Auld Lang Syne

It's New Year's Eve, and a lot of whiskey baritones the world over will be barking out their off-key renditions of Auld Lang Syne. It seems that everyone can sing a few bars of it, but nobody seems to know much about it.


Maybe the only hymn harder to sing is The Star-Spangled Banner, the American national anthem.


In North America the tradition of Auld Lang Syne on New Year's Eve seems to go back to Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians who performed it in formal wear at New York's swanky Waldorf Astoria every December 31 from 1930 through 1976. In fact, for  Americans of a certain age, Guy Lombardo was New Year's Eve.



For me, Auld Lang Syne will always be Ward Bond, Officer Burt in It's a Wonderful Life, miraculously whipping out an accordion in the final scene to play Auld Lang Syne as Angel Clarence finally wins his wings. 


But where did Auld Lang Syne come from, and what does it mean?


As any high school English teacher can tell you, the lyrics to Auld Lang Syne are a Scottish poem penned by Robert Burns in the 18th century. (Band maestro Lombardo claimed to have learned the song from scottsmen in his native London, Ontario.) Burns copped to borrowing the words from an earlier poem by James Watson. "I did not write this song, I merely copied it," he wrote to the Scots Musical Museum.  


The title translates loosely in English as "long, long ago." Because of its wistful, sad nature, the musical version has become part of the fabric of saying good bye to the old year in English speaking countries. It is also common at funerals and graduations and other occasions that market the passage of time, or phases of life.


But what about those lyrics? 


Here they are, courtesy of New Year's Eve Song: 

Should old acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!

The new year brings us hope for peace,
A new day for mankind,
Where we can all live hand in hand
And leave all hate behind.

For auld lang syne, my dear.

For auld lang syne.
We'll take a cup of kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

When dreams they seem so far away,
Your soul can feel so low.
But love is never far away;
Your heart won't be alone.

Let's make a world where people care,
A world that knows no fear,
Where we can open up our hearts
And hold each other dear.

Our children grow, they need to know
The Future's theirs to hold.
If we can teach them how to love
Then the world can carry on.

For auld lang syne, my dear.

For auld lang syne.
We'll take a cup of kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

So that's the story. So tonight, take a cup of kindness and toast the year gone by--for auld lang syne!


Just thought you'd like to know!


Happy New Year!

Yes, Virginia, There Is Such a Thing as Bad Publicity

For the 15th year in a row, San Francisco-based Fineman PR has released its list of the 10 biggest public relations blunders of the year. If to err is human, then these are super-human screw-ups. Just take a look:

1. The Obama White House cleared Air Force One to fly over Manhattan with an F-16 in pursuit last April. The purpose: A panoramic shot of Air Force 1 over the Statue of Liberty. The goal: Make President Obama look, well, presidential. But to New Yorkers still living with the horrible memories of 9-11 it was a cold, callous political stunt not worthy of any president, let alone one who had won the city's vote handily in 2008. 
2. A school district in Delaware suspended a six-year-old for bringing a camping utensil into school. The little boy had been so excited at joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to bring his new toy in to eat lunch. The academic mandarins who run the Christina School District "reasoned" that the tool could be used as a weapon in the hands of a dangerous six-year old excited about scouting.  No amount of book learning can substitute for common sense.
3. Goldman Sachs, the venerable poster child for fat-cat investment bankers, decided it needed some pro-active PR to counter the impression that the $17 billion in bonuses it gave out last year showed it hadn't learned a thing from the global anti-banking anger that followed the onset of the current recession. CEO Lloyd Blankfein bragged to the UK Sunday Times that Goldman was "doing God's work," and pointed to the small business loans it was making.  God had a pretty good year this year. Wonder what His bonus will be?
4.  United Airlines' post-9-11 slogan was "it's time to fly" again. Apparently not if you're traveling with a musical instrument. Last year Canadian David Carroll sat aboard a UA flight and watched down below as the baggage throwers tossed his $3,500 guitar around like it was a javelin. Carroll sent the airline a $1,200 bill for the damage to the guitar. United ignored Carroll's demands, providing a textbook case for why old line industries just don't get this social media thing. Musician Carroll recorded a music video about the incident and posted it to You Tube. Within a week the video had amassed three million hits, and United was quickly back in touch with Carroll about a settlement after nine months of stonewalling.
5. Two employees of a Domino's Pizza shop were videotaped doing disgusting things to the pizzas--things usually done in private. They then posted the video to You Tube. The company dithered for two days trying to come up with a response. Faster than you can say pepperoni the video had one million views. Finally the company tried to contain the crisis using its own social media campaign. Let's hope their deliveries are faster than their crisis management responses.
6. Let's take made-for-TV award shows with a grain of salt. Still, when singer Kanye West grabbed the mic out of the hands of teenager Taylor Swift, MTV Music Award winner for Best Female Video, and told the world that his friend Beyonce should have won the award it was a bit much. Even in an industry built on overindulgence and self-promotion West's act was not a career builder. He later made a public apology on the Tonight Show.
7. Last May Kentucky Fried Chicken learned that it's not who's coming to dinner, but how many are coming to dinner that matters. In a campaign destined for the "Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time" Hall of Fame, KFC did a coupon tie-in to The Oprah Winfrey Show as a way to introduce its new grilled chicken product. The rationale:  Oprah could deliver a lot of potential customers in the KFC key demographic. The problem: Oprah delivered a lot of customers in the KFC key demographic. Lots of them. In fact, millions. They downloaded the coupon for a free KFC grilled chicken meal and then descended on KFC restaurants like a free kegger at a college fraternity. The result: More mouths than meals, and a lot of angry and disappointed customers turned away. Somewhere the Colonel is plotting his comeback. 
8. Department store Target held an online promotion last fall for an "illegal alien" costume, complete with an extraterrestrial mask, orange prison jump suit labeled "ILLEGAL ALIEN," and a large "green card." (No word on why you'd be illegal if you had a green card.)  Target blamed the incident on a data entry error that caused the offending costume to be ordered. Regardless,  advocacy groups descended on Target faster than a bunch of grandmas on Black Friday. In a world gone made with political correctness and over-sensitivity Target somehow launched a promotion that even the most ardent anti-immigration partisan would find offensive. Bad Target.
9. The Los Angeles Times reported that a Wells Fargo bank executive had foreclosed on a $12 million Malibu beachfront estate and then used it for throwing swank parties. Allegedly the foreclosed owner had lost his wealth in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It's worth mentioning that at the time Wells had received  $25 billion from U.S. taxpayers to stay in business. A lot of these taxpayers had themselves been foreclosed on by banks like, well, Wells Fargo. Any wonder why nobody likes bankers?
10. A Chicago landlord, Horizon Group Management, had a dispute with a renter last spring. The renter tweeted something nasty about her living conditions in an apartment managed by the landlord. Landlord Horizon sued the renter, claiming that the Twitter message was broadcast all over the world, potentially damaging its reputation. The renter at the time had a grand total of 22 Twitter followers. She would have reached more people shouting her message at a crowded El stop. Unfortunately for Horizon the story about the suit was picked up by major traditional media like  the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press. The newspaper business is fading like cheap wallpaper, but they still have a hell of a lot more than 22 readers. The only worse move for Horizon would have been to hire the coyote to go after the roadrunner. The PR lesson here: In David vs. Goliath stories, nobody ever roots for Goliath. 

