by himself as much as by others--as a good person. Crusading against corruption in business and government gave him that sense, for him putting a bandage on the gaping wound of his sexual misbehavior.
For us, this is more than an example of the dangers of rationalization or the seductions of power or the pitfalls of relativism. It's ironic confirmation that people at their most lost want nothing more than to be restored to uprightness and significance. We just want to be found.
And we take up one of the two hot political stories of the last week: the downfall of New York's crusading and whoring governor, Eliot Spitzer.
With many others, we ask why he did it. But we are asking about a different "it." Most pundits have asked why a successful, powerful, rising politician would risk his future by consorting with prostitutes. The predictable answers repeat the well-worn truism about the congruence of the lust for power and the lust for forbidden sex. The observation that Spitzer regularly stepped outside the bounds of ethics and even legality in his use of prosecutorial powers has been widely collated with his just-revealed habit of stepping outside the bounds of his marriage vows.
We ask a different question: Why did a man who lived a sordid private life fashion his public image as a moral crusader? Spitzer wasn't just a powerful politician addicted to sex, like Bill Clinton. He was an aggressive "reformer," a prosecutor who went after the most powerful figures with what was often the slimmest of justification. Meanwhile, he was privately using his own personal fortune--and likely some of the public purse in the form of security details--to break state and federal laws, not to mention his most sacred personal commitments.
In the SWNIDish experience, such a disparity is not surprising. Those who adopt the persona of crusader and whose crusades appear unbridled, disproportionate to the real nature of their object, are all too often those who harbor some hidden moral failing for which they seek to compensate with their crusading.
We note a particular case of our own experience, with particulars unaddressed to protect the identity of the guilty. Not quite a quarter century ago, we made brief acquaintance with a minister who took brief but intense interest in our SWNIDish career as a young graduate student. The minister decided to ask us about our view of an article, recently published in a prominent Christian journal, that addressed a topic of mild controversy. Expressing our qualified support for the article's point of view, we then experienced about 90 minutes of verbal scorn from our new acquaintance. Being young and inexperienced, we attempted dialogue in violation of the dominical saying recorded in Matthew 7:6, with predictable failure to come to a meeting of the minds. We left the conversation puzzled as to why anyone would argue so vociferously with a new acquaintance on a point of theology that was at most marginally consequential.
Months later, our adversary was revealed as a serial adulterer.
Since then, we have been impressed by other such cases in which individuals with secret moral failures attempt to balance them with their public posturing as ideological or moral exemplars. This, by the way, is more than the talented, charismatic public figure (politician or clergyman) who gratifies his ego with public adulation and private sexual predation. It is the individual who is privately drawn, even addicted, to a darkly immoral behavior and who couples it with a public persona of not just moral rectitude but aggressive moral leadership.
We hasten to add the obvious: not all crusaders are compensating for hidden sins, and not all who hide their sin compensate by crusading. But when a crusader is revealed as was Spitzer, we find ourselves unsurprised.
For SWNID, the lesson of such cases is this: human beings are inherently and persistently compelled to view themselves as moral creatures. Eliot Spitzer, no less than less prominent and powerful folk, wants to be fancied--by himself as much as by others--as a good person. Crusading against corruption in business and government gave him that sense, for him putting a bandage on the gaping wound of his sexual misbehavior.
For us, this is more than an example of the dangers of rationalization or the seductions of power or the pitfalls of relativism. It's ironic confirmation that people at their most lost want nothing more than to be restored to uprightness and significance. We just want to be found.
Monday, March 10, 2008
A Tribute to Human Ingenuity
We thank one of our colleagues for sharing this impressive photo with us, a example of the endless creativity and adaptability of human beings, even those who belong to the most despised classes.
Where the Dems Are These Days
It's not a pleasant place to be.
We commend the Huffington-Posted rant of one Seth Grahame-Smith, who uses a few hundred words to articulate his determination no longer to enable the former First Enabler, Senator Clinton. Ms. Rodham-Clinton's* flaws of character and experience are so many and varied that they eventually overcome even those whose politics commit them to the habitual ignoring of obvious realities.
Meanwhile, it remains a mathematical unlikelihood that the Democrats can avoid having their candidate chosen by party elders, the so-called superdelegates, which puts on display the inherent commitment of the left not to be bound by any rules or principles, even of their own making.
The Party of Jefferson and Jackson a generation ago devised a presidential nominating system that largely enshrined "the will of the people" to select its nominee but still empowered a large class of senior sages to make the final determination when the people's will was unclear. With the power to review and revise that system whenever it wished, the party continued with it happily until it actually needed the wisdom of the sages whom it so empowered.
And so now the party's own chairman has publicly told the sages not to exercise their judgment against the will of the people, as if such a thing could be discerned in such a tight series of primaries. Meanwhile, the calls continue for a mulligan for Michigan and Florida, forbidden to seat committed delegates by party rules and rulings. So one wonders after such a do-over is granted whether Iowans and New Hampshirites will ask to choose again from the now shortened list of candidates who endure the Democratic nominating spectacle. After all, they wasted some of their votes on Edwards and Biden and (saints preserve us) Kucinich. And things have changed since January. And we must count every vote! Every day!
One further wonders how a party that fully expects to be able to fund a government takeover of 18% of the US economy refuses to pay for a mail-in primary for two populous states that it styles as disenfranchised by its own ineptitude.
Such a cycle cannot end for those for whom principle is mere sentiment, laws are subject to endless reinterpretation, and contracts can be voided on political or magisterial whim. The relativists are hoist by their own petard, bereft of even the most obvious fixed points by which to extricate themselves from their self-laid trap.
__________________
*One of the world's shortest books: Republicans with Hypenated Last Names.
We commend the Huffington-Posted rant of one Seth Grahame-Smith, who uses a few hundred words to articulate his determination no longer to enable the former First Enabler, Senator Clinton. Ms. Rodham-Clinton's* flaws of character and experience are so many and varied that they eventually overcome even those whose politics commit them to the habitual ignoring of obvious realities.
Meanwhile, it remains a mathematical unlikelihood that the Democrats can avoid having their candidate chosen by party elders, the so-called superdelegates, which puts on display the inherent commitment of the left not to be bound by any rules or principles, even of their own making.
The Party of Jefferson and Jackson a generation ago devised a presidential nominating system that largely enshrined "the will of the people" to select its nominee but still empowered a large class of senior sages to make the final determination when the people's will was unclear. With the power to review and revise that system whenever it wished, the party continued with it happily until it actually needed the wisdom of the sages whom it so empowered.
And so now the party's own chairman has publicly told the sages not to exercise their judgment against the will of the people, as if such a thing could be discerned in such a tight series of primaries. Meanwhile, the calls continue for a mulligan for Michigan and Florida, forbidden to seat committed delegates by party rules and rulings. So one wonders after such a do-over is granted whether Iowans and New Hampshirites will ask to choose again from the now shortened list of candidates who endure the Democratic nominating spectacle. After all, they wasted some of their votes on Edwards and Biden and (saints preserve us) Kucinich. And things have changed since January. And we must count every vote! Every day!
One further wonders how a party that fully expects to be able to fund a government takeover of 18% of the US economy refuses to pay for a mail-in primary for two populous states that it styles as disenfranchised by its own ineptitude.
Such a cycle cannot end for those for whom principle is mere sentiment, laws are subject to endless reinterpretation, and contracts can be voided on political or magisterial whim. The relativists are hoist by their own petard, bereft of even the most obvious fixed points by which to extricate themselves from their self-laid trap.
__________________
*One of the world's shortest books: Republicans with Hypenated Last Names.
Shroud of Turin Accidentally Washed with Cardinal's Red T-Shirt
One of the better recent Onion parodies of religion, topic per title above, is found here, just in time for Easter.
What's sad is that the "real" media will likely come out with something no less funny, just not intentionally so.
What's sad is that the "real" media will likely come out with something no less funny, just not intentionally so.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
SWNID Inquires: Hairstyles
Normally we use this blog to tell our gentle readers what to think and why to think it. Today we reverse roles. Teach us, O blessed flock!
Specifically, we are ignorant of a cultural phenomenon that has recently entered our consciousness, namely, that young men have taken to combing the hairs on top of their head from the left and right sides toward the middle, so that the ends of the hairs stand upright, perpendicular to the ground in a ridge that runs along the circumference that intersects the nose and the spinal cord. We note that these same young men may have instructed their hairstylists to leave the hairs of the central top circumference longer for this very purpose.
We'd call this cut a "Mohawk," but we recall that that hairstyle involved shaving the head except for the central circumference. This doesn't. Further, Mohawks sported hair ridges that were generally wider, if memory serves.
If we were naming it, we'd probably call this style a "Shark Fin," though in all SWNIDish honesty it really should be called a "Silly Haircut."
We would supply an illustrative picture, but we don't know what keywords to use to find an image.
So our questions are these:
1. What is this hairstyle actually called?
2. Where in the world did it come from?
3. Why would anyone bother to do that with his hair?
4. Are women doing this too?
N.B. that we have noticed this style as of late we have observed various students and alumni of our august institution of higher education. We are committed to the maxim that when a trend reaches our students and alumni, it is by definition out of style. More simply, when a trend is spotted at 2700 Glenway, it is at that moment untrendy. We encourage comments on the mindset of CCU students and alumni who pursue such trends despite this immutable truth.
Specifically, we are ignorant of a cultural phenomenon that has recently entered our consciousness, namely, that young men have taken to combing the hairs on top of their head from the left and right sides toward the middle, so that the ends of the hairs stand upright, perpendicular to the ground in a ridge that runs along the circumference that intersects the nose and the spinal cord. We note that these same young men may have instructed their hairstylists to leave the hairs of the central top circumference longer for this very purpose.
We'd call this cut a "Mohawk," but we recall that that hairstyle involved shaving the head except for the central circumference. This doesn't. Further, Mohawks sported hair ridges that were generally wider, if memory serves.
If we were naming it, we'd probably call this style a "Shark Fin," though in all SWNIDish honesty it really should be called a "Silly Haircut."
We would supply an illustrative picture, but we don't know what keywords to use to find an image.
