Peggy Noonan Is Definitely Not Working Class

Peggy Noonan's "A Farewell to Harms" in the Wall Street Journal leaves me wondering where I stand in relation to the Republican Party. Ms. Noonan pretty much slams anyone who found Gov. Sarah Palin the least bit interesting. In fact, Ms. Noonan's slam -- so full of the sort of grace and poise one expects from really bright Republicans -- even made its way (no doubt heralded with carbon-neutral fireworks) to the Huffington Post.

And in the comments thread attached to Ms. Noonan's column (commenting is a new feature at the WSJ on-line, by the way), a commenter said had the following to say about the GOP and Ms. Noonan's column:

Anyone who disagrees with this article by Noonan is either disingenuous or stupid. It's refreshing to see that there are some intelligent people (i.e. Noonan) in the GOP.

Such sweeping generalizations aside (and rather self-aggrandizing ones, too), Ms. Noonan's criticism of Gov. Palin strikes me as fatally flawed in several places. In fact, I simply don't get it: how can Ms. Noonan be so bright and yet so, well, dim?

Enough. I will not enlarge upon Ms. Noonan's commentary here for fear of unduly influencing those of you who have not yet read it. But I will ask you to pay close attention to Ms. Noonan's extraordinary wit. Just stand in awe of the paronomasia she employs with such ease in her opening sentence:

Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain. [bold mine]

Such slant rhyme, such anagrammatic wit! I love it!

I will end with this: In her essay, Peg Noonan pegs no one but herself. You'll see that Ms. Noonan is not only NOT working class, she is without class. She inadvertently puts a new face on the class-less society.

(See, Ms. Noonan, how easy this is? I would remind you that such slant rhymes and word-plays may be fun, but in your essay, they strike me as rather sterile: You should think of employing "no onan"ism here, if you get my drift. As I said, it's so easy.)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Henninger Straight Up: Democracy For Dummies

Barack Obama is too open-minded to be any earthly good. Or so one should conclude from Daniel Henninger's excellent Wonderland column, "The Dumbing Down of Democracy." Henninger's is a very important bit of commentary. You should read it immediately.

Such is a man who has been weaned on moral, political and ideological relativism: Mr. Obama can't commit to an absolute even if it was absolutely necessary. Of course what I've just said is patently false, as Mr. Obama does believe in absolutes. He just doesn't believe that absolutes should be pushed on anyone else. There needs to be room, you know, for everyone else's absolutes too. Absolute restraint, absolute equivalency, absolute tolerance, absolute self-doubt, absolute elasticity of definitions, absolute equivocation and ambiguity, absolute fairness; these, perhaps, comprise the very corpus, the viscera, of the Obama administration.

Barack Obama is an absolutist. Except when it comes to the foundational absolutes of his own country.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Sarah Palin Should Have Simply Said "No."

There is no time to read all the commentary about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to leave her office on July 26. Clearly there is much to say about that decision; some people in fact have much to say about Gov. Palin's every move. Even after she leaves office an abundance of jokes, sarcasm, malice, and derision will be tossed her way. Members of the vituperative, vindictive set will not surrender her as easily as she has surrendered them.

Gov. Palin in the most objective sense was nearly unknown until August 29, 2008. On the day John McCain announced her as his running mate, the small-state-big-state governor was not only thrust into the limelight; her world was suddenly exposed to the glaring, and often leering and sneering, gaze of the media, the blogosphere, and the comedic and pundit classes. Any appeal to privacy; any suggestion that certain things were off-limits; all that fell away the moment she said "Yes" to John McCain.

She would have been better off saying no. That, at least to me, is what I read and hear between the lines. Had she rejected Mr. McCain's offer, the cameras would have focused elsewhere, the blogs -- some even funded by Democratic monies gathered in the lower-48 -- would have gone silent, and she could have completed (most likely) her term as governor.

Two things happened. One was that her critics, critics of all things Republican, understood that even after Sen. McCain's November loss she could and would use her experience as governor of Alaska as a springboard for higher office. And the second thing was that the governor had made -- even if only slightly -- Barack Obama look too much like the man he actually was: an inexperienced novice propped up by the media and the grand spectacle the Democratic Party created around him.

