Category Archives: Politics

What I meant to say

Posted on by
1

Kevin Ecker periodically runs a photo caption contest over at his blog, EckerNet. He posts an unusual photo and invites captions; whoever makes him laugh, wins. Knowing what amuses Kevin gives you an advantage in the contest, though this might be a handicap in life in general (I must confess I’ve had some success in this contest).

I didn’t win the latest contest, but I think it’s because Kevin had already picked the winner by the time I went to enter my latest brainstorm. Oh well, waste not, want not. Below is the photo and my belated caption.


The Obama campaign leadership decides they’re finally going to have to break down and call Joe the Plumber.

Fish House Economics: bail-outs and eelpouts

Posted on by
8

I once lead a group of men up to Lake Mille Lacs for an ice-fishing weekend. Ice-fishing isn’t necessarily a thrill a minute, or even a thrill an hour. To wile away the time when we weren’t clubbing eelpout or steeling ourselves for a trip to the satellite, I devised a poker tournament.

The concept was simple. Each of the ten guys received $2500 in scrip to use for betting. At the end of the weekend we would use the scrip we’d accumulated to bid on prizes that I brought along. Scrip changed hands at a moderate rate for the first hour or so as we played conventional games such as five card draw and seven card stud. Then someone suggested a hand of “in-between”.

For those not familiar with this type of poker, it is a very simple but diabolical game that calls for very little strategy but generates huge pots and sudden betting reversals that deliver the kind of belly laughs that normally accompany watching another guy take an unexpected shot to the – umm – mid-section. The way it works is a player is dealt two cards face up. He then bets any amount up to whatever is in the pot at the time on whether the next card will be “in-between” the two cards (a card the same value as one of the first two dealt counts as a loss). Sometimes a player would get a deuce/king split and brazenly bet the pot, only to see another deuce or an ace turn up (hilarity would ensue). He would then have to pay the amount in the pot, which fattened it up significantly for the next guy who got a wide split and an opportunity to bet on a “sure thing”.

This soon became the game of choice among our group, and it wasn’t long after that before our first guys tapped out. Since it was hours until dawn and the fish were fasting, “loans” were quickly arranged from the people with a big stack to those less fortunate so everyone could continue to play. Soon enough, the once wealthy were borrowing from other players as well so everyone could “stay in the game.” Some effort was made to keep track of who owed what and to who, but it rapidly became so convoluted as to be impossible.

By the time we were ready to leave, even the guy who had the biggest stack at the end still owed many times that to other players, who themselves owed many of their neighbors. As we tried to reconstruct the transactions I got the idea to add up all the “loans” that had been passed around. Even though there was still only $25,000 in actual scrip, the total of all the loans was easily more than ten times that. The only way we could have settled every thing was for me to go back into town and hit the Kinko’s to photocopy more scrip!

I don’t know what made me remember this story.

A strong recommendation for The Strong Man

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

History means the endless rethinking — and re-viewing and revisiting — of the past. History, in the broad sense of the word, is revisionist. History involves multiple jeopardy that the law eschews: People and events are retried and retried again. –John Lukacs

I was in my early teens when the Watergate saga dominated the news and politics, setting the course of the style and tone of political reporting we take for granted today. You couldn’t avoid the story as it played out, though eventually my attention would not extend much beyond the headlines as things such as girls and getting my driver’s license became more important.

Then, a couple of months ago I heard Hugh Hewitt interviewing author James Rosen about his just released book, “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate.” At first my long-buried, reflexive mental eye-glazing at the mention of the word “Watergate” had me tuning out but some of Rosen’s statements piqued my interest. Watergate was one of the defining and far-reaching events of our modern history and Mitchell was, next to Nixon, the central character in the drama — yet little was known about him. He himself was largely close-mouthed and much of the testimony by others about his role and involvement was contradictory and self-serving. As I listened to the interview I had to admit that it would be fascinating to get a look at what went on in the mind and life of the man who was the Attorney General not just for Watergate, but also the era of school desegregation battles, campus unrest and Kent State, and the investigations of historical figures such as Lt. William Calley and Jimmy Hoffa.

Before it could slip from my mind I went on-line and requested a copy of the book from my local library (it had yet to be purchased). A couple of weeks ago I was notified the book was waiting for me and I picked it up. I was finishing another book at the time so I didn’t turn to The Strong Man right away. My borrowing period was almost up when I started to read it and I was so taken with the Prologue that I immediately tried to renew the book, only to find that I couldn’t because others were waiting for it. Rats! I seriously thought about keeping the book until I was finished and just paying the fines, but realized that was selfish and inconsiderate of me when other people are waiting. From what I’ve read so far, I think people are going to be very happy to get their hands on this as soon as they can. I’m turning it back in — and I’ve got my name back on the waiting list!

