Saturday, July 4, 2009


The Hondurans removed their very own OOPS (Official Obama Pal and Soulmate) from the presidency after he repeatedly broke the law in trying to set himself up as dictator for life. The Hondurans' brave actions represent the rule of law and are triumph for democracy.

That is precisely why the reactionariesprogressives, with the Fuehrobama in the lead, disapprove of it so vehemently. After all, they are well under way toward enshrining contempt for the law as the new "rule of law" in the United States. Just ask Maxine Waters, the California brainiac who declared that the legal impeachment of Clinton was a coup d'etat.

She clearly understands these things (and all other things) better than anyone - just check out her sex and skin color!

Saturday, June 27, 2009


So Michael Jackson is dead. I am sorry to hear it. But he was basically a schmuck whose entertainer style was to make himself progressively more ridiculous by displaying his mental health problems. Marian Anderson, he wasn't, nor B. B. King.

Was this poor, haunted wraith really worth 807 front-page articles in 71 countries?

These people certainly would have!

Friday, June 26, 2009


The science is in. The man in this picture - the gauleiter Heinrich Wachsmann von und zu Kalifornien - is an idiot. Not a useful one, but a dangerous one, since his idiocy is combined with boundless malice, equally boundless love of arbitrary power and (to paraphrase the second worst president in U.S. history) an inordinate fear of democracy.

This man however, despite his tender years, is pretty smart. The science is in on that, too.

He definitely knows right from wrong, and he can recognize a dangerous situation before it develops into a disaster. He would never vote for a bill that is sure to demolish his people's homes, lifestyle and freedom.

Now, that's smart!

Thursday, June 25, 2009


Here I am, I, Obamus Maximus Hisself, channeling my friend Mahmoud's progressive feminine for months now with my all-conquering cosmic mind, and he dares tell me anyways that I'm interfering in Iran's internal affairs?

Time for drastic measures. I think I will weep publicly (we'll use onions to create the illusion of tears) and experience stigmata on my palms (ketchup will do: the media will lap it up). Then I'll reestablish relations with my fellow progressives like Hugo Chav. Then I'll give some of the undeserving American rednecks' money to that outstanding humanist, Bobbie Mug. (Val says I should first learn a few phrases in Zimbabwean, to impress the natives. No sweat, I've got more doctorates around here than Bush could ever imagine!)

Mahmoud, you'll be real sorry when I'm done with you!

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


On May 16, I mentioned the uncanny similarity between the Soviet "health care" system and Obamacare. Namely:

"...because a single-payer system is basically a single HMO for the whole country, heavily centralized and run by faceless bureaucrats, we the people will have about as much recourse as Soviet citizens did."
Not a bad statement, even if I do say so myself. Now come the dirty details, thanks to the White House report, "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform" (.pdf), produced by the Obamite Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). I thank this not-so-august body of highly-degreed thinkers for confirming my darkest fears. On reading through their product, I felt like I was back in Communist Czechoslovakia, forever trapped in the Office of Central Planning. It's that bad.

I am also glad that I am not alone in being afraid. Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation just published an extensive analysis of that document in The American Spectator. It is aptly named Murder by Bureaucracy.

Need I say more? Write to your elected representatives to b**ch and moan before it's too late, folks!

Tuesday, June 9, 2009


Appointing judges on the basis of their "empathy" in place of thorough understanding of and respect for the law, sound self-knowledge, humility and just plain humanitarianism is apparently not a new concept. Paul Moreno, at the History News Network, has written a frightening article titled When "Empathy" Goes Awry, in which he details the ironic - and sometimes tragic - ways in which empathy-based appointments had turned out. From Oliver Wendell Holmes who respected little except eugenics to William O. Douglas who was "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed, and devoured by ambition," the article is a cautionary tale for these postmodern times.

