Forget you, Wall Street!

Get a load of this really stupid populism, treating Wall Street problems as if they do not affect Main Street:

Democrat Barack Obama Friday said his “panicked” White House rival John McCain was flailing at a time of financial crisis and said a government rescue for Wall Street must shield regular Americans too.

Mayordaley II exhibited similar innocence of economic awareness:

Daley said yesterday (Wednesday) the [bailout] money would be better spent on education.

Daley said he feels sorry for the people of the United States. He said the nation doesn’t have enough money for education, but it has enough money to . . . fix every problem on Wall Street.

As if the whole economic shootin’ match has nothing to do with his payouts to schools. 

Meanwhile, he’s ready to make it harder to do business in Chicago, having bought into Kyoto, etc.:

Next month, the City Council is expected to consider an ordinance that would update the city’s energy code to require such things as better insulation, heating and cooling systems and windows in all commercial, industrial and residential buildings.

The city also has an agreement with two coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions or shut down by 2015 and 2017, respectively, [ Suzanne] Malec-McKenna [Chicago’s environmental commissioner] said.

Onward and upward, Richard M.  Intervene, intervene, intervene.

Econ for the believer: think twice about it

Chi Trib’s Manya Brachear talks up a book that questions what some think Jesus would do when it comes to economics.

“Good intentions do not assure good results, and they can at times lead to policies with perverse unintended consequences,” co-authors Bob Smietana and Charles North write. “As in the rest of life, the road to economic hell is often paved with good intentions.”

How true.  The book is Jesus Freakonomics, by a religion writer and an economist.  They

project long-range implications of certain economic choices and evaluate them according to biblical criteria.

They found that what sounds moral isn’t always so. For example, the battle to raise minimum wage sounds moral, but from an economist’s perspective, granting an “earned income tax credit probably works better than minimum wage to get money in the hands of poor families,” Smietana said.

“You can argue all day about whether raising minimum wage is moral or not. But if the earned income tax credit gives people more money, then go with that,” Smietana said.

I’m full of that kind of thinking these days, reading Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s excellent The Church and the Market: a Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, with its dissection of Catholic sources, including the social encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI, Paul VI, and John Paul II.

Woods is as devoted a Catholic as you will find, and no liberal in belief matters.  But he sharply distinguishes what’s of faith and what isn’t, and has no problem picking apart Paul VI, for instance, on the moral imperative to support nation-to-nation foreign aid — it’s a pernicious practice, he argues, precisely in its consequences, which is what these two authors care about.

Earlier in the book, he explicates the 16th-century Jesuits from Salamanca and other Catholics, including Dominicans, who firmly decided that the just wage is what’s determined by a free market. 

Very stimulating stuff, which must not sit well with the good fathers of America Magazine, not to mention other priests and laity who buy into state interference in economic matters.

As for the America Jesuits, we would have to ask them what they think, since the Woods book was not reviewed there.

 

With a yip, yip here, a yap, yap there . . .

I will have to be careful where I wear my NObama ‘08 cap:

In Elko, Obama . . . called on the crowd of about 1,500 to sharpen their elbows, too.

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.

Oh boy.  See what they did to Milt Rosenberg on WGN radio (also here).  It could happen to you, so watch it.

“And if they tell you . . .  ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.”

Like the 20–something waitress addressing the sixty-something diners: “What would you guys like?”

He talks that way.  He began his session with the Chi Trib board of examiners in March with a “you guys.”

Are we heading for another four or eight years when no grownups are allowed in the White House, as in ‘92 to ‘00?  In my face indeed.  Listen, kid . . .

Funny talk

O. explaining to celebs at the Streisand fund-raiser:

“The reason I’m calm … is I’ve got confidence in the American people,” he said. “I really think they want to see us do better.”

Oh no.  They want to see us do worse.

Off cuff remark, crafted for effect.  He elides.  What he means is:

He thinks people think the nation will do better if he’s in charge

Typical political shorthand, but it does get tedious for the non-believers.

