It could work but probably won't

This morning our diligent friends at the Treasury Department released a 200+ page document entitled A Blueprint for a Modern Regulatory Structure. Before I begin I will preface my remarks with the fact that since I'm not being paid to review the fine print of monetary and regulatory policy I didn't read all 200 pages. From what I can tell though this proposal seems to make sense.

Treasury is proposing that overlapping regulatory bodies be combined to eliminate complicated questions of jurisdiction and improve the efficiency of the current framework. In addition Treasury recognizes that these steps should be taken in the intermediate to long-term in order to eliminate knee-jerk reactions (See Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama's websites for said reactions) that could extend the current financial market crisis.

The generality of this statement does leave me with concern though:

The structure will consist of a market stability regulator, a prudential regulator and a business conduct regulator with a focus on consumer protection.

If these three consolidated bodies expand the regulatory framework this proposal is a means by which to entrench new larger bureaucracies. This will likely be the case when the new charters are put through a Congress controlled by a pro-regulation party.

On the surface the proposal seems to be a free market idea. That is that the current patch worked regulatory environment was the cause of the current crisis. If the Federal framework kept pace with the new efficiencies of the market the associated risks would not have been introduced into the system.

The bottom line is the current proposal seems well intentioned, the unfortunate reality is that this proposal will morph into a new animal by the time it snakes its way through the halls of the Capitol.

And for those fans of Federalism, the proposal would expand Federal Government power to regulate the insurance industry by way an "optional federal charter". Currently that power resides with the States. As with all legislation, what starts off optional can quickly become required.

Babies as punishment

"Wow" is right. The depravity of mind that enables one to think of babies as punishment defies comprehension. I have a daughter. She is still a baby. That anyone could consider her or any other young child a punishment is astonishing, even shocking.

Before Roe v. Wade, was not the universal sentiment that human babies -- vulnerable, innocent persons who, if allowed to develop, will grow into sentient, self-sufficient persons -- are blessings? At the very least, were not those who thought of babies as punishments inflicted upon the sexually active too ashamed to say so publicly?

Yet after 35 years of living in a post-Roe world, an appalling sentiment that was once taboo has crossed the lips of a major candidate for President. This is the awesome power of the United States Supreme Court to shape culture, too often employed for evil ends.

Barack Obama has some 'splainin' to do. But don't expect a comprehensible reply from him. His reasoning is borne out of more than three decades of incomprehensible judicial activism.

Obama said what?

Wow...

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

That sound you hear is Bob Casey's father spinning in his grave...

Casey Jr. may think Obama worthy of his endorsement. I have to think his unabashedly pro-life father would not have.

A big year for George Mason Law

Adding to its recent successes and innovations, George Mason lands a bumper crop of young scholars.

Remember you read the prediction here first: fifteen years, top 3.

McCain: The Anti-Republican?

I will not dispute the growing conventional wisdom that John McCain's very good standing in the polls has a lot to do with his reputed "maverickness." As Vaughn Ververs points out, the fact that voters cannot saddle John McCain with the Republican Party's baggage is making all the difference in an election year in which a generic Democrat is preferred to a generic Republican 50 percent to 37 percent. If I am a betting Dem, I like those odds.

But McCain defies the odds.

All the years he has spent being a perpetual pain in the ass to his fellow Republicans are finally paying off. His apostasy on taxes, on immigration, on the 1st Amendment...these are becoming the stuff of legends. And for that apostasy the media will repay him handsomely.

But there is an irony here that is being overlooked. John McCain's contrarian stands -- with the exception of his steadfastness on the issue of federal spending -- have all come at the expense of traditional conservatives, not today's Republican Party. The media would have us believe that traditional conservatives and today's GOP are on in the same. They are not.

Since the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Party has been sliding slowly leftward. Over the course of the last 13 years, the Party has ceased to be what it once was. It has abandoned the principles that made it great. The revolutionaries that came to Washington to change it became part of it -- and they liked it.

And as the Party has moved leftward on issues like immigration, taxes and the 1st Amendment, it has become more in line with McCain while being out of step with traditional, mainstream conservatism.

Don't forget, the media's favorite issue to cite as exhibit A of McCain's maverick status is immigration. But on that issue he had the backing of most of the GOP establishment. Remember, the bill only failed because a handful of conservatives hijacked the Senate floor to stall the bill's passage. This stalling bought time and forced the bill to crumble under the weight of its many inadequacies. So McCain was not so much out of step with his Party on the issue as he was with the American people in general.

At a time when the Republican Party promotes bills like this, it is traditional conservatives who deserve the maverick label more than John McCain. McCain is less of a maverick than he is a party unto himself.

Blogger protection act

Under current FEC regulations bloggers enjoy protection from over burdensome campaign finance laws. Bloggers who write about or link to certain candidates are not considered to have contributed to the campaigns of the candidate in any way. Under the current regulations bloggers are also given the general media exemption which allows them to cover politics in the way they see fit.

But these are just temporal FEC regulations, not law. A future FEC could reverse course and heavily regulate bloggers or a future Congress could create statutes to the same effect.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling knows this, and has introduced the Blogger Protection Act to lock the current FEC regs into statute.

It is sad to think that this legislation is necessary, but it is. The blogosphere is on the cutting edge of free speech and political expression. As its influence grows, incumbency-loving politicians will seek to control it more and more to save their own rears. Good for Hensarling for recognizing this need ahead of time.

McCain/Romney '08?

John McCain and Mitt Romney are palling around together in Utah. The fact that they are able to work together now is a testament to the character of both men after a bruising battle. Many involved in the Romney vs. McCain primary showdown have still not been able to bury the hatchet.

So the question arises: could John McCain pick Romney as his Vice President?

He could do far far worse.

Romney towards the end of his campaign won the hearts of conservatives. He is a brilliant debater, he is a mega-self-financer at a time when the GOP is having their rears served to them on a silver platter from the Dems in the fund raising game, and he adds youth and executive experience -- all things currently lacking from the McCain ticket.

Plus he is taller than everyone in the room. Seriously, the dude is tall. Tall guys win elections.

"Snipergate" dogging Clinton

Snipergate has failed to intrigue me in the way that Wrightgate did and continues to. Who doesn't already know that the Clintons are pathological liars who will say whatever they think will help them win elections?

Nevertheless, the issue deservedly has legs. Because of my lack of interest in this issue, I give you the panel, which is way better than what I would write anyway:

Ours is still better

The Supreme Court's Medellin decision continues to draw comment. Ilya Somin today explains why, leaving aside whether the decision is right as a matter of constitutional interpretation, Medellin makes good law.

Somin argues persuasively that, for all its flaws, American criminal and procedural law is generally enacted through legitimate and largely democratic processes and is generally correct. Decisions of the International Court of Justice, by contrast, are usually the product of deliberation by authoritarian, fascist, and undemocratic regimes. And, on balance, American courts get the law right more often than does the ICJ.

