This should make a huge difference.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Step Right Up, People!
This should make a huge difference.
Obamcare's Mandate as a Tax
I've written on this blog about my generally sympathetic view to the concept of requiring people to buy health insurance. For example, see this, and this. The mandate--as many of you know--was a policy creation of the conservative intelligentsia at Heritage during the healthcare debate of the 1990's, though it was then (as it is now) couched as an exercise in Congressional tax authority, and not explained as legal under the Commerce Clause.
My sympathy for the idea is two-fold; ideological on the one hand, pragmatic on the other.
Ideologically, the notion that the rest of us should pay for the (usually emergency room administered) health care of those Americans who do not buy health insurance who can afford it, or those who could participate in Medicaid but do not, is zany. This is an issue of personal responsibility, and as long as we as a fee people collectively agree that no one should be turned away from emergency care, then its financing should not fall entirely upon those responsible enough to see to their own insurance. This personal responsibility argument was at the heart of Heritage's individual mandate proposal from the start, and it was the aspect of the policy that then Governor Romney pushed hard for in Massachusetts.
Pragmatically, we cannot as a society achieve policy goals in healthcare without paying for them. We seem to have collectively reached a consensus around the notions of 1) ending the denial of care for pre-existing conditions 2) maximal coverage (in terms of people, not a menu of care) and 3) guaranteed access to emergency room care. These things are expensive, and they will not pay for themselves. In a free-market (sort of) healthcare system, a sufficient number of young and healthy people are needed in order to subsidize these policy goals. As long as there are healthy people who could buy health insurance but choose not to--there will be insufficient money in the system to achieve the policy goals. We either have to 1) deepen the pool through a mandate 2) eliminate the policy goals 3) adopt a single-payer system or 4) enact broad cost-containment initiatives designed to reduce the cost of insurance and make it more affordable. Or some combination.
For my Libertarian friends, I realize the tax mandate is yet another instance of the growth of the power of the Federal Government. But it is one that I believe achieves useful and worthy policy goals, and it is one with which I am ideologically happy. Plus, I am not a Libertarian.
The Supreme Court's latest decision puts both parties in a bit of a bind. Clearly, the President is confronted with a challenge on the basis of the mandate now being considered a "tax". It will in fact, represent (along with the various other taxes in the bill) a substantial tax increase on Middle Class Americans--and as such, it is yet another broken campaign promise.
For the Republicans--the Democrats are already seizing upon the "personal responsibility" nature of the tax (mandate), referring to it throughout the blogosphere/Twitter world as "the slacker tax"--as in, it will only impact the slackers who don't buy insurance. This is a wise move on the part of a Party for whom the notion of personal responsibility is in most other spheres, anathema. It recaptures the original intent of Heritage's idea in a way that many Americans can find palatable. After all, I don't have to pay the tax. Only the slackers do.
So--Republicans now find themselves in the position of undercutting personal responsibility by crowing about the tax, and Democrats find themselves in the pickle of significantly raising taxes on the middle class. Don't you love modern politics?
So, what to do? (and now I am writing to my Republican friends)
1. It's the economy, stupid. Forget the healthcare debate as a healthcare debate. It is now simply a part of the larger hammering away we must do on the President's stewardship of the economy. In the depth of the worst recession in decades, the President saddled the country with a job-killing, economy dragging measure that doesn't lower anyone's costs AND enacts a huge tax increase on the middle class.
2. Stop talking about Obamacare as a healthcare issue (see #1). I think MOST of the Americans who need to be persuaded to vote for Mitt Romney are sick and tired of the issue and just want it to go away. Those who will take to the ramparts are probably already in the R column in November. Give them enough red meat to keep them happy, but FOCUS on the economy and on how Obama's policies have and will make things worse ECONOMICALLY.
3. Don't make this into a John Roberts jihad. We'll need him, for years to come. His basic conservative tendencies were on display in his decision, including the very basic tendency to defer to the legislative branch on political measures.
My sympathy for the idea is two-fold; ideological on the one hand, pragmatic on the other.
Ideologically, the notion that the rest of us should pay for the (usually emergency room administered) health care of those Americans who do not buy health insurance who can afford it, or those who could participate in Medicaid but do not, is zany. This is an issue of personal responsibility, and as long as we as a fee people collectively agree that no one should be turned away from emergency care, then its financing should not fall entirely upon those responsible enough to see to their own insurance. This personal responsibility argument was at the heart of Heritage's individual mandate proposal from the start, and it was the aspect of the policy that then Governor Romney pushed hard for in Massachusetts.
Pragmatically, we cannot as a society achieve policy goals in healthcare without paying for them. We seem to have collectively reached a consensus around the notions of 1) ending the denial of care for pre-existing conditions 2) maximal coverage (in terms of people, not a menu of care) and 3) guaranteed access to emergency room care. These things are expensive, and they will not pay for themselves. In a free-market (sort of) healthcare system, a sufficient number of young and healthy people are needed in order to subsidize these policy goals. As long as there are healthy people who could buy health insurance but choose not to--there will be insufficient money in the system to achieve the policy goals. We either have to 1) deepen the pool through a mandate 2) eliminate the policy goals 3) adopt a single-payer system or 4) enact broad cost-containment initiatives designed to reduce the cost of insurance and make it more affordable. Or some combination.
For my Libertarian friends, I realize the tax mandate is yet another instance of the growth of the power of the Federal Government. But it is one that I believe achieves useful and worthy policy goals, and it is one with which I am ideologically happy. Plus, I am not a Libertarian.
The Supreme Court's latest decision puts both parties in a bit of a bind. Clearly, the President is confronted with a challenge on the basis of the mandate now being considered a "tax". It will in fact, represent (along with the various other taxes in the bill) a substantial tax increase on Middle Class Americans--and as such, it is yet another broken campaign promise.
For the Republicans--the Democrats are already seizing upon the "personal responsibility" nature of the tax (mandate), referring to it throughout the blogosphere/Twitter world as "the slacker tax"--as in, it will only impact the slackers who don't buy insurance. This is a wise move on the part of a Party for whom the notion of personal responsibility is in most other spheres, anathema. It recaptures the original intent of Heritage's idea in a way that many Americans can find palatable. After all, I don't have to pay the tax. Only the slackers do.
So--Republicans now find themselves in the position of undercutting personal responsibility by crowing about the tax, and Democrats find themselves in the pickle of significantly raising taxes on the middle class. Don't you love modern politics?
So, what to do? (and now I am writing to my Republican friends)
1. It's the economy, stupid. Forget the healthcare debate as a healthcare debate. It is now simply a part of the larger hammering away we must do on the President's stewardship of the economy. In the depth of the worst recession in decades, the President saddled the country with a job-killing, economy dragging measure that doesn't lower anyone's costs AND enacts a huge tax increase on the middle class.
2. Stop talking about Obamacare as a healthcare issue (see #1). I think MOST of the Americans who need to be persuaded to vote for Mitt Romney are sick and tired of the issue and just want it to go away. Those who will take to the ramparts are probably already in the R column in November. Give them enough red meat to keep them happy, but FOCUS on the economy and on how Obama's policies have and will make things worse ECONOMICALLY.
3. Don't make this into a John Roberts jihad. We'll need him, for years to come. His basic conservative tendencies were on display in his decision, including the very basic tendency to defer to the legislative branch on political measures.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Obamacare Decision Spurs Romney Contributions!
We've had four contributions in two days--a great haul inspired by the Supreme Court's horrible decision on Obamacare. A fine young Naval Officer in Hawaii and a blog reader from Northern Virginia are our latest contributors.
Let's keep up the momentum--we're getting close to $10,000, the halfway point of my goal for the site.
