Both the majesty and the tragedy of human life exceed the dimensions within which modern culture seeks to comprehend human existence.
- Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thoughts on politics, unions, and this and that
Both the majesty and the tragedy of human life exceed the dimensions within which modern culture seeks to comprehend human existence.
- Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My philosophical friend Mr. John Doolittle has reached the stage of life where he takes up the task of making sense of himself and the world, and asking whether it can be done without including God in the ruminations.
He tells me that he has reached three very tentative conclusions.
First, he has concluded that morality is not derivable or sustainable without religion, and religion (however useful) is false without God. I may ask him to explain that to me at some point.
Second, while random events (such as undirected evolution) may explain much or all of the physical world, they do not explain the human mind, which is more than a super-computer built of nerve ganglia. Our very contemplation of God suggests that the mind is not fully explained by materialist science; the mind indicates that God exists. It is true that we can imagine things that don’t exist, such as unicorns; but horns and horses do exist.
Third, God may be like the horizon – the framework against which everything else is placed and comprehended. The horizon exists, though not as other things exist; it is the reference point-line, the directional, the seen and unseen background before which all else is locatable. Of course in practical terms it is the curved falling away of the earth’s surface, and as such it is tangible and measurable (I have heard that it is about five miles away from a six-foot-tall man at seaside or in Kansas.) But it also has a strong and intangible reality.
Doolittle may be on to something here. But, I wonder, what if the earth were flat, unbounded, infinite? Would there not still be a horizon? Would it look the same as it presently does?
Maybe the relation of such an infinite horizon is to our actual horizon tells us something of our comprehension of God in relation to God’s reality.
Oh well, that is all “beyond my pay grade”. I must ask Mr. D to tell me more.
=================
(An old union buddy of mine wrote the following column in his local paper. He has graciously agreed to let me re-post it here.)
The Iranian regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today poses a grave and imminent threat to world peace. A wealthy nation, led by apocalyptic anti-Semitic fanatics committed to the eradication of a neighboring nation, is rapidly developing the weapons that will put that goal within its reach.
The whole world knows it; indeed, Iran barely bothers to deny it.
The Iranian regime is and has always been an avowed and implacable enemy of both Israel and of our own country. Their hatred of us and their desire to destroy Israel are not new. What is new is their development of the weapons needed to accomplish their goal of a Jew-free Middle East.
There can be no mistake; the Iranian regime is preparing for its “Final Solution” to the problem of Israel – nothing less than a Second Holocaust. Their denial of Nazi genocide is a smokescreen to distract attention from their plans to out-murder Hitler. With a weapon that Hitler could only dream of, Iran will have instant genocide – the extermination of 6 million Israeli Jews in a single day – at their fingertips.
Diplomacy and sanctions have been tried and have not worked. China (politely) and Russia (rudely) have made it clear (repeatedly) that they will oppose or sabotage serious sanctions. Sanctions will not work under such circumstances.
The Iranians have played the diplomacy game to the hilt, engaging in endless talks while ceaselessly working on their weapons program. They have adhered to Will Rogers’ cynical definition of diplomacy as “Saying ‘nice doggy’ in a soothing voice while stooping to pick up a rock.” They know that time is on their side; they have learned the North Korean lesson that once they demonstrate that they have nuclear weapons, world pressure will avail nothing against them.
So they will continue to play the game, running out the clock while their centrifuges spin day and night. In this situation, and given the demonstrated nature of the regime, it would be the height of irresponsible folly to set further meaningless timelines. If a last diplomatic offer is made, it must contain a deadline measured in days, not months.
For the 30 years since the Iranian Revolution, Israel has been our staunchest ally and Iran our most implacable enemy. That ally now stands threatened with extinction from that enemy. We cannot hesitate to act.
The failure of the previous and current U.S. administrations to deal with this threat have left very few options on the table. In the face of continued Iranian intransigence, some form of military action, such as surgical air strikes to disrupt the Iranian weapons program, may be the only course remaining. If Israel is ready to act in its own defense, we should offer them our full support and assistance.
Military action must be a last resort; its cost is high and its success uncertain. But the cost of continued failure to act is clear and will be terrible. “Learning to live with a nuclear Iran,” as some “realists” propose, is in reality learning to live with genocide.