Thus, not only the Alaskan media and Democratic establishment but the entirety of the whole liberal class -- news, entertainment, and party leadership -- turned their guns her way. It wouldn't be an overstatement to describe her life since August 29, 2008 as one filled with harassment, even sexual harassment, and abuse. (Perhaps Sarah Palin has now destroyed what surely could have become a Democratic Party meme: that she only USED Alaska simply for her own inflated ambitions. Now, she has at least seized control of the narrative, which can only tick off her critics.)

I tried to pay attention at the beginning of Gov. Palin's rise to fame and infamy. I tried to follow the metaphors, if you recall, that were used to describe her. Of course, I only touched the tip of the veritable Alaskan iceberg of abusive metaphors that moved toward her destruction. She was reduced to an object, even a sex object, at which her detractors aimed their abuse: she was reduced to a target. Crude stereotypes abounded. They continue to abound.

Sarah Palin is not, nor was she ever, perfect. She may even be extremely imperfect. If I were to know her as a close friend; were I to know her deepest thoughts on life, politics, faith, beauty, I may discover that her imperfections are too great for me to tolerate. But there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that she was abused by people who should have known better. Her many imperfections do not merit hate and vitriol.† Or so I think.

In the end, Gov. Palin has made a choice I actually applaud -- barring her resignation is a flight from scandal -- for the simple reason that I think serving in the public sphere has become, in most instances, a very low calling. She may have "let down her base," as some have said, but my feeling has long been that most of the political classes in America -- especially the alleged intellectual and academic classes -- have long been rather debased. No doubt she has let them down. In that one fact, I think her recent actions are rather complimentary to her.


To dissent is patriotic.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

†My own critics may fault me here for hurling abuse toward Barack Obama. If that charge is hurled my way, I think I can defend myself rather ably.

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL IS BATTING 1.000

Continuing with our theme of "we will restore science to its rightful place," I would like to point readers to another Kimberley A. Strassel column. It is a dandy of a piece; Ms. Strassel has combined a rather decent string of hits of late, and this one's good for at least a couple of bases.

In "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic," Ms. Strassel reports on the all too familiar tunes applauded by global warming alarmists, particularly those arias sung by the alarmists' favorite "Bush Administration" soloist, James Hansen. Mr. Hansen, as some of you know, is a NASA director who positioned himself as something of a martyr for true science; he claimed the Bush Administration was persecuting him for both non-conformity to the party line regarding global warming and for blowing the whistle on the administration's habit of cherry-picking scientific data. I mentioned here that such woes as described by Mr. Hansen were hard to reconcile with his 1,400 public appearances where he spoke his mind boldly without any interference from the White House. The man, as far as I can tell, was not suppressed or persecuted at all.

Ms. Strassel points this all out, but what she also highlights is something far more insidious: the Obama Administration CLEARLY IS SUPPRESSING non-conformity in its (foiled?) attempt to muzzle EPA analyst Alan Carlin; the Democrats really are cherry-picking the data. This should come as no surprise. After all, this is the party that supported the Patriot Act and then pretended to denounce it, with said denunciation simply a cover for their real ambitions, which was to use the Patriot Act and "illegal wire-tapping" for their own totalitarian goals once they gained power. This is the party that supported the war in Iraq, then denounced it as a failure doomed to civil war and that America needed to immediately withdraw its troops, only to announce that the troops should stay a little longer. This is the party that believed Gitmo was a threat to national security -- that it must be closed NOW! -- and then announced, as if it was something new, that certain enemy combatants at GITMO will be held indefinitely at the discretion of the president. But I digress. (See how easy it is to get carried away?)

Please take a few minutes to read Ms. Strassel's column. It IS illuminating, at least for those who care, and care to think.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

I Have No Idea: On Sarah Palin

We've been hearing a lot about false choices these days, especially from the man in the White House. Barack Obama seemingly loves mentioning the many "false choices" made by his predecessor's administration. And I have shown (see link above) that Mr. Obama fails to see the irony in his pop-pronouncements on false choices, since, according to his wife, his very career is built upon a patently false choice.

In keeping with Mr. Obama's penchant for criticizing false choices that are not false and for creating "true" choices that are indeed false, the Democratic Party's statement yesterday regarding Sarah Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation from her Alaska governor's seat is exemplary:

Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today. [emphasis added]

The great and logical minds of the DNC have no problem creating such a false Either/Or, in large part because such minds are neither great nor logical. If I were to advise my readers to meditate on the DNC statement as if it contained profound religious truths -- I am not and it doesn't -- I am certain that readers would have some experience approaching epiphany: The Democrats who issued this statement are incredibly stupid and vapid. And petty.

