Tale of two delays

Yesterday’s Antietam is today’s Afghanistan?  Consider

General George B. McClellan, whose willingness to delay action and refusal to do so allowed enemy forces to prepare and react.

The delay was leading up to what became “the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, in fact, the single bloodiest day in American military history,” writes J.P. Freire, Wash. Examiner associate commentary editor.

It was McClellan’s “willingness to delay action [that] allowed enemy forces to prepare and react.”

Of him, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee said:

“He is an able general but a very cautious one. His army is in a very demoralized and chaotic condition, and will not be prepared for offensive operations—or he will not think it so—for three or four weeks.”

Freire:

General [Gen. Stanley A.] McChrystal told the president that the war could be lost in a year, and three months of that year have been given to the enemy to regroup and prepare. . . .  If you have a general who is competent, as McChrystal is, give him what he says he needs to win.

Or if you consider him incompetent, fire him, as Lincoln did McClellan.  Do it or get off the pot.

To the NY 23 victor go the — what?

Yesterday’s loser in NY 23, Doug Hoffman, is in for a hard time as a Republican?

Hoffman’s candidacy generated much talk of a civil war in the GOP. Ironically, it is [the winner, Bill] Owens who is about to learn firsthand what it’s like to belong to a majority that brooks no dissent.

That’s Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online, who has more:

When Blue Dogs voiced their concerns over the speed at which Pelosi was attempting to ram the health-care overhaul through the House, their fellow Democrats responded with contemptuous sneers.

Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal lawmaker from California, criticized Rahm Emanuel’s strategy of recruiting conservative Democrats to run in right-leaning districts, saying that Emanuel’s “chickens have come home to roost.” Former DNC chief Howard Dean warned of primary challenges for Blue Dogs if they didn’t support the public option.

And those will be his seatmates and/or fellows in politics between now and the next election in less than a year?

 

Don Harmon on the move

Not sure what this means.  On the surface, it seems that Harmon is making his move, Davis is dithering and losing out — as he is bound to, being so obviously left-wing and an unreliable campaigner to boot.

Sen. Don Harmon has filed for 7th District State Central Committeeman against Congressman Danny Davis. Davis has filed for Congress and Cook County Board President. He has until next Monday to decide which office to seek.

That is, I don’t know if it’s a surprise or what it represents by way of guard-changing.

Ascension Democrats in Oak Park

Oak Parker Susan Jordan describes “a bizarre round of communications” after she discovered that Democrat Party operatives were behind a health care forum at Ascension Catholic Church.

She called the Archdiocesan Respect Life Office to make sure she had church policy right as regards “issue advocacy” on church property, then called the Ascension parishioner friend, Kathleen Masters, who had alerted her to the event, set for Sept. 20.  Jordan is a member of another Oak Park parish, St. Edmund.  She had been interested and had perused the flyer and found that its co-sponsors included Obama’s Organizing for America and the Democratic Party of Oak Park.

She thought it was a mistake, since the forum was set for the all-purpose, much-used and in-demand Pine Room at Ascension.  That’s when the “bizarre round” began, a two-week process.

She told Masters what the Respect Life office had told her.  Masters told her pastor, Fr. Larry McNally, who agreed it had to be a mistake.  The event had to be non-partisan, he said.  The mistake would be corrected.

But it wasn’t.  A revised version of the flyer had the same sponsors, a week before the event.  New flyers were produced not quite two days before the event — “sanitized,” said Jordan, who

later learned that the Democratic Party of Oak Park had paid for nearly 1,000 fliers (clearly stating the political co-sponsorship) that were widely distributed throughout Oak Park in the weeks prior to the event.

And the panel was stacked:

The panel of doctors included Dr. David Scheiner, touted as “President Obama’s personal physician for 21 years.”  . . . . Each of the four panelists promoted only . . . single payer/universal healthcare. This was . . . a political rally masquerading as a parish forum.

Discussion was controlled:

Attendees were required to write questions on cards and present them to volunteers for submission to the moderator; absolutely no direct questions or comments from the audience.

A question about taxpayer funding of abortion provoked the forum’s “most glaring moment.”

Dr. Scheiner responded that “abortion is an issue that has been debated for decades; it really should not be part of the conversation on healthcare reform.”

His answer was greeted with “enthusiastic applause.”  The pastor, Fr. McNally, said nothing.  Neither did Rev. Richard Hynes, Director of the archdiocesan Department of Evangelization, Catechesis, and Worship, say anything.

(McNally made a similar statement from the pulpit during the 2004 presidential election, also eliciting applause, during mass.)

