Yesterday, I bought a new car for the first time in my life: a 2009 Nissan Altima 2.5 SL.
Significantly, I traded in our 2002 Jeep Cherokee with 107,000 miles, a multitude of dings, dents, and scratches, a severely damaged tailgate (the product of an anonymous miscreant at the Target parking lot), an engine and drive train in the twilight of life, and a terminally unreliable right tail light.
As a result of "cash for clunkers," I received $4,500 for my trade-in (which I estimate is at least two grand more than any competent used car manager would have allowed). Add a fifteen-hundred-dollar factory rebate--and a little bit of dickering, and I feel pretty good about my "deal."
A few thoughts on my transaction:
1. "Cash for Clunkers" achieved its desired effect. It was the little program that could. Of all the humiliating disappointments and egregious inefficiencies in the $787 billion dollar stimulus program, the modest one-billion dollar incentive to trade in your jalopy and buy a new car proved singularly exciting and effective. As I say, I am forty-four years-old and this is the first new car I have ever bought in my life.
The Obamanomics brain trust should take note.
2. I bought a Nissan. There is no action in American culture driven more by emotion than buying a new car. Logically, I wanted to think seriously about buying a so-called American car. But, way down in my gut, I opted not to buy a vehicle manufactured by "Obama Motors" (which I am not especially proud to admit). Moreover, while I am rooting for Ford Motor Company to emerge as the great American car company of the 21st century, I could not bring myself to look on the Ford lot either.
In the end, I chose the Nissan Altima, manufactured in Canton, Mississippi, by non-UAW employees. I bought local (in Waco), helped out the Central Texas economy, and met some nice folks along the way. My conscience is relatively clear. Emotionally, I felt more secure with a Japanese-engineered mid size put together by hard-working Southerners far removed from the cancerous grip of latter day unionism.
3. Thus far, the good news for the program has been eclipsed by the incompetence of its administration. Obviously, no one at the White House or the Department of Transportation expected this type of incentive to catch on quite the way it did. After just four days at full speed, the DOT indecorously suspended the program as worries mounted that orders had already exceeded funding. While the President and the House moved quickly on Friday to extend the program, the frustration and schadenfreude over administrative uncertainty and sluggishness in implementing the plan nearly overshadowed the excitement associated with the program's success.
How will this be viewed by a public uncharacteristically engaged? Will the electorate see President Obama as the benevolent dispenser of down payments for new vehicles? Make no mistake, that is the best kind of PR for the White House--we are still looking for presidents who can deliver "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."
Or, does the President suffer from the stigma of bureaucratic ineptitude? Certainly, the right-wing talkers were peddling that interpretation. With the government websites cratering--and the program on-again and then off-again and then likely on-again, Rush Limbaugh used the incident as the perfect opportunity to ask:
"Is this really the people you want running your health care?"
"Sorry, mam, the computer is down, and I cannot get the okay for your emergency procedure."
"Yesterday we had funding for hip surgeries in your demographic--but we are waiting for the Senate to approve emergency appropriations for today's schedule."
The suddenly famous "Cash for Clunkers" program runs the risk of becoming an allegory for government's ability to ameliorate our health care system. While no one questions that progressives sincerely want to use government to make life better for people, the question has always been whether government can actually solve problems or, rather, create even worse unintended consequences with its ham-handed and shortsighted interventions.
Will "Cash for Clunkers" come to symbolize a progressive-government approach still not ready for prime time?
If the Obama administration, which fervently asks for stewardship of one of the most important segments of our life, cannot be successful in this relatively small and uncomplicated endeavor, we are likely to be much more skeptical of placing them in authority over what promises to be the most arduous and convoluted government undertaking in the history of our nation?
The Obama White House better start working overtime to make Clunkers work and, more importantly, put their best minds on selling the program as a great success. Our propogandists have a huge head start going the opposite direction.
No matter, in the end, I predict that this is likely a case in which the truth will triumph. No matter which way the talking heads spin it, this episode likely provides a telling window into the soul and constitution of the Obama administation.
Significantly, I traded in our 2002 Jeep Cherokee with 107,000 miles, a multitude of dings, dents, and scratches, a severely damaged tailgate (the product of an anonymous miscreant at the Target parking lot), an engine and drive train in the twilight of life, and a terminally unreliable right tail light.
As a result of "cash for clunkers," I received $4,500 for my trade-in (which I estimate is at least two grand more than any competent used car manager would have allowed). Add a fifteen-hundred-dollar factory rebate--and a little bit of dickering, and I feel pretty good about my "deal."
A few thoughts on my transaction:
1. "Cash for Clunkers" achieved its desired effect. It was the little program that could. Of all the humiliating disappointments and egregious inefficiencies in the $787 billion dollar stimulus program, the modest one-billion dollar incentive to trade in your jalopy and buy a new car proved singularly exciting and effective. As I say, I am forty-four years-old and this is the first new car I have ever bought in my life.
The Obamanomics brain trust should take note.
2. I bought a Nissan. There is no action in American culture driven more by emotion than buying a new car. Logically, I wanted to think seriously about buying a so-called American car. But, way down in my gut, I opted not to buy a vehicle manufactured by "Obama Motors" (which I am not especially proud to admit). Moreover, while I am rooting for Ford Motor Company to emerge as the great American car company of the 21st century, I could not bring myself to look on the Ford lot either.
In the end, I chose the Nissan Altima, manufactured in Canton, Mississippi, by non-UAW employees. I bought local (in Waco), helped out the Central Texas economy, and met some nice folks along the way. My conscience is relatively clear. Emotionally, I felt more secure with a Japanese-engineered mid size put together by hard-working Southerners far removed from the cancerous grip of latter day unionism.