So our questions are these:
1. What is this hairstyle actually called?
2. Where in the world did it come from?
3. Why would anyone bother to do that with his hair?
4. Are women doing this too?
N.B. that we have noticed this style as of late we have observed various students and alumni of our august institution of higher education. We are committed to the maxim that when a trend reaches our students and alumni, it is by definition out of style. More simply, when a trend is spotted at 2700 Glenway, it is at that moment untrendy. We encourage comments on the mindset of CCU students and alumni who pursue such trends despite this immutable truth.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Take the Church Leaders Survey
Our gentle readers, who by definition are church leaders, are gently urged to take the church leaders' survey being conducted by the excellent folks at Christian Standard. It's fun and easy!
Be sure to indicate that you read SWNID regularly and consider SWNID critically important to your life and to the future of the Restoration Movement.
Be sure to indicate that you read SWNID regularly and consider SWNID critically important to your life and to the future of the Restoration Movement.
The Morning After: SWNID Pontificates
Our SWNIDish observations on political matters local and national following yesterday's highly significant primaries:
- Locally, the most obvious effect of the highly contested Democratic Party Presidential Primary is the passage of the Cincinnati Public Schools tax levy. Such could not happen without the large number of Democrats who came out to vote for their preferred liberal Their natural inclination being to ratify taxes for just about any purpose, the levy squeaked by despite little campaigning and much high-profile opposition. As a qualified fan of CPS, we take ironic pleasure in this outcome.
- In essence, McCain won all the primaries last night on both sides. He can now depend on the Dems to continue to go negative on each other, giving his campaign staff plenty of footage that they can assemble next fall for their own ads. He can also depend on the Democrats' slugfest to awaken grouchy conservatives to the stark reality that he is not just their only choice in November but is a fundamentally better choice than enduring four years of a left-wing executive with a congressional majority. The fight between the Democrats will both split them and energize their opponents, in other words.
- Hillary still can't possibly win the nomination outright on the first ballot, but Obama likewise has a tough road to a majority of delegates if she continues to run and to capture around half of the committed delegates that remain to be chosen. This leaves the Dems with a nomination that must be decided by its own rules and its own leadership, the so-called superdelegates. But given the Democrats' proclivity to fighting about their rules and litigating election results, we think that the most interesting bets are on the proposition that before all this is over, Hillary and Obama will end up in court over something, perhaps the standing of delegates from Michigan and Florida. We wonder whether Vegas bookmakers are taking bets on that. We also expect this spectacle further to damage the party of the left.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
From Our Correspondent: An Obama Insider Speaks
We thank a gentle reader who will remain totally anonymous for sharing these tidbits from a conversation while seated on an airplane next to an Obama staffer, which we quote in our correspondent's own words:
- The Obama camp are shocked at how well things have gone. They thought they could give her a run for the money but no one thought they could possibly TKO her at this rather early date.
- His head campaign directors (Axelrod & Pluff are the last names I think) are seen as geniuses within political circles and their strategies will be copied for years to come.
- The Clinton machine is unbelievably well built and he respects his adversary immensely.
- The base of their support sounds a lot like a large scale Huckabee type operation…literally millions of people volunteering their time and giving small donations over and over again to keep the campaign rolling at a phenomenal pace. In fact in front of me was a kid from Stanford who flew in between exams to work free for the campaign for the weekend in Cincinnati. A ton of volunteer free labor that dwarfs Clinton’s army.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday Potpourri
On Bill Cunningham and John McCain: Now that Jerry Springer is in Chicago, Marge Schott has gone to her reward, and Pete Rose has paid his debt to society, Bill Cunningham is Cincinnati's only residual embarrassment. We urge our entire Republic forever to turn off this faux conservative's program, consigning his vulgar rants and insinuations to the oblivion they so richly deserve.
At the McCain rally, Cunningham wanted nothing more than for Cunningham to become the story. He succeeded. As a radio personality, he is not a controversialist but one who must himself be the focus of controversy.
That the McCain campaign extended their invitation to Cunningham does not inspire confidence in Senator McCain's prospective ability to manage intelligence gathering and analysis.
On Global Warming: It appears that currently we are enjoying the most widespread snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere since 1960. Meanwhile, sunspot activity is notably low, an indicator of reduced energy discharge from the sun. Not doubting that changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere influence temperatures marginally, we are still drawn to the overwhelming conclusion that nearly all of our planet's climate is determined by factors that have nothing to do with human activity.
We assert that this February sets a record not only for snow cover but also for length. It's been the longest month in our experience. The combination of cold, precipitation, gloom and the endless sniping between two liberal presidential candidates has driven us nearly to despair.
On NAFTA and Globalism: The Democrats' bash-NAFTA extravaganza has yielded one positive outcome: articles from various sources detailing the massive consensus among economists that the United States has benefited economically from free trade, not least from the NAFTA agreement. In the run up to Ohio's primary, anti-NAFTA speech is the only alternative for candidates who can't publicly admit that Ohio's economic woes mostly have to do with the long-term decline of the Big Three auto manufacturers, largely because of their own mismanagement, aided and abetted by the United Auto Workers.
On the Ohio Primary: We urge gentle readers to vote in favor of Issue 10, the Cincinnati Public School's tax levy. This small levy will preserve vital services in a district that performs better than most of its urban peers. (Note to our most rabidly anti-tax, anti-public-school, gentle readers: no one said that the district is less than wasteful and inefficient, just that the alternatives are all worse in the near term.)
On Jeopardy: We belatedly congratulate Walnut Hills High School sophomore Rachel Horn, friend of Daughter of SWNID, on crushing her opponents in the finals of the Jeopardy teen tournament.
At the McCain rally, Cunningham wanted nothing more than for Cunningham to become the story. He succeeded. As a radio personality, he is not a controversialist but one who must himself be the focus of controversy.
That the McCain campaign extended their invitation to Cunningham does not inspire confidence in Senator McCain's prospective ability to manage intelligence gathering and analysis.
On Global Warming: It appears that currently we are enjoying the most widespread snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere since 1960. Meanwhile, sunspot activity is notably low, an indicator of reduced energy discharge from the sun. Not doubting that changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere influence temperatures marginally, we are still drawn to the overwhelming conclusion that nearly all of our planet's climate is determined by factors that have nothing to do with human activity.
We assert that this February sets a record not only for snow cover but also for length. It's been the longest month in our experience. The combination of cold, precipitation, gloom and the endless sniping between two liberal presidential candidates has driven us nearly to despair.
On NAFTA and Globalism: The Democrats' bash-NAFTA extravaganza has yielded one positive outcome: articles from various sources detailing the massive consensus among economists that the United States has benefited economically from free trade, not least from the NAFTA agreement. In the run up to Ohio's primary, anti-NAFTA speech is the only alternative for candidates who can't publicly admit that Ohio's economic woes mostly have to do with the long-term decline of the Big Three auto manufacturers, largely because of their own mismanagement, aided and abetted by the United Auto Workers.
On the Ohio Primary: We urge gentle readers to vote in favor of Issue 10, the Cincinnati Public School's tax levy. This small levy will preserve vital services in a district that performs better than most of its urban peers. (Note to our most rabidly anti-tax, anti-public-school, gentle readers: no one said that the district is less than wasteful and inefficient, just that the alternatives are all worse in the near term.)
On Jeopardy: We belatedly congratulate Walnut Hills High School sophomore Rachel Horn, friend of Daughter of SWNID, on crushing her opponents in the finals of the Jeopardy teen tournament.
Remember the Dancing Hillary Flash Video?
A comment from a web site featuring video of Obama "dancing" on Ellen DeGeneres's program:
SWNID asks those who know: does Obama's dancing surpass SWNID's?
WOW. I LOVE OBAMA! Obama so great. Obama so wonderful. I wish Obama was like canonized right now. He deserves it. Obama is just so awesome. So articulate. So beautiful. So Majestic. I love Obama'a ears. Obama should replace Jesus. Who needs Jesus anyway? He's like so... dead. Obama will open the skies and the trumpets will sound and bliss... OBAMA '08.
-Paid for by friends for Obama. Duuude.
SWNID asks those who know: does Obama's dancing surpass SWNID's?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Recent Global History Lesson
As a late boomer, we commend this entertaining flash presentation to those who haven't lived through the history of the last 60 years but need to know about it, and for those who have and don't mind being reminded of it.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hillary's Rant, Strickland's Two-Step, Obama's Unintentional Praise of McCain
We enjoyed this CNN video for a couple of reasons.
First, it captures Hillary in the full expression of her signature self-righteousness. Title it, "Don't Cross the Queen or You'll Lose Your Head." We figure that this is a close as we'll get to the profanity-enhanced tirades in the White House in which she threw the Republic's china at the Head of State.
Second, it captures Ohio Governor Ted Strickland nervously shifting his weight and his eyes back and forth as he witnesses his chances at a national ticket dissolving before his eyes.
We recommend watching this morning's series of CNN videos a bit further to hear Obama say that McCain wants to continue George Bush's economic and foreign policies. We want to reply, "You got a problem with that? We happen to be partial to lower taxes and safety from terrorists."
First, it captures Hillary in the full expression of her signature self-righteousness. Title it, "Don't Cross the Queen or You'll Lose Your Head." We figure that this is a close as we'll get to the profanity-enhanced tirades in the White House in which she threw the Republic's china at the Head of State.
Second, it captures Ohio Governor Ted Strickland nervously shifting his weight and his eyes back and forth as he witnesses his chances at a national ticket dissolving before his eyes.
We recommend watching this morning's series of CNN videos a bit further to hear Obama say that McCain wants to continue George Bush's economic and foreign policies. We want to reply, "You got a problem with that? We happen to be partial to lower taxes and safety from terrorists."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
That Other Country That Had a Revolution
We thank gentle and erudite reader Scott for pointing us to Gray Lady piece chronicling what has proved to be a controversial proposal from the President of France: that all French schoolchildren should learn the story of a French child who died in the Holocaust.
Sarkozy's most provocative statement about this proposal is undoubtedly this, as reported by the Times:
Fair enough, we say, and true enough. For the French, however, you'd think that the very foundations of the Third Republic had been shattered. The article is fun reading mostly to see how French intellectuals are decrying the proposal. Apparently, a pupil who learns about a child who died at the hand of the Nazis will be permanently traumatized, unable to function in the placid society that is today's enlightened France.