Just think: the DNC has NO IDEA -- none! -- as to why Ms. Palin has suddenly resigned. And yet, like spiritualists probing through animal scat, they've divined the reasons behind Ms. Palin's actions: She is either overly-ambitious or she is incompetent. But note what the DNC has actually said (and they don't even realize it): Her resignation is solely due to her being a fool. There is no real or even false Either/Or here. Since Ms. Palin's alleged bid for national office represents a "long shot," at least according to the DNC, she is a fool for reaching well beyond her merits. And since she is leaving office because her job has become too difficult, she was a fool to have ever thought she merited the governorship. Really, the DNC's syllogism is dizzying in its rigor:

A. Either p or p
B. p
_______
C. Therefore, p

What is amazing is that Ms. Palin's alleged "pattern of bizarre behavior," as the DNC so confidently puts it, has not been shown to be either a pattern or bizarre. But the Democrats' demonstrable fixation on and targeting of all things Palin indicate a clear pattern of bizarre behavior among Democrats who accuse her of behaving in a bizarre pattern.

____________________

WHAT IS MS. PALIN THINKING?

If this question can be asked without resorting to the cheap-shot answer -- Ms. Palin is not thinking because she can't think -- then it must be asked in humility: As of right now, no one but Ms. Palin and her husband know what she's thinking. I have no idea what's going on, do you?

I think a sane person of decent intellect and breeding, possessing even a modicum of compassion, would choose reticence and not pompous declamations upon hearing of Ms. Palin's resignation. Is it not possible that she is ill? Is it not at all possible that someone in her family is ill? Perhaps her marriage is in disrepair; perhaps the battering she has personally experienced from the media and the DNC has truly taken its toll on her children, and thus, on her. And if the latter is the case, then Ms. Palin's decision shows an immense amount of competence and gives the lie to the assertion she can't handle the office of governor. A good governor would indeed resign to protect her family from the unjust abuse that constantly comes her way.

I am not suggesting here she has not some other plans. I am not defending or promoting her ambitions (or lack thereof). My fascination, really, has always been about how her enemies -- and they are enemies -- perceive her, and how they've treated her (and her family). In fact, I will admit that Ms. Palin's decision prima facie spells doom.

But I am also quick to point out that if the media and the DNC pile on top of her and there is some sad story behind this decision; or if Ms. Palin makes some stunning announcement in the coming days about an appointment or position that is truly to her political advantage, both the media and the DNC will look incredibly foolish, weak, and, as already said, petty.

I can't help admit that when I read and hear the ridiculously over-wrought and presumptuous criticisms of Ms. Palin, I am hoping she gets the last laugh.

We'll see, of course. But in the scheme of things, at least for me, what Sarah Palin does or does not do matters little. This is not to say she is not important. It is merely an admission about what fills my life. And what does not fill it.

Bottom line: I am hoping that there is not some sort of tragedy behind her announcement. You would think that would be everyone's hope in America. Sadly, it is not.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Science In Its "Rightful Place": The "NEW" Science Guy

Mr. Obama is the new science guy. In fact, it's high time Bill Nye step† aside: there is a new science whiz in town, and he is the presumed leader of the free world. Not necessarily the world of free thinking, maybe not even the world of the politically free; but definitely the leader of that world which believes the best things in life should be free. (I jest, sort of.)

I have talked about Mr. Obama's love of science -- and his broadly known aptitudes in the hard sciences, aptitudes as effective as epicycles -- in other essays here, particularly one drafted shortly after Mr. Obama's inauguration. In that fine piece, "Wielding 'Wonders' While Hating Science," I focused particularly on Mr. Obama's proud pronouncement that "we will restore science to its rightful place." (OK, I admit that I laugh every time I type those words.)

It is heartening to know that others, like syndicated columnist Mona Charen, also notice the absurdity of Mr. Obama's claim. In her most recent column, "The Empirical President," Ms. Charen spots the irony in Mr. Obama's aspirations: Mr. Obama's plans for the country, plans he believes are rooted in science, are far more fiction than fact; more fantastical than empirical. Indeed his proposed energy plans are really quite, well, adolescent at best and infantile at worst. Admittedly these are my words, not Ms. Charen's, regarding Mr. Obama's plans, but she does put Mr. Obama's plans into a centrifuge and powers it up. She finds his words separate quite quickly from reality.