Seven decades ago, an aggressive and fanatical dictator threatened both the peace of Europe and the Jews of Europe. The powers that could have stopped him chose instead to try to appease him. Appeasement did not work then and it will not work now.
For more information on the Iran threat, I recommend:
Middle East Media Research Institute, at www.memri.org, and United Against Nuclear Iran at www.uani.com.
?????????????????????????????
OK, this is just plain funny. “Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire“, on YouTube from Onion News Network.
Sad that it is so funny. But still funny. I don’t care who you are.
Today’s news: Russian leaders Vladimir Putin rejects sanctions against Iran, even as China indicates willingness to consider more sanctions.
Tomorrow’s headline: China rejects Iran sanctions, even as Russia softens its position.
The Day after Tomorrow’s headine: China tags out, Russia tags into Iran-defense match.
Several things become clearer every day.
First, Iran is playing its diplomatic stalling game with masterful finesse. They have been at the table for years with the Europeans, and now with us. Feeble sanctions are enacted, and then flouted by various nations. And in the background, the steady hum of thousands of gas centrifuges, both in Qom and Natanz, creating the stuff of Iran’s dream: the Jew-liquidating Final Solution: the Mullah Of All Bombs.
Second, Russia and China are not displeased with Iran’s challenge to the West, and will not impede it in any way. But, to avoid burning all bridges to the West, Russia and China will continue to play tag-team in threatening to veto any UN Security Council action, swapping the good-cop/bad-cop roles from time to time. They know that the present US administration will not consider military pressure on Iran without a UN mandate. Russia and China are Iran’s insurance policy against any possible UN action. With their backing, Iran fears no sanctions, and has zero incentive to negotiate in good faith.
As our president receives worldwide acclaim (or at least Norway-wide) for his policy of appeasing Iran’s “legitimate concerns” in endless “good-faith” negotiations, my mind again wanders back seventy-some years, to the last comparable exercise in appeasement of dictators.
I have written about Obama’s appeasement as Chamberlain revisited, here, here, and here. I have quoted Churchill, Clement Attlee, and Neville Chamberlain himself. Now I bring a new voice to bear: John F. Kennedy.
As a Harvard student in 1940, in part to distance himself from his father’s by-then-discredited views, JFK published a book, Why England Slept, analyzing England’s 1930’s appeasement policy and its roots in pacifism and isolationism. In discussing the British government’s wild under-estimation of the Nazi threat, he writes:
“Baldwin [Chamberlain’s predecessor as PM] should be condemned for his blindness and his unwillingness to face unpleasant facts, but I do not believe that he and his entire cabinet knowingly betrayed the country. They all made the mistake of misjudging Germany’s potentialities and the Nazi psychology.”
There is every reason to believe that the same mistakes are being made today by our president. “Unwillingness to face unpleasant facts” is a matter of pride with him.
[Flashback: Bullwinkle: “Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!” Rocky: “That trick never works.” Bullwinkle: “This time for sure.” Bullwinkle (after trick fails): “I gotta get a new hat.”]
John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s voice speaks to us from the past, and today’s Democratic Party, believing that history began in 2000, or 1972 at the earliest, is incapable of understanding the words.
President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and people are amazed. They should not be; in fact, Obama has earned the prize.
In the blink of an eye he has moved the world’s only superpower firmly into the appeasement camp. This has been the Western left’s greatest foreign policy goal for the past eight years, and Obama has delivered on it.
Without creating much of a stir, he has notified our enemies that they need not fear us, and our allies that they cannot count on us.
Meanwhile, Iran arms itself for the coming annihilation of 6 million Jews, and the world prepares itself by stigmatizing Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism.
File this under “Never Thought I’d See the Day…”
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly rebuked Obama’s airy internationalism in the face of the Iranian threat. The US media seems to have missed the story. It happened on September 25, and Breitbart has it.
Sarkozy Mocks Obama At UN Security Council
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite… Continue reading ‘A French Lesson’
I have just finished reading an interesting and disturbingly timely book. Why We Watched: Europe, America, and the Holocaust, by Theodore S. Hamerow, a hstory professor at the University of Wisconsin, chronicles and analyzes a story too rarely told: why the USA and Western European democracies exerted so little effort to prevent Hitler’s genocide of the Jews of Europe.
Hamerow gives full credit to the supreme efforts made by the allies in the war to defeat Hitlerism – once the allies belatedly recognized that their appeasement and isolationism would not avert the danger of further territorial aggression.
