Pizza with a Side of Carbon

Normally, I don't care much about such things, especially since I can pretend that the Vatican has my back through its politically correct publicity stunt in Hungary. But since the current administration is so concerned about energy and the environment, I can't help but wonder how much global damage the President has wrecked with just one pizza (h/t: Drudge).

Letter from the Cafeteria

Dear God,

Since down here we are finishing up our penances and renunciations of sins past, I thought that I would check in and make sure that You are not a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do sort of guy. To wit, I have decided that it is important that You rethink your whole opposition to homosexuality. And by "rethink" I mean, of course, that you renounce your old thoughts and adopt mine. (I'll leave it to Your own judgment what type of penance you should do for Your sins.)

We British are simply more liberal minded that You. We are young and full of sap while you are the Ancient of Days. No wonder "there is a huge generational difference" about this.

I'm not saying that You, Yourself, should go and get buggered. But since your vicars are now tripping all over themselves to embrace evolution, I think that "we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith."

Since evolution is necessary, and we British have already evolved, it is time for You to do so, too. You might think that, neophyte that I am, I just haven't quite grasped this whole "infallible truth" business that I claimed to accept when I joined Your Church. On the contrary, let me assure you that I absolutely accept every single one of Your teachings as infallibly true when it is in accord with my own enlightened opinions.

That's it for now (though I'll soon be sending you a list of other things needing rethinking). Give your Boy and His Mother a kiss for me.

Cheerio,
-Tony

Institutional Splinter

I've been toying for some time with the idea of writing an essay on how the Church has, in recent times, squandered its moral authority. Long thought about the events surrounding the Notre Dame invitation to President Obama have rekindled the idea. Whether what follows will ever make it into such an essay are impossible to say. They do, nevertheless, fit all too well with my earlier thinking.

-----

The recent case of the President and Notre Dame offers an unexpected glimpse into the nature of the current problem with the Church hierarchy’s moral authority. The situation is pretty simple: Notre Dame, as it is wont to do, invited the President of the United States to give the 2009 graduation address and to receive an honorary degree. Once the President’s acceptance was publicized, objections by Catholic alumni and bishops rang out. Obama’s direct and active support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research puts him in opposition to an infallible teaching of the Church. If anyone does, Obama meets the U.S. Bishops’ ban on honoring pro-abortion politicians:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Washington’s Cardinal McCarrick, then chairman of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, said in November, 2004, that

[t]he Task Force plans to consult with leaders in Catholic education, Catholic health care, and Catholic social services to discuss how we can together best carry out this guidance.

If we don’t presume that, four and a half years later, the Task Force has yet to consult with such a preeminent member of Catholic education, we are left with only two possible conclusions: either this invitation and honor are in accord with the instruction (which is implausible) or Notre Dame has simply rejected it. Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix clearly thinks that the latter is the case, calling the invitation "a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States" in his March 25th letter to Notre Dame’s president, Fr. Jenkins.

But here’s the rub: where are the bishops who oppose Notre Dame’s invitation - or any other bishops, for that matter - who unambiguously correct the members of their own flock that voted to elect Obama in spite (or, because) of his manifest intent to "act in defiance of [the Church’s] fundamental moral principles"? Ultimately, criticizing the collective, Notre Dame, is easy. Francis Cardinal George has said that "Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation". Harder to say is, "Fr. Jenkins didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic…". Harder, still, for a bishop to say is, "My own flock didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when it voted."

To blame Notre Dame or, even, Fr. Jenkins ultimately means that the criticizing bishop lacks any share of responsibility. On the other hand, for him to chastise his own flock for failing to distinguish itself on this essential matter is reflexive, pointing to his lack of success as an effective teacher of the Good News. Ironic that, in this season of conversion and penance, our bishops are focusing on the splinter in the institutional eye of someone else’s flock.

Not One Dime; ... Six

It's blatantly unfair to argue that President Obama is trying to start class warfare through his tax policies. Sure, he talks a lot about making the rich - who already pay most of the taxes - pay even more. And he talks a lot about reducing taxes for 95% of Americans.

Classic rich v. poor propaganda? Maybe in speech; but not in action. When it comes to getting his hands on our money, the administration isn't afraid to be audacious, even if it doesn't exactly square with his explicit promises.