3. Thus far, the good news for the program has been eclipsed by the incompetence of its administration. Obviously, no one at the White House or the Department of Transportation expected this type of incentive to catch on quite the way it did. After just four days at full speed, the DOT indecorously suspended the program as worries mounted that orders had already exceeded funding. While the President and the House moved quickly on Friday to extend the program, the frustration and schadenfreude over administrative uncertainty and sluggishness in implementing the plan nearly overshadowed the excitement associated with the program's success.
How will this be viewed by a public uncharacteristically engaged? Will the electorate see President Obama as the benevolent dispenser of down payments for new vehicles? Make no mistake, that is the best kind of PR for the White House--we are still looking for presidents who can deliver "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."
Or, does the President suffer from the stigma of bureaucratic ineptitude? Certainly, the right-wing talkers were peddling that interpretation. With the government websites cratering--and the program on-again and then off-again and then likely on-again, Rush Limbaugh used the incident as the perfect opportunity to ask:
"Is this really the people you want running your health care?"
"Sorry, mam, the computer is down, and I cannot get the okay for your emergency procedure."
"Yesterday we had funding for hip surgeries in your demographic--but we are waiting for the Senate to approve emergency appropriations for today's schedule."
The suddenly famous "Cash for Clunkers" program runs the risk of becoming an allegory for government's ability to ameliorate our health care system. While no one questions that progressives sincerely want to use government to make life better for people, the question has always been whether government can actually solve problems or, rather, create even worse unintended consequences with its ham-handed and shortsighted interventions.
Will "Cash for Clunkers" come to symbolize a progressive-government approach still not ready for prime time?
If the Obama administration, which fervently asks for stewardship of one of the most important segments of our life, cannot be successful in this relatively small and uncomplicated endeavor, we are likely to be much more skeptical of placing them in authority over what promises to be the most arduous and convoluted government undertaking in the history of our nation?
The Obama White House better start working overtime to make Clunkers work and, more importantly, put their best minds on selling the program as a great success. Our propogandists have a huge head start going the opposite direction.
No matter, in the end, I predict that this is likely a case in which the truth will triumph. No matter which way the talking heads spin it, this episode likely provides a telling window into the soul and constitution of the Obama administation.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Not at all surprising, one of the most trenchant analyses of the "Gates imbroglio" comes from Shelby Steele:
Take a moment and consider this incredibly provocative and penetrating paragraph:
"But this is not really the point. Many a Southern belle would have known she was being ogled by an uppity black man. She would have known that a cultural narrative—heated up by the nuclear taboos of sex and race—put the power of life and death at her disposal. But when would she have actually pulled the cultural trigger and set into motion those forces that would surely end in the annihilation of a black man? The great question in the Gates story is why he put himself so quickly into the cultural narrative, why he screamed 'racial profiling' more quickly than a Southern belle might have once screamed 'rape?'”
Read the entire essay here via WSJ Opinion Journal.
Take a moment and consider this incredibly provocative and penetrating paragraph:
"But this is not really the point. Many a Southern belle would have known she was being ogled by an uppity black man. She would have known that a cultural narrative—heated up by the nuclear taboos of sex and race—put the power of life and death at her disposal. But when would she have actually pulled the cultural trigger and set into motion those forces that would surely end in the annihilation of a black man? The great question in the Gates story is why he put himself so quickly into the cultural narrative, why he screamed 'racial profiling' more quickly than a Southern belle might have once screamed 'rape?'”
Read the entire essay here via WSJ Opinion Journal.
01/08: A Search for the Past
Last month I spent two weeks in Europe with my family. Wonderful times. Although I neglected the Bosque Boys entirely in my absence, my wife did maintain a travel blog to which I contributed a few travel posts.
Here is a version of something I wrote over there (please forgive the self-indulgent length):
22 July 2009
Can anybody direct me to the "British Museum of British History"? Like the English Constitution, a central and systematic telling of British history seems to be everywhere and nowhere all at the same time. I would love to see the UK equivalent of the Smithsonian American history collection. Until then, we skip back and forth across London paying homage to landmarks and statuary, picking up scattered pieces of the story, and continuing to mostly breathe in the past. Today we have all of the things we have not done looming over us (we wake up in the throes of last day panic). We tentatively have four museums on our agenda today.
For the record: the last day was a major triumph visiting the Museum of Natural History, the Apsley House (Wellington's home) located conveniently beside the Wellington Arch, the Winston Churchill Museum, and one last visit to the gates of Buckingham Palace.
Yesterday, however, was different. Yesterday we were in search of an American history. Specifically, we were on the trail of the Charles and Janice Yates family. Colonel Yates served in the USAF for 27 years (most of that time with Mrs. Janice Yates by his side, although she served without rank or remuneration)--and most of that time with the Strategic Air Command. During the early 1960s, the Yates clan (all eight of them) found themselves stationed at Greenham Common AFB outside of Newbury--approximately fifty miles west of London. For as long as I have been a part of the family, I have heard the cherished stories of the Hilliers Farmhouse in which they lived during this assignment. Yesterday, we went in search of place--part myth, perhaps, and part reality?
The trip to Newbury required a rental car, about which I had some anxiety. For a number of reasons (mostly logistics and economy), however, the rental presented itself as the only real option. So, with much trepidation, I crawled into the wrong side of a Euro-fitted Chevrolet compact and headed west out of London on M4. We made it back alive--but one tire did not after I ran us into an inconvenient curb.
Although the property remains fairly isolated, thanks to the amazing benefits of modern technology, the GPS led us to the front door of the legendary farmhouse. Truly Amazing! But there it was behind a stone fence, looking shockingly like the painting on the living room wall of the current Yates home.
