New York Jets = Retama de Guayacol

Retama de Guayacol = The underside of the barnacles which attach themselves to ships, I think. Whatever the precise meaning is, it ain’t a compliment.

How do the New York Jets do it? How do they retain the ability and disposition to choke despite significantly turning over their roster and coaching staff? That only happens when failure is deeply ingrained in an organization. Reverting to their DNA figuratively, and literally in the case of Jets cornerbacks who increasingly assumed the fetal position as they saw Jake Long and Lousaka Polite come around the corners last night.

Is there anything more enjoyable than watching professional New York sports teams fail? Not just fail, but fail in a gut-wrenching fashion. Fail in a way which should make their fans vomit as if they were Andy Dufresne having been made to double-back through the Maine penitentiary sewer system because he turned the wrong way early on. Fail in a hide the weapons — those kept at home, as opposed to the ones they take to nightclubs — kinda way. In the case of the New York Jets coach Rex Ryan, it would be a fail in a hide the Twinkies and adult magazines kinda way.

Last night’s Miami Dolphins victory over the scum-bag choking-dog of a franchise New York Jets was an absolute pleasure to watch. The only way it could have been more enjoyable was if Rex Ryan would have required the use of a defibrillator on the field after the final Ronnie Brown touchdown — as part of a non-life threatening medical event of course.

Heaven knows I would not want anything serious to happen to Ryan which would prevent him from coaching the Jets for a very long time. Ryan, a self-proclaimed defensive genius through the first 4 weeks of the season — after having been a genius defensive coordinator with a defense which featured UM greats, Ray Lewis and Ed Reed — was thoroughly out-coached. The Dolphins stuffed the ball so far down the throat of his defense that the laces on the ball likely lacerated at least one kidney on those Jets defenders who weren’t bailing to avoid the trucks named Brown and Williams running them over.

Ryan’s incompetence was not limited to the playing field. He began his post-game news conference by noting that his defense was an embarrassment which made Chad Henne look like Dan Marino. [You would think the latest Ryan family loud-mouth NFL coach would be used to embarrassing performances in Miami on Monday nights.] He then rambled on for a few minutes and eventually wrapped up in that convoluted coach-speak one-generation-removed-from-Deliverance monologue about how ‘ya gotta give the other team credit and we gotta get ready for next week.’ To summarize:

  • Initial reaction failed to credit other team – check
  • Insulted player who just posted a 130 QB rating – check
  • Ripped team unit he coaches – check
  • Expressed bafflement over the performance of the unit he is responsible for – check
  • Came to the realization – literally while answering a question — that he failed in the most elementary of coaching responsibilities — using time-outs to allow his team to have time to respond in case the Dolphins scored. Ryan actually said that his reason for not using time-outs was that ‘he just never thought the Dolphins would score.’

While the ultimate gift to any rival franchise is having Al Davis as an owner with enough money to purchase medicine that extends his working lifetime, Rex Ryan is the next best thing. Thank you New York Jets management.

Message to that NY Jets loving of a suck-up ESPN analyst, Jon Gruden, whose man-crush borderline homoerotic effusive praise of that team had me putting my kids and one elderly adult to bed early: At least Chucky had the good sense to shut up until the sequel. Gruden was so over the top in his adulation, it is rumored that MSNBC hosts called en masse to complain about excessive obsequiousness. One more thing Chucky, that stripe running down the uniform of Jets defensive back Darrelle Revis, was the mark left when Ted Ginn blew past the “league’s ultimate shut-down corner.” Would it really have killed you to note that Revis resembled Rick Volk trying to chase down Paul Warfield on that play?

Message #2: Yankee fans and Mariano Rivera, enjoy his last days of pain-free pitching.

Posted in Sports | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Regan and Alzheimer’s

Not a typo, I meant Regan, not the great Ronald Reagan.

Like most people, I have had family and friends affected by Alzheimer’s. Whenever I pray for an Alzheimer’s patient, I always think of the movie and novel, The Exorcist. The reason I recall The Exorcist is the reason I go on to pray for the family of the Alzheimer’s patient.

Before there was a formalized learning of the faith through the Archdiocese’s RCIA program, there was Emmaus. Before Emmaus, there was C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton. Somewhere in my conga line of attractors to the Faith stands Father Merrin and Father Karras. Actually, they really represent one person, novelist William Peter Blatty. Merrin and Karras are two of his characters in The Exorcist.

I was impacted by seeing the movie when I was 13 and I know I read the paperback novel about a year or two later. This part of the book always has stayed with me and is the reason The Exorcist and Alzheimer’s share a hyper-link in my brain.

Karras spoke again. “We say the demon … cannot touch the victim’s will.”

[Merrin] “Yes, that is so … that is so…. There is no sin.”