Today, for example, taxes on tobacco - whether used by cigar & pipe smoking snobs or decent, hardworking cigarette smokers - rose dramatically. Yesterday, the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes was 39 cents. Today, it's $1.01. That's an increase of 159%. Or, since candidate Obama regularly promised most of us that we "will not see any of [our] taxes increase one single dime", that's an increase of more than 6 dimes. Proof positive that the President doesn't want to soak just the rich.

Game On!

There are almost too many good analogies from which to choose. Pinball machine. Headless chicken. Feckless mob. Keystone cops. Whichever you choose, Congress is showing itself in a very bad light. This deliberative body is anything but deliberative these days. Rushing around left and right (or, at least, left) without any real idea what they are actually doing, our representatives are thoughtlessly voting things into law sight unseen.

Claiming to avert supposed catastrophe, we got a mystery stimulus package which, upon reading, revealed specific protection for the now-maligned AIG bonuses. In fevered response to their own actions, our pitchfork wielding leaders moved to skewer their former beneficiaries. Says a member of the mob:

"You rush this thing to the floor. Nobody had time to review it," [Wisconsin Rep. Paul] Ryan said ..., adding that lawmakers "got conflicting advice on it" before the vote.

Vote! Quick! No! Time! To! Think! Aaaarrrggghhh!

And so it goes. But it's not over just yet. Reversing course yet again, our hapless supporter is having second thoughts (if we charitably presume - against all evidence - that there was ever a first thought):

"Now, that I know — which I didn't at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn't have voted the same way," Ryan said... .

At least he admits that he was acting like an idiot. Which would be reassuring, if it weren't for the realization that 1) the damage is done, 2) he is only one of many pin heads balls and 3) there is no shortage of quarters to be pumped into the machine.

Game on!

To Read or Not to Read?

We know that he can read, whether it's from the omnipresent teleprompter or, as last night, a TV large enough to be a jumbo tron. The real question is whether he does read, at least when it comes to text that becomes the law of the land.

The whole AIG thing is a case in point. Last night, in his prepared remarks, the President said:

You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is understandable. I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees -- partly because it's yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

Fair enough, that is part of the reason he's angry. But there should be another part to the reason; namely, that he promoted and signed legislation just a few weeks ago that specifically protected those bonuses. He should be angry at himself for not taking the time to read what he was signing (line-by-line, as he promised) when the political fallout was so easily predictable.

The same concern for his reading habits also came up last night regarding a completely different issue, federal stem cell research funding. When asked about his controversial executive order, he piously said:

"Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it, if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid, ideological approach, and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed."

There's (at least) one major problem with this claim: it contradicts his actions. As we noted before, his order specifically withdraws federal funding for adult stem cell research. His order was, in other words, the "very rigid, ideological approach" that he claims to want to avoid.

How can we reconcile last night's words with his earlier deeds? It would be harsh and disrespectful to call him a liar. The alternative, however, is pretty pathetic. The only way that he can be cleared of deliberately lying is if we presume that he doesn't know what was actually in his executive order. He clearly didn't get around to reading the behemoth stimulus bill before adding his signature; perhaps he didn't bother reading his own one-page executive order, either. Pathetic, to be sure; but at least it gets him off the hook.

Perhaps we ought to institute a new rule governing presidential signing ceremonies: nothing can be signed into law until after it has been posted on the teleprompter. That way, at least , we can be sure that the President has read what he is signing into law.

Old Europe Balks

Europe's socialists made it clear on Friday (h/t: Lucianne) that they would not follow the Obama administration's lead to move even further to the left. What's to the left of socialism? And what does Old Europe know about it that has escaped the wisdom and experience of the 8-week old administration?

Second Amendment Savings

Though a reputed constitutional scholar, the President has not been known as an advocate of the Second Amendment. Until today. Following up on his proposal that veterans pay for their own medical care due to service-related injuries, the budget-conscious Commander in Chief realized that he could incur substantial savings if, as he put it, soldiers "pay for their own damn guns!"

Weapons' expenses make up a substantial portion of the Defense budget. By passing on the cost to those who actually benefit from having a gun, the President expects to save enough money to pay off the stimulus-protected executive bonuses at AIG..

Crocodile Tears

Complaining (h/t: Lucianne) about the omnibus spending bill that got through the Senate last night, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) cried, "The loser wasn’t the Republican party - it was the taxpayer." Fair enough, unless you are represented by McConnell, whose "defeat" by the Democrats wins him 36 earmarks worth $51,186,000.00.

