Nous Sommes Tous Obstructionists, I Guess?

A report in this weekend's Washington Post Business section says that Social Security just passed what it calls a "treacherous milestone." It went cash negative. I guess this situation could be problematic. Why doesn't the president try to address this problem?

Oh wait, one president did. His name was George W. Bush. Here he is addressing both houses of Congress at a State of the Union speech, back in 2005. It appears the Democrats weren't all that supportive of Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security in order to prevent it from going bankrupt. In fact, they look downright giddy.

And Democrats like to call Republicans obstructionists?

An Unconventional Commencement Speech

I just listened to Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University. It's only about 15 minutes or so. It's probably the most unlikely message one would expect at a graduation speech, with its three key points focusing on dropping out, getting fired, and facing death, and summed up with the enigmatic slogan from the authors of The Whole Earth Catalog, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." At first glance, not the most inspiring words.

Yet why do I feel so, well, inspired?

What does it mean, I wonder, to "stay hungry, stay foolish"? I found a couple of explanations online that I like:

Stay hungry: always keep wanting something more, something new.
Stay foolish: always keep an open mind, never think that you know everything.

Stay Hungry: don't be too easily satisfied or grow too comfortable.
Stay Foolish: don't think that you know everything.. stay foolish and keep learning new things.

Other thoughts that I liked from the speech:

"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

Steve Jobs, Commencement speech, Stanford University, June 12, 2005.

A Little Quiz

True or false? "It's a Republican-controlled Congress."

You can check your answer here.

Methinks Obama assumes the American electorate is (are?) idiots.

Mehopes he's mistaken. But according to this article, even though "Washington insiders and those who track politics know that the 112th Congress is divided . . . polls taken over the last several years show that many voters are unclear which party runs the House and/or Senate"

Are voters going to be less gullible this time?

Who is Occupying Wall Street and Why?

Here apparently is the list of "demands" presented by the Occupy Wall Street protesters:

• Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.a
• Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
• Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
• Demand four: Free college education.
• Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
• Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
• Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
• Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
• Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
• Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
• Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
• Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
• Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
• These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

These are some fairly "out there" demands that strain credulity. And yet, now certain lawmakers in Washington are voicing support for the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Let's see who they are: 

John Larson from Connecticut

Louise Slaughter from New York

Raul Grijalva from Arizona

Keith Ellison from Minnesota

Russ Feingold, former senator from Wisconsin

What do these individuals have in common? Maybe it's the "D" that follows their name. 

Grijalva and Ellison said they were "inspired" by the protesters. Slaughter said she was "proud to see the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to this rampant corporate greed and peacefully participating in our democracy” (I suppose by "peaceful" she's referring to things like peacefully blockading the Brooklyn resulting in hundreds of arrests).

Who else supports the Occupy Wall Street crowd? Let's see. George Soros. Michael Moore. Roseanne Barr. Susan Sarandon. Alec Baldwin. Yoko Ono. A veritable pantheon (to quote Alton Brown) of leftist celebs! Who's next? Barack Obama, maybe. Today he dipped his big toe in the water when he scolded Bank of America for raising fees on debit card users (but there's no connection between B of A raising its fees and the regulations imposed on banks by the Frank-Dodd bill, right, Mr. President?). 

Top Democrats Endorse Wall Street Protests

Feldstein and Goolsbee: Who Makes More Sense?

Listened to an interview on the PBS NewsHour with Judy Woodruff interviewing two noted economists about President Obama's American Jobs Act: Martin Feldstein (introduced as a "longtime conservative thinker" and a professor at Harvard... how refreshingly oxymoronic!), and a former adviser to President Obama, Austan Goolsbee, now returned to the University of Chicago. I'm embedding the clip below because I would like to return to it on occasion. I'm always amazed at how two obviously intelligent and highly educated people can examine the same issue and arrive at such different conclusions. Feldstein makes perfect sense to me here, talking about how impractical Obama's stimulus plan is, especially if you break down the actual cost per job that his stimulus would create (I think he said $200,000 per job). This does seem a bit extravagant. Goolsbee, when asked about these figures, insisted that it's a good investment since we're sailing into strong headwinds, or something like that. The more he spoke, the less credible he sounded. It was as though he had been given some talking points and was sticking to them, regardless of how illogical they sound when contrasted with Feldstein's analysis.

On a related note, I find it interesting that the "jobs act" that Obama keeps haranguing Congress to "PASS NOW!" has yet to be even introduced to Congress. Apparently the POTUS doesn't actually submit bills to Congress, only members of Congress do, and so far no Democratic congressman or woman has done so. In the meanwhile, while the Democrats dither, a Republican member of the House has gone ahead and submitted his own version of a Jobs Act to the House of Representatives!

It seems Obama's latest endeavor isn't about creating jobs for Americans. It's about trying to make Americans think Republicans are against creating jobs for Americans (that's the message Obama's taking out on the road). Interestingly, it's not just Republicans who are hesitating. I just read that some Democrats are also not in favor of Obama's plan. So it's just more political theater from this president. The only job he hopes to create with all his blather is his own second term.

Pshaw.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

Thoughts on the Tea-Party Sponsored GOP Debate on CNN

This was a bit livelier than the first debate. I liked how Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate. I like that the line of questioning began with a question read by someone in the audience (live or remote), and how Blitzer would then follow up with more pointed questions related to the initial question. The audience was enthusiastic, applauding and occasionally booing the candidates' comments. Gotta love them tea partiers. They'll let you know what they think one way or another. No pandering from this crowd.