"We've got a really crazy question--and even crazier request," I said.
"This really is bizarre," replied the surprised lady of the house--home alone and desperately trying to take the proper measure of a strange man in a rented car dropped from the sky. Fortunately, as my wife and then two sleepy boys emerged from the vehicle, the woman's suspicion gave way to curiosity and human connection as she came to see us as earnest pilgrims and embraced the spirit of our mission.
She happily agreed to our picture taking--offering to take one of the four of us and reluctantly agreeing to pose for one herself. Although we refused her gracious invitation of tea, we did take a quick peak into the house. It was lovely. As it turns out, our kind host is an interior decorator, and she had lovingly and skillfully blended the classic with the modern (see the pics).
Back on the road, my wife and I looked at each other and agreed that our appointed labor really could not have gone any better. We had renewed an old family connection to a specific place and moment attenuated by the passage of time and a changing world. Caleb and Cade had trod the same steps as their grandmother had at almost the same age nearly half a century ago when the planet was a very different place. We had watched our children in the front yard of that same 400-year-old house that Charles and Janice had lovingly watched their brood when they, like us, were in the fullness of life--young and powerful and in command. While there really is no accounting for the joy we take from such errands, our hearts beat happier and more alive for the rest of the afternoon. We had venerated the spirits of our personal past.
Finding the Hilliers Farmhouse seemed close to miraculous. After considerable research, my wife came up with a few vague directions and an odd-sounding partial address. We entered a foreign postal code into the GPS, followed the electronic road map for fifty miles (with almost no confidence that we would end up even remotely close to our objective), and, suddenly, there we were in the middle of nowhere exactly where we had hoped to be.
Even more unlikely was the way in which we stumbled onto Greenham Common (formerly Greenham Common AFB--where Charles led a Strategic Air Command squadron). After searching fruitlessly, we were giving up and looking for a place to safely turn around when we mistakenly pulled into the "Greenham and Crookham Commons" parking area.
How do you miss a former jet bomber air force base? It is easier than you might think. The installation no longer exists--and by that I mean it is GONE! The physical campus of the former base has been almost erased from the landscape, replaced by an intentionally wild meadow public park area.
Why the complete undoing of the once-crucial Cold War bulwark? During the early 1980s, Greenham Common emerged as an acrimonious bone of contention between the peace movement and Cold War hawks. Long after SAC departed, the United States Air Force designated Greenham as a prime installation for short-range nuclear weapons. Inspired and supported by an international nuclear freeze movement, area residents joined the "Peace Women" in demonstrations that vehemently objected to the basic premise of nuclear deterrent in general and the local deployment in particular.
Aided by the collapse of the USSR (which some might argue, ironically, was the product of a hard-line policy toward the Soviets), the peace activists ultimately prevailed in regards to Greenham. The USAF moved out in the 1990s, relinquishing all rights and control of the facility to the Royal Air Force. Soon after, the RAF vacated entirely and ceded all claims to the vast campus back to the community.
Once under local management, a series of community trusts and commissions immediately went about the business of removing all traces of the American occupation. Their efforts have proven amazingly successful. What was once the 12,000-foot-long runway sized to accommodate B-47s and B-52s is now meadow and indigenous brush. Base housing: gone. The hangers and assorted structures to support military aircraft: gone. While the old control tower stands as a reminder that this immense tract of wilderness is the product of un-development, there are few other indications of the myriad sorties flown here or the thousands of USAF personnel stationed here over the years.
The fruits of their labor are truly beautiful (ingeniously funded by a secluded business park on a small portion of the former air station). Walking the breadth of the old base, one cannot help but feel the inherent exhilaration of nature reclaiming a parcel of the earth temporarily despoiled by the grandiosity of man.
Nevertheless, I kept thinking a crazy thought: you know, they tore down a perfectly good thermo-nuclear missile base to put up a meadow. What a shame!
Of course, I say that with a large grain of self-conscious irony. Even a right-wing war monger like me can admit that a peaceful meadow is better than a concrete staging area for nuclear Armageddon. But, in all seriousness, there is an eerie hollowness about the place. Any piece of ground in which its history has been surgically removed engenders some disquiet in my soul.
For us, of course, the redaction is more palpable. In a deeply personal sense, we feel the absence of commemoration for the legions of men like Charles Yates who so diligently and responsibly flew all those missions. Entrusted with the most lethal military weapons ever produced, those Cold War warriors personified professionalism and dedication to a cause they earnestly believed essential to the preservation of Western Civilization. Reasonable people will disagree whether they were naive and/or misguided, but no fair-minded account can cast aspersions on their sincerity and honorable intentions. No one should question their fierce fidelity to the cause of human freedom.
What of those warriors? The only scant and indirect attempt at history at the reformed Greenham Common is the sympathetic telling of the "struggle for peace." On a six-by-six placard, a short narrative triumphantly relates the tale of the community's long struggle to overcome the mighty American war machine. Eventually, rationality transcended madness, and the people wrested local control of the Common away from powerful foreigners bent on bringing the world to the edge of nuclear catastrophe. One prominent quote proclaims that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented--but the moral framework that allows the existence of such weapons of mass destruction can be unlearned.
Perhaps.
At the end of the day, we enjoyed a fine walk through an inviting meadow on a beautiful July afternoon. Life is good. We are the beneficiaries of an uncommonly serene moment in human history. Have we really changed the moral framework of human existence? Is that the true lesson of the restored meadow with the carefully incomplete history?
I have my doubts--but I hope I am wrong.