There you have it, thanks to Fineman PR.   Sometimes no publicity is better than bad publicity!

Just thought you might like to know!

The Proclamation of the Birth of Christ

TODAY, the twenty–fifth day of December,
unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens
and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own
image.


Several thousand years after the flood,when God made 
the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant.


Twenty–one centuries from the time of Abraham and Sarah;
thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel 
out of Egypt.



Eleven hundred years from the time of Ruth and
 the Judges;
one thousand years from the anointing of David as king;
in the sixty–fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel.


In the one hundred and ninety–fourth Olympiad;
the seven hundred and fifty–second year 
from the foundation of the city of Rome.


The forty–second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;
the whole world being at peace; Jesus Christ eternal
God and Son of the eternal Father,desiring to sanctify 
the world by his most merciful coming, 
being conceived by the Holy Spirit, 
and nine months having passed since his conception,
was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary. 


Today is the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

The 351st Bomb Group-A War Story

 This post is dedicated to my late uncle, Sgt. Edward H. Bucceri, a member of the 351st Bomb Group killed in action off the coast of England in World War II. Today is the anniversary of his death during a combat mission over the North Sea 66 years ago.

Uncle Ed died long before I was born. We know little about the incident that took his life other than it was his eighth combat mission. What information we have is preserved in The Chronicle of the 351st Bomb Group, by Peter Harris and Ken Harbour, and is the basis of this post.

Sgt. Bucceri's plane, serial number 42-39778 , and known as "Lucky Ball," was part of  the 511th Squadron on a 34-plane bombing run that took off on December 22, 1943 from its base in Polebrook, England on a night-time mission to bomb a steel mill in Osnabruck, Germany. In command of Lucky Ball was the pilot, Lt. Lewis Maginn of Rochester, New York. It was to be the plane's fifth and final mission.

According to Lt. Maginn's recollection of the event, Lucky Ball was anything but lucky that night. It had just been overhauled prior to the mission, with two engines ripped out and replaced by rebuilt ones. Lt. Maginn recalls being uneasy with the fact that the plane was pressed into service without the rebuilt engines having logged some more running time following the overhaul.

In addition to having to make the run with untested engines, two of the regular crew could not go on the mission and were replaced in the ball turret and tail gun positions.

Early into the mission, the pilot realized something was wrong. Bomb Groups assigned to the position behind them were rapidly gaining on Lucky Ball. Lt. Maginn put the hammer down to "near full power" and still found himself falling behind his formation.

And then the oil pressure in the number four engine began to drop.

The pilot killed the four engine and, being close to the target, tried to make the run with three motors. Then the oil pressure on number three began dropping.

With two engines out on one side, and an impossible task to keep up, Lt. Maginn made the decision to  break formation and turn back to base. The crew jettisoned its bomb load, ammo and equipment in hopes of lightening the load on the two remaining engines.

The crew then mistook an American plane for an enemy fighter and dived into a cloud bank. But the maneuver cost the crew "precious altitude," according to Lt. Maginn. Then the oil pressure in number two began to drop. The crew began to take flak from German fighters, worsening their altitude situation. The pilot was forced to shut down number two, leaving Lucky Ball one engine.