Just a few observations then back to grading student essays:

Mr. Huntsman didn't seem comfortable on stage. Perhaps he sensed that he wasn't as "welcome" as some of the other candidates in this arena. His comments didn't receive any applause, as far as I recall.

Ron Paul was less offensive to me this time, with maybe one exception, when he started yammering about foreign policy. I also didn't care for his dig at Perry about his taxes going up in Texas.

Cain and Gingrich were their usual selves. I like them both. But neither will be our GOP candidate. I hope whoever is the candidate (and ultimately president) taps Gingrich for something in his administration. That man is a storehouse of information, insight, and experience.

Santorum was pretty aggressive last night. I guess some will say he came out swinging. He and Gingrich acted like old buddies up there and seemed inclined to prop each other up; he and Bachmann, on the other hand, seemed to have conspired together to take down Rick Perry. Neither of them gave an inch on the Gardasil issue (the issue came up when one questioner asked about executive decisions).

Bachmann went too far on this matter, in my view. Her repetition of the phrase "innocent 12-year old girls" came across as melodramatic, but she demeaned herself when she basically accused Perry of handing out favors to the drug company (Merck, who supplied the vaccine) because they donated to his campaign.

Perry was definitely put on the defensive most of the night. Probably his best moments came at the beginning when addressing the Social Security/Ponzi scheme issue. His worst moments had to do with his comments about illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney was the clear winner in this debate. I think he finally came up with a way to handle the question of how "RomneyCare" differs from "Obamacare." He definitely had his ducks in a row last night.

There's something about Rick Perry that impresses me. Was it the way he stood at attention during the National Anthem? Everyone on stage faced the flag, hand over heart, a few mouthing along with the words. Perry's stance was different, almost as though he were saluting. Maybe it's the way he would nod in agreement occasionally when his opponents spoke, as if the other candidate were not his enemy but his compatriot. Does a candidate really have to be able to enumerate seven points by memory, as Romney did, or make no mistakes, as Bachmann claims? I'm not so sure.

Once again, it's heart (Perry) vs. head (Romney), but today I'm leaning Romney. 

Rick Perry: Telling it Like It Like It Is?

Another interesting and insightful column by Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

He starts out by suggesting that GOP-presidential candidate Rick Perry's insistence that Social Security is a "Ponzi-scheme" is in no way original to him, nor is it original to conservatives. Kurtz then cites a number of liberals who over the years have called SS a Ponzi-scheme, including liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson; Stanford economists Victor Fuchs and John Shoven; Ben Wattenberg, author of The Birth Dearth; Robert Shapiro, co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute; Pulitzer Prize winning-columnist William Raspberry; liberal columnist Jonathan Atler; Matthew Miller of The New Republic; journalist and commentator Michael Kinsley of Slate; and Max Frankel, formerly of the New York Times.

Kurtz raises the point that Perry's refusal to back down or tone down his rhetoric on this issue is a reflection of his political courage. His concluding comments:

Remarkably, [Max] Frankel ends by chastising the media — including his own paper — for failing to challenge false claims by politicians for the system’s soundness. Frankel seems to crave nothing so much as a politician or reporter courageous enough to boldly make the Ponzi-scheme point.

 Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades. More intriguing, the Ponzi scheme analogy was popularized by a liberal Nobel Laureate economist, who initially offered it as a defense of the system, acknowledging only later that his defense was at least partially flawed. In the decades that followed, many honest liberals have made the Ponzi scheme comparison in the course of calling for systemic reform. Those liberals have bemoaned bipartisan deception and timidity on the Social Security issue, and praised those rare and courageous political souls, such as Alan Simpson, who were willing and able to call a Ponzi scheme by its real name.

So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.

Here's the link to Kurtz's article, "Perry and the Ponzis" (NRO, September 12, 2011)

Speechless

Due to the blackout in Southern California yesterday I missed "The Jobs Speech" (to be precise, Obama's campaign speech, paid for and sponsored by The American Taxpayer), which I had set to record on my DVR and watch after I got home from school. Driving home I did manage to catch the last five minutes, enough to be reminded why I hate when presidents speak to joint sessions of Congress. Within those five minutes alone Obama was interrupted at least four times by raucous applause. I think I may have even heard some whoops and hollers. Is that possible?

Though his admirers on the left are praising it, the speech as I perceived it when I heard snippets of it later came across as manipulative and, despite his needling others about the Importance of Bi-Partisanship, partisan. I'm fairly certain that Republicans in that chamber were not applauding. It was a one-sided pep rally, like a gym filled with fans of two teams sitting in opposite bleachers but only one school's cheerleaders leading the cheers.

Thinking about it today, it occurs to me that the speech, salted liberally with the repetitive mantra of "Pass This Jobs Plan Now!" comes across as mostly meaningless, especially when you realize that whatever jobs plan Obama was pressuring Congress to pass ("now!") was not in writing, so there was nothing actually to pass, now or later. And because there was nothing in writing, the costs of this amazing plan that needed to be passed now were also nonexistent. Yet another game of charades by the master charlatan.