And just to show that there is nothing new under the sun, borking by so-called progressives was alive and well long before Ted Kennedy. In particular, Moreno recounts the 1930 manhandling of Judge Parker:

Self-righteous progressives also abused many good judges whom they incorrectly believed did not meet their “empathy” standard. In 1930 Judge John J. Parker was effectively “borked” by New York Senator Robert F. Wagner.
Moreno's concluding paragraph says it all:

We can hope that President Obama has better luck choosing justices by the standard of “empathy.” But it would be better still if he found some other standard.
Like, maybe, thorough understanding of and respect for the law, sound self-knowledge, humility and just plain humanitarianism...


The Czech President Václav Klaus, a well-known economist, had published a fascinating article about today's economic crisis in April 2009. He referred, specifically, to the implementation of policies based an aggressive second-generation Keynesianism that seem hell-bent on making things worse and ultimately turning our democracy into full-fledged socialism (see also Klaus's trenchant commentary on Europe's democratic deficit that is spreading to the United States).

The article, titled The Dangers of an Aggressive Second-Generation Keynesianism, was published in Lidové noviny on April 25, 2009. Translated extracts are below.

  • I contend that, at this moment, we live in an era whose major characteristics are a consequence, or even a product, of the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. More specifically, our situation is a result of the way in which the Great Depression had been interpreted.
  • The Great Depression was taken as proof-positive of the unsuitability of the existing form of capitalism. This conclusion resulted in far-reaching interventions in the functioning and institutions of this unique, fundamentally fragile and easily damaged social system.
  • In the Thirties...[a] scientific-sounding doctrine had come into being...from John Maynard Keynes, one of the best-known personages in the contemporary economic science establishment (Cambridge University), cultural world (the London Bloomsbury group) and economic policy (major roles in key economic conferences following both world wars). Keynes’ doctrine, attractively formulated, easy to understand and easy to integrate into political thinking, was taken as gospel truth. It remained so at least through the early 1970s, when the accumulation of economic problems of the time led to the rise of stagflation, a phenomenon incomprehensible to Keynesians.
  • Keynes...grasped what society hungered for. He tore down capitalism sufficiently to discredit it [as well as]...all of contemporary economic science. He also managed to convince economists, politicians and the media that the only possible future for capitalism entailed massive state involvement in the economy by means of extensive government expenditures that were to supplement the inherently insufficient “effective demand” of the non-state sector of the economy – i.e. all of us as consumers and investors.
  • Keynes...was convinced that the state (represented by enlightened people like himself) would spend taxpayers’ money better than they themselves could. He dramatically replayed the issue of market failure over and over again, but he never asked himself about the failure of the state. He was a prototypical philosopher-king type,... a type that keenly feels the calling to direct the rest of us
  • Keynes’ starting premise was that the market had failed and the state must therefore step in. Hence the need for massive state expenditures of any kind...[but] Keynes was primarily interested in the so-called multiplier effect that would create various types of income: in other words, gross national product. What Keynes did not mean was the creation of new production capacity. This explains his emphasis on revenue-generating, not capacity-generating, effects of additional expenditures...The multiplier works whether or not an activity is unproductive, hence deficit financing of the national budget, regulation of the economy, nationalization and intervention now, regardless of future consequences.
  • Keynesianism, or more accurately, policies based on Keynesianism, triumphed in developed Western nations. If we compare the share of government expenditures in the 1930 GNP to that of 2000, we find enormous growth. A comparison of the tax burden once more reveals a large increase (here, 1930 should really be compared to 1980, i.e. to the world before Reagan and Thatcher). National debt, likewise. Social revenue as a percentage of overall revenue, the same. The number of government officials, ditto. The number of pages of legislation, again ditto.
  • Moreover, there is a ratchet effect, allowing movement in only one direction. This movement is referred to as forward movement or progress, but this kind of “progress” is fiction. It is best called no progress at all. It turns out that movement in the other direction is only possible in a kind of revolutionary moment like, for instance, the fall of Communism....[But] our policy of deregulation, privatization, denationalization and desubsidization of the economy ended in the second half of the 1990s. The first decade of the 21st century already saw a complete triumph of social democracy in its various guises...To put it simply, Keynesianism triumphed. This is the very thing to which the Great Depression had given birth.