The crew dumped all remaining equipment, guns and ammunition and began a desperate run to the English coast. Sgt. Palmer, the radio man, sent out the SOS. But there was no luck for Lucky Ball that night as it struggled westward into a gale headwind.

With the English coastline in plain view, the crew came to the realization they would never reach it. They prepared to ditch their craft into the chop of the North Sea. Cruising low above the waves, the pilot cut the last engine to try and glide to a straight landing. The bomber hit the water at 85 miles per hour, breaking in half.

Lt. Maginn describes the intense cold of the North Sea in late December as "instantly numbing." The crash landing had jammed the cables on the life rafts, forcing the crew to "take to the water, their flotation devices their own hope for survival. Huddled together in the freezing water they watched Lucky Ball sink below the waves. The first big wave to break over them scattered them about the sea, each man to his own.

Sgt. Palmer assured Maginn that the rescue squadrons had a fix on their position, but it would be 45 more agonizing minutes before the first boat appeared. During that 45 minutes as the men drifted apart, Lt. Maginn later said, "the wind and bitter cold water took its toll rapidly." Five of the ten-man crew were rescued. Perishing that night were the navigator, Lt. James McMorrow of Akron, Ohio, Sgts. Albert Meyer of Roswell, New Mexico, Docile Nadeau of Fort Keat Mills, Maine, and Clarence Rowlinson of Des Moines, Iowa. Sgt. Meyer was the only one whose body was recovered.

Sgts. Nadeau and Rowlinson were the replacement ball turret and tail gunners fatefully assigned to the flight that night.

The fifth crew member killed was my uncle, Edward H. Bucceri of Jersey City, New Jersey.

No memorial marks the spot where these men went to their final rest. There was no military funeral at a national cemetery, no 21-gun salute, no honor guard. No one made a movie about the Lucky Ball's last run, and no Grammy-winning folk singer penned a mournful song . The crew that perished that night were just five of the more than 400,000 Americans  killed in action in that war. Today I remember one of them.

Rest in Peace, Uncle Ed. Merry Christmas. And thank you.

Just thought you might like to know.

Is this the crew of the Lucky Ball?

Teachers Union Pimps Congress--Again

Just when you thought Congress couldn't stoop any lower...

Earlier this week Congress pulled the plug on Washington, DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program . For a background on this valuable voucher program see our post from November 24, 2008 ("Let's Democratize Education ") The Opportunity Scholarship Program helps liberate 1,700 poor and minority students from the third world education provided by the District of Columbia. It does so by providing their families with $7,500 stipends that can be used at private and other schools.

But Democrats in Congress continue to prostitute themselves for their pimps, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers . These are the two national teachers unions are the biggest obstructionists to improving public school education in the United States. I believe in the value of trade unionism. In interests of full disclosure, I am a former member of the National Education Association. But I do object to its hypocrisy. Don't hold up school board after school board for favorable work rules and big pay raises and then say you're acting in the interests of the students.

The Wall Street Journal today called the behavior of Congressional Democrats "duplicitous and shameful" in killing the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Here's the text of a letter sent by the NEA to all Democrats in Congress back in March:

"Opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA. We expect that Members of Congress who support public education, and whom we have supported, will stand firm against any proposal to extend the (Opportunity Scholarship) program. Actions associated with these issues WILL be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card  for the 111th Congress." (Italics added)


So there you have it. The union pimps telling Democrats get out on the street corner and do what we pay you to do. Could it be any clearer? 


By killing off the Opportunity Scholarship Program the Democrat party, which continues to perpetuate its myth of being the party of the people, has consigned yet another generation of poor and minority kids to a life of poverty and an education system where fewer than half of the students graduate from high school. 


In the interest of fairness The Journal points out that Democrat Senators Robert Byrd and Diane Feinstein, along with Independent Joe Lieberman and Republicans Susan Collins and John Ensign all sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking the leadership to re-consider the bill, which was signed by President Obama on December 17. 


Let's also point out that our first yuppie president has no skin in this game, since his two children attend DC's exclusive Sidwell Friends School where tuition runs about $30,000 for each child. 


Finally, I'll also call out the Congressional Black Caucus and their constituents. Black Members of Congress had a choice on this issue. They could have stood by minority children in DC and provided them and their families with hope for a better education and a better tomorrow. Instead, they opened their pockets wide and bagged the cash from the NEA. 


And their constituents: How long will you continue to play identity politics voting for venal politicians because of the color of their skin or the fact that they are Democrats, and watch them time and again sell you down the river? At what point do you begin holding them accountable? How many times will you vote for the siren song of entitlement rather than the harder road of opportunity? 


I give the NEA, Congressional Black caucus, their constituents, the leaders of both chambers and the President a failing grade on this. Shame on them.


Just thought you might like to know.

These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago today Thomas Paine published the first in his series of articles know as The Crisis . The purpose of the articles was to steel his fellow countrymen for the long struggle that lay ahead in the Revolutionary War. The euphoria of Independence had evaporated and the cold reality of December had set in: The Americans were outmanned, outgunned and out of luck. The future looked bleak as Paine noted:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

"Tyranny, like hell," wrote Paine, "is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."