No argument from this corner.

Another tasty morsel

The Democratic primary battle has been full of delicious ironies, as Mrs. Clinton and the Candidate of the Past have taken turns hoising themselves on liberal petards. For years libs have busied themselves planting race-based, gender-based, and other mines around the political landscape and have delighted as conservatives tripped over them. (Think "macacca.") Now the two remaining Democratic presidential aspirants are stumbling around blowing major holes in their campaigns, as if they have forgotten where they planted the explosives.

Today we have yet another delicious irony. Libs have long decried the ostensibly evil influence of money in politics and have set themselves against all forms of political speech that involve financial expenditures. As a result, federal election law has grown into a massive and complex body of law that ensnares the guilty and the merely naive alike. Whether she is guilty or naive, Hillary seems to have set off another charge.

Hillary is done in by an obscure provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to American campaigns. Her offensive act is conspiring with that most dangerous of all foreign nationals, Elton John, who intends to perform a concert to raise money for Hillary's campaign. And this is what liberals get for their senseless legalism of the past half century: a seemingly innocuous cooperation that amounts to a violation of federal election law.

The best part is that this provision, unlike the misguided reforms effected by McCain-Feingold, is probably constitutional. The First Amendment arguably does not secure to foreign nationals a right to participate in our political process.

As Titus points out, this is getting fun indeed.

All the way to the convention!

As the Dem on Dem violence increases, conservatives begin to wonder just how far these guys will take this. Is the liberal death wish stronger than the liberal desire to retake the White House? I think Newt is right...it will only get worse. The Clintons are pulling out all the stops and deploying rhetorical daisy cutters:



"I think she could end up beating Senator Obama by a surprisingly big margin in Pennsylvania."

Break out the popcorn and settle in...this will be fun to watch.

UPDATE: Tony Snow analyzes the Obama-Clinton death match:

Conservatives more charitable than liberals

George Will's column this morning examines the disparity in giving between conservatives and liberals. A recent study finds that:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Will goes on to point out that it is an individual's value set that is most determinative when it comes to how much they give. "America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative," writes Will.

The scariest thing to contemplate is the growing liberal movement to replace individual charity with government imposed "justice" as defined by the liberal bureaucracy:

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

Can Anyone Interpret Scripture?

If I've ever heard a good argument for the Church teaching and interpreting scripture this news article is it.

Law school ranking season

US News & World Report has an annual tradition: rank all ABA-approved law schools in the United States, from top to bottom. Law professors have a corresponding annual tradition: complain about the rankings, call into question the veracity of the data, and cast doubt upon the objectivity of the process.

The 2008 rankings are out. Let the grumbling begin.

Goldberg thanks the Almighty for Obama

Does anyone do sarcasm better than Jonah Goldberg? I think not.

Barney Frank meet your new best friend Hank Paulson

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hank "Bailout King" Paulson delivered a speech today to the Chamber of Commerce urging new regulation of Wall Street. First of all, Hank apparently never took a public speaking course that emphasized the know your audience credo. Why do you deliver a pro-regulation speech to the US Chamber of Commerce? Was he trying to see how few rounds of applause he could get? But then again why would you orchestrate the most massive government intervention in the financial markets in our history?

The only hope we have at this point is that this speech is a way to preempt congress from instituting burdensome new regulation. I get the funny feeling that this is not the case. Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and I've been a supporter of his until the three months or so. This speech just reinforces my idea that its time for Paulson to step down and return to his roots. He's obviously been drinking too much water from the Potomac and has forgotten what it takes to remain the most competitive and innovative financial market in the world.

It is absolutely imperative that we maintain this competitive advantage. Our financial expertise is a major factor contributing to our economic might and makes up the vast majority of US GDP. Per the State Department's website:

Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top.

Regulation is not the means by which to maintain the advantage.

McCain's economic plan

Jack Kemp promotes the McCain economic plan:



Key quote from Kemp: "[McCain] said that creating a better investment climate, cutting the corporate income tax rate, repealing the amt, making permanent by 15% dividend and capital-gains tax will encourage a stronger demand for the united states dollar here and around the world. that's something that separates him from the bush white house and certainly separates him from the democratic party."

That menu right there is a smart menu of tax cuts. They are not sweeping across the board cuts, but rather targeted, pro-growth cuts that will yield results. I like the menu because it is designed with one thing in mind: to keep America's economy humming along as a global leader. We need them now more than ever as we are falling behind many of our global competitors.

Krugman the optimist

NY Times uber liberal columnist Paul Krugman has an astonishing note today on his blog. All of us conservative chicken littles are wrong about Social Security. We should not worry so, says Krugman. In actuality, "Social Security’s financial problem is relatively minor. It doesn’t deserve the emphasis it receives from most pundits."

How can one comfortably claim that a program that "owes $6.5 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes" is facing a "minor" financial problem? Well, if you are a liberal NY Times columnist who from the start has been in favor of a sweeping redistribution of wealth then I suppose it is relatively easy.

Ah the joys of being able to pass one generation's debts off to the next...

More on Medellin; Breyer's conversion

Opinio Juris is holding an "Insta-Symposium" on the Medellin decision of the United States Supreme Court, now only a few hours old. (The blogosphere is a place full of wonders and marvels.) Volokh and Bench Memos (here, here, and here) weigh in. The holding of the decision is somewhat complicated, but can basically be summarized thus: a judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States, entered under the authority of the Vienna Convention, to which the United States is a signatory, is not in itself binding legal authority in (Texas) state courts.

I defer to the doctrinal analyses by persons more expert in this area than I. (Ed Whelan calls the decision "a significant victory for American citizens and for representative self-government.") However, one addtional observation seem edifying.

In a long and tedious dissent, Justice Breyer argues that the judgment of the ICJ is self-executing because the Supremacy Clause of Article VI says so. The clause says no such thing. Instead, it provides that the US Constitution, federal laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution, and lawful treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land" and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." In his majority opinion, the Chief explains why the Supremacy Clause does not render a judgment by the ICJ self-executing in state courts.

But what strikes the observant reader from Breyer's dissent is his conclusion. "In sum, a strong line of precedent, likely reflecting the views of the Founders, indicates that the treaty provisions before us and the judgment of the International Court of Justice address themselves to the Judicial Branch and consequently are self-executing." (emphasis added) Halleluiah and pass the Scalia bobble-head dolls! Justice Breyer has discovered the virtues of original meaning!

The conservative legal revolution has managed to turn the tide. We're all originalists now.

A big win for federalism

As I was posting this morning about the successes of the conservative legal movement, the Supreme Court was illustrating the point with its decision in Medellin v. Texas. Jonathan Adler briefly sums things up over at Volokh.

Pre-emption is not my area of expertise, but for several reasons this decision is a treasure trove for legal scholars of all disciplines. Also, the case appears on first read to reverse the unfortunate tendency of the Court in recent years to pre-empt American law with the law of foreign jurisdictions. So, time permitting I will post on this later today. Stay tuned...