The Prologue does a great job of setting the scene and outlining the significance of Mitchell’s historical role and the irony of there being so little examination of it. Some of this was due to Mitchell’s own reticence, so unlike his contemporaries:

Equally unlike his fellow Watergate convicts, Mitchell never published a book about his years in power, never sold his soul to pay lawyer’s fees, never dished dirt on Richard Nixon to delight university audiences on the lecture circuit or viewers of The Mike Douglas Show. He never “found God.” In electing to tough it out, one columnist wrote, Mitchell stood “up to his hips in midgets among the other Watergate characters…dividing the men from the boys.” “Among the WASP Westchester country club Mafia,” another columnist observed of Mitchell’s behavior in Watergate, “the code of omertà holds.” Richard Nixon, toasting his former attorney general at a post-prison party he threw for Mitchell in San Clemente, put it simplest: “John Mitchell has friends — and he stands by them.”

No biographer even contacted him, though three books were written about his wife Martha, “an emotionally disturbed alcoholic whose late-night crank calls splashed her face across the front pages of every newspaper and magazine in the country.”

Stunningly, no one bothered to chronicle the life of John Mitchell: child of the Depression, World War II combat veteran; Wall Street innovator; gray-flannel power broker to governors and mayors in all fifty states; Richard Nixon’s law partner, consigliere, and winning campaign manager in 1968 and 1972; America’s top cop, as attorney general, during the Days of Rage, the May Day riots, and the Pentagon Papers; and Public Enemy Number One when, in the words of a British observer, “the great black cloud of Watergate seemed to settle over America like a kind of grand judgment, not just on Nixon himself, but on the whole of post-war America.”

In fact, Rosen notes,

John Mitchell bore witness to the most searing political turmoil in America since the Civil War. After all, it was Mitchell who ran the Department of Justice, and the administration of justice in those years occupies the central role in all lingering controversies from that era: Was justice done in the enforcement of school desegregation and antitrust laws? In the battles against antiwar protesters and radical groups? At Kent State and Jackson State? In the cases of Daniel Ellsberg and Lt. William Calley, Jimmy Hoffa and Robert Vesco, Abe Fortas and Clement Haynsworth, John Lennon and the Berrigan brothers, the Black Panthers and ITT?

Rosen devoted two decades to researching and writing the book, poring over relevant secondary sources such as the 500 books written about Watergate, Nixon, the 60s, and the countless newspaper and magazine articles from that time. Additionally, he interviewed

… 250 people, including two presidents, a vice president, two chief justices, three secretaries of state, two CIA directors, and a great many staff members of the Nixon White House and the Committee to Re-elect the President … Also questioned were party officials and secretaries employed at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in June of 1972. These sessions included the only extensive interviews ever conducted with the woman whose telephone was wiretapped in the Watergate break-in and surveillance operation and more than eight hours of interviews with the only man who monitored the wiretap.

He also used the Freedom of Information act to get access to thousands of undisclosed documents from the Nixon Presidential Materials Project, including all of Haldeman’s and Ehrlichman’s 200,000 pages of hand-written notes from their meetings with the President. His research even included the internal files of the staff lawyers on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and sworn testimonies from closed-door executive sessions of the Senate Watergate committee. He claims to know “what the WSPF lawyers knew about Watergate and when they knew it.” These details showed key witnesses consciously changing their testimony to implicate Mitchell and hide their own actions. Finally, he had Mitchell’s own private correspondence from prison, as well as Mitchell’s tax returns and other de-classified documents. While he hints at revelations and developments in the prologue it is clear, in Rosen’s own words, “Assuredly (this)… is not your father’s Watergate.”

Whereas the mention of Watergate used to bore me senseless, I am now excited to get this book back in my hands. It’s almost as if I’ve discovered a long-last family album labeled with the names of people I half-remember that promises to explain the past…and describe the future. Oh, hell, forget the library. I may have to buy the book!

Scottish seniors not dead yet; “free” health care costs soaring

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

From an article in The Scotsman:

THE cost of Scotland’s flagship free elderly care policy will soar more than threefold to £813 million a year by 2031, a new report has revealed.

A dramatic growth in the number of pensioners over the next three decades will send costs, put at £256 million in 2006, spiralling, Lord Sutherland’s report shows. And the author warns that Scotland must wake up to the huge impact the country’s rapidly changing age profile will have on public finances and services.

