Have A Little Faith

Megan McArdle and Jim Geraghty each point out the most recent Rasmussen poll on health care, and note that the idea of universal coverage by the government seems to get less popular over time. Free markets, and the American people, usually come to the right conclusion over time. To me, this appears to be one more case of that. Now, if someone can convince the moderates in Congress that this is a big loser, we can save the country a lot of money and heartache.

Don't Mess with D Wade

I don't watch the NBA, but even I have to acknowledge that this is one of the most awesome dunks ever...



The dunk is also made at least three times funnier by watching Anderson Verajao's Sideshow Bob 'do bouncing off the basket support.

Once More, This is Why America Hates Lawyers

The first words that come to mind are, "You have to be f---ing kidding me." Seriously...

ACORN sued the U.S. government Thursday for stripping the nonprofit of funding after employees were caught giving tax advice to a couple they thought was a pimp and his hooker.

The lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, seeks to lift a funding ban put into effect on Oct. 1 in the wake of national outrage over the embarassing scandal.

ACORN staffers were captured on hidden cameras at several offices nationwide, including in Brooklyn, advising the couple to hide their income.

"The charges leveled against ACORN by members of Congress such as that it is a 'criminal enterprise,' or a 'corrupt and criminal organization,' or a 'crooked bunch' are false," the complaint said.

Yes, those charges are false. And if you believe that, you probably think the Washington Redskins will make the playoffs.

Thanks, Al Gore

On the list of items you can only find on the Internet...

Honestly I have no idea who made these. I found them in some random forum. But come on. When someone takes the time to make all these wacko demotivational posters with a Bon Jovi theme combined with anime? Let’s just say there has to be a place on the internet for this crap.

(hat tip: Jonah Goldberg) Can't argue with the last sentance.

More on Obama's Lack of Action on Afghanistan

I knew someone somewhere would find a way to try to justify Obama's lack of movement on Afghanistan. Here's Andrew Sullivan...

The news that Obama has refused to sign off on any of the four major options presented to him in Afghanistan reminds me of why he was elected president. This critical decision - arguably the most critical of his young presidency - is one that will not be rushed the way such decisions often are. His insistence that the civilian branch truly control policy there and that empire not be passively accepted as a fait accompli are real signs of strength in the struggle to recalibrate American foreign policy. Can you imagine Bush ever holding out like this on the military?

...What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal - not just to Obama, but to everyone - what exactly the precise options are. Instead of engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is "tough" or "weak", we actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena. Others, moreover, are allowed to take the lead: McChrystal, or Netanyahu, or Pelosi, in the case of Af-Pak, Israel-Palestine and health insurance, respectively. Obama encourages the process but hangs back, broadly - and persistently - pursuing certain objectives without tipping his hand on specifics or timing.

So the troop question is rather like the public option question.

This is idiotic political jujitsu at its best. In case Sullivan has forgotten, President Obama was not dithering when it came to the health care bill -- he wanted it passed before the August congressional recess. Obama wanted it done then for political reasons, at a time when his support of the public option was unwavering. But he certainly wasn't then (and isn't now) arguing for extended consideration of the issue by the powers that be in Congress. Note that in other instances, Sullivan has no problem holding Obama's feet to the fire for a decision, at least when the issue is important to him (and on the issue of gays in the military, Sullivan is right that Obama should follow up on his promise and incur the political wrath -- but the fact that he won't do so is further evidence that the President, despite all his high-minded rhetoric, is a political animal).

This is one of the things that infuriates me about Obama's supporters and defenders -- when he acts like a typical political hack, they defend it as a sign of maturity and/or innate brilliance. They see his tendency for "voting present" as a feature, not a bug. That's all well and good, but stop trying to act like it's anything less than a political calculation. You can capably argue that making a decision on whether to give McChrystal more troops is more important than health care (and I would agree on that part). And you might extend that to claim that it deserves more time because of the import of the decision... except it: (a) belies the argument for urgency on health care; (b) can be refuted by noting that the health care bill involves further government involvement/potential takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy; and (c) may make precisely the opposite point -- that it's urgent we make a decision on this, which might involve the President meeting much more often on this topic with McChrystal.

Meanwhile, Tom Maguire piles on the issue of Sullivan's comparison...

What can we imagine about Bush? A toughie! I can imagine his Secretary of Defense grinding down the initial military numbers for an invasion of Iraq until we arrive at "too few troops". Bush sure ignored the hell out of the Pentagon then, and how did that work?