Seriously, you should read her essay for yourself.

But back to Barack!

In his recent address touting the many excellencies of his new green energy plan, Mr. Obama made these utterly faith-based statements:

But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy.

Reading Mr. Obama's statements even now reinforces my suspicion that only a conspiracy of dunces could have put this man into office. Indeed, it was a conspiracy of sorts, perpetrated by the gullible and "open-minded" citizens who voted for the man. But I digress.

Mr. Obama is not really interested in science at all. Well, that's not true. He is interested in exploiting science for political gain in order to convert those gains into politics that reinforce the science he exploits for political gains, or something like that. It is a politics that truly is renewable: circular reasoning always is renewable and sustainable: Mr. Obama is merely ensuring that his infinite loop is suitably and efficiently fueled with fear, anxiety, falsehoods (also known as half-truths), and sweeping proclamations so he and his party can maintain power and control for at least the next three election cycles. His "gift," as he described it to Sen. Harry Reid, is to speak in such a way that people are duly compelled. They may be compelled to stupidity and passive acceptance, but they are compelled nonetheless. Mr. Obama, after all, is irresistible.

He's well nigh the new science guy.


†I recognize that Mr. Nye is not still the televised Science Guy, but his web-site as the science guy keeps his domain safe -- until now. Since Mr. Obama does indeed succeed Mr. Nye, Mr. Obama should be known as the Science Guy de-Nyer and accused of de-Nyeing science.

©Contratimes/2009. All rights reserved.

What's Your Problem With Sarah Palin?

Indulge me for a moment. Some of you may recall that I commented here the night of the Republican National Convention last September that Sarah Palin, even without John McCain, is a "formidable" political opponent. I offered this only a few moments after hearing Gov. Palin speak for my very first time. Among other things, I described her as

"...country-girl feisty with a smile; she carries the faintest hint of redneck incredulity about her that is squarely aimed at the temerity and presumptuousness of Ivy League and Beltway elitism. She looked quite stunning as she easily and deftly delivered lines that will be iconic by morning. And she created a metaphor that sticks: She's a pitbull with lipstick."

But my praise did not stop there. I also said:

"...Gov. Palin's speech was filled with criticisms of Sen. Obama (many of which were quite clever, I must say). And while she delivered her blows with a sort of wink-wink playfulness, I know that she infuriated countless pro-Obama supporters; she flirted with being incendiary. I saw it, heard it, felt it; and I swear I could hear countless folks around the country screaming at their TVs. But what she did tonight is at least part of the political game, and it is quite clear that senators Obama and Biden have their work cut out for them. Gov. Palin, even without John McCain, is a formidable opponent."

And at the end of my post-convention essay, I played the augur:

"Prediction: After tonight, Democrats everywhere will be arguing that the next Democratic Convention in 2012 should follow rather than precede the Republican Convention. Surely they see how easy it was for Gov. Palin to playfully but effectively mock the "styrofoam Greek pillars" of the Democratic National Convention, no?"

Please take note of the theme that connects these passages: Gov. Palin is funny. Not over-the-top funny, but funny in an effective, even disarming way. And a charming way.

And it is precisely this quality that has drawn the ire of those Democrats and liberals in press and politics who quite clearly despise her. Let me return to what I wrote just four days after the GOP convention. In "The Cardinal Sin: Laughter In The GOP," I wrote:

"One would have to be disengaged not to notice that the Democratic Party, and the party's scribes in the press, are really quite angry about the ascension of Sarah Palin. But it is not Sarah Palin that has them upset; it is not John McCain or George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani that has the left in high dudgeon. It is not any one person or defined group that has given them fits. What has them so agitated is that the very visible Republican National Convention showed Republicans doing the worst of all possible things: It showed Republicans laughing at the Democratic Party and its candidate. And there really can be no greater sin." [emphasis added]

Indeed, in American politics, there can be no greater sin.