Pushing legal institutions rightward

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has a terrific post about Steven Teles' review of the rise of the conservative legal movement. Conservatives were for much of the twentieth century absent from most influential legal institutions, such as the federal courts, public interest firms, and nationally-prominent law schools. That has changed, and not by accident.

Mirengoff notes that conservatives failed to influence legal institutions in the 1970's, when they imitated the tactics and strategies of liberals. They met with success only after they took a "supply side" approach to the problem. Beginning in the 1980's, conservative lawyers moved American legal institutions in "entrepreneurial, relatively informal, and idea-centric ways."

What Mirengoff (and perhaps Teles, though I have not read his book) fails to mention is that conservatives succeeded also by eschewing libertarianism and communicating true conservative principles and ideas. For example, it was not sufficient to oppose government action generally. That approach to lawyering had (and has) almost no effect upon legal institutions, which are capable of distinguishing between good government actions and bad ones. Conservatives found success only when originalists like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork began to articulate a theory of constitutional interpretation that opposes those government actions that are inconsistent with the constitutional text. In just over twenty years, originalism has gone from being a fringe theory to being the dominant interpretive mode in the federal judiciary. And though originalists still comprise a minority in the legal academy, we represent an influential and growing minority; liberals are taking us very seriously.

Ideas matter. And the ways in which we communicate ideas matter. These are additional lessons to be learned from the rise of the conservative legal movement.

Housing Bottom?

As discipulus mentioned in an earlier post, existing home sales actually increased in February. This unexpected increase seems to be a consequence of falling home prices. According to the National Association of Realtors existing home prices fell 8.2% from a year ago. I would submit that the "biggest ever" falling prices represent the continued "shakeout" of the housing market because of the biggest ever real estate bull market. This price depreciation is likely a short-term effect of the housing bubble(Not to say we have reached stabilized prices). The Federal Reserve's actions to lower interest rates will likely stabilize home prices within the next 6 months as easy money returns to a housing market near you. The moral of the story is that for those of us that bought our houses as a long-term investment need not fear.

The media and Hillary are focusing on falling home prices and "negative equity", which is when the value of a mortgage is worth more than the value of the home. In doing this the media assumes that the vast majority of Americans have purchased their homes in the past 5 years and is therefore a systemic issue. I am looking for data to support the hypothesis that in fact all 300 million of us didn't purchase a home in this time period so we'll see what I find (common sense tells me that my 8 year old nephew didn't qualify for a home loan--The MSM seems to think he did). Just as any investment, the value will fluctuate over the short-term and has a near 100% probability of gaining value in the long haul. Assuming that the housing market return is normally distributed there will likely be a reversion to the mean that is positive in the long run.(Warning: Don't read this if the phrase 'normally distributed' conjures up images of your college stats professor. If you follow the jump you will see a normal distribution curve. The middle of this curve represents the arithmetic mean. Anything to the right is extraordinary return and anything to the left is extraordinary loss. In the context of the our recent real estate boom we moved to the right of the peak or mean. Currently, it seems we have moved to the left of the mean after a long period of above normal return. The effect is that a normally distributed return will revert to its mean or its long-term average.)

For those long-term investors in the housing (either through their primary residence or an investment property) sector the current market condition will have no bearing on the future value of your home. With that being said, those long-term investors that are looking to sell now will get a much lower price than 2 years ago but you have still seen an overall increase in your home value in the past 5 years. This is evidenced by the increase in housing wealth from $14Trillion in 2002 to $21.5Trillion in 2006.

Hitch on Wright

As usual, when Christopher Hitchens agrees with me, I am particularly drawn to his compelling logic. Last week I opined that the real problem with Jeremiah Wright's comments was not the racial undertones but rather the absurdity and irresponsibility of his calumnies. Hitch makes a similar point today in Slate. Wrights comments are not controversial; they are simply wrong. In Hitch's words,

Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

Hitch goes on to recite his usual obsessive pablum about religion being the root cause of racism. Blah, blah, blah. One tolerates Hitch's myopic rants in order to enjoy gems like this one:

To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

What does this signify?

Perhaps Free Trader will see fit to analyze this data today. Sales of existing homes rose by 2.9% in February. Indulge me while I ask the first question. What are we to make of this?

Of all hair-brained follies

this ranks among the most regrettable. Kmiec stops beating around the bush and endorses Obama.

Someday Professor Kmiec will wake up with a post-Obama hangover, either because the Candidate of the Past has lost the election or because he has won the election and violated Kmiec's misplaced confidence. For reasons that should be obvious (but apparently are not to Kmiec), no thoughtful person who endorses the self-evident good of conjugal marriage and the intrinsic value of human life in all stages of development can in good conscience vote for Obama.

I have much more to say on Kmiec's twisted logic, and might share more later today, time permitting. But what is most troubling about Kmiec's endorsement is the timing. He posted this endorsement on Easter Sunday. Even as his fellow Christians were celebrating the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who conquered death to give us life, Kmiec was playing against type and celebrating a man who consistently exercises his power and influence to ensure the destruction of innocent human lives.

Surprise, Surprise Barney Franks wants more government regulations

Yesterday, Barney Frank proposed the outlandish idea that the Federal Government create a new risk regulator that would work with the Federal Reserve to limit risking taking by financial institutions . Here are just a few of the reasons this is ludicrous (this is by no means an exhaustive list):
-Which government is it that doesn't have its own balance sheet in order? Hint: Ours. This disorder is represented by the current $9.3 Trillion deficit. Consequently, this number increases by about $1.6 Billion per day.
-How can our government propose risk regulations when it clearly doesn't understand risk? There are long-term economic consequences to running large fiscal deficits and implementing unsustainable entitlements.(See Above). Primary among these will likely be tax increases that will quell our global economic leadership, and inflation. Maybe Mr. Frank should focus on shoring up our fiscal soundness before imposing new regulation on business.
-Risk is what our political and economic model is founded on (John Adams airs on HBO Sunday nights at 9:00). Risk-takers are both rewarded and punished. I think that it is safe to say that the economic expansion we've experienced over the last 20 years is a direct result of financial institutions, corporations, and small businesses willingness to take risks. This includes: Bill Gates borrowing from a bank to start Microsoft, Citibank's willingness to help create mortgage backed securities that have allowed many of us to own homes, and an entrepreneur in Ohio using his retirement savings to start a new small business. If the government gets in the business of determining what appropriate risk is, the economy will likely cruise at the same pace the Social Security Trust Fund is growing...not by much.
What Frank fails to recognize is that there should be consequences associated with one's actions. If you're Bear Sterns and you over levered your balance sheet your choice was to hyper-inflate your earnings and at the same time hyper-inflate the probability of bankruptcy in a downturn. The just punishment for Bear's action was the erasure of about $7.5 Billion of shareholder wealth. This is exactly the same sort of punishment real estate speculators are experiencing as the value of their bets go south.
Last but not least, Wall Street is a beacon of innovation and is constantly creating new products and securities. How does the government plan on quantifying risks that have never been seen before?