We are reminded again of the two paths taken in the Enlightenment's two great political revolutions. In France the path was anti-clericalism and anti-religious secularism, shot through with radical idealism about the capacity of human reason. In America the path was a sober assessment of human limitations as demonstrated in history and taught in Protestant Christianity, yielding protection of religion from the state as well as the opposite.
We remain convinced that on balance, the path taken by our Republic is better than theirs.
Sarkozy's most provocative statement about this proposal is undoubtedly this, as reported by the Times:
Adding to the national fracas over the announcement, Mr. Sarkozy wrapped his plan in the cloak of religion, placing blame for the wars and violence of the last century on an “absence of God” and calling the Nazi belief in a hierarchy of races “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.”
Fair enough, we say, and true enough. For the French, however, you'd think that the very foundations of the Third Republic had been shattered. The article is fun reading mostly to see how French intellectuals are decrying the proposal. Apparently, a pupil who learns about a child who died at the hand of the Nazis will be permanently traumatized, unable to function in the placid society that is today's enlightened France.
We are reminded again of the two paths taken in the Enlightenment's two great political revolutions. In France the path was anti-clericalism and anti-religious secularism, shot through with radical idealism about the capacity of human reason. In America the path was a sober assessment of human limitations as demonstrated in history and taught in Protestant Christianity, yielding protection of religion from the state as well as the opposite.
We remain convinced that on balance, the path taken by our Republic is better than theirs.
SWNID a Hillary Supporter?
In the last two weeks SWNID has received three phone calls from the Clinton campaign, all assuming that we are inclined to support the New York Junior US Senator's presidential bid.
In one we engaged in conversation for some time with a very polite and articulate campaign worker. When we expressed reservations about Ms. Clinton's role in the 1990s as First Enabler, not something we regard as a positive example for the women of our Republic, the campaign worker, after pausing, replied, "Well, we're trying to steer clear of Bill." Our response, "I wish Hillary had permanently and legally steered clear of Bill in 1998," provoked no further discussion on the subject.
Certainly the image of Ms. Clinton's "readiness" for office is not confirmed by her campaign's inability to recognize someone publicly devoted to the cause represented at this web site.
Still, we find ourselves SWNIDishly ruminating on the vote we will cast on March 4. Shall we take advantage of Ohio's open primary to cast a vote for the Democratic underdog, now Ms. Clinton, hoping to complicate the Democratic party's choice of candidate and thereby boost the chances of our preferred lesser-of-evils, Senator McCain? We are torn between what might be a useful political tactic and the immutable repugnance of even appearing to affirm a Clinton.
So the ironic possibility remains that we will do what the legions of Hillarians who phone our home have begged us to do. Call us again, Clintonistas! We'd love to talk!
In one we engaged in conversation for some time with a very polite and articulate campaign worker. When we expressed reservations about Ms. Clinton's role in the 1990s as First Enabler, not something we regard as a positive example for the women of our Republic, the campaign worker, after pausing, replied, "Well, we're trying to steer clear of Bill." Our response, "I wish Hillary had permanently and legally steered clear of Bill in 1998," provoked no further discussion on the subject.
Certainly the image of Ms. Clinton's "readiness" for office is not confirmed by her campaign's inability to recognize someone publicly devoted to the cause represented at this web site.
Still, we find ourselves SWNIDishly ruminating on the vote we will cast on March 4. Shall we take advantage of Ohio's open primary to cast a vote for the Democratic underdog, now Ms. Clinton, hoping to complicate the Democratic party's choice of candidate and thereby boost the chances of our preferred lesser-of-evils, Senator McCain? We are torn between what might be a useful political tactic and the immutable repugnance of even appearing to affirm a Clinton.
So the ironic possibility remains that we will do what the legions of Hillarians who phone our home have begged us to do. Call us again, Clintonistas! We'd love to talk!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CCU Viral Marketing
Follow this link to see all entrants in the CCU student promotional video contest sponsored by CCU's marketing department.
We are awed by the talent of these amateur videographers.
We are awed by the talent of these amateur videographers.
Bush as Truman
We commend to gentle readers today's WSJ opinion piece by William McGurn, former Bush speechwriter and current NewsCorp executive.
McGurn reminds the skeptical that the much-maligned Bush has been proved right on a number of big issues, like tax cuts, stem-cell research and the Iraq surge. Of course, "proved right" is still subject to interpretation of the data, but data there are.
We'll add two other items to the list headed "Bush was right," namely, Social Security and health insurance.
On the former, Bush advocated the introduction of private investment accounts. As we have noted before, born-again Democrats who insist on a budget surplus and Social Security "lock box" are in effect arguing that Washington should tax people beyond the rate of federal spending and invest the surplus for people's retirement. Bush thinks it's bad for Washington to make investment decisions and good for people to make them for themselves. But in 2007 his proposal died thanks to the doctrinnaire opposition of the Reid-Pelosi Congress.
On the latter, Bush advocated taxing high-end, employer paid health insurance and offering tax deductions or credits for individually purchased policies. The notion was to begin to make it easier for the uninsured to buy insurance and to fund government subsidies for those who can't afford insurance. Again, the proposal died in Congress without as much as a committee hearing.
In all this, we cannot help but compare Bush to Truman, a POTUS beset with a multitude of domestic and foreign problems, confronted by a difficult military situation, sometimes subject to the excesses of his own personality (government control of steel mills was not the greatest of Truman's ideas, nor was his intemperate letter to the critic who reviewed his daughter's voice recital), but over time proved right-headed in his most significant actions.
McGurn reminds the skeptical that the much-maligned Bush has been proved right on a number of big issues, like tax cuts, stem-cell research and the Iraq surge. Of course, "proved right" is still subject to interpretation of the data, but data there are.
We'll add two other items to the list headed "Bush was right," namely, Social Security and health insurance.
On the former, Bush advocated the introduction of private investment accounts. As we have noted before, born-again Democrats who insist on a budget surplus and Social Security "lock box" are in effect arguing that Washington should tax people beyond the rate of federal spending and invest the surplus for people's retirement. Bush thinks it's bad for Washington to make investment decisions and good for people to make them for themselves. But in 2007 his proposal died thanks to the doctrinnaire opposition of the Reid-Pelosi Congress.
On the latter, Bush advocated taxing high-end, employer paid health insurance and offering tax deductions or credits for individually purchased policies. The notion was to begin to make it easier for the uninsured to buy insurance and to fund government subsidies for those who can't afford insurance. Again, the proposal died in Congress without as much as a committee hearing.
In all this, we cannot help but compare Bush to Truman, a POTUS beset with a multitude of domestic and foreign problems, confronted by a difficult military situation, sometimes subject to the excesses of his own personality (government control of steel mills was not the greatest of Truman's ideas, nor was his intemperate letter to the critic who reviewed his daughter's voice recital), but over time proved right-headed in his most significant actions.
Brooks on Obama Comedown Syndrome
David Brooks has been reading comments on this blog, apparently. Today he assesses the "dialogue" between PS/SWNID and JB in CA regarding the Hope Pope, Barak Obama.
We offer a few morsels of quotation (attributed, thereby avoiding the trivially alleged plagiaristic tendencies of the object of discussion:
How long will it persist? At least until November?
We offer a few morsels of quotation (attributed, thereby avoiding the trivially alleged plagiaristic tendencies of the object of discussion:
Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?
If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper. . . .
The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.
But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.
Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.
How long will it persist? At least until November?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Opposing Independence for Kosovo a Surrogate for Domestic Politics
Kosovo has declared independence, and the United States is the first to back it up diplomatically. Certain other nations object. On request of gentle readers, we make the following SWNIDish observations:
- This is the fruit of Wilsonian foreign policy, which in Bush's hands (and oddly in Clinton's hands in this one instance) has become muscular Wilsonianism. We think it's good for the United States to encourage the development of liberty and democracy where it has the opportunity and the means. Albanians in Albania and Kosovo are now the only people in the world who are predominantly Muslim, pro-American, pro-Bush and pro-Clinton. And Bush's trip to Africa highlights the benefits of his enlightened concern for that continent as well, with good results for both sides of the exchange.
- There is no way imaginable that Kosovo could have returned to Serbian control after the murderous ethnic cleansing campaign mounted by the Serbs in the 1990s. Our personal experience in Kosovo was brief, but it included multiple exposure to billboards listing names of hundreds of missing and dead, with the simple, heartbreaking English caption, "We are still missing them." So independence is the only way this episode could go next.
- The nations that are protesting this aren't concerned about Kosovo at all but about their own separatist movements. Those countries probably need to reckon with a couple of realities: (a) their own economic and political development can blunt the felt need for independence among ethnic minorities; (b) membership in the European Union makes such independence much less problematic for those from whom the minorities separate, as they tend to become members of the larger European family.
- The Russians are protesting this not only because they face separatists but because the Russian regime needs foreign enemies to justify its domestic fascism. Russian leaders for centuries have used the myth of Russian-Serbian brotherhood to stoke the fires of nationalism and so to distract Russians from their miserable internal situation. For those who worry about offending Russia, we counter that Russia wants to be offended.
- Kosovo now needs two things: (a) to get some economic development going; (b) to follow through on its pledge to protect its own minorities (as enshrined in the design of its new flag). In other words, it needs something like the economic and political ideals pursued by the "better angels" in the country that it lionizes, the United States.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Obama and Hillary Follow the Loser
Today's WSJ provides an important gut check for Americans infatuated with "change."
Gentle readers will recall a certain faux populist, noted for his excellent hair and recently retired from the contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, who tried to get the big prize by pitting American business interests against American workers. It worked so well for him that he lost every primary in which he ran, including his home state's.
Now the two remaining Democrat candidates, per the perceptive reporters at Murdoch's Crown Jewel, have adopted the soon-forgotten John Edwards's William-Jennings-Bryan-redux rhetoric. NAFTA is bad, trade is bad, corporations are bad, profits are bad. Workers are good, jobs are good, staying in the same assembly-line job all one's life is good.
We draw attention to the obvious, which is our spiritual gift:
Gentle readers will recall a certain faux populist, noted for his excellent hair and recently retired from the contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, who tried to get the big prize by pitting American business interests against American workers. It worked so well for him that he lost every primary in which he ran, including his home state's.