Democrats, especially those who would consider themselves members of the intelligentsia, or the truly cultured set, perceive themselves to be the party that excels at parody, satire; at scoffing and mocking and, among the truly bright, clever badinage. Democrats have some reason to believe this of themselves, as their own conceit in all matters funny is daily reinforced in print, in political cartoons, and in such places as "The Daily Show." But it is, at least to me, an empty conceit.

The other day, John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts who aspired to the White House, joked about Sarah Palin in the wake of the sudden absence of Gov. John Sanford (South Carolina). Mr. Kerry said, in what strikes me as a mean-spirited way, that it was "[t]oo bad if a governor had to go missing, it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin." (Guffaw!)

If one just pauses a moment to note not only the utter comedic vacuity of Mr. Kerry's quip but also its political implication -- that Mr. Kerry and his peers must be awfully afraid of Ms. Palin to wish for her disappearance -- one can't help but be somewhat stunned. Why all this vitriol and sarcasm directed at Gov. Palin? Is it because she is laughing at Democrats? One can only wonder how they will react to her response (given in Kosovo while visiting US troops) to Mr. Kerry's pathetic joke-telling:

“[John Kerry] looked quite frustrated and he looked so sad [when he told his joke]. I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say: ‘John Kerry, why the long face?’” [see YouTube clip below]

___________________

Governor Sarah Palin is laughing, and she gets others to laugh, too. This is what makes her such a threat. She is, in this one sense, Reagan-esque, as Ronald Reagan, too, got people to laugh -- playfully and lightly -- at the absurdities of the other party. I am not suggesting here that Ms. Palin has the chops to be president, but she has thus far out-performed many of her peers who claim superiority in both ability and experience. And humor. She is a formidable foe. There can be no doubt about it. And the Democrats, through fear and loathing, and by attacking her every day, are drawing attention, and sympathy, toward someone they actually wish went missing.

There's something ironic here, but I doubt my leftist peers can see it.

Peace.

©Contratimes/2009. All Rights Reserved.

What Happened To "Global Warming"? You Know.

It's been reported that Al Gore and his friends have invested billions of dollars into "green energy" futures. A mere $50 billion or so. Like most eager investors, Al Gore and friends hope to make a renewable and sustainable killing.

Everyone who has visited this site should know that I have long been a global warming skeptic. I am not "anti-science." To the contrary, I am pro-science. I just have balked, as you know, at the non causa pro causa fallacies on which Al Gore's campaign has been based. Mr. Gore, it seems to me, is anti-science and anti-rational. Blind to the irony, Mr. Gore is a part of the very assault on reason he decries in his book, The Assault on Reason.

If you find yourself skeptical of the "science" of global warming, oops, excuse me, climate change, then know that you are in pretty good company. Kimberley A. Strassel spells it all out for you in a very encouraging essay in today's Wall Street Journal. Please read "The Climate Change Climate Change."

What I want to know is this: Where is the outrage?

Once again: THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. It is their wont.

Where's The Outrage? (In Your Dreams)

Had this sort of story hit the presses, had it crossed the airwaves and satellite feeds anytime between January 2001 to January 2009, we would have heard the very hills tremble with outrage. Today we hear nary a rumble, really. Or have I just grown deaf? Please read it for yourself and then tell me whether you think I need my hearing checked.

SIMPLY FASCINATING!

My little hiatus, or, I should say, my extended hiatus from prolific blogging has led me to some interesting places, both outside and inside the World Wide Web. One truly fascinating place inside the WWW is the essay on humanity's position in the biosphere written by George Ball titled, "The Neo-Luddites." (The essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal as "Naturalism Has Been Hijacked.")

"Our Historically Challenged President": Another Important Essay

It will only take a few minutes for you to read Victor Davis Hanson's essay in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Our Historically Challenged President." It's a few minutes you should take. (According to the Chronicle's micro-bio of Mr. Hanson, he is a classicist at Stanford University.)

Question: Did George W. Bush show such incompetence with -- or disrespect towards -- history? If so, how did he mishandle it? If not, then what does this say about Barack Obama? What does this say about his staff, especially his speech writers?

Charles Krauthammer Is...

... exactly right.

Pre-mature Post-Racialism, Or Post-Post-Racialism?

What an interesting perspective Shelby Steele brings to his analysis (in today's Wall Street Journal) of Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court! I know, I know. You've heard it all before; sickened by the endless commentary about Ms. Sotomayor, you're eager to just move on. But I suspect that Mr. Steele's piece will, at least, give you a moment's pause.

