Fairy Tale World of Obama

President Ronald Reagan was known as The Great Communicator, an apt descriptor on that historic day, June 12, 1987, when he appeared at the Berlin Wall and, speaking from the heart, challenged Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"

Hence, it was jarring to hear the words of presidential hopeful Barack Obama as he attempted today in Berlin to summon the images of JFK and Ronald Reagan. The text of Obama's speech is available online (here's one site). Additionally, there will be plenty of columns devoted to the speech from commentators across the spectrum.

But I couldn't help reflect what is, to me, the significant difference between Ronald Reagan's 1987 Berlin speech and that of the current Democrat candidate. When Ronald Reagan spoke to the citizens of Berlin, he was there for them, he spoke on their behalf, he championed their liberty. (This wasn't a PR tour for him; he was at the tail end of his presidency.) In challenging Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall, President Reagan exhibited bold courage (audacity) on behalf of every man, woman and child living in the Eastern Bloc.

The contrast of that historic occasion to today's Obama performance is as stark as night to day!

Who would dare deny Obama embarked on his widely-hyped world tour to prop up an embarrassingly thin resumé? Five sentences into the speech, he claimed to be speaking "... not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen ... a fellow citizen of the world." Who does he think he's kidding? He was championing ... himself! He waxed eloquent with the predictable platitudes and puffery, demonstrating an "audacity" some might characterize a full-blown Messiah complex.

If it's a Savior you're looking for, Barack Obama appears eager to step up. He told the assembled Berliners: "Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

Floods, famines, destructive weather ... aren't these generally considered acts of God?? Even Wikipedia characterizes such events as "outside of human control." But apparently not in the fairy tale world of Obama.

With such ambition at his disposal, perhaps he'd be willing to tackle the age-old challenge of "spinning straw into gold"? Just a thought.

Goodbye, Tony Snow

I never met Tony Snow, but I always felt as if I knew him. Like Ronaldus Magnus before him, Tony Snow was bright and good-humored and self-effacing and committed to conservative principles and skilled at going toe-to-toe against those who challenged him. Whether it was on the radio or television, Tony communicated a joie de vivre that was refreshing and contagious. Even before he was diagnosed with cancer, he had adopted a pro-active strategy to his health, in light of his mother's early death.

When President Bush announced Tony Snow would fill the position of White House Press Secretary, I took the news as a mixed blessing. On the downside, it meant Tony could no longer host his radio show; the airwaves would be poorer for his absence from the dial. On the upside, it meant this newsman par excellence (unlike doltish Scott McClellan) would credibly articulate the policies of his boss, and energetically push back against the Bush Derangement Syndrome so prevalent among the MSM.

There will be tributes to his memory (here and here), but these are surely an imperfect measure of this man who was husband, father, friend, colleague and (for some) congenial but principled adversary.

In my mind's eye, I envision the moment St. Peter ushers Tony Snow through the Pearly Gates ... while the Great Communicator stands just inside the entrance waiting to offer Tony a welcoming hand.

Dial the Crisis Line, I'm done!

Now that the presidential nominees for both major parties have ascended the mount to accept their laurel wreaths, the next hot topic is, naturally, the question of running mates.

Over the last few months — thanks mostly to the highly-amusing diversion of Operation Chaos — I've been able to rise out of the doldrums and become more philisophical about the possibility of a McCain presidency. My new attitude is quite simple. "John McCain is an idiot, but he's our idiot."

However, as the "veepstakes" heats up, I am feeling yet another emotional swing McCain-ward.

There are lots of names beind bandied about. Some that I love hearing (Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal) and others that make me cringe. But when I heard the name

M I C H A E L

B L O O M B E R G

mentioned, I nearly lost my load.

Apparently, the utter insanity of nominating a man who considered pulling a "jumping Jeffords" every third Tuesday is not enough for the GOP. Let's marry him to an Second-Amendment-bashing Independent like Bloomberg.

I'm beginning to feel like the wife of a lying, cheating, philandering cad who keeps going back for more. "But he really loves spending reductions," I tell myself. "And he's a great advocate for the military. I'm sure he won't cheat on me again..."

Is there a safehouse for Conservative refugees from the GOP?

Told Ya. Again.

Here is the follow-up piece to my first ethanol post.


Can ya spare some change fer a pore farmer?
Originally posted August 15, 2007.

Once again, John Stossel has posted a winner. (He nearly always does, in my opinion.)

John Stossel: Dead Men Farming

I'm posting it here because it's very relevant to what I referenced in my last post, "The Ethanol Diet." Not to mention, it's something my mom and I talked about just this past weekend.

My dad grew up in Iowa and my parents were living there when I was born. Recently, Mother mentioned to me her surprise at the number of Iowa farmers she encountered -- rich ones -- who were receiving farm subsidies.

This was back in the 1970s, folks. We've been paying farmers to grow, and to not grow, certain crops for more than 30 years.