Free personal and nursing care was introduced to a fanfare in 2002. It has been hailed as one of the biggest achievements of Scotland’s devolved government, and is the envy of many south of the Border. But the independent review, commissioned by the Scottish Government last summer, reveals the price that such a popular policy will have in years to come.

The report says the bill will far exceed initial predictions – costing hundreds of millions of pounds more – due to the number of elderly people rising more rapidly than was expected.

Lord Sutherland insists the policy, which has attracted widespread political and public support, will be “affordable” in years to come.

The number of over-65s is expected to rise from 837,000 in 2006 to 1.36 million by 2031.

Read the whole thing. Note, however, that no mention is made that it is likely that the number of taxpayers available will also be decreasing as these costs are increasing.

Update:

Katherine Kersten has just visited Scotland and wrote today on some of her impressions of the Nanny State.

Elitist, moi ?

Posted on by
Reply

Both the blogs and the MSM have been featuring Obama’s estimation of why just plain folks seem to not be warming to him in Pennsylvania:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

[Image HT to Gino, via The Lumberjack, who really knows how to get his whacks in.]

While the blogs tend to feature the entire quote, the MSM (or the apologists offering commentary in the MSM) tend to focus on the “bitterness” part of the statement while ignoring the rest of Obama’s ignorant statement. I say “ignorant” here not in terms of “stupid” but according to the “lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified” meaning of the word. Essentially, Obama’s statement is an ill-informed assumption on his part, based on his experience or world-view. I say it’s ignorant because I was reminded of a Pew Research Center study that I blogged about back in 2005 after reading about it on Craig Westover’s blog. My post read, in part:

The study suggests that the old political party stereotypes of rich and poor, educated and less-educated no longer hold up as the two major parties now have similar demographics in terms of the distribution in these categories. The primary difference is now along the lines of attitude. From the Washington Post article:

The most striking differences between lower-income Republicans and lower-income Democrats come in their perceptions of the power of the individual. Both Pro-Government Conservatives and Disadvantaged Democrats include a substantial number of people who consider themselves to be struggling financially. Overwhelming majorities in both groups say they often cannot make ends meet.

But where they part company is in their overall sense of optimism, with the Republican group expressing much greater faith in personal empowerment. Three-fourths of the Pro-Government Conservatives agreed that people can get ahead by working hard, and four-fifths agreed that everyone has the power to succeed. Just 14 percent of Disadvantaged Democrats agreed with the first statement, and only 44 percent agreed with the second.

Meanwhile, this faith in one’s ability to overcome may be rooted in a greater faith:

For all their similarities on income and education, Enterprisers on the right and Liberals on the left diverge on religious habits and cultural attitudes. For example, almost half of Enterprisers attend religious services at least weekly, while just a fifth of Liberals go to religious services that often. A fifth of Liberals are classified in the Pew study as secular – defined as atheists, agnostics or those who say they have no religious affiliation – compared with about one in 20 of the Enterprisers.

So, the way I put this together is that even though they are about the same in terms of income and education, the group with the more positive view of the future is the one that puts its faith in God and in themselves. The group with the most pessimistic outlook puts its faith in the government.

Which group do you figure already knows who its Savior is, and which one is most likely to turn, in their bitterness and hopelessness, to the next one that happens to come along?

Nevertheless, Obama has proven himself to be nothing if not resilient and adaptable. I expect that once he leaves the high-falutin’ San Francisco fund-raising circuit and returns to campaign in Pennsylvania his next quote will be, “Git ‘er done!”

Losing face is but a fraction of what others have lost

Posted on by
Reply

In general I’m not a big fan of disruptive protests, seeing them as typically producing more inconvenience than enlightenment. That said, I’ve taken an untypical satisfaction in the multiple protests around the world seeking to shame China in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. While I’d personally feel more of a connection if the protesters were trying to call attention to the persistent persecution, monitoring and attempted intimidation of Christians instead of Tibetans by the Chinese government, any ridicule that can be heaped on that totalitarian regime is ultimately in the service of a good cause.

To be clear, I don’t support or endorse any violent or destructive protests, but I am amused by the daring ingenuity of the protests that have made use of international landmarks in London, Paris and San Francisco. The Chinese government’s objective of using the Games as an image booster is blowing up in — and causing it to lose — face.

When China was first awarded the Games I found it regrettable that a country with such a heinous record on human rights and of suborning it’s capitalist partners such as Google had received such a boon. Surely they would use the opportunity to present a more enlightened face to the world while continuing to betray the truth and it’s own people. If nothing else, the protests have shown Beijing that not everyone is buying it or is willing to kowtow or look politely the other way.