Now the two remaining Democrat candidates, per the perceptive reporters at Murdoch's Crown Jewel, have adopted the soon-forgotten John Edwards's William-Jennings-Bryan-redux rhetoric. NAFTA is bad, trade is bad, corporations are bad, profits are bad. Workers are good, jobs are good, staying in the same assembly-line job all one's life is good.
We draw attention to the obvious, which is our spiritual gift:
- Stable manufacturing jobs depend on corporations that make a profit, as the recent history of the American automobile industry illustrates negatively.
- The candidates of "change" are this week running on rhetoric that eschews change in favor of somehow restoring the American economy that existed briefly between the end of World War II and the beginning of the microchip revolution.
- This political strategy failed Edwards but is for some mystical reason now embraced by his surviving former rivals who are locked in life-or-death struggle.
Pardon us if for genuine change we continue to look toward the GOP, whose sole surviving candidate is sensibly recommending that we reduce our highest-in-the-developed-world rate of corporate taxation as a means of becoming more competitive globally. That's true populism.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Varieties of Baptist Experience
We want gentle readers to appreciate this juxtaposition.
The first is a YouTube video* of a Baptist minister preaching on a phrase in the KJV that probably offends certain elements of contemporary taste. It was forwarded to us by a professional colleague who savored it as an example of, shall we say delicately, biblical interpretation that eschews thoughtful principles. And let's just say that it represents what is one extreme of the Baptist movement in the United States at present.
The second is an article from the utterly necessary WSJ detailing the recent "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant," a gathering of Baptists sympathetic to the views of former President and current Embarrassment Jimmy Carter. We quote this paragraph as a taste of an event not widely covered in the media:
We SWNIDishly enjoy exposure to these extremes of someone else's ecclesial family, reminded that our kooks are not much different from anyone else's kooks.**
_________________
*We link rather than embed out of respect for those gentle readers who would rather not hear a minister of the gospel repeatedly use an English term that was more socially acceptable in the 17th century than it is today.
**Thanks to Professor Jacob Neusner for once formulating the dogma of kooks on a Firing Line program in the 1990s.
The first is a YouTube video* of a Baptist minister preaching on a phrase in the KJV that probably offends certain elements of contemporary taste. It was forwarded to us by a professional colleague who savored it as an example of, shall we say delicately, biblical interpretation that eschews thoughtful principles. And let's just say that it represents what is one extreme of the Baptist movement in the United States at present.
The second is an article from the utterly necessary WSJ detailing the recent "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant," a gathering of Baptists sympathetic to the views of former President and current Embarrassment Jimmy Carter. We quote this paragraph as a taste of an event not widely covered in the media:
Novelist John Grisham offered an audience of several thousand his advice for how "we as Baptists [can] disarm our critics" (as if that should be their main concern). "Stay out of politics," he advised. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "politics." Mr. Grisham made sure to mention the need to eliminate the death penalty. Earlier in the day, activist Marian Wright Edelman advocated reaching out across political divides to solve the problems of America's children -- by making sure, for instance, that the Bush tax cuts don't become permanent. (Just how such folks will handle fiscal matters when they get into power became clear when a Covenant official addressed the crowd: He asked for several dollars more than had been previously requested, since each printed program ended up costing $3 to produce, not $2.)
We SWNIDishly enjoy exposure to these extremes of someone else's ecclesial family, reminded that our kooks are not much different from anyone else's kooks.**
_________________
*We link rather than embed out of respect for those gentle readers who would rather not hear a minister of the gospel repeatedly use an English term that was more socially acceptable in the 17th century than it is today.
**Thanks to Professor Jacob Neusner for once formulating the dogma of kooks on a Firing Line program in the 1990s.
The Great Kemp to Conservatives: Get a Grip, Support McCain
SWNID is a Jack Kemp Republican. Jack Kemp is Seldom Wrong. He should have been at least Chief-Executive-in-Waiting, if life were just.
In a recent column Jack Kemp reminds conservatives, the people who supposedly enjoy reading history, that certain Great Conservatives were distrusted by their conservative peers. The result was not the glory of the skeptics.
The point is that conservatives need to get over their animosity toward Senator McCain and channel their energy into getting him elected.
But judging by the comments on the article, most conservatives would rather watch their cause go into the deep freeze for eight years than reward someone who occasionally deviated from orthodoxy and party discipline.
In a recent column Jack Kemp reminds conservatives, the people who supposedly enjoy reading history, that certain Great Conservatives were distrusted by their conservative peers. The result was not the glory of the skeptics.
The point is that conservatives need to get over their animosity toward Senator McCain and channel their energy into getting him elected.
But judging by the comments on the article, most conservatives would rather watch their cause go into the deep freeze for eight years than reward someone who occasionally deviated from orthodoxy and party discipline.
WHHS Student Obliterates Jeopardy Opponents
We offer SWNIDish congratulations to friend-of-daughter-of-SWNID and Walnut Hills High School sophomore Rachel Horn on her massive triumph on Jeopardy last night.
Horn proves what we say all the time about WHHS: it's a place that nurtures teens' academic abilities rather nicely. There's nothing trivial about it.
Horn proves what we say all the time about WHHS: it's a place that nurtures teens' academic abilities rather nicely. There's nothing trivial about it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Jazz at the Top: Fans Ask Why
We would like to impute good taste to our Republic with the announcement that jazz giant Herbie Hancock's River is the Grammy winner for Album of the Year.
But with critics like Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune, we can't.
Kot calls the award a lifetime achievement surrogate for a recording that isn't the artist's best, given in a year when members of the academy didn't want to vote for other nominees for various nonmusical reasons.
We wonder whether it wasn't also a vote, like the Oscar votes for An Inconvenient Truth and Nobel votes for Gore's warm globaloney, that is a surrogate for the presidential election. Herbie is notable as an Obama Brahmin, after all.
But, to borrow a phrase, whatever. Listening to an OK Herbie Hancock recording is better than listening to the best pop recording in any year.
But with critics like Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune, we can't.
Kot calls the award a lifetime achievement surrogate for a recording that isn't the artist's best, given in a year when members of the academy didn't want to vote for other nominees for various nonmusical reasons.
We wonder whether it wasn't also a vote, like the Oscar votes for An Inconvenient Truth and Nobel votes for Gore's warm globaloney, that is a surrogate for the presidential election. Herbie is notable as an Obama Brahmin, after all.
But, to borrow a phrase, whatever. Listening to an OK Herbie Hancock recording is better than listening to the best pop recording in any year.
Political Prophet Brooks: Dem President Will Outrage Dems
The Gray Lady's token center-right commentator David Brooks today offers a reality check, by way of certain-to-be-true prognostication, on Democratic hopes for hope in a Democratic presidency. The obvious truth that Brooks soberly exposes is that neither potential Democratic POTUS will be able to fulfill promises to the party's base to withdraw American troops from Iraq or initiate massive the federal programs with their attendant spending. That is, neither will be able to do so without creating disasters that will expose the lie of the left's agenda.
Brooks is best when he points out that the same contradiction was at the heart of the 1992 Clinton campaign. Remember the middle-class tax cut that evaporated a week after the election? Robert Rubin's fiscal realities crashed Robert Reich's hope for change. And we doubt that Slick Willie was the least bit surprised.
In the harsh light of obvious realities, "Yes we can"--really the appeal of both Democrats, whose policy positions, insofar as they are available to us, are indistinguishable--becomes yet another vapid, positive-thinking mantra that really amounts to shallow self-delusion.
SWNID repeats our own parable on such matters. Simply wanting an outcome deeply is no assurance that the outcome is possible. SWNID may want to dunk a basketball through a rim at standard height using no artificial means of attaining altitude. SWNID may work hard at improving our vertical jump for said outcome. But SWNID's bitter and obvious reality is shortness and middle age, preventing even our most dearly held hoop dreams from becoming reality.
Before "Yes we can" must come answers to fundamental questions, like "What can we do with what we have?"
Brooks is best when he points out that the same contradiction was at the heart of the 1992 Clinton campaign. Remember the middle-class tax cut that evaporated a week after the election? Robert Rubin's fiscal realities crashed Robert Reich's hope for change. And we doubt that Slick Willie was the least bit surprised.
In the harsh light of obvious realities, "Yes we can"--really the appeal of both Democrats, whose policy positions, insofar as they are available to us, are indistinguishable--becomes yet another vapid, positive-thinking mantra that really amounts to shallow self-delusion.
SWNID repeats our own parable on such matters. Simply wanting an outcome deeply is no assurance that the outcome is possible. SWNID may want to dunk a basketball through a rim at standard height using no artificial means of attaining altitude. SWNID may work hard at improving our vertical jump for said outcome. But SWNID's bitter and obvious reality is shortness and middle age, preventing even our most dearly held hoop dreams from becoming reality.
Before "Yes we can" must come answers to fundamental questions, like "What can we do with what we have?"
Saturday, February 09, 2008
We Ask Three Questions About Hillary
On our own: why is no one commenting on the weirdness of Senator Clinton loaning $5 million to her own campaign. We know that she had to hustle to get a grip on the upper middle class as a governor's wife, corporate lawyer and cattle-futures speculator. We know that she wrote books that made a lot of royalties, ostensibly donated to charity. We know that Senators and Presidents make low six figures. We know that her husband is the world's best paid public speaker. We assume that she and Bill maintain some separate assets (and other separate stuff), given the nature of their relationship. So we figure that she has some money but isn't rich the way a lot of politicians, who were born to money (cf. any Kennedy) or had big business interests (cf. any Bush) before entering politics, are rich.
We know that she desperately wants to be POTUS.
But she's willing to part with $5 million of her own swag, wherever it came from, to try to do it? How desperate is she, anyway?
With Peggy Noonan: what will Senator Clinton do now that she's losing? Is she capable of doing what Romney did? Or will she destroy herself and damage her party in what's starting to look like certain defeat?
On our own again: it's widely assumed at this moment that Senator Clinton has a decent chance to defeat Senator Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Is this because old-line, lunch-bucket, union-member, factory-worker, white Democrats won't vote for the black guy? So is Senator Clinton willing to become the Democrat who revives the party's segregationist roots?