Big O. loses one

Someone else with a bead on Cocky Locky:

she thinks Democratic nominee Barack Obama is arrogant and has a problem connecting with average Americans.

That’s Lynn Forester de Rothschild, big Hillary fund-raiser (and hot, hot entrepreneur who married well), jumping ship while the jumping is good.

Well that’s it, isn’t it?  He’s got this arch demeanor, stiffness most of the time — though not when he’s dancing with Generes in, frankly, a vulgar manner — and grossly roundabout speaking manner.

Go, Lynn F. deR., and bring all your in-laws with you!

Another who hit nail on head — for unofficial “Clinton Democrats: We will not be silenced” — said it well just the other day:

Believe it or not, the first time I laid eyes on Senator Obama in a debate and watched his ‘body English’: the up-tilt of his head, looking down the nose, leaning away from his audience, the you-come-to-me-I-don’t-go-to-you-demeanor, his halting speech, one thing rang in my ears loud and clear: His arrogance would be his undoing.

Cocky Locky (will) teach you dancing in a hurry and will befuddle, alienate, and/or lead you down a primrose path of managed life in America — if you don’t watch out!

Yahoos for Barack

More bully-boy tactics from the gang with hope to believe in, etc.  Is this any way for a Messiah to behave?

David Freddoso attempted to appear on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio show last night, and just as when Stanley Kurtz tried to talk on the same show, the Barack Obama campaign organized a disruption of the show. The campaign sent out an e-mail to supporters in the area sliming Freddoso as an “extreme” hate monger, a “smear merchant”, and attempted to silence him despite Rosenberg having an Obama surrogate on the show:

Details from Chi Trib:

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author. It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an “Obama Action Wire” alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat.

Monday night’s target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time.

. . . saying O’s supporters’ help was “urgently needed,” lest the guest’s “baseless lies don’t gain credibility.”  Not the first time, either.

The Tribune-owned station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers.

A WGN producer said Monday night’s response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

Same yahoos, hurling shit from trees, as in Gulliver’s Travels.

You don’t like her? Why is that? Take your time.

NY Times did Sarah Palin, enemies-only, so she looks bad even with her 86% approval rating in Alaska, says John of Power Line.  It’s easy.  Just make it an enemies-only interview list. 

If the Times wanted to test that proposition, they could send a team of reporters to Chicago to search out and interview people who don’t like Barack Obama. Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s on their agenda.

Neither do I. 

John’s sidekick Paul says it would be harder in Chi, because O. has gone along to get along.

You don’t make many enemies by voting “present.”

The local dailies have been trying, of course — heh, heh.

He reads well, however

Wondering as I was about slips of the tongue by the Big O., faithfully recorded on the Worldwide Web but not so faithfully in Chicago’s Sun-Times and Chi Trib, I googled “Obama gaffes” and found a bonanza.

The first of them was, you guessed it, a blog called “Obama’s Gaffes: How Many More Gaffes Until We Can Call Him Stupid!”  The proprietor starts with an apology (and a misspelling):

I don’t post as often as I used to, becuase [sic] my job is done, after 14 months of following and documenting Obama words. I am confident that people finally have figured out what Obama is all about. A gaffe galore candidate along with a VP who is worse than he is with gaffes. I guess likes attracts like! Enjoy the the best of Obama’s gaffes.

He has videos, like this of O. using his middle finger to show Hillary what’s up. 

On the lipstick business, he offers this from Times of London:

“The character question it raises is not that he is a sexist or that he lacks courtesy. It is that he folds under pressure. Obama has looked amazingly uncomfortable under the pressure that Palin has put him under. He relies on his cool – it is a core part of his appeal. So he looks bad when he loses it. During the Hillary contest he rarely came under any pressure from the media. When he did he reacted badly.”

Getting a little less exuberant than this blogger, but no less telling, we find Michelle Malkin at National Review Online, with “Barack Gaffes: the Obama machine,” which opens with this staple of anti-media data:

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

She lists:

* the 10,000 killed by tornado in Kansas.  No, 12 people.