But he focuses on the numerous instances when the US and Britain failed to take available steps to assist Hitler’s victims. The public silence about the death camps. The repeated failure to offer wholesale welcome to refugees, for instance. And, above all, the refusal to divert even limited military resources to disrupting the railroad networks supplying the death camps.
In the final analysis, there were three reasons why the West only watched the Holocaust. Continue reading ‘The Next Holocaust’
OUTREACH TO ENEMIES, PUSHBACK TO ALLIES
Health Care Reform and the recession have kept America’s attention firmly riveted on the new administration’s domestic direction. But something much bigger is happening in the world, and it is going largely unnoticed.
The sole superpower is withdrawing from world affairs.
It is quickly becoming clear that President Obama’s foreign policy has a simple but astonishing goal: to rid us of both enemies and allies. Continue reading ‘Obama’s Isolationism Unveiled’
You probably read the story: “NEA Slams Obama’s School Reform Plan”. This is a type of story that occurs predictably after every election: “Supporters unhappy with something ‘their’ president proposes”.
Groups such as unions, that fight for their members’ interests, must inevitably find themselves opposing actions they think are detrimental. That’s the advocacy business.
And everyone knows NEA is such a group, right?
The question is anything but rhetorical. Consider the ongoing saga of NCLB, the “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001. Continue reading ‘NEA and The Party: The NCLB Saga’
I was planning to write about something positive and uplifting for a change. Maybe Obama’s speech to schoolkids.
Instead, I am forced to turn back to the ugliest story developing anywhere in our world. The newly re-installed (through a clumsy whitewash of an election) president of Iran is back in the news, on the eve of a US-set September deadline for serious progress on stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. To encourage progress on the issue, our President Obama has been tactfully and diplomatically silent about the stolen election, the arrest, beatings, and murder of Iranian democrats, the threats against Israel’s very existence, and the other human rights atrocities that are Ahmadinejad’s daily bread. We remain silent in order to avoid giving Mr. A reason to turn against us.
And how is that working so far, you ask? Continue reading ‘“Iran Will Never Negotiate…”’
On an official visit to Germany, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu received an unusual gift. This gift was a set of plans for the Nazi Holocaust. (It was not an “official gift”, but rather one from a private citizen, a newspaper publisher. The official gift was an iPod loaded with the speeches of Angela Merkel.)
The documents, “which include architects’ drawings of rooms including one marked ‘Gaskammer’, or gas chamber…”, gave Netanyahu a welcome opportunity to remind the world that the next round of the Holocaust is being prepared right now in Teheran. Continue reading ‘Israel Sees Secret Holocaust Plans’
Fouad Ajami, writing in the Wall Street Journal, gives a breathtaking summary of the Obama presidency so far. His overview: “a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance.”
He compares Obama with Reagan; in both elections, Americans were losing faith in their country. Reagan embodied and re-asserted that faith, while Obama promised to fix America and make it worthy of our faith.
This is an excellent analysis. Read it. Now!
One of the most original thinkers of our time, Rene Girard, has an excellent article in First Things (one of the most important publications of our time), entitled “On War andApocalypse“.
He reviews his theory of mimetic rivalry and scapegoating, and then offers some related reflections on modern Islamism. It is most thought-provoking, as RG often is. And this is clearer than much of his writing (he is, after all, a Frenchman.) Continue reading ‘Rene Girard, scapegoats, and the next Holocaust’
by Mister Moleman’s philosophical friend John Doolittle
One of the greatest of modern thinkers passed away last month. Leszek Kolakowski was rightly known for his searing critique of Communism, embodied in his magisterial 1978 survey, the 3-volume Main Currents of Marxism. The 20th century had crushed his every favorable illusion about Communism (as it did for virtually every other Pole). He exposed the ugly philosophical reality of Marxism as thoroughly as Alexander Solzhenitsyn exposed its hideous physical reality. With Main Currents and Gulag Archipelago on a bookshelf, and only The Black Book of Communism between them, no library really needs another volume on the subject. Continue reading ‘Leszek Kolakowski, 1927-2009′
Mike Antonucci, my cyber-friend and the watchdog of America’s largest union, has asked if I have any thoughts on the recent NEA RA. Mike, you should be careful what you ask for.