Click this link to contribute, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer!
Let's keep up the momentum--we're getting close to $10,000, the halfway point of my goal for the site.
Click this link to contribute, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Are You Pissed Yet? Donate to Mitt to End Obamacare!
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time! Click this link and make your donation to Mitt Romney for President. Don't forget to check the blog that says you know your referrer!
My, Was I Wrong...Sort Of....
A mere four hours after confidently predicting that the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare root and branch, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. How it came to do so is not difficult to understand, but that it did so still leaves me befuddled.
First things first. The Supreme Court bought virtually every argument that the Conservative bar made against the individual mandate. Writing for the majority (more on this later), Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to make it clear that the claim of a Congressional right to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause was an unreasonable and Unconstitutional power grab. At this point, one would think that the case was over, save for the mitigation measures. But Roberts went further, presumably throwing his support to the four liberal Justices in a deal that gave them the victory they wanted and gave him the clear blow to the Commerce Clause that he wanted. He did so by recognizing that Congress' right to tax, and in a bit of jurisprudential gymnastics, he averred that the mandate--while not passing Constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause--was perfectly legal under the right to impose taxes.
I've read portions of the dissent that are devastating in refuting Roberts' logic. His brethren accuse the majority of "rewriting" the law by designating it a tax, then they go on to cite the trouble with such rewriting being done by the branch LEAST accountable to the people. But the truth is, throughout the process of passing and litigating Obamacare, Republicans called the mandate a tax, which it was. And Democrats--including the President--maintained that it wasn't.
Democrats did so out of political necessity. The President ran on and governed with the statement that he would not raise taxes on the middle class, and with 75% of the burden of the payments under the mandate falling on middle class families, the mandate could not be called a tax. We should call this what it was--a lie. A lie of political necessity, but a lie nonetheless.
And so we come to today--Chief Justice Roberts and the Court liberals joining forces (how Elena Kagan did not recuse herself will be something worth talking about for ages, but I digress) to uphold Obamacare in a manner in which no one would have predicted. By that, I mean there was no prediction out there that Roberts would join the liberals while Kennedy stayed with the Conservatives. Some saw BOTH of them going over, but most saw the law being struck down.
So I was wrong. Obamacare stands. I do not like the decision, but it seems to have a reasonable logic to it. I also don't like Chief Justice Roberts consorting with the liberals, but I think he was (like Obama) thinking about the legacy of his court. He did however, send a direct message to people like me, and maybe most of you. In his ruling, he quite rightly states: "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Let's get to work.
First things first. The Supreme Court bought virtually every argument that the Conservative bar made against the individual mandate. Writing for the majority (more on this later), Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to make it clear that the claim of a Congressional right to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause was an unreasonable and Unconstitutional power grab. At this point, one would think that the case was over, save for the mitigation measures. But Roberts went further, presumably throwing his support to the four liberal Justices in a deal that gave them the victory they wanted and gave him the clear blow to the Commerce Clause that he wanted. He did so by recognizing that Congress' right to tax, and in a bit of jurisprudential gymnastics, he averred that the mandate--while not passing Constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause--was perfectly legal under the right to impose taxes.
I've read portions of the dissent that are devastating in refuting Roberts' logic. His brethren accuse the majority of "rewriting" the law by designating it a tax, then they go on to cite the trouble with such rewriting being done by the branch LEAST accountable to the people. But the truth is, throughout the process of passing and litigating Obamacare, Republicans called the mandate a tax, which it was. And Democrats--including the President--maintained that it wasn't.
Democrats did so out of political necessity. The President ran on and governed with the statement that he would not raise taxes on the middle class, and with 75% of the burden of the payments under the mandate falling on middle class families, the mandate could not be called a tax. We should call this what it was--a lie. A lie of political necessity, but a lie nonetheless.
And so we come to today--Chief Justice Roberts and the Court liberals joining forces (how Elena Kagan did not recuse herself will be something worth talking about for ages, but I digress) to uphold Obamacare in a manner in which no one would have predicted. By that, I mean there was no prediction out there that Roberts would join the liberals while Kennedy stayed with the Conservatives. Some saw BOTH of them going over, but most saw the law being struck down.
So I was wrong. Obamacare stands. I do not like the decision, but it seems to have a reasonable logic to it. I also don't like Chief Justice Roberts consorting with the liberals, but I think he was (like Obama) thinking about the legacy of his court. He did however, send a direct message to people like me, and maybe most of you. In his ruling, he quite rightly states: "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Let's get to work.
How the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare Will Impact the Presidential Race
Now that I've made my prediction as to the outcome of the PPACA case before the Supreme Court, the next question to be answered is "cui bono", or "to whose benefit" will the decision redound?
The answer is Mitt Romney. But it not a simple path.
When the Act is invalidated later this morning, President Obama will have a meaty issue with which to approach his base of supporters. "See? Elections DO matter. This conservative majority court is standing in the way of the most important and far-reaching reform of the nation's broken health care system ever attempted. You need to give me a second term so that I can return balance to a court that is clearly out of step with the country." Mr. Obama's fundraising will temporarily skyrocket. There will be passion, there will be vituperation, there will be venom. The Democratic base will be apoplectic over the ruling, and there will be great passion stirred in the Obama Camp. Put another way, liberals will act according to form. All of this will be very, very good for Mr. Obama. In the short term.
But in American politics, losing is rarely good. Losing big is never good. And this will be a loss of epic proportion. Mitt Romney can and will capitalize on it.
Romney's main line of attack will be--"This inexperienced man, a man who wrote two autobiographies before he was 48 years old and for whom legacy was and is the all-encompassing goal, made a strategic choice in the early days of his administration. He could have said--like Bill Clinton did--"It's the Economy, Stupid" and focused on economic recovery and the creation of jobs. Instead, he chose to fashion his legacy. He chose to tackle the liberal Holy Grail, moving the country away from market based healthcare toward a single-payer, government sponsored system. Instead of focusing on persistent unemployment, he chose his legacy. Instead of focusing on the jobs that would be sure to flow from unleashing the potential of the American energy market, he chose his legacy. Instead of encouraging conditions that promote the competitiveness of American business, he chose his legacy. In his effort to become the great "liberal lion" of the 21st Century, the man liberals would venerate as the father of the American healthcare system, President Obama ignored the challenges and needs of the American people when they were hurting. This wasn't only the act of a self-possessed man; though it is surely that. It was the act of a man without the strategic vision and wisdom to continue to be President. It was the act of a man lacking sound judgment."
Mitt Romney will hang Obamacare around the President's neck, and he will never let him forget that the first 3.5 years of his one and only term went for naught. No legacy. No recovery. No re-election.
The answer is Mitt Romney. But it not a simple path.
When the Act is invalidated later this morning, President Obama will have a meaty issue with which to approach his base of supporters. "See? Elections DO matter. This conservative majority court is standing in the way of the most important and far-reaching reform of the nation's broken health care system ever attempted. You need to give me a second term so that I can return balance to a court that is clearly out of step with the country." Mr. Obama's fundraising will temporarily skyrocket. There will be passion, there will be vituperation, there will be venom. The Democratic base will be apoplectic over the ruling, and there will be great passion stirred in the Obama Camp. Put another way, liberals will act according to form. All of this will be very, very good for Mr. Obama. In the short term.
But in American politics, losing is rarely good. Losing big is never good. And this will be a loss of epic proportion. Mitt Romney can and will capitalize on it.