I think of these words as we face the greatest threat to our liberty since World War II. A political minority is about to engineer the government takeover of one-sixth of our economy under the guise of "reforming" our healthcare system. This on top of the government takeover of most of our auto industry and the nationalization of our largest banks. This despite the fact that a majority of Americans are opposed to the government takeover of the healthcare industry.

Make no mistake: This is not about healthcare--anymore than the previous incursions were about making cars or making loans. This is about a hardcore leftist cabal operating with lightening speed to remake America from a land of opportunity and individual freedom to a land where all people are dependent on whatever the central government allows them to have. This cabal has operated with blazing speed because it knows the time is limited before Americans realize what's happened and begin trying to undo the damage. Their goal is to transform the economy so fundamentally that the transformation can never be undone.

As of this post, they've just gotten the 60th vote in the Senate to shut up debate on their healthcare bill, allowing it to go to conference with the House of Representatives. The remaking of healthcare into something controlled by the government brings us one step closer to a socialist-style republic.

This is the tyranny of the minority at its worst.

Paine was right. These are the times that try men's souls. The "sunshine patriots" of the summer's Tea Parties and town hall meetings have faded away. Little more than 30% of Americans  want to surrender our freedom and submit our future to a cadre of bureaucrats. But they control the machinery of government right now. For the rest of us, the future is bleak.

Just thought you might like to know.

Senate Bill Proves ObamaCare Will Ration Healthcare

Let's dispense with the subtleties: The current healthcare deform bill on the verge of passing the Senate will reduce your care, increase your cost, place a bureaucrat between you and  your doctor and ultimately ration your care. Period. Anyone who says differently is lying, stupid or both. There can be no  varying degrees of interpretation at this point. It's in the bill.

Don't believe me? Check out Sen. Tom Coburn's op-ed piece in the Dec. 17, 2009 Wall Street Journal ("The Health Bill Is Scary"). Sen. Coburn (R-OK) brings two distinct advantages to this debate that the socialized medicine cheerleaders don't. First, he's actually read the bill. Second, he's a practicing physician of 25 years. He understands the practical implications of health policy decisions being made by 25-year-old Hill interns and Obama White House policy wonks.

It is also worth noting that Sen. Coburn is a two-time cancer survivor . So having stared down the barrel of the Grim Reaper's gun twice, he understands what's at stake here in a way those policy wonks will never be able to.

"Every American, not just seniors, should know that the rationing provisions in the Senate bill will not only reduce their quality of life, but their life span as well," he writes.

Why so? Well, here's the unvarnished truth that is in the bill:

• Sections 3403 and 2021 clearly tell Medicare to deny coverage if it is deemed too expensive. The law would create a stronger "Independent Medicare Advisory Board ," the function of which will be to stretch Medicare dollars by rationing care. The board would be composed, according to Sen. Coburn, of "permanent, unelected, and, therefore, unaccountable members." This is the Death Panel at which Democrats scoffed and denied its existence. 
• Sections 6301 mandates creation of "comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs . These are modeled on the "Quality Adjusted Life Years " panels used for years by the British National Health Service. In Britain this form of rationing has been responsible 15,000 premature cancer deaths each year, according to that country's National Cancer Intelligence Network . QALYs are "black box actuarial tables " that are used to cost justify denying you treatment. Essentially are like the cost-benefit analysis that a corporation uses to justify any investment. If the bureaucrat in charge deems that you don't have enough time left on earth for the government to recover its investment in a drug, surgery or other treatment, or to return that investment to society (i.e. if you are retired and no longer productive), then you'll be denied the treatment, regardless of what your physician recommends. Count on it. 
• Section 2713 of the Senate bill explicitly mandates that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force approve all health insurance plan coverages. The Task Force, you may remember from last month, is the group that issued an advisory for women under age 50 not to undergo annual mammograms. The president claims, disingenuously, that the Task Force pronouncements do not carry the force of law. But when he signs this bill, they will. Just watch how many insurers in 2010 try to get ahead of the bow wave and drop mammogram coverage for women under 50. This is a form of rationing.

The bill also expands the number of people eligible for Medicaid, the government-run healthcare program formerly for poor people. But Medicaid is already rationed. Because the government is too inept at running it, many doctors wait nearly 6 months for reimbursement for care provided under the program. It also underpays doctors. For these reasons many doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients.

In Maryland, according to Sen. Coburn's analysis, 17,000 Medicaid patients are currently on a waiting list for treatment . As many as 250 may have died waiting to be cared for, according to the state. And in Kansas, where current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was governor, there is a backlog of more than 15,000 Medicaid patients waiting treatment. Sec. Sebelius would be in charge of ObamaCare. What's not in this bill is any guarantees that ObamaCare would be any less inept or inefficient than Medicaid. So get ready for the waiting lists. It's our future.

My point is not to scare anyone. It is to present an unheard voice in this debate, the voice of someone who is a practicing physician and also must vote on this bill. So if your Democrat friends start arguing with you about healthcare, giving you the same old anti-corporate, emotional Routine Number 8 from the 1960s playbook, you quote the bill--chapter and verse numbers--to them and ask them to deny it. It's time this bill was evaluated on the facts of what it is, not some idealistic dream of what the Democrats want it to be.

Just thought you might like to know.