(On a related note, last Sunday I heard a man from the Gideons relate how the organization had been granted the privilege of bringing Bibles into the country and placing them in Beijing hotels for the Olympics — on the condition that they would subsequently be removed from the country as soon as the Olympics are over. We prayed that there won’t be a single Bible to be found when the Gideons go back because the guests and staff will have — safely — taken them all).

I know some say embarrassing the host country is improper and rude and that the Games should transcend politics and be about the spirit of athletic competition. Others say the protesters are depriving the torch-bearers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Well, if you’re concerned about the athletic spirit and the ideals of fair-play, sportsmanship and a level playing field then I would suggest that China itself has already thrown these principles to the dragons, and it’s only fair to call them on it. I do feel some sympathy for those of good faith looking to honor the Games by carrying the torch who are being deprived of this opportunity, but on a lesser scale than those deprived of liberty and even their life for trying to uphold the light of freedom.

Embarrassment is too mild a price for the Chinese government to pay for its abuses; at the very least I would that they be mortified.

Great Scots!

Posted on by
Reply

Mitch had a shout-out yesterday recognizing National Tartan Day, the holiday for Americans of Scots descent. Some commenters on Mitch’s post took playful swipes at the manly custom of wearing kilts, to which I quoted The Virginian,: “When you say those words, smile.”

In the book, TV shows and movies the Virginian’s name is never used, but it’s a good bet he was of Scots ancestry. Virginia was a popular destination for the Scots-Irish immigrants of the late 1600s and 1700s and their well-known traits of being independent, quarrelsome and inherently mistrustful of authority played a role in the founding of this country. As recounted in the book The Scots of Virginia by Horace Edward Henderson (also here):

By the time of the Revolution, Virginia had the largest population and it ranked as the most important colony both politically and economically. The largest concentration of Scottish people in America was in Virginia and they played a highly important role in helping Virginia to attain its position of pre-eminence in the new world. But it was not the “aristocratic” planters or gentry in Virginia that lit the first sparks for independence and freedom from Great Britain. It was the Scotch-Irish of Virginia who were the Champions of Liberty and Independence in America. The first calls for individual human rights came not from those who were well-off and prosperous in America but by those who had suffered for centuries from the aggressions, prejudice, harassment and discrimination of the British first, in Scotland, then in Northern Ireland and lastly, in Virginia. And it was not in the privileged sanctity of the Anglican churches or the hallowed halls of the Capitol at Williamsburg where the first cries for freedom rang out in America – but in the roughhewn Presbyterian churches of the Virginia frontier where the earliest calls for freedom were proclaimed.

The fact was that the overwhelming majority of the planter gentry with English blood in Virginia had little sympathy for the initial demands for independence from Britain, much less for any radical ideas about the democratic equality of men. The Scotch-Irish have often been called “the first political radicals in America.” The frontier-spirit of taking justice into one’s own hands, the independent individualism, the competitive spirit to win whatever the obstacles, and their almost ruthless determination to progress that became well-established parts of the American character, are generally considered to have come from Scottish traits. While most Americans of English descent either opposed independence or were non-commital, the majority of the patriotic continental troops were Scotch-Irish. In fact, a Presbyterian loyalist was unheard of.

On the other hand, thirty regiments of English-Americans fought against the patriots with the British forces. Actually, the number of American Loyalists in His Majesty’s army “exceeded in number the troops enlisted (by Congress) to oppose them.” It is estimated that 20,000 Americans fought with the British forces during the Revolution. In fact, George III called it a “Presbyterian war,” many in Britain referred to it as “the Presbyterian revolt,” and the British Prime Minister said, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.”

And finally, most of the Scots who had come directly from Scotland to America, either went back to Scotland or fled north to Canada. Conclusively, it was the Virginian patriots of Scottish origin who first articulated the demand for liberty and independence which brought freedom and democracy to the United States of America. They also gave America its distinctive characteristics which have made it the most powerful nation on earth based upon its unparalleled spiritual and economic strength. And nowhere in America were these unique Scottish characteristics more in evidence, and of greater influence, than in Virginia. Truly, the Scots of Virginia were America’s greatest patriots!

National Tartan Day is also a good time to remember the Declaration of Arbroath, i.e., the Scottish Declaration of Independence (1320), which famously contained the words:

“It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

Left. Right. Left, Right, Left. Marching toward what?

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

Rich Karlgaard is among those pondering a return of the religious left:

Yet while secular politics are unwelcome in our church, I have noticed subtle shifts of late. The mood of the ministry and congregation is moving left. The music is moving toward a folk-rock sound of the 1960s and 1970s. Youth ministers wear berets and soul patches. The younger ministers don’t identify themselves as “Christians” but as “Jesus followers.” I would guess that most of them are Obama supporters, but I don’t ask.