Why does this all sound so depressingly familiar? Does anyone remember the 2,000+ page health care bill? Speaker Pelosi herself admitted (after the fact) that Congress had to pass the bill before they could know what was in the bill. Members of Congress hadn't even read it, but they went ahead and passed it anyway because there was Obama insisting it had to be passed now. And so they passed it. And what a mess it was and is.

Now here we are again, the president standing before Congress and essentially daring it not to pass his jobs bill which is not yet in writing and whose cost has yet to be specified, because if they don't, he will sick (sic?) the American people on them.

This is not leadership; it's political theater. Unfortunately this sort of theater what we have come to expect from Obama because it's all he knows. And his far-left base loves it.  I found this by John B. Judis of The New Republic: "Before Obama’s speech, commentators were saying that he stood no chance of getting his program through Congress. But when Obama shows leadership—when he plays the class card, as he did, and implicitly paints the opposition as the party of the wealthy and of the big corporations—then they quaver... ("Obama's Angry, Direct, and Eloquent Defense of Government").

Playing the class card is leadership? Playing the race card is leadership? Denigrating your political opponents and then denigrating the act of denigrating of one's opponents is leadership? Apparently so, if you're a left-leaning Democrat. My definition of leadership is a little different. Obama may have a plan, but so do others in Congress, some of them Republicans. Try working together with them again, Mr. President. Only this time, actually listen to and incorporate their ideas. It should not be an either/or proposition.

And yes, I know the Democrats like to say that it's the Republicans who are the obstructionists, the Republicans who are always saying "no." But that's part of the theater. The reality is, the president brushed aside the Republicans during the health care debate (I seem to recall him saying to one Republican senator, "I won--get over it"). Since this president doesn't play by the rules, I tend to ignore it when Democrats demonize the Republicans in these discussions.

In Search of a New President

Watched the GOP presidential debate trying to determine who among them would be our next president. I look for something that transcends promises that may not be kept. How refreshing it would be if just once a presidential candidate were to acknowledge the complexity of politics and accede to the reality going in that he might not be able to please everyone whose vote he seeks. I look for someone who is able to sift through the pettiness (could none of them have refused to dignify the moderator's line of questioning having to do with believing or not believing in science, for example?). 


Speaking of which, the moderators for this debate seemed determined to steer the debate off topic, which should have been focused on jobs and the economy. Especially that second guy (Politico’s John Harris). You could see him literally itching for a fight. I liked how Newt Gingrich reprimanded him early in the debate, basically telling him to lay off ("I know what you're trying to do here--you're trying to get us to tear into each other, but it's not going to work."). Unfortunately, I don't think all the candidates succeeded in avoiding his trap. Huntsman, while for the most part dignified and reasonable, did at one point rise to the bait and chastised Perry on the science issue. I thought that was a mistake. 


I also felt the moderators gave too much air time to that Paul guy, time that would have been much better spent listening to candidates who have a legitimate chance of becoming the nominee. On the other hand, even if Gingrich does not have that chance, I felt that he was actually being snubbed. I don't want him to be the candidate, but I did find myself applauding the few remarks he made. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I almost had to walk out of the room when he spoke. He's an embarrassment. 


On some levels I was sort of let down by Rick Perry. Maybe because his appearance was hyped and the expectations had been set somewhat high. Some of his remarks seemed scripted, in my view, and some seemed downright weak. I don't think it's necessary, for example, to continually tout successes in your own state (of course Huntsman and Romney did the same). Perry could have been better prepared to address the science issue. I know he's getting a lot of flak for his assertions that climate science is not yet a settled issue, and he didn't have an answer to the question of which scientists' views he respects. Regardless, his point is well taken. Economically speaking, trying to accommodate these climate issues is partly to blame for some of our economic woes. Bachmann, and also Romney, addressed this point when they talked about the need for tapping into America's own resources like oil, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy and not hamstringing businesses with oppressive environmental regulations (Barack Obama himself seems to have realized this, having actually overruled his own scientific advisors and halting the EPA's plan to tighten smog rules on businesses). Perry should also tone down the rhetoric a bit when discussing Social Security. I'm glad he's not backing down on the larger point (that it's unsustainable) but Obama would make mincemeat of him if he's the nominee unless he can start articulating specific ways to remedy the program. In this regard, perhaps Romney edges Perry.


Perry was steely-eyed on the issue of capital punishment, and I respect him for it. He also handled the controversy about his executive decision that young girls should be vaccinated against the HPV virus. I actually felt this was another attempt by the moderators to get off topic and attack Perry. The other candidates should have shrugged it off. Perry has already conceded this was a mistake, but I like the way he answered the question. Good for Mitt Romney to cut him some slack. I wasn't as impressed with Perry's response to the question about border security and immigration. I think he was the first candidate to get that question, and his response focused more on "boots on the ground," as he put it, and also a fence (I think). Some of the other candidates were more nuanced. Gingrich and Huntsman emphasized the need for compassion, underscoring the humanity of illegal immigrants, while Santorum talked about his own (legal) immigrant parents and the richness of America's ethnic heritage. On a side note, I liked the moderator from Telemundo who conducted this series of questions. 


I liked Mitt Romney last night. I felt he was reasonable, respectful, not petty, not easily distracted by the moderators. I also like Perry, despite his rough edges. I find Huntsman intriguing. Bachmann is sharp, but I'd rather she stay put, working for economic and social issues in the House of Representatives. I think she's an excellent lawmaker. I hope Palin doesn't get into the race. She has her place in the bigger picture of Republican politics, and that place is not as a candidate. 