Just Thought You Might Like to Know: Democrats Unlease Their Venom on an Extraordinary Joe

Just Thought You Might Like to Know: Democrats Unlease Their Venom on an Extraordinary Joe

Democrats Unlease Their Venom on an Extraordinary Joe

Democrats lost a great deal of credibility from 2000 through 2008 by demonizing George W. Bush and reducing the political discourse in this country to something you'd hear in a bar fight. 


Republicans when debating policy tend to argue from facts. Democrats over the last decade, in absence of compelling evidence to support their positions, have tended to argue from emotion. Thus, every Republican president of my time has been  attacked by Democrats for some alleged personal flaw that has nothing to do with the underlying logic of their policies. Eisenhower? Inarticulate. Nixon? A crook. Ford? Stupid. Reagan? Senile. And stupid. George H.W. Bush? Out of touch. George W. Bush? Just plain stupid.


So in the absence of any Republican of star power right now except Sarah Palin (Viewed by the left as both not a real woman and a bimbo at the same time. Did we mention stupid?) to vilify, Democrats have turned their guns on one of their own--Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.


Sen. Lieberman's sin is being too independent. Let the record reflect that it was the Democrats themselves who made him an independent by pouring their salon money into the campaign of his primary opponent in 2006, Ned Lamont. (In keeping with their myth of being the party of the people, Mr. Lamont made his fortune the old fashioned way--he inherited from a father who was a partner in   J.P. Morgan and Co. Along the way to getting trounced by Sen. Lieberman in the general election, this man of the people had stops at exclusive prep school Phillips Exeter,  as well as Harvard and Yale.)


So, the Democrat swells who created Joe Lieberman, the independent, now vilify him for being, well, independent. Which brings us to healthcare. Jonathan Chait, writing in the New Republic , says that "Lieberman isn't actually all that smart...there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform. . . ." Isn't all that smart? Mr. Chait obviously has him confused with a Republican.


He goes on in his article amazingly to suggest that because Sen. Lieberman is a Jew, he benefits from reverse discrimination since the only reason most people probably think the senator is smart because they assume all Jews are smart. Way to go, Jon. Any opinion on Joe's athletic ability?


MoveOn.org , the ultra-leftist racket, is using the anti-Lieberman campaign as a fundraiser for themselves: "Joe Lieberman is single-handedly gutting health care reform. And it's time someone held him accountable. So we're going to make sure every voter in Connecticut knows what he's doing. And then, when he comes up for re-election, we'll make sure we send him home for good. Can you chip in to make Joe pay?" Leave it to a bunch of socialists to figure out how to make money out of the healthcare debate. Time for moveon.org to move on for good.


House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer blames lack of action on the Senate healthcare bill on Sen. Lieberman rather than the bill's many flaws. He shifts the blame for the Senate's ineptitude at failing to pass a bill  to the "psychology of one," meaning Sen Lieberman. If the psychology of one is really the reason the bill continues to be stuck in neutral, then that one is Rep. Hoyer's counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). 


And Rep. Rosa DeLauro  (D-CT) tells POLITICO that "No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled."


James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal reminds Rep. DeLauro that there is no provision for recalling members of Congress. Oops. Not a bright thing to say. Maybe she's a Republican.


This campaign of belittling its opponents smacks of the elitist institution that the Democrat Party has become. Well oiled and well funded by the Ned Lamonts and George Soroses of the world, it tries to accomplish its goals by gutter sniping rather than through reasoned discourse. In doing so, it is attacking a man, Joe Lieberman, more principled than any of them could ever hope to be. 


Just thought you might like to know.

The American Exceptionalist vs. the Internationalist

Barack Obama is the most articulate yet polarizing president since Ronald Reagan. George Friedman, writing for Stratfor , points out a number of similarities between the two:

• Each succeeded a president who began his presidency with high hopes and support but squandered his popularity by the time he left office
• The predecessors of both Reagan and Obama left office amid a serious recession
• Each emphasized the foreign policy challeges that the faraway country of Afghanistan would present, although each for a different reason
• Neither President Reagan nor President Obama enjoyed landslide victories over their opponents, each winning about half the votes cast
• Each tried to change the way the world looked at the United States, although in different ways
  

Yet there are significant differences between the two presidents. President Reagan totally repudiated the foreign and military policy of his predecessor, the feckless Jimmy Carter. The Carter foreign policy was defined by the Iranian hostage crisis -50 Americans captured and held prisoner for over a year, along with their once proud nation. The Reagan foreign policy, on the other hand, was defined by  the bombing of Libya in swift retailiation for the Libyan bombing of a German night club in which American service personnel died. ("They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue .")

President Obama, on the other hand, for all of his left-leaning rhetoric, has largely continued the policies of his precessor George W. Bush, according to Friedman. He continues to prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, adding troops to the latter and continuing Pres. Bush's strategy in the former. He has continued the Bush policy of Nato expansion in to Georgia and Ukraine. And he has adopted the Bush strategy of advocating sanctions in the case of some the worlds bad actors in places like Iran and North Korea.

Yet there is a stark difference between Presidents Reagan and Obama, with regard to foreign policy. Pres. Reagan was a firm believer in American exceptionalism . American exceptionalism is the belief that America is a unique country with a special role to play in human history. Turning the tide in two world wars. The Marshall Plan to save post-War Europe from economic collapse. Countless rescue and recovery missions in the face of natural disasters. Inventions and innovations. A land of bountiful opportunity. For Pres Reagan, American was and will always be that "shining city on a hill ."