Complaining about the leadership across the aisle, he continues:

In the midst of an economic crisis, government has an obligation to show some restraint. But looking at the final omnibus bill, Americans are likely to conclude that congressional leaders think government operates in a different realm of reality than the rest of the country. It seems some still believe members of Congress aren’t obliged to make any of the tough decisions that most other people do.

Yes, Senator, we have reached that conclusion. But we're hard pressed not to lump you in with the rest when your words belie your actions. Please, save your crocodile tears.

The Cost of Selling Out

When you audaciously hope that members of the other party will cross the aisle and change from opponent to ally, it never hurts to line the way with cash. This is the legal version of pay-for-play on Capital Hill. Nobody follows the cash trail, of course, better than Sen. Robert Byrd (D). But Republicans, especially those who are expected to vote with the Democrats today on the huge spending bill, have shown that they have learned a thing or two from "Big Daddy".

Sen. Specter (RINO) has 134 earmarks at stake, more than anyone else. Sen. Richard Shelby (R) is in for only 64, but they total $114 million, second only to Byrd in dollar amount. Sen. Thad Cochran (R)? 65 for $76 million. The list goes on and on, millions added to millions of your tax dollars.

Check the vote tonight and, if any ayes are followed by an (R), you can bet that that vote cost you a pretty penny. Except, amazingly, for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R). Even with no personal earmarks at stake, she is expected to follow Sen. Harry Reid (D) and the Democrats like a submissive puppy. It is, in an odd way, almost reassuring to see someone sell out without the slightest interest in self. ... But not quite.

UPDATE: The votes are in and 8 Republicans sided with the majority. Between them, they added 407 earmarks worth over $385 million dollars. (Click here to download a spreadsheet with details from Taxpayers for Common Sense.) Even if we include Snowe, who had no earmarks of her own, that still comes out to over $48 million dollars per vote. To quote Big Daddy, "That ain't chicken feed!"

Here's the list:

Alexander (R TN)	10	$5,402,000
Bond (R MO)	54	$85,691,491
Cochran (R MS)	65	$75,908,475
Murkowski (R AK)	71	$74,000,750
Shelby (R AL)	64	$114,484,250
Snowe (R ME)	0	$0
Specter (R PA)	134	$25,320,000
Wicker (R MS)	9	$4,324,000
TOTAL	407	$385,130,966

No Abortion? No Money!

Fulfilling his promise to move beyond the partisan divide that has rent Washington for years, the President signed an executive order advocating scientific research that faced no ethical objections by either the right or the left. The President strongly supports scientific research on "ethically responsible techniques" to derive pluripotent stem cells. He ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to "conduct and support" such research in an effort to overcome the false divide between ethics and science.

We can discern only one problem with the old order: the research in question is for techniques that don't require the abortion of children. If children aren't to be aborted, the new Administration isn't interested. That's why President Obama yesterday revoked President Bush's 2007 post-partisan measure with his own bitterly divisive, partisan order (see Sec. 5 (b); h/t: Second Hand Smoke).

SoS Sham Seizes Second Swifty

SoS Clinton publicly emphasized her hard work at getting a cutesy photo-op gimmick right. Alas, her Russian counterpart was forced to point out that her efforts were for naught. And for her wayward efforts, the Russian media is now teasing her (h/t: Drudge).

The lesser mistake in the whole event is merely symbolic. Given the symbolism of her boss' botched oath of office and his subsequent tail-spin, however, we are loathe to ignore such signs! This was, to say the least, another ominous beginning. Nevertheless, even more telling is Clinton's response to being informed of the meaning of the word "peregruzka", which means "overcharged". To this news, she immediately exclaimed: "Well, we won't let you do that to us!"

Most interesting is Clinton's defensive default position. The Russian is the bad guy; he's the one who would overcharge. Clinton is the would-be victim, except that she assures the Russian that she won't let him "do that to us".

Ironically, the flawed label on the reset button accidentally points to a truly flawed reset in US-Russian relations. SoS Clinton's off-the-cuff response indicates that the only change in her attitude is a reversion back to a pre-1989 outlook. Not exactly the change we had come to believe in.

For blundering her way into revealing that her cute words and toys are just a sham cover for a hostile attitude, we are happy to name SoS Clinton as the second recipient of the Swifty Award.