Krauthammer: A brilliant fraud

Charles Krauthammer finishes what he started:

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

Read it all.

Misdirected outrage

The Obama campaign calls the security breach at the State Department "outrageous." Barack Obama is capable of outrage? Really? One could be forgiven for doubting after Obama's limp-wristed response to the truly outrageous and incendiary rhetoric of Obama's advisor, Pastor Wright. Where was Obama's outrage when Wright slandered his government, the nation of Israel, his fellow Americans, his fellow blacks, and his non-black neighbors? Just a smidgen of outrage from the Obama camp would have gone a long way.

Perhaps Obama is fuzzy on the definition of the word. According to Merriam-Webster, "outrageous" means "going beyond all standards of what is right or decent ." State Department employees imprudently satisfying their curiosity is perhaps outrageous; the point is open to debate. But is there any doubt that Wright's comments are truly, fully, and indisputably outrageous, deserving of unequivocal opprobrium, and beyond all standards of what is right or decent?

Once again, the Obama campaign demonstrates little in the way of perspective.

More of this, please

A story of courage: an average blue-collar guy jumps three third rails in a subway tunnel amidst rush hour train traffic to save a man 40 pounds heavier than he from certain death. That kind of story edifies, admonishes, and encourages. Best of all, it's factual.

Forget what the latest air-headed celebrity thinks about Barack Obama's speech. Let's get more of this reporting, if you please.

HBO's John Adams

HBO’s new miniseries, John Adams, is tremendously important. As conservatives our highest calling is to conserve those things that have worked. Essentially, conservatism at its best conserves the principles of the American Founding – liberty, equality of rights, constitutionalism and the rule of law to name a few.

But our ability to conserve these principles – these "possessions of the mind" as a friend says it – has always depended to a large extent on the broad agreement about these principles across the political spectrum. These principles must be passed from one generation to another if our experiment in human freedom is to succeed. If it is true, as we often fear, that we are failing in this task then we are in danger of losing our true identity as Americans.

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been created, a monarchy or a republic. A republic,” he said. “If you can keep it.”

Franklin’s warning rings ever truer in a modern politically correct society that promotes multiculturalism over the American Founding. When these principles are attacked by our schools, universities, filmmakers, artists and even fellow citizens, the next generation gets lost in the bustle and the treasure is not transmitted.

This is why I am heartened by HBO’s new series. The films’ producers were faithful to the history which was originally encapsulated brilliantly by David McCullough in the book, John Adams.

As we watch the series we learn about the unassuming man from New England. In learning about Adams we learn about the principles that the Founders cherished – the principles that together embody the greatest nation on earth.

This series is a teacher and we need more of them.

PS - A housekeeping note: there will be light posting around here for a few days. I am 5,000 miles from home and without a dependable internet connection. Also, I know a few of our other contributors are out of pocket as well.

The verdict is in, UPDATE: Krauthammer: A brilliantly conceived fauilure

The media love Obama's speech. In other news, the sun rose this morning in the east, expected to set in the west.



Saturday Night Live should have fun with this one.

UPDATE: Be sure not to miss Charles Krauthammer's take on this. "Rubbish" is his key word.



UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson - the tragedy of Obama's speech

Missouri and the problem with Kelo

The news accounts today make yesterday's Missouri Supreme Court eminent domain decision seem more momentous than it actually was. At issue was whether a state statute permitting a charter city to exercise the power of eminent domain violated the Missouri Constitution. The court held that the statute was constitutionally valid. The court punted on the factual question whether the property taken was blighted and the legal question whether the property was impermissibly taken for a public use. For this reason, one ought not read the decision as a dramatic incursion into private property protection.

However, the decision is noteworthy for at least one reason. The court quotes from the Missouri constitution, which authorizes municipalities to take private property for any of enumerated "purposes" that serve the "public interest," among which are the redevelopment of "substandard or insanitary areas." The court then notes in a footnote that it is not deciding the question whether the taking at issue was accomplished for a "public purpose" consistent with the Missouri constitution.

The prescient reader will note that this provision of the Missouri consitution is far more expansive than the text of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which permits governments to take private property only for "public use." In its infamous 2005 Kelo decision, authorizing the taking of private property for private use, a majority of SCOTUS re-wrote the Fifth Amendment by judicial fiat to permit takings for any public purpose. The majority attempted to assuage the reader by assuring that states would adopt more restrictive constitutional limitations on the exercise of eminent domain power. So far, that has not come to pass. Indeed, states hungry for tax revenues have little incentive to respect private property that generates less tax revenue than it might otherwise. This is one of the problems against which the Fifth Amendment was supposed to guard.

Kelo was a shameworthy exercise in judicial activism of the worst kind: the kind that undermines the rule of law. As more states become more licentious in their land-grabbing practices in this post-Kelo world, Americans would do well to consider the implications of electing a President who would put liberal activists like Justices Stephens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg, all of whom voted in the majority in Kelo, on the Court.

Patronize blacks, lose black voters?

The Reverend Eugene Rivers is rocking the house on MSNBC right now. He rejects the notion that whites cannot judge Wright's statements. He rejects the notion that Wright speaks for blacks; blacks love Jesus and they love America. And he points out that liberals who defend Wright are patronizing blacks.

Is it possible? Could it be that blacks in America are starting to see the liberal movement for what it really is?

UPDATE (Titus): Here is Rivers from Scarborough's show this morning. I assume this is the video referred to. Really, really great stuff. Wouldn't it be a beautiful irony if the Wrightgate episode sparked a shift for blacks away from the patronizing liberal political establishment?



ANOTHER UPDATE (Discipulus): That is in fact the clip. I hope Rivers means what he says and is not merely playing against type. If he is being genuine, I think this speaks very well for him and for the possibility that blacks might soon reconsider their devotion to the liberal movement and the Democratic party.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE (Discipulus): Watching that clip again, I nearly laughed out loud watching Pat Buchanan try to comprehend Rivers. Was he simply unable to believe what Rivers was saying? Did he have something disagreeable for breakfast? Funny stuff.

Not about race

Forgive me for dissenting, but I dispute the premise underlying most, if not all, of the punditry in the last 24 hours concerning Obama's speech yesterday. Chris Matthews absurdly called the speech the best speech on the topic of race in American history. (Has he not read of Martin Luther King? Abraham Lincoln?) Commentators on the Left and Right have opined on Wright's racism, the reactions of black and white voters, whether Wright's vitriol is justified by racial injustice. Obama himself spoke of a racial stalemate, as if a black perspective and a white perspective have locked in irreconcilable conflict on the grand stage of American politics and he alone has the moral authority to serve as mediator.

