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!