As of today, my heart says Perry but my head argues for Romney.


These are my thoughts for now. I wonder what others are saying. 

A Little Bit Bizarre

I'm starting to be concerned about Nancy Pelosi's mental health. On one hand, you almost want to laugh at her. She is so over the top. But what if something's wrong with her? You would hate to have to go back into your blog posts and delete them if you find out down the road that she's mentally ill. Yet how else to explain the kind of illogical, irrational, nonsensical, even delusional remarks she makes here?

Held Hostage by California Democrats

Democrats are out of control.

"Babysitting Bill in California Legislature"

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers.

A Breath of Fresh Air

Listened to today's Fresh Air with Terri Gross broadcast ("Inside the Tea Party's Rising Influence"), an interview with Robert Draper, who's a contributor to the New York Times Magazine and who is currently working on a book about the House of Representatives. I braced myself for a repeat of the negativity and vitriol but heard none. It was a remarkably civil, informative, interesting, and insightful discussion. Here's what I wrote in the comments:

I could detect not even a snicker--no animosity, no mockery, no outward signs of disrespect--on the part of either the host or the guest. If either of them harbored a negative opinion about the Tea Partiers, they didn't let on. Congratulations to Terri Gross for her professionalism and objectivity. It's programs like Fresh Air that keep conservatives like me tuned in to public radio.

Just Words

Interesting collection of statements made by some key Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling debate (retrieved these off National Review Online): 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vermont) takes to the Senate floor to declare the debt deal “immoral, grotesque, unfair.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Missouri) calls the debt deal “a Satan sandwich, there’s no question about it.” 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Illinois) calls tea partiers “arsonists” and denounces their “slash and burn lunacy.”

Vice President Biden (D., Vice President of the United States) says tea-party Republicans acted “like terrorists” during the debt-limit negotiations.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D. Pennsylvania) complains that Republicans “have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. California) warns that Republicans “want to destroy your rights” and “undermine government."

Sen. Harry Reid (D. Nevada) laments, “[It’s] hard for me to understand why [Republicans are] so fixated on destroying our government, our economy.”

President Obama (D., President of the United States) links GOPers to hostage takers: “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to remind ourselves of the words Barack Obama spoke at the Tuscon Memorial service not so very long ago (January 12, 2011). I've excerpted portions of his speech, highlighting some of his finer statements in red (sort of like the red-letter edition of the New Testament?): 

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds . . .

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do . . .

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together . . . If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. .. And if … their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.

They believed . . . and I believe that we can be better . . . and I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

It's important to keep context in mind, i.e., that the man accused in the Tuscon shooting, Jared Loughner, was supposedly incited by the "violent" rhetoric of (wait for it) right-wing Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular. For at least a week, if not more, this was the narrative on every mainstream news outlet. It was a completely fabricated narrative, but even after it was proven to be untrue (if anything, Loughner fits more neatly into the left-wing mold), the underlying message remains. And who would argue with the importance of civility? I think we all agreed then, and in theory still agree. Until the next disagreement. Then, it's business as usual, especially where it actually can be found, at least as much if not more (e.g. see comments above) among Democrats as it is among Republicans.


Mr. President, you said, "I believe we can be better." Beautiful words. But apparently, predictably, not surprisingly, that's all they are to you. Just words.

Matt Damon, Please Stick to Acting

Let it be known that I adore Jason Bourne. I've watched the Bourne Trilogy so many times I have portions of each film memorized. Jason Bourne could run for president and I would probably vote for him, even if he was a Democrat.

Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, is a fine actor. I liked him in Good Will Hunting. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan. I liked him in Invictus. He was OK in True Grit. He was very good in Hereafter. He was good in The Adjustment Bureau. He was funny in Ocean's Eleven. And so on. He's obviously a tremendous actor.

But someone should tell Matt Damon to keep his mouth shut when reporters stick a microphone in his face and ask him to weigh in on whatever current event is currently eventing. It was embarrassing listening to him, for instance, weigh in on the debt ceiling debate. Besides the fact that he seemed to be merely parroting his favorite left-leaning politician's talking points, he comes across as ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed. There's a verse in the Proverbs that says something like "even the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouths shut." OK, so I paraphrased, but I know it's there. I'll look it up later.

According to Matt Damon, the tea partiers are "intransigent." I looked it up. "Intransigent" means "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude." The tea partiers are intransigent? What about the Democrats in the Senate who told John Boehner that the bill they just voted on in the House was "dead on arrival"? Were they not being intransigent? What about Nancy Pelosi, who strong-armed all the members of her own party to vote against Boehner's bill? Not a single House Democrat voted for that bill. Is this behavior not intransigence, Matt Damon?

Perhaps the tea partiers are not as much intransigent as they are principled. They were elected by their constituents because spending had gotten out of control. The 2010 mid-term election was a complete repudiation of the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration. Would Matt Damon have the tea partiers abandon their principles and capitulate to the Democrats' insistence on unrestricted spending?