Perhaps I am insufficiently sensitive to racial undertones, but as I listened to excerpts of Wright's sermons last week I was struck not by Wright's racism but rather by his manifest hatred of this great nation and his anti-semitism. The only way that race might conceivably be relevant to this sorry episode is if one first accepts the premise, which any reasonable person must necessarily reject, that Wright's screed has any basis in historical fact. If ending World War II with nuclear weapons were morally equivalent to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, if the United States government were giving narcotics to black youths, if Israel were persecuting Muslim Palestinians, then Wright's speech might raise questions of race and racial justice.

However, none of those things is true as a matter of fact. And by accepting Obama's premise that his cozy relationship with Wright implicates some racial impasse, are we not ceding to his conclusion that his relationship with Wright is understandable or even justifiable? (I do not disagree with Titus' assertion that Democracts are suffering the consequences of their own identity politics. I just don't think that this particular episode is about race).

This is the genius of the man: Obama turned the tables on his critics yesterday by invoking white guilt, thus deftly avoiding examination of his own indisputable guilt. The facts are that Obama has taken counsel from and supported financially a man who preaches anti-American and anti-semitic calumnies. Let's talk about those facts a little bit and leave the breathless invocations of episodic American racial reconciliation to Chris Matthews.

Race, identity politics ripping apart Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is flailing. What once looked to be a sure thing -- a Dem win in November -- now could be in doubt as the Party wrangles with the issue of race. A Pew Research media study shows that the race issue has dominated the headlines recently. Bizarrely, Spitzer's "Client 9" prostitution scandal has been the Democrats' only saving grace as it competed for national media attention with the race issue.

Even coverage of election results was racially tinged last week. A Chicago Tribune analysis of Obama's Mississippi victory, posted on Google News, noted that exit polls in that state revealed a "race-based resistance" to Obama, with "white Democrats there rejecting his candidacy 70 percent to 26 percent, while 9 of 10 blacks voted for him. It's a dramatic reflection of a recurrent pattern most pronounced in the South," The Tribune reported. Noting concerns that black voters were offended by Clinton's suggestion that Obama be her vice president, the March 13 Los Angeles Times reported on warnings that African-Americans could stay at home in November if Clinton won the nomination.

Against that backdrop came the Ferraro and Wright flare ups, which simmered for days. By mid-week, Clinton had repudiated Ferraro's remarks in front of a group of black newspaper publishers and had her surrogates spreading the message as well. During an Oct. 13 appearance on MSNBC, Congressman Gregory Meeks, an African-American Clinton supporter, told Tucker Carlson that "clearly the statements that Geraldine Ferraro made [are] a distraction and should not have been made. They're inaccurate."

Before the dust had settled came the Wright brouhaha. On March 14, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes aired video of Wright sermons that included remarks harshly critical of the U.S. and its treatment of blacks. (At one point, he described the country as "the U.S. of K.K.K.A..") Fox then aired an interview in which Obama said he had not been aware of many of those statements, and added that "I reject them completely. They are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals."

The study goes on to cite a NY Times story last week that highlights the growing anxiety of the Party's power brokers. "Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict," writes the Times.

The Democrat chickens are coming home to roost. After decades of playing the race card, the gender card and identity politics Democrats are getting a taste of their own medicine. And it is bitter indeed.

Two Sad Parts to the Wright Saga

The first, the political part, has been well-documented here and elsewhere. The second, the spiritual part, has been largerly overlooked. As an American I was obviously dismayed by Wright's comments about America, about white people, 9/11 conspiracy theories and the like. But the real tragedy here is Wright's abdication of his duty to the flock there in Chicago. As a pastor his duty is to preach Christ crucified, not to rail against America--which is, by the way, the very country which protects for him the freedom to preach the Gospel, were he so inclined.

Wright was on my mind when I read the following article by an African-American pastor about the decline of African-American theology. It is a sad tale:

...the decline in African American understandings of the doctrine of Christ positions many unsuspecting and sincere people to fall into idolatry. God does not exist — and Jesus did not tabernacle among men, suffer the agony of crucifixion, and was not raised from the grave — to affirm the ethnic sense of identity and self-worth of any single people. Nor does God so identify with a people, even his sovereignly elected people Israel or the Church, to the point that he becomes one with that people without regard for their holiness and proper worship.

…

This is no victimless crime. Materialism and black nationalism masquerading as Christology overthrow the faith of many — shrouding the cross of Jesus in the temporal affairs of this world, which in turn choke the seeds of the Gospel.

Like most people who follow politics, the Wright saga has about made my blood boil. But after reading this article I was struck that maybe I should be more concerned with the fates of our African-American brothers and sisters who sit in pews every Sunday but who nevertheless may not hear the true Gospel.

These sentiments won't help end Wrightgate

This is totally anecdotal, but if reporters scour Obama audiences and find more reactions like the one Byron York found, Wrightgate will continue to have legs. Here is York interviewing an Obama supporter today at the big speech on race. York probed where most MSM'ers probably won't, and what he finds is scary:

“It was amazing,” Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. “I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don’t know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory.”

I asked Davis what his personal reaction was when he saw video clips of sermons in which Rev. Wright said, “God damn America,” called the United States the “U.S. of KKK A,” and said that 9/11 was “America’s chickens… coming home to roost.” “As a member of a traditional Baptist, black church, I wasn’t surprised,” Davis told me. “I wasn’t offended by anything the pastor said. A lot of things he said were absolutely correct…. The way he said it may not have been the most appropriate way to say it, but as far as a typical black inner-city church, that’s how it’s said.”

UPDATE: Conn Carroll adds:

The real news out of Obama’s speech is not that he is a gifted speaker; we already knew that. No, the real stories are that Obama changed his story yet again about his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and what Obama’s long association with him says about his judgment.

Read Conn's whole post. He explains himself well.

Sufficient

Though I agree that Obama's speech begs more questions than it answers, I doubt most people are going to ask the questions that the speech begs. The simple fact is that the man has the gift of rhetoric. His speech was patronizing, and insulting, and ironic, and... enough. It was enough to quell the riots. It was enough to stop the negative news cycles. And it was enough, I suspect, to satisfy the average voter. Even Mrs. Discipulus (no bleeding heart, she) called the speech "very good" and opined that Obama "got himself out of it."

Alas, I think she is correct.

Obama's race speech

Here is a video of Obama's much-ballyhooed speech today.



After the warm fuzzy glow wears off, read Allahpundit's total evisceration of the remarks.

This passage from the speech in particular annoyed me:

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

OK, so let me get this straight. If I am bothered by the fact that Obama planted his rear in the pews of a church whose pastor spews hatred and ignorance for two decades then I am against solving problems in this country? If I let my mind wonder why Obama never left this church or spoke out publicly against Wright's incendiary rhetoric -- or if I think that this lack of action on Obama's behalf speaks to his character, then I am against more jobs for Americans? I don't want to solve the health care crisis? I am for the status quo education system? Talk about a guilt trip!