“Then what would be the purpose of possession?” Karras said frowning. “What’s the point.”

“Who can know?” answered Merrin. “Who can really hope to know?” He thought for a moment. And then probingly continued: “Yet I think the demon’s target is not the possessed; it is us … the observers … every person in this house. And I think–I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity, Damien: to see ourselves as ultimately bestial; as ultimately vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy. And there lies the heart of it, perhaps: in unworthiness. For I think belief in God is not a matter of reason at all; I think it finally is a matter of love, of accepting the possibility that God could love us….”

Again Merrin paused. He continued more slowly and with a hush of introspection: “He knows … the demon knows where to strike….” He was nodding. “Long ago I despaired of ever loving my neighbor. Certain people … repelled me. How could I love them? I thought. It tormented me, Damien; it led me to despair of myself … and from that, very soon, to despair of my God. My faith was shattered….”

Karras looked up at Merrin with interest. “And what happened?” he asked.

“Ah well … at last I realized that God would never ask of me that which I know to be psychologically impossible; that the love which He asked was in my will and not meant to be felt as emotion at all. Not at all. He was asking that I act with love; that I do unto others; and that I should do it unto those who repelled me, I believe, was a greater act of love than any other.” He shook his head. “I know that all this must seem very obvious Damien. I know. But at the time I could not see it. Strange blindness. How many husbands and wives,” he uttered sadly, “must believe they have fallen out of love because their hearts no longer race at the sight of their beloveds! Ah, dear God!” He shook his head; and then nodded. There it lies I think Damien … possession; not in wars, as some tend to believe; not so much; and very seldom in extraordinary interventions such as here … this girl … this poor child. No I see it most often in little things Damien: in the senseless petty spites; the misunderstandings; the cruel and cutting word that leaps unbidden to the tongue between friends. Between lovers. Enough of these,” Merrin whispered, “and we have no need of Satan to manage our wars; these we manage for ourselves … for ourselves….”

Does a great insight get marginalized because it came as part of a package which is remembered for much less subtle plot twists, i.e., a teenager’s twisting neck. Yes, but in matters of the faith, all setbacks are merely temporary. You now know that whatever else Blatty wrote, he managed to deliver a compelling Christian message worthy of C.S. Lewis on a good day.

The text of Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s announcement is copied in full at end of post.

———————————————————————-
In this letter to the American People, Reagan announces his Alzheimer’s diagnosis – Nov. 5, 1994

My Fellow Americans,

I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease.

Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or whether we would make this news known in a public way.

In the past Nancy suffered from breast cancer and I had my cancer surgeries. We found through our open disclosures we were able to raise public awareness. We were happy that as a result many more people underwent testing.

They were treated in early stages and able to return to normal, healthy lives.

So now, we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it.

At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life’s journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and supporters.

Unfortunately, as Alzheimer’s Disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes I am confident that with your help she will face it with faith and courage.

In closing let me thank you, the American people for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.

Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan
———————————————————————

Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Obama Named NBA Rookie of the Year

In a surprise announcement, President Barack Obama was named the NBA rookie of the year for the upcoming 2009-2010 NBA season. While Obama is not officially on any NBA rooster, the vote comes after some spirited pickup games at the White House yesterday, which left all observers in awe. NBA Commissioner David Stern conceded that the selection might be viewed as controversial in some circles, but he urged all Americans to ‘reject the politics of hate and disbelief.’

The person expected to have competed for the Rookie award, the overall first pick in the draft Blake Griffin, immediately called to congratulate Obama. Asked to comment whether he was disappointed, Griffin stated that ‘while he always dreamed of being the first bi-racial player to win the award, he understood the importance of all of humanity lining up behind Obama, whatever that may entail.’ Griffin further disclosed that he had only agreed to sign with the woeful Clippers after Obama had called and asked him to do so for the sake of the multiplier effects his personal spending could have on the economy.’

Rounding out the trinity of surprise announcements today, first-year grad student Quintus Pfuffnick won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Tagged | Leave a comment

Presidential Query: Who Moved My Gonads?

Charles Krauthammer does a great job of exposing the cynicism behind those who opposed war efforts in Iraq, but claimed that Afghanistan was where the US should be focused. Now in power, their gonads have retreated so far and so fast, they threaten to displace some ribs. The timeline:

  • In 2004 Presidential campaign, Kerry spoke of Afghanistan as the right war.
  • In 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama spoke of the need to expand the Afghanistan war.
  • March 27, 2009 – After a “careful policy review,” President Obama announced a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  • August 17, 2009 – President Obama declared Afghanistan to be “a war of necessity.”
  • August 31, 2009 – General McChrystal, Obama’s handpicked commander, requests more troops.
  • Since August 31, 2009 – POTUS gonads unaccounted for. No stimulus reward offered to date.