"The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes," says Matt Damon. "The GOP wants smaller government." Yeah, but Matt, this is not the whole story. My understanding is that the tax rates are actually plenty high (the wealthy pay about 35% or 38% in federal income tax alone, and about 50% of the population pays no income tax at all). If you were paying attention at all, you'd learn that what the GOP wants is to revise the tax code, lower the overall tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and, yes, reduce spending. I heard one congressman say what's needed is not more taxes but more taxpayers. Does Matt Damon really think the United States could pay off its debt, and continue to take care of domestic and foreign needs, simply by raising taxes on 1% of Americans? The logic is just not there. The message of the tea party movement is to reduce spending, fix the tax code, and live within our means. That's not intransigence. If anything, Barack Obama was the intransigent one. He wanted carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling and continue to spend, spend, spend. The tea party locked arms and said, "Whoa, Nellie." Good for them, I say. Hooray for the little guy. 

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times the other day, written by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, about the influence of the tea party on this whole debate. Here's an excerpt: 

Forget President Barack Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner and the less-interesting-than-their-name-suggests "Gang of Six." When the history of the Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011 gets written, the main character will not be a Beltway negotiator, or even a politician.

The only reason Washington is even talking about proposals to slow the growth of government spending, instead of robotically jacking up the nation's credit line for the 11th time in 10 years, is that a large, decentralized group of citizen activists has spent the last few years loudly telling politicians from both parties one consistent message: Restrain your own power or face our wrath. Whether you conceive of the "tea party" as a heroic tamer of bipartisan big government or a diabolical hydra threatening America's very future, its success in precipitating a national debate over fiscal policy should give hope -- and a tactical blueprint -- to anyone who feels marginalized. (Independents' Power Keeps Growing, June 9, 2011).

The past few weeks has been fascinating "political theater," as some have called it, but I think there's so much more to this whole debate. To accuse the Tea Party of being "terrorists," to accuse them of "holding America hostage," to accuse them of hoping to drive America "off a cliff," is to miss the bigger picture. What they really did was change the subject. This is no small feat. During the first two years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress the subject has been about spending. It was like they went insane with power, and they madly crammed all their ideals into bills they could actually pass with apparently no concern about how these projects would be paid for.

The mid-term election changed all that, along with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Democrats lost their majority in the House, and within a year, everyone--including Barack Obama--was talking not about spending but about reducing the deficit. It's like they "got religion." As Gillespie and Welch write in their article, "The political winds seem to be blowing away from dominant political tribes and toward individuals who are fed up with bipartisan logjams that produce asinine policies."

This was a victory for the little guy. If Matt Damon would shut up long enough to think about it, he might find himself even siding with the Tea Party.

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent" (Proverbs 17:28).


Matt Damon on debt limit: 'I'm so disgusted,' 'it's criminal' the wealthy are not paying more from Nicholas Ballasy on Vimeo.

Dennis Prager is not a Wimp

I was making scrambled eggs this morning and listening to Prager. I'm a new fan. I like listening to him work things out on his radio show. He doesn't come across as someone who knows it all, though he does have strong views, obviously. But he's polite about it. He's among the more reasonable voices on the right. He listens as much as he speaks.

But this morning he did something that won me over completely. If I had been a peripheral admirer of him before, today I was lassoed in for good.

He had been discussing the debt-ceiling bill which had apparently just passed the Senate (having already passed in the House yesterday). He was mostly venting about the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, calling Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists," among other things, and rightly repudiating the hypocrisy of these politicians who had condemned violent rhetoric allegedly emanating from Republican territory only months ago in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' shooting (which rhetoric, of course, had virtually nothing to do with her shooting, but that's another story).

Partway through his monologue he said he just learned that President Obama was about to make a speech to the nation about the debt ceiling vote. Should he interrupt his program so his listeners could hear the speech? "The president is now speaking," he told us, "but what does it matter? The president is always speaking and when has it mattered?"

He didn't interrupt his program.

Dennis Prager. My hero.


Prager Gladiator from Brian Godawa on Vimeo.

What I Look for in a President

Read this in an article yesterday ("A Story Not Quite Right," by Kathleen Parker):

Apparently, during his campaign for president, Barack Obama made a powerful case for health care reform by talking about his mother who died from uterine and ovarian cancer. As the story goes, Obama's mother was denied insurance coverage because of her pre-existing condition. Parker quotes Obama as saying, "I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment."

Parker writes, "Thus, the story of Obama, Ann Dunham and corporate America's inhumanity toward pre-existing conditions became an inviolate holy trinity of immense political power."

Then, her bombshell: "If only it had been true."

The rest of the article describes how Obama, who actually acted as his mother's lawyer during her illness, basically fabricated the part of the story where his mother couldn't get insurance. In fact, Parker writes,  "According to Janny Scott, a New York Times writer and author of the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother, Dunham's cancer treatments were covered by her employer's insurance policy. She was denied disability insurance, which would have helped Dunham pay her deductible or unreimbursed medical costs. These apparently ran into the hundreds per month."

So the president embellished the story of his mother's insurance coverage in order to "sell" America on his health-care plan. Is that OK?

Not in my book. Whether it's right or wrong for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (and I believe it's wrong), the president of the United States manipulated the facts, fabricated part of his mother's story, in short, lied, in order to accomplish his objectives.

This tendency on President Obama's part--to distort and manipulate the truth in order to accomplish his objectives--is one of his failings, not only as president, but as a person.

I remember back when George W. Bush was president, Bush-haters (members of my extended family included) accused him of lying to justify the Iraq war. One famous bumper sticker went something like this: Clinton lied: Hillary cried. Bush lied: People died.