Mr. Steele once again† brings us back to his very helpful rubric, that to properly interpret the world of racial politics in America one must understand that such a world is divided into two types of persons, bargainers and challengers. In light of the alleged post-racialism incarnated in Mr. Obama, and that Mr. Obama's nomination of Ms. Sotomayor is anything but post-racial, Shelby Steele makes this fairly damning observation:

But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.

I can't imagine that this sort of commentary sits well with Mr. Steele's peers. One gets the sense that it is rather risky of Mr. Steele to imply that white acceptance of minorities is not essentially authentic -- it is not born of genuine compassion -- but is instead the outcome of a deal where whites regain their sense of moral authority, of being good and fair people.

Nor can I imagine that many folks who pride themselves on being particularly beneficent and sensitive to injustice would appreciate Mr. Steele when he writes about challengers:

Judge Sotomayor is the archetypal challenger. Challengers see the moral authority that comes from their group's historic grievance as an entitlement to immediate parity with whites -- whether or not their group has actually earned this parity through development. If their group is not yet competitive with whites, the moral authority that comes from their grievance should be allowed to compensate for what they lack in development. This creates a terrible corruption in which the group's historic grievance is allowed to count as individual merit. And so a perverse incentive is created: Weakness and victimization are rewarded over development. Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence.

Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.

Seriously, you should read the entirety of Mr. Steele's essay.



†I've mentioned Mr. Steele's work before, particularly that which is associated with his book, White Guilt. (Also, see here and here, if interested.)

George Will On The Public's Hold On The Private Sector

George Will's essay, "Have We Got A Deal For You," should leave you feeling a bit alarmed. Mr. Will's topic is the government takeover of GM; his theme is that this takeover is irresponsible and an abuse, or, at best, a misuse of power, Mr. Obama's denials of government meddling notwithstanding.

Writes Mr. Will:

The pressure to politicize the economy is spreading. John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, and Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- which is government organized as an interest group to lobby itself -- have demanded the resignation of two directors of Citigroup. Their premise is that businesses receiving direct government subventions should conform to the wishes of the president's allies. [bold added for emphasis]

Amazing, and utterly scary.

The final conclusion drawn by Mr. Will is also quite interesting:

Washington's "rescue" of GM began because GM is "too big to fail," and bankruptcy is (well, was) "unthinkable." Big? GM's market capitalization, $375.8 million on Wednesday, is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen's ($340 million) -- is it too big to fail? -- and one-eleventh that of Harley-Davidson ($4.3 billion). Fail? If GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success.

The administration is determined to prop up GM as a jobs program for the UAW and Midwestern states rich in electoral votes. This frenzy will intensify as the administration's decisions deepen the debacle. [bold added for emphasis]

"Deepen the debacle" indeed.

"Mirth In Funeral, Dirge In Marriage": President Hamlet

This morning's title is pulled from an incredible essay written in March 2009 by Sam Schulman. I cannot overstate the power and excellence of Mr. Schulman's "President Hamlet" published in The Weekly Standard after the Obama administration's first 40 days in power. In fact, I would be understating the case if I averred that if I was a Democratic leader or operative, I would fear Mr. Schulman and not Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney; I would fear Schulman's criticism more than anything else.

Permit me to put it this way. If you read this essay by Mr. Schulman you will find his pointed comparison of Obama and Hamlet to be ineluctable and indelible: Mr. Obama is Hamlet and his term in office is naught but a play, and you won't forget it. Mr. Schulman has found a near-perfect, if not perfect, parallel between the Prince and the man who is haunted, it seems, by Dreams From [His] Father.

I had never read a single line of Mr. Schulman's until this past Monday night. His skills impress me; I find his style of prose and polemic inspiring. I don't know if you'll agree nor am I sure if I care you agree. I just know that he has shown me that there is still much to aspire to as a thinker, writer, witness and, perhaps most importantly, a reader not only of the literature of the world, but of the human drama unfolding before my eyes this very day.

One last note. I will guess that readers around the planet have misinterpreted the last two lines of Mr. Schulman's essay. Perhaps those who do so are accidentally obtuse, but I suspect a willful blindness to Mr. Schulman's meaning.

______________

From T. S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock":

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.