This NEA Convention seems to have generated little real news. The ongoing organizational schizophrenia that has driven NEA for the past two decades continues to fade into the background. Continue reading ‘NEA, Past and Present’
So how is the Obama administratrion’s Iran “charm offfensive” working out? We have some more proof that Iran now regards us in a new, hopeful light.
Yesterday, AFP (France) reported Ahmadinejad saying “The US needs us and wants to develop relations. Circumstances are changing rapidly in our favor. We are on the road to victory.”
And Israel? “The Zionist occupiers are destructive microbes.”
So Iran is on the road to victory over whom? The story doesn’t say.
Sounds like O’s message of hope and optimism is resonating in Teheran.
And Israel? Well, what can you expect from a bunch of destructive microbes?
It is reported by Eric Trager on Contentions that Defense Secretary Gates, obviously speaking at the president’s direction, has announced that the US has no military ability to destroy the fast-developing Iranian nuclear program. All we would do would be “send it further underground.” Continue reading ‘US to Israel: “You’re on Your Own”’
Why do Democrats (the McGovernite New Democratic Party, that is) so regularly beat up on our allies (see Hillary Clinton here getting tough with Israel), while turning on all their considerable charm towards the regimes that despise us the most (Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro)? Continue reading ‘A Simple Question’
A while ago I did some research and found striking descriptions of 1930’s Appeasement by one of its architects and one of its opponents (Chamberlain and Attlee). Continue reading ‘Just Wild About Harry’
Peter Wehner at Contentions, the Commentary blog, has an excellent short posting about the Obama Doctrine:
“At a new conference yesterday, President Obama took a shot at defining the Obama Doctrine. Here’s my effort at defining it: The Obama Doctrine means criticizing past presidents, Democratic and Republican; apologizing for past American sins, real and imagined, to both allies and enemies of the United States, on domestic and, preferably, foreign soil — in the hope that doing so allows Obama to speak with greater moral force and clarity. The overriding goal of the Obama Doctrine is to make the person it is named after look good, rather than, and if necessary at the expense of, the nation he was elected to represent.“
He omitted only to mention the tendency to show toughness by pressuring our allies, and to show understanding by going easy on our enemies. To repeat myself only slightly:
President Obama’s recent forays into the wider world have been positively Chamberlainesque (although there is no evidence that Chamberlain ever actually bowed to Hitler.) His humble apologies for our sins, his delicate refusal to criticize Iran’s warmongering or Saudi Arabia’s persecution of women or China’s dictatorship, his pious moral equivalence of Israel and Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah. And now the bi-lingual embrace of “mi amigo” Chavez.
Obama’s entire pre-presidential experience and body of work can be summed up as “effective self-promotion.” If he continues to think that the solutions to every problem is “More Obama,” then we are all in for a very rough time.
OK, here is a priceless news story from the West’s War On Piracy. Continue reading ‘Pirates given stern lecture, then released’
Whenever the subject is Iran, I find my thoughts drifting back to the 1930’s, and I realize I am becoming a Munich bore. But I can’t help it.
Mr. Ahmadinejad (I started to write Herr Ahmadinejad, but I am really trying to lay off on the sarcasm) was interviewed in Der Spiegel [here] yesterday by a German reporter who pulled refreshingly few punches.
What first grabbed my interest was Mr. A on the subject of the rights of the Palestinians.
Ahmadinejad: We are defending more than the basic rights of oppressed Palestinians. Our proposal for resolving the Middle East conflict is that the Palestinians should be allowed to decide their own future in a free referendum. Do you think it right that some European countries and the United States support the occupying regime and the unnatural Zionist state, but condemn Iran, merely because we are defending the rights of the Palestinian people?
I flashed back to Churchill’s magnificent speech in Commons opposing Chamberlain’s Munich agreement. (It will be a most hopeful sign when this great oration is once again studied in both civics and literature classes.)
It is common for pundits to quote Churchill about the policy of appeasement and its inevitable failure to cope with aggressive dictators. But this unfairly allows the policy’s opponents to define it, and gives rise to the feeling (by modern-day appeasers) that the term is an ugly epithet which no one of good will really deserves.
But in fact it was Chamberlain himself who called his policy “appeasement”. And under that very name it was extremely popular, as witness the cheering crowds greeting his return from Munich, and his 369-150 vote of support in Commons.