We know that she desperately wants to be POTUS.
But she's willing to part with $5 million of her own swag, wherever it came from, to try to do it? How desperate is she, anyway?
With Peggy Noonan: what will Senator Clinton do now that she's losing? Is she capable of doing what Romney did? Or will she destroy herself and damage her party in what's starting to look like certain defeat?
On our own again: it's widely assumed at this moment that Senator Clinton has a decent chance to defeat Senator Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Is this because old-line, lunch-bucket, union-member, factory-worker, white Democrats won't vote for the black guy? So is Senator Clinton willing to become the Democrat who revives the party's segregationist roots?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
When Celebrities Unite, SWNID Wants to Run Away
A bunch of Hollywood types have joined to create a video incorporating words from an Obama speech with some things that resemble music.
There's creativity in this thing. But there's also creepiness. We think Obama is a very able guy. If his voting record in the Senate weren't so at odds with everything that we hold to be true, we'd seriously consider voting for him.
But this is starting to look like a personality cult. There's not a word of substance in this speech, and there's little substance in anything that seems to come from him. Of course, why deal in boring specifics when you can get folks going with positive-thinking mantras like this?
But we'll say that the worst of this is that Herbie Hancock has been reduced to plopping down a few chords in these bland changes and tinkling a couple of ornaments on top near the end.
There's creativity in this thing. But there's also creepiness. We think Obama is a very able guy. If his voting record in the Senate weren't so at odds with everything that we hold to be true, we'd seriously consider voting for him.
But this is starting to look like a personality cult. There's not a word of substance in this speech, and there's little substance in anything that seems to come from him. Of course, why deal in boring specifics when you can get folks going with positive-thinking mantras like this?
But we'll say that the worst of this is that Herbie Hancock has been reduced to plopping down a few chords in these bland changes and tinkling a couple of ornaments on top near the end.
Romney "Suspends," So Dems Now Have Big Problem
The big, unexpected breaking news is that Mitt is "suspending" his campaign. On the fly with even less contemplation than usual, we opine the following:
- Suspended campaigns never get revived. Mitt is done for 08.
- There's so obviously no hope for Huckabee (and we won't mention the man with two first names who's alleged by some to be a Republican candidate). If Huck doesn't drop out soon, he'll look like a party pooper, while Mitt looks extremely classy and statesmanlike.
- To be sure, Mitt probably realized it would take more of his own millions to make a go, and a man who earned that much money isn't likely to throw it away on a quixotic campaign.
- So McCain is the nominee for sure and can now start acting presidential. With condolences to Mitt's and Huck's and even Paul's supporters among our gentle readers, we invite all to rally around the inevitable lesser of two evils (the nature of every political choice in our Republic or any other) in November. On this we will even extend grace to the likes of Ann Coulter, who is surely a regular reader of this blog, though not apparently inclined to listen on the first round.
- This is a HUGE problem for the Dems, who look set to have a tough fight that may go until the convention and involve litigation, which is how Democrats prefer to settle close elections these days. While their candidates destroy each other, McCain can look like a statesman.
- Romney is well positioned to win the GOP nomination in 2012 or 2016, depending on whether McCain wins and whether, if he wins, he runs for a second term at his advanced age. Republicans have largely nominated people who have been VP, are related to a recent president, or were the most recent runner up for the nomination. If Jeb Bush doesn't run, that means that on the next contested nomination Romney would need only defeat McCain's VP if McCain is elected.
- Of course, Romney may become McCain's VP. But we're still for Lindsey Graham. Or Colin Powell. Or Condi Rice.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Dirt Cookies in Haiti
The desperation of the world's poorest citizens is well illustrated in this AP article on hunger in Haiti.
We won't dare to offer a comprehensive solution to the profound problems of the Western Hemisphere's poorest nation. We agree with the opinion offered several years ago in the Atlantic by a former US State Department official who said that Haiti's economic problems are rooted in the worldview of voodoo, which creates the social chaos that makes even a subsistence economy impossible. Hence, opined the retired diplomat, the only solution to Haiti's problems is religious conversion.
We do suggest, however, that those who believe that because they have received the grace of God, they must live graciously can alleviate some of the problem, at least for many, with their generosity. We can't make Haiti "work," but we can feed some suffering Haitians.
As is our habit, we recommend gifts to International Disaster Emergency Services, which regularly funds feeding programs administered by churches in Haiti. You gift will have tremendous impact if channeled through that highly efficient organization.
Update: The article we referenced is Lawrence E. Harrison, "Voodoo Politics," Atlantic 271:6 (June 1993) 101-07. For those with access to EBSCO Host (CCU library users and others with similar access), the article can be accessed here (from outside CCU's network) or here (from within CCU's network). We have discussed the article with our most excellent Haitian friends, who agree heartily with its conclusion, though we recognize that not all are persuaded. Harrison is more recently the author of The Central Liberal Truth, which argues that culture is the primary determinant of a country's prosperity. Harrison's is not a popular position in the circles he frequents, but he has the advantage that evidence seems to favor his conclusion.
We won't dare to offer a comprehensive solution to the profound problems of the Western Hemisphere's poorest nation. We agree with the opinion offered several years ago in the Atlantic by a former US State Department official who said that Haiti's economic problems are rooted in the worldview of voodoo, which creates the social chaos that makes even a subsistence economy impossible. Hence, opined the retired diplomat, the only solution to Haiti's problems is religious conversion.
We do suggest, however, that those who believe that because they have received the grace of God, they must live graciously can alleviate some of the problem, at least for many, with their generosity. We can't make Haiti "work," but we can feed some suffering Haitians.
As is our habit, we recommend gifts to International Disaster Emergency Services, which regularly funds feeding programs administered by churches in Haiti. You gift will have tremendous impact if channeled through that highly efficient organization.
Update: The article we referenced is Lawrence E. Harrison, "Voodoo Politics," Atlantic 271:6 (June 1993) 101-07. For those with access to EBSCO Host (CCU library users and others with similar access), the article can be accessed here (from outside CCU's network) or here (from within CCU's network). We have discussed the article with our most excellent Haitian friends, who agree heartily with its conclusion, though we recognize that not all are persuaded. Harrison is more recently the author of The Central Liberal Truth, which argues that culture is the primary determinant of a country's prosperity. Harrison's is not a popular position in the circles he frequents, but he has the advantage that evidence seems to favor his conclusion.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Today's WSJ opinion page is graced by an article ascribed to the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is apparently running for President. In said article, Ms. Rodham Clinton purports to offer her formula for restored American prosperity.
We hope to offer point-by-point observations on Ms. Rodham Clinton's program, should time allow. For now, we can suggest only a few points to consider.
We hope to offer point-by-point observations on Ms. Rodham Clinton's program, should time allow. For now, we can suggest only a few points to consider.
- Much of this program merely announces intentions, not the means to fulfilling those intentions.
- At the center is what Ms. Rodham Clinton describes as the "most aggressive" plan to address health care (really health insurance). We note that her plan is the most aggressive because it is the most radical departure from the present system, about which a large majority of Americans express personal satisfaction, though worrying about others' health insurance. We are reminded of a famous remark from the ever-insightful P. J. O'Rourke: "If you think that health care is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
- We note that in Massachusetts, Governor Romney's mandated health insurance, like Ms. Rodham Clinton's plan, has driven up costs enormously and not created universal insurance. Somehow, when government pays for something, it becomes more expensive.
- Overall, Ms. Rodham Clinton apparently does not believe that a problem as complex and longstanding as health insurance should be addressed incrementally. She favors sweeping, aggressive, immediate change for a problem whose roots are in the price and wage controls of the 1940s and whose span encompasses the single largest segment of the economy, not to mention the lives and health of all the Republic's citizens. If in the health care game America is behind five runs in the bottom of the 9th with no runners on base, Ms. Rodham Clinton apparently believes that the best strategy is to swing from the heels.
- Ms. Rodham Clinton's discussion of health care in particular and govenment in general is laced with language about controlling costs. That means, of course, limiting the availability of certain kinds of services. The notion that government can be more efficient than private enterprise in distributing services has little theoretical or empirical support. At any rate, we recall that Vice President Gore was charged with comprehensive governmental reform in the 1990s. And how did that help, exactly?
- Much of what is presented as policies for the economic well being of all is actually for the benefit of certain favored classes. Specifically, we wonder how a program to get more women and minorities in STEM careers is important for global competetiveness, as opposed to getting more Americans in general in those fields (if indeed more are needed, an open question according to many statistics). We wonder too how making it possible for a union to organize a shop without a secret ballot, the so-(Orwellian-)called Employee Free Choice Act, will accomplish prosperity for anyone, least of all in a global economy.
- Ms. Rodham Clinton speaks as if the only efficacious investment is government investment of tax funds. Our future depends on government spending on research and development, not on, say, reducing the corporate tax burden so that American industry can research its own solutions that are economically viable.
- Ms. Rodham Clinton's plan to encourage savings is coupled with promises to make savings unnecessary: shoring up Social Security, providing more government funds for higher education, solving the housing problem, providing more direct payments to the unemployed and underemployed, providing health insurance as an entitlement. The reason to save (concern about the future) evaporates if her ambitious goals are fulfilled in other areas. Ironically enough, Americans' failure to save is most optimally explained because of their relative lack of concern for their futures, thanks to the belief that government will bail them out (rather similar to the reason that mortgage lenders threw caution to the subprime wind). Ms. Rodham Clinton would have us believe that we are extremely anxious about the future but unable to save for it without an external incentive.
- Furthermore, a program of tax breaks for retirement savings sounds very much like the Bush plan to allow a part of payroll taxes to be devoted to individually controlled retirement accounts, something that Ms. Rodham Clinton vigorously opposed. We are not altogether sure why this means of accounting is better to her, except that it has the government doing more handling of the money.
- We remember the great promises of 1992, including the middle-class tax cut. Another Clinton withdrew that promise days after the election, claiming that his new access to government figures (actually the OMB's estimate of the federal deficit, a matter of public record) made him realize that such a tax cut was impossible. In this case, Ms. Rodham Clinton tells us that the plan for paying for all this is on her web site. We looked at the site and will note that (a) on the home page there's no obvious link to the pay-for-it part of the Grand Plan: (b) Google doesn't find any occurrence on the site of the phrase "pay for my economic plan," the very phrase in the WSJ article that is supposedly explained on the site.