Shouldn't Obama be the one who feels guilty about all this? Not us?

Amazing bird display

This video of birds in Scotland is amazing. Click the image to watch.

Hat tip to Kendall Harmon.

Obama the "bargainer"

In this morning's Wall Street Journal Shelby Steele argues that Barack Obama is a "bargainer." "Bargaining," according to Steele, enables white Americans to feel at ease -- absolved even -- with regard to America's past sin. Barack the "bargainer" wears a mask that comforts many. "Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him," writes Steele. "And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence."

More Steele:

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

Wrightgate approaching Nixonian levels of evasion

Victor Davis Hanson's post today on this issue is a must read:

Wrightgate is more and more becoming Nixonian.

Now we hear that Rev. Wright considers Israel a "dirty word". I don't want to sound like a broken-record, but we are back to 1973-4 when almost every day a new disclosure helped doom the stonewalling Nixon.

The gamut of Wright's hatred is amazingly extensive—Israel, whites, rich people, the United States, the American conduct of World War II, moderate blacks, middleclassness, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice—to such a degree that he seems consumed with hatred and simply fills in the target spontaneously at any given moment.

As long as Sen. Obama remains in that extremist church, and as long as he continues to offer these reprehensible mea culpas for Wright ("scholar," "not particularly controversial," "cherry-pick," "Uncle," etc.), and the more the massive Wright corpus is disseminated, the more Nixonian Obama becomes, as he scrambles to devise a new modified hangout, while allowing the last failed one to become 'inoperative.'

Read it all if you have time. It's no wonder that Hillary is hanging around, much to the dismay of the Hoperoots.

Liberals launch "rapid response policy blog"

The liberal self-described policy wonks over at John Podesta's Center for American Progress have launched a new website: The Wonk Room. The Politico reports:

“When issues pop up on the radar screen, we want to be the first with policy analysis and not let the sound bites go,” said John D. Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress.

“For the last several years, we’ve been trying to serve up policy ideas and analyses of where the country needs to go. Now, the public’s really paying attention.”

...“We want to get these ideas injected into the political dialogue,” Podesta said. “I’m sure the conservative think tanks will take issue with what progressive candidates are putting forward, and we’ll defend those ideas.”

I like the idea behind the blog but am under no allusions that objective policy study will trump pre-ordained liberal outcomes. Nevertheless, the model here is worth looking at.

Conservatives employed a similar strategy in the late 70's and early 80's. Before that time Think Tanks were nothing more than ivory towers for academic discussion. This discussion always occurred after the fact. Policy makers and conservatives staffers began to see the need for sound conservative policy analysis before the fact. After all, what good was a stellar policy paper about the disastrous consequences of the Carter Administration's energy policies if no legislator can read it before he casts his vote?

From this realization the Heritage Foundation was formed (in the years to come many other Think Tanks emulating the new model popped up). Heritage churned out white papers on important policy matters of the day. Most importantly, their white papers were in the hands of legislators well before the vote. You can thank Heritage and this model for many of the conservative victories over the last two and a half decades.

But today, a new model is needed as a supplement to the timely white paper strategy. That new model looks a lot like what the liberals at CAP are trying to do. They are right, we live in a sound bite world. Sound bites and winning the PR war on the 24 hour cable news channels is just as important as filling legislators' heads with sound policy analysis. Frankly, it might be more important given the fact that our Congress is increasingly made up of members who care more for their next election than they do for sound policy.

To win in this world, rapid response is indeed paramount. We need to be able to bring all the facts to bare as quickly as we can, and that cannot happen on dead trees. It must happen in real time on the internet which trickles onto live cable news.

Fortunately, conservatives are making headway in this arena as well. The folks at Heritage have launched The Foundry which for my money is running circles around the Wonk Room. Their average four posts a day are chock full of info that is relevant to what is happening at the moment in Congress. Check it out sometime and see if you agree.

The libertarians at CATO are no slouches either. Cato at Liberty is more bloggy than The Foundry, but it is still providing real time valuable info from the libertarian perspective.

Both of these blogs are a good start, but I can't help but think we need something even bigger.

HBO's John Adams

HBO's new miniseries John Adams premiered last night. I sat glued to the television from 8:00 to 10:45 watching the first two installments. If you don't subscribe to HBO you should now. I know you could wait until the series comes out on DVD, but wouldn't it be nice if HBO saw its subscribers jump at the launch of John Adams? Wouldn't it be great if they produced more great stuff like this?

The first two installments take us from colonial Boston in 1770 to meetings of the continental congress in 1775 in Philadelphia. Paul Giamatti brilliantly portrays the feisty John Adams who won few friends from the moment he stepped into the steamy chamber in Philadelphia. All the other Founders are played well too -- Jefferson with his brilliant pen, Washington and his stoic personality and the whimsical Franklin too.

They will replay these episodes all week. Tune in if you can.



UPDATE: Andy Roth liked it too.

For Americans, Life's Not So Bad After All

Check out this Steve Moore piece from the Wall Street Journal over the weekend. While acknowledging that the economy has slowed and that times are tough in many parts of the country, Moore contends that Americans so take for granted the "necessities" of modern life that we have lost touch with what it really means to face difficult financial times:

Here's the intro:

A few weeks ago I gave a talk on the state of the economy to a group of
college students -- almost all Barack Obama enthusiasts -- who were griping
about how downright awful things are in America today. As they sipped their
Starbucks lattes and adjusted their designer sunglasses, they recited their
grievances: The country is awash in debt "that we will have to pay off"; the
middle class in shrinking; the polar ice caps are melting; and college is
too expensive.

And the clincher graph:

Times are tough in many old industrial areas of the country. And middle-class anxiety about the costs of health care and higher education is real. But new data from the Census Bureau reveal that Americans of all income groups have made enormous gains in their standard of living in recent decades. As late as 1970, air conditioning, color TVs, washing machines, dryers and microwaves were considered luxuries. Today the vast majority of even poor families have these things in their homes. Almost one in three "poor" families has not one but at least two cars.

This column reminded me of a classic Walter Williams piece from a
while back. Williams noted that even a "poor" American is
the envy of the world:

Poverty in the United States, in an absolute sense, has virtually
disappeared. Today, there's nothing remotely resembling poverty of yesteryear. However, if poverty is defined in the relative sense, the lowest fifth of income-earners, "poverty" will always be with us. No matter how poverty is defined, if I were an unborn spirit, condemned to a life of poverty, but God allowed me to choose which nation I wanted to be poor in, I'd choose the United States. Our poor must be the envy of the world's poor.