Romney's main line of attack will be--"This inexperienced man, a man who wrote two autobiographies before he was 48 years old and for whom legacy was and is the all-encompassing goal, made a strategic choice in the early days of his administration. He could have said--like Bill Clinton did--"It's the Economy, Stupid" and focused on economic recovery and the creation of jobs. Instead, he chose to fashion his legacy. He chose to tackle the liberal Holy Grail, moving the country away from market based healthcare toward a single-payer, government sponsored system. Instead of focusing on persistent unemployment, he chose his legacy. Instead of focusing on the jobs that would be sure to flow from unleashing the potential of the American energy market, he chose his legacy. Instead of encouraging conditions that promote the competitiveness of American business, he chose his legacy. In his effort to become the great "liberal lion" of the 21st Century, the man liberals would venerate as the father of the American healthcare system, President Obama ignored the challenges and needs of the American people when they were hurting. This wasn't only the act of a self-possessed man; though it is surely that. It was the act of a man without the strategic vision and wisdom to continue to be President. It was the act of a man lacking sound judgment."
Mitt Romney will hang Obamacare around the President's neck, and he will never let him forget that the first 3.5 years of his one and only term went for naught. No legacy. No recovery. No re-election.
How The Supremes Will Rule on Obamacare
Sometime this morning, the Supreme Court of the United States of America will rule on the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known popularly as "Obamacare". There are a lot of scenarios about how the ruling could ultimately go, and with a few hours left in which to honestly predict the outcome, I am ready to make mine. This post is written at 0600 on the 28th of June.
Like many complicated cases, this one will ultimately have several rulings bound up in it. My prediction is that there will be two actual "decisions" or "votes".
The first will be on the constitutionality of the "mandate" to purchase health insurance under the PPACA. As the government argued this under its "commerce" authority (rather than its taxation authority), it will be found unconstitutional, and there will be AT LEAST SIX votes that affirm this--Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor.
The second question then, is what is to become of the "rest of the law"? If the mandate is struck down, then is the entire law unconstitutional? Or is only the provision regarding the mandate unconstitutional?
This question will ultimately turn on the issue of severability. The then Democrat-controlled Congress--which understands severability and used standard severability language routinely in its acts, chose not to insert severability clauses in PPACA. Some believe that this was a strategic decision, one that attempted to "bind the hands" of the Supreme Court by making the negation of the law into such a huge, national issue that the Court would be less willing to invalidate it.
The entire law will be struck down by the Court, and there will be five votes to do this--Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.
The language they will use in their decision will anticipate the criticism they are sure to receive--that the Court is engaging in "judicial activism", something conservatives accuse liberal judges and justices of all the time when they appear to legislate from the Bench.
The majority will assert that given their decision to invalidate the mandate, the "least activist" path--i.e. the one in which the Justices infringe the LEAST on Congressional prerogative--is to invalidate the entire law. That is, rather than having unelected Justices essentially "re-write" the PPACA by removing its heart and funding mechanism (something considered essential to the law by its drafters) and leaving the rest intact, invalidating the law gives Congress the MOST latitude to replace or revise the Act.
You heard it here first.
Like many complicated cases, this one will ultimately have several rulings bound up in it. My prediction is that there will be two actual "decisions" or "votes".
The first will be on the constitutionality of the "mandate" to purchase health insurance under the PPACA. As the government argued this under its "commerce" authority (rather than its taxation authority), it will be found unconstitutional, and there will be AT LEAST SIX votes that affirm this--Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor.
The second question then, is what is to become of the "rest of the law"? If the mandate is struck down, then is the entire law unconstitutional? Or is only the provision regarding the mandate unconstitutional?
This question will ultimately turn on the issue of severability. The then Democrat-controlled Congress--which understands severability and used standard severability language routinely in its acts, chose not to insert severability clauses in PPACA. Some believe that this was a strategic decision, one that attempted to "bind the hands" of the Supreme Court by making the negation of the law into such a huge, national issue that the Court would be less willing to invalidate it.
The entire law will be struck down by the Court, and there will be five votes to do this--Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.
The language they will use in their decision will anticipate the criticism they are sure to receive--that the Court is engaging in "judicial activism", something conservatives accuse liberal judges and justices of all the time when they appear to legislate from the Bench.
The majority will assert that given their decision to invalidate the mandate, the "least activist" path--i.e. the one in which the Justices infringe the LEAST on Congressional prerogative--is to invalidate the entire law. That is, rather than having unelected Justices essentially "re-write" the PPACA by removing its heart and funding mechanism (something considered essential to the law by its drafters) and leaving the rest intact, invalidating the law gives Congress the MOST latitude to replace or revise the Act.
You heard it here first.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Obama Wants Your Wedding Gifts--Romney Can Have My Birthday Gifts!
Hey folks--I realize most of you are struggling to think about what you can get me for my birthday, so I thought I'd help out. Why not contribute to the Romney for President Campaign? Click this link and don't forget to check the block that says you know who your referrer is. Who is it? THIS GUY! The Birthday Boy!
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
UVA Gets Its President Back
This afternoon, the University of Virginia Board of Visitors "unanimously" voted to reinstate embattled President Teresa Sullivan, days after "unanimously" voting to remove her from the Presidency. UVA's reputation is besmirched, the Board of Visitors is reduced, and a regrettable and avoidable chapter in the University's history is behind it. Or is it?
I have maintained from the beginning that my beef here was not the removal of Teresa Sullivan, but the ham-handed, palace coup way the Board of Visitors went about it. Their conduct was beneath that expected of a Board executing the public trust, and I have come to conclude that they should all be removed, and a fresh start made with a new Board.
But what if they were right? What if Teresa Sullivan WASN'T up to the job of leading a major public university into a time of explosive change in higher education? What if the Board's ridiculous, behind the scenes putsch had instead, been a light of day process in which their dissatisfaction with the President was fully vetted and debated? Walter Russell Mead has a great piece up on his page that looks at this question from a perspective we haven't heard much from in the debate--that of the requirement for public universities to quickly evolve or slowly die.
I have seen myriad friends post messages of glee at President Sullivan's reinstatement, and University professor and UVA booster extraordinaire Larry Sabato is positively over the top about it. Yet I submit that none of these people has a shred of experience in determining what level of performance should be expected from the UVA President. I certainly don't know. Presumably, the BOV has SOME insight into the matter, and the fact that 12 of 15 Visitors could EASILY conclude that she had to go, leaving only the last three to pitch in with the crowd, leaves me to believe there might be SOME truth to the view that Sullivan was out of her league. Because of the Board's malpractice, we will never know; worse, UVA may be saddled for years with a President unsuited to the task--now bulletproof after having survived this modern Witch Trial.
I ardently hope for the best.
But what if they were right? What if Teresa Sullivan WASN'T up to the job of leading a major public university into a time of explosive change in higher education? What if the Board's ridiculous, behind the scenes putsch had instead, been a light of day process in which their dissatisfaction with the President was fully vetted and debated? Walter Russell Mead has a great piece up on his page that looks at this question from a perspective we haven't heard much from in the debate--that of the requirement for public universities to quickly evolve or slowly die.
I have seen myriad friends post messages of glee at President Sullivan's reinstatement, and University professor and UVA booster extraordinaire Larry Sabato is positively over the top about it. Yet I submit that none of these people has a shred of experience in determining what level of performance should be expected from the UVA President. I certainly don't know. Presumably, the BOV has SOME insight into the matter, and the fact that 12 of 15 Visitors could EASILY conclude that she had to go, leaving only the last three to pitch in with the crowd, leaves me to believe there might be SOME truth to the view that Sullivan was out of her league. Because of the Board's malpractice, we will never know; worse, UVA may be saddled for years with a President unsuited to the task--now bulletproof after having survived this modern Witch Trial.
I ardently hope for the best.