Pres. Obama, on the other hand is an internationalist. He believes that among nations no country, the U.S. included, stands above any other. Americans who view the president cautiously point to his apparent bowing to foreign leaders like Emporer Akihito  of Japan or the Saudi king , his speech in Cairo  apologizing for alleged past American transgressions against the Muslim world, and his deference to the opinions of other world leaders as evidence that he does not believe that America stands above other nations.

This difference is keenly seen in the views held by non-Americans of the two men. While Pres. Reagan grew in popularity at home as his muscular foreign policy took shape, he was, frankly, reviled  in Europe. Conversely Pres. Obama's popularity at home continues to drop as American exceptionalism declines, and the Europeans love him for it, to the point of awarding him the Nobel Prize for Peace, albeit with no real reason to do so.

President Reagan's foreign policy restored America's confidence in itself both at home and abroad. In his first year as president, Mr. Obama's internationalism has yielded few results, other than his own Nobel Prize. The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to slip into the "malaise " of defeatism that marked the Carter presidency. Pres. Obama has time to turn it around, to create a foreign policy that will define his presidency and restory the confidence of Americans in themselves as an exceptional country.

But the time for doing that is beginning to run out.

Just thought you might like to know. 

If You Thought the News Out of Washington Is Bizarre...

With so much depressing news coming out of Washington these days--healthcare, the deficit, raising taxes, getting tweaked by Iran every two weeks--it might be a good time to take a look at some news that's really bizarre. Might make us fee good by comparison:

• Police in Shelbyville, Tennessee say they arrested a woman for passing out drunk  while riding a horse in a town Christmas parade. Fifteen minutes after getting a report of ripped rider in the parade, investigating cops found a woman passed out drunk on a horse outside of a nearby motel. She was cited for public drunkeness.
  

• A couple of Pennsylvania college students were arrested recently for not paying a tip at a local pub. It seems that the pub required an 18 percent tip on tables of six or more customers. The two students nixed the tip because they said the service was awful. According to the two scholars, they had to scrounge around for their own table settings and napkins while the server cadged a smoke outside, then had to wait over an hour for their chicken wings. They'll tell it to a judge next month.
  

• Months after passing a bill legalizing gay marriage, New Hampshire lawmakers are getting around to repealing a 200-year law that makes adultery a crime in the Granite State. New Hampshire adulterers currently face a $1,200 fine if convicted. That's better than the original punishment which was standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around  your neck. Serious offenders faced 39 lashes if convicted. Good thing Tiger Woods doesn't live there.
  

• A couple of Utah teenagers were arrested for rapping their order  at a Salt Lake City-area McDonald's restaurant drive-thru. The kids say they were just imitating a popular You Tube video . The store said the budding hip hoppers were holding up the line. Police tracked the singers to a local high school where they were issued a summons. Never confuse Mickey D with Clay D  .
  

So, the next time you shake your head at the nightly news, remember, it could be worse!

Just thought you might like to know!

You Don't Need an Economics Degree to Spot a Climate Scam

One of the first rules of business I ever learned is that everything in this world comes down to money. I remember an old cartoon in Mad  magazine that spoofed the opening of the 1960s Ben Casey  television show, one of the first hospital dramas. In that scene the wise old Dr. Zorba played by the actor Sam Jaffe  would stand at a blackboard and instruct young residents on the facts of life, scratching in chalk  the symbols: man, woman, birth, death, infinity. To this Mad added a sixth fact of life: the dollar sign.

I think of this scene often when I'm trying to understand the controversy over global warming--man-made climate change, for you more liberally inclined readers. For most of us the "evidence" of global warming is inconclusive or contradictory at best. Yet the climatologists who drink the global warming Kool-Aid say the subject is settled and the "fact" of man-made climate change is truth. The question is why.

And the answer, as Dr. Zorba could have told us, is the dollar sign. If doing good involves saving the planet, then  apparently you can do very well by doing good. The unfolding scandal over   "Climategate " (see our Dec. 7, 2009) post, raises the issue of why the climatologists in questions were so conspiratorial. As scientists, shouldn't they be interested in a free and frank exchange of data  and not try to bury opposing theories? Well, short answer, no.

It seems that the academics in the crosshairs of this controversy may have been motivated by more than science. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the British University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit  has netted nearly £12 million as the climate scare has escalated over the decade.

And Michael Mann, another name that comes up in the purloined Climategate emails, was even more proficient. By 2007, two years after he joined Penn State University , the institution had brought in some $55 million in climate research funding, most of it supplied by the government.

So there's big money to be made in saving the planet. That explains the fear tactics ginned up by climate researchers. This is no longer about science or health. It's about money. It's not Thomas Edison and Louis Pasteur. It's Toyota v. Honda.

Several years ago, before the doubts and before Climategate, the best selling author Michael Crichton satirized this global warming industry in novel State of Fear . In it a major environmental "non-profit," which is a thinly veiled send-up of one of the world's leading environmental organizations, rakes in millions of dollars in donations by duping easily duped Hollywood stars into cheerleading for this nonsense.