Both the Moore and Williams columns also reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker of mine. She was a bright girl, far more intelligent than I am, and a graduate of an elite East Coast college. She had a high-paying job, two professional parents who loved and supported her, and a decent, loving boyfriend to boot. And yet, despite such obvious advantages, she was remarkably pessimistic about her own future. Not because of lingering doubt in her own abilities, mind you, but because of the conditions of the country which have made it "much more difficult to achieve success" than it was for her parents. I pressed, but never could quite figure out just what those "conditions" were. Ultimately, like the students mentioned by Moore and the "poor" described by Williams, she never realized that she, barely into her late 20s, already lived a life of ease and prosperity that is the envy of most of the world, if not her own parents.

Juan Williams delivers damning Obama indictment

Look for the nutroots to loose it on Juan Williams after this very pointed criticism of Barack Obama.

Click the image to the right to watch Williams -- a liberal commentator -- tell it like it is with regard to Obama's relationship with his incendiary, race-baiting pastor.

Favre's tears

I know I am way way late to this brewing controversy. After Brett Favre retired over a week ago, one of my favorite conservative talk show hosts laid into him for crying at his press conference. First, the moment in question:



On her radio show Laura Ingraham devoted a couple segments to lampooning the future hall of famer:

"All these years, and I didn't know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL."

"Brett Favre...we're watching this in the studio, obviously retiring from the NFL, great quarterback, handsome 38-year-old man, he gets up there and he does this press conference that was frankly one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen."

"That's a great message for young boys. 'Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby."

Then, in her best impersonation of a crying toddler with its favorite toy taken away, she wah-wah-wah's while uttering in a mocking tone, "It's about me, it was never about me, but it is about me, bla, bla, bla" before returning to her regular voice and stating, "I could not believe what I was seeing."

I was listening to Laura's show while she was discussing this. It was one of the only times I ever turned off her show because I did not like what I was hearing.

Where Favre's tears excessive? Maybe. Could he have been more humble? Probably. Did he set a bad example for kids out there? Don't be silly.

Now I am as sick of the beta male culture as Laura is, but I don't think Favre's tears were an indication that he is some sort of sissy. They were an expression of genuine emotion that comes when you close a major chapter in your life.

I remember playing college athletics. For four years I went to practice with the same group of guys day in and day out. We loved being together on the field and off the field. We shared a common purpose and worked hard for one another. Such comradery is hard to find.

I will never forget the moment the horn sounded at the end of the 4th quarter in my final game senior year. At that moment I knew a huge part of my life had come to an end. No longer would I suit up with these guys and go to battle. It was emotional...and it was only four years.

Now put yourself in Favre's shoes. He has lived and breathed football since he could walk. He played for years and years with one of the most storied franchises in the NFL. And now it is over. Forgive me if I don't get upset about his display of emotion at a press conference.

McCain's POW ad

I am continually impressed with the videos being released by the McCain team. The last one was one of the best political ads I have ever seen. This one tells the story of John McCain's heroism as a POW. It is worth watching.



If nothing else, McCain's candidacy should remind Americans of the value of service.

Could we fall behind our competitors in the air?

Another F-16 crashed Friday near Phoenix. It doesn't look like the pilot has survived. I say another because these aircraft have been going down more frequently than they should.

As decision makers think about our next generation of manned aircraft, I would like to point out that the single seat, single engine aircraft is a risky venture at best. The reason we purchase these aircraft is because they are considerably less expensive. However, they also carry a much smaller payload (less missiles/bombs/gas), they have inherent safety risks (lose an engine lose the plane, pilot G locks and you lose the plane and the pilot), and the mission they are capable of executing is not as complex. This is due to the limit of processing power of one human brain as compared with two.

What does the future look like for us? The F-35 JSF is being purchased (single seat, single engine). It is designed to replace the F-16 as a dual role fighter (air to air and air to ground capable). It has all the inherent problems of a single seat, single engine fighter. (see video below).



The other fifth generation fighter is the famed F22. It is replacing the F15C as an air superiority fighter. This fighter has the stability of two engines but the limit of one seat.

In contrast to us, the Russians have developed and sold the Su-30 variants to all of our competitors. Here is one in action:



This aircraft is a two seat, two engine, dual role aircraft. I'm not saying that it is superior to our new fighters, but I find it interesting that our competitors see wisdom in developing the two seat, two engine aircraft and we have not. Why?

Fog of War

British fighters (most likely, although unconfirmed) have been reported to have dropped ordinance that killed several Afghani civilians. My heart goes out to the Afghani families and communities that have been affected by this. War is a horrible place in which horrible things happen. The country of Afghanistan knows this too well.

However, my focus on this post will be toward the aircrew that dropped the weapon. My friends, the British, like us, send their young men and women to Afghanistan year after year (and hopefully will continue). These young men and women train for their entire career in preparation for this one task of fighting war with perfection. Perfection for an aircrew at war means that only those who are supposed to die do, and those who are supposed to live do.

These aircrew stake their careers, self worth, honor, pride and hope in the job they are doing on every push of the pickle button. Their greatest realistic fears are: 1. A bomb they drop kills or injures a fellow coalition soldier 2. A bomb they drop kills or injures an innocent civilian. The reason these fears are their highest is because these men and women signed up to protect the very people they would be hurting in these cases.

Here is the problem with the whole thing: our country, as well as our coalition partners, know that friendly fire and civilian casualties are going to happen. It always has and, although less often, it always will. We always remember to console the families of the dead. It is both obvious and obviously right to do so. What is often forgotten is that the moment the aircrew drops that weapon (whether a mistake was made or not) their lives are crushed. Often, entire squadrons will be fundamentally changed by this significant emotional event. Fighter squadrons pride themselves on protecting those who need protection.

If I could say one thing to the aircrew who dropped this weapon it would be, "Thank you for your continued service to the protection of others. Your country, knowing this would happen asked you to go anyway. You did, and your country now owes you more than it can ever pay back. We knew someone would have to shoulder this burden and we are so sorry it had to be you."

The Fed Joins the Bailout Party

Today, Bear Stearns (BS) announced that its access to short-term liquidity was impaired. In Wall Street speak, that means they had no money. In the free market Bear Sterns would have been allowed to go bankrupt as a consequence of its risk-taking. In our market though the Fed has orchestrated a bail out of BS.

The Fed was tricky in how it structured this bailout so that the word "bailout" couldn't be used. Essentially, the Fed went to JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and asked, ever so nicely, if they would be willing to access the discount window in order to provide BS with the needed liquidity. Normally, JPM would have said "no way" but the Fed counter-guaranteed the loans using BS assets as collateral and JPM said "ok". Thus creating the bailout.

On Monday, BS will likely no longer exist (probably gobbled up by another major investment bank) and the Fed will have orchestrated the bailout of one of Wall Street's biggest investment banks. The arguments defending this that will emerge in the next week or so will involve what's called 'counter-party risk'. The counter-party risk argument will say that if the Fed had not acted BS obligations would have further crunched liquidity and possibly resulted in the failure of other financial institutions. Its interesting to note that the Fed has allowed other major banks to go out of business and this counter-party risk never caused the failure of our financial system (See Drexel Burnham Lambert).