So how did Chamberlain define appeasement? One of his best summations was the following, from his speech in defense of the Munich agreement, where Czechoslovakia was sold out in exchange for Hitler’s promises of peaceful behavior.
by Mr. Hans Moleman
(Mr. Moleman began this dialogue by critiquing Mr. Sturms’s original paper. Mr. Sturm responded, sparking a dialogue that is still going, and for which Mr. M is grateful. There are now 7 responses back and forth.)
The Truman National Security Project is a worthy effort by a group of “Truman Democrats” to craft a foreign policy that more consistent with the Truman postwar principles than with the pacifist policy of every Democratic candidate since George McGovern.
Unfortunately, their latest paper “Iran: Putting the Threat in Perspective” by Frankie Sturm suggests that the “Truman Democrats” are still stuck in the dead-end of a thoughtless (or cynical) anti-neo-conservatism.
Continue reading ‘A Dialogue With Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran – part 7′
I have just read the description of President Obama’s Financial Responsibility Summit (if I got the name right). It was disturbingly familiar.
It was an NEA conference writ large (or at least upscale). Continue reading ‘Obama’s NEA-Style Summit’
On a late drive home the other night I found myself listening to the “BBC World Report” on an NPR station. (Don’t look at me like that – it was a remote area and that was the only station I could get.)
There was a story about a delegation of British MP’s visiting Gaza to inspect the humanitarian crisis. The MPs were already on record as condemning Israel for the crisis and the war, so their comments were unsurprising. They called on Israel to relieve the suffering it had caused by closing off the Israeli-Gaza border crossings.
I recently read some history of the creation of the modern state of Israel. I was struck by the crucial role played by President Harry Truman. Put simply, if not for him, Israel would not now exist. Harry Truman, not the Truman administration or the United States. Truman. Democrat Harry Truman.
And if not for the creation of Israel, the desert wind could blow from North Africa to southwest Asia unimpeded by anything as tawdry as a voting booth.
Truman’s decision to support the UN partition plan that put Israel on the map was fought by many of the wise men in his State Department and the rest of the foreign policy establishment. They thought it was a big mistake.
George W. Bush is about to become officially only a memory. (Though in all likelihood he will become the kind of obsessing memory that Nixon immediately became for liberals.)
His tale is of course complicated. Many knocks against him are legitimate. So what can you say to his credit?
Simply this. George W. Bush fought hard against the enemies of his country, and never let popularity or politics distract him from doing so.
That accomplishment will be put in perspective by the subsequest performance of his successors. Let us pray that it comes to be seen as a matter of course.
“The Democratic Party is… the oldest political party in continuous operation in the United States and it is one of the oldest parties in the world.
“The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792.”
–Wikipedia
Dear Wikipedia:
The above-quoted information is incorrect. You have apparently confused the currently-existing Democratic Party with its predecessor, the Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. That party was driven out of existence by the new Democratic Party founded by George McGovern in 1972.
by Mister M’s friend John Doolittle
The Enlightenment of the 18th Century was the birth of the movement to articulate a rational basis for society and the freedom of the individual.
The French Enlightenment (Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Robespierre) was directed against the church, seeing religion as mankind’s primary oppressor. And it took a strongly ideological form from the start, being largely ungrounded in experience of local institutions that actually grew a sense of individual freedom.
The British Enlightenment (Locke, Hume, Smith, Burke) saw its task as the creation of a theoretical framework for the balancing of individual freedom and community interests. Based on common sense and actual experience of freedom, Continue reading ‘Conservatism, the Enlightenments, and Religion’
Plus Ca Change, Plus C’est La Meme Detroit
On this day in history, 29 years ago, President Jimmy Carter signed a bailout bill that saved Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy with $1.2 billion in federal loans. It was one of his last official acts, and one of his most popular.
Now, Chrysler is back. So, what, I hear you say. If a company can go 29 years between bailouts, that’s not too bad, is it?
The two issues don’t appear to be directly related, but it could be that an auto bailout may jeopardize passage of the insultingly-mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act”, better known as Card Check – the proposal to eliminate secret ballot elections for union certification.
First, the auto bailout talks have generated a lot of highly plausible “the-unions-killed-the-auto-industry” talk. That kind of stuff doesn’t help when you are arguing that America needs more unions. The UAW’s tendency to walk out whenever the talk turns to concessions just emphasizes the point.