So Now We Know
Because they believe in change and progress, and their own ability to actually pull it off, Democrats are by nature self-centered. If a Democrat is presented with and unalterable fact that displeases them, or an absolutely empirically provable fallacy that fits their agenda and narrative, they will fight tooth and nail to advance the lie: Reality be damned! Presently we have a prime example of such thinking (or pathology) occupying the White House. President Obama is without a doubt one of the most ego-centric, narcissistic individuals I have ever seen in my 32 years on this planet, forget Presidents, I'm talking everybody (Lady Gaga could take lessons). And he has more than his fair share of delusions.
So, what has Obama given us, what is his legacy? First, a quick review: FDR gave us the beginnings of the welfare state and a new and improved way of looking at the Constitution."What's that, putting mustard that was processed two states over on your hotdog at a cookout? Hey, now we can regulate charcoal grills...and the charcoal and the utensils and your cousin's beer consumption etc., etc." Truman gave us the Marshall Plan, not too bad. JFK gave us LBJ and LBJ gave us the modern welfare state. Jimmy Carter gave us Islamo-Fascism and Bill Clinton gave us a wealthy, belligerent, slave-labor, North Korea supporting China (or as the U.S. Treasury refers to them "our banker").
What Obama has given us is a chicken in every pot (courtesy of the food stamp program) and an Iran on every corner. In case you haven't been reading the London papers, there's this bunch taking over the Middle East called the Muslim Brotherhood. Their motto is "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope". Now I'm no fan of Assad or Mubarak, and I know I'm just an in-bred redneck with an extra y chromosome, but these people just don't sound that good to me. If one takes the view that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy, and I do, then an authoritarian relatively PEACEFUL regime is preferable to an aggressive anti-Western theocracy like Iran.
So there you have it, another gift that keeps on giving from a brain-dead, out of his depth Democrat. Our children will paying for this one a long time to come. Thanks Barry, your legacy is secure.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Another Donation to Mitt Romney for President!
That's right friends, a rock-ribbed Conservative from the great state of Wyoming donated today! She's a great friend of the blog and the grandmother of a fine young man living in DC. Why not join her by making a donation today? Click this link, and don't forget to check the block that says you know who your referrer is.
Arizona and Immigration
In a closely watched decision today, the Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling on Arizona's controversial immigration law, S.B 1070. Striking down some provisions of the law, the Supremes upheld the law's requirement for law enforcement officers to conduct an immigration check on persons otherwise detained. Within hours, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued orders to federal immigration officials in Arizona to essentially ignore any report from Arizona law enforcement, except if the person were being held in connection with a crime.
That's right folks. The President's cabinet level official in charge of stopping illegal immigration has told her people not to uphold the law. That is, legitimate reports of persons suspected by local officials to be in the country illegally are to be ignored without some other crime having been committed.
As I was driving home this afternoon, I listened to Mark Levin for a bit. In one of his full-throated rants, he yelled something like "given the Homeland Security Secretary's pledge to ignore law enforcement, why would they even take the trouble to conduct the background check?" I've got a reason for you, Mark. To get a record of the interaction with the law, to keep a database. Why? So that there is a record of each and every time the Feds ignored a report on someone Arizona officials believed to have beeen here illegally. Why? So that when one of these people kills a little girl while drunk driving, or when one of these people is arrested for murder, Arizona's Governor can broadcast at the top of her lungs (to any media outlet that will pay attention), that a preventable crime was not prevented because the President was too busy to enforce the laws of the nation.
That's right folks. The President's cabinet level official in charge of stopping illegal immigration has told her people not to uphold the law. That is, legitimate reports of persons suspected by local officials to be in the country illegally are to be ignored without some other crime having been committed.
As I was driving home this afternoon, I listened to Mark Levin for a bit. In one of his full-throated rants, he yelled something like "given the Homeland Security Secretary's pledge to ignore law enforcement, why would they even take the trouble to conduct the background check?" I've got a reason for you, Mark. To get a record of the interaction with the law, to keep a database. Why? So that there is a record of each and every time the Feds ignored a report on someone Arizona officials believed to have beeen here illegally. Why? So that when one of these people kills a little girl while drunk driving, or when one of these people is arrested for murder, Arizona's Governor can broadcast at the top of her lungs (to any media outlet that will pay attention), that a preventable crime was not prevented because the President was too busy to enforce the laws of the nation.
Huntsman Lands at Brookings
Jon Huntsman, the "look at how reasonable I am" candidate in the 2012 Republican Primary--you remember Jon, don't you, the darling of the Bought and Paid For Media--has landed a gig as a "Distinguished Fellow" at Brookings.
Say what you want, folks. Jon Huntsman is a patriot, a successful businessman, was a great Conservative Governor and a reasonably good Ambassador to China.
But a Republican standard bearer? No. Not in this Party. Or in any Republican Party of which I would be a member.
But a Republican standard bearer? No. Not in this Party. Or in any Republican Party of which I would be a member.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Two New Donations to Romney for President
The Messiah of Global Warming is a Heretic
James Lovelock, widely acknowledged as one of the early voices crying out for immediate and comprehensive responses to global warming, has changed his tune, now saying that he was "alarmist" over climate change. Read the whole article--the Green movement must be experiencing a collective "head explosion". That the story was the result of an interview with MSNBC makes everything even more delicious.
Another article on Lovelock's evolution can be found here, in which he seems to be very "pro-frack". A bit of it: "A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)"
Another gem: "Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”"
Another article on Lovelock's evolution can be found here, in which he seems to be very "pro-frack". A bit of it: "A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)"
Another gem: "Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”"
Friday, June 22, 2012
Who Needs a Waffle Iron Anyway
While O's narcissism is legendary, he's shown today that he can still pull off a stunner. This time, it's by making himself a gift registry item:
Who thinks up this stuff? Does the Romney team have a plant at Obama 2012 HQ?
Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?
Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.
Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today
Who thinks up this stuff? Does the Romney team have a plant at Obama 2012 HQ?
Mitt Romney only Likes White People
 |
| Mitt Romney, surrounded by white people |
Tepid stuff compared to the charges of racism that will undoubtedly be coming as November draws closer. Just a preview, folks!
On the Heat
And no, I do not mean the recently crowned NBA Champions.
I mean the temperature, specifically, the high temperatures experienced here on the Eastern Seaboard this week, which have become for many, the grist of endless, banal conversation. When you have nothing else to talk about, talk about the weather. Hey..wait a second....never mind.
What I would like to do is talk about how wonderful the heat is. In fact, until today, the only thing missing from the heat was the awesomeness of humidity too. Today is in fact, the first day of the year in which I can walk around my front yard in the heat and feel the heaviness of air laden with moisture--a sure sign of rain/thunderstorms later today.
As long as I have recourse to air conditioning and/or a pool, I don't give a yank how hot it is outside. I love the feeling I get when I walk out of the Pentagon for my walk across South Parking on hot, humid days. One leaves the hermetically sealed coolness and is immediately assaulted by the blast furnace that is Northern Virginia. Were I to have a walk of several miles ahead of me, I would be perhaps less enthusiastic about it. But what happens in that half-mile or so is a teletransportation back to the summers of my nearly forgotten youth. My brother Sean is a marvel of memories of our childhood--I remember next to nothing. But what I do remember is waking up on those mornings before my Mom and Dad felt things were excruciating enough to turn the A/C on, and feeling the heaviness of the air, and listening to the amazing sounds of bugs and birds. As I walk (today) , I think about those first few moments of my (then) day, when nothing of consequence lay ahead of me, when no bills had to be paid, when no work/homework loomed large, when I didn't care who was President--when there was nothing but time and a world of possibility with which to fill it.