Or, I can imagine Bush promoting a surge in Iraq at a time when nearly everyone, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were ready to march in a different direction. That worked a bit better.

Of course, totally missing from Sully's praise of Obama's current hand-wringing is a recognition of the fact that Obama announced a new strategy last March, and appointed McChrystal to implement it. Was that haste and folly, and has Obama grown in office so that he now feels comfortable delaying endlessly (the Times now says a decision is more likely in December)?

(hat tip: Instapundit) I tend to agree (and it's rather depressing) with Maguire's conclusion that we can't win in Afghanistan unless Obama is committed to winning. Right now, I think Obama's committed to his political future first and victory second. The fact that Gen. Eikenberry, once the commanding U.S. General in Afghanistan and now the U.S. Ambassador, disagrees with general McCrystal's assessment is important -- but as Legal Insurrection notes, Eikenberry hasn't exactly been a brilliant prognosticator when it comes to Afghanistan. And Neo-Neocon aptly compares Obama to Hamlet while concluding...

One of the things Obama seems to either be unaware of, or to not care about, is the psychological effect his stalling has on the troops and on our enemies. It demoralizes the former and cheers the latter.

Wars, as well as nation-building and economic development, are not just a matter of tactics. They involve perceptions about will and commitment. The enemy (be it the members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the poppy-dealers of Afghanistan) size up the opposition. If the US is thought to be weak or indecisive, it appears to them to be extremely worthwhile to continue on the present course against the US in hopes of prevailing in the end, whatever might happen in the short run after Obama finally makes his much-awaited decision.

That was a huge part of the calculation by the enemy in Vietnam, and it worked very well for them. Vietam was a war of attrition; the enemies there calculated that they had more tenacity than we did, and they were correct. Obama is sending a similar message to enemies in Afghanistan—and around the world.

(hat tip: American Digest) I tend to think of our troops as pretty strong and able to withstand all sorts of boneheaded decisions by people in command, so I anticipate they'll find a way to handle Obama's dithering. But the point about our enemies is spot-on, even if I despise the decision to use Vietnam (yet again) as a comparison.

Then again, maybe this is all political prelude to a decision to send troops by Obama, as Mickey Kaus suggests. If so, I'd argue this is even worse -- if Obama has already made a decision and is engaging in political theater simply to keep his base from rebelling, he's not doing his job as Commander-in-Chief.

But ultimately, the Hamlet comparison is pretty depressing. I have no problem with people saying we should take our time to make the right decision -- see the health care debate. But at some point a leader has to make a decision. Or maybe there's a better way of saying it.

Healthcare v. Afghanistan

Rich Lowry has a nice piece hoping that the Senate delays the healthcare bill long enough to kill it....

This essential wisdom of the Founders is now the Democrats’ enemy. They want to rush because they know their legislation won’t bear long, careful scrutiny; because they know the public will soon demand that they focus on things of more pressing concern (the economy); and because they know it would be folly to keep debating the bill in an election year. So they want to pass major social legislation on basically a party-line vote and forge ahead even though almost every poll shows more people opposing than supporting it. It’s hard to think of major, defining legislation that has ever passed this way.

Liberals recall how long they have talked about national health insurance: No rush here, it’s the work of decades. But this plan has, relatively speaking, been sprung on the American public. Barack Obama did not campaign on huge tax increases to pay for health-care reform, or large Medicare cuts, or premium increases, or even the individual mandate. He talked of health-care reform in the most anodyne way.

If Obamacare is so necessary and wise, there’s no true need to hurry. If it fails to pass the Senate, Democrats should campaign on it around the country. They should keep talking of its wonders, and build up public support for it, turning around the polls. They should enhance their majority in the House and the Senate, bringing new Obamacare Democrats to Washington. That’s how you build toward passing historic legislation in a system such as ours naturally resistant to large-scale change.

Democrats don’t want to do that because, in their heart of hearts, they know they can’t do that. They want to jam it through instead. Here’s hoping the Senate does its proper work and — slowly, frustratingly — assigns the health-care bill to the grave.