Second, if Obama gives the unions anything like what they want in Detroit, he may find himself off the hook for any further union payoffs. He could say “I saved the country’s best union contracts from Republican rape – and you still want more from me?”
If that is the case, we might still see passage of an EFCA that makes needed procedural changes to speed up union elections and expedite prosecution of unfair labor practices. That would be a good thing, but not what the unions are expecting. They want card check and contract arbitration. But they may yet be disappointed.
The union card-check bill, AKA the insultingly-mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), looks ready to slide through Congress without a hitch. But, as both history and many clever sayings remind us, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over and the fat lady sings and the chicks hatch. (add your favorite cliché in the Comments section.)
Back in 1974, the Democrats strengthened their control of Congress with a big win in the wake of Watergate. They picked up 49 seats to cement a huge 292-143 majority (makes Ms. Pelosi’s 235 votes look small). Democratic constituency groups wanted things.
Unionism in the private sector is not just down; it’s almost out. Membership has been falling steadily for half a century and is now circling the drain, with membership at 7.5% of the workforce. In 1953 it was 36%.
This disastrous decline has been partly masked by the simultaneous growth of unions in the public sector. While private unions sank, public ones climbed from near-zero in the 1950’s to around 36%, where it has held steady since 1980. Decline has also been disguised by the growing political power of the union movement, as its electoral organizing skills have improved even as membership organizing has languished.
Why the decline? Why have private sector workers stopped joining unions?
The unions have a ready answer: it’s too hard to organize because employers cheat. They scare and intimidate and fire workers who try to organize.
John McCain campaigned hard and for the most part honorably. Had he been elected, he might have made a good president. We’ll never know.
Obama campaigned hard and well, and for all we know may make a good president. It’s possible. We’ll find out.
But this campaign, which scored so many firsts, was also an unnnoticed first of a sadly different type. I believe it was the first time voters had to choose between two sitting (while running) senators. And that is not a good thing.
The US Senate reminds me of a childhood game called in which players try to gobble up marbles with mechanical hippo jaws. In the Senate the game is Hungry Hungry Egos.
The US Senate was conceived by the Founders as a sober body of elder statesmen removed and largely retired from politics; a House of Lords for a democracy. Instead it has become not only a part of our partisan battlefield, but also a luxury kennel for the care and feeding of our tenderest egos.
I suspect that Sarah Palin’s most egregious sin was not her attempt to break into the vice presidency, but her lack of respect for the senatorial club.
If someone out there wants to propose an amendment to the US Constitution disqualifying sitting senators from the presidency, they’ve got my vote.
A friend of mine used to theorize that all conservatism, and therefore all defense of society, rests on the fathers of daughters – FODs, as he called them.
He explained that it is only when one has children that one begins to recognize how fragile is the future, how dangerous the present, and how great our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, such as children.
The problem is that women, for the most part, tend to believe that the world is dangerous only by accident, rather than as a basic, natural condition. My friend claimed that he had never met a woman who would not agree with the statement that “People are basically good.” And increasingly many men agree with them.
I know the election is over and it is time to, as they say, “Move On”. But not quite yet.
Presidential elections can fit many patterns, and this one was no exception. In retrospect it has a certain (and false) sense of inevitability. Unpopular president, bad economy; these things don’t bode well for an incumbent party. Yet nations, like individuals, possess a kind of free will, and formulaic determinism will always fall short.
But one pattern jumps out. This was an election in which the domestic economy was the “top topic” on voters’ minds. When that has happened recently, Democrats usually win. Continue reading ‘Democrats win another domestic election’
I am a lifelong union man: an organizer, negotiator, staffer and leader. I believe in unions and their importance for our society. That’s why I think HR 800, the Orwellian-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” is an abomination. And more than that, it is not good for unions.
Continue reading ‘“Employee Free Choice Act” Bad For Unions’
It appears that the answer to Melanie Phillips’ question (see below, “Is America Really Going To Do This?” is “Yes we are, because Yes we can” (or something).
Electing Obama is like electing Pandora, in the hope (there’s that word again) that when the box is opened good things will fly out. That’s a heck of a hope, given the glimpses we have seen (through the media blackout) of Obama’s background and past associations.
And, once opened, the box will keep on giving. Court appointees will determine our laws for decades to come (you thought congress did that?) The foreign policy results may take years, and fortunes in blood and treasure, to undo – if they can ever be undone.