I wonder sometimes if people passing me as I walk in the dread heat--be-Porkpied and sweating through the elbows of my shirts--think it odd that I do so with a wry smile. But from my perspective, the memory is well worth smiling about.
I mean the temperature, specifically, the high temperatures experienced here on the Eastern Seaboard this week, which have become for many, the grist of endless, banal conversation. When you have nothing else to talk about, talk about the weather. Hey..wait a second....never mind.
What I would like to do is talk about how wonderful the heat is. In fact, until today, the only thing missing from the heat was the awesomeness of humidity too. Today is in fact, the first day of the year in which I can walk around my front yard in the heat and feel the heaviness of air laden with moisture--a sure sign of rain/thunderstorms later today.
As long as I have recourse to air conditioning and/or a pool, I don't give a yank how hot it is outside. I love the feeling I get when I walk out of the Pentagon for my walk across South Parking on hot, humid days. One leaves the hermetically sealed coolness and is immediately assaulted by the blast furnace that is Northern Virginia. Were I to have a walk of several miles ahead of me, I would be perhaps less enthusiastic about it. But what happens in that half-mile or so is a teletransportation back to the summers of my nearly forgotten youth. My brother Sean is a marvel of memories of our childhood--I remember next to nothing. But what I do remember is waking up on those mornings before my Mom and Dad felt things were excruciating enough to turn the A/C on, and feeling the heaviness of the air, and listening to the amazing sounds of bugs and birds. As I walk (today) , I think about those first few moments of my (then) day, when nothing of consequence lay ahead of me, when no bills had to be paid, when no work/homework loomed large, when I didn't care who was President--when there was nothing but time and a world of possibility with which to fill it.
I wonder sometimes if people passing me as I walk in the dread heat--be-Porkpied and sweating through the elbows of my shirts--think it odd that I do so with a wry smile. But from my perspective, the memory is well worth smiling about.
Friday Again? Must Mean It Is Time To Donate To Romney for President!
I know it's summer, folks, and most of you are thinking about family vacations and cookouts--BUT THERE IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION UNDERWAY! Dig deep--click this link and donate to the Romney for President Campaign--and don't forget to click the box that says you know your referrer. We can win this election. The trajectory is good, and the President is his own worst enemy.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Once again, a little late today, sorry. But enough of that, what's on YOUR mind? Share! Kvetch! Pontificate! Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Who You Calling Cool?
The Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, Angela Rye,
has a problem with cool. According to Ms. Rye “There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too
cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you
know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s…”. Ok, so the music
reminded you of Shaft; so what? The question is, what is wrong with “cool”? Wasn’t
“cool” part of Obama’s appeal in 2008? Wasn’t his hip and cool persona one of
his greatest assets, especially with younger voters? Didn’t the media time and again encourage this image, for example when the Politico declared “Obama is
cool, the Sinatra of politics”? Or are they racists too?
As one of BET’s “14 Hottest Blacks Working on Capital Hill”
Ms. Rye should know better. She’s perpetuating the lie that if you oppose Obama
it must be because of his race. Our “Homeland Security Hottie” (again BET’s
description, not mine) is a little too paranoid. Charges of racism when none
exists will not help her cause. Besides, whether Obama is cool or uncool is not the
issue this go-round, the issue is it ain’t cool to be broke.
Monday, June 18, 2012
On the Uproar at UVA
I have thus far resisted comment on the goings-on at UVA, primarily because of a considerable lack of information upon which to base an opinion, but also out of a personal sense of embarrassment that a place that I love has once again found itself in the news for all the wrong reasons. I have no idea whether or not fired President Teresa Sullivan was doing a good job. I am simply not close enough to the University to have an informed view on the subject. I do know that she was generally well-thought of by people I respect who are close to the subject, and I do know that I did not hear a single discordant word about her during the weekend festivities two weeks ago in conjunction with my 25th Reunion.
But this is what I do know. I know that the removal of President Sullivan was the result of palace intrigue, rather than the result of a deliberate and transparent process within the Board of Visitors en banc. I know that a University that has justifiably taken pride in its honor system appears now to have acted dishonorably. I know that I am proud of the University community coming together as it appears it is, in order to demand of those responsible some accountability. And I know that the silence of Governor McDonnell (who is apparently on a trade delegation abroad through Wednesday) only deepens this muck.
There is a distinct possibility that President Sullivan was under-performing and was worthy of being sacked. If such were the case, then the Board of Visitors had a responsibility to remove her from her position. There are however, procedures in place by which a responsible Board could effect such an action. These actions were not taken, and the current Board of Visitors must be held accountable. To that end, I offer up the following recommendations:
1. Governor McDonnell should appoint a three person panel consisting of Virginians of note to conduct an investigation of the conduct of the Board of Visitors. The panel should have wide-ranging authority to compel testimony, but should have no more than 30 days to perform its duties.
2. The panel should report to the governor on the following subjects: 1) whether the firing of President Sullivan was reasonable. 2) whether the actions of the Board of Visitors were consistent with policy, procedure and precedent. 3) What remediation is in order.
3. Prior to beginning this investigation, Governor McDonnell should ask for the resignations of all members of the current Board of Visitors. Those found in the investigation to have violated the trust of the University will have their resignations subsequently accepted.
4. Any BOV members whose resignations are accepted would be replaced by someone nominated by the Governor who appointed them. In the case of this Board, all members were either nominated by Governor McDonnell or former Governor Kaine.
It strikes me that it would be very difficult for President Sullivan to return her job; but should the panel decide that is warranted, she should be retained.
This is a sad time for The University. Active, positive steps must now be taken to firmly fix responsibility and accountability, in order to re-establish trust with an alienated University Community.
But this is what I do know. I know that the removal of President Sullivan was the result of palace intrigue, rather than the result of a deliberate and transparent process within the Board of Visitors en banc. I know that a University that has justifiably taken pride in its honor system appears now to have acted dishonorably. I know that I am proud of the University community coming together as it appears it is, in order to demand of those responsible some accountability. And I know that the silence of Governor McDonnell (who is apparently on a trade delegation abroad through Wednesday) only deepens this muck.There is a distinct possibility that President Sullivan was under-performing and was worthy of being sacked. If such were the case, then the Board of Visitors had a responsibility to remove her from her position. There are however, procedures in place by which a responsible Board could effect such an action. These actions were not taken, and the current Board of Visitors must be held accountable. To that end, I offer up the following recommendations:
1. Governor McDonnell should appoint a three person panel consisting of Virginians of note to conduct an investigation of the conduct of the Board of Visitors. The panel should have wide-ranging authority to compel testimony, but should have no more than 30 days to perform its duties.
2. The panel should report to the governor on the following subjects: 1) whether the firing of President Sullivan was reasonable. 2) whether the actions of the Board of Visitors were consistent with policy, procedure and precedent. 3) What remediation is in order.
3. Prior to beginning this investigation, Governor McDonnell should ask for the resignations of all members of the current Board of Visitors. Those found in the investigation to have violated the trust of the University will have their resignations subsequently accepted.
4. Any BOV members whose resignations are accepted would be replaced by someone nominated by the Governor who appointed them. In the case of this Board, all members were either nominated by Governor McDonnell or former Governor Kaine.
It strikes me that it would be very difficult for President Sullivan to return her job; but should the panel decide that is warranted, she should be retained.
This is a sad time for The University. Active, positive steps must now be taken to firmly fix responsibility and accountability, in order to re-establish trust with an alienated University Community.
Sarah Palin Gives a History Lesson
The rise of the blogosphere as a political force--Matt Drudge got the ball rolling, as Governor Palin reminds us.
Sorry Guys, Happy Father's Day
A little late, but hey, Dad's always the last to know.