UPDATE: the first Swifty was awarded for intentional self-mockery as opposed to the common, unintentional self-mockery that is so pervasive among politicians and talking-heads. In this case, though SoS Clinton's revelation was certainly unintentional, the double blunder of ironic mistake leading to a self-outing is just too good to go unrecognized.

Keeping a Promise

With all the lobbyists in the no-more-lobbyists administration, the support of a massive spending bill that became law before it was even read, much less gone through line-by-line, and a pervasive culture of corruption that engulfs Presidential appointments in this most-ethical-ever government, some are beginning to have doubts about Obama's various campaign promises. Skeptics must remember, however, that candidate Obama had such global appeal that it is important for him to give priority to his promise to the world. First and foremost, we remember his insistence that the world's perception of the U.S., so damaged during the last administration, must change. True, we didn't exactly expect that this promise would mean alienating our allies (Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic), groveling and humiliating ourselves with a resurgent foe (Russia), and becoming the servile whipping boy of our enemy (Iran). But, really, these are just small, unimportant details. We voted for change and we got it. Mark this one as a promise fulfilled.

UPDATE: As Mrs. Swift just said about today's foreign policy stupidity, "You just can't make that stuff up!" (h/t: Instapundit).

Fopping Mad

Poor Maureen Dowd. She's the talk of the right-wing circles today for her latest gush (h/t: Real Clear Politics). She has turned on Obama because, get this: he lied during the campaign!

"He's mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf, a horse's health, a boy's love, or a whore's oath," the Fool told Lear.

And he's truly mad that trusts in the promise of a presidential candidate to quell earmarks.

On earmarks alone, Obama's campaign promise looks like 9,000 lies when measured against his new budget.

So Maureen was mad because she trusted the candidate. (We're awaiting word on the wolf, the horse, the boy and the whore.) Her brief insight into the mental dysfunction that is her mind, however, was short lived. By the end of her analysis, she unwittingly proves herself to be little more than a knave.

She criticizes Obama's Chief, Rahm Emanuel, for his disingenuous defense of the earmarks as just old business. In her eyes, Emanuel is just blaming someone else.

Blame it on the stars, Rahm, or on old business. But as Shakespeare wrote in "Lear": "This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune — often the surfeits of our own behavior — we make guilty of our own disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars."

As we said before: Poor Maureen. She is so busy blaming Obama and Emanuel that she's already forgotten who hired them. Just a hint: hope as she might, it wasn't the sun, the moon, nor the stars.

Alas, it's still a mad, mad world for our red-headed fop.

Wasted Lunch

The clinic's owner, Ms. Belkis Gonzalez, reportedly stepped in to help a patient when the doctor she had on staff didn't arrive in time. We read in the AP account no evidence that the patient was harmed in any way. In fact, the end result of the procedure was exactly what the patient wanted and the doctor would have secured. (We'll set aside the irrelevant fact that the tardy doctor's license apparently had been revoked.)

For her good efforts, Ms. Gonzalez has been inprisoned and charged with two felonies: practicing medicine without a license and tampering with evidence. These charges, even if accurate, seem like cruel bureaucratic knit-picking that will only have a chilling effect on the intervention of Good Samaritans in times of emergency. We need to encourage heroic measures and congratulate those who selflessly lend a hand in time of need; punishing them is inexcusable and unconscionable.

Oh, yes: one more detail. Just what medical act did Ms. Gonzalez perform? According to the patient, Ms. Sycloria Williams, Gonzalez "delivere[d] a live baby during a botched [abortion] procedure and then ... [threw] the infant away."

As our namesake might have said, 'What a criminal waste of a good lunch!'

Reality in Small Doses

Buyer's remorse is taking hold. Somehow, the most liberal Senator was able to convince enough "moderates" that he was one of them. Turns out - surprise! surprise! - he isn't. David Brooks, popular spokesman for the dupes, now admits:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.” [emphasis added]

Brooks now sees only two possible reactions to the embarrassing new realization: either go right with the "Rush Limbaugh brigades" - something too distasteful for a New York Times columnist to consider seriously - or get the moderates to "assert ourselves". As he puts it:

We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

The problem with Brooks' preferred solution is that it is, to put it simply, metaphysically impossible. Anyone who hasn't completely throw off the bonds of reality must admit the simple truth that the philosopher Parmenides taught about 2,500 years ago: you can't get something from nothing. Applied to Brooks, it means that fecklessness and vapidity (the nothing) simply can't result in influential force (the something).