  • Today’s crisis is greater than the crises of past decades. (This is so despite the fact that the fall of Communism, which had nothing to do with Keynesianism, resulted in much greater economic losses than today’s crisis.)
  • Some months ago,...I [expressed] skepticism that the crisis can be “cured” by cash infusions from the government... I...submit that the crisis must run its course. It is a curative process, an indispensable and irreplaceable liquidation of mistaken and therefore untenable economic endeavors. It makes no sense to try to bypass it by maintaining these endeavors artificially, with taxpayers’ money.
  • [T]oday’s crisis...was...certainly not caused by a Keynesian “insufficient effective demand,“ or insufficient consumption or investment on the part of private entities. That is why it cannot be resolved by a government augmentation of this allegedly insufficient effective demand in accordance with Keynes’ prescriptions.
  • The crisis arose due to ambitious but irrational government interventions in interest rates and the change in the U.S. Treasury’s monetary policy that increased monetary growth, all accompanied by ill-advised government regulation of the financial sector. Unrealistically low interest rates in the housing sector led to an imbalance that must be corrected, not artificially maintained by means of a flood of new money. The bubble must be allowed to shrink: it must not be pumped up even more....
  • The economic crisis will pass, sooner or later. There will be long-term damage, but it will accrue elsewhere. The opponents of the market have once again managed to create a widespread distrust of the system. Now, however, it is not merely distrust of free-market capitalism; of the laissez-faire system; of the capitalism of Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, as was the case during the Great Depression. Today, the distrust is aimed at the contemporary, highly regulated state capitalism....Our contemporary socialist visionaries make it clear – despite their rhetoric that often says something very different – that even this state capitalism is too much for them. A Keynesian revolution is not enough for them. They want yet another revolution – one that limits the market still further.
  • We are approaching real socialism. The market is no longer seen as an autonomous system but a mere tool in the hands of the self-appointed elect to create economic latifundias. This is ultimately the meaning of expressions like “economics must serve the people,” “financial system in the service of humanity,” etc....I am not sure that capitalism will survive this qualitative shift.
  • The market either exists, or it does not. In the past, central planners thought that the market is a tool, but they understood that it was not possible to get rid of it altogether. They therefore wanted to exploit it in their own way, for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the market cannot be so used. The market is an outcome of voluntary human activity that people...offer to others...Such offering is the consequence of the market’s functioning; without it, there is – nor can there be – any production of goods or services. Such production is not something outside the market – it is the market. Thus, today’s crisis is not caused by the market but by government intervention in it.
  • Avoiding future crises by additional interventions is impossible. It is, however, possible to destroy the market. Here, in Europe, we are not very far from that.
  • The most urgent task of our times is to ensure that this second-generation Keynesianism is not implemented. We must not replay the events of the 1930s and of the years that followed. We must limit state intervention in the functioning of the market, not expand it.
  • ...[T]oday’s European post-democracy cannot proceed in that direction. In it, the voice of the citizen is very weak indeed, and it becomes weaker by the day. On the other hand, the number of unelected bureaucrats who bear no love for the free market is growing without restraint.
  • In the 1930s, democrats and liberals (in the European sense) had failed intellectually and politically, and were unable to fight off the wave of distrust of the market. Today, the one and only important thing is that we do not end up the way they did, or even worse.

Lots of food of thought there, with direct and ominous relevance to the Obama economic policies.

Monday, June 8, 2009


The Czech President Vaclav Klaus has come up with a very descriptive term for the tremendous - and increasing - power of the unelected Eurocrat elite in Brussels and the ever-diminishing power of the citizens of European countries. In a March 22, 2009 interview with The Sunday Times, he called it the democratic deficit. Naturally enough, he has frequently come under vicious attack by the Eurocrats for his independent, critical and pro-democracy stance, the latest a few days ago by the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, who accused Klaus of "demolishing Europe."