In honor of the day (yesterday), here's a little video from the Romney Campaign. Some folks think he's a little wooden as a candidate--I'm ok with that. One of the reasons is what you see in this video--the guy clearly loves his kids, and he's certainly not wooden with them.
In honor of the day (yesterday), here's a little video from the Romney Campaign. Some folks think he's a little wooden as a candidate--I'm ok with that. One of the reasons is what you see in this video--the guy clearly loves his kids, and he's certainly not wooden with them.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Takes One to Know One!
 |
| This is Neil Munro of the Daily Caller. He shouted out a question to President Obama thereby inciting much criticism, mostly in the "conservative disrespecting a black President" vein. Munro claims he thought the President was finished when he asked the question. |
 |
| This is the National Mall after President's Obama's Inauguration. |
 |
| This is the Wisconsin State House under occupation by unions last year. Reportedly millions of dollars worth of damage was done to this beautiful and historic building. |
 |
| This is a bust of Rush Limbaugh unveiled recently in the Missouri State House. A 24 hour guard has been posted due to repeated threats of vandalism. |
 |
| This is Reagan era White House Corespondent Sam Donaldson. Sam had a well deserved reputation for haranguing and harassing the President. He once asked Reagan after a press conference, in full view of the White House press corp (or is it corpse?) "Mr. President, have you seen the new study that most men sing in the shower but 20% play with themselves"? Reagan just shook his head. Donaldson went on to ask, "Do you know what they sing Mr. President"? Reagan smiled and indicated he did not. Donaldson replied "I didn't think so Mr. President". |
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Coordination and Corruption
Colonel Dan is now General Dan
An Act of Despair
President Obama's fiat granting amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants looks like a risky proposition to many political pundits, but I find myself thinking that there really isn't much of a downside to it. If Obama were more competitive with working class whites, he would be somewhat wary of alienating them. But he isn't competitive there, and this move is a simple acknowledgement of the fact that he is writing off one constituency for another. I suppose there is some risk associated with amping up the alienation and bringing out illegal immigration opponents in larger numbers--but this really comes down to the blatant pandering of a campaign in serious trouble.
What's That? Why, It's Another Donation!
Thursday, June 14, 2012
CW for Romney Cracks $8K!
A member of one of Maryland's oldest families and a rock-ribbed Republican put us over the $8K milestone today. Many thanks to all 31 donors--let's keep it up! Follow this link and don't forget to click the box that says you know who your referrer is!
Out of Touch, Out of Control and Out of His League
I was wondering if we could meet tomorrow- anytime after 11am. I know how busy you are but as you know (husband) is unemployed and we are desperately low on funds- the power is off right now at our house and we are staying with friends but that gets old real fast with two young children... If there is any way of meeting me tomorrow I would be eternally grateful- I hate to dump our problems on you but I'm guessing you can understand and I know you sympathize. I can meet you anywhere if it would make it easier on you. Just let me know...THANK YOU!!!!
I am beside myself with anger. This is the real economy; OBAMA'S ECONOMY. This God-Damned idiot has got to go!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Hubris: The Pride That Comes Before a Fall
Obama’s team insists that it is unfazed by the recent bumps in the political road. By November, “it’s going to be about: Who do I trust more in [his] approach to the debt? Who do I trust more to create middle-class jobs? Who do I trust more to create an energy future? Who do I trust more as it relates to Afghanistan?” said David Plouffe, who served as Obama’s campaign manager four years ago and is managing political strategy in the White House this time around.“That’s what’s going to decide the election, not the contretemps of the moment,” he said in an interview. “We’re very cognizant of that.”
Washington Post 6/12/12
Monday, June 11, 2012
Another Donation for Romney!
Let's keep the momentum going, friends. Click this link to contribute, and don't forget to check the box that says you know your referrer.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
How to Kill a Charity
Giving to a charity is like investing money, reputation is everything. The Komen Foundation has ruined theirs. When you accept money for one purpose and use it for another purpose entirely, especially one as controversial as Planned Parenthood then you are just asking for trouble. They're not dead yet and I'm sure they'll struggle along for a while with government and other grants, but the small giver, the ones they depend on to keep the lights on, have been reduced by over half. Komen was a good single purpose health charity with no taint of politics whatsoever. Planned Parenthood is first and foremost a political organization with a high profile, divisive agenda. Plus they've been exposed in the news these past three years doing some very unethical and illegal things such as helping pimps run a string of underage prostitutes. Something like that doesn't exactly endear you to middle America.
Regardless how you may feel about abortion, and I'm not against it in all circumstances, it's the "false flag" misrepresentation that is the issue. They should have never gotten involved with PP to begin with. The Komen Foundation was terribly naive to believe Planned Parenthood was just another women's "heath services provider". When the crap hit the fan where did PP go? They went straight for the political arena to Komen's chagrin and surprise. I cannot imagine a better way to commit institutional suicide that to do what Komen did. The Komen folks may know all about running a charity but they obviously know dick about politics, and it's going to cost them. They have killed this charity.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
The Day Obama Blinked
But I can tell you this, I'm starting to get very nervous. Things are imploding for the Democrats and this is a very inexperienced individual who may not know how to handle the incredible pressure he is under. I just pray he doesn't do something stupid, and I am deadly serious when I say that.
A Truly Great Commencement Speech
Every year at this time, we get a sampling of speeches offered at graduations. Here's one to take your time with. Wellesley High School (MA) English teacher David McCullough (son of the great historian of the same name) offered up this ditty recently. I reprint it in its entirety.
Dr. Wong, Dr. Keough, Mrs. Novogroski, Ms. Curran, members of the board of education, family and friends of the graduates, ladies and gentlemen of the Wellesley High School class of 2012, for the privilege of speaking to you this afternoon, I am honored and grateful. Thank you.
So here we are… commencement… life’s great forward-looking ceremony. (And don’t say, “What about weddings?” Weddings are one-sided and insufficiently effective. Weddings are bride-centric pageantry. Other than conceding to a list of unreasonable demands, the groom just stands there. No stately, hey-everybody-look-at-me procession. No being given away. No identity-changing pronouncement. And can you imagine a television show dedicated to watching guys try on tuxedos? Their fathers sitting there misty-eyed with joy and disbelief, their brothers lurking in the corner muttering with envy. Left to men, weddings would be, after limits-testing procrastination, spontaneous, almost inadvertent… during halftime… on the way to the refrigerator. And then there’s the frequency of failure: statistics tell us half of you will get divorced. A winning percentage like that’ll get you last place in the American League East. The Baltimore Orioles do better than weddings.)
But this ceremony… commencement… a commencement works every time. From this day forward… truly… in sickness and in health, through financial fiascos, through midlife crises and passably attractive sales reps at trade shows in Cincinnati, through diminishing tolerance for annoyingness, through every difference, irreconcilable and otherwise, you will stay forever graduated from high school, you and your diploma as one, ‘til death do you part.
No, commencement is life’s great ceremonial beginning, with its own attendant and highly appropriate symbolism. Fitting, for example, for this auspicious rite of passage, is where we find ourselves this afternoon, the venue. Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume… shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic X-Box assassin, each of you is dressed, you’ll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma… but for your name, exactly the same.
All of this is as it should be, because none of you is special.
You are not special. You are not exceptional.
Contrary to what your u9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.
Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman! And now you’ve conquered high school… and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building…
But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.
The empirical evidence is everywhere, numbers even an English teacher can’t ignore. Newton, Natick, Nee… I am allowed to say Needham, yes? …that has to be two thousand high school graduates right there, give or take, and that’s just the neighborhood Ns. Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school? After all, you’re leaving it. So think about this: even if you’re one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you. Imagine standing somewhere over there on Washington Street on Marathon Monday and watching sixty-eight hundred yous go running by. And consider for a moment the bigger picture: your planet, I’ll remind you, is not the center of its solar system, your solar system is not the center of its galaxy, your galaxy is not the center of the universe. In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. Neither can Donald Trump… which someone should tell him… although that hair is quite a phenomenon.