We are in the current mess because the "moderates" refused to face reality. Forced now to accept the distasteful truth of their self-delusion, only a die-hard dreamer could propose further flights of fancy. Reality-in-small-doses is not a realistic option. It is, in the end, nothing more than the last gasp of the intellectually vapid. May it rest in peace; soon!

Hope and Change ... Somewhere Else

For those who look back at the last month and can't believe we just turned over our wallets, our keys, and our children's futures to a group of amatures, we are reminded (h/t: kausfiles) of this sad fact about various hotbeds of the new hope and change fiasco that got us here:

Once a primary destination for Americans, L.A. – along with places like Detroit, New York and Chicago – now suffers among the highest rates of out-migration in the country.

What does it say about a people who votes into national office the same party that has so miserably failed it at home?

Okay, NY isn't technically run by a Democrat; Bloomberg is an Independent. Does that make him the poster-boy for post-partisan politics?

UPDATE: Mrs. Swift reminds us of the consequences of socialism, specifically the rampant growth of envy. During Communism, a popular Polish joke went something like this: A Pole is asked by his fairy godmother to wish for anything that he wants, with the qualification that his neighbor will get twice as much. The old Pole thinks for a moment and replies: "Nothing!"

Obama, the Dow, and Alfred E. Neuman

Taking a look at the President's Gallup Daily numbers can bring about unintended good feelings for those who see the stock market dropping into the toilet.

According to Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval, the President's approval rating (based on a 3-day rolling average) began at 68% and concluded a month later at 59%. That's a 9 point drop or a decline of 13%. When Gallup reported its findings* on the 23rd, it said modestly that approval is only "down slightly".

Obama's fans - who have been watching his series of mis-steps (who knew that the botched Oath of Office would be such an accurate omen?) and the self-inflicted wounds of the Democratic Party as it embraces the "culture of corruption" - are relieved that so little damage has been done to The One. But how does Obama's slightly dropping approval rate bring good economic news? Consider the stock market.

January was the coldest of months for the Dow in over a century. And the specific period running from Obama's first full day in office to February 23 (covering the same time period as Gallup's daily poll) saw the market drop just 10%. It's a free-fall! We're on the verge of catastrophe! Right? Wrong!

Obama is dropping faster than the market, 13% vs. 10%. If the President is only "down slightly", why all the doom and gloom over the economy? What is 3 points less than "slightly"? Maybe not "not at all" but, at the very least, "not enough to worry about"!

Don't you feel better already?


[*The report on the 23rd used a rolling average up to Feb 19-21 which is not as bad as the full-month average ending Feb 21-23.]

Random Lines?

Drudge links to the following stories today. One, about Iran, says:

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept. [Emphasis added.]

The other, concerning Israel, notes:

Israeli President Shimon Peres chose hard-line Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday to form a new Israeli government, giving Netanyahu six weeks to cobble together a coalition. [Emphasis added.]

Since all enlightened people know that we're just a bunch of randomly arranged atoms hurtling through space, we're inclined to dismiss this as just mere cosmic coincidence. Unless, of course, "red" and "hard" turn out to by synonyms.

UPDATE: In a political world where red and blue are opposites: if red is hard, what does that make blue? And if a red-Netanyahu takes a hard-line on extremists like Iran, what are we to conclude about a blue-Obama?

Changing the Lobby

Some stodgy skeptics said that we wouldn't really get "change" with Obama in charge. How wrong they were!

In old-time politics, industry experts who had experience advising legislators on crafting public policy were invited to join a new administration. After years of relatively low-paying public service, they then moved back to industry or to lobbying firms where they could utilize their understanding of the political process to benefit their employers.

In the new-and-improved politics of the most ethical administration in the history of the world, things are different. In fact, the system has been turned on its head. Obama's campaign aides aren't selfishly going into public service positions first. No! Instead, they are generously moving straight to the cash troughs at K Street firms before being tainted by service to the common good.

If a complete reversal isn't change, then nothing is!

The more entrenched, ideological skeptics point out that lots of ex-lobbyists joined, or tried to join, the new administration. "Just business as usual", they scoff. But the president is getting a bum wrap. Of those merely dozen-or-so exceptions that Obama has granted to his ethical standards, it is a blatant lie to include poor Sen. Tom Daschle. Daschle might have come from a powerful legal/lobbying firm (and duly returned there with tail between his legs), but he is not a lobbyist. Okay, he's not a lawyer, either, but he's not a lobbyist. Lobbyists have to be registered; he is not. He merely "advis[es] the firm’s clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy". Sure, he makes a fat-cat-lobbyist-like salary for his efforts, but he is not a lobbyist.