Last week an American family, in pursuit of its own history, picked their way across the brambles and marshes of the erstwhile jet bomber runway--enjoying the natural beauty and soul-renewing power of the transformation. But, at the same time, we looked up into the sky and fondly remembered trim young men in their leather jackets and aviator shades a long way from home protecting hard-won freedoms.
May we always remember that heroic spirit. We forget the sacrifices of the past at our own peril.
Here is a version of something I wrote over there (please forgive the self-indulgent length):
22 July 2009
Can anybody direct me to the "British Museum of British History"? Like the English Constitution, a central and systematic telling of British history seems to be everywhere and nowhere all at the same time. I would love to see the UK equivalent of the Smithsonian American history collection. Until then, we skip back and forth across London paying homage to landmarks and statuary, picking up scattered pieces of the story, and continuing to mostly breathe in the past. Today we have all of the things we have not done looming over us (we wake up in the throes of last day panic). We tentatively have four museums on our agenda today.
For the record: the last day was a major triumph visiting the Museum of Natural History, the Apsley House (Wellington's home) located conveniently beside the Wellington Arch, the Winston Churchill Museum, and one last visit to the gates of Buckingham Palace.
Yesterday, however, was different. Yesterday we were in search of an American history. Specifically, we were on the trail of the Charles and Janice Yates family. Colonel Yates served in the USAF for 27 years (most of that time with Mrs. Janice Yates by his side, although she served without rank or remuneration)--and most of that time with the Strategic Air Command. During the early 1960s, the Yates clan (all eight of them) found themselves stationed at Greenham Common AFB outside of Newbury--approximately fifty miles west of London. For as long as I have been a part of the family, I have heard the cherished stories of the Hilliers Farmhouse in which they lived during this assignment. Yesterday, we went in search of place--part myth, perhaps, and part reality?
The trip to Newbury required a rental car, about which I had some anxiety. For a number of reasons (mostly logistics and economy), however, the rental presented itself as the only real option. So, with much trepidation, I crawled into the wrong side of a Euro-fitted Chevrolet compact and headed west out of London on M4. We made it back alive--but one tire did not after I ran us into an inconvenient curb.
Although the property remains fairly isolated, thanks to the amazing benefits of modern technology, the GPS led us to the front door of the legendary farmhouse. Truly Amazing! But there it was behind a stone fence, looking shockingly like the painting on the living room wall of the current Yates home.
"We've got a really crazy question--and even crazier request," I said.
"This really is bizarre," replied the surprised lady of the house--home alone and desperately trying to take the proper measure of a strange man in a rented car dropped from the sky. Fortunately, as my wife and then two sleepy boys emerged from the vehicle, the woman's suspicion gave way to curiosity and human connection as she came to see us as earnest pilgrims and embraced the spirit of our mission.
She happily agreed to our picture taking--offering to take one of the four of us and reluctantly agreeing to pose for one herself. Although we refused her gracious invitation of tea, we did take a quick peak into the house. It was lovely. As it turns out, our kind host is an interior decorator, and she had lovingly and skillfully blended the classic with the modern (see the pics).
Back on the road, my wife and I looked at each other and agreed that our appointed labor really could not have gone any better. We had renewed an old family connection to a specific place and moment attenuated by the passage of time and a changing world. Caleb and Cade had trod the same steps as their grandmother had at almost the same age nearly half a century ago when the planet was a very different place. We had watched our children in the front yard of that same 400-year-old house that Charles and Janice had lovingly watched their brood when they, like us, were in the fullness of life--young and powerful and in command. While there really is no accounting for the joy we take from such errands, our hearts beat happier and more alive for the rest of the afternoon. We had venerated the spirits of our personal past.
Finding the Hilliers Farmhouse seemed close to miraculous. After considerable research, my wife came up with a few vague directions and an odd-sounding partial address. We entered a foreign postal code into the GPS, followed the electronic road map for fifty miles (with almost no confidence that we would end up even remotely close to our objective), and, suddenly, there we were in the middle of nowhere exactly where we had hoped to be.
Even more unlikely was the way in which we stumbled onto Greenham Common (formerly Greenham Common AFB--where Charles led a Strategic Air Command squadron). After searching fruitlessly, we were giving up and looking for a place to safely turn around when we mistakenly pulled into the "Greenham and Crookham Commons" parking area.
How do you miss a former jet bomber air force base? It is easier than you might think. The installation no longer exists--and by that I mean it is GONE! The physical campus of the former base has been almost erased from the landscape, replaced by an intentionally wild meadow public park area.
Why the complete undoing of the once-crucial Cold War bulwark? During the early 1980s, Greenham Common emerged as an acrimonious bone of contention between the peace movement and Cold War hawks. Long after SAC departed, the United States Air Force designated Greenham as a prime installation for short-range nuclear weapons. Inspired and supported by an international nuclear freeze movement, area residents joined the "Peace Women" in demonstrations that vehemently objected to the basic premise of nuclear deterrent in general and the local deployment in particular.
Aided by the collapse of the USSR (which some might argue, ironically, was the product of a hard-line policy toward the Soviets), the peace activists ultimately prevailed in regards to Greenham. The USAF moved out in the 1990s, relinquishing all rights and control of the facility to the Royal Air Force. Soon after, the RAF vacated entirely and ceded all claims to the vast campus back to the community.
Once under local management, a series of community trusts and commissions immediately went about the business of removing all traces of the American occupation. Their efforts have proven amazingly successful. What was once the 12,000-foot-long runway sized to accommodate B-47s and B-52s is now meadow and indigenous brush. Base housing: gone. The hangers and assorted structures to support military aircraft: gone. While the old control tower stands as a reminder that this immense tract of wilderness is the product of un-development, there are few other indications of the myriad sorties flown here or the thousands of USAF personnel stationed here over the years.