Krauthammer’s summary:

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of “counterterrorism” in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.

When the world’s expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy — “counterinsurgency,” meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge — you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he’ll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand David Petraeus, the world’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world’s foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago — Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans — the president declared Afghanistan to be “a war of necessity.” Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

Krauthammer article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

——————————————————————–
Young Hamlet’s Agony by Charles Krauthammer
October 9, 2009

WASHINGTON — The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious — particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.

When the Iraq War (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly anti-war. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.

“I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom,” wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. “This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq — while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the “Iraq War bad, Afghan War good” posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?

Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that’s exactly what Obama’s handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 — a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don’t commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.”

Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama’s own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it’s McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops, a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.

The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm’s-length use of cruise missiles, predator drones and special ops.

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of “counterterrorism” in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.

When the world’s expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy — “counterinsurgency,” meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge — you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he’ll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand David Petraeus, the world’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world’s foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago — Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans — the president declared Afghanistan to be “a war of necessity.” Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/09/young_hamlets_agony_98640.html at October 09, 2009 – 09:00:44 AM CDT
———————————————————————

Tagged , | Leave a comment

WSJ Editorial Page: The Real Conservative Agenda

WSJ Editorial page mission statement:

We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.

Whenever you hear people attempt to claim that the conservative movement is being lead by people like Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, listen closely to see if they ever mention the Wall Street Journal Editorial page. If they don’t, you now know they are on a glib attack mission, i.e. not making a serious argument.

Entertainers on the left or right attacking each other can be fun and sometimes informative [I myself am a former Hardball viewer and now a loyal Fox News viewer], but it should not be mistaken for serious thought. Serious analysis, with just the right amount of blood-lust humor, is what goes on in the glorious WSJ Editorial pages.

Today’s WSJ editorial on the US’s Afghanistan policy, Obama and the General, is a case in point, the first sentence:

Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal.

Later in that editorial:

In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn’t resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he’d have given a different answer. But we don’t think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn’t think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.

Here is what they had to say about Chicago’s failed efforts to get the Olympics:

We also won’t join those who pounded President Obama for taking a day to travel to Copenhagen to underscore Chicago’s bid, claiming he had somehow shirked the pressing issues of health care and yesterday’s dismal September jobs report. If the country is going to unravel because a President is not in Washington for 24 hours, we’re in worse shape than we thought. Some also fault Mr. Obama for investing the prestige of his office in getting the games, as no President has before, but then Mr. Obama is more closely identified with Chicago than other Presidents have been with other bidding cities.

If Mr. Obama and the White House made a mistake, it was in their apparently boundless faith that somehow Mr. Obama’s personal popularity would carry the day. As if, merely by seeing the rock star in person, the delegate from, say, Egypt would abandon his simmering dislike for America, forget all the dinners and deals cut with the Rio Committee, and reward Chicago. In that sense, the Olympic defeat is a relatively painless reminder that interests trump charm or likability in world affairs. Better to relearn this lesson in a fight over a sporting event than over nuclear missiles.

Today’s WSJ editorial referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
OCTOBER 7, 2009
Obama and the General – The White House finds a four-star scapegoat for its Afghan jitters

Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal.

The other night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went after the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, “with all due respect,” for supposedly disrespecting the chain of command. Around the Congressional Democratic Caucus, we’re told Members refer to General McChrystal as “General MacArthur,” after the commander in Korea sacked by Harry Truman.

President Obama and General McChrystal

White House aides have fanned these flames with recent leaks to the media that “officials are challenging” his assessment asking for more troops. In the last two days, the White House National Security Adviser and the Secretary of Defense have both suggested that the general should keep his mouth shut. President Obama called him in Friday for a talking-to on the tarmac at Copenhagen airport.

Though a decorated Army four-star officer, the General’s introduction to Beltway warfare is proving to be brutal. To be fair, Gen. McChrystal couldn’t know that his Commander in Chief would go wobbly so soon on his commitment to him as well as to his own Afghan strategy when he was tapped for the job in April. We’re told by people who know him that Gen. McChrystal “feels terrible” and “had no intention whatsoever of trying to lobby and influence” the Administration. His sense of bewilderment makes perfect sense anywhere but in the political battlefield of Washington. He was, after all, following orders.
***

Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his “comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” The Commander in Chief pledged to properly resource this “war of necessity,” which he also called during the 2008 campaign “the central front on terror.” The President then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.

Upon arriving in June, Gen. McChrystal launched his assessment of the forces required to execute the Obama strategy. His confidential study was completed in August and sent to the Pentagon. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen told Congress that more troops would be needed, and a figure of 30,000-40,000 was bandied about.