Klaus's response was very simple. First, he pointed out that Kouchner's accusation has nothing to do with what he, Klaus, had said. Then he added pointedly:

If people like Mr. Kouchner view my opinions as a demolition of Europe, then I can only say that they themselves set the stage for that demolition by demolishing a democratic discussion.

Another interesting observation from the same article:

I also stressed that in talk which, by the way, had received almost no publicity. In contrast, the media had trumpeted Mr. Kouchner’s statement far and wide.

It seems that both Europe and the United States now face the same problem: an administration that is hell-bent on centralizing power in the hands of the unelected few and major media outlets that are in the securely pockets of the centralizers.

Maybe that is why the current European Parliament elections aren't going so well for the Eurocrats: the so-called center-right is gaining strength in the European Parliament at the expense of the so-called left, and leftist parties in many member nations are in crisis.

Maybe that's also why the Obamite administration is losing popularity so precipitously.

There is always trouble when people begin to wake up to the fact that the honeyed words they are being fed are mainly b.s.

Sunday, May 31, 2009


Norm Eisen, the Obamite Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, feels that criticism of the "stimulus" plan is inconceivable. He therefore intends to crush dissent by "all persons...exerting influence on the process." (h/t Ed Morrissey) That means you and me.

The full quote is here. (Did a screen capture in case it gets memory-holed.) Read it and weep, people:

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

“Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest—after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

“Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.”

Next, the Obamites will surely be outlawing other forms of criticism, no matter how well founded. Do you object to cap-n-trade, the abomination that even members of The One Party (uh, I mean Democrats) recognize as a "great big tax" that has already proven ineffective in Europe? Obamite reeducation camp for you.

Norm, be happy! Together with The Telegraph, you're in the running for the 2009 PPPAPP, in the correct speech category!

Saturday, May 30, 2009


...and he is calling for his former idol's resignation. Check out a May 29 article by Ted Rall, who formerly called for a death sentence for George Bush in May 2008 (h/t JammieWearingFool).

Rall's summary of Obama's betrayals, stupidies, lies and other dangerous acts is remarkably complete. One quote from Rall's article says it all - for the rest, go to the article itself:

Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

Trouble is, being a monster and having enough insight to remove oneself from power are two mutually exclusive things. His intent is to drag down into the abyss, though he and the Obamites see this as progress.

Progress, that is, for the elect few, but regression for the endless multitudes.

So the question remains, what do we do now?

Thursday, May 28, 2009


This picture from the "bad old days" (i.e. Communist Czechoslovakia) almost brought sentimental tears to my eyes. I remember people (including my mother) going out and standing in line for hours on the strength of a rumor (!) that such-and-such a store will have meat available. At times, people would start staking out their positions in front of the store in the wee hours and get relief from other family members, friends or neighbors in the early morning.

Just thought I would remind my fellow Americans what socialism is really all about...

Saturday, May 23, 2009


Obamites, take note! Here is a valuable lesson to be learned from the Brits, via Phil Hendren, aka Dizzy.

British Members of Parliament (MPs) have had their troubles of late, in no small measure due to The Telegraph’s recent revelations of widespread improprieties in MPs’ expense accounts. For the first time in 300 years, the Speaker of the House of Commons has resigned, and several other MPs are planning to stand down as well.

Let me say that politicians ought to be monitored closely, so in that, I am with The Telegraph. But perhaps I should also add that that a legislator’s resignation in the wake of revelations of bad behavior is a very good idea (mother Pelosi, brother Frank, childe Barack, clown prince Joey et al, take note!).

Then came trouble. (It always does...) Given the tendency of the media to ratchet up the pressure to insane levels, the situation soon turned into a witch hunt.