Very clever. The thing is, Bush didn't lie. President Bush did what he thought he had to do for the security and safety of the country, based on the knowledge and intelligence that he was faced with at the time. And it's important to note that he was not alone in making the decision. He assembled a coalition of other countries. He went to Congress, and Congress approved. One can't help but contrast Bush's approach to Obama's, which was not only to not ask Congress for approval to go to war in Libya but then to refuse to comply with Congress' request to seek its authority after 90 days because, according to Obama, "American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities." More rhetorical legerdemain.

The point is, it's easy to call someone a liar when their policies offend you. People hated George Bush, so the assumption that he "lied" about Iraq fit nicely into the narrative they had created about him, not only that he was inept, but that he was evil.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is, in fact, dishonest. Kathleen Parker was too gracious to call him a liar: "It is too much to say that Obama told an intentionally tall tale to mislead the public," she writes. "But it is also incorrect to say that he told a true story."

Maybe Obama doesn't lie outright. But he does midlead. He is disingenuous. He fabricates, distorts, and exaggerates. It's typically subtle, done for rhetorical effect, and generally accomplishes what he hopes to accomplish: i.e., shovel a bill through Congress, change the subject, place blame on others (usually his predecessor or members of the Republican party), buy time until he can come up with yet another misleading rhetorical appeal.

Another example of his duplicitiousness: telling a CBS news anchor that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security, disability, or veterans' checks would be delivered by August 3rd if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling because "there may simply not be money in the coffers to do it." That sounds scary. Those who actually take the time to punch the the numbers, however, say there actually is "money in the coffers."

The federal government takes in roughly $180 billion every month. (It also borrows $135 billion a month.) Social Security payments are about $60 billion a month, payments to all military personnel (veterans and otherwise) are about $12 billion, and payments to disabled veterans are about $6 billion. That totals about $78 billion. To say that “there may simply not be the money in the coffers” to pay for these items is plainly false. One might even call it “engaging in scare tactics.” (Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Weekly Standard).

 I'm not sure which is more frustrating: that Barack Obama can't be trusted or that people apparently still take him at his word. I'm also not sure why people would vote to re-elect him. He's proven to be an ineffective and even petulant leader. But the one thing that completely disqualifies him in my book, trumping all other failings, is his dishonesty. I for one would not "re-hire" him as my president. And that's what this next presidential election is (or should be) all about: deciding whether to "re-hire" Barack Obama as our president.

Give me an honest man for president, even one who makes mistakes, over a duplicitous one, any day.

Journalists Then and Now

What a difference a few years in office makes...

Here's Evan Thomas of Newsweek in 2009 on Hardball with Chris Matthews:



Yes, you heard correctly. A journalist compared the new president to God ("he's sort of God").

Here's Thomas again, in 2011, on Inside Washington:



Interesting, the word "God" has been bleeped out this time.

Is it possible that some of these cheerleaders journalists have come out of their trance? Will the news media be more willing to scrutinize Barack Obama this time around? I hope so. I pray so. And not only the journalists who ought to know better (shame on them for their silly crush), but regular people, too. People (young and old) who fell for Obama's promises, believed his rhetoric, projected their fantasies onto him, were unconcerned about his lack of experience and paltry voting record. I hope they think twice before giving Obama a second term.

Media Gone Mad for Sarah

And Sarah Palin's emails are interesting to us because...because....um, why, again? Palin hasn't declared her candidacy for president as far as I know, and even if she had, what's with this disproportionate interest in (or obsession over) Sarah Palin? I don't see the media clamoring for Mitt Romney's or Tim Pawlenty's email correspondence, for instance. And what about newcomer Barack Obama back in '08? Scouring his personal emails would have been quite revealing. Oh, but wait. Wanting to know more about Obama might have been construed as racist. Besides, the media didn't need to know anything more about Barack Obama. It was enough that he was promising Shangri-la.

Question: What's Worse Than Sleazy, Lying Politicians...?

Answer: Sleazy, lying politicians who wag their fingers and scold the people who are trying to get them to tell the truth.

It's the finger-wagging that grates most. It was bad enough when Congressman Weiner feigned indignation when ABC news correspondents tried to get him to answer a simple question about why he wasn't planning on pressing charges against those who allegedly hacked his Twitter account and then insisted on talking about the issues "he was elected to discuss" (e.g., the debt ceiling). Round and round they went, with the reporters repeating their questions and Weiner getting more and more indignant. Yes, that was bad.

But I watched him in one video (now apparently removed from You Tube) actually scolding the ABC interviewer, Jonathan Karl, for asking whether it was "inappropriate for a member of Congress to be following young women on their Twitter account." Listening to this interview one day after Weiner's public admission that he lied for days about this issue, one can't help but be stunned at the ease with which this man not only lies but how he manipulates the story by attempting to humiliate, demean, and denigrate the reporter.

A few of the more odious examples:

"It is your responsibility, and I want you to take it seriously, when you ask a question like that, it is charged with implication, and it's simply not fair. It's not fair to me, it's not fair to my family, it's not fair to that poor girl who has now been besieged, because of the implication...

"And I would urge you, I would urge you, my friend, to refocus on what you think the actual issue is. This is a Twitter hoax, a prank, that was done. I am a victim of it, this poor girl is a victim of it. And to somehow draw a larger line here about people who have done nothing wrong..."