The fruits of their labor are truly beautiful (ingeniously funded by a secluded business park on a small portion of the former air station). Walking the breadth of the old base, one cannot help but feel the inherent exhilaration of nature reclaiming a parcel of the earth temporarily despoiled by the grandiosity of man.
Nevertheless, I kept thinking a crazy thought: you know, they tore down a perfectly good thermo-nuclear missile base to put up a meadow. What a shame!
Of course, I say that with a large grain of self-conscious irony. Even a right-wing war monger like me can admit that a peaceful meadow is better than a concrete staging area for nuclear Armageddon. But, in all seriousness, there is an eerie hollowness about the place. Any piece of ground in which its history has been surgically removed engenders some disquiet in my soul.
For us, of course, the redaction is more palpable. In a deeply personal sense, we feel the absence of commemoration for the legions of men like Charles Yates who so diligently and responsibly flew all those missions. Entrusted with the most lethal military weapons ever produced, those Cold War warriors personified professionalism and dedication to a cause they earnestly believed essential to the preservation of Western Civilization. Reasonable people will disagree whether they were naive and/or misguided, but no fair-minded account can cast aspersions on their sincerity and honorable intentions. No one should question their fierce fidelity to the cause of human freedom.
What of those warriors? The only scant and indirect attempt at history at the reformed Greenham Common is the sympathetic telling of the "struggle for peace." On a six-by-six placard, a short narrative triumphantly relates the tale of the community's long struggle to overcome the mighty American war machine. Eventually, rationality transcended madness, and the people wrested local control of the Common away from powerful foreigners bent on bringing the world to the edge of nuclear catastrophe. One prominent quote proclaims that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented--but the moral framework that allows the existence of such weapons of mass destruction can be unlearned.
Perhaps.
At the end of the day, we enjoyed a fine walk through an inviting meadow on a beautiful July afternoon. Life is good. We are the beneficiaries of an uncommonly serene moment in human history. Have we really changed the moral framework of human existence? Is that the true lesson of the restored meadow with the carefully incomplete history?
I have my doubts--but I hope I am wrong.
Last week an American family, in pursuit of its own history, picked their way across the brambles and marshes of the erstwhile jet bomber runway--enjoying the natural beauty and soul-renewing power of the transformation. But, at the same time, we looked up into the sky and fondly remembered trim young men in their leather jackets and aviator shades a long way from home protecting hard-won freedoms.
May we always remember that heroic spirit. We forget the sacrifices of the past at our own peril.
Malls R Us
Ebert's review.
Is a shopping mall a sacred place? Not a question often asked. The provocative documentary "Malls R Us" seriously argues that malls serve similar functions today that cathedrals, temples, parliaments, arenas and town squares did in earlier times. Then the film slowly works its way around to the possibility that they may be a plague upon the Earth.
Ebert's review.
Is a shopping mall a sacred place? Not a question often asked. The provocative documentary "Malls R Us" seriously argues that malls serve similar functions today that cathedrals, temples, parliaments, arenas and town squares did in earlier times. Then the film slowly works its way around to the possibility that they may be a plague upon the Earth.
I have only one caveat to the praise I heaped upon Senator Lindsey Graham for his eloquent and compelling statement on why to confirm Judge Sotomayor. I found the "role-model" portion of his remarks maudlin and out of touch. Sonia Sotomayor is no more of a realistic role model for young Latinas in Waco, Texas, than George Bush is an exemplar for white kids from rural Wyoming.
While I applaud the personal determination evidenced by Judge Sotomayor's impressive legal career and inspiring life story, we should not kid ourselves about what this historic elevation really means. The Supreme Court is still very much a closed club. Obviously race and gender are no longer exclusionary factors--but graduation from an elite law school (for the most part, either Yale or Harvard) and social connections within the elite national legal fraternity are still VERY MUCH required.
Sandra Day O'Connor is likely the last "regular Jane or Joe" to be elevated onto the Court.
So, you want to open up some doors in re diversity, let's elevate a law school alum from BYU or the University of Florida or UT Austin. Until then, we should hear all those "up from their bootstraps" "only in America" encomiums with a healthy grain of salt.
Yes. The path to the Supreme Court is open to anyone (with talent, the willingness to work hard, and the sense to keep their nose clean). However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, we should note that there is only one path to this ultimate position of high honor and importance--and the only trail heads seem to be located in New Haven and Cambridge.
We live in a nation in which any graduate of Yale or Harvard Law can grow up to be a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
-------
Harvard: 6
Yale: 2
Northwestern: 1*
*John Paul Stephens--confirmed to the Court during the Ford administration, 1975
While I applaud the personal determination evidenced by Judge Sotomayor's impressive legal career and inspiring life story, we should not kid ourselves about what this historic elevation really means. The Supreme Court is still very much a closed club. Obviously race and gender are no longer exclusionary factors--but graduation from an elite law school (for the most part, either Yale or Harvard) and social connections within the elite national legal fraternity are still VERY MUCH required.
Sandra Day O'Connor is likely the last "regular Jane or Joe" to be elevated onto the Court.
So, you want to open up some doors in re diversity, let's elevate a law school alum from BYU or the University of Florida or UT Austin. Until then, we should hear all those "up from their bootstraps" "only in America" encomiums with a healthy grain of salt.
Yes. The path to the Supreme Court is open to anyone (with talent, the willingness to work hard, and the sense to keep their nose clean). However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, we should note that there is only one path to this ultimate position of high honor and importance--and the only trail heads seem to be located in New Haven and Cambridge.