Then came more trouble – someone fired back. Nadine Dorries, a Mid Bedfordshire Tory, addressed the witch-hunt atmosphere in the blog portion of her website. Among others, she apparently voiced her concern that the merciless pressure might drive some MPs to suicide (has happened before, actually). She also reportedly alleged that The Telegraph might have a hidden agenda: smear MPs in the traditional parties, driving voters toward the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP).

Since Dorries’s website and blog are operated by The Telegraph Group, The Telegraph found it easy to answer MP Dorries’s allegations. They immediately shut down the blog portion of her website, citing their acceptable user policy.

That’s where The Telegraph and I part ways. The idea of shutting up someone who criticizes you is so monumentally stupid, so profoundly reactionary, so totalitarian in nature that anyone who does it is automatically gets entered in the running for my much sought-after annual Pol Pot Prize for Absolutely Progressive Procedures, or PPPAPP. (BTW, the PPPAPP is known the world over as the dictator’s Nobel/Pulitzer.)

But if silencing the opposition is your thing, this is how it’s done. So I say again: Obamites, take note and learn from The Telegraph!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009


Obama's do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hijinks have ample precedent, of course. All false messiahs I know of have suffered from that attitude. Here is just an example from one of his spiritual predecessors.

This a poster from the early Communist era in Czechoslovakia. It says: "Comrades, it's time to put an end to boozing."

Uncle Joe, to use Winston Churchill's nickname, was of course a boozer par excellence.

Monday, May 18, 2009


The British have this handy thing called an Antisocial Behavior Order (ASBO) that you can use to oppress anyone you wish. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

An anti-social behaviour order is an Order of the Court which tells an individual over 10 years old how they must not behave. Under 10s can be given a BASBO (for "baby ASBO"). An Order can contain only negative prohibitions. It cannot contain a positive obligation. To obtain an ASBO a two-stage test must be satisfied by the applicant authority (see s.1(1) Crime and Disorder Act 1998). The first is that the defendant has committed acts causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (emphasis mine) within six months of the date of issue of the summons. The second is that an order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social behaviour.
The neat thing is that you, the victim, get to define what is "harassment, alarm or distress." Just ask the hapless Britisher Caroline Cartwright who had once been slapped with an ASBO for being loud in bed (see Brendan O'Neill's May 11 article in Reason Online). Poor Caroline, having been loud in bed once too many times, was finally hauled off to a dungeon for "excessively noisy sex" because neighbors had complained and because of the ASBO in her dark past.

This, in spite of the ASBO law's provision that (Wikipedia again) "...each prohibited act must be an act preparatory to a criminal offence rather than the offence itself."

It is hard to see, from my perspective, how howling during sex is "preparatory to a criminal offense," but that's where the arbitrary "harassment, alarm or distress" business comes in. You say that it's preparatory to a criminal offense, therefore it is.

I cannot help but wonder if the Brits had learned this from our universities and HR departments, or vice versa. Either way, this is stupidity far down the slippery slope into Orwell's nightmares.

Saturday, May 16, 2009


Just as the gentle zephyrs of reality have begun to blow out the cobwebs from the dank precincts of climate change temples, British medicos have decided to throw themselves into the fray and plug up the gaps against this noxious draft.

Louise Gray, the environment correspondent over at The Telegraph, reported on May 14 that a study conducted by the University College London and published in the Lancet had concluded that:

"…the problems caused by climate change such as food shortages, heat waves and increased threat of tropical diseases such as malaria will kill billions of people (emphasis mine)…”

"Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century"

and that

"Effects of climate change will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives of and well-being of billions of people at increased risk."

There is a litany of the usual horrors. Global temperatures will climb by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. People in poor countries will suffer the most but more prosperous ones will also be affected. There will be disease, starvation, mass migration, wars. There will also be – and somebody call out the social workers please! – a "psychosocial" effect on health, with patients requiring counseling over the fear of global warming and its effects.