The figure has clearly spooked the Administration. Soon after, Gen. McChrystal’s confidential report was leaked to the Washington Post by, well, you’ll have to ask Bob Woodward. The report said that the U.S. urgently needs to reverse a “deteriorating” security situation. Soon the full retreat began in Washington, led by a vocal group within the Administration that wants to scale back the mission. The White House told the Pentagon to hold off asking for troops and Gen. McChrystal not to testify to Congress. Remarkably, President Obama mused on the Sunday talks shows, “Are we doing the right thing?”

Then Gen. McChrystal gave a speech last Thursday before the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. It was scheduled and approved by the Pentagon weeks before the Afghan political jitters seized official Washington. The General was hardly incendiary.

“We need to reverse the current trends, and time does matter,” he said. Asked vaguely about taking a narrower approach that leaves Afghanistan to its own devices and strikes at terrorists from afar, Gen. McChrystal offered that “a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted one.” He warned the country would descend into “Chaos-istan.”

What really worries Democrats is the prospect of Midterm-istan if Mr. Obama escalates the war. But some thought to play up the General’s innocuous comment into an attempt to torpedo the latest Administration rethink.

In fact, the White House is merely revisiting the idea rejected in its “careful policy review” last spring to move from ambitious counterinsurgency to “counterterrorism” that would involve fewer troops and target al Qaeda instead of the Taliban. Vice President Joe Biden champions the change, and Sen. John Kerry and Speaker Pelosi have endorsed it.

The Biden faction says changes in the region justify a U-turn: An expanded U.S. force would merely be fighting a motley group of insurgents who aren’t planning the next 9/11. This is partly true, but the links between the Taliban and al Qaeda are longstanding, particularly in the Pashtun areas of the south. If America pulls back and lets Mullah Omar create a Talibanistan in Helmand and Kandahar, al Qaeda operatives will soon follow.

As we’ve learned the hard way in Iraq and Afghanistan, successful counterterrorism requires intelligence. This comes from earning the trust of the people, which in turn can only happen if they are protected. The Biden approach would pull U.S. soldiers back behind high walls, far from the field of battle, and turns security over to the Afghan army and police before they are prepared for the job.

The sudden Afghan rethink also jeopardizes progress in Pakistan, the world’s leading sanctuary for al Qaeda. The Pakistani willingness to expand American drone strikes and launch a military campaign in their tribal regions dates squarely to the Administration’s recommitment to the region. Now that Mr. Obama is having second thoughts, so might the Pakistanis.

The President’s very public waver is already doing strategic harm. The Taliban are getting a morale boost and claiming victory, while our allies in Europe have one more reason to rethink their own deployments. Such a victory, as the head of the British army Sir David Richards warned on Sunday, would have an “intoxicating effect” on extremist Islam around the world.

Commanders in Chief can change their minds. George W. Bush waited too long to embrace the “surge.” He had private doubts when the casualties also surged in 2007, but he gave the new approach a chance to succeed. Mr. Obama is blinking even before all the additional troops he ordered to Afghanistan have had time to deploy to the theater.

Gen. McChrystal’s liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama’s Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama’s order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.

In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn’t resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he’d have given a different answer. But we don’t think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn’t think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.
———————————————————————

Tagged | Leave a comment

Government To Expand Permanent Underclass

As government prepares to complete it’s takeover of medicine, the Taxman — which it has successfully kept hidden in the basement, drugged, with the windows covered in newspapers and the boom-box going full blast — can be hidden no longer. Details of how the government plans to subsidize the mother of all entitlements are finally coming out. They have avoided the details to date for good reason.

Greg Mankiw highlights the views of health care expert James Capretta – who notes the following:

As incomes rise, however, the Baucus bill cuts the value of the entitlement. A family with an income at twice the poverty line, or $48,000 in 2016, would get $9,072 in federal assistance for coverage — still a substantial sum. But it’s $7,400 less than the family would get if they earned half as much. The Baucus plan thus imposes an implicit marginal tax rate of about 30 percent ($7,400/$24,000) on wages earned by families in this income range.

And that would come on top of the high implicit taxes already built into current law. Low-wage families with children also get the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC boosts incomes for those with the very lowest wages, but it is also phased-out as incomes rise. Past a certain threshold (about $21,400 in 2016), the EITC is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned. Throw in the individual income tax rate (15 percent) and payroll taxes (7.65 percent), and the effective, implicit tax rate for workers between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line would quickly approach 70 percent — not even counting food stamps and housing vouchers.

In plain English, high marginal tax rates mean that there is little incentive for people at or near poverty levels to report higher incomes in future years, because most of it will be offset by losing various entitlements which they no longer would qualify for. If the government was trying to create a permanent underclass, I’m not sure how this structure of incentives would differ.