My. What a loathsome, arrogant, condescending, imperious, unprincipled man.

Some people felt sorry for him, standing there before the media yesterday, weepy and apologetic. Not me. I'm onto him. I know it's all an act. He's fighting for his political life. Sleazy men like him will do anything, including grovel, to keep from drowning.

Here's the issue as I see it. It's bad enough when an elected official (or anyone given the trust of leadership) gets seduced by power and becomes sexually and morally reprobate. Such behavior should not be tolerated, people of both political parties should be appalled when it happens, and not only to people of the "other" party.

But it's the lying--and more to the point, the effortlessness, the facility, the ease with which they lie--that's troubling to me. It's almost as if lying is second nature, this innate ability to distort, to blame, to accuse, and then to chide those who dare to ask. And we're seeing it more and more in political figures. We saw it in that Blagojevich person. We saw it in John Edwards. We're seeing it in Barack Obama, especially when reporters dare to ask him "tough" questions. He gets all defensive and prickly and tries to make the issue about the questions, the questioners, the implications behind the questions. He's very good at it. Maybe not as good as Weiner, but pretty good.

This is not a good thing.

I've never trusted a smooth talker. Me, I prefer the bungler, if he's honest, to the glib, the verbally dexterous, the artful dodger.

Helicopter Parent? Yes, I'm Guilty.

Article in today's Los Angeles Times (Home section) by Mary MacVean examining the way today's parents are more connected (perhaps too connected) with their college students than is necessary or even healthy. She writes that going to college today means "never having to say good-bye," and adds, "Researchers are looking at how new technology may be delaying the point at which college-bound students truly become independent from their parents, and how phenomena such as the introduction of unlimited calling plans have changed the nature of parent-child relationships, and not always for the better."

Lots of stories in this article illustrating varying degrees of "communication" ranging from benign to excessive (though I suppose what I consider benign might be viewed as excessive, especially by those researchers).

Example of what I think is benign (and by benign I mean something I might do):

Katie Bent, a sophomore, calls home to Seattle weekly. "For me, I would love to be in contact with my parents very frequently, but I also feel like this is the time I'm supposed to be learning how to function without them," she said. "So last semester I completely destroyed my glasses at one point. That probably would have been a perfect time to deal with it, to find an optometrist in the area. What I did was call my mom, and said, 'Oh my God, Mom. What am I going to do?" Mom found an optometrist.

Of course Katie's mom found her daughter an optometrist! Like Katie's going to know where to go, whether or not the optometrist is on their insurance plan, how much she might be charged, what's reasonable, what's not. These are financial issues that students aren't necessarily engaged in at this time of life. Lots of kids are still on their parents' insurance plans, so it would make sense, in my view, to help my kid out at this point.

And yes, I'm guilty of doing the same thing. For example, I spent about 30 minutes searching for a dentist for my college-aged son in the nearby environs where he's living this summer. Could he have done this himself? Yes, of course, he's in college, for heaven's sake. Would he have done this himself? Probably not. He's in college, for heaven's sake (like he's really going to make an appointment to see the dentist?). Should I be micromanaging his oral health issues? Probably not. But I justify it for a couple of reasons: first, I have more time on my hands, and second, if my investment of 30 minutes results in my son making an appointment to get his teeth cleaned, it's worth it.

Examples of excessive parental involvement?

• There's the story of one student named Grace who was doing a semester abroad at Oxford. "She had trouble getting permission to check books out of the library. The problem wasn't getting solved, so [the dad] emailed the foreign study office himself. When he heard from Grace, the message was, 'I'll kill you if you do that again.'"
• One student named Jamie says she gets a text from her mom every night, saying good night.
• Researchers who surveyed students at Middlebury in Vermont and the University of Michigan learned that on average students and their parents were in contact about 13 times per week. 

That last item, about being in contact 13 times a week...OK, well, maybe I'm guilty again. I admit, I send my kids emails that might be newsy ("cell phones may cause brain cancer!") or personal ("tried a nice recipe with organic beets!"), or micromanagerial ("did you make an appointment for the dentist?").

Is there something wrong with all this? At some level, I guess there is. I mean, one has to ask oneself, at what point does one stop thinking about one's kids and start living one's life? I can't imagine, for instance, that my 87-year old father is wondering what I'm doing today, and if I'm maintaining good oral hygiene. At a certain point in life, he and my mom managed to let us kids go. The question is, did that "point" take place too soon, and to my personal detriment? Would I have turned out better, for instance, if my parents had been more involved in my transition from adolescence to adulthood? Back then, in the 70's and 80's, the thinking was to not be intrusive, to let kids make their own decisions (not to mention their own mistakes). I have very little memory of my parents being involved, for instance, in decisions relating to college. If anything, they were hands off to a fault.

How did that work out for me? After about two and a half years dabbling in course work at a local community college while working part-time as a waitress somewhere before finally, at around age 22, transferring to a 4-year college and getting my bachelors degree at age 24, and then, two years later, my masters, it turned out fine, but it was a circuitous and somewhat tumultuous path filled with unnecessary detours. And there are enough "W's" on my early college transcripts to indicate that I had no idea what I was doing.