The editor of the Lancet huffed that doctors have been "silent for too long about the importance of climate change to the future of health services.” He pointed out that the threat is urgent and immediate, and that it requires – you guessed it – “an unprecedented response by Government and international organizations." (Read: "give the Gore crowd a free hand to pursue their lunatic schemes, at your expense.")

Doctors around the world are being urged to become advocates by encouraging a "low carbon lifestyle," and world governments are enjoined to “cut emissions and invest in helping poorer countries to adapt to climate change so that deaths are minimised.”

Talk about a desperate move. One could quip that the dying beast of the enviro-fascism is at its most dangerous, digging ever deeper to find more devious ways to panic people into submission.

I do wish that the doctors, whom I (used to) respect greatly, had continued their silence and stuck to science which, all claims to the contrary, isn’t in. In fact, it’s not anywhere near us.

As the hapless Pen Hadow and his traveling gong show had just learned, to their dismay.


We all keep thinking that it's coming, and it may well be that the Obamite juggernaut will ram it through. But, as so many sober folks have pointed out (e.g. David Gibberman's article at American Thinker), the best way to go about reform is to think about it first, using all available evidence, and then and only then act.

It might seem intuitively obvious, but we have tons of evidence on how well a centralized system works. The USSR, which was a regime at least as organizationally complex as the USA, had one for 80-some years, and the data are freely available. I offer, for instance, Diane Rowland's and Alexandre V. Telyukov's Soviet Healthcare from Two Perspectives at Health Affairs, which is an in-depth analysis of the system, its structure, its functioning and its financial and human costs. It is a real tale of woe. Among the many tidbits it offers:

"The Soviet maternal mortality rate is over six times the U.S. rate, indicating problems (emphasis mine) with quality of care in maternity hospitals."

Indicating problems, indeed. If this were not so tragic, I would laugh.

These "problem indicators," on a grand scale, are the kind of thing that we can expect if the Obamite health care plan is implemented. But because a single-payer system is basically a single HMO for the whole country, heavily centralized and run by faceless bureaucrats, we the people will have about as much recourse as Soviet citizens did.

Just thought I would mention that...

Saturday, May 9, 2009

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

A food fight has developed between Wired Online and California Representative Linda Sanchez (D), who has sponsored H.R. 1966, a.k.a. the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. H.R. 1966 is purportedly designed to prevent cyberbullying of the kind that had driven 13 year-old Megan Meier to suicide. Wired writer David Kravets states that H.R. 1966 “goes way beyond youth cyberbullying…[and] seemingly outlaws logging onto the internet.” In other words, censorship. In her HuffPo response, Rep Sanchez insists that “Congress has no interest in censoring speech, and it will not do so if it passes this bill.”

Under any other administration, I would have said that this is a there-oughta-be-a-law overreaction. Megan Meier’s suicide is tragic, and her persecutress’ behavior inexcusable. But is this really another epidemic requiring prompt government action?

Under this administration, however…

We have already seen that the Obama administration sees freedom of expression (speech, bumper stickers, ideologically diverse radio and Internet, tea parties, etc.), indeed civil rights in general, as a major threat – not to the Republic, mind you, but to The One and The One Party. And Congress has proved to be Obama's willing handmaiden in undercutting the Constitution. So Rep. Sanchez' reassurance that Congress does not want to censor speech sounds a little too much like Obama's claims that he doesn't want to run the banks or GM. (Hint: they do, and he does...)

In my view, H.R. 1966 has major implications for our constitutional rights. Now, its language may not specifically state what David Kravets reads in it, but the resolution itself is a kind of ideological earmark. It alerts the community organizers and other eager-beaver manipulators among us to yet another potential venue for expanding their control. If H.R. 1966 does not pass, the idea will sit and fester, eventually reappearing in different garb. If it is passed, it will quickly experience mission creep to encompass anything and everything that the gauleiters of The One Party find objectionable.