These attacks on the President are being waged by a bunch of non-believing, unpatriotic ideologues who can't get it through their Neanderthal heads that Obama won. Don't pay attention to them.

Vacation Reading

The New York Post is complaining that President Obama, who threatened catastrophe if the stimulus package were not approved, is taking his sweet time to sign the bill into law. They appear to have forgotten Obama's vow:

We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.

In other words, the President is giving himself only three days to read the 1,100 page spending bill; that's 367 pages (or about 8,100 lines) per day. Obviously, he had to take a little time off from his normal job (reversing the rise of the oceans, healing the planet, etc.). You just don't want to rush something this important.

UPDATE: It's now Tuesday and the bill has just been signed into law. Some people, however, are skeptical that the President actually read the whole thing over the weekend. But who would sign a check for that much money without first reading the bill? Surely it's just too unbelievable to be true.

Just the Cash, Ma'am

$787,000,000,000 stimulus bill ... divided by 3,500,000 estimated jobs ... equals $224,857.14 per job.

Umm...could I just have the cash?

Murtha's Little Blue Pill

We recently worried that, in the New Blago-Bizzaro World, being investigated for a crime was actually worse than admitting to or being convicted of criminal behavior. The string of corrupt Democratic mayors ironically proved to be heartening, as has the fact that Tom Daschel (D) and Nancy Killefer (D) went down in flames for admitted tax evasion. (Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement. The nominations might have gone down in flames but we expect that they will be alive and well, raking in the cash by peddling their influence to the highest corporate bidders.)

Today, we are further relieved that innocent-until-proven-guilty is still the law of the land. The evidence? Rep. John Murtha (D) is reportedly (h/t Instapundit) being investigated rather vigorously by the FBI for getting a little too cozy deep in the pockets of a defense lobbying group. Fear not, gentle readers! We don't expect Ol' John to be going anywhere due to a little investigation; after all, he's been in Congress since 1974. As his website boasts:

Of the nearly 10,650 men and women who have served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1789, only 81 have served longer than he has.

This is a man who has swallowed a bottle-full of congressional Viagra. He might not be smiling like Bob, but he's got real staying power. It will take a lot more than a few FBI raids for him to droop his head in shame.

Uniquely Bad Beginning

Tax Cheat turned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the man highly touted by both the right and the left as "uniquely qualified" for the position, made such a bad first impression yesterday that he scared those he was supposed to reassure and confused even his supporters. Perhaps we should go with "not-so-qualified" next time? Oh, wait; we did that already ... last November.

Darwinian Before it was Cool

For centuries, aspiring theologians have flocked to Rome to study with the best of the best. Those who have studied there, however, often lament the miserable quality of the education. A professor at Santa Croce, a Pontifical University run by Opus Dei and, reputably, a center for orthodoxy, gives an unexpected peek into the quality of contemporary thinking that goes on at the heart of the Catholic church. In an article in the The Times (London) on the current attempt to rehabilitate Darwinian evolution with those who think that God and Genesis might have something important to say about our beginning, we read the following:

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and that forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas had made similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.

Augustine and Aquinas knew that big fish eat smaller ones! What more do you need? These great intellectual lights were Darwinian even before it was cool!

Che idiota!

The President of Oz

Thinking about the President's first press conference tonight, we couldn't help but recall another important face-to-face with an all-knowing leader. Not, we fear, that we should expect the ultimate honesty of the original!

On calm and hopeful leadership in the face of pending economic "catastrophe":

"Frightened? You are talking to a man who has laughed in the face of death -- sneered at doom and chuckled at catastrophe. ... I was petrified."

On fighting our enemies:

"As for you my fine friend, you are a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger you have no courage! You are confusing courage with wisdom.

What the press conference would look like if the audience were only made up of the likes of Fox, NRO, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, and Politico:

PRESIDENT: Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful O! I said come back tomorrow!

FOX: If you were really great and powerful, you'd keep your promises!

PRESIDENT: Do you presume to criticize the Great O? You ungrateful creatures! Think yourselves lucky that I'm giving you an audience tomorrow, instead of twenty years from now! Oh! The Great O has spoken! Oh! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Great, Powerful -- has spoken --

FOX: Who are you?