Lowry is essentially correct that the Senate's historical role has been that of killjoy/check on bad legislation. The piece of trash that Pelosi just forced down the throat of the House probably can't move the Senate with anywhere near as much speed. But speed is what the Democrats want, because each passing day brings us closer to the 2010 elections, and if this becomes an election issue, they have a significant problem, especially if the unemployment picture hasn't changed. Recall that Obama and Pelosi sought to have Congress pass health-care reform prior to the August recess -- according to Harry Reid, they might not get Senate approval now until January, and that's before the bill ends up being revised in conference.

But it's worth noting that Obama sought to have this bill passed in July... and yet he still can't make a decision on Afghanistan. People are having problems with our current healthcare system, and some of those problems may be quite serious... but our troops are suffering and dying over there, and you don't need Congress to pass a boll to do something about it. Make a decision, Mr. President. You can't vote present on this one.

Why Are You Calling Me From Oregon?

Like most people, I despise telemarketers. For days now, I've been getting calls on my cellphone from the 541 area code. No messages, and the same call occurring every morning at the same time had me thinking it had to be a telemarketer. For what, I had no idea. Finally, I picked up this morning, to learn that the telemarketer was calling on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association -- I dropped my membership last year. I'm still a licensed attorney in PA, but the Bar Association dues are no longer subsidized by my employer, and it's not mandatory to join the professional association if you're licensed. The best things you got were discounts on bar courses, a snazzy monthly magazine, and an opportunity to join plaintiffs attorneys in lobbying to prevent tort reform. I didn't need those before, and I certainly don't need to pay for them now.

But this leaves the question -- why does the PA Bar have someone in Oregon calling me to try and get me to join up? Can't they find someone in PA to do the same work? Or at least someone regionally close?

Of course, I didn't discuss this with the telemarketer. I usually tell them that I'm busy on the other line, but sometimes I like to throw in a little creativity. Today, I told her that I was busy celebrating the Feast of Maximum Occupancy, and to call back Monday (when I'll be on a plane).

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Rumors were running rampant recently that Aerosmith was close to breaking up. I don't really care -- I don't know what they've done in the last decade, not that I would be interested anyway. But there are plenty of Aerosmith songs that qualify for getting stuck in my head, and one of the radio stations discussing this non-story played the worst one of all.

Here's the thing -- I kind of like the movie Armageddon. Movies where Bruce Willis is trying to save the day are, as a general rule, good things, and this one qualifies, despite Ben Affleck. It's not like you expect anything other than an outlandish plot and lots of decent explosions, with some over-the-top cynical humor, and all of those are here in spades. I think of it the same way as I think of Con Air -- it's so bad it's good, although Willis is way better than Nic Cage as a hero. Hell, both movies include Steve Buscemi as comic relief.

But there are way too many Affleck-Liv Tyler scenes (the animal cracker one in particular) and this song, which make me want to throw up. And in answer to Affleck's animal cracker question, who gives a shit? Anyway, to the song...



You're welcome.

I'm Not Offended, But They're Still Stupid Things To Say

I don't know if I should be offended by this...

President Obama invoked the Fort Hood shootings in an emotional appeal to Democrats to pass health care reform today, contrasting the sacrifices of soldiers with political positioning.

The impassioned pitch to the entire Democratic caucus came hours before the House vote tonight on the signature issue of Obama’s presidency, with Democratic leaders struggling to keep members from conservative districts on board.

“He was absolutely inspiring. In a very moving way, he reminded us what sacrifice really is,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews, estimating the persuader-in-chief turned several votes.

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week,” said Andrews.

“It made a lot of people feel a little less sorry for themselves about their political problems,” he added. “This is an emotional time for a lot of our folks politically, but this is politics and I think he correctly pointed out what’s a heck of a lot more important.”

Politicians invoke the sacrifice of our soldiers for so many purposes that it's hard to find outrage when Obama's doing it to try and push reluctant Democrats to pass healthcare legislation. But I am pretty sure that if Bush had said the same for Social Security privitization, he would have been pilloried for it. And I would fully understand if members of our armed forces took offense.

Now, this isalso close to the line...

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Another freshman Democrat from New Mexico, Representative Martin Heinrich, said the president’s comments overall were reassuring. “If you want to see a recipe for failure,” Mr. Heinrich said, “don’t do the things you talked about in your campaigns and turn your back on your base. All the independent voters in the world don’t matter if the Democrats don’t turn out.”

(hat tip: Best of the Web) I think referring to your opponents by a homophobic slur is pretty awful and below the office of the President, if not this President. But I'm hoping Blumenauer misquoted Obama. However, it's Heinrich's line that is telling -- Obama doesn't seem to care about independent voters in the least. Maybe they'll remember that in 2012.