To my thinking, “Christian” is ideally something that other people should call you because of what they see in you, rather than something you’d necessarily call yourself. “Follower of Christ” doesn’t do much for me, since Jesus had a lot of people following him around during his ministry, perhaps just for the food. Personally, I like “Imitator of Christ” myself (more on that later).

America’s religious left seems to be mounting a comeback. I’m happy for this development, even though my own tilt is to the right.

The religious left has a distinguished past in American history. It led the abolition fight in the 19th century. It led the civil rights movement in the 20th century. Organizations like the Red Cross grew out of progressive Christianity.

Yes, and I think the basis of America’s welfare program appealed to our country’s Christian heritage and the well-meaning desire to do good and to help the poor. That welfare has had the un-Christian effect of destroying families and perpetuating multi-generational poverty also has to be acknowledged — something the religious left is loathe to do. It has also been, at best, ambivalent about abortion, and its infatuation and even outright embrace of communist and socialist totalitarianism from the Soviets to Castro, Ortega on through Chavez, and it’s apparent commitment to replacing God with Government throughout U.S. policy is also disturbing. (That’s not to say the Religious Right hasn’t supported it’s share of dictators and made its own alliances of convenience).

The strange disappearance of America’s religious left during the 1970s has been noted but not examined much. My own guess is that drugs, music, sex, New Age religions, body worship, tree worship, earth worship and so forth, siphoned off an entire generation of seekers who had previously found their mystic/activist fulfillment in the left hemisphere of Christianity.

Now one detects that many old hippies, and sons and daughters of hippies, are returning to progressive Christianity.

We’ll see how this plays out politically. If there must be a left, then let’s cheer for a religious and not an atheistic left. However, I do think the trend benefits Democrats and is one reason why Democratic primary voter turnout has far excelled Republican voter turnout this year. The mainstream secular media, as usual, has utterly missed this story.

I think I agree with Karlgaard that if there’s going to be a left let it be a religious left rather than an atheistic one. My caveat, and especially my prayer (for both the left and the right) is that the focus is on seeking and doing God’s will, ideally by trying to be like Christ.

Earlier I mentioned being an “imitator” of Christ. Because we’re all human (left and right), it is an easy step to try and move from “imitator” to “impersonator”, wherein we try to rule by proclamation as if we, ourselves, were God. That’s certainly long been a fear and a warning from the left side of the church aisle regarding the motivations of the right, while the left’s own similar tendencies are ignored or attributed to “doing good” or “meaning well.”

My belief is that any “theocracy”, whether left or right, is fatally flawed by our own human imperfections and tendency to turn moves into movements; movements into monuments; and, ultimately, monuments into mausoleums. By all means, we should pursue faith in our lives and we should hope that our personal beliefs will be reflected in our public behavior individually and through policy. Our responsibilities to the poor (and the poor’s responsibilities to God and others); to be stewards of the earth; to deal ethically and compassionately with others are all things that must be done and honored by individuals, not discharged to a collective or government to be taken care of while we blithely go our own selfish way. As I’ve written here before, if God asks me if I helped the poor (as if He doesn’t already know) I don’t think He’s going to be impressed if I say, “Well, I paid my taxes.” Being religiously left or right, highly taxed or not, doesn’t lessen our responsibilities to do something on an individual basis, no matter how many marches, protests or church services we go to.

We often hear the phrase, “What would Jesus do?” as a guide to behavior. I suppose that’s all right as far as it goes. A better statement might be, “What is Jesus doing?” and then trying to line up with that. If we believe Jesus is still at work around us, and not that He’s gone off and left us to our own freedom-eroding devices, we can purpose to look for those things and and align ourselves accordingly. I urge those of the religious left, and my friends on the religious right, to put our focus on glorifying God, not our own group or idealogy. If we can do that — though we may disagree from time to time — I think we’ll be all right.

Just saying…

Posted on by
1

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, has had several interesting sermon excerpts broadcast recently, including this snippet on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday:

I’m still in Bible country. I’m still in the text. Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country, and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich, white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italians, which means they were European, which means they were white, and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.

I suppose that’s why Jesus could never catch a break, and why the scriptures describe him always going around being obsessed with being a victim. Rev. Wright said he was working from the Bible text, but when I read the Bible it strikes me that Jesus didn’t focus on Affirmative Action, he was Affirmative Action. I also recall that he didn’t seem to agree very much with the actions and interpretations of Pharisees and Sadducees or, as Rev. Wright’s interpretation would presumably have it, the leadership of his “black” people.