“But, Dave,” you cry, “Walt Whitman tells me I’m my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!” And I don’t disagree. So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another–which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality — we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. We have come to see them as the point — and we’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that’s the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. No longer is it how you play the game, no longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it… Now it’s “So what does this get me?” As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors, and building a Guatemalan medical clinic becomes more about the application to Bowdoin than the well-being of Guatemalans. It’s an epidemic — and in its way, not even dear old Wellesley High is immune… one of the best of the 37,000 nationwide, Wellesley High School… where good is no longer good enough, where a B is the new C, and the midlevel curriculum is called Advanced College Placement. And I hope you caught me when I said “one of the best.” I said “one of the best” so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can bask in a little easy distinction, however vague and unverifiable, and count ourselves among the elite, whoever they might be, and enjoy a perceived leg up on the perceived competition. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You’re it or you’re not.
If you’ve learned anything in your years here I hope it’s that education should be for, rather than material advantage, the exhilaration of learning. You’ve learned, too, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom is the chief element of happiness. (Second is ice cream… just an fyi) I also hope you’ve learned enough to recognize how little you know… how little you know now… at the moment… for today is just the beginning. It’s where you go from here that matters.
As you commence, then, and before you scatter to the winds, I urge you to do whatever you do for no reason other than you love it and believe in its importance. Don’t bother with work you don’t believe in any more than you would a spouse you’re not crazy about, lest you too find yourself on the wrong side of a Baltimore Orioles comparison. Resist the easy comforts of complacency, the specious glitter of materialism, the narcotic paralysis of self-satisfaction. Be worthy of your advantages. And read… read all the time… read as a matter of principle, as a matter of self-respect. Read as a nourishing staple of life. Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big. Work hard. Think for yourself. Love everything you love, everyone you love, with all your might. And do so, please, with a sense of urgency, for every tick of the clock subtracts from fewer and fewer; and as surely as there are commencements there are cessations, and you’ll be in no condition to enjoy the ceremony attendant to that eventuality no matter how delightful the afternoon.
The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life, is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap because you’re a nice person or mommy ordered it from the caterer. You’ll note the founding fathers took pains to secure your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–quite an active verb, “pursuit”–which leaves, I should think, little time for lying around watching parrots rollerskate on Youtube. The first President Roosevelt, the old rough rider, advocated the strenuous life. Mr. Thoreau wanted to drive life into a corner, to live deep and suck out all the marrow. The poet Mary Oliver tells us to row, row into the swirl and roil. Locally, someone… I forget who… from time to time encourages young scholars to carpe the heck out of the diem. The point is the same: get busy, have at it. Don’t wait for inspiration or passion to find you. Get up, get out, explore, find it yourself, and grab hold with both hands. (Now, before you dash off and get your YOLO tattoo, let me point out the illogic of that trendy little expression–because you can and should live not merely once, but every day of your life. Rather than You Only Live Once, it should be You Live Only Once… but because YLOO doesn’t have the same ring, we shrug and decide it doesn’t matter.)
None of this day-seizing, though, this YLOOing, should be interpreted as license for self-indulgence. Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion–and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.
Because everyone is.
Congratulations. Good luck. Make for yourselves, please, for your sake and for ours, extraordinary lives.
David McCullough
Dr. Wong, Dr. Keough, Mrs. Novogroski, Ms. Curran, members of the board of education, family and friends of the graduates, ladies and gentlemen of the Wellesley High School class of 2012, for the privilege of speaking to you this afternoon, I am honored and grateful. Thank you.
So here we are… commencement… life’s great forward-looking ceremony. (And don’t say, “What about weddings?” Weddings are one-sided and insufficiently effective. Weddings are bride-centric pageantry. Other than conceding to a list of unreasonable demands, the groom just stands there. No stately, hey-everybody-look-at-me procession. No being given away. No identity-changing pronouncement. And can you imagine a television show dedicated to watching guys try on tuxedos? Their fathers sitting there misty-eyed with joy and disbelief, their brothers lurking in the corner muttering with envy. Left to men, weddings would be, after limits-testing procrastination, spontaneous, almost inadvertent… during halftime… on the way to the refrigerator. And then there’s the frequency of failure: statistics tell us half of you will get divorced. A winning percentage like that’ll get you last place in the American League East. The Baltimore Orioles do better than weddings.)
But this ceremony… commencement… a commencement works every time. From this day forward… truly… in sickness and in health, through financial fiascos, through midlife crises and passably attractive sales reps at trade shows in Cincinnati, through diminishing tolerance for annoyingness, through every difference, irreconcilable and otherwise, you will stay forever graduated from high school, you and your diploma as one, ‘til death do you part.
No, commencement is life’s great ceremonial beginning, with its own attendant and highly appropriate symbolism. Fitting, for example, for this auspicious rite of passage, is where we find ourselves this afternoon, the venue. Normally, I avoid clichés like the plague, wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole, but here we are on a literal level playing field. That matters. That says something. And your ceremonial costume… shapeless, uniform, one-size-fits-all. Whether male or female, tall or short, scholar or slacker, spray-tanned prom queen or intergalactic X-Box assassin, each of you is dressed, you’ll notice, exactly the same. And your diploma… but for your name, exactly the same.
All of this is as it should be, because none of you is special.
You are not special. You are not exceptional.
Contrary to what your u9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.
Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman! And now you’ve conquered high school… and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building…
But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.
The empirical evidence is everywhere, numbers even an English teacher can’t ignore. Newton, Natick, Nee… I am allowed to say Needham, yes? …that has to be two thousand high school graduates right there, give or take, and that’s just the neighborhood Ns. Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school? After all, you’re leaving it. So think about this: even if you’re one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you. Imagine standing somewhere over there on Washington Street on Marathon Monday and watching sixty-eight hundred yous go running by. And consider for a moment the bigger picture: your planet, I’ll remind you, is not the center of its solar system, your solar system is not the center of its galaxy, your galaxy is not the center of the universe. In fact, astrophysicists assure us the universe has no center; therefore, you cannot be it. Neither can Donald Trump… which someone should tell him… although that hair is quite a phenomenon.
“But, Dave,” you cry, “Walt Whitman tells me I’m my own version of perfection! Epictetus tells me I have the spark of Zeus!” And I don’t disagree. So that makes 6.8 billion examples of perfection, 6.8 billion sparks of Zeus. You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. In our unspoken but not so subtle Darwinian competition with one another–which springs, I think, from our fear of our own insignificance, a subset of our dread of mortality — we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement. We have come to see them as the point — and we’re happy to compromise standards, or ignore reality, if we suspect that’s the quickest way, or only way, to have something to put on the mantelpiece, something to pose with, crow about, something with which to leverage ourselves into a better spot on the social totem pole. No longer is it how you play the game, no longer is it even whether you win or lose, or learn or grow, or enjoy yourself doing it… Now it’s “So what does this get me?” As a consequence, we cheapen worthy endeavors, and building a Guatemalan medical clinic becomes more about the application to Bowdoin than the well-being of Guatemalans. It’s an epidemic — and in its way, not even dear old Wellesley High is immune… one of the best of the 37,000 nationwide, Wellesley High School… where good is no longer good enough, where a B is the new C, and the midlevel curriculum is called Advanced College Placement. And I hope you caught me when I said “one of the best.” I said “one of the best” so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can bask in a little easy distinction, however vague and unverifiable, and count ourselves among the elite, whoever they might be, and enjoy a perceived leg up on the perceived competition. But the phrase defies logic. By definition there can be only one best. You’re it or you’re not.