We live in a nation in which any graduate of Yale or Harvard Law can grow up to be a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
-------
Harvard: 6
Yale: 2
Northwestern: 1*
*John Paul Stephens--confirmed to the Court during the Ford administration, 1975
29/07: A Waco Farmer Votes "Aye"
In re the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor:
Kudos to Lindsey Graham for his statesmanship. I greatly admire his dedication to the proper constitutional balance regarding an obvious instance of executive preeminence and the subordinate legislative authority to advise and consent.
Presidential elections matter. The Constitution lays all this out quite clearly. The people elect a president, and he nominates justices to the Supreme Court. The Senate has a say--but, barring extraordinary circumstances, this is manifestly a presidential prerogative.
Shame on Senators Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin for their audacious hypocrisy in chastising Republican votes against the current nominee while never even pausing to acknowledge their craven votes against the confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
Senator Graham, whom I am proud to rank as one of my favorite national Republicans, understood perfectly the long-term stakes.
The egregious partisan antics employed by the Democratic opposition over the past twenty-five years has done great damage to the judiciary. The fruits of their unforgivable political vandalism provide a stark lesson on why we should do the right thing. While ranking member Jeff Sessions and former chair Orrin Hatch are also two personal favorites--and I respect their decisions to vote against confirmation--I disagree with them. The time had come for grace rather than payback.
Yes. Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal. Yes. She will surely vote with the liberal wing of the Court. But none of that should be a consideration when voting to confirm. Presidential elections should be political. Judicial confirmation proceedings should be statesmanlike and nonpartisan.
Kudos to Lindsey Graham for his statesmanship. I greatly admire his dedication to the proper constitutional balance regarding an obvious instance of executive preeminence and the subordinate legislative authority to advise and consent.
Presidential elections matter. The Constitution lays all this out quite clearly. The people elect a president, and he nominates justices to the Supreme Court. The Senate has a say--but, barring extraordinary circumstances, this is manifestly a presidential prerogative.
Shame on Senators Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin for their audacious hypocrisy in chastising Republican votes against the current nominee while never even pausing to acknowledge their craven votes against the confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
Senator Graham, whom I am proud to rank as one of my favorite national Republicans, understood perfectly the long-term stakes.
The egregious partisan antics employed by the Democratic opposition over the past twenty-five years has done great damage to the judiciary. The fruits of their unforgivable political vandalism provide a stark lesson on why we should do the right thing. While ranking member Jeff Sessions and former chair Orrin Hatch are also two personal favorites--and I respect their decisions to vote against confirmation--I disagree with them. The time had come for grace rather than payback.
Yes. Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal. Yes. She will surely vote with the liberal wing of the Court. But none of that should be a consideration when voting to confirm. Presidential elections should be political. Judicial confirmation proceedings should be statesmanlike and nonpartisan.
I grew up reading Newsweek and then Time. I've read lots of issues of the New York Times and The Washington Post.
I said farewell to the MSM for several reasons: the increasingly snide and superior tone, the decline of prose standards, the bias. But perhaps most important was the deterioration in quality of reporting--more and more mistakes in fact.
Powerline in this post prints the New York Times Corrections from its own obituary of Walter Cronkite. The errors of fact made in the obituary of a god of Mainstream News sends the irony meter off the scale.
And they had the nerve to make fun of Dan Quayle and mock Sarah Palin.
I said farewell to the MSM for several reasons: the increasingly snide and superior tone, the decline of prose standards, the bias. But perhaps most important was the deterioration in quality of reporting--more and more mistakes in fact.
Powerline in this post prints the New York Times Corrections from its own obituary of Walter Cronkite. The errors of fact made in the obituary of a god of Mainstream News sends the irony meter off the scale.
And they had the nerve to make fun of Dan Quayle and mock Sarah Palin.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story here. From The Telegraph (UK)
Must be Nigeria's support of Israel. Or the history of Nigerian colonial expansion in the Middle East. Or the Nigerian backing for the Crusades.
The group is made up of former students who want hardline Islamic sharia to be the dominant legal system across all of Nigeria. Africa's most populous nation is made up of roughly equal numbers of Christians and Muslims.
A member of the gang who was wounded during the initial attack on the police station told Reuters the group wanted to "clean the (Nigerian) system which is polluted by Western education and uphold sharia all over the country."
Militant Islam is not simply reactive to Western actions: Militant Islam has its own agenda derived from its core beliefs.
Must be Nigeria's support of Israel. Or the history of Nigerian colonial expansion in the Middle East. Or the Nigerian backing for the Crusades.
The group is made up of former students who want hardline Islamic sharia to be the dominant legal system across all of Nigeria. Africa's most populous nation is made up of roughly equal numbers of Christians and Muslims.
A member of the gang who was wounded during the initial attack on the police station told Reuters the group wanted to "clean the (Nigerian) system which is polluted by Western education and uphold sharia all over the country."
Militant Islam is not simply reactive to Western actions: Militant Islam has its own agenda derived from its core beliefs.
28/07: The Honeymoon Finally Ends
President Obama is taking his lumps.
I am reminded of the 2001 film, Black Hawk Down, at the point in which the US raid on a Somali warlord begins to unravel and take an increasingly and ultimately disastrous turn. Remember Major General William Garrison (Sam Shepard) listening to the radio transmissions as Somali RPGs take down his second Black Hawk helicopter? Hearing this ominous development in real time, Garrison very calmly but gravely announces (in essence to himself), "we just lost the initiative."
Over the last fortnight, the President of the United States lost the initiative.
Two setbacks:
1. The President and his forces overreached on health care. Too confident in his popularity, political prowess, acumen, and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the administration convinced themselves that they could sweep in, neutralize the deep-seated public apprehension that has for six decades stymied the liberal desire for national health care, and roll to victory unscathed.