In sum, we recall a deservedly famous song by the Who that summarizes our outlook on all these wonderful plans. For those who prefer a different kind of summation, there's always Barry Goldwater's.
Log of Superbowl Statements from Senators Kerry, Clinton, Others
We provide gentle readers with an overlooked part of Superbowl festivities, namely a log of statements made during the game by US Senators from the home states of the two teams, plus some other relevant stuff.
Pregame Joint Statement from Senators Kerry and Clinton: While we do not trust the Bush administration to provide the leadership that America needs to provide a Superbowl that will restore our nation's security at home and its respect abroad, we nevertheless affirm the pressing need for America to engage in this historic struggle. We vote to authorize the Super Bowl.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 5:01 in 1st Quarter: While I supported this game initially, I am now opposed to it. Intelligence that had the Patriots as favorites was clearly trumped up by the Bush administration, one of the many lies that this President has told the American people. I urge an end to this game as soon as possible, as a Patriot's victory is now clearly impossible.
Statement from Senator Clinton at 14:57 in 2nd Quarter: Had I known at the beginning of this game what I know now, I never would have supported it. Our only course of action is to end this game immediately. America's sports resources need to be devoted to the real contest, the NBA championship. Or NASCAR, if you're from the South, like I am, y'all.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 11:05 in 4th Quarter: It is by now clear to everyone that the Bush administration has completely mismanaged this game. Not another drop of Patriot blood should be shed for this unjust and unwinnable contest. I urge the President to withdraw our forces immediately.
Statement from Senator Clinton at 5:12 in 4th Quarter: I am the only person who can bring a dignified end to the debacle that this Super Bowl has become. I have the experience necessary to lead our country out of the quagmire that the Bush administration has created and bring our New York Giants home. Not another minute should be spent on this unwinnable game.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 2:07 in the 4th Quarter: This game was built on a lie to the American people. We were told that the Giants would welcome us as liberators. Instead we are engaged in a contest based on false intelligence foisted on us by the neocons who run the Bush administration. Not even my lucky hat is enough to bring victory to our New England Patriots.
Statement from Bill Belichick at 0:02 in the 4th Quarter: I've had enough of these statements, and I'm more embarrassed by these Senators than by my team's performance. Let's end this thing now.
Statement from House Speakere Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid During Postgame: President Bush's cronyism and tax cuts for the rich have yielded yet another injustice for the American people. In the last two years, the Super Bowl MVP award has gone to 0.07% of the families of NFL players. America's working families deserve better. We call on the President to redress the imbalance created by his unjust policies. Mr. President, it's time we restored the American Dream for everyone!
Pregame Joint Statement from Senators Kerry and Clinton: While we do not trust the Bush administration to provide the leadership that America needs to provide a Superbowl that will restore our nation's security at home and its respect abroad, we nevertheless affirm the pressing need for America to engage in this historic struggle. We vote to authorize the Super Bowl.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 5:01 in 1st Quarter: While I supported this game initially, I am now opposed to it. Intelligence that had the Patriots as favorites was clearly trumped up by the Bush administration, one of the many lies that this President has told the American people. I urge an end to this game as soon as possible, as a Patriot's victory is now clearly impossible.
Statement from Senator Clinton at 14:57 in 2nd Quarter: Had I known at the beginning of this game what I know now, I never would have supported it. Our only course of action is to end this game immediately. America's sports resources need to be devoted to the real contest, the NBA championship. Or NASCAR, if you're from the South, like I am, y'all.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 11:05 in 4th Quarter: It is by now clear to everyone that the Bush administration has completely mismanaged this game. Not another drop of Patriot blood should be shed for this unjust and unwinnable contest. I urge the President to withdraw our forces immediately.
Statement from Senator Clinton at 5:12 in 4th Quarter: I am the only person who can bring a dignified end to the debacle that this Super Bowl has become. I have the experience necessary to lead our country out of the quagmire that the Bush administration has created and bring our New York Giants home. Not another minute should be spent on this unwinnable game.
Statement from Senator Kerry at 2:07 in the 4th Quarter: This game was built on a lie to the American people. We were told that the Giants would welcome us as liberators. Instead we are engaged in a contest based on false intelligence foisted on us by the neocons who run the Bush administration. Not even my lucky hat is enough to bring victory to our New England Patriots.
Statement from Bill Belichick at 0:02 in the 4th Quarter: I've had enough of these statements, and I'm more embarrassed by these Senators than by my team's performance. Let's end this thing now.
Statement from House Speakere Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid During Postgame: President Bush's cronyism and tax cuts for the rich have yielded yet another injustice for the American people. In the last two years, the Super Bowl MVP award has gone to 0.07% of the families of NFL players. America's working families deserve better. We call on the President to redress the imbalance created by his unjust policies. Mr. President, it's time we restored the American Dream for everyone!
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Old St. George Suffers Fire in Spires
We alert our global readership of former Cincinnatians that the spires of the historic Old St. George church building burned last night. Recently a center for eclectic community and religious activities and more recently closed, the building on the National Historic Register, increasingly a white elephant, now may be doomed to destruction.
We hold many fond memories of OSJ, where we attended theatrical performances, weddings, receptions and other events and where members of our own circle of friends sometimes resided. Like other local landmarks important in our personal experience (the original Skyline Chili location, CCU's Old Main, Grammer's Restaurant, Riverfront Stadium, WNOP), it may now slip into nothing except such memories.
We hold many fond memories of OSJ, where we attended theatrical performances, weddings, receptions and other events and where members of our own circle of friends sometimes resided. Like other local landmarks important in our personal experience (the original Skyline Chili location, CCU's Old Main, Grammer's Restaurant, Riverfront Stadium, WNOP), it may now slip into nothing except such memories.
24, Past and Future
We thank gentle reader Rob for directing us to this paleodigital trailer of the early exploits of Jack Bauer:
We direct gentle readers further to the informative article on the travails of 24 production for Season 7 in this day's WSJ. Besides the writers' strike and the problems of keeping any television franchise fresh, producers are struggling with Hollywood culture's reaction to charges that the show has normalized torture.
And so we challenge the comic minds who created the video above to make a second that examines 24 in the political environment of the 1990s. Maybe Jack trying to stop a corrupt cattle futures or real estate deal, head off an extramarital tryst, or prevent a corrupt presidential pardon?
Meanwhile, it appears that the cursed Audrey has been revived and thanks to the trauma of her Chinese incarceration been transformed into a bimbo featured on Lipstick Jungle, a program whose name and publicity demonstrate it so patently execrable that we promise never to watch once or comment upon again. We do thank the show for one public service, however: the assurance of no more Audrey sightings on what's left of our favorite TV experience.
We direct gentle readers further to the informative article on the travails of 24 production for Season 7 in this day's WSJ. Besides the writers' strike and the problems of keeping any television franchise fresh, producers are struggling with Hollywood culture's reaction to charges that the show has normalized torture.
And so we challenge the comic minds who created the video above to make a second that examines 24 in the political environment of the 1990s. Maybe Jack trying to stop a corrupt cattle futures or real estate deal, head off an extramarital tryst, or prevent a corrupt presidential pardon?
Meanwhile, it appears that the cursed Audrey has been revived and thanks to the trauma of her Chinese incarceration been transformed into a bimbo featured on Lipstick Jungle, a program whose name and publicity demonstrate it so patently execrable that we promise never to watch once or comment upon again. We do thank the show for one public service, however: the assurance of no more Audrey sightings on what's left of our favorite TV experience.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Inevitable? Price Hill Girls Launches Web Site, T-Shirts
We point gentle readers to the newly launched PriceHillGirls.com, clearly destined to celebrate the music video and cultural phenomenon for as long as people have interest.
The enterprising gentlemen who created the song and its video presentation are selling t-shirts via the web site. And in a move that ought to silence critics once and for all, they are donating proceeds to organizations doing charitable work in Price Hill.
The enterprising gentlemen who created the song and its video presentation are selling t-shirts via the web site. And in a move that ought to silence critics once and for all, they are donating proceeds to organizations doing charitable work in Price Hill.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
McCain Doing What Frontrunner Should: Run in Front
We take heart that John McCain, who appears more certain every day to be the GOP nominee, leads both Democratic frontrunners rather nicely in the latest Rasmussen head-to-head.
There's reason to hope in the bleak midwinter.
There's reason to hope in the bleak midwinter.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Onion Takes Layers off Edwards
We are SWNID, and we have approved this message:
Mysterious Traveler Entrances Town With Utopian Vision Of The Future
Update: The mysterious traveler has apparently made his exit. But is it final? Will he reappear in the cabinet? Will he revisit in four years? in eight? Will he franchise legal services nationwide and appear on ads during Maury Povich's show?
Mysterious Traveler Entrances Town With Utopian Vision Of The Future
Update: The mysterious traveler has apparently made his exit. But is it final? Will he reappear in the cabinet? Will he revisit in four years? in eight? Will he franchise legal services nationwide and appear on ads during Maury Povich's show?
Hooking-Up Culture Examined
Inside Higher Ed today offers an interview with sociologist Kathleen A. Bogle, author of Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus. For those with an interest in the way undergraduates tend to live their lives these days, the interview has significant data, expressed with remarkable insight.
Some findings that we found interesting, though unsurprising:
It's not hard to draw some conclusions from this:
Some findings that we found interesting, though unsurprising:
- Students believe that there's more hooking up happening on their campus than actually is, though there's still a lot.
- Alcohol abuse plays a big role in hooking up.
- Students who engage in the hooking-up culture as undergrads find it difficult to transition to dating, which most attempt after leaving college.
- Women who hook up express dissatisfaction at the way that hooking up tends not to lead to long term relationships; men who hook up are mostly unconcerned.
- Students, mostly women, express discomfort with the "walk of shame," i.e. walking home in the morning after a hook-up, wearing the same clothes they wore the night before.
It's not hard to draw some conclusions from this:
- Humans function best sexually in permanent, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and practices that deviate from that are destructive to their humanity.
- The present, dominant view of sexual relations in the dominant American culture represents the triumph of selfish men at the immediate expense of compliant women but ultimately to the degradation of all.