So, bravo, David Kravets. Keep fighting the good fight.

And nice try, Madame Sanchez! We, the People, are watching closely.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009


Big Mother hath spoken again, this time through the mouth of Little Rosie Gottemoeller of – you guessed it – the Obamite State Department. Israel, we are told, is called upon to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would give the Obamites and other Jew-hating entities to pressure the Jewish state to give up its alleged nukes. This, presumably, so the long-suffering and eminently aggrieved Iranians can be encouraged to do the same.

Different year, same moronism. When dealing with two parties, of which one is intransigent and the other willing to work with you, you focus your pressure on the latter because your feelings won’t be hurt quite so much through constant rejection. Sooner or later, you will wear down the responsible party and give the uncivilized brats what they want. Classical examples, the Munich dictates of 1938 and the Paris peace talks of 1965-1973.) And guess what? They’ll want more, and your politeness will have mattered not at all. If anything, you will be derided as a stupid weakling.

Which is what the image of the United States is getting to be nowadays.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009


In a smart editorial published in Jewish World Review today, Caroline Glick reviews the dismal state of Israeli-American relations. This, on top of the report that Rahm Emanuel, at the behest of the White House, is threatening Israel with no help vis-à-vis “kill-the-Jews” Iran and its nuclear program unless Israel gets busy engaging the Iranian ‘kill-the-Jews” proxies in Arab lands surrounding Israel.

Caroline Glick makes a good point, though. Given the de facto hostile attitude of the Obama administration toward the Jewish state, Israel must take its message directly to the American people. (Funny, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty used to do the same thing by transmitting directly to the people then in Communist bondage, over the strenuous objections of their tyrannical governments.)

My impression is that Americans continue to feel a great deal of solidarity with Israel, and tend to understand the dangers well, so this is potentially a winning strategy. Trouble, is, where to find such a great communicator? In the early years of Israel's existence, there was Abba Eban, of blessed memory. But who can perform the same function for the Jewish state today? I confess that I don’t know, but we’d better find him or her soon.

Well, anyway, here’s a first cut at a job description: statesmanlike, multilingual, thoroughly steeped in history, brilliant extemporaneous speaker, superb writer, tireless, willing to travel at a moment’s notice, willing to endure endless abuse and heckling with unlimited grace, willing to face injury or even death in the name of his or her convictions.

Any ideas?

Any takers?

Sunday, May 3, 2009


...and as always, it maketh little sense.

The Washington Times reports that Speaker Pelosi wants to prevent federal investigators from investigating questionable doings by members of Congress. She has reportedly invoked the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution as Her justification.

Now, call me crazy (many do, so don't feel bad!), but I always thought that the Separation of Powers clause was to make government more accountable and to keep any portion of government from accumulating too much power. To cite the U. S. Constitution Online Website:

"The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances."

To those of us who (a) have lived in totalitarian countries and (b) take Orwell seriously because he knew what he was talking about, this sounds very much like some people wanting to be a little more equal than others.

Pelosi's gambit should be very disturbing news to anyone who thinks democracy cannot afford to die.

Friday, May 1, 2009


Duch, the former Khmer Rouge commander of the notorious Tuol Sleng prison, explained last week that his underlings were taught class hatred that allowed them to kill their enemies. He said that "...we educated people [must] have a firm class stand and then [teach]...them to be strict about [interrogating]...and to smash people and to keep them from escaping."

I find that this is very useful knowledge for any well-educated person or persons trying to control the masses.

Thursday, April 30, 2009


last day of April 2009, squeezing in a blog entry
inbetween cooking dinner, fending off salesmen
and installing a new toilet...

I am
still trying to wrap my head around this one...

"Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done without explaining process," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said about Senator Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party.

Call me crazy, but I am always singularly unexcited when people do complicated things that affect my life but feel no need to explain them to me. In fact, I tend to feel seriously abused. Here's to hope that I am not alone in this.