I Figured This Would Get More Hits if "Sex Tape" Were in the Headline

Ann Althouse makes a good point about Carrie Prejean's "sex tape", which allegedly consists of a then-teenage Prejean making a topless video of herself for a long-distance boyfriend. TMZ has been advertising that they have the tape, but haven't decided to show it, but Althouse brings up something important...

Teenager? Is TMZ threatening to post child pornography? In any case, what is it? Embarrassing topless nonsense?

...You know, what is even imperfect here? I don't see anything unChristian about displaying your breasts to a boyfriend that you love. It's just foolish to allow photographs to come into being. But it's not unChristian to be foolish. (Saint Paul said: "We are fools for Christ.")

Now, trying to destroy the young woman over political disagreement and tormenting her by threatening to invade the intimate space between her and her lost young love... I'll hazard to guess: That's not Christian.

As Althouse notes, TMZ's not claiming to be Christian, so they don't have to live up to those standards. But she's also right when she says Prejean's tape doesn't prove that she's not living up to her own standards (or those of Christianity, which, according to my own limited understanding, are pretty forgiving nonetheless).

Prejean's story is a better cautionary tale for teenagers on why you need to understand that things you do can follow you around forever. And in today's world, weird stuff will show up on Youtube, like you doing a Sinatra-group skit in high school.


Remember, contempt for the audience is what killed Dennis Day. By the way, what happened to Sinead O' Connor?

Happy Veteran's Day

Take the time to remember that today is indeed a holiday, and why. And here's a good way to commemorate the day -- make a donation.

Irrelevant Unsolved Mystery of the Day

Bringing you the questions that don't matter, except they get stuck in your head and make you wonder...

I met someone yesterday whose first name was near-identical to his last name (i.e., William Williams). Before I had a child, I probably would have considered this funny. Now, I wonder, who does this to their kid? Seriously? I can see how it could be funny in a novel, but it's still not a good joke.

The Wall Fell

I didn't get a chance to post this earlier, but it needs to be posted, because we're too willing to forget certain key facts:

1. Communism failed.

2. The West won the Cold War.

3. Freedom can only be earned and preserved when good men stand up for it.


When I was a kid, the Berlin wall was an accepted part of the world. It had only been there since 1961, yet people treated it as if it were a permanent fixture. And the Cold War was a similar part of our world -- we weren't going to defeat the Soviet Union, so we had to learn to live with them and the scourge of Communism. Millions upon millions of people lived behind walls and fortified borders in Eastern Europe, starving for freedom (and food) under an inhuman system of oppression.

That's no longer true. In fact, it's part of the ashbin of history. And it is so because of brave men and women, in both the West and the East, who stood up against the totalitarian regimes and dared to believe the world could change so much that we now have college students who literally weren't born before the Berlin Wall fell. That says something about how we should not dare to dream what some view as impossible. Remember, even some among Reagan's inner circle didn't want him to say those four words...

Ronald Reagan would embarrass himself and the country by asking Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, which was going to be there for decades. So the National Security Council (NSC) staff and State Department had argued for many weeks to get Reagan's now famous line removed from his June 12, 1987, Berlin speech.

...Well before a draft was circulated, I called the writer who had the assignment, Peter Robinson, and told him I was going to an Oval Office meeting.

Shortly before we walked to the West Wing, Peter told me what he wanted in the draft: "Tear down the wall." I pushed back in my chair from my desk and let loose "fantastic, wonderful, great, perfect" and other inadequate exclamations. The Oval Office meeting agenda went quickly, with little chance to pop the question. But the discussion ceased for a moment toward the end, and I crowded in: "Mr. President, it's still very early but we were just wondering if you had any thoughts at all yet on the Berlin speech?"

Pausing for only a moment, Reagan slipped into his imitation of impressionist Rich Little doing his imitation of Ronald Reagan—he made the well-known nod of the head, said the equally familiar "well," and then added in his soft but resonant intonation while lifting his hand and letting it fall: "Tear down the wall."

I had refused to talk to Peter until I was back in my office, such was my excitement. Slamming the door I shouted: "Can you believe it? He said just what you were thinking. He said it himself."

So it was "the president's line" now. And that made it easier, though not dispositively so, for the speechwriting department to fight off objections. But this is where the Berlin address was about more than the killer sentence.

...Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has suggested that the Reagan years show that "containment" worked. In fact, Reagan explicitly and repeatedly rejected containment as too accommodationist, saying "containment is not enough."

As part of this strategy, Reagan established offensive-minded, victory-conscious rubrics like "forward strategy for freedom," "not just world peace but world freedom," and "expanding the frontiers of freedom."

Part of this was Reagan's attempt to codify while in office a Cold War narrative developed by the anti-communist conservative movement that formed him over three decades even as he helped form it. That narrative saw liberal notions about how to handle communist regimes as provoking aggression or causing catastrophe: Franklin Roosevelt's Stalin diplomacy, Harry Truman's Marshall mission to China, John Kennedy's offer of a "status quo" to Khrushchev in Vienna, Jimmy Carter's statement that we have an "inordinate fear of communism."

Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind's abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others.

Accordingly, Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth about their moral absurdity, their ontological weakness. This was the sort of moral confrontation, as countless dissidents and resisters have noted, that makes these regimes conciliatory, precisely because it heartens those whom they fear most—their own oppressed people. Reagan's understanding that rhetorical confrontation causes geopolitical conciliation led in no small part to the wall's collapse 20 years ago today.

When people talk about speaking "truth to power" Reagan was a true example of what it means.

One other thing -- it says something about our current President that he can manage to appear via video at the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall, and never mention the truly evil forces that helped build and keep the wall -- the Soviet Union, Kruschev, or Communism -- nor mention agents of true change who helped bring down the world through their words and action -- Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. But hey, he managed to mention himself.

Moving Right Along

Some of the best metrics are the simplest ones. Kevin Williamson notes the U-Haul metric as a good way to tell which way jobs are going...

If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here’s an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900.

Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There’s a reason for this.

According to Williamson, the metric also produces a similar difference when comparing trips between Austin and New York City. But don't worry -- I'm sure NYC and California will find a way to make people want to stay. Maybe they'll build a really big wall... nah, wrong day for that joke.

Insane

To say this blows my mind is an understatement...

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.

In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).

Seriously, how in the hell does CIA know that an Army Major is trying to contact our sworn enemy in the war on terror, and the Army doesn't find out? And this guy isn't closely monitored? Are we trying to lose the war?

Meanwhile, there is dishonest reporting about the gun used in the rampage. Hey, at least I can rely on that.

On That Health Care Thing That Passed the House

The Wall Street Journal summarizes my own views on the healthcare bill the House passed rather nicely. I tend to doub the Senate will see common sense, but it's nice of Pelosi to give the GOP the whole winter break to review and pick apart the monstrosity that she and her fellow Dems have bequeathed to America. I know we were in a rush, since this solves the economic prob... wait, it doesn't?

I'm reasonably certain the Dem majority will decline in next fall's elections -- whether they lose it entirely will be determined by what passes the Senate. The GOP needs to disregard the likely short-term political gain of winning next fall based on the Dems' decision to defy public opinion -- by then, it will be too late to reverse one more new unaffordable entitlement. And the right-wing blogosphere needs to eat this bill for lunch and spit out every objectionable point and gift to trial lawyers, unions, etc. The battle isn't over yet.

Can You Spare A Moment?

Jay Nordlinger wrote earlier today about clipboard people -- the annoying folks who stand outside and try to accost you to discuss their political issue of the day. His readers have now sent him some hysterical responses to people who ask to spare a moment...

“When they come up to me, I always say, ‘Sorry, I’m Eastern Orthodox.’ I figure it’ll confuse them enough that it’ll rattle around in their head for a few days.”

“When they say, ‘Can you spare a moment for women’s rights?’ I say, ‘No, I’m not into women.’”

“They’ll say, ‘Can you help us with same-sex equality?’ I’ll say, ‘Only if you have pictures.’”

“I like to say, ‘Sorry, I’ve given all my money to the Republican National Committee.’”

“My response to the global-warming clipboard people is to look them in the eye and say, ‘Polar bears eat baby seals.’ That usually freezes them in their tracks long enough for me to slip by.”

When I see these people, I always think of this quote in the forgotten classic movie PCU: "These, Tom, are the Causeheads. They find a world-threatening issue and stick with it for about a week." And yes, that movie is a classic -- younger versions of Piven and Spade and 100 pounds of meat being dumped on a vegan protest make for a great movie.