As an avid outdoorsman, I firmly believe we have an obligation to minimize our footprint on the planet as we go through life.(Pack in, pack out) But, please, don't believe that the current nonsense coming out of formerly esteemed research institutions has anything to do with meeting that obligation.

If anybody asks you what the current flap over climategate is all about, tell them the truth. Tell them it's all about the money.

Just thought you might like to know. 

Democrat Plan to Steal the 2012 Election?

The Obambi.com blog has an interesting take on the 2010 presidential election. It's no secret that President Obama's popularity is sinking like a stone. The conservative Democrats, independents, and disgruntled Republicans who put him in the White House are now having a severe case of buyer's remorse. If the presidential election were held on Wednesday, he'd be a lame duck president by Thursday.

But George Soros, the far-left financier that has helped bankroll Democrat politics has another idea: If you can't control enough voters to re-elect the president, control the state secretaries-of-state who count the votes.

Soros believes that voters don't wield political power; the bureaucrats and politicians who decide whose votes count do. So he's concocted a scheme worthy of any Chicago pol: Send his accolytes out to the hinterlands and elect ultra-left secretary-of-state candidates in 2010 so that they can steal the election from the voters by deciding which votes to count and which to disqualify in 2012.

This would be a Machievellian move that would make Leon Trotsky blush. Click here to read. You won't believe it. I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is any different than what Hugo Chavez, Hamid Karzai or the Iranian mullahs have done. Maybe we should ask the UN to send international poll watchers in 2012. Where's Jimmy Carter when you need him?

The irony is that Democrats are proving to be decidedly undemocratic.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Dealmaker

Maybe There Is a Global Warming Conspiracy After All

If you have a chance, go online and find a copy of the Wall Street Journal's Nov. 24 editorial Global Warming with the Lid Off. The Journal has reviewed over 3,000 emails and documents hacked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The story they tell is a disturbing one concerning the efforts of climatologists to doggedly preserve the theory of man-made (anthropogenic)  climate change.

The Journal describes one CRU researcher lamenting in an email that the U.K. now  has a freedom of information act, and if a pair of Canadian fact-checkers find that out and FOIA his records, he'll "delete the file" rather than turn over his records.

The Journal also claims that proponents of the anthropogenic climate change theory write about ways to present a "unified" view of man made global warming and why it's important to "smooth over" data that might challenge their theory. I don't know the scientific terms, but in most places to "smooth over" data is to ignore facts that contradict what you're trying to prove. And when the Watergate burglars tried to "unify" their story, it was called a conspiracy.

Apparently these truth-seekers also cooked up the idea of boycotting and belittling scientific journals that dared to print articles that questioned the theory of global warming. Perhaps not unlike Anita Dunn, President Barack Obama's former communications director, who hatched the plot to boycott and marginalize Fox News because of its nasty habit of questioning the policies and tactics of the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are both owned by the News Corp.

All of this would be a footnote to history if it were not for the fact that Mr. Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress in the U.S. want to commit the country to a cap-and-tax scheme that will  destroy businesses, waste taxpayer dollars, and measurably lower the American standard of living. All of this justified by a theory that may or may not be correct.

I don't know if "anthropogenic" global warming is true. I don't know that it's not true. What I do know is that it looks like there is a worldwide network of propeller heads endeavoring to hide data that might prevent global warming from being accepted as a fait accompli. Well, recess is over, boys. Button up the pocket protectors and get back to work.

Just thought you might like to know.

December 7, 1941, a Day That Will Live in Infamy

The Manhattan Declaration

The secular "progressives" are pounding away with their 16-inch guns, trying to sink a movement that has been energized by "The Manhattan Declaration." If you've never heard of it, the Manhattan Declaration is a written statement by representatives of various Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Christian churches.

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians" says the Declaration, "who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them."

What are these "fundamental truths about justice and the common good? They are:

• The sanctity of life
• The dignity of marriage as a union of a man and a woman
• The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Today these beliefs are under attack by a small, but powerful cabal of leftist politicians who are promulgating laws that violate them. These threats include:

• Healthcare "reform" laws that might seek to compel Catholic-affiliated hospitals to perform abortions if they wish to receive public payments for medical procedures
• Laws, or worse than that, judicial fiats, that legalize gay marriage
• Secular education curricula that countermand the religious beliefs taught by Evangelical Christians in their homes

The Manhattan Declaration draws a religious line in the sand as did the Declaration of Independence did politically 233 years ago. 

To the secular humanists, this is like flashing the crucifix to Dracula. "This declaration simply perpetuates the fallacy that equality and religious liberty are incompatible, and that every step toward fairness for the lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender community is another burden on religious people." So harrumphed an organization called the Human Rights Campaign.

Well, I've got news for the Human Rights Campaign. You may think that my religious beliefs are "fallacy," but I sure as hell don't.  And if what you call "equality" requires that a small, Catholic college in North Carolina pay for abortions, which the Obama administration has said it must, than they your idea of equality is incompatible with Catholic belief. And if you think it's fair for Catholic, Orthodox or Evangelical people to be silenced as you you create a mythical "protected class" called "GLBT" then you've just gotten a wake-up call from the Manhattan Declaration.