- Despite our best efforts to talk ourselves out of it, most of us can't escape feeling shame for things that we intuitively recognize are wrong.
- People should realize that if they need excessive alcohol to be willing to do something, that something shouldn't be done.
Monday, January 28, 2008
SWNID Associate Featured in Nationally Syndicated Comic Strip
We congratulate SWNIDish colleague Professor James Snyder on becoming a character in Doonesbury.
WSJ Beats SWNID to Analytical Punch Again
On Bill Clinton's shameless playing of the race card in SC, we defer to the sublime opinionists at WSJ, who say quicker and smarter what we would say if we weren't so slow and stupid.
Some brief teaser quotes:
The old Clinton complaint about "the politics of personal destruction" now comes full circle, and what was thoroughly apparent to all but Clinton's most devoted sycophants in 1998 is even more apparent to everyone in 2008.
Update: Also not to be missed is Christopher Hitchens's reminder that playing the race card is nothing new for William Jefferson Clinton. The conclusion is vintage Hitchens:
Some brief teaser quotes:
Anyone who thinks this was accidental has spent too much time with Sid Blumenthal. . . .
This primary contest has been a rolling revelation for many Democrats and the media, as they've been shocked to see the Clinton brand of divisive politics played against one of their own. Liberal columnists who long idolized the Clintons are even writing more-in-sorrow-than-anger pieces asking how Bill and Hillary could descend to such deceptive tactics. Allow us to answer that lament this way: Our readers aren't surprised.
The old Clinton complaint about "the politics of personal destruction" now comes full circle, and what was thoroughly apparent to all but Clinton's most devoted sycophants in 1998 is even more apparent to everyone in 2008.
Update: Also not to be missed is Christopher Hitchens's reminder that playing the race card is nothing new for William Jefferson Clinton. The conclusion is vintage Hitchens:
Say what you will about Sen. Obama (and I say that he's got much more charisma than guts), he is miles above this sort of squalor and has decent manners. Say what you will about the Clintons, you cannot acquit them of having played the race card several times in both directions and of having done so in the most vulgar and unscrupulous fashion. Anyone who thinks that this equals "change" is a fool, and an easily fooled fool at that.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
In Super Bowl Run-Up, Dems Decry Growing Championship Inequality
Democratic Party leaders today decried the growing inequality in Super Bowl championships under the Bush administration.
Anticipating the inevitable victory of the New England Patriots next weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement:
Anticipating the inevitable victory of the New England Patriots next weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement:
Under the shortsighted policies of the Bush administration, the NFL has become a haven for the wealthy football fatcats at the expense of working American families. Since Bush became President, the New England Patriots, representing merely 3% of the NFL, have won or will win 50% of all Super Bowl rings. The other 97% of the NFL must subsist on whatever trickles down from the rest.Further, 50% of NFL teams have never won a Super Bowl championship, and nearly 20% have never even appeared in a Super Bowl. Meanwhile, President Bush has spent our government's treasury into debt and pursued an illegal war in Iraq, while his rich, country-club cronies enjoy Super Bowl championships. Surely this makes him the worst President in our nation's history.
It is past time that every American football fan had the opportunity to get moderately drunk, paint herself in team colors, pound her chest and shake her upraised index finger in celebration of her team's Super Bowl triumph. We have not put into practice the democratic ideals on which this country was founded until every American football fan can truly chant, "We're number one!" Americans will wait no longer for this injustice to be remedied.
We will therefore introduce in the United States Congress the Football Equality Act of 2008. This bill will mandate that the most successful NFL teams pay a windfall-championship tax on excessive championships. Proceeds will be distributed to teams with the fewest wins in the NFL, with extended benefits for those, like the Cleveland Brown, that have never appeared in a Super Bowl.
We urge President Bush to give his support to this bill and to declare in his State of the Union Address his determination to cooperate with us in correcting this unjust inequality of football championships. We warn that the American voters will hold him and his party accountable if he does not. It is a failure of this administration that it has trampled on the right of Americans to celebrate their team's championship, thereby destroying the American Dream for so many of our country's working families.
Reason Enough to Vote Republican in November
Ultimate Beltway Insider Robert Novak today reports that the Obama camp is leaking word that John Edwards will be AG in an Obama administration.
The move is patently designed to lure Edwards's labor supporters to Obama over Clinton and pre-emptively to secure Edwards's support in a split convention.
If you'd like the Justice Department run by the equivalent of the guys who advertise legal services on the Jerry Springer Show, it looks like you've got your wish.
Of course, if Hillary prevails as expected and becomes POTUS, the whole government will be run by the equivalent of a Springer guest.
The move is patently designed to lure Edwards's labor supporters to Obama over Clinton and pre-emptively to secure Edwards's support in a split convention.
If you'd like the Justice Department run by the equivalent of the guys who advertise legal services on the Jerry Springer Show, it looks like you've got your wish.
Of course, if Hillary prevails as expected and becomes POTUS, the whole government will be run by the equivalent of a Springer guest.
Why We're Actually on the Right Track
Despite the midwinter gloom, stock market slide, miserable level of political dialogue, resurgence of the disturbing Clintonistas, and obsessive local controversy about undergraduate rappers, SWNID remains optimistic. To put it negatively, we simply can't understand why millions of Americans tell pollsters that the country is on the "wrong track."
To explain, we recommend two superb pieces of journalism on politics and economics, excellent weekend reads for those who read on weekends.
The first is Mark Steyn's recent address at Hillsdale College, recently published in abridged form by Hillsdale's Imprimis publication. With the sly title, "Is Canada's Economy a Model for the US?" Stein with signature wit manages to point out everything that is right about the American way and everything that is wrong with the Nanny State of the North. We offer a couple of quotations in hope of inducing gentle readers to read in full:
The second is an article dated 24 January 2008 in the Economist, generally regarded as the globe's premier news magazine and decidedly committed to the middle of the road on all matters. Would it make folks feel better about things to know that at present the world's poor are getting un-poor at a rate far, far faster than any previous point in history? It certainly warms our SWNIDish heart on an otherwise cold morning.
For those who complain that global capitalism and technology don't solve all problems, we offer a loud "Amen!" Our conviction that human nature is fallen suggest that nothing short of conversion genuinely alters the human condition at its core. But the concern for others dictated by the gospel that converts us also dictates that we seek what is best for the many out of what is possible for the fallen. That best remains relatively free markets and free trade, which harness human creativity and local advantages for the benefit of others despite and even through human selfish interests.
Our neighbors to the north provide a contrast on the negative while the planet as a whole provides an example on the positive.
To explain, we recommend two superb pieces of journalism on politics and economics, excellent weekend reads for those who read on weekends.
The first is Mark Steyn's recent address at Hillsdale College, recently published in abridged form by Hillsdale's Imprimis publication. With the sly title, "Is Canada's Economy a Model for the US?" Stein with signature wit manages to point out everything that is right about the American way and everything that is wrong with the Nanny State of the North. We offer a couple of quotations in hope of inducing gentle readers to read in full:
I was a bit stunned to be asked to speak on the Canadian economy. “What happened?” I wondered. “Did the guy who was going to talk about the Belgian economy cancel?” It is a Saturday night, and the Oak Ridge Boys are playing the Hillsdale County Fair. Being from Canada myself, I am, as the President likes to say, one of those immigrants doing the jobs Americans won’t do. And if giving a talk on the Canadian economy on a Saturday night when the Oak Ridge Boys are in town isn’t one of the jobs Americans won’t do, I don’t know what is. . . .
The third difference [between Canada and the US] is that Canada’s economy is more subsidized. Almost every activity amounts to taking government money in some form or other. I was at the Summit of the Americas held in Canada in the summer of 2001, with President Bush and the presidents and prime ministers from Latin America and the Caribbean. And, naturally, it attracted the usual anti-globalization anarchists who wandered through town lobbing bricks at any McDonald’s or Nike outlet that hadn’t taken the precaution of boarding up its windows. At one point I was standing inside the perimeter fence sniffing tear gas and enjoying the mob chanting against the government from the other side of the wire, when a riot cop suddenly grabbed me and yanked me backwards, and a nanosecond later a chunk of concrete landed precisely where I had been standing. I bleated the usual “Oh my God, I could have been killed” for a few minutes and then I went to have a café au lait. And while reading the paper over my coffee, I learned that not only had Canadian colleges given their students time off to come to the Summit to riot, but that the Canadian government had given them $300,000 to pay for their travel and expenses. It was a government-funded anti-government riot! At that point I started bleating “Oh my God, I could have been killed at taxpayer expense.” Say what you like about the American trust-fund babies who had swarmed in to demonstrate from Boston and New York, but at least they were there on their own dime. Canada will and does subsidize anything.
The second is an article dated 24 January 2008 in the Economist, generally regarded as the globe's premier news magazine and decidedly committed to the middle of the road on all matters. Would it make folks feel better about things to know that at present the world's poor are getting un-poor at a rate far, far faster than any previous point in history? It certainly warms our SWNIDish heart on an otherwise cold morning.
For those who complain that global capitalism and technology don't solve all problems, we offer a loud "Amen!" Our conviction that human nature is fallen suggest that nothing short of conversion genuinely alters the human condition at its core. But the concern for others dictated by the gospel that converts us also dictates that we seek what is best for the many out of what is possible for the fallen. That best remains relatively free markets and free trade, which harness human creativity and local advantages for the benefit of others despite and even through human selfish interests.
Our neighbors to the north provide a contrast on the negative while the planet as a whole provides an example on the positive.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Krauthammer Shares SWNIDish Contempt for Despicable Edwards
For those who wonder why we vent particular bile on John "Breck Girl" Edwards, the impeccable Charles Krauthammer explains today.
We quote:
We particularly appreciate Sir Charles's nearly appropriate quotation of Jesus at the end of his dismantling of the un-esteemed trial lawyer.
We quote:
This is not politics for him. "This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life."
Except for his years as senator, the only public office he's ever held. The audacity of the all-my-life trope is staggering. By his own endlessly self-confessed record, his current pose is a coat of paint newly acquired. His claim that it is an expression of his inner soul is a farce.