If you’ve learned anything in your years here I hope it’s that education should be for, rather than material advantage, the exhilaration of learning. You’ve learned, too, I hope, as Sophocles assured us, that wisdom is the chief element of happiness. (Second is ice cream… just an fyi) I also hope you’ve learned enough to recognize how little you know… how little you know now… at the moment… for today is just the beginning. It’s where you go from here that matters.
As you commence, then, and before you scatter to the winds, I urge you to do whatever you do for no reason other than you love it and believe in its importance. Don’t bother with work you don’t believe in any more than you would a spouse you’re not crazy about, lest you too find yourself on the wrong side of a Baltimore Orioles comparison. Resist the easy comforts of complacency, the specious glitter of materialism, the narcotic paralysis of self-satisfaction. Be worthy of your advantages. And read… read all the time… read as a matter of principle, as a matter of self-respect. Read as a nourishing staple of life. Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big. Work hard. Think for yourself. Love everything you love, everyone you love, with all your might. And do so, please, with a sense of urgency, for every tick of the clock subtracts from fewer and fewer; and as surely as there are commencements there are cessations, and you’ll be in no condition to enjoy the ceremony attendant to that eventuality no matter how delightful the afternoon.
The fulfilling life, the distinctive life, the relevant life, is an achievement, not something that will fall into your lap because you’re a nice person or mommy ordered it from the caterer. You’ll note the founding fathers took pains to secure your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–quite an active verb, “pursuit”–which leaves, I should think, little time for lying around watching parrots rollerskate on Youtube. The first President Roosevelt, the old rough rider, advocated the strenuous life. Mr. Thoreau wanted to drive life into a corner, to live deep and suck out all the marrow. The poet Mary Oliver tells us to row, row into the swirl and roil. Locally, someone… I forget who… from time to time encourages young scholars to carpe the heck out of the diem. The point is the same: get busy, have at it. Don’t wait for inspiration or passion to find you. Get up, get out, explore, find it yourself, and grab hold with both hands. (Now, before you dash off and get your YOLO tattoo, let me point out the illogic of that trendy little expression–because you can and should live not merely once, but every day of your life. Rather than You Only Live Once, it should be You Live Only Once… but because YLOO doesn’t have the same ring, we shrug and decide it doesn’t matter.)
None of this day-seizing, though, this YLOOing, should be interpreted as license for self-indulgence. Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It’s what happens when you’re thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion–and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you’re not special.
Because everyone is.
Congratulations. Good luck. Make for yourselves, please, for your sake and for ours, extraordinary lives.
David McCullough
Time for Your Romney for President Contribution!
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
If Obama Wins, There Will Be Another Recession
I had an interesting conversation today with a friend of mine who indicated that if President Obama is re-elected, he will--in all likelihood--purposefully take the economy into another recession. The power of never having to stand again for election will be on display for all to see. Here's what my friend said will happen:
1. He will veto any extension of the Bush Era Tax Rates--in the interest of "fairness". Oh, he'll try and separate out the "rich" so that the "middle class" don't get their rates increased, but that won't fly, and Congress won't have the votes to override.
2. He will let "sequestration happen". This will immediately take $1.2 trillion out of the budget for the next ten years, impacting both defense and other non-defense discretionary accounts.
What do these two things do? For one, they will dramatically slow the economy, bringing on the new recession. But--they will also--using incredibly blunt instruments--return SOME measure of fiscal balance to the nation's books. That's right--the nation's largest ever tax increase coupled with substantial spending cuts--will result in a "new normal", with substantially higher revenues and somewhat lower outlays.
I think this is an interesting theory. I'm not willing to dismiss it; Mr. Obama--if he wins--is likely to have even less favorable sledding with the Congress, and "doing nothing" and letting the new normal assert itself might just be A-OK with him.
1. He will veto any extension of the Bush Era Tax Rates--in the interest of "fairness". Oh, he'll try and separate out the "rich" so that the "middle class" don't get their rates increased, but that won't fly, and Congress won't have the votes to override.
2. He will let "sequestration happen". This will immediately take $1.2 trillion out of the budget for the next ten years, impacting both defense and other non-defense discretionary accounts.
What do these two things do? For one, they will dramatically slow the economy, bringing on the new recession. But--they will also--using incredibly blunt instruments--return SOME measure of fiscal balance to the nation's books. That's right--the nation's largest ever tax increase coupled with substantial spending cuts--will result in a "new normal", with substantially higher revenues and somewhat lower outlays.
I think this is an interesting theory. I'm not willing to dismiss it; Mr. Obama--if he wins--is likely to have even less favorable sledding with the Congress, and "doing nothing" and letting the new normal assert itself might just be A-OK with him.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Obama Turns To Everywoman For Support
This is classic. The Press has had a field day excoriating Mitt Romney for his Donald Trump ties--yet this ridiculous, preening, toy-poodle of a human gets no once-over?
We Need MORE Unemployment, More Foreclosures & More Poverty
We need more foreclosures, and the sooner the better. We have a housing crisis therefore a building crisis therefore a banking crisis therefore an unemployment crisis. If you can't make the payments on your $400,000 Fanny or Freddie backed McMansion with that Wendy's gig, then get the hell out! I'm sure there's a wonderful bridge you and the fam can live under, but the free ride is over. Hit the road.
We need more poverty. Most American welfare recipients live better than middle-class Europeans, and certainly better than 99% of the World. Plus, they do nothing to earn their relatively opulent lifestyle. They are the real 1%'ers. The thing is, we don't have the money to support them. And besides, poverty is their friend, they just haven't been exposed to the wonderful, stimulating, educational and motivating effects of hunger. It's time our gummi-bear eating, 42" Plasma HDTV watching, taxpayer funded couch potatoes got a reality check instead of a welfare check.
So, there you have it, one man's opinion. You may now talk among yourselves.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Fortune's Fool
Don't misunderstand, our President has only himself to blame for much of the trouble he is in. He doesn't have the experience, the skills, the requisite knowledge, the temperament or frankly the intelligence for the most demanding job in the world. He outsourced all his legislative accomplishments to Pelosi and Reid (he hates smoozing Congressmen), he's appointed "czars" in this area or that, to do the job of the executive. And frankly, I think he feels he is too big for the job (that's one of the pitfalls of narcissism, when you believe your own BS it's easy enough to get others to buy in, but when they finally open their eyes all that's left is you and your ego). The fact is, he is the wrong man at the wrong time, and that's most of his (and our) problem. But again, that's not the whole story.
Obama used to be lucky; lucky in his opponents, lucky in the times and lucky in the mood of the country. But now the worm has turned. His opposition is competent, accomplished and energized. Romney looks presidential and is well suited to the position. The economy is terrible and the blame game is old and tired. The mood of the productive elements of the country (and those who desire to be productive) is bitter and they feel manipulated and abused. In Wisconsin the Republican Governor faces a recall election and win or lose, the public unions with their obstinacy and greed are on full display. Europe is coming apart at the seams as a result of the very policies Obama advocates. California is showing us the American version of a fool's paradise. In my state, the site of the Democratic convention, a very senior member of the NCDP is accused of sexual harassment (male on male) after infecting his live-in girlfriend with HIV. And then there's John Edwards; 'nuff said. Not a week goes by that some Democrat doesn't say something or do something stupid that dominates the news cycle for days on end.
I said three years ago that Obama would lose re-election by a landslide. I'm not that smart, maybe I'm just lucky.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Big Fat Friday Free For All