Below is my effort to quantify part of Mr. Capretta’s example:

Please click on image to enlarge or print

Blog post referenced is copied in full at end of post.

———————————————————————-
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 – A 70 Percent Tax on Work

President Obama said Monday that the debate on health care has gone on long enough, and now is the time to pass something.

But does Congress, let alone the public, really understand what these bills would mean for the health sector and the wider U.S. economy? In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a lengthy assessment of the Clinton administration’s proposal, covering everything from its distributional consequences to the budgetary treatment of its various moving parts. The public should get the same kind of thorough review of what Obamacare would mean before Congress takes any further steps toward passage.

For instance, there hasn’t yet been a thorough analysis of what the bills moving in the House and Senate would mean for work incentives among low-wage families. A cursory review indicates that Obamacare would impose a massive new implicit tax on low-wage households, effectively penalizing the family that tries to do the right thing by working their way into the middle class.

According to CBO, family coverage in 2016 is likely to cost about $14,400 under the so-called “silver option” in the health-care reform plan sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. In the Baucus plan, a family of four at the poverty line (about $24,000 in 2016) would have pay to about $1,400 toward coverage, with the federal government paying the other $13,000 on their behalf. In addition, the government would also provide $3,500 to reduce the family’s deductible and co-payment costs for health services. Thus, the new entitlement provided by the Baucus bill would be worth a whopping $16,500 for a family at the poverty line.

As incomes rise, however, the Baucus bill cuts the value of the entitlement. A family with an income at twice the poverty line, or $48,000 in 2016, would get $9,072 in federal assistance for coverage — still a substantial sum. But it’s $7,400 less than the family would get if they earned half as much. The Baucus plan thus imposes an implicit marginal tax rate of about 30 percent ($7,400/$24,000) on wages earned by families in this income range.

And that would come on top of the high implicit taxes already built into current law. Low-wage families with children also get the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC boosts incomes for those with the very lowest wages, but it is also phased-out as incomes rise. Past a certain threshold (about $21,400 in 2016), the EITC is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned. Throw in the individual income tax rate (15 percent) and payroll taxes (7.65 percent), and the effective, implicit tax rate for workers between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line would quickly approach 70 percent — not even counting food stamps and housing vouchers.

The more Obamacare is rushed through Congress, the more likely it is to produce highly regrettable unintended consequences. Surely even the Democrats in Congress can see how damaging it would be to send signals to low-wage breadwinners that it no longer makes sense to seek a higher-paying job.

posted by James C. Capretta
———————————————————————

Tagged | 1 Comment

The Arrogance of the Florida Marlins Ownership

This morning I was in my car early heading to work at 6am. I was looking forward to at some point today blogging about what a great season the Marlins had. I was very surprised to hear from Joe Rose, on the air at WQAM, that Marlins ownership, New Yorkers Jeffrey Loria and his former son-in-law, David Samson, were preparing to fire manager Fredi Gonzalez. Going online I learned from Juan Rodriguez’s Marlins blog that they already have his replacement, Bobby Valentine, having leaked their interest to ESPN and SI over the weekend.

Loria is of course free to hire whomever he prefers. What Marlins ownership can’t do is tell us that Gonzalez will be fired because the team under-performed, because that claim is absurd on its face. So far, Larry Beinfest does not appear to be joining in with the company line, given that when he was asked by Rodriguez why the team had missed the playoffs, he responded that ‘the main reason was the inconsistency from the starting pitching.’ That will ring as true to anyone who has followed the Marlins — three-fifths of the Marlins’ season-opening rotation spent time in the minors because of non-performance — as the ‘under-performing’ smear rings false.

The reason Gonzalez will be fired is that Loria prefers Valentine [or whomever] to Gonzalez. Again, it’s his prerogative. The reason this firing will intensify the dislike of Loria and Samson is the lack of integrity with which they seem to operate. Saying that Gonzalez is being replaced because the Marlins didn’t make the playoffs is too obvious a lie.

But this is not just another managerial firing, i.e. this is not Jeff Torborg or Joe Girardi. The Marlins are in the processing of relocating their franchise from the Dade-Broward County line to Little Havana. Gonzalez is Hispanic, with a Cuban-American background. Miami-Dade County in general, Miami specifically and Little Havana microscopically, in case some New Yorkers may not have noticed, has a ton of Hispanics [not as many as New York, but a lot]. Those facts don’t mean that Gonzalez can’t be fired. They do mean that Gonzalez can’t be fired for a stated reason which is a lie, without building resentment against the franchise.

By telling such overt and dismissive lies, Loria and Samson are in effect spitting into the face of the community they are supposed to become a part of. A community which recently agreed to partner up with MLB and the Marlins to build a stadium. Gee, it’s almost as if they don’t care about their customers?

Noted.