Now, I acknowledge, we can all see a peculiar "romance" in the idea of the Great American Family Farm: the Heartland warrior who battles the vagaries of nature to feed the nation; this quiet, earnest laborer who tills the soil with the help of his family, praying God will protect his harvest from the ravages of weather, disease and locust swarms.

Unfortunately, this mythic figure is just that: a myth. Those receiving government subsidies do not find that USDA check the only thing standing between themselves and a ruthless auction of their beloved homestead and all their possessions right down to Grannie Beulah's morning star quilt. Instead, this handout from the USDA (a.k.a. the American Taxpayer) more often bridges the gap between the farmer and, say, a new $45,000 pickup truck or a hot tub for the farmhouse.

Free-Market capitalism does work, America. You should try it sometime.

Told Ya.

I'm really not one to brag. (No, really.) But in this instance, I must.

The following post appeared on my personal blog on August 7, 2007. By my count: eight months ago. It's probably a stretch to call me Nostradamus, but I suppose the relevant question is: If I — a casual observer with no economic training or unique market access — can predict or identify this kind of trend, why can't the so-called "experts"?

The Ethanol Diet

Originally posted August 7, 2007

Back in May of this year, ABC News correspondent John Stossel wrote a column entitled "The Many Myths of Ethanol" , probably one of the most succinct and effective deconstructions of the ethanol fantasy that almost every politician from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney has been pedaling lately. Word on the street is that ethanol (a "biofuel" made from corn), as a renewable source of energy produced in the U.S., is The Silver Bullet that will solve energy shortages, pollution problems, price gouging by Big Oil, and a host of other ills.

Stossel's column details a lot of common-sense reasons why ethanol is not a viable alternative source for energy at this time and, further, makes the case that ethanol should not get the truckloads of state and federal funding it currently receives. In short, Stossel says, stop propping up this technology with government pork and let market capitalism decide when ethanol is a viable option for our energy needs.

I agree wholeheartedly with Stossel's argument and find his evidence compelling, but there is one HUGE blank that isn't mentioned in his column.

How many people do you know who eat petroleum? None? Me, neither.

What about corn? It may be just a best-guess, I'm willing to bet that most of the estimated 6.5 billion people on this planet are consuming corn in at least one form or another.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

I must confess, my attention to this issue has been sparked by one of my own anal-retentive homemaking practices: my computerized grocery list. I won't go into the reasons why I have put my grocery list into a database (there are many and they save us mucho dinero) but suffice it to say that I can usually tell you with a fair amount of accuracy the price of any given item we buy on a regular basis.

About six months ago, I could buy one dozen, Grade A Large eggs (regular cooped-chicken eggs, not free-range or anything) at the Walmart Supercenter for 88 cents. Yesterday, I paid $1.57 for the exact same product. [The price has climbed to $1.97 as of this posting.]

Okay, I'm sure you're aching for a point and here it is: with a much larger volume of U.S.-produced corn being diverted into ethanol production, there is less corn available for the production of food stuffs.

Granted, eggs are not made from corn, but chicken feed is roughly 80% corn-based. Corn also plays a large part in the formulation of livestock feeds for pork and beef. So every farmer producing a cord-fed animal for the food market (whether for primary consumption such as meat or secondary consumption such as milk or eggs) is now paying more for his feed and, thereby, charging more for his end product.

And it doesn't stop there. Just read a few labels and you'll discover that corn syrup, corn meal, corn oil or another corn-based product is in almost everything we eat. As food manufacturers pay more for their ingredients, you and I will pay more for our provisions at the grocery store.

A quick perusal of my receipt proved to me that about two-thirds of the items I bought from the grocery store yesterday had an increase in price. This is, of course, just anecdotal evidence.

But I'm not the only person who's been noticing (see other links below). It seems a number of organizations, particularly those engaged in feeding the poor, have noticed the rise of food costs and even made some connection to the increased production of biofuels such as ethanol. Communist China has gone so far as to ban corn-based ethanol production because of concerns about food shortages.

I'm a little miffed that in our mad dash to create an ethanol boom -- a commodity that not everyone in the world needs or will use -- we're on the verge of creating a food crisis that does effect everyone (poor people especially), not to mention fostering a possible economic crisis that will wreak much greater havoc than $3.09/gallon gasoline.

While Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) and the other farming conglomerates are laughing all the way to the bank, cashing in on "windfall profits" and government cheese to boot, how many working American families are having to cinch the belt tighter for every trip to buy food?

If you ask me, we need to tell Big Corn to stick to making food stuffs -- at least until they can prove ethanol can make it's way in a market that isn't subsidized by the government.

Yes, I think it's time for an ethanol diet.

----------------

For further reading:

Rising Food Prices Curb Aid to Global Poor

Area Food Banks Feel Strain While Prices Rise

Food Price Rises Force a Cut in Biofuels

Corn Facts, Not Corn Flakes!

I Miss Bill.