Jordan “sat in amazement.”

[T]he round of communications in the weeks prior to the event included a promise by Father McNally to the Archdiocesan Respect Life Office that he would “clearly address the pro-life issues in his opening remarks.”

He didn’t, she said, instead mentioning the bishops’ policy on health care and saying copies were available at the back of the hall.

Abortion was a no-go zone, but panel members

frequently mentioned the number of deaths attributed to the lack of health insurance, as reported by a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health by Harvard researchers. That number is estimated at 45,000 deaths per year-or . . . “an unnecessary death . . . every 12 minutes.”

Jordan comments:

Contrast that figure with the estimated 1,200,000 unnecessary deaths that occur every year from abortion: over 3,515 per day, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

She heard she had been fingered by McNally:

On the day of the event, I received an e-mail [from an ally, a mole?] informing me that the Chancery had received a communication from Father McNally indicating his concern that I was “behind an effort to be disruptive to Ascension’s planned talk … relating to healthcare reform … one of Cardinal George’s Cabinet members has even been told to attend the event as a mediator.”

She assumed the mediator was Fr. Hynes, the evangelization director, and not the armed cop who was also present, but Hynes remained silent.

Overhearing talk of hate mail sent to Fr. McNally, she ran over what she had said in the previous weeks.

I had said I would invite “every pro-life doctor I knew” to the forum: again, with the (false) expectation that this would be a true forum — welcoming a range of viewpoints.

Several did come.  Dr. Christopher Clardy walked out after the first five minutes; he called her later to say “what a waste of time” it was, “a political rally on church property!” 

Dr. George Dietz was there, wearing a pro-life button.  His written question for the panel was refused. 

And Dr. Robert Dolehide was there with his wife Eileen, who asked about putting pro-life materials on the table at the back of the parish hall. She was told to “get [her] own table.”

Fr. McNally had an entirely different view of the whole business.  He told Wednesday Journal of Oak Park & River Forest he was pleased with the forum and “would do it over again.” 

“I thought it was very fair. I didn’t feel we were promoting anything other than answering questions from folks.  I thought it was very good.  I really did.  I thought, boy, this turned out to be terrific.  It was just an emotional two hours.  It was a very positive experience.” 

Moreover, he said he “was already in the process of removing the political groups as sponsors before the archdiocese got involved” and blamed Jordan’s parish for interfering:

“If St. Edmund’s would have kindly called me, I would have told them that, instead of running downtown, which really annoyed me,” McNally said. “It was all taken care of behind the scenes. I just wish their pro-life committee would have just called me. I would have said that we’re fixing that. I’m really just frustrated she didn’t call me because I would have told her that, you know, things were being corrected.”

In union there is no showing the door

This fellow got a public service award from Harvard, his alma mater, and this is how he talks at that citadel of progressivism:

Extended school days and mandatory summer classes are required if the achievement gap is going to close, said [Geoffrey Canada]. Teachers need to be paid top salaries, and the ones who don’t perform need to be shown the door, he said, of the crop of “lousy” teachers who too often populate schools in urban and poor areas. In addition, school administrators and officials must be held accountable. [italics added]

In the audience was Robert Coles, famed psychiatrist and author, after whom the award and accompanying “Call of Service” lecture is named.

Canada here:

Teachers-G_ Canada_edited

How showing the door to non-performing teachers sits with the unions is an important and easily answered question.

 

 

Paying piper calls tune

You take their money, you do what they say:

WASHINGTON — Responding to the furor over executive pay at companies bailed out with taxpayer money, the Obama administration will order the firms that received the most aid to slash compensation to their highest-paid employees, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

Furor?  Sure (we read it in the noosepapers), but what about Their Plan All Along?  The crisis too good to waste: there’s power to be gotten.  It’s the power, stupid.

And the smell of Il Duce:

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which [divergent] interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.

The joys of state-run coordination.

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.

19th-century liberalism here, free enterprise and all that, directly the opposite of today’s so-called liberalism.

In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

These from Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore, 1935, as at Public Eye.

Also:

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.

Again, state decides and orders that it be done, using its POWER.

From Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers, 1935.

Mild-mannered opposition

Sen. Grassley sums up objections to the Baucus bill, boldface added:

First and foremost . . . [it] moves the nation to “more and more government control of health care.”
 
[It] would produce the biggest expansion of Medicaid since its creation; it will create an “unprecedented federal mandate” for insurance coverage, which the Internal Revenue Service would enforce; it increases the size of government by at least $1.8 trillion when fully implemented; it gives the Health and Human Services secretary the power to define benefits for every plan in America and to redefine those benefits annually. . . .
 