We particularly appreciate Sir Charles's nearly appropriate quotation of Jesus at the end of his dismantling of the un-esteemed trial lawyer.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
SWNID: "McCain the New Rudy"
Polls now convincingly show that John McCain is the Republican most likely to defeat a Democrat in November.
Polls also show that Rudy is very unlikely to win Florida.
Rudy needed to translate his record into curb appeal. He hasn't managed it.
McCain's Damascus-road conversion to supply-side economics, in particular his clear and articulate call for a significant and permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate, has convinced us that he can bear the burden of our weighty support. We have always, of course, been convinced of his ability to command in the ongoing struggle with Islamofascism. Politically he shows considerable ability to appeal beyond party loyalists, always necessary for a GOP candidate, but especially so this year.
Adieu, Mayor Giuliani! We will remember fondly our time together. We hope that we can always be friends. But it appears that our relationship would not be satisfactory to either of us if we pursued it further. We wish you the best in your consulting work.
Welcome, Senator McCain! We promise you our best efforts in supporting your promotion of policies that will enhance the quality of life for all our Republic's citizens and all other members of the human family. We are yours, unless someone better emerges.
Polls also show that Rudy is very unlikely to win Florida.
Rudy needed to translate his record into curb appeal. He hasn't managed it.
McCain's Damascus-road conversion to supply-side economics, in particular his clear and articulate call for a significant and permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate, has convinced us that he can bear the burden of our weighty support. We have always, of course, been convinced of his ability to command in the ongoing struggle with Islamofascism. Politically he shows considerable ability to appeal beyond party loyalists, always necessary for a GOP candidate, but especially so this year.
Adieu, Mayor Giuliani! We will remember fondly our time together. We hope that we can always be friends. But it appears that our relationship would not be satisfactory to either of us if we pursued it further. We wish you the best in your consulting work.
Welcome, Senator McCain! We promise you our best efforts in supporting your promotion of policies that will enhance the quality of life for all our Republic's citizens and all other members of the human family. We are yours, unless someone better emerges.
Video Reaction Illustrates Perils of Satire
Gentle readers who want to follow the saga of community reaction to the satiric video "Price Hill Girlz" are directed to the following:
We offer our sympathy to the clever creators of the video, who now unexpectedly find themselves the objects of controversy. We know the pain of sarcasm misunderstood. Not that it has stopped us.
Update: We pass along the unconfirmed rumor that many seniors at Seton High School are lobbying for "PHG" to be their senior song.
- A story on WKRC television news.
- Coverage on 700 WLW news.
- A blog operated by CityBeat (on which we posted a SWNIDish comment; N.B. that our comment appears above the name and date stamp: we don't use a euphemism for a vulgarity commonly inserted into the middle of a word for emphasis, even sarcastically--and we don't use the un-emphemized vulgarity either).
- A blog operated by World Magazine, in which commenters have liberally exercised their constitutional right to flame each other.
We offer our sympathy to the clever creators of the video, who now unexpectedly find themselves the objects of controversy. We know the pain of sarcasm misunderstood. Not that it has stopped us.
Update: We pass along the unconfirmed rumor that many seniors at Seton High School are lobbying for "PHG" to be their senior song.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
On Patterns of Childbearing
The SWNIDishly esteemed tothesource.com today reflects on the minor uptick of births to teen mothers and major uptick in births to older, single mothers in the United States. We recommend the article and quote its piquant conclusion:
There is something seriously strange when society can't bring itself to tell kids to postpone sex until marriage but insists that women postpone marriage until they are nearly menopausal.
Election Roundup: What It Means to Face a Clinton
We note that the dean of conservative pundits, George Will, yesterday affirmed the SWNIDish judgment that we can expect a Clinton-McCain general election. We are pleased, naturally, to have scooped Will, if one can scoop a prediction.
Will spends most of his column noting in a world-weary way that Hillary's campaign has been characterized by the flagrant disregard for the truth in attacking opponents that was characteristic of the first Clinton. The same is noted in detail in a keenly written piece in today's WSJ.
Meanwhile, the Onion probably captures the moment best with the headline atop this story.
This all feels far too much like 1996 to us. Next up: a Macarena revival.
Will spends most of his column noting in a world-weary way that Hillary's campaign has been characterized by the flagrant disregard for the truth in attacking opponents that was characteristic of the first Clinton. The same is noted in detail in a keenly written piece in today's WSJ.
Meanwhile, the Onion probably captures the moment best with the headline atop this story.
This all feels far too much like 1996 to us. Next up: a Macarena revival.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Demographics of Major Newspapers
We thank a gentle reader for forwarding to us this compendium of news media demographics, which we have slightly modified to address local concerns.
Demographics of American Newspapers
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country, but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country -- if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country . . or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happens to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
12. The Cincinnati Enquirer is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something in which to wrap it.
Demographics of American Newspapers
1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country, but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country -- if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country . . or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happens to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
12. The Cincinnati Enquirer is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something in which to wrap it.
Funny for Anyone Who Lived Through the 70s, 80s: Krugman Disses Reagan
So-called economist Paul Krugman, whose sinecure at the Gray Lady entitles him to speak without thinking, today uses an entire column to assert that Ronald Reagan did nothing good for the economy.
As facts, he cites such things as a statement made by Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential campaign. He also brings to bear the much-disputed "real wages" calculations oft maligned by this blogger, not least when someone like Krugman does not reveal the precise demographic whose real wages he is allegedly citing.
To the columnist without an idea, we make the following declarations:
We came of age in the 1970s. We experienced double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. We remember when money market funds were earning about 17% and no one would have considered investing in businesses. We remember a DJIA that had only three digits before the decimal. Our generation left high school expecting that we would be competing for a slice of an ever-shrinking pie.
Then came Reagan. Inflation was tamed, employment skyrocketed, the economy grew, the stock market rose. And the lunchbucket crowd (the "Reagan Democrats") whom you claim didn't do any better gave him a second term with a landslide vote far eclipsing anything else in the 20th century, including FDR's 1936 election. SWNID, hardly a plutocrat, did better under Reagan than he imagined was possible before Reagan. So did most other folks. That's why we like him still. That's why Obama wants to invoke his legacy, just as Republicans will invoke the legacy of Harry Truman, who so savagely beat their party as "do-nothings" in 1948. Over time, we realize what fine stuff these Presidents accomplished, despite the partisanship that disputes their legacies.
Reagan's revolution was carried on by Bush I, Clinton (yes, Clinton, who supported trade agreements and welfare reform) and Bush II. His measure is not just the achievements of 1981-89 but the legacy of a changed political discourse in all areas, domestic and foreign, for both parties. Like FDR, he fundamentally changed the way people think about their government. That is, he changed the way people with the exception of you and your fans think.
Keep harking back to the days of stagflation, Mr. Krugman. Your job is secure, at least until the Gray Lady finally gives way to the competitive pressures of electronic journalism. The rest of us will enjoy the liberty and prosperity of human creativity unleashed by Ronaldus Magnus.
What bugs us about you, Mr. Krugman, is not just that you have it wrong about Reagan. It's that by asserting that we're all so wrong about him, and have been for so long, you come across as mightily condescending. We poor middle class folks are just too stupid to realize that we were better off before Reagan became President, mesmerized as we are by right-wing propaganda. Thanks for that. We'll give back our bigger homes, our fuller grocery carts, our fatter retirment accounts. Let's get back to what we discussed in the 1970s: gas lines, meat substitutes, extended unemployment benefits, expanded food stamp eligibility, wage and price controls. Those were the days!
And so we say again, Viva la Reagan Revolucion!
As facts, he cites such things as a statement made by Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential campaign. He also brings to bear the much-disputed "real wages" calculations oft maligned by this blogger, not least when someone like Krugman does not reveal the precise demographic whose real wages he is allegedly citing.
To the columnist without an idea, we make the following declarations:
We came of age in the 1970s. We experienced double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. We remember when money market funds were earning about 17% and no one would have considered investing in businesses. We remember a DJIA that had only three digits before the decimal. Our generation left high school expecting that we would be competing for a slice of an ever-shrinking pie.
Then came Reagan. Inflation was tamed, employment skyrocketed, the economy grew, the stock market rose. And the lunchbucket crowd (the "Reagan Democrats") whom you claim didn't do any better gave him a second term with a landslide vote far eclipsing anything else in the 20th century, including FDR's 1936 election. SWNID, hardly a plutocrat, did better under Reagan than he imagined was possible before Reagan. So did most other folks. That's why we like him still. That's why Obama wants to invoke his legacy, just as Republicans will invoke the legacy of Harry Truman, who so savagely beat their party as "do-nothings" in 1948. Over time, we realize what fine stuff these Presidents accomplished, despite the partisanship that disputes their legacies.
Reagan's revolution was carried on by Bush I, Clinton (yes, Clinton, who supported trade agreements and welfare reform) and Bush II. His measure is not just the achievements of 1981-89 but the legacy of a changed political discourse in all areas, domestic and foreign, for both parties. Like FDR, he fundamentally changed the way people think about their government. That is, he changed the way people with the exception of you and your fans think.
Keep harking back to the days of stagflation, Mr. Krugman. Your job is secure, at least until the Gray Lady finally gives way to the competitive pressures of electronic journalism. The rest of us will enjoy the liberty and prosperity of human creativity unleashed by Ronaldus Magnus.
What bugs us about you, Mr. Krugman, is not just that you have it wrong about Reagan. It's that by asserting that we're all so wrong about him, and have been for so long, you come across as mightily condescending. We poor middle class folks are just too stupid to realize that we were better off before Reagan became President, mesmerized as we are by right-wing propaganda. Thanks for that. We'll give back our bigger homes, our fuller grocery carts, our fatter retirment accounts. Let's get back to what we discussed in the 1970s: gas lines, meat substitutes, extended unemployment benefits, expanded food stamp eligibility, wage and price controls. Those were the days!
And so we say again, Viva la Reagan Revolucion!
Not That It Matters: A Fitting Description of the Edwards Campaign
By now it's clear to everyone except John Edwards that his campaign is doomed. But at the risk of kicking a man, good or otherwise, when he's down, we draw attention to Andrew Cline's scathing characterization of Edwards's base demographic on the American Spectator.
Cline calls it the "angry dandy vote."
Apt!
Cline calls it the "angry dandy vote."
Apt!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)