Not surprisingly, the assault into treacherous territory faced much stiffer resistance than anticipated and stalled.
We got a Blackhawk down! Super 61 is down. We got a bird down in the city.
2. In an attempt to regain some momentum, the President fell back on one his favorite tactics--the prime time press conference. However, the President, uncharacteristically unsteady, unconvincing, and perhaps even boring, failed to reassert control. Much worse, at the end of his unsuccessful thrust, he paused to engage a distraction on his left flank: the matter of Henry Louis Gates.
Super 64 going down. 64 going down hard.
President Obama is in a serious and potentially lethal mess of his own making. In the midst of a precarious fight for survival for which he is not prepared, for the first time, the President must defend himself in the eyes of a suddenly skeptical American majority and face a slightly less fawning Washington press corps.
Now what? How will he react?
Two possibilities spring to mind:
1. He craters. We only met this man a short time ago. We know almost nothing about him. We have no idea his measure. But we are about to find out. And, as I say, there is the slim possibility that he is made of mush--and he withers in the face of his first real challenge. But this is quite unlikely (I would give this scenario a 5 to 10 percent chance of coming to pass).
Remember how the GOP expected Bill Clinton to cave in the face of the Republican shutdown? The party leaders believed that President Clinton was a coward, who had demonstrated his lack of manliness when he had avoided Vietnam in a less-than-honorable fashion. But the Republicans foolishly misjudged the character of Bill Clinton. For whatever reasons Clinton took such great pains to avoid the war, it had nothing to do with his political courage. In the arena of politics, Clinton turned out to be Rocky Balboa--literally impossible to knock out or outlast.
Of course, Barack Obama does not have the political experience that Bill Clinton did in 1995. No matter, do NOT expect President Obama to collapse--it remains an extremely remote possibility.
2. More likely, the President faces this crisis and rises to the occasion. More than likely, the President takes this hit and learns from his mistakes and comes away a stronger and more dangerous political opponent--better understanding the perils of overestimating his own invulnerability.
Why is the President so likely to regroup and fight his way out of this perilous political engagement? He still has the firepower. He still owns the high ground. And he still owns the airwaves.
More importantly, the economy is likely to improve in the short term. While his long-term plans are disastrous and will ultimately fail miserably, the emergency measures put in place by the Fed and the outgoing Bush administration (wisely continued by the Obama administration) have averted immediate disaster.
We are likely to see a cyclical upturn that will propel President Obama through his bid for re-election. To his further advantage, Republicans have foolishly staked their upcoming electoral bids on a continued recession. When the economy inevitably revives (at least to some extent), the President will undoubtedly take credit for sticking to his guns in the face of opposition predictions of doom. And, when this happens, we can expect the mainstream media (still friendly at heart and still invested) to obediently carry his message to the electorate. We can also expect the Republicans to do their best to convince the voters that the economy remains in the shallows (to no avail). Remember how well this worked in 1996?
Bottom Line: we are finally seeing the end of the Obama Honeymoon--but we should not delude ourselves. The President still holds all the high cards. Even more telling, the loyal opposition is not playing its hand very astutely.
I am reminded of the 2001 film, Black Hawk Down, at the point in which the US raid on a Somali warlord begins to unravel and take an increasingly and ultimately disastrous turn. Remember Major General William Garrison (Sam Shepard) listening to the radio transmissions as Somali RPGs take down his second Black Hawk helicopter? Hearing this ominous development in real time, Garrison very calmly but gravely announces (in essence to himself), "we just lost the initiative."
Over the last fortnight, the President of the United States lost the initiative.
Two setbacks:
1. The President and his forces overreached on health care. Too confident in his popularity, political prowess, acumen, and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the administration convinced themselves that they could sweep in, neutralize the deep-seated public apprehension that has for six decades stymied the liberal desire for national health care, and roll to victory unscathed.
Not surprisingly, the assault into treacherous territory faced much stiffer resistance than anticipated and stalled.
We got a Blackhawk down! Super 61 is down. We got a bird down in the city.
2. In an attempt to regain some momentum, the President fell back on one his favorite tactics--the prime time press conference. However, the President, uncharacteristically unsteady, unconvincing, and perhaps even boring, failed to reassert control. Much worse, at the end of his unsuccessful thrust, he paused to engage a distraction on his left flank: the matter of Henry Louis Gates.
Super 64 going down. 64 going down hard.
President Obama is in a serious and potentially lethal mess of his own making. In the midst of a precarious fight for survival for which he is not prepared, for the first time, the President must defend himself in the eyes of a suddenly skeptical American majority and face a slightly less fawning Washington press corps.
Now what? How will he react?
Two possibilities spring to mind:
1. He craters. We only met this man a short time ago. We know almost nothing about him. We have no idea his measure. But we are about to find out. And, as I say, there is the slim possibility that he is made of mush--and he withers in the face of his first real challenge. But this is quite unlikely (I would give this scenario a 5 to 10 percent chance of coming to pass).
Remember how the GOP expected Bill Clinton to cave in the face of the Republican shutdown? The party leaders believed that President Clinton was a coward, who had demonstrated his lack of manliness when he had avoided Vietnam in a less-than-honorable fashion. But the Republicans foolishly misjudged the character of Bill Clinton. For whatever reasons Clinton took such great pains to avoid the war, it had nothing to do with his political courage. In the arena of politics, Clinton turned out to be Rocky Balboa--literally impossible to knock out or outlast.
Of course, Barack Obama does not have the political experience that Bill Clinton did in 1995. No matter, do NOT expect President Obama to collapse--it remains an extremely remote possibility.