Which brings me to the following article by Thomas Boswell, a respected sportswriter with the Washington Post. Boswell’s article is about the Washington Nationals finances and a key source is the Forbes Magazine reporting about MLB finances.

Below is the financial statement I have developed about the finances of the Florida Marlins. The numbers are based on, and exactly tied into, the Forbes reporting, with specific line items confirmed independently. The Florida Marlins operating profits for 2006 through 2008 were $43 million, $36 million and $44 million. For 2009, their operating profit will likely be in the mid-$30’s.

I have blogged extensively about the Marlins finances here on this blog. If you were outraged at the phony reasons Marlins ownership has given to explain why they wish to fire Gonzalez, now you know how I’ve felt listening to them deny their profitability.

Click on the image to print or enlarge

Thomas Boswell’s article referenced are copied in full at end of post.

——————————————————————-
A D.C. Game of Moneyball

By Thomas Boswell
Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Nats’ final home game of the year Wednesday combined all the paradoxical and troubling threads of a season in which the team had the game’s worst record and saw attendance drop 22 percent. Yet these same Nats, who will certainly receive revenue-sharing funds from other clubs this winter, operate on such a low budget and possess such a healthy bottom line that they are the financial envy of most other franchises.

The combination of Nats potential, both as a team and a market, has stood in contrast all year to the team’s deluge of 103 losses. All that was illustrated, to an almost ludicrously degree, by a Justin Maxwell walk-off grand slam to sweep the Mets before 23,944. That two-out, full-count blast in the ninth off New York reliever Francisco Rodriguez brought cheers but also a hard question. Why are such moments, which make addiction to baseball go viral in any town, so rare here?

As Washington’s obvious promise has been thwarted by its gruesome won-lost reality, resentment toward the way the Nats do business, already prevalent in Washington, is now spreading through the game. This offseason may be the juncture at which both local fans, as well as executives throughout the game, decide if the Lerners are responsible baseball citizens.

The Nats, who clinched the game’s worst record on Wednesday thanks to a Pirates win, are on the verge of becoming a lightning rod of criticism, especially by big-market teams that pay into the game’s huge revenue-sharing pot, according to numerous baseball sources contacted over the last three months.

“You’re probably going to see revenue-sharing reform pretty soon,” an American League executive said. “It’s usually small-market teams like Pittsburgh that are the issue.”

The Pirates, who have fielded 17 straight losing teams yet concede they have made a profit in each of the past six seasons, exemplify the business model: keep the payroll tiny, lose a ton of games every year, yet turn a profit thanks to revenue sharing and then claim it’s the only way to survive in a tiny market.

But the Bucs have an excuse: Their metropolitan market — like Denver, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City and Milwaukee — is less than half Washington’s size (No. 9 in the United States).

If the Nats keep operating as they have, they’ll be seen as the only top-10 market with the gall to act like a bottom-five town.

When Major League Baseball ran the Nats, the Lerners inherited a 2006 payroll of $63 million that many considered skimpy after the Nats averaged 33,000 fans in ’05. Yet the Lerners cut that budget immediately to $37 million and have not returned to $63 million. One consequence is that Forbes magazine ranked the Nationals the second-most profitable team in baseball in ’08.

Even with the recent contracts to Adam Dunn, Ryan Zimmerman and Stephen Strasburg, the Nats’ payroll will still plummet from $61 million this year to $40 million in current ’10 obligations, close to dead last in baseball.

The Nats’ position: We won’t tell you anything about our finances, but just wait ’til next year.

“We are tremendously excited. The next big step is right there to be taken,” said President Stan Kasten, who speaks for the team. “This is not a great year if you want a [free agent like CC] Sabathia or Mark Teixeira. But the players who are available are just what we need: a veteran starter in the rotation, two more arms in the bullpen and a middle infielder who helps our defense.

“We can do those things. We just have to do those things.”

Actually, the Nats could afford to do all this and more. The bullpen arms they talk about don’t include a costly closer. Add an $8-million-a-year right fielder if you want, too. (They won’t.)

The paradox of the Nats was apparent in their final homestand. In nine games, at which you might expect empty stands, the Nats averaged 22,990 fans vs. their average of 22,719. Same old story: Some of us were the incorrigible core; some came to see a popular foe (Dodgers); and 85,174 arrived last weekend just because the weather was nice and, well, it was the last baseball this year.

Baseball awarded the Lerners such a popular core American product, still relatively affordable, and the District built them such a pretty new ballpark, that they can’t keep people away. Attendance ranked above six teams, and if the average had been just 1,000 higher (as it might be once Strasburg arrives), the Nats would have been ahead of 10 teams. Factor in the Nats’ big-market ticket prices, and they stand right in the middle of baseball in gate receipts.