Did I learn from my mistakes? Am I a better person because I made bad choices but then recovered nicely? Or did I fritter away the "best years" of my life? If my parents had hovered over me during my junior and senior years of high school, steered me towards more rigorous course work, pushed me to apply for scholarships, challenged me to stick with my musical training, stayed in touch with me when I was drifting (no cell phones, back then, let alone email, Skype, Facebook), where might I be today? Sometimes I think about all the untapped potential that was squandered simply because there was no one hovering nearby, shouting directions in my ear.

So yes, my husband I did things differently. We challenged and prodded and pushed and steered our three kids through high school and on through college. And yes, we do stay in touch with our adult kids. Guilty as charged. But I can't imagine doing it differently.

Today I got a call from my son, who recently finished his junior year at an Ivy League school and is currently working a summer job back east. He's living temporarily in the locker room before his summer housing becomes available, and not having had lunch yet (he gets cranky when he doesn't eat), he was venting about how much money he's spending on food, how he's always hungry, how the food he's eating isn't good (i.e., healthy)...

Always hungry? Not eating good food? What? I'm all over this...

Thirty minutes later I texted him: "Check your email....I found out there's a Whole Foods within two miles of you!"

I even sent him directions from Google maps.


"The Bond: Staying in Touch When Children Go to College"

Back to Salacious Politics...

 Scandal of the Week: Congressman Weiner (D. New York's 9th District) claims that his Twitter account was hacked when a 21-year old college woman received an inappropriate picture of someone's (Weiner's?) male anatomy in whitey tighties. Now Rep. Weiner is backing off his original accusation that he was hacked (potentially a felony) and instead calls it a prank.

Sort of a big difference.

Obviously the congressman would like the story to go away. But why? If he was hacked by presumably right-wing agitators (such as Andrew Breitbart), wouldn't Weiner go full-throttle here? This is his opportunity to put that pesky Breitbart away once and for all.  Instead, he's trying to change the subject, and has apparently hired a lawyer.

Jonah Goldberg makes a couple of good points. First of all, if this were a Republican congressman in the center of this salacious story, the mainstream media would be All Over It, as indeed they were just this past month. The special election in New York to replace Republican Chris Lee was necessary after it was discovered that Lee had posted pictures of himself shirtless in a Craigslist ad (yuk). And the media were all over Mark Foley back in 2006, when it was discovered the Florida Republican had sent suggestive emails to young men (yuk again).

Disgusting and offensive acts, agreed. They did and should resign. But let's be consistent. It shouldn't matter that these undies belong to a Democrat. Salacious is salacious, regardless of party affiliation. Let's get to the...um, bottom of the story. As Jonah writes, "I honestly have no idea what happened, but I do know that Anthony Weiner is exactly the kind of Democrat who would sensationalize a story like this if the politician involved was a Republican."

But here's Weiner refusing to answer any questions from the press.

Is the Next Generation Doomed?

I know this is not a settled issue, and the issue is still being studied, but it seems to me that we're gambling here on this upcoming generation's health. As it stands today, at least, the World Health Organization has classified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans, and places it in a category similar to the pesticide DDT or gasoline engine exhaust.

Great. Just great.

Call me, let's TALK.

Cell Phones May Cause Brain Cancer

Thoughts on the Monday After

There was a lot of joking in the days leading up to this past weekend. I only became aware of Harold Camping's prediction that the world would be ending on May 21st when I noticed Facebook comments about what people planned to do or eat on their "last day" (chocolate in all its various mutations topped the list). Most of the funnier (sarcastic) comments came from people I know to be believers. I'm sure there was a sense of wanting to distance themselves from what most thinking Christians believe to be error, namely, the notion that anyone can predict the day, let alone the hour, of judgment day.

As is now apparently clear to anyone who was paying attention, 5/21/11 came and went, the prophesied earthquakes never materialized, the rapture didn't happen, and people who gave up jobs, homes, savings, and reputations, now need to figure out how to get back to reality and continue living their lives like the rest of us, one day at a time. Harold Camping has to face both his followers and his critics. As one person on Facebook wrote, "Harold Camping has some 'splainin to do."

Since billboards were apparently one of Camping's mediums of communication, I guess it's appropriate that new billboards are popping up in the aftermath, a reminder of what most Christians believe to be true: "No one knows the day or the hour" (Matthew 24:36).


Yes, the billboard is funny. But I'm not laughing. And I was not among those who were mocking Harold Camping on 5/20 or 5/22. I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for those whose lives are now completely messed up because they trusted his "math." But I'm also sorry for the greater mess Camping has caused. People who believe, as I do, that there will be a day of judgment, that believers will be raptured, that this world will be destroyed, that there will be new heaven and a new earth...now find our task was just made more difficult. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. He fooled the villagers so many times, that by the time a real wolf attacked his flocks, no one believed him, though he cried and cried for help.

It's bad enough that agnostics and athiests poked fun at Camping's message. That's to be expected. But when Christians mock, it's a problem. Because the time will come when the "wolf" will attack, but the "villagers" will no longer pay attention to the warnings.

Choosing our Idols

America gave us two scoops of vanilla for this season's finale. Besides the fact that Lauren Alaina's a girl and Scotty McCreary's a boy, they are virtually indistinguishable--same genre, same age, same oh-so-sweeeeet personality. 

It would have been nice to have a different "flavor" in the finale (Rocky Road? Cappuccino Crunch? Licorice?) with Haley Reinhart paired against either Scotty or Lauren. 

Maybe it's time to carve out a separate niche for country (American Country Teen Idol?) and let the rest of the artists have a shot.