The free market argument is simple. Risk-taker should be rewarded when they do well and punished when they don't. If the Federal Government intervenes in markets as a consequence of these excesses it encourages banks to repeat the process since it is recognized the government will likely intervene.

This bailout completes the triumvirate of intervention. First, Treasury twisted arms for banks to renegotiate mortgage loan terms for borrowers, second, the Fed pumped up liquidity to prevent bank failures and finally the Fed directly intervened to prevent a specific failure.

Unfortunately, the script is not finished yet. It is likely that Congress will also have its say and further distort the market for mortgage loans. The long term economic consequences of the response to this crisis will likely cause further pain down the road. Fortunately for the people running our government they likely will be long gone before these new effects will be felt. Unfortunately for you and me, will likely be the ones to feel the pain.

Status quo 1, Change 0

Senate old bulls late last night successfully blocked a reform measure that would have banned earmarks for a year. The vote was a setback for reformers and more importantly the American people.

By blocking the ban, the Senate's powerful old guard scored a victory for the status quo. Those who have desired change in the way the Senate conducts business lost.

Still, all is not entirely gloomy. The fact that the measure drew the support of all three Presidential contenders is a good sign. It is a signal that the issue has arrived with the public. Of course the Senate is always the last to realize these things, so it makes sense that reformers will have to continue pushing the issue to get it through the thick skulls of senators that America wants change.

The "cooling saucer" still works in that the Senate remains the most insulated. But sometimes as in this case, it is a real pain in the rear.

The Republicans who voted "no" on this measure read off as a who's who of the Senate porkers:

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Lugar, Ind.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.; Wicker, Miss.

It was nice to see GOP Leader and long time appropriator Mitch McConnell vote with the reform caucus for once. But some actual leadership would be nice as well, considering the man did not say one word in favor of the measure leading up to the vote. As our hero Braveheart says, "men don't follow titles, they follow courage." But then again, this is the Senate, not the fields of Falkirk. Baby steps I guess...

(Editor's note: The picture top right depicts Reid, Durbin and Schumer. They got top billing because they were the most vocal opponents. But the GOP had plenty of their own who hated the measure as you see in the roll call above. They were just more quiet about their position leading up to the vote. Their silence was mostly because this issue -- while it has bipartisan appeal -- is more important to a vocal section of the conservative base than it is to the liberal base. GOP anti-reformers were scared to be vocal about this so they waited in the shadows, cast their vote "nay" and then slunk away. Lame. Cowardly.)

Mitt in 2012?

Mitt Romney ran a flawed campaign in 2008. Instead of running as himself, he tried to run as the uber conservative. It didn't work, because he was seen as a disingenuous flip-flopper. The irony was that -- in my opinion -- he was the most conservative candidate.

But that is all behind us now.

Now, Romney appears to be looking toward 2012. This is good. Spend four years promoting conservative candidates and conservative ideas and the flip-flopper label will be gone.

According to two Republicans with knowledge of his plans, Romney, at some point during the next few weeks, intends to establish a new political action committee to help elect Republican candidates.

“We’re thinking about what new entity can be created to allow Governor Romney to remain politically active so he can raise money and campaign for Republicans, and advocate for the issues he cares about,” Eric Fehnrstrom, Romney’s long-time aide, said in an e-mail message…

Other Republicans close to Romney said that Romney was looking for ways to position himself as the ideas factory for the Republican party over the next four years, contributing policy to John McCain, if he’s in the White House, or to Republicans in Congress, if McCain is not.

More disingenuous Wallis

I will refrain from commenting on most of the misguided op-ed Jim Wallis wrote in the Boston Globe yesterday. But I feel compelled to dispel one (deliberate) misstatement of his.

Speaking of a crowd he addressed at Boston's Park Street Church, Wallis wrote, "They suspect that Jesus would likely care more about the 30,000 children who die globally each day due to unnecessary poverty and preventable disease than he might worry about gay marriage amendments in Ohio." (How he discerned the thoughts of hundreds of silent audience members is a mystery.) This is yet another of Wallis' incendiary assertions predicated upon a slander.

The presuppositional slander is that those who disagree with Wallis (conservatives) care more about "gay marriage" than they do about children dying of diseases and poverty. I can only speak for me and my family, but I resent Wallis' slander. I believe very much in conjugal marriage and defend it at every turn. Meanwhile, my wife and I are heavily involved with a non-profit religious organization that performs development work and provides disease-prevention services in the developing world. We have given thousands of dollars to it. We have each provided dozens of hours of pro bono consulting services to it. (My wife's services are much more valuable than my own.) And we support numerous other organizations that do very good work for children and adults in other parts of the world and here in the United States.

To suggest that defending conjugal marriage and saving dying children is an either-or proposition is offensive. This is merely the latest of Wallis' detestable remarks. It is consistent with his modus operendi. But to use children? This man has no scruples.

An aside: Those of us who defend conjugal marriage do not oppose gay marriage. Indeed, we support homosexuals who get married. We oppose the creation of a same-sex marriage institution, or any civil union institution that discriminates against non-homosexual, same-sex couples. Add this to the growing list of Wallis' misstatements.

Harry Reid's dim view of the Founders

Today in the Senate is ground zero for the earmark fight we have been covering here. As the moment of truth approaches, pork-barreling politicians are pulling out the heavy guns. Check out this laughable rhetoric from the Senate's fearless leader Harry Reid:

"As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks," Reid said.

Ummmm, yeah...Somehow I have trouble seeing Adams, Jefferson and Madison get all upset about eliminating a practice that led to the excess and corruption we have come to expect from our Congress. Bridges to Nowhere, Jack Abramoff-like super lobbyists, indoor rainforests, teapot and hippie museams...yes, this is the stuff of the Founding Fathers! Ah, Harry the Patriot, Defender of First Principles standing athwart history!

Forgive me, but a Congress that produces over 15,000 earmarks totaling $17 billion in one year seems to fall quite short of Jefferson's call for a "wise and frugal government."

Good Math

I've been in several conversations over the last few months with friends about the atrocities of religion. The idea I'm usually confronted with is religion's historical role in causing all the great strife in history.

Anyone who claims religion is causing all of our wars, needs a lesson in history. This myth is easy to debunk by listing the names of Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler. These are just names from the last 100 years, you could certainly go further back. Religion has had it's problems, but to claim it is the cause of all the wars and strife is ridiculous and uninformed. Humans are the cause of wars not religion.

As a side note, this post will be my last attempt to defend religion in general. I'll stick with defending Christianity from now on. It's like being a mathematician and trying to defend and explain the benefits of all math, even bad math. In the future I'll refer specifically to math that has the proper sum, the good math of Christianity.

Even Democrats get it

Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill took to the floor today to support the conservative amendment to eliminate pork barrel spending. Her remarks are pitch perfect. Kudos to McCaskill who is sure to get some flack from big spenders in her party.



Hat tip: Andy Roth