To see how well the Nats are doing, even though the Lerners’ public position is that they will “take no money out of the team” in the first 10 years, compare them to the Pirates: Since the Lerners took over, the Nats have outdrawn the Pirates by 1.4 million fans and, at higher ticket prices, produced about $100 million more in gate revenues. The Nats’ local TV revenue (about $24 million a year) is also far higher.

On the other hand, the Lerners paid far more for the Nats, and borrowed more money, a debt that must be serviced.

The Nats provide no information on how they define “taking no money out of the team,” except Ted Lerner’s comments to me twice that he considers debt service as a cost. Kasten adds that Forbes magazine’s ’08 ranking of the Nats as the second-most profitable team in baseball is “way off.” How so? No detail. Sorry.

Such privacy is their corporate right, but it’s hardly forthcoming from a family that presented itself as a long-term partner with the District in the civic-minded attempt to revive Southeast with baseball as an expensive core catalyst.

Kasten assures me I can’t possibly grasp the Nats’ high finance. He even threw up his hands in exasperation, a new touch.

“That shows how much you don’t know,” Kasten said.

Here’s one theory: After speaking with executives of other teams about their borrowing structures, one approach is to secure highly leveraged term loans with revolving lines of credit and then to amortize principal in the manner of a mortgage; that way, owners can claim to take little or no money out of the teams while still building their equity (and thus their own net worth).

Unlike the tiny-town teams, the Nats are a franchise with a defining choice to make. But it won’t be psychologically easy. Teams such as the Padres have argued that, unless you are one of the sport’s traditional “haves,” it’s not a winning business proposition to add tens of millions to payroll to build a better team. Ironically, the way the game is structured, it’s safer and easier to be a lousy cheap club, but be ensured a decent buck.

Kasten vows that the Nats still have the same big-market dreams they proclaimed three years ago when the Lerners brought a team back to their home town, claiming they would build a franchise worthy of “the most important city in the world.” The Dunn, Zimmerman and Strasburg deals are merely first tastes. Just wait — but not long. That’s their pitch.

No Washington team has lost more than 106 games since 1909 — 100 years ago. The Nats could still reach 107 this weekend.

If the Lerners keep their promises, that is an opportunity that should never, ever come again. ———————————————————————

Posted in Marlins Ballpark & Finances, Miami Marlins & MLB | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What Sildenafil has joined, let no natural disease put asunder

It would be hard to describe how much I enjoyed this story.

This from a statement by the Brazilian National Social Security Institute (INSS):

“The social security system was planned so that the wife receives her husband’s pension for only 15 years or so. With growing life expectancy and remarriages with much younger women, benefits today stretch out over 35 years,” the author of the study, Paulo Tafner, explained to AFP.

“This is a grave and serious challenge for the future of the country, and it’s going to require a reform of the pension system,” Tafner said.

He said the younger-wife phenomenon was commonly called the “Viagra effect.”

A Country Filled With Desperate Housewives?

The pension issue is just one of the unnatural consequences of those unions. Consider what might happen if the males start living significantly longer. Fast forward to the summer of the year 2015 in and about Rio and consider the following mix of facts and speculation:

  • Millions of women in good health are married to much older men with seriously declining overall health, but whose deaths are not imminent thanks to the continuing advances in medicine’s ability to forestall death.
  • Those same women see and read daily about the expected influx of wealthy tourists and athletes which are obviously expected to inundate the region during the summer Olympic games.

If I’m a Brazilian male of 60+ years married to someone who … how to say this tactfully … someone whom I would not even have been allowed [without being ridiculed or beaten] to look at, dating back to when early Biopeds first started doodling on walls in the Fertile Crescent — I would not be sleeping well, and not just because I’m peeing every two hours.

I tell you it’s like walking around with with the message “kill me” written on the tennis ball cushions of your walker. Combine that with the fact that the Brazilian airwaves were filled with American TV show episodes of The Closer, CSI and Law & Order, providing my once-adoring cookie weekly how-to-murder-without-getting-caught-seminars. Brazil might be on the verge of a Murderous Cookie/Trophy Wife Revolt.

Talk about a chemical imbalance. Appreciate the fact that the union which the chemical Sildenafil makes plausible from the male’s perspective, the chemicals Niacin and Atorvastatin threaten to make literally interminable from the female perspective.

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

———————————————————————
‘Viagra effect’ undermining Brazil’s pension system – AFP) – Aug 18, 2009

RIO DE JANEIRO — The widespread tendency in Brazil for men to remarry women several decades younger — called the “Viagra effect” — is undermining the country’s pension system, researchers warned Tuesday.

The report, by Brazil’s National Social Security Institute (INSS), showed that a trend of men in their 60s marrying women half their age was leaving a big pool of young widows collecting benefits for much longer than anticipated.