PRESIDENT: Well, I - I - I am the Great and Powerful - Wizard of O.

FOX: You are?

PRESIDENT: Uh -

FOX: I don't believe you!

PRESIDENT: No, I'm afraid it's true. There's no other Wizard except me.

NRO: You Humbug!

POLITICO: Yeah!

PRESIDENT: Yes - that's exactly so - I'm a humbug.

FOX: Oh - you're a very bad man!

PRESIDENT: Oh, no, my dear. I - I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad Wizard.

On consulting with his Cabinet and economic advisors, should he be able to find a few taxpayers:

"This is positively the finest exhibition ever to be shown.....well, be that as it may. I, your Wizard, par adua outer, am about to embark on a hazardous and technically unexplainable journey into the outer stratosphere. To confer, converse and otherwise hob-nob with my brother wizards."

On what to anticipate if the President gets his stimulus balloon from Congress:

PRESIDENT: This is a highly irregular procedure! This is absolutely unprecedented!

VOTERS: Oh! Help me! The balloon's going up!

PRESIDENT: -- Ruined my exit!

VOTERS: Help!

TAX-PAYERS: Oh! Come back! Don't go without me! Please come back!

PRESIDENT: I can't come back! I don't know how it works!

Can't Cut Zero

It has taken a few days, but we finally (h/t: Instapundit) understand why President Obama was so opposed to tax cuts for the "rich" when he was a candidate: He apparently doesn't know of any rich people who actually pay their taxes!

Surprise Promise

Here's the sarcastic line of the day.

Ed Morrissey (h/t: Lucianne), discussing Sen. Dodd's (D) little influence peddling problem with Countrywide, sums up the new administrations' makeup of lobbyists and tax evaders:

Not so long ago, Democrats ran on the "culture of corruption" issue. Who knew that was actually a campaign promise?

The List Goes On and On and On

First, there were Richardson's (D) possible pay-to-play problems at Commerce.

Then, there were Geitner's (D) tax evasion problems at Treasury.

Next, Killefer's (D) tax problems at, let's say, the White House.

Again, even more tax evasion problems for Daschel (D) at HHS

Now, it looks like Hilda Solis (D) is going to have some real problems at Labor for, as von Spakovsky puts it, she secretly lobbying herself.

One wonders how this can be the most ethical administration in the history of the country when we've already had more people with ethics problems in about 2 weeks than George Washington had cabinet members?

UPDATE: Could this (h/t: Instapundit) be yet another one, over at HUD?

I Wrote What?

Pope Benedict's forgiveness of four disobedient churchmen has caused quite a brouhaha even from some unexpected places (h/t: Drudge).

Vienna's cardinal and archbishop, Christoph Schoenborn, on Sunday lashed out at the decision to bring Williamson back into the fold, saying that "he who denies the Holocaust cannot be rehabilitated within the Church."

Funny; I looked over the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which the good Cardinal Archbishop edited, and it says nothing about whether idiots-of-history can or cannot be reconciled with the Church. Good thing for this Prince of the Church that the Catechism doesn't say anything, either, about ignorance of the contents of one's own publications. Not, apparently, that he would know.

UPDATE: Fear not for Schoenborn or Benedict. Now that some Catholic members of Congress have stepped in (h/t: Fr. Z), we can be assured that their wise and selfless leadership will steer the Church in the right direction.

Our New Blago-Bizzaro World

Over at The New Republic (h/t: Lucianne), senior editor Jonathan Chait asks us to indulge him in what he calls another "tiresome" complaint of "your party's scandal is worse than my party's scandal." His point is that Norm Coleman - the Republican pol from Minnesota so down on his luck that boorish Al Franken appears to have unseated him - isn't being treated as badly as Rod Blagojevich - the Democratic pol from Chicago so down on his luck that he sought solace in the estrogen den of The View when under the gun back home. To the fact that Republicans continue to support their tainted man, Chait bleathlessly asks: "Do they even realize this man is being investigated by the FBI?"

The ultimate difference between Coleman and Blagojevich, however, might not be so much between the politicians as between their parties. Democrats have lately shown a propensity to eat their own at the drop of a hat. Consider two of the party's leaders. 1) President Obama (D) throws supporters under the bus with surprising deftness. 2) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) tried to follow suit with Sen. Roland Burris (D), only to prove to be too incompetent. (Or, to be kinder to Reid and his abilities, you could just say that he failed because he was blatantly trying to break the law while preening in the public spotlight.)