The irony is that groups like the Human Rights Campaign have no problem bending over backwards making sure that terrorists have copies of the Koran in their prison cells, God is vanquished from our public schools once and for all, and the part of Santa Claus each year is played by Father Christmas. But let traditional orthodoxy try and assert its First Amendment rights and immediately it is tarred as insensitive, homophobic, and misogynist. 

So, what does the Manhattan Declaration say about those of us who hold traditional Christian beliefs and values? Like Peter Finch's character Howard Beale in the film classic Network, it says we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

Just thought you might like to know.

A Thanksgiving Proclamation Nov. 26

Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Just thought you might like to know!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Democrats Buy Healthcare Vote; $100M is Mary Landrieu's Price for Cloture

So the Democrats will have their debate on healthcare deform. Among Democrats. If this were a strict party-line vote, then higher taxes, more expensive premiums and expansion of the fraud-riddled Medicaid program would already be the law of the land. 

But the leftist cabal that has taken over the U.S. government has to first convince the "centrist" Democrats to go along with the hijacking of healthcare. Centrist must be political speak for high-priced, certainly not high morals or high principles. Because the Democratic leadership was able to buy off Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu with a promise of $100 million for additional Medicaid assistance for her state. (Well, actually not specifically for Louisiana. The aid is available to"certain states recovering from a disaster." So what if Louisiana is the only one that fits that bill?)

In this, Sen. Landrieu was no different than Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who took a tenth round dive over on the House side a couple of weeks ago, also for the promise of more pork for his district. At least you can say that Mr. Cao was consistent with the will of the voters in his district, more than 90% of whom are Democrats. The district was formerly represented by William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, now on his way to serving a dozen years in a federal slammer for various improprieties. No matter how Rep. Cao votes on healthcare, there's a good chance he's a once-and-done congressmen after 2010.

I'll leave the gratuitous jokes about Louisiana politics aside for a moment. But when you see the votes of Sens. Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln, who make grandiloquent speeches about this bad bill, and then fall in to the conga line behind the Senate leadership, it makes you wonder about the lack of integrity in our legislative system.

People like Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln--and even Joseph Cao--get elected to the House or Senate, and the spend their entire terms working on their re-election. They take stands on nothing, attempt to please everybody and spend their entire terms meeting with well heeled corporations and unions so they can stuff their silk re-election purses with a speed that would make the bride at an Italian wedding blush. 

Here's the problem in a nutshell: If only 27% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, then why do incumbents get reelected at a better than 90% clip? Answer me that.

The answer is that Congress governs so poorly because its members spend their entire careers perpetuating themselves as a permanent political class, and we let it happen. 

Believe me, I'm not a throw-the-bums-out populist. If we did that you'd have 535 congressmen walking around the Capitol with maps, and the entire government in the hands of 20-something aides and interns. 

But we've got to get better production and better quality out of Congress. If not, then we get trillion dollar deficits, unfunded mandates, special interest giveaways, legalized bribes and this ugly, misshapen bill known as healthcare reform. 

Just thought you might like to know.

 

Stratfor Weighs in on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

Controversy continues to swirl over the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal.

Private security and intelligence service Stratfor has an interesting, nonpartisan take on the dilemma in its November 16 edition. While we all understand that KSM fits neither in the category of a military combatant nor that of your garden variety  criminal, George Friedman helps analyze the riddle in Deciphering the Mohammed Trial. 

To do so, he compares KSM, not to the German sub spies of World War II, as most analysts have, but to the franc-tireurs of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The franc-tireurs were, literally, "French snipers"--irregulars without uniforms who picked off Prussian soldiers and then melted back into the French civilian population. This resulted in civilian casualties blamed on the franc-tireurs. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, a partisan must at least bear an insignia of his cause which neither the franc-tireurs nor KSM did.

This ambiguity captures KSM, says Friedman. He is not an enemy combatant because he fought under the banner of no country. Neither is he a criminal. Criminal punishment is handed out after the fact. But the purpose of trying and attempting to punish KSM is more preventive-to keep him from planning more terror attacks.

Friedman, however, does make two chilling observations about the Obama decision. The first involves the CIA, which has been under attack from the administration and Congress since last January. If the U.S. can claim that KSM is a common criminal because he planned the 9/11 covert attack, what is to stop some foreign government from indicting and attempting to bring to trial the Director of Central Intelligence for some covert action carried out in a foreign country.?

All nations engage in spycraft. If a spy is captured, he is not covered by the Geneva Conventions but by whatever passes for rule of law in that country. But should CIA director and Obama pal Leon Panetta be indicted by, say, Iran, would Pres. Obama, who has declared himself an international citizen, feel himself compelled to turn Director Panetta over to the mullahs? 

The second  unintended consequence of the president's decision is the specter that the federal court sets KSM free. For starters, is there any way this man can get a fair trial blocks from the site of ground zero? Are there any potential jurors who don't know anyone affected by 9/11? This is pre-trial publicity on steroids. Forget a change of venue. 

The reality is that KSM may indeed be found not guilty, despite what looks to the untrained eye as overwhelming evidence. Friedman says, "(Attorney General Eric) Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can."

There is no good way out of this for the United States. George Bush understood this. That's why he let KSM cool his heels by the seashore for the last three years. But this is one more example of President Obama making a decision based on abstract theory and politics, and not on the consequences of his decision or the reality of the dangerous world we live in.

Just thought you might like to know.