“The social security system was planned so that the wife receives her husband’s pension for only 15 years or so. With growing life expectancy and remarriages with much younger women, benefits today stretch out over 35 years,” the author of the study, Paulo Tafner, explained to AFP.

He said the younger-wife phenomenon was commonly called the “Viagra effect.”

But he noted that in fact the trend started in the 1970s — well before the advent of the little blue pill that has since the mid-1990s helped men carry their sex lives well into old age.

According to the INSS report, two out of three men who are separated remarry, while only one out of three separated women find a new husband.

Of the separated men, 64 percent of those aged over 50 remarry women younger than them. In the 60-64 age range, the proportion is 69 percent.

And the marked preference is for women aged 30 years younger.

Brazil has a mixed public-private pensions system.

Those in the public system receive the equivalent of their salary after retirement, while those with private funds receive a maximum of 1,800 dollars a month.

Under current laws, when a retired man dies, his wife continues to receive his full pension until her own death.

According to the INSS, 94 percent of pensions go to women.

“This is a grave and serious challenge for the future of the country, and it’s going to require a reform of the pension system,” Tafner said.

Copyright © 2009 AFP.
———————————————————————

Posted in Current Affairs & History, Science & Technology | Leave a comment

U2: Practicing What They Preach?

Jack Woltz, prior to Khartoum losing his head

… a man in my position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous

U2 – I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight

Pity the nation that won’t listen to your boys and girls
Cos the sweetest melody is the one we haven’t heard
Is it true that perfect love drives out all fear?
The right to appear ridiculous is something I hold dear
Oh, but a change of heart comes slow

Point to U2 — with an assist to Tom Hagen and the Husqvarna Group — lesson learned.

—————————————————————–
Letter mailed on October 7th
—————————————————————–
U2 – Attn Larry Mullen, Jr.
Principle Management
250 West 57th Street
Suite 2120
New York, NY 10107
USA

October 7th, 2009

Dear Mr Mullen, Jr.

I turned 50 earlier this year and put off having a party to mark the occasion until I lost 30 pounds or thought of a good idea to justify the party. Gratefully, the idea came quicker than the weight loss, which is proving problematic, but that’s a whole other letter.

I would appreciate it if your band would come and play at my birthday party. When I say ‘your band,’ I’m not down on any of the others, but hey, it was your idea, your ad and y’all met at your house, please…. So in a sense, the only thing pro-bono about this request would be your fees [joke].

I have tentatively selected the date of March 18th, 2010. It’s the Thursday right before Spring Break [I wanted to make sure my kids could make it] and thankfully coincides with a fairly limited NHL and NBA schedule for that night. I checked and your band doesn’t have a concert that date, so hopefully there won’t be conflicts at your end. But I know these things can change [I have a cousin who once dated a roadie].

We would be incredibly grateful and appreciative if your band could make it. Of course, there would be no restrictions on what you chose to play. But if, and truly only if no one if offended, please stay away from the Zooropa period material.

God Bless

Jorge Costales

Tagged , | Leave a comment

Podhoretz On Jews And Their Liberalism

The Norman Podhoretz opinion article in the Sept 13th WSJ – re why Jews tend to be liberal – would still be worth reading if it did not include the following paragraph:

All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: “Jews earn like Episcopalians”—then the most prosperous minority group in America—”and vote like Puerto Ricans,” who were then the poorest.

But since it did, it deserves our cult-like attention. As a Jewish intellectual and one of the founders of the neo-conservative movement, Podhoretz shows that his independence remains unaffected through the years.

See Mr Podhoretz’s book here.

Please see the entire Podhoretz article referenced copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Why Are Jews Liberals? ‘m hoping buyer’s remorse on Obama will finally cause a Jewish shift to the right.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

By NORMAN PODHORETZ

One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain’s long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: “Jews earn like Episcopalians”—then the most prosperous minority group in America—”and vote like Puerto Ricans,” who were then the poorest.

Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, “whatever the promptings of their economic interests,” Jews have consistently supported “increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor.”

As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of “Jewish values.” But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law. To cite just a few examples: Jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother; it forbids sex between men; and it prohibits suicide (except when the only alternatives are forced conversion or incest).

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define “a good Jew,” reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as “the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in,” and the services in a Reform temple as “the Democratic Party at prayer.”

As a Jew who moved from left to right more than four decades ago, I have been hoping for many years that my fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was the case in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.

The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America “the golden land.” They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.

What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals.

That possibility having been resoundingly dashed, I now grasp for some encouragement from the signs that buyer’s remorse is beginning to set in among Jews, as it also seems to be doing among independents. Which is why I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His latest book, “Why Are Jews Liberals?” is just out from Doubleday.
———————————————————————

Posted in Current Affairs & History | Tagged | Leave a comment