* the 57 U.S. states.  No, 50.

* Arkansas is nearer Kentucky (than his state, Illinois) — given as why Hillary led him in Kentucky.

* thanking Sioux City for the welcome.  He was in Sioux Falls.

* His parents conceived him in response to the Selma bridge crossing in 1965.  He was born in 1961.

* We use translators in Iraq that could be used in Afghanistan.  Different languages.

* Said he’s not familiar with Hanford OR nuclear waste disposal site.  Voted on how to deal with it.

* Cited nonexistent Life Mag article he read at age nine, about black man scarred by trying to whiten his skin.

* Said one day Iran posed no serious threat, next day that he had “made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, are mainstreamers in the tank for this guy or not, that he hasn’t become the stuff of editorials, not to mention comic skits?

Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, you can’t raise your arms, ha-ha

This old man, he’s not cool:

McCain “can’t send an email?” [says Obama ad]  That’s true, actually, as Jonah Goldberg explains:

The reason he doesn’t send email is that he can’t use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

From the man who says it’s time to make government cool again.

Actually, McC knows a lot about computers, Power Line further explains:

This excerpt from a 2000 Forbes article about McCain’s pioneering web-based campaign is noteworthy:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email.

His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

Forget Sarah.  Is O. ready to be president?

=============

Later:  In the spirit of Nyaa, nyaa, when read B. wrote:

something stinks.  right now, as i write you, my elbows are touching my waist.  my forrearms are on a small slant upwards as i type on my laptop on the kitchen table.  my shouldders are as far down as anyone’s shoulders go.  so jonah is lying and stretching as he usually does.  john mccain is simply an old fart who doesn’t want to know or try out anything the least bit new… bottom line, your shoulders do NOT ever have to go up at all to send an email.. and i am insulted that they are trying to say otherwise as my shoulders are as down and immobile as any human being’s as i write this email to you.  –b

I responded:

This one got you, I see.  Jonah does not lie here, nor does he usually.  Read his Liberal Fascism (HG Wells’s phrase meant to put a smiling face on f.).  If McC is an old fart, what am I, older than he?  And why is he “savviest” on technology?  You have not worn his shoes, so shut up.  He does not wave at crowds, have you noticed?  So shut up. 

Clever, eh?

McGuire to the dock

Rev. Donald McGuire, ex-SJ, goes to trial in another courtroom Oct. 6, this time federal, in Chicago.  Among accusations in the prosecutorial filing is that he told one victim

that pornography was “like artwork, comparable to the paintings in the Sistine Chapel.”

This time he is charged with molesting

an underage boy during overseas travels in 2000. That person, now a college student, is expected to testify at a trial set to begin Oct. 6 in Chicago’s federal court.

So are four other alleged victims to testify if prosecutors have their way, each allegedly abused between 1989 and 1999.  They said in their filing:

“His technique, victim after victim, was substantially the same: Isolate the boy from his family; use his role as a Catholic priest to induce the boy to talk about sex in the context of confession; progress to use of pornographic magazines and videos to heighten the sexual discussion; incorporate physical contact . . .”

McGuire was found guilty in Wisconsin for molestation that occurred in the 60s and has that case on appeal.  Trial in Arizona awaits him on charges of molesting two Phoenix brothers from 1998 to 2002.  He’s being held in the federal lockup in the Loop.

His lawyer, Stephen Komie, recently lost a case in Illinois’ LaSalle County in which a man was found guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, after a two-hour bench trial.

The client, who had prior convictions for drug dealing, battery, trespass and disorderly conduct, belonged to a family, several members of which were convicted of drug offenses in the past year in La Salle County Circuit Court.

As for McGuire, Komie said he

continues to think that the alleged victims are making false accusations to reap a financial settlement from the church.

Having talked with McGuire supporters, I find this easy to believe.  In conversation, they make a lengthy, fervent case against the accusers, especially those in Arizona, where the trial has not been scheduled.