2. More likely, the President faces this crisis and rises to the occasion. More than likely, the President takes this hit and learns from his mistakes and comes away a stronger and more dangerous political opponent--better understanding the perils of overestimating his own invulnerability.
Why is the President so likely to regroup and fight his way out of this perilous political engagement? He still has the firepower. He still owns the high ground. And he still owns the airwaves.
More importantly, the economy is likely to improve in the short term. While his long-term plans are disastrous and will ultimately fail miserably, the emergency measures put in place by the Fed and the outgoing Bush administration (wisely continued by the Obama administration) have averted immediate disaster.
We are likely to see a cyclical upturn that will propel President Obama through his bid for re-election. To his further advantage, Republicans have foolishly staked their upcoming electoral bids on a continued recession. When the economy inevitably revives (at least to some extent), the President will undoubtedly take credit for sticking to his guns in the face of opposition predictions of doom. And, when this happens, we can expect the mainstream media (still friendly at heart and still invested) to obediently carry his message to the electorate. We can also expect the Republicans to do their best to convince the voters that the economy remains in the shallows (to no avail). Remember how well this worked in 1996?
Bottom Line: we are finally seeing the end of the Obama Honeymoon--but we should not delude ourselves. The President still holds all the high cards. Even more telling, the loyal opposition is not playing its hand very astutely.
Chuck Colson has an article on health care reform in Christianity Today. In favor of a reform, he raises important questions, and urges Christians to participate in the debate.
Here is his next-to-last paragraph:
Christians have to reassert that there are transcendent standards of right and wrong. While some kinds of heroic care may be withheld in hopeless cases, it is wrong to intentionally take a life. Second, we must champion care for the poor and the weak. Bringing health-care reform to the forefront is the first step. But prudence—a classical virtue that looks objectively at complex situations and applies moral truth—is the third concern. How do we best allocate limited resources?
A while back I posted some considerations on end-of-life issues, which I now repeat.
My pastoral work this week has me thinking about life and death and modern medicine: when to fight death and when to accept it.
Here is my view, for what its worth.
If I were diagnosed with cancer, and told I needed extensive chemo and radiation, I would ask the following questions: what are the odds that the treatments would bring me to a state of being cancer free? if I take the treatments, how much longer would I live than if I refused treatment? if I take the treatments, what would the extra time be like?
If I were told that the treatments would give me a better than even chance of becoming cancer free, then I would accept treatment. If I were told that the odds were good that treatment would add years to my life, years that could be productive, then I would accept treatment. On the other hand, if I were told that there was almost no way treatment could make me cancer free, that treatment probably would add minimal time to my life, and that this time would not be productive, I would refuse treatment. These decisions I would make as a Christian.
Christian wisdom on this issue gives me two guidelines for my decision making.
On the one hand, I am a steward of my own body and its health, the one to whom my body and its health actually belongs is Jesus Christ. My life is not my own to destroy by active measures or by neglect. My purpose in life is to glorify God and work for the Kingdom. If treatment has good hope of a cure, or of adding productive years to my life, then I am under obligation to take treatment. (Scriptures to read include 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.")
On the other hand, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die;" Ecclesiastes 3:1-2. None of us are going to live forever as we now are. Unless Jesus returns sooner, all of us reading this will die. As Christians we should regard our own death as did Paul--"for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain," Philippians 1:21.
As a Christian I am not free to take my own life or to neglect my own health, including neglecting treatment that may give me health. But, I am under no obligation to try to prolong life merely for the sake of avoiding death. I believe these things to be true when we must make decisions for those incapable of making their own.
Here is his next-to-last paragraph:
Christians have to reassert that there are transcendent standards of right and wrong. While some kinds of heroic care may be withheld in hopeless cases, it is wrong to intentionally take a life. Second, we must champion care for the poor and the weak. Bringing health-care reform to the forefront is the first step. But prudence—a classical virtue that looks objectively at complex situations and applies moral truth—is the third concern. How do we best allocate limited resources?
A while back I posted some considerations on end-of-life issues, which I now repeat.
My pastoral work this week has me thinking about life and death and modern medicine: when to fight death and when to accept it.
Here is my view, for what its worth.
If I were diagnosed with cancer, and told I needed extensive chemo and radiation, I would ask the following questions: what are the odds that the treatments would bring me to a state of being cancer free? if I take the treatments, how much longer would I live than if I refused treatment? if I take the treatments, what would the extra time be like?
If I were told that the treatments would give me a better than even chance of becoming cancer free, then I would accept treatment. If I were told that the odds were good that treatment would add years to my life, years that could be productive, then I would accept treatment. On the other hand, if I were told that there was almost no way treatment could make me cancer free, that treatment probably would add minimal time to my life, and that this time would not be productive, I would refuse treatment. These decisions I would make as a Christian.
Christian wisdom on this issue gives me two guidelines for my decision making.
On the one hand, I am a steward of my own body and its health, the one to whom my body and its health actually belongs is Jesus Christ. My life is not my own to destroy by active measures or by neglect. My purpose in life is to glorify God and work for the Kingdom. If treatment has good hope of a cure, or of adding productive years to my life, then I am under obligation to take treatment. (Scriptures to read include 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.")
On the other hand, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die;" Ecclesiastes 3:1-2. None of us are going to live forever as we now are. Unless Jesus returns sooner, all of us reading this will die. As Christians we should regard our own death as did Paul--"for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain," Philippians 1:21.
As a Christian I am not free to take my own life or to neglect my own health, including neglecting treatment that may give me health. But, I am under no obligation to try to prolong life merely for the sake of avoiding death. I believe these things to be true when we must make decisions for those incapable of making their own.