There is a good bit of irony, however, that goes beyond these different partisan proclivities concerning ones own. Democrats acted on accusations against Blago as if they were actual convictions. Chait admits that he is taking accusations against Coleman as sufficient, too. As he puts it, a friend of Coleman

"allegedly paid him $75,000 under the table. And by 'allegedly,' I mean 'almost certainly.'"

In our new Blago-bizzaro world, accusations and investigations have become as damning - and even worse! - than definite crimes.

Remember the case of Gov. Bill Richardson (D)? A few weeks ago, he either fell on his own sword or had one inserted between the shoulder blades rather than stand for confirmation as Commerce Secretary in the new administration. The reason? He's "under investigation." In contrast, definitely committing a crime - see Tim Geitner (D) or Tom Daschel (D) or Charlie Rangel (D) - gets a pass.

No jury has yet examined the evidence against Coleman, Blagojevich or Richards; perhaps they really are as guilty as Geitner, Daschel, and Rangel. Should they go to trial, we'll have a much better idea. Meanwhile, we have to wonder: Just what has happened to the party of the ACLU? Where is the vaunted Trial Lawyers Association whose donations have sustained the Democrats for years? Is this the change we've been promised?

UPDATE: we have been reminded that, perhaps, not all is lost:

• Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) of Baltimore, indicted but not yet convicted on "12 counts of felony theft, perjury, fraud and misconduct in office," still serves in office.

• Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) of Detroit waited until pleading guilty to two felonies before resigning from office last September and going to jail.

• Portland Oregon's new mayor Sam Adams (D) continues to serve even after admitting to his homosexual relationship with a teen he was mentoring; mentoring that included instructions to lie in an effort to cover-up the relationship. It is unsure whether Adams actually broke any of liberal Oregon's laws; an investigation is underway.

Handouts and Hands Out

Republicans expressing consternation (h/t: Drudge) that illegal immigrants might be receiving bailout money in the latest government "stimulus" must have misunderstood last week's memo. Since we have promised to be a nation that holds its hand out "[t]o those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent", why not give a handout to deceitful law-breakers whose only shortcoming is that they don't have any power to hold on to? After all, since they've stopped protesting vacuous threats that our laws will actually be enforced, illegals have quietly unclenched their fists. What more could we ask for?

Rangel Rule

When Charlie Rangel gets something named after himself, we've learned that it tends to involve a little pay-for-play. With the new "Rangel Rule" (h/t: Instapundit) proposal put forward by Rep. John Carter (R-TX), habit forces us to ask, "Who is going to pay?" Dumb question, of course. Since Grandma Nancy will have the Treasury presses working overtime to print enough money for the latest handout, we can count on little Charlie getting more than his fair share.

Here's Carter's announcement:

Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote “Rangel Rule” on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.

UPDATE: Carter's proposal displays the kind of self-mockery that we particularly enjoy at A Swift Proposal. We're so pleased with his effort that we're going to name him the first-ever recipient of our newly created Swifty Award. Congratulations, John!

UPDATE II: Clarification: The Swifty can't go to just anyone who engages in self-mockery. One major qualification has to be that the speaker/writer must know that he is doing it. For example, hostesses on The View seem to mock their own intelligence every time they open their mouths. That doesn't count because they know not what they are doing.

You break it ...

To bail out or Not to bail out? Why's there even a question when the answer's so easy? We elected government officials like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were charged with regulating the financial institutions that are the foundation of our economy. Never mind that Dodd got a sweetheart deal from those he was supposed to be watching. Forget Frank’s support and cover-up of bad, government mandated lending practices. Don't mind the details. The simple fact is that Frank, Dodd, and their ilk broke the system. That's why the answer is so easy: You Break It, You Bought It. Show your support for the latest trillion dollar spending spree for Frank and Dodd. It's time we pay for their mess, again.

Vatican Issues Emergency Reversal on Birth Control

ROME - In a shocking reversal of a 2,000 year policy, the Vatican today announced that it was temporarily lifting its ban on contraceptives, at least in the United States. According to one Vatican insider, the Pope has great sympathy for the American people who are suffering during the economic downturn. After looking over the details of the Democrat-led stimulus package, it became clear that taxpayers were simply getting screwed by their government. With images of Nancy Pelosi leading the way, the Holy Father shuddered and admitted that everyone should be free to use as much protection as possible.