The bill “will cause health care premiums for millions to go up, not down,” Grassley said. He pointed to new insurance rating reforms as well as new fees and taxes that will end up raising premiums for million of Americans.

Big Daddy will love it.  Individual responsibility and freedom will suffer.

And, what we know too well, it’s a Dem bill (with maybe [did I say maybe?  Was never any doubt] Sen. Snowe to buy in).  Grassley:

“I still hold out hope that at some point the doorway to bipartisanship will be opened once again. I hope at some point the White House and the (Senate) leadership will want to correct the mistakes that they made by ending our collaborative bipartisan work.”

Hope away, Senator.

And there’s that matter of abortion

The health care revamping has been on my radar mainly for its cost and its dumbing down, as it were (groping for another term), of health care itself; but the abortion business might be its big achilles heel:

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, told CNSNews.com that Democrats who oppose government funding of abortion will try to block the health care reform bill from coming to a vote on the House floor unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) allows a floor vote on an amendment to explicitly prohibit abortion funding in the bill.

Meanwhile, the RC bishops have not yet dropped the ball on this one and find fault with Obama, the sweetheart of Notre Dame:

(CNSNews.com) – One day after the White House contradicted an assertion by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that all current versions of the health-care bill permit funding of abortion, the Catholic bishops declared they would “vigorously” oppose the bill if it was not changed to include language to prohibit abortion funding.

Meanwhile, Mayordaley II of Chicago has shown Obama and all other pols the way to true honesty, in an abortion-related context:

“My religion is very personal. …Religion does not play a part when I make a decision on behalf of the people of Chicago. It is a decision I have to make as mayor, not as a Catholic. …That is separate for me,” he said.

He’s one of the few — I’d guess the only one — who have declared themselves politically irreligious as a matter of policy.

Later, D., picking up on Daley as irreligious: That’s probably why there are so many crooked deals made in Chicago — because Thou Shalt Not Steal is the 7th Commandment — the religion thing again. So what DOES Daley base his decisions on — the rules of Parcheesi??

Me, moved to respond: No morals in politics, only expediency.  — V.I. Lenin.  Not kidding.  Got it as a Fenwick senior in religion class, from the late James Regan, O.P., 1948–49 school year.  Thus politicsprofessor.com and Time Mag, 11/17/1947, where Fr. Regan read it, I bet: he went regularly to Time for such items, remained an avid consumer of current events reporting to his final days nine years ago, at the Dominican Priory in River Forest.

Some do not come running

Chicagoans for Rio! is the Fox-Chicago Channel 12 WFLD-TV’s execrable, damnable minute and four seconds that — heavens to Betsy! — portrays a web site that argues against and provides testimonials against Chicago 2016 Olympics. 

Horrors! Disloyal! Woefully outside the box! Clearly a case of The Enemy of the People arising in our midst.

Just so you can judge for yourself how horrible and disloyal, the site is Chicagoans for Rio 2016, which says

It would be exciting to host the Olympics here in Chicago.  But you know what be even better?  Rio de Janeiro.  Just let Rio host the 2016 Olympics.  We don’t mind.  Honest.

Second City vs. Marvelous City.  Go marvelous!

And for a capsule commentary that sums the Rio First concept, look to Larry Horist’s letter in Sun-Times:

First and foremost, all those businesslike economic projections flowing out of City Hall and the Chicago boosters are fabrications, theories. . . .  Should we get the Olympics, the costs will be higher than projected and the income lower. The promised ancillary benefits will never materialize. The [deleterious] impact on the working-class taxpayer will be significant.

. . . . [V]irtually every independent accounting authority says the city’s projections are nothing but hype. Even the promised insurance policy that is supposed to protect the taxpayers is full of holes — billions of dollars in costs will come out of Chicago workers’ paychecks. Our hard-earned money will be redistributed to the rich and powerful friends of City Hall.

In the twisted irony of Chicago politics, those who will scoop up millions of dollars in windfall profits will have the best accommodations, the best seats, the best parties. The working-stiff footing the bill will watch the hometown Olympics on television, find it impossible to get into a restaurant, stand in long lines for entertainment venues and have to make their way to work in super congestion. I say: Go! Go! Rio! [Italics added]

Oh, and by the bye and FYI, Drudge has it that the Chicago Olympic Committee said don’t run that minute and four seconds clip, because

its broadcast “would harm Chicago’s chances” to be awarded the games.

The station’s news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.

The committee is right: the Go Rio movement would hurt their project.