Does anyone else miss the days when the biggest problem caused by ex-Presidents was obliterating the meaning of the word "is"?

In the last week, I confess that I've engaged in a few Clinto-sanguine reminisces. Maybe its the jading of age, but even as the Co-President's campaign for the actual elected office grows ever more strident, I've adopted a softened perspective toward our most recent former president.

For that, you can thank Jimmy Carter.

Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton wreaked havoc while in office. But I have to admit, in retirement — at least pre-Hillary '08 — the former prez has been pretty, well, entertaining.

The founding and dedication of that double-wide by the river fondly known as the William J. Clinton Presidential Center. Office space in Harlem so the First Black President can keep a foot on his home turf. The housewarming in Chappaqua. My Life, a memoir that bears a striking resemblance to the phone book for the Dallas Metroplex — both in number of pages and quantity of women's phone numbers contained therein.

These are all things a conservative can chuckle over and dismiss. "It's just what you'd expect," we might say, "of a good-ole-boy ex-president from a small Southern state who's enjoying the twilight of his modern relevance by polishing up the tattered legacy of a failed administration —"

Wait a minute. I think we have two of those.

But while Slick Willy is trying to gild his rep with the modest goal of snaking his wife the highest office in the land, the Other Democrat Ex is polishing his own legacy by cozying up to anyone and everyone on Forbes 400 Dictators & Terrorists List.

Paul Greenberg likens Carter's meeting with the leader of Hamas to those of Americans who sought approval and decorations from the Nazis in the 1930s. Meanwhile, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-NC, has called for the State Department to revoke Carter's passport. If ever there was someone who could make things like Bill Clinton's disbarment from practicing law seem like trivial college-boy hijinks, Jimmy Carter has accomplished that in spades.

While Clinton's biggest crime — at least according to his supporters — transpired as the result of an ill-considered pants-drop between two consenting adults, Carter has single-handedly managed to unzip the collective fly of Americans right in front of our enemies. The most dangerous result is not revealing his personal lack of cajones.

Like it or not, as a former President, Carter is a representative of the United States government and the American people. His actions in the face of our enemies have painted our people and our government as anxious to appease, willing to negotiate, lacking resolve to obliterate those who mean to obliterate us (not to mention our allies, the Israelis). By bolstering our enemies' already dim opinions of our ability and determination, Jimmy-boy's posturing has endangered more American lives: not only those of our servicemen and women, but the lives of civilians as well.

Frankly, pulling the Nobel-winner's passport is not enough; Carter should be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. It won't happen, of course, but the time has come for our citizens and our lawmakers alike to condemn self-appointed "peace brokering" in direct contravention of established State Department policy. There have been others, including Princess Pelosi, but as a former president, Jimmy Carter has indeed put the "dip" in diplomacy.

I miss Bill.

Longsuffering Wife?

Within the abundance of words spoken and written about the disgraced (and now ex-) Governor of New York, there were a couple observations I found particularly astute. Given the ordinary drone of an [em]pathetic MSM ("it's only sex," "two consenting adults," etc. ad nauseum), it was especially heartening to read Jan LaRue on TownHall: Stand by your Womanizer. Finally! Someone who gets it.

We've seen this paint-by-number canvas in both political and religious mea culpas. Maybe it's part of the Faustian bargain these couples are willing to make to maintain their grasp of power, but is the moment of confession really a marital moment? Shouldn't this man — who has already kicked his wife in the teeth via his bad behavior — be made to stand alone and endure the shame of his own actions?! Why is she making it so cushy for him?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a strong proponent of forgiveness and restoration, but it seems to me easy forgiveness glosses over the transgression and often precurses further, more egregious transgressions.

Recall the scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett, clad appropriately in a revealing but stunning red frock Rhett has chosen for her to wear, and Rhett in white-tie-and-tails stand at Melanie's front door, late arrivers for Ashley's "surprise" birthday party. As the door opens, Rhett doffs his top hat and says, "Good night, Scarlett."

Naturally, she entreats him not to leave, but Rhett tells her: "You go into the arena alone. The lions are hungry ..." Rhett exits, intending to give Melanie "the satisfaction of publicly ordering you out of her house."

It's perfect, of course. Yet Melanie, a picture of grace and unconditional loving friendship, hardly misses a beat in assuring Scarlett is warmly received into her home. No recriminations, not even the hint of hostility.

A couple scenes later, Scarlett (now at home) descends the staircase in search of liquid comfort, and unexpectedly finds Rhett, drunk and belligerent. He pours brandy into a glass for her and roughly insists she stay seated. He says: "So she stood by you. How does it feel to have the woman you've wronged cloak your sins for you?"

There's a time for Melanie-like forgiveness, but Rhett Butler's approach, insisting Scarlett "face the music" without him there as a buffer, is highly appropriate and long overdue in these public confessions. I hope I'll live long enough to witness a self-respecting wife who refuses to play into this charade of the longsuffering wife. It